House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
On the first day of Lent, we continue our feast of Northern Ireland business.
I am working closely with the main Northern Ireland parties to restore devolved government. I met the five main political parties on 15 February, and again—with the exception of one party—on 1 March. Northern Ireland needs a functioning Executive and Assembly, and that is what the Government are determined to achieve.
Jack Brereton
I commend my right hon. Friend’s efforts. What steps is she taking to ensure that Northern Ireland has good governance and political stability in the absence of devolved government?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend has made the important point that in the absence of Ministers at Stormont, it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that, when necessary, steps are taken to ensure that there is good governance. Yesterday we legislated to put the 2018-19 budget on a statutory footing, and today we will legislate to set the regional rates and cost-cap the renewable heat incentive scheme.
Ross Thomson
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as in Scotland, it is vital for us to respect the need for devolution in Northern Ireland? Does she share my concern about the fact that four of the five parties in Northern Ireland want devolution to work, and only one party is holding up the process?
Karen Bradley
I think that all parties and all politicians in Northern Ireland want devolution to work. We want to find a way through this. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: there is no alternative to power-sharing devolution that is good and sustainable in the long term for the people of Northern Ireland.
Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)
The Secretary of State knows, and the whole House knows, that there was violence on the part of dissident republicans even when we had devolution. However, given yesterday’s improvised explosive devices and the link to dissident republicans, can she tell the House whether there is any prospect of the security threat level being raised, and does she have any more information about the origins of those devices?
Karen Bradley
The threat level in Northern Ireland—the level of threat from Northern Ireland-related terrorism—is “severe”, and there is currently no suggestion that it will change. I had a conversation with the Chief Constable this morning. In respect of the specific incident to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred, these are the early days of an ongoing investigation, and it would not be appropriate for me to say anything further at this stage.
Nigel Dodds
I thank the Secretary of State for that information, but she will understand the concern that is out there about those devices being sent through the post. May I urge her to ensure that the lack of devolution does not hamper the introduction of any powers or resources that the Chief Constable may need in Northern Ireland—or, indeed, here on the mainland—for the purpose of combating such a terrorist threat?
Karen Bradley
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman of that. Despite the lack of a devolved Executive, we now have a fully constituted Policing Board to ensure that we have proper governance arrangements in Northern Ireland. That step was taken after the House passed the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018. However, the right hon. Gentleman is right: we need to ensure that the police have the powers that they need, throughout the United Kingdom, in order to challenge and deal with the threat of terrorism.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
Given that the majority of the parties in Northern Ireland want the Assembly to be restored, would the Secretary of State consider restoring an Assembly of the willing?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend has made a good suggestion, which has also been made by a number of parties. However, the Government are steadfast in their commitment to the institutions established under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and its successors. I want those institutions to be fully restored, and that is what I am working to achieve.
Owen Smith (Pontypridd) (Lab)
One way in which the Secretary of State might rebuild some of the trust between the political parties that is necessary for the restoring of devolution would be to make political funding in Northern Ireland more transparent. Will she tell the House whether, and when, she will agree with the Electoral Commission, and backdate the funding legislation to 2014?
Karen Bradley
The measures that were taken in the House in respect of transparency of donations were taken with the support of the five main political parties in Northern Ireland, and with broad support across those parties. I will look carefully at the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion, but we must be clear about the need to ensure that such measures are supported in Northern Ireland.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State set herself a deadline of 26 March in the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act. Has she asked her right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to clear her diary so that she will be available to support that final push to restore devolution, as the Prime Minister was available in February 2018?
Karen Bradley
The Prime Minister takes a very keen interest in all matters in Northern Ireland; she has visited Northern Ireland on a number of occasions and regularly meets the main parties from Northern Ireland, both here in Westminster and in Northern Ireland. However, the hon. Lady is right to point out that the Act expires on 26 March and I am looking carefully at what we can do to ensure there is decision making after that date.
Tom Pursglove (Corby) (Con)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)
The Secretary of State and I have frequent discussions and meetings with Northern Ireland businesses; in the last few weeks I have met Newry chamber of commerce and trade, Thales, and Willowbrook Foods, and tomorrow I will meet Bombardier. The Government have provided £3.5 million for Queen’s Belfast precision medicine centre, £700,000 for Randox diagnostics, and £1 million for Northern Ireland SME research and development. This afternoon, we will legislate to hold business rates at a 0% real-terms rise as well.
Tom Pursglove
I very much welcome that work, but what specific steps has the Minister taken to promote Northern Ireland internationally as a successful business hub and first-class place to invest?
John Penrose
The numbers speak for themselves: over 900 international companies have already invested in Northern Ireland, supported by Government investments such as the ones I have mentioned in global sectors such as biomedicine and defence. Political stability has been a key foundation of this success, which is why restoring devolved government at Stormont is critical.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
How is the Minister going to reassure the business community today, after the very serious warning by the head of the Northern Ireland civil service, David Sterling, that there will be grave consequences if we have a no-deal Brexit?
John Penrose
I think a number of people will have raised their eyebrows at such politically charged comments from a civil servant. The point I would make is simply this: we have a meaningful vote coming up in this place next week where the Attorney General and the Prime Minister will be able to come back and tell us the fruits of their discussions in Brussels. The simple answer to avoiding any of the scenarios that people may or may not agree with which were being painted by David Sterling is to find a deal that will work and which therefore means we will not be in no-deal territory. That will, I hope, solve the problem for everybody.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Is the Minister concerned about the possible impact on small businesses of the changes proposed to non-domestic renewable heat incentives in the legislation that we are about to consider, and is he particularly cautious about advice he may be receiving from the energy Department, because it was that that Department that got us into this fix in the first place?
John Penrose
Without wanting to prejudge this afternoon’s debate—as my hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee Chairman has said, we will be going through this in a lot more detail—he is absolutely right that the renewable heat incentive scheme has been the subject of a great deal of concerned commentary, because it has dramatically broken its budgets and is not a sustainable solution. I think everybody is treating any proposals with a great degree of concern and scrutiny because of that history, and I am sure we will have a chance to go through it in more detail, and we will try to ensure that any proposals that are legislated on do not suffer from the faults that existed in the previous version.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I have been married to a lady from County Armagh for quite some time. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] Through my marriage I have come to know the image of Northern Irish food products, such as Black Bush, Tayto crisps and Flanagan’s most excellent sausage from the city of Armagh. Do the Government agree that marketing Northern Ireland’s special food could be one way to boost business in Northern Ireland, not just within the UK but to a world market?
John Penrose
Something that Britain and the UK have cottoned on to later than many other parts of the world is the notion of local food and its marketability, along with our ability to forge a local brand not just for food but for tourism more broadly as well. In congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his marital status, and his success in that regard, I am sure he is on to something important as well.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
Leaving with a deal on 29 March is our clear objective, and that is what we are working towards. It remains, however, the responsibility of the UK Government to continue preparations for the full range of potential outcomes, including no deal. As we do so, and as decisions are made, we will take full account of the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland.
Alan Brown
The reality is that, two days ago, a senior official with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs told the Public Accounts Committee that even if border processes were announced today there would be
“insufficient time for traders who wish to comply to get ready.”
It was also admitted that while HMRC has been working on possible trade processes, it “cannot tell” traders. With 23 days to go to Brexit is that lack of clarity not an absolute disgrace?
Karen Bradley
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. The Government are taking appropriate and responsible measures in the event that we end up with no deal, but there is a way to avoid no deal, and that is to vote for the deal next week.
Mr Speaker
Order. Just before I call the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), I hope that the whole House will wish to join me in congratulating him on a very special birthday today. I cannot believe that he is the age that I have been advised he is, but I suppose all things are possible. He seems in very good nick to me.
Tommy Sheppard
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Let me assure you that, contrary to popular belief, my political conviction has not been moderated or mellowed by the passing of the years. The latest Northern Ireland budget included £16.5 million for the Police Service of Northern Ireland to prepare for Brexit. Will the Secretary of State tell us how much of that money is being allocated to the policing of border infrastructure, either at the border itself or some distance away from it?
Karen Bradley
Mr Speaker, may I join you in wishing the hon. Gentleman a very happy birthday? I hope that he gets to enjoy it, and to enjoy some more Northern Ireland business later in the day, which he can come and join us for. He asks about spending on policing. The Government have ensured that the Police Service of Northern Ireland has the resources that it needs, but it is down to the Chief Constable to determine how that money is spent and how it is used operationally. I also remind the hon. Gentleman that we made it clear in the joint report that we were committed to no new infrastructure at the border and no related checks or controls.
Stephen Kerr (Stirling) (Con)
Once we have left the European Union, one of the important aspects of the economic make-up of our country will be how the UK shared prosperity fund works. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the fund will be run on a UK-wide basis, with the UK Government playing an important part on the ground in the devolved nations and regions of this country?
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend is right to say that the UK shared prosperity fund will be an important part of our post-Brexit future. We are working as a Government to ensure that the UK fund is properly spent, and we will consult on it shortly.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will have heard Mark Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, yesterday in the Economic Affairs Committee in the other place downgrading his concerns around no deal as a result of national Government’s preparedness. Does she have the same confidence in the preparedness of the Northern Ireland civil service?
Karen Bradley
The Northern Ireland civil service is working incredibly hard on no-deal preparedness. My officials hold regular meetings with civil servants in Northern Ireland. It would be better if we had devolved government, because there would be Ministers to whom those civil servants would be accountable, but I repeat that the best way to ensure that we do not need any of this preparedness is to vote for the deal.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Yesterday’s letter from David Sterling, the head of the Northern Ireland civil service, gave the honest assessment that it was apparent that businesses in Northern Ireland were not adequately prepared for a no-deal Brexit. Who could possibly blame Northern Irish businesses for that, if the UK Government are not prepared either? Just ask the Transport Secretary. Given this stark advice, why will the Secretary of State not support the calls to take no deal off the negotiating table now?
Karen Bradley
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, for whom I have enormous respect, when he says that the Government are not prepared for no deal. We are working towards preparing for all eventual outcomes, but we want to leave the European Union with a deal. We want to ensure that we respect the result of the referendum and leave with a deal, and the best way to do that is to vote for the deal.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)
We debated this point at some length in the Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill yesterday, and the frustration from all sides at the lack of a Northern Ireland Executive was palpable. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned earlier, she has met representatives of the five main political parties in Northern Ireland and the Irish Government recently, and I can confirm that discussions have been ongoing since then.
Christian Matheson
Does the Minister share my concern at the increasing polarisation of politics in the UK, and particularly in Northern Ireland? Is he satisfied that there is sufficient diversity and pluralism within political representation there to make the re-establishment of the Assembly a success?
John Penrose
We elect the politicians we deserve. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that there are periodic calls for a greater variety of representation and range of representation in this Parliament and, I am sure, in Stormont. The difficulty in Northern Ireland is that Northern Ireland’s politics has been far more polarised for a long time. We are trying, collectively, on all sides, to usher it back towards the centre ground and co-operation at least.
David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)
Will the Minister acknowledge that the lack in re-establishing the Assembly is not down to this party? This party does not have red lines; one party is causing the difficulty, and that is Sinn Féin. Will the Minister acknowledge that?
John Penrose
I will quote the Labour party spokesman, who said yesterday that the existence of preconditions or red lines was frequently a facet of talks processes. The point is to get a process that allows us to overcome those preconditions. If we allow ourselves to be sidetracked in the first place by their existence, we will never get anywhere towards succeeding.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
The Government are carefully considering over 17,000 responses to the recent consultation on legacy. We are determined to replace the current system with one that is fair, balanced and proportionate, and which commands widespread support.
Dan Jarvis
I thank the Secretary of State for her reply. She knows that our ability to secure a lasting peace depends on the support of all the communities involved. Will she assure the House that, when working to address the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past, she will be considerate of our Army and armed forces veterans, many of whom are now pensioners?
Karen Bradley
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I am grateful to him, as we have been able to speak personally about this matter, and to hear his words of advice and wisdom, because he has great experience and expertise in this area, and I value his contribution. I want to ensure that what we take forward and legislate for—something that has been needed since the 1998 Belfast agreement—commands widespread support. It has to command support in this House, in the other place and in Northern Ireland, and it absolutely has to work for our veterans.
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
Well over 90% of the murders and injuries caused during the troubles in Northern Ireland were caused by acts of terrorism. Very few prosecutions and investigations are under way and innocent victims are being left behind, with thousands of unsolved cases. When will the Secretary of State address that issue and put in place a mechanism to investigate the acts of terrorism—over 90%—that caused those murders and injuries?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Lady sets out the figures very powerfully—over 90% of the killings during the troubles were at the hands of terrorists. Every single one of those was a crime. The under 10% that were at the hands of the military and police were not crimes; they were people acting under orders and instructions, fulfilling their duties in a dignified and appropriate way. I look forward to working with her more to ensure that we can deliver the much-needed reforms and changes that we all want to see—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I very much hope that the hon. Member for Barnsley Central is not indisposed. It is most irregular to beetle out of the Chamber before the exchanges on the question have concluded. The hon. Gentleman is normally the very embodiment of courtesy, so if he is not feeling well, I hope he gets well soon; if he is well, he had better get back into the Chamber sooner rather than later. It is an elementary rule that new Members must grasp: do not leave the Chamber until the exchanges on your question have been completed. I am sure you are all interested in the views that other people wish to express as well as in your own. I am sure I can say that without fear of contradiction.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)
My right hon. Friend asks what discussions the Secretary of State has had with Cabinet colleagues about the Irish backstop. The short answer is, a lot. The country and this Parliament seem to have been discussing little else for weeks, and it is the same with knobs on for the Cabinet.
Sir Edward Leigh
Surely, never has something so important, namely Brexit, been put at risk in preventing something that will never happen, namely a hard border in Northern Ireland. Why will the EU, the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom Government simply not attach an instrument to the withdrawal agreement, making it clear that we will never impose a hard border in Northern Ireland? That can be achieved in time and with good will, first with customs arrangements, then with a free trade deal backed by technology. It is so simple—let us do it.
John Penrose
My right hon. Friend raises a creative potential legal solution, which he discussed in an Adjournment debate two weeks ago. The whole House will know that the Attorney General is currently involved in detailed negotiations on how to modify the backstop in line with Parliament’s wishes. Ultimately, it must be for him to judge whether my right hon. Friend’s proposal gets him closer to a legally effective solution that will allow him to change his advice. I will make sure that the Attorney General is aware of the proposal so that he can incorporate it if it is worth while.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
From the Minister’s discussions with ministerial colleagues, can he indicate whether they are indicating to him that, at this very late stage in our discussions with the European Union, a sliver of light is beginning to emerge that the EU understands the need for a fundamental change to the backstop?
John Penrose
I suspect that is well above my pay grade. I am sure we would all want to hear what the Attorney General and the Prime Minister have to say when it comes to the meaningful vote next Tuesday.
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
The threat from dissident republican terrorism continues to be severe in Northern Ireland. This Government’s first priority is to keep people safe and secure. Vigilance against this continuing threat is essential, and we remain determined to ensure that terrorism never succeeds.
Mr Jayawardena
Can my right hon. Friend shed light on reports in The Times that my right hon. Friend the Defence Secretary plans to bring forward a limit on the prosecution of veterans in the Queen’s Speech? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) argued in The Daily Telegraph, we must stop gesture politics and start delivering natural justice.
Karen Bradley
My hon. Friend should not believe everything he reads in the newspaper. I assure him that I am working closely with the Defence Secretary, the Attorney General and Members on both sides of the House to ensure we can deliver a new system that works for the people of Northern Ireland, that works for the victims of terrorism and, very importantly, that works for our veterans and retired police officers.
David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)
Where are we with the European arrest warrant in three weeks’ time?
Karen Bradley
The way to guarantee that the European arrest warrant continues in three weeks’ time is to vote for the deal.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
There has been a bomb attack in Londonderry; there have been various shootings across Northern Ireland; and we had three parcel bombs at Heathrow airport, London City airport and Waterloo station yesterday originating from the Republic of Ireland—at least the postage did. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with her equivalent in the Republic of Ireland to address these issues, which clearly show that the Republic of Ireland is a haven for terrorists?
Karen Bradley
We discussed the matters of cross-border security and east-west relations at both British-Irish Intergovernmental Conferences in the past 12 months. Close work between the Garda and the Police Service of Northern Ireland is imperative to ensuring the safety of us all.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Would the Secretary of State care to take the opportunity from the Dispatch Box to thank my constituent Alastair Hamilton, the soon to be former head of Invest Northern Ireland, for the 10 years of great service he has given to Northern Ireland in attracting the highest levels of inward investment our country has ever seen?
Karen Bradley
I am sure the hon. Gentleman is referring to the contribution that investment has made to the security of Northern Ireland, and he will notice that I have my Invest NI pen with me.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The idea that the European arrest warrant should be left to the lottery of whether the Prime Minister gets her legislation through simply cannot be in the interests of the people of this country. Will the Secretary of State now get a grip, talk to the Prime Minister and insist that we get the European arrest warrant sorted, irrespective of the outcomes in this House next week?
Karen Bradley
I want to see access to the European arrest warrant, or a similar instrument, continue into the future. As a Minister in the Home Office, I worked very hard to ensure that we have access to the European arrest warrant as a United Kingdom, and I want to see it continue, but I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that there is a mechanism to ensure all these matters continue, and that is the withdrawal agreement—that means voting for the deal. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) to ask his second question, let me say that a lot of noisy private conversations are taking place, including on the Government Benches, where I am sure Members wish to listen to their illustrious Secretary of State as she replies to the inquiries put to her.
Tony Lloyd
Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State knows that the security situation also depends on trust. When David Cameron was Prime Minister, he recognised the special circumstances of the Pat Finucane case and established an independent inquiry into those circumstances. The Supreme Court decided last week that that was a flawed process. What remedy does the Secretary of State propose, unless it is indeed a second public inquiry?
Karen Bradley
The judgment from the Supreme Court on the Pat Finucane case came out last week. It is a complicated matter, because although the judgment says that the article 2 obligations on the Government have not been thoroughly fulfilled, it does not suggest the next stage forward. I am looking carefully at the judgment and considering the next steps.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
The Government recognise the sensitivity of this issue and the range of views expressed by stakeholders on all sides of the debate. We take our obligations under the convention seriously, including having had positive dialogues with the committee very recently.
Alison Thewliss
On 25 February, at CEDAW, the Women’s Aid Federation Northern Ireland raised a series of concerns, including on the lack of a gender equality strategy and a violence against women strategy, on a gendered approach to post-conflict transition not being applied and on the disproportionate impact of UK Government policies such as the two-child policy and the rape clause. What is the Secretary of State going to do about this? Why will she leave women in Northern Ireland behind?
Karen Bradley
I absolutely disagree that that is what this Government are doing. We are determined to ensure that we fulfil all our obligations on human rights matters. Many of the matters raised by CEDAW need to be legislated for in Stormont, which is why we need devolved government in Stormont sooner rather than later.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will know that in Northern Ireland many women believe that both lives matter. Does she agree that this is an issue to be dealt with by the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive and that we should respect the devolution settlement? It is disappointing that the Scottish National party wants to breach the devolution settlement.
Karen Bradley
I do agree with the right hon. Gentleman on that. Interestingly, even the majority of those people who say in polls that they want to see change to the abortion laws in Northern Ireland—about 64%—are very clear that they want those changes to be made in Stormont.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. Colleagues, we are joined for Prime Minister’s questions today—I know that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) will be keenly interested in this announcement, rather than in his own no doubt fascinating private conversation—by the former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and the Australian high commissioner. They are both extremely welcome. We value our excellent relations with your country. We admire your nation. We respect your cricketers. And a lot of us have a particularly high regard for your illustrious tennis players. From this Speaker’s point of view, none was greater than the illustrious “Rockhampton Rocket” Rod Laver.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
I am sure the whole House will join you in welcoming our Australian friends to the Gallery, Mr Speaker. I am reminded of the occasion when another former Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, visited this House. He watched Prime Minister’s questions and commented afterwards that however lively PMQs was here, it was a vicarage tea party compared with Australia.
The death of anyone through an act of violence is an appalling tragedy. A growing number of young people have lost their lives in a cycle of mindless violence that has shocked us all. Our thoughts and prayers are with the friends and families of all the victims. The responsibility for these crimes lies with the perpetrators of them, but we must all do more to ensure that justice is served and to tackle the root causes of this violence so that we can bring it to an end and ensure the safety of our young people. I will be holding a summit in No. 10 in the coming days to bring together Ministers, community leaders, agencies and others, and I will also be meeting the victims of these appalling crimes to listen to their stories and explore what more we can do as a whole society to tackle this problem.
I am sure the whole House will want to join me in paying tribute to Professor Lord Bhattacharyya who died, sadly, last week. His creation of the Warwick Manufacturing Group was truly a pioneering partnership between academia and industry. Our thoughts are with his family and friends, and I know he will be sorely missed.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Tim Farron
I associate myself with the Prime Minister’s remarks and pass my condolences on to the families and loved ones of those who have been the victims of tragic crimes this week.
Britain spent £27 billion on bailing out the banks, and they have repaid us by closing down 3,000 branches since 2016, including the last branch in Grange this week. They have also failed to compensate innocent customers who have lost £2 billion in fraud. Does the Prime Minister agree that the banks have taken without giving for far too long, and will she meet me so that we can force the banks to compensate the victims of fraud and the communities that they have abandoned and prevent them from closing the last branch in town?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman talks about banks closing branches; of course, as people’s behaviour in terms of their access to their finances changes, banks respond to that. They are commercial organisations and those are decisions that they take. He talks about compensation, which is of course an issue that has been raised across the House in the past, and it has been taken up and is being looked at by the financial services ombudsman.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend, who has put forward a positive suggestion for Members of this House, during Lent, to vote with the Government in the meaningful vote. Then, of course, across the House we would all be able to give up being a member of the European Union on 29 March.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Lord Bhattacharyya, who died last week. As she said, he was a champion of the car industry and manufacturing in general, and he played a key role in saving Jaguar Land Rover, not only safeguarding jobs but, crucially, ensuring that international research is done in the UK. We thank him for everything he did.
Tomorrow is International Women’s Day, and I am delighted that for the Opposition the debate will be opened by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), who is herself the daughter of people from the Windrush generation. We will be making the case for closing the gender pay gap, as we are determined to improve the lot of women in our society. In that vein, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) on giving birth to a son this morning?
I join the Prime Minister in sending our thoughts and prayers to the families of those who have lost young people. Yousef Makki and Jodie Chesney, both 17 years old, were the ninth and 10th teenagers murdered already this year. Two hundred and eighty-five people have been stabbed to death in the past year—the highest level ever. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister has announced that Cobra is being convened, but what extra funding is being provided to address the root causes of both knife crime and the increasing levels of violent crime on the streets of all our towns and cities?
The Prime Minister
First, I join the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) on the birth of her son. We are all pleased to hear that that has gone well. In relation to International Women’s Day, I am pleased that today marks the launch of the book by his hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves), “Women of Westminster: The MPs Who Changed Politics”. I hope that that book will be an inspiration to other women to come into politics and have a career in this House. I congratulate the England women’s football team, who last night won the SheBelieves cup, defeating Japan in doing so.
The right hon. Gentleman raises the specific question of knife crime, which I referred to in my opening comments. Of course, as I said, any death of a young person through an act of violence is a terrible tragedy, and we have seen too many young lives—too many lives of promise and potential—being cut short. Responsibility for these terrible crimes does lie with the perpetrators, and we will always stand with the victims to ensure that criminals are brought to justice. We will defeat the scourge of violence only if we understand and address its complex root causes. Yes, that does mean ensuring that all agencies, including the police, have the right resources and powers to do their jobs. It means tackling the drug crime that is fuelling gang violence in our cities and exporting it across the country, and it means intervening at every stage to turn young people away from violence, and that is exactly what the Government are doing.
Jeremy Corbyn
Many of us in this House will have sat in the living rooms of homes where a young person has lost their life through knife crime and will never forget that experience and never forget that feeling of hopelessness and loss that those families are going through. We owe it to those families and those young people who have lost their lives to do far more about knife crime and far more about ensuring that there are sufficient resources for the police to deal with it. Sara Thornton of the National Police Chiefs Council said:
“We think we need much stronger leadership from Government…and there needs to be more funding.”
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner said yesterday that, of course,
“there is some link between violent crime on the streets…and police numbers.”
A total of 21,000 police officers’ jobs have been cut. Violent crime is at the highest level since comparative records began. If there are sufficient police numbers, can the Prime Minister please explain why, yesterday, the Defence Secretary was offering to send in the military to assist with knife crime?
The Prime Minister
The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has recognised that the causes of knife crime are complex, and she has said:
“The police alone won’t sort this issue out, we can’t arrest our way out of this problem.”
I agree, which is why we need to tackle it across a number of fronts. We must continue to enforce the laws that bear down on violent crime. That involves the Offensive Weapons Bill in which we introduced the knife crime prevention orders. Those orders were asked for by the police, and we are introducing them. We will intervene early to stop young people going down into a life of crime and becoming involved in crime. We have published the serious violence strategy, and the serious violence taskforce is working. We have also put £200 million into the youth endowment fund, and our early intervention youth fund has already funded 29 projects working with police and crime commissioners. We do ensure that police have the right resources: £460 million more is available this year and nearly double that—nearly £1 billion extra—is available next year. We also need to ensure that we understand the different use and misuse of drugs that is fuelling much of this crime. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set up the independent drugs misuse review, which will be led by Dame Carol Black.
Jeremy Corbyn
The police clearly do not have the resources to deal with the problem: safer neighbourhood teams have been cut and community police officers have been cut. Many areas see no police officers at all. There is nobody to supervise these special orders that the Prime Minister is talking about. Perhaps she will listen to Nazir Afzal, the former chief prosecutor of Greater Manchester. Tragically, his 17-year-old relative was recently stabbed to death in Birmingham. He said:
“When you reduce police numbers by 21,000…there isn’t the intelligence any more, there isn’t the neighbour policing any more”.
Does the Prime Minister now regret the cuts in police numbers, and in this review will she undertake to restore them to their former level?
The Prime Minister
As I have just indicated, we are putting more resources into the police. [Interruption.] It is no good Opposition Members standing up saying, “No, you’re not.” It is a fact that more money is being put into the police this year and that more money is being put into the police next year. The real question is not are we putting more money into the police, because we are, but why did the Labour party oppose that money going into the police.
Jeremy Corbyn
Violent crime has doubled under the Tories’ watch. I have had a letter from Mike in Gosport—[Interruption.] Yes, it is important; he has something to say. Mike says:
“The crime rate has run out of control because there is no police presence…it has become a really unsafe town to live in”.
I think Mike speaks for millions of people around the country. When are towns such as Gosport and others going to get resources for the safer neighbourhood teams, and the local police they need to tackle rising violent crime and to provide the intelligence from which arrests can be made of those who have committed these crimes?
The Prime Minister
As we make more resources available to the police, they are available to forces across the country, including Hampshire. Of course we look at the powers and resources that the police need. That is why we are not just putting more resources in, but increasing the powers that the police have. We introduced knife crime prevention orders in the Offensive Weapons Bill. That is an important step, which we have taken because the police asked us to. If the right hon. Gentleman wants the police to be able to do their job on the streets, he needs to tell this House why he voted against the measures we introduced to increase the powers of the police to deal with those carrying knives and to apply custodial sentences in the cases of those who are caught twice carrying knives.
Jeremy Corbyn
Crime went down when Labour was in office. We increased the numbers of police officers and the safer neighbourhood teams. Police officers are telling me that there are simply not enough of them to do the job. Hampshire alone has lost 1,000 police officers, and its funding has been cut by £70 million. Does the Prime Minister understand the scale of need here?
The Local Government Association says that local services face a funding gap of £3.2 billion this year. By the way, that is double—in one year alone—what the stronger towns fund is offering over seven years. The number of rapes, murders and other serious crimes committed by offenders on parole has risen by more than 50% since the privatisation of the probation service was introduced four years ago. At least one company wrongly classified offenders as low risk in order to meet Government targets. Do the Government now accept that privatising the probation service to profit-making companies has been a disaster that should be reversed, and that the probation service should be brought back completely into the public service?
The Prime Minister
When we are looking at issues of probation, we want to ensure that we are genuinely reducing the level of reoffending. That is about a rehabilitation method that looks at a variety of issues, including the home of an individual coming out of prison, their employment and their relationship with their family. This was not done fully under the last Labour Government, which is why we saw such a high level of reoffending rates and it is why we need to take action.
The right hon. Gentleman keeps raising these issues, and I welcome the fact that he is accepting that dealing with serious violence and knife crime requires us to act across a number of areas. For example, it is about the work that we are doing with young people, and supporting intervention in hospital accident and emergency departments. We are expanding our support to the charity Redthread, which has introduced its youth violence intervention work in hospitals in Birmingham and Nottingham, as well as in London. We are also supporting the £3.6 million national county lines co-ordination centre.
In just two separate weeks of law enforcement action, we have seen more than 1,000 arrests and 1,300 individuals being safeguarded. We commend all the police officers and other agencies involved in that work. The Government are giving them the support that they need to do their job.
Jeremy Corbyn
The problem is that violent crime has doubled. The rise has been driven by austerity—something that the Prime Minister told us a few months ago was over. Cuts to police and rising poverty; the police and the Home Office recognise the link, even if the Prime Minister does not. But the issues are wider: the privatisation of the probation service has been a disaster; mental health services are under-resourced; youth and children’s services are in crisis; more than 600 youth centres have been closed; 3,500 youth workers have lost their jobs; funding for colleges and schools has been cut; and exclusions are rising. The public services that were there to support young people have been systematically stripped away, and everyone can see the consequences. Can the Prime Minister not recognise that there has to be a holistic response? We cannot keep communities safe on the cheap, with cuts and privatisation. We have to invest in all our communities in every part of this country—something that this Government are incapable of doing.
The Prime Minister
We put more money into our local authorities; the right hon. Gentleman voted against it. We put more money into our police—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. There is a very discordant noise from Opposition Back Benchers. The question has been asked—and, broadly speaking, heard—and the answer will be heard.
The Prime Minister
We have put more money into our schools—£2.6 billion over these two years. We are putting more money into our local authorities—£1.3 billion next year, voted against by the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party—and more money into our police: nearly £1 billion extra available to them next year, voted against by the right hon. Gentleman and the Labour party.
The right hon. Gentleman stands up here and talks about austerity. If he is that concerned about austerity, you would think that he would want to make sure that it could never, ever happen again. Let us remember why we had to take those measures—because of the state of the economy left by the Labour party. But what would his policies mean? Higher borrowing, higher taxes, crashing our economy, less money for our public services—he would take us right back to austerity, square one.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I recognise that this is an issue of real concern to many constituents. That is why we have committed to clamping down on those agents who abuse the system and protecting leaseholders and renters who are suffering at the hands of rogue agents, every day, from unexpected costs or from poor-quality repairs for excessive fees. We have asked Lord Best to chair a working group to look at regulating and professionalising property agents that will include reviewing the standards around the transparency of service charges and other fees and charges—how they are presented to consumers—and putting them into a statutory code for managing agents. But I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary will have heard the issue that my hon. Friend has raised and be happy to meet him to discuss this further.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
Tove Macdonald is 87 years old. She was brought up under Nazi occupation in Denmark. She has lived in Scotland for 59 years. Why, Prime Minister, is she being forced to register in a country she has called home for almost the last 60 years?
The Prime Minister
We want to ensure that EU citizens who are living here have their rights protected. We want to be able to ensure that they have the necessary support that they need and, indeed, the recognition of their status here in the United Kingdom. If the right hon. Gentleman is interested in defending and protecting the rights of EU citizens here in this country, then I hope he will vote for the deal, which does exactly that.
Ian Blackford
What a disgrace—a woman who has lived here for almost 60 years, and the Prime Minister wants her to register to stay here. Tove has children. She has grandchildren. She has married in Scotland. She has friends here. She has built her life here. Why is the Prime Minister making Tove register after almost 60 years? Will she end this heartless policy? Will she tell Tove and all EU citizens who have come to the UK to work, live and love that the UK is their home, without precondition?
The Prime Minister
We have consistently said to EU citizens who have been living here for many years, as in the example that the right hon. Gentleman gave, and others who have come here more recently that we recognise the contribution they have made to our society and our economy, and we want them to stay. That is why we put EU citizens’ rights at the front of the negotiations with the European Union. It is why we have negotiated those citizens’ rights in the withdrawal agreement, and it is why this Government have given a confirmation and a guarantee that those rights will be protected even if we leave with no deal. That is the right way to protect the interests of EU citizens here in the United Kingdom. The right hon. Gentleman should recognise the commitment that this Government have given to all EU citizens in the United Kingdom. This is their home. We want them to stay, and they can stay.
Chris Philp (Croydon South) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The case that my hon. Friend raises is one of great concern, and I know that Members across the House will want to join me in sending our sincerest sympathies to Breck’s family. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Breck’s mother for her brave and powerful campaigning on the wider issue of internet grooming.
The Ministry of Justice has assured me that it is urgently looking into this issue, and I am sure it will update my hon. Friend as soon as possible. I agree with him; we want social media companies to recognise the responsibility they have and to work with law enforcement agencies. I know that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has written to my hon. Friend, to meet him and hear more from the family. It has become increasingly difficult for UK law enforcement to access data containing information on threats to UK public safety if it is held or controlled in other countries. That is why the Government recently legislated—we passed the Crime (Overseas Production Orders) Act 2019, which will give law enforcement agencies the power to obtain electronic data controlled by providers outside the UK where an international agreement is in place. He mentioned the United States; we expect to establish the first such agreement with the United States.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Gentleman knows full well, we have been investing in the north of England. We have been investing in transport across the north of England. We have been investing in our public services. We are investing in the health service, and the north-east will benefit from that as well. Since 2010, in the north-east, there are over 35,000 more small businesses, more than 18,000 new affordable homes, and over 305,000 children are in good or outstanding schools. That shows that the hard work of this Government is paying off, and the people of the north-east are benefiting.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Earlier this week, the owners of the Westgate shopping centre in Basildon terminated Smart Parking’s contract after a disastrous nine months of operation. I have now discovered that Smart Parking has signed a shared business services agreement with the NHS. May I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that, before any contracts are signed, the Department of Health and Social Care fully researches the impact that the practices of Smart Parking would have on its users, customers, clients and staff?
The Prime Minister
Obviously, my hon. Friend has raised an important issue, and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will be happy to meet him to discuss this further.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Gentleman is a living example of devolution of powers from Whitehall out to the areas through the mayoralty that he is serving. We recognise the discussion and debate there has been on the issue of Yorkshire devolution. The One Yorkshire proposals did not meet our criteria for devolution, but my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary has met Yorkshire leaders and discussions are continuing. However, the priority remains the implementation of the agreed Sheffield city region deal, which will bring £900 million of investment to the local area, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman will welcome.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
It was with profound sadness that I saw my constituency this week join the all-too-long list of areas across our country to have lost a precious young person to knife crime. The public do not want to see politicians throw blame at one another for these stolen lives; they want to see them take responsibility for what is within their control, provide resource if resource is necessary and then demonstrate a relentless and total commitment to snuffing out violent crime. I welcome the announcement of an emergency summit, but what action will the Prime Minister be taking after that constantly to drive performance on these issues until we get the result the public rightly demand—to keep children safe?
The Prime Minister
May I say to my hon. Friend, as I did earlier, that any death of a young person at the hands of violence is a terrible tragedy? I recognise, as she says, that her constituency has seen just one of the latest examples of a young life cut short far too early. I also say to her that, yes, as I said, what we are doing is bringing together Ministers, local government, police and others—other agencies. This needs to be a cross-society approach to deal with this issue, because it is not just about catching the perpetrators of the crime; it is about preventing the crime from taking place in the first place.
That is one of the reasons why the Government will be launching a consultation on addressing this as a public health issue. There has been excellent work done under what was Strathclyde police force, now Police Scotland, looking at and using the public health approach. What that does is ensure that all agencies—not just across Government, but in local government and elsewhere—are able to be brought together to deal with this issue. What I want to do at that summit is to hear directly from those agencies what further action the Government can take, which we can then put in place to deal with the issue.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I think the hon. Lady has discussed the issue of delaying Brexit with me before, and I just simply say to her that this Parliament gave the people of the United Kingdom the decision to choose whether to leave the European Union or to stay in. They chose to leave the European Union. I think for trust in politics it is important that the Government deliver on just that.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
Mr Speaker, you are right that the former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull is very welcome here today. As he said in a lecture last night:
“If a state-sponsored adversary has enduring access to staff, software or hardware deployed into a target telecommunication network, then they only require the intent to act in order to conduct operations within the network.”
Given that Chinese law obliges all Chinese companies to assist the Chinese intelligence services, will the Prime Minister explain what the implications are for British Government policy?
The Prime Minister
We look at these issues very seriously. As regards the issue of 5G security, we are looking at the right approach that we need to take. We want to be able to benefit from that new technology, but of course we need to manage the risks closely and we are considering a full range of policy options. Our review into 5G is still ongoing and no decisions have been taken.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
We entered the European Union as the United Kingdom; we will leave the European Union as the United Kingdom. I also say to the hon. Lady that the SNP has no mandate from the Scottish people to continue to pursue independence. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Calm! [Interruption.] Difference of opinion is the essence of politics. There is an elaborate combination of finger wagging and head shaking going on, which may be personally therapeutic but is institutionally disadvantageous. In any case, we owe the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) a decent hearing. I call Rebecca Pow.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
Mr Speaker, I am not sure who is in charge of the washing machine in your house, but were you aware that every time you, I or anyone else puts a load of washing on, 700,000 tiny microfibres get washed down the drain and into the marine environment, causing untold damage?
Rebecca Pow
The 68 million loads of washing done in the UK every week contribute a staggering 9.4 trillion microfibres to the environment. As many colleagues, including me, try to reduce their plastics use for Lent, in a campaign masterminded by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), will the Prime Minister agree that this is a great time to address the issue and carry on this Government’s great record on the environment?
Mr Speaker
I think that by now the wash would have been completed. [Laughter.]
The Prime Minister
Despite the laughter, my hon. Friend has raised a very important issue. May I thank her for continuing to be a champion of our environment? She did an enormous amount of work that led to the Government ban on microbeads, and she is now raising the issue of microfibres. She mentions that Members across this House are seeking to reduce their use of plastic during Lent. I think that it is incumbent on all of us to seek to reduce our use of plastic, not just during Lent but for the time to come.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady has raised a specific issue with me, which I will look into, but she says we did not respond on the question about AggregateIQ. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Constitution has written to her about this and responded to her query.
Antoinette Sandbach (Eddisbury) (Con)
Women’s football is one of the fastest growing sports in the world. I hope you, Mr Speaker, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will welcome the £70 million investment Cheshire Football Association is putting into developing a women’s football training centre in Winsford. May I invite the Prime Minister to come and open the facility—and take part?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend for her invitation. Earlier, I was pleased to congratulate the England women’s football team. I am sure the whole House will recognise the important work being done by Cheshire FA. I think it is a very exciting project. I welcome its commitment to providing this new world-class facility for women and girls’ football in Cheshire. I will look very closely at her invitation. It sounds very interesting, but of course I cannot commit my diary on the Floor of the House.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
Obviously, the hon. Lady raises what sounds like a very distressing individual case. I will ensure that the appropriate Minister writes to her.
Ross Thomson (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Last week, MPs heard harrowing testimony from family members of a man who tragically committed suicide because he faced the loan charge, a 20-year retrospective tax facing thousands of families in my constituency and across the UK. On 9 January the Prime Minister said that the Government accepted the review into the loan charge, yet the all-party group on the loan charge was only advised this week by the Treasury that there is no such review. The Treasury has acted in bad faith, so will my right hon. Friend now personally intervene to ensure a genuine review and an urgent delay of the loan charge, so that the review, as promised, can be carried out?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises an issue which is of concern not only to his constituents but others’ across the House. I will ensure that he receives a response from the Treasury that sets out exactly what is being done in the review that is taking place.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
The Prime Minister
We recognise we have asked schools to do more. That is why we recently announced an extra £350 million to support children with complex special educational needs. That includes an extra £250 million into the high needs budget across this year and next. That builds on the £6 billion in place for this year, the highest level on record. We have also put in an extra £100 million to create new school places to improve existing facilities for children with special educational needs and disabilities. That takes our total investment on that to £365 million through to 2021. The hon. Gentleman raises the question of the money actually going direct to the schools. I suggest that he needs to sit down—I am sure he has—with the local authority and discuss with it how it is using the money that is being made available to it.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
This week marks the beginning of Brain Tumour Awareness Month, and I bring the House’s attention to the event that is happening immediately after Prime Minister’s questions in Westminster Hall. Good progress is being made to find the right care and cure for people who have brain tumours, but will my right hon. Friend meet me and others to discuss how we can improve the life chances of children and young people who survive a brain tumour but are left with brain injuries? Essential therapies and support for children and young people in this situation is not consistent and often lacking, leaving them with significantly impaired life chances.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend raises a very important issue and I thank the all-party group on brain tumours for all the work that it has done on this issue. It is essential to recognise the needs of parents and carers of children to ensure that the right support is in place when and where they need it. That is why those diagnosed with cancer, including children with brain cancer, will be benefiting from a tailored recovery package, individually designed to help them to live well with and beyond cancer. As my hon. Friend mentions, not just dealing with the cancer, but thereafter is an important element of this. NHS England is accelerating the roll-out to ensure full implementation by 2020, as recommended by the independent cancer taskforce. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care will be going directly to the event that my hon. Friend refers to, and I am sure that the appropriate Minister in the Department for Health and Social Care will be happy to meet to go through this in detail.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
The Prime Minister
We have been clear that the current system for dealing with the legacy of Northern Ireland’s past is not working well for anyone. Around 3,500 people were killed in the troubles; 90% were murdered by terrorists. Many of these cases require further investigation, including the deaths of hundreds of members of the security forces. The system to investigate the past does need to change to provide better outcomes for victims and survivors of the troubles, but also to ensure that our armed forces and police officers are not unfairly treated. That is why we are working across Government on proposals to see how best we can move forward. We are carefully considering the very large number of responses that we received to the consultation on this issue. We will be publishing our next steps in due course and the MOD is looking at what more can be done to ensure that service personnel are not unfairly pursued through the courts, including considering legislation.
Colin Clark (Gordon) (Con)
The SNP Scottish Government have resurrected Alex Salmond’s call for a Scottish currency. Does the Prime Minister agree that this is reckless and risks destabilising the Scottish economy?
The Prime Minister
I seem to recall that, back in the 2014 referendum, the SNP were absolutely adamant that Scotland would keep the pound. There have been a few changes since then. They have looked at the option of the euro, then they went back to sterling, and now they are into an independent currency. This Government are working to secure a Brexit deal that protects jobs and our economy. The SNP should focus on that rather than continuing to pursue their independence fantasy.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
Mr Speaker
May I gently say to colleagues that I am trying to accommodate as many Back-Bench Members as possible? This applies to both sides of the House: some extremely serious public purpose-focused questions are being put, but they are too long.
The Prime Minister
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
On the ESA underpayments, obviously mistakes should not have happened and we need to clear this up as quickly as possible. The DWP is taking the issue very seriously. It has about 1,200 people working on sorting it out. We have already paid out almost £330 million. The Department expects to finish correcting the majority of the original cases by April and it aims to process additional cases by the end of the year.
Anne-Marie Trevelyan (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (Con)
Yesterday, pupils from Tweedmouth Community Middle School won the national Modeshift STARS trophy for secondary schools for its amazing work to encourage more pupils to cycle to school. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the school, its head, Mr Hulbert, and his team of staff, who are committed to creating a fitter, greener and more environmentally focused next generation of Berwickers?
The Prime Minister
I am very happy to join my hon. Friend in thanking and congratulating Tweedmouth Community Middle School on its excellent work encouraging pupils to cycle to school. It is clearly an excellent achievement. We all know the importance of keeping our young people active. I congratulate Mr Hulbert and all the teachers, but particularly the students who have taken this up and put it into practice. It is a very good example of what schools are doing across the country.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman has raised a distressing case about a constituent. We have taken steps to ensure that medicinal cannabis is available, but decisions on availability are taken by clinicians, as is absolutely right.
Paul Scully (Sutton and Cheam) (Con)
I welcome the publication of the draft Domestic Abuse Bill, and I hope it will pass successfully through the House. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as well as tackling extreme abuse and violence, we should also raise awareness of the entry level acts of coercion, deceit and manipulation that lead to more extreme examples?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend has raised an important issue. People will obviously have seen distressing cases of coercion and indeed some instances where that has been taken through the courts. We all need to recognise the importance of dealing with domestic abuse and recognise that for too long the issue of coercion was not accepted or addressed. It is important. It is this Government who are doing that. As he says, we must be very clear about the entry level behaviours that lead to that distress.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that has been raised on several occasions. Of course, the Government have responded on this and I would be happy to write to him on it.
Vicky Ford (Chelmsford) (Con)
This Ash Wednesday, will the Prime Minister give strong encouragement and support to the 48 Conservative MPs who are taking on an environmental challenge because we have seen the devastating impact of plastics across the world? Will she give a big shout-out to all Members of the House taking on a plastics pledge and raising the good work of Tearfund and the Department for International Development in reducing plastic pollution?
The Prime Minister
I was pleased to see many hon. Friends giving up plastic last year, and I am pleased to hear that many colleagues are planning on supporting Tearfund’s plastics pledge. Through UK Aid Match, the UK Government will match donations of up to £2 million raised by Tearfund’s supporters for a project in Pakistan. We are committed to the UK being a world leader in tackling plastic pollution. Hon. Members are showing by their example the role that the UK is playing, and I congratulate and applaud them.
Sir Vince Cable (Twickenham) (LD)
The Prime Minister will recall the advice she received from her Conservative colleagues as well as mine about the dangerous folly of making landlords responsible in criminal law for immigration control. Following the High Court ruling of Mr Justice Spencer that her policy is now increasing the risk of racial discrimination, will she not accept that her policy is fanning the flames of racism in return for nothing but tougher rhetoric about immigration control?
The Prime Minister
It is absolutely right that the Government have taken the approach that we need to consider, when people are accessing different services, whether they have a right to be in this country. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has issued a written ministerial statement in response to the case in the courts and I understand that the Government are appealing the case.
Petition
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
My constituents are deeply concerned by proposals from the Post Office to close its large, accessible branch in Mell Square, in the town centre, and to replace it with a counter on the first floor of the nearby branch of WHSmith. An official public consultation on the move by the Post Office closes today. Although it invited residents’ views on many important questions, especially regarding site accessibility and the impact on the wider community, it explicitly did not allow them to pass judgment on the move itself. It is not right that a growing town such as Solihull is facing such cuts to important community resources such as our local post office. That almost 1,000 of my constituents signed this petition shows that their objection to the Post Office’s plans runs deeper than the fine details, and it is a privilege to put their concerns directly to this House today.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Solihull,
Declares that local residents have concerns over the proposed closure and relocation of Solihull Post Office, Mell Square.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Post Office to re-consider the closure of the Solihull Post Office in Mell Square due to its size and accessibility.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002434]
Points of Order
Mr Speaker
I will come to the right hon. Gentleman, but I think there is a point of order from Mr Ian Blackford. I hope it is a genuine point of order.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It is disappointing that the Prime Minister, who was alerted that I would be making a point of order, has chosen to scurry from the Chamber. Mr Speaker, you will agree that what we say in the Chamber is important. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), the Prime Minister said that the Scottish National party did not have a mandate for independence. Let me say unequivocally that is not the case. The SNP stood on a manifesto commitment to holding an independence referendum if there was a material change of circumstances. It might be a surprise to the Prime Minister, but we won the election. Perhaps more importantly, we took a motion to the Scottish Parliament, because there is emphatically a majority for independence in that Parliament, and we won that vote in March 2017 by 69 votes to 59. I wonder what mechanism is open to me, Mr Speaker, to make sure the Prime Minister comes back and corrects the record and accedes to the fact that the SNP and the Scottish Government do have a majority and mandate for independence.
Mr Speaker
I say to the right hon. Gentleman and for the benefit of those interested in this matter, first, that he has made his point with vigour and insistence, very much in the mould he has fashioned since his election to the House. No one could be in any doubt about what he believes; it is one the record. Secondly—I do not know if this will be welcome to him, but it is the honest answer from the Chair—there has been no procedural impropriety or breach of order. There is nothing untoward, in parliamentary terms, about how the Prime Minister has conducted herself. I recognise that it is disagreeable to and strongly objected to by him and his colleagues here assembled, but that, I am afraid, is in the nature of political debate and disagreement. As to when he will have a chance further to pursue his disagreement with the Prime Minister, I think that opportunity will arise ere long.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.
Mr Speaker
I hope the hon. Gentleman has a genuine point of order. He is certainly wearing a fabulous tie. Whether his point of order is of equal quality remains to be seen, but I will give him a chance.
Angus Brendan MacNeil
I accept the compliment about my tie, which is reciprocated.
The truth is that what the Prime Minister said is not the situation in Scotland. There is a mandate for independence. She said there was not a mandate, but there is. That is a fact.
Mr Speaker
I am not sure that greatly added to the intellectual quality of the exchange, but nevertheless the hon. Gentleman has made his point with some force, and it is on the record, but I do not think it requires a response from the Chair at this time. I am sorry if I have misunderstood, but I feel he has put his point, and it rests and will be assessed and evaluated by all colleagues.
Hilary Benn
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Next Tuesday, the House will vote again on the withdrawal agreement. The Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union was due to appear before the Committee yesterday but cancelled for perfectly understandable reasons—he was in Brussels with the Attorney General negotiating. We of course accept that, but we have offered him other times this week and next Monday afternoon, none of which have been accepted so far.
While we understand that negotiations will continue, I was very surprised to learn this morning, at a meeting of the Committee, that the Secretary of State’s office had offered times to individual members of the Committee for him to meet them later on Monday afternoon, but had not so far confirmed that he would be available to appear before the Committee. Given that next Tuesday we may well be considering further legal assurances related to the withdrawal agreement, the Committee is absolutely clear that we must hear from him before we vote on Tuesday.
I would not normally raise a point of order on such a matter, Mr Speaker, but given its urgency and the profoundly unsatisfactory state of affairs, what advice can you give the Committee so that we can secure the Secretary of State’s attendance—which is his job—before we vote next Tuesday?
Mr Speaker
My advice is simple: persist, persist, persist.
Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman, who is held in the highest esteem in, I think, all parts of the House, that if he, on behalf—and clearly with the agreement—of the Committee, seeks the presence of the Secretary of State prior to an important debate and attendant vote, the Secretary of State should appear before the Committee. That cannot be compelled, certainly not by the Chair, but it is manifest and, I think, incontrovertible that it is desirable in terms of the scrutiny and accountability process; from which something else follows.
Simply offering individual meetings with members of the Committee does not remotely pass muster. The fact is that the Select Committee is an established body in the House, established to scrutinise the Government’s Brexit policy, and it has a corporate character. Indeed, its members are operating not merely as individual Members of Parliament, but as part of a body politic—in this case, as part of that Committee. So my advice to the right hon. Gentleman is that he should persist, making it absolutely clear that it is the view of the Committee that the presence of the Secretary of State is desired. It is frankly, if I may say so, a point so blindingly obvious—[Interruption.] Be quiet, young man. In ethical terms, it is so manifestly fair, that that is what should happen.
Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This Friday I will attend the funeral of Charles Smith MBE. When he died at the age of 98 he had been a member of the Labour party for 84 years, which I believe made him the most long-standing member of the party. In paying tribute to him, may I ask for your guidance, Mr Speaker, on how I might use this opportunity to encourage everyone in Parliament to celebrate all those people who have given long service to our political parties, to recognise that the vast majority of them do so in order to support their communities and the country, and to recognise that our political parties are broadly a force for good and we should welcome their membership?
Mr Speaker
I do not dissent from that. The hon. Gentleman has made his point very well. It does not require anything further to be said by the Chair, but I congratulate him on taking his opportunity.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You have been extremely helpful in ensuring that Parliament can hold the Executive to account in respect of knife crime. Given the Prime Minister’s announcement today of a knife crime summit and given what the Home Secretary has done today in meeting various police chiefs, is there anything further we can do to ensure that, at the earliest possible opportunity, either the Home Secretary or the Prime Minister comes to the House to give us an update on this extremely important issue?
Mr Speaker
In terms of parliamentary opportunity on the Floor of the House, there is a chance tomorrow, and, indeed, there is a chance on Monday. The opportunities are there, and it is up to Members whether they seek to seize those opportunities. I hope that that is helpful to colleagues.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Will you please advise me on how I can best clarify the record in respect of a comment that I made during business questions on 20 December 2018?
On that occasion I highlighted the work of two campaigns in the city of Glasgow. One, Saving Lives, led by Duncan and Margaret Spiers, was started in the wake of the tragic death of their 28-year-old son, Christopher Spiers, in an accident at the River Clyde in 2016. Their campaign seeks to promote water safety, to ensure that vital life-saving equipment is provided on the banks of the River Clyde and across Scotland, and, most importantly, to ensure that throw ropes are attached to lifebelts. I also mentioned the Think Again campaign for emergency lifeline telephones to be installed on the Clyde to help those who are in urgent need of emotional support.
For the avoidance of any doubt that may have arisen at the time of my original remarks, Mr Speaker, I wish to emphasise that the two campaigns are separate, with distinctive objectives, and that both are doing excellent work in their respective ways to preserve life in the city of Glasgow and further afield.
Mr Speaker
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He asks me how he can best clarify the record in respect of what he said in the House in December. My response to him is that he has proved to be the architect of his own salvation. Through the device of his point of order, he has succeeded in clarifying the matter and putting the facts very clearly on the record. In the process he has highlighted again the excellent work of those two campaigns, and I thank him for doing so.
Social Security and Employment Support for Disabled People
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if she will make a statement on the changes that her Department intends to make to social security and employment support, including the assessment process, for disabled people and people with health conditions.
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Sarah Newton)
Yesterday the Secretary of State provided the House with a written statement, and delivered a speech to Scope that included, among other announcements, an announcement about changes in the delivery of health and disability benefits.
We are making significant progress in improving people’s experiences of claiming disability benefits by working through the recommendations made by several independent reviews of personal independence payments and the employment support allowance, but we need to continue to make improvements in order to give better support to people with health conditions and disabilities. The written statement set out a number of additional measures that we will implement to make improvements, now and in the future, in support for disabled people and those with health conditions.
We will improve and simplify people’s experiences by no longer undertaking regular reviews of PIP awards for claimants at or above the state pension age unless they tell us that their needs have changed. We will also transform the delivery of assessment services. We have established a health transformation programme to undertake the significant task of combining the currently separate work capability assessment for ESA and universal credit and PIP assessment services in one unified, integrated service from 2021. We are extending the contract for the health and disability assessment service, which includes the delivery of the work capability assessment, and aligning it with the duration of the extended PIP contracts. That will allow for a safe and stable service now, and as we make the transition to the new integrated service.
The Department for Work and Pensions will also be testing how we can increase engagement and build a trusted and strong relationship between work coaches and people who are awaiting assessments for universal credit or who are found to have limited capability for work. The Minister for Employment will take that forward.
The health transformation programme will be co-designed with disabled people. The Secretary of State and I will engage regularly with disabled people, disabled people’s organisations and charities. All of us, whatever our age or need, want an equal chance to live a life of opportunity and fulfilment. We intend to support disabled people during all the phases of their lives, so that the pursuit of equality is a shared goal.
Debbie Abrahams
Thank you for granting the urgent question, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for her response. I am, however, disappointed that the Secretary of State was not here to respond, and that the Minister has had to respond to an urgent question rather than making an oral statement, given the extensive scope of the proposals.
I welcome yesterday’s announcement that there would be no PIP reassessment for disabled people above the state pension age, but why are not all disabled people—particularly those with progressive conditions such as motor neurone disease, multiple sclerosis and cancer—being exempted from repeat assessments? I have a constituent with terminal secondary breast cancer which has gone into her bones, and she has been refused PIP.
The launch of a transformation programme whereby PIP and WCA assessments will be integrated by 2021 is interesting, given that the Government have previously said that that could not be done. How exactly will the two assessments be merged? Who is involved? I am grateful that the Minister has said they will be co-designed with disabled people, but will she commit to supporting the principle of “nothing about you without you”? Will there be a pilot? If so, where and when, and what would be the sample size? Will there be an independent evaluation?
Who will provide the new service? There are real concerns about the profiteering enabled by this Government at the expense of disabled people. There are also worrying reports in various GP journals this week that the medical records of claimants will be made available to the DWP or their social security support will be denied. So I will be grateful if the Minister can confirm that this is not, and will not be, Government policy. Obviously there are huge issues around privacy and ethics.
There is also strong evidence of the physical and emotional harm that these assessments are having on disabled people, over and above their condition. What is being put in place before 2021 to improve the poor quality, validity and reliability of these assessments?
On UC and the role of job coaches in determining limited capability to work, the detail was most unclear in the written ministerial statement. Can the Minister expand on it and confirm that work coaches may start an assessment to determine a claimant’s capacity to work? Can she also confirm a shift in the Government’s approach to sanctions and expand on her Department’s approach to conditionality?
I welcome the review into the inadequacy of social security support for disabled people and more widely. Poverty is a political choice, and 4.2 million disabled people have been pushed into poverty as a result of the £5 billion in cuts since 2010. So what form will this review take and, again, who will be involved?
On the Government’s more ambitious targets to get disabled people into work, again the pendulum is swinging back. The Conservative general election pledge in 2015 was to halve the disability employment gap, but it is actually 4.4% lower than 2015. Then in 2017 there was a pledge about 1 million additional disabled people getting into work, but there was nothing about access to work.
Finally, what is the Minister going to do about the cultural changes needed in her Department to ensure that disabled people and other claimants do not feel demonised, even dehumanised, as happens all too often?
Sarah Newton
I fear I will test your patience, of Mr Speaker, if I try to answer all of those questions at once, but I will do my best.
I welcome the hon. Lady’s tone and her welcome for the measures we announced in the written ministerial statement. Clearly we have been listening very hard to Members across this Chamber and, most importantly, to disabled people themselves about the changes they would like to see, and that is what has driven the changes we are going to be making. I absolutely want to confirm that throughout the process—in fact this is how we work now—we engage fully with disabled people, enabling them to help us develop the services which are for them.
The hon. Lady touched on a few points about people being repeatedly reassessed. I remind her that we brought in the severe conditions criteria so that people who have reached the highest level of support on PIP will not be routinely reassessed; we have introduced a 10-year light touch review so that many people with the sorts of conditions and illnesses the hon. Lady described will not be undergoing further reassessments. We also have a special process for people who are terminally ill. I undertook research in the summer—and I have been delighted to work with the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) on the work she has been doing—looking again at how the special rules for people at the end of life are working. We have worked very closely with the medical profession, which I think was not often aware of the special processes that could so easily be put in place to enable people to get benefits within days. I will shortly be announcing new guidance which is the fruition of the work we have been doing over the last few months.
I want to remind everyone that in the transition from DLA to PIP many more people with mental health conditions are now receiving support, particularly at the highest levels. Concerns have also been raised about work coaches and their ability to work with people with disabilities and health conditions, and I want to reassure the House that all of our work coaches are receiving extensive training and will continue to do so. Over 10,000 work coaches have already received training in mental health services, so I believe that that personal relationship that we want all people claiming benefits to have with their work coach is a possibility and is happening the length and breadth of the country.
We are looking at conditionality and have taken up the recommendations given to us. When people with severe disabilities and health conditions apply for UC there is no conditionality; that conditionality will be switched off, and then as the relationship develops with the work coach, if and when they are prepared to take those steps to work, they will be fully supported by their work coach and other resources that they have available.
As would be expected, we listened to and worked with a range of stakeholders before the announcement to develop the new service. I can absolutely commit to the House that the co-design will be ongoing and there will be plenty of opportunities for everyone in the House to be involved in how we take that forward. But the simple ideal behind it is to reduce the number of assessments people have to take and reduce the amount of information they have to give to the Department. We have all heard in our surgeries each week particularly in terms of people in receipt of both ESA and PIP that they can be asked to complete a whole number of forms where they give us the same information, and are going to assessments where they give the same information. The whole aim of this is to reduce that and to simplify it, so that people give us the information once and we are able to make the best decision we can right from the outset.
Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con)
It never made sense to me for us to pay different contractors who compete with each other to recruit competent staff to carry out assessments which make many disabled people feel they are involved in a duplicatory process, which adds to the stress. So may I strongly welcome today the decision to combine the ESA and PIP assessments? That will make the system more efficient and hopefully provide more dignity for disabled people.
Sarah Newton
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. This builds on some of the work he started when he was in the Department. It is very much based on listening to people and their experience of the current benefit system. I could not agree more that we need to have a much more streamlined, simplified process under which people tell us the information once, we gather it once, and we are able to make the best possible accurate decisions the first time.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing this urgent question.
As we saw yesterday, the Secretary of State announced changes to social security, disability and health. By my calculations, she made no fewer than nine different announcements in her statement. The Government will now hand over more money to the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments, better known as Maximus, to continue to carry out the work capability assessments. This is despite the failure, year on year, to meet the Department’s own performance standards and no fewer than 36,000 ill and disabled people wrongly deprived of social security as a result of WCAs. Can the Minister therefore say why the Government have decided to extend the contract for another 16 months? Will the Minister finally consider bringing these assessments back in-house?
The Government have announced that they are looking to merge the assessments for PIP and ESA into an integrated assessment service and use a digital platform to do so. Does the Minister not agree that there is serious risk involved in combining both assessments when the standard of decision making for PIP and ESA is the subject of so many failures? Given the consistent failures with the online platform for universal credit, what confidence should ill and disabled people have that this will not happen to them when they go through a process to access vital social security support?
Over 1 million sanctions have been imposed on disabled people since 2010, and those sanctions have been shown to be counterproductive and cruel. But so far the Government have committed to only a small “test” review of conditionality and sanctions. Why will the Government not follow Labour in pledging to scrap the punitive sanctions regime?
The Government have once again moved the goalposts on employing disabled people. First they wanted to halve the disability employment gap and now they are going to review it yet again. It is time for the Government to consider expanding Access to Work, rather than simply reviewing their employment targets. There are currently seven reviews being conducted into disabled people being wrongly deprived of social security support. These changes are just a drop in the ocean, so will the Minister finally accept that there needs to be fundamental reform, not just tinkering around the edges?
Sarah Newton
I really would have hoped that, today of all days, the hon. Lady could have found it in her heart to welcome the changes that have been asked for by so many people inside and outside this Chamber, and to recognise the great work that has been done by disabled people, and those who work with them, to engage with us so constructively and enable us to move forward and tackle the issues that she is describing.
The hon. Lady is right to say that we said yesterday that we were going to be more ambitious in enabling more disabled people into work, because we have made such good progress. Since 2013, over 930,000 more disabled people are now in work. Over that time, the disability employment rate has increased from 7.4% to 51.5%, and the gap between the disabled employment rate and the overall employment rate has been reduced to 30.2%. I do not want to see any disabled person out of work when they would like to be in work, but we have made progress and that is why we have committed to reviewing our targets and to being more ambitious. Access to Work is a great scheme, as we all agree, and it supported record numbers of people last year, including more people with mental health conditions and more young people with learning disabilities. The Access to Work fund is demand-led, and it grows every year because every year we are seeing more disabled people into work, and that is what we want to do.
Returning to the hon. Lady’s questions about the contracts, it is really important to me that, while we are going through such a fundamental transformation of our assessment process, we have safe and stable delivery for people who are applying for benefits. That is why we have extended the contracts to 2021, to align with the PIP contracts. We have not just accepted the existing situation, as the hon. Lady knows, and I am grateful for the work undertaken by the Select Committee on this. We have been pushing for continuous improvement within those contracts. The new contracts have higher standards for service delivery, and I would be happy to put a letter in the Library so that people can see the terms of the new contracts and see that they are driving forward improvement. We all want to see the right decisions being made at the first opportunity. We do not want to see people having to go through mandatory reconsideration and then on to appeals in the courts, and we have a whole series of reforms to ensure that that does not happen.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I welcome what was in the written statement yesterday and what the Minister has reiterated about the more ambitious target to get more disabled people into work. As an aside, I also welcome what the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) said earlier. As a former Minister for disabled people, I am particularly attracted to the more ambitious target that we had in our 2015 manifesto. Indeed, I may have had a hand in writing it myself. On the substantive question, if we are going to get more disabled people into work, we need to ensure that the social care system—over half of whose budget is spent on working-age adults, not on older people—works better with our social security system and with the other means that we have of helping disabled people to become more independent. I urge the Minister to publish the social care Green Paper as soon as possible, and to start that much-needed debate so that we can deliver those policy changes that many disabled people across the country are crying out for and give them the opportunity to live more independent and fulfilling lives.
Sarah Newton
I very much thank my right hon. Friend for his contribution in the Chamber today and for all the work that he did when he had the privilege of holding this office. He is absolutely right to say that we want to be more ambitious. We will be looking carefully at how we can set ourselves really ambitious goals to ensure that everybody in our country has the opportunity to fulfil their potential in work, and that business, civil society and the public sector can draw on the talents of the very many disabled people who are unemployed at the moment. He is also right to talk about the importance of adult social care. It is of course the Department of Health and Social Care that leads on this, but I work closely with it and I have been encouraging it to go ahead and publish that very important Green Paper so that we can take forward those urgent reforms and enable more people to live independent lives.
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I cannot help but feel that this announcement was a missed opportunity to completely overhaul the punitive PIP assessment progress, which is deeply flawed and continues to be criticised by claimants and stakeholders. The latest PIP assessment tribunal statistics show that from June to September 2018, a staggering 72% of cases found in favour of the claimant. The Minister will be aware that Scotland is taking a wholly different approach, proposing to significantly reduce the need for face-to-face assessments, introducing rolling awards with no set end points, and ensuring that those with fluctuating conditions will not face additional reviews. That is what a system based on dignity and respect looks like. What are this Government doing to address the fact that claimants are still being wrongly assessed at such a staggering rate? Will she look at what the Scottish Government are doing to reduce the burden that is being placed on disabled claimants? Will she also agree to study carefully the responses to the consultation announced yesterday by the Scottish Government on delivering a fairer disability assistance benefit programme in Scotland?
Sarah Newton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. I should like to reassure him that I do indeed work with my opposite number in the Scottish Government, and that we are working closely together as we go through the process of devolving PIP and other benefits to Scotland. Actually, we are testing and learning a great deal from each other. The UK Government are investing a great deal in health and work trials, and we work collaboratively on those. We are always prepared to learn from any part of the United Kingdom. I absolutely agree that too many people are having their decisions overturned on appeal—we want to ensure that we get all the decisions right first time—but it is worth keeping this in perspective, because 10% of all PIP claims go to appeal and only 5% are overturned. However, as I always say from the Dispatch Box, one person’s poor experience is one too many. We have been doing a lot of work with the Courts and Tribunals Service to bring down waiting times, and I hope that all Members will join me in welcoming the fact that we now have a new PIP online appeal service. Since November, people can resolve their appeals online, which is enabling far swifter resolution of those issues.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
I produced a list of things that had gone wrong in the claims procedures of my constituents, and I provided it to the Secretary of State’s predecessor to help her to shape these reforms. Will the Minister undertake to dig that paper out and have a look at it, and to ensure that those reforms can be implemented?
Sarah Newton
I think I can go one better than that, because I would like to invite my hon. Friend in to meet me and go through his paper with me, given all the hard work that he has put in, to ensure that we get this right.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
We all support any improvement in the lot of disabled people, but my constituency has one of the highest percentages of disabled people, because of past industrial diseases and so on, and I remember the grief that was caused to so many people when they were forced to reclaim or to appear before various groups of people to be reassessed. There are too many people who are still in that category, and I hope the Minister will be able to assist with improving that situation. I also want to ask her about the situation regarding Remploy. We had a big fight in this Chamber over Remploy, as she may remember, and we were told that alternative jobs would be available, but can she give us the actual figures? I know that too many people in my constituency who were employed in Remploy are still out of work.
Sarah Newton
The right hon. Lady raises an important point about reassessments. Through a series of measures that we have taken this year, and through the ones that we have announced, far fewer people will be reassessed. We want to ensure that people are getting the support they need. Under the old legacy system, people were just parked on benefits for a very long time, and they were missing out. The evidence of that is the amount of people who get more money on PIP than they did on DLA. It is important that people are assessed to ensure that they are getting all the support to which they are entitled. Remploy in Wales is doing a great job as part of our health and work programme, and we have also introduced new supported ways of employing people, such as the intensive personalised employment support—IPES—programme. I would be very happy to write to the right hon. Lady to describe what is happening in Wales, and if she does feel that people who should be in employment are not in employment, she should please come and meet me so that we can look at those cases.
Kirstene Hair (Angus) (Con)
I warmly welcome the changes that my hon. Friend outlined. Last week, the Scottish Government announced their timetable for replacing personal independence payments, disability living allowance, attendance allowance and carer’s allowance, which will now not be completed until 2024, three years after they initially promised. Will she reassure me, my constituents and all in the House that the Department for Work and Pensions and the UK Government did all that they possibly could to ensure that the Scottish Government were set up for this and that actually there is resistance from the Scottish Government to taking the powers?
Sarah Newton
I thank my hon. Friend for that very important question. She is absolutely right about the absolute commitment of my colleagues in the DWP to ensure that the Scottish Government can take on those powers. We have not created any delays whatsoever; the delays are all in Holyrood.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
A few moments ago, in Prime Minister’s questions, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) raised the case of a constituent who turned up for a disability assessment, was faced with a long wait and eventually had to rebook the appointment. The Prime Minister suggested that she or perhaps the Minister before us would look into the case, but it is not an isolated matter. I, too, have constituents with exactly the same experience, including a gentleman who last month at an appointment with the Centre for Health and Disability Assessments was forced to wait for an hour and 40 minutes, despite having told the CHDA that the nature of his condition meant that he would need to be seen very quickly.
I very much welcome the Minister’s offer to place in the Library information about the contract that has been issued to the assessment companies. We need to be able to scrutinise the performance standards and the rate at which the companies are achieving or failing to meet them. Will she repeat that commitment to the House, so that we can be absolutely clear that the information will be available to us?
Sarah Newton
I was not in Prime Minister’s questions to hear that particular example, but of course I will follow it up with great urgency. It is not acceptable for people to have appointments cancelled at the last minute or to be asked to wait. That is certainly not the service that we expect from our contractors.
I have made the commitment to publish the standards that we are insisting on in the contract. We monitor compliance with the standards very carefully, and there are penalties in the contract if people fall short of the high standards that we expect of them. Every person with a health condition or disability must be treated with respect and dignity.
Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend and her colleagues for listening so much and for making these changes, but will she look at the face-to-face assessments and at whether more could be done with paper-based reviews or home visits? It is pretty difficult for some people to get to the assessment centres, certainly from my constituency, and some people who have mental health conditions find the assessments incredibly stressful.
Sarah Newton
I thank my hon. Friend for his long-standing and passionate championship of the vulnerable people in his constituency and across our country. We have listened very carefully to what he has said and we have increased the number of home visits that can be undertaken but I definitely want to go further and, wherever possible, make decisions based on the information provided by the medical profession, the disabled people themselves or those people supporting them so as to reduce the number of face-to-face assessments. They are all undertaken by qualified healthcare professionals, whose training we keep under review. I want to ensure that we have only those face-to-face assessments that are really necessary.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) on securing the urgent question. I share the welcome for the exemption of those over state retirement age from routine reassessments. Will the Government look again at exempting all those with learning disabilities and progressive conditions, including all those who only secured their benefit—ESA or PIP—through the tribunals process? The Minister is right that some disability organisations will welcome fewer assessments, but the fear or anxiety for disabled people is that the high error rate in existing processes will be transferred. Will the Minister give more detail about how that process will be improved and how individual disabled people and disability organisations can help to shape any new process, and when that will begin?
Sarah Newton
I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that that work is all under way. There have been several independent reviews of PIP and ESA, including one by the Select Committee on Work and Pensions, which made the recommendations that we are working through now, to ensure that the assessments are as accurate as they can be. We are not waiting. The huge benefit of the transformed service is that the DWP will own the whole claimant journey—we are building a whole digital platform—and we will be able to use the medical and other information far more easily to make the right decision the first time. As I said at the beginning, the whole new process will be co-designed with disabled people.
Kevin Foster (Torbay) (Con)
I welcome the announcements to bring in a better service for those seeking to make claims, in particular on the combination of assessments. An issue that is regularly picked up is a more independent record of some of the assessments. What further consideration have the Government given to things such as video recording of assessments, which might not only give confidence to the person taking part, but allow for quality-control reviews and an easier process in tribunal?
Sarah Newton
I thank my hon. Friend for raising video recording, because our hope is that that will bring a lot of transparency, trust and confidence to the assessments. We are reviewing the findings of a successful pilot. We remain committed to rolling out video recording.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
The Minister should know that there really are serious problems with PIP and work capability assessments. I have lost count of the number of constituents who have come to see me in a desperate state because of the lack of understanding and awareness, in particular for those with fluctuating physical and mental health problems. The fact that 83% of people with multiple sclerosis who appeal their PIP case are successful shows how flawed the system is. On that specific point, how will the assessment process and the training and skills of those delivering it change to address such serious problems?
Sarah Newton
Inevitably, we want to ensure that we make the process better. Each time I come to the Chamber, I describe the steps that we are taking. Specifically on the case of people with multiple sclerosis, or cases brought to me by people who feel that their conditions are not properly understood by healthcare professionals, I ensure that the healthcare professionals meet those people, that they look at the guidance together, and update it and the training used by the frontline people doing the assessments. We get positive feedback from that.
Every year, we look at independent research into the experience of people at the face-to-face assessments. It is really important to me that they feel that they are being listened to, and 89% of people said that the assessor had treated them with respect and dignity. In the high 80s, people are saying that they had time and felt listened to, and that they were able to—[Interruption.] That is still not 100%, which we are working towards, but it is important, because we do not want people outside listening to this debate feeling petrified about going to have an assessment. We know that the vast majority of people have a positive experience when they go along, but we are working continuously to ensure that we improve the process for everyone.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
This is welcome news for many pensioners, who do not now have to undergo repeat appointments, but it does not address the fundamental flaw in the system to which the Minister herself has alluded: 72% of PIP and ESA appeals still find in favour of the claimant. Atos, Maximus and Capita are not doing the job properly. Rather than seeking to improve that, will she not consider bringing the assessment in-house so that it can be done properly?
Sarah Newton
I point out gently to the hon. Lady that 8% of people who apply for ESA go to appeal, and 4% are overturned. I do not want that to be 2%, 1% or 0.1%; I want us to get the decision right the first time, but we must use the information accurately. It is important that we are evidence-based policy makers. When it comes to who will carry out the assessments from 2021, the healthcare professionals doing so have always been clear that by creating this transformed service and our own digital platform, many more people will be able to come forward to say that they can undertake the services, and I would be particularly happy if NHS trusts said that they would do so.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
I welcome the fact that Ministers are seeking to improve the accuracy of PIP and ESA assessments and to reduce the number of appeals, but it still takes 48 weeks for an appeal to be heard in my constituency. May I ask the Minister to look urgently at how people are treated while they are awaiting an appeal? My constituent had a serious heart condition, and his doctor said he was not fit to go back to work. The DWP said that that was its decision, not the doctor’s decision. My constituent died on his first full day back at work, which he was forced into. He was awaiting his appeal. It is too late for him, but his wife has asked me to take it up with Ministers to seek a better solution for people who are awaiting appeals, many of whom are rightly and justly appealing.
Sarah Newton
I pass on my sincere condolences to the hon. Lady’s constituent. Of course I will sit down with her to review the case in great detail, because it is a very, very sad to hear what happened to her constituent. Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has employed hundreds more people so that cases can be heard sooner. I am particularly pleased that we have introduced an online resolution service so that, once people’s information is uploaded on to the system, DWP decision makers can look at that information. If we can make a decision earlier that could prevent people from having to go to a tribunal, we will do so. I am very hopeful that we will start to see waiting times reduce significantly.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
My constituents in Glasgow North East have seen £2 million taken out of their pockets as a result of the transition from disability living allowance to personal independence payment, but that is not the full story. People are often claiming these disability-related benefits as part of a wider series of social security payments, which have been subject to a freeze since 2016. Child benefit, for example, has been subject to a 23% real-terms decline since 2010, so obviously those in receipt will be disproportionately harmed. What will the Minister be doing? Will she write to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about ending the benefits freeze and ensuring that benefits are at least tied to inflation so that people can maintain a level of dignity in our social security system?
Sarah Newton
It is not true at all that benefits for disabled people have been frozen. This House recently uprated those benefits by 2.4%, and this year we will spend £4 billion more than we spent 10 years ago. All the benefits supporting people with disabilities will continue to grow to 2020. They will be growing throughout this Parliament.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
At a recent surgery I held for carers, a woman came along with a case relating to her daughter who has disabilities, and we managed to get a back payment of £22,000 in disability payments. If I had not held that surgery for carers, and if the excellent local carers organisation had not put that lady in touch, her daughter would still be waiting for those payments. We cannot have a situation in which people rely on such fortuitous circumstances to get justice. What can the Minister do about that?
Sarah Newton
The hon. Lady makes an important point. We know that too many people have been missing out on billions of pounds’-worth of benefits. That is why I hope she will welcome the fact that universal credit and the personal relationship that people have with their work coaches will enable them to understand the full range of benefits available to them. Citizens Advice, working in partnership with jobcentres, will be able to signpost more people to get more support, and I hope Opposition Members will spend some time in their jobcentres to understand the range of services and signposting that is now available from work coaches.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
These are very small changes in the right direction, but they recognise that the system does not work. To enable us to better understand the impact of Government policy on ill and disabled people, will the Minister commit to publishing constituency data on the number of UC50 forms that are issued to claimants and the number that are returned? Without proper detailed information, we will not be able to understand the impact on our constituents.
Sarah Newton
I will take that suggestion away and see whether we can collect that data and whether it is possible to provide it on a constituency basis. I challenge people who say that the whole system has failed because, from the information we have, we can see that millions of people are benefiting from these benefits and that more money is being spent every year. It is important that people have the confidence to come forward and access the benefits to which they are entitled. We remain committed to reforming the work capability assessment, which was brought in by the Labour Government in 2008, and we have taken a lot of time to consult a lot of people. Although everyone can agree that it needs to change, there is no consensus on how it can change. We are continuing that work, because I am determined to see these improvements made.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I think we can all agree that social security staff are under a lot of pressure in dealing with the claimants we have heard about today. Does the Minister agree that those who administer social security should be supported in employment with adequate pay from this Government? Civil servants are receiving 0.25% to 1%—those who took the bribe—but such an increase, in real terms, is a cut.
Sarah Newton
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, because it gives me a wonderful opportunity to pay tribute to the fantastic, hard-working, dedicated and compassionate DWP staff, both in our operating centres and in our jobcentres. I understand from our lead officials in the Department that they have a very good working relationship with the trade unions and that they are listening very carefully. We are working very hard to make sure that people are fairly rewarded.
Leaving the EU: Protection for Workers
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Greg Clark)
I would like to make a statement about workers’ rights when we leave the European Union. Before I do, as this is my first time at the Dispatch Box since his death on Friday, I put on record my deep appreciation for the life and work of Lord Bhattacharyya, a heroic figure in British manufacturing. His work attracted investment to which hundreds of thousands of working men and women owe their livelihoods. A Labour Member of the House of Lords, Kumar worked easily with Ministers and, indeed, Prime Ministers from all parties for the benefit of the people of the west midlands and the whole nation.
The United Kingdom and this Parliament have a proud record of improving the rights of working men and women: from Shaftesbury’s Factories Acts to William Hague’s Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and from the minimum wage, introduced by a Labour Government, to the national living wage brought in by a Conservative Government. Although the EU sets minimum requirements in many areas of workers’ rights and health and safety, Britain has time and again been in advance of those requirements and has chosen to exceed them.
The EU agency for the improvement of working conditions ranks the UK as the second strongest of all 28 member states, behind only Sweden, for wellbeing in the workplace. The UK offers 39 weeks of statutory maternity pay, compared with the 14 weeks required by the EU. We have given fathers and partners a statutory right to paternity leave, which the EU is only just beginning to consider.
Our national living wage is one of the highest in the EU, and the Low Pay Commission that advises on it is widely respected. Because we have not, in practice, been limited to EU standards, there is no reason why we should not maintain this record of leadership outside the EU. The Prime Minister has given a commitment that Brexit will not be allowed to erode workers’ rights.
Nevertheless, some hon. Members have advanced the view in previous debates that a parliamentary mechanism should be established to monitor and implement that commitment. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) introduced a private Member’s Bill to that effect, and the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and the hon. Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), among others, proposed an amendment to a previous motion in a similar vein.
We have been discussing closely with Members on both sides of the House, trade unions and businesses how we can turn this intention into law. The Government are today publishing draft clauses for inclusion in the withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill to put these commitments into law. The clauses have two main features. First, a new statutory duty will be placed on Ministers introducing a Bill that affects employment or workplace health and safety that they should certify, before Second Reading of any such Bill, that it is compatible with the Prime Minister’s principle of non-regression. They will be required to provide explanatory information to Parliament in support of that statement, which will be drawn up following consultation with businesses and trade unions. That will ensure that, while respecting and upholding the sovereignty of this Parliament, Members of this House in future will be able clearly to consider the compatibility of every proposed measure with the non-regression principle, to which the Prime Minister has made a commitment.
The second aspect of the draft clauses concerns future EU legislation. Parliament will be given the opportunity, at least every six months, to consider any changes to EU workers’ rights, and health and safety standards in the workplace. This will be reported to Parliament through a document that has, again, been subject to consultation with employers and trade unions, and which will be scrutinised by the relevant Select Committees of this House, subject to their agreement. The Government will be required to table an amendable motion on their intended course of action on those new EU rules. For example, the Government may set out that they intend to legislate to give effect to those commitments or that they intend to give effect to them in a different way, or that they do not intend to give effect to them, setting out their rationale. There are a number of legislative proposals currently under consideration in the EU that have a deadline for transposition into national law which will be after the implementation period. We would expect them to be put forward for Parliament’s consideration under this new process. These draft clauses, published in a Command Paper today, combine well our determination to honour the commitment the Prime Minister has made not to see workers’ rights weakened and respecting the sovereignty of this Parliament.
A similar framework will apply to environmental protections as the UK leaves the EU, implemented through the environment Bill. On 19 December, we published the draft Environment (Principles and Governance) Bill, the first part of a much larger environment Bill to follow in the next Session. The draft Bill outlines our proposals to establish a world-leading body to hold the Government to account for environmental outcomes after the UK leaves the EU. The draft Bill also requires the Government to publish a statutory policy statement on the interpretation and application of nine environmental principles, including the four contained in EU treaties. The Government will also legislate to ensure that where future Bills could affect environmental protections, a Minister of the Crown will make a statement of compatibility to Parliament and provide explanatory information. We will also create a new statutory duty on the Government to monitor any strengthening of environmental protections and regulations by the EU, and to report regularly to Parliament about the Government’s intended course of action in those areas. That will give Parliament the information it needs to consider whether or not domestic protections need to be strengthened accordingly. Through these commitments, the Government will provide a robust framework for maintaining and strengthening environmental standards as the UK leaves the EU.
In addition to the measures I have described, I am announcing today steps that will strengthen the enforcement of employment rights. The vast majority of businesses operate fairly and treat their employees well, but I have been concerned, as I know many Members have been, about the practices in a small number of firms, in a small number of industries, where abuses of the conditions at work are used to the detriment not just of workers, but of reputable competitors, who suffer a disadvantage by comparison in those industries. I therefore intend to consult broadly on establishing a new body to bring together the relevant enforcement functions of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, and the Employment Agency Standards Inspectorate. As part of the forthcoming spending review, we will consider what level of funding is appropriate to ensure that it is adequately resourced to deliver a strengthened remit.
The measures that I have announced today reflect a process of engagement across this House, and with employers and trade unions. Not everyone will agree with every proposal, but if, as I hope, an agreement can be reached on the withdrawal process during the days ahead, it serves as a helpful guide as to how we might find and act on common ground across the House in the next phase of negotiations. I commend this statement to the House.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
Let me, too, put on record my sadness at the death of Lord Bhattacharyya and my deep appreciation for his devotion to British industry and politics.
I must start by thanking the Secretary of State for his engagement with me over recent weeks, and indeed with trade unions and my parliamentary colleagues whom he mentioned: my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn), my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint); and my hon. Friends the Members for Bassetlaw (John Mann) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell). They have championed unrelentingly the protection of British workers as we leave the EU and continue to help us move the position across the House to one that we are all content with.
However, as the Secretary of State knows from our discussions in recent days, sadly the proposals, as drafted, do not yet provide a full guarantee or assurance for UK workers. I hope that this spirit of collegiality will continue and that we will work together quickly to address my concerns and provide the changes and assurances that I seek. As he knows, the TUC has stated today:
“In the face of a government determined to reduce rights, these measures would in no meaningful way compensate for the loss of the protections that currently exist”.
The assessment of less favourability will be decided by parliamentary majority and not by the objective standards of the UK courts. The provisions can easily be revoked by a hostile Government, and even without being revoked, they can be rendered fairly meaningless in practice. Indeed, as drafted, the content of the proposed statement of compatibility and irregular parliamentary assessment of less favourability are not capable of legal challenge by any UK worker. Of course, the process outlined in the draft clauses could be subject to a judicial review, but simply issuing a statement and laying a motion are hardly rocket science. What will not be possible, however, is a challenge to the contents of a statement of compatibility or an approved parliamentary motion to accept a Government assessment.
I think the Secretary of State implied in his statement that we should not automatically accept favourable rights solely because the UK Parliament has already set higher standards of employment rights. On that point, let me be clear: no one—certainly none of the colleagues I have spoken to—is seeking anything other than that UK workers should be entitled to no less favourable rights at work than their EU comparators, not that we should accept unfavourable ones. That point is simple to draft and it could be made perfectly clear, and I am happy to work with the Secretary of State on that point.
Of course, Parliament is always welcome to give more, but history is littered with examples of the UK bitterly resisting EU directives on workplace rights. A Conservative Government sued the EU Commission over the working time directive, claiming that there was no legislative base for the directive since working time had nothing to do with health and safety at work. Luckily for workers in the UK and the rest of the EU, that Government lost.
On the promise not to water down existing rights and protections, even if a Bill is found to be incompatible, there are at present no powers to stop the Government proceeding. In addition, the promise does not apply to secondary legislation, potentially allowing existing EU-derived rights to be watered down with ease. The bulk of UK legislation to implement EU law is actually done by way of secondary legislation—for example, working time regulations, TUPE, and health and safety regulations, to name but a few.
On the process relating to adopting future improvements in EU legislation, the proposals are equally in need of addressing. The only means of challenge is in Parliament, with a vote on an amendable motion, subject to the Government’s majority. Parliamentary procedure may not permit sufficient amendments to deal with all the additional changes to workers’ rights identified by MPs. In any event, resolutions of the House have recently proven to be an ineffective restraint on the Government. The Secretary of State seeks to provide comfort by stating that the Government will consult workers, Select Committees and employers’ representatives, and that sentiment is of course welcome, but, as he knows, there is no direct obligation on the Government to accept any recommendations.
On enforcement, I do welcome the commitments the Secretary of State has made to address funding deficiencies. I await further details in due course. On 1 April 2004, there were 1,483 Health and Safety Executive frontline inspectors; but by 2015 that had fallen to 972. In consequence, the statistically average workplace can now expect an inspection no more frequently than every 50 years.
I have conveyed to the Secretary of State in recent weeks the fact that for a guarantee of non-regression to be truly meaningful, it must be enforceable in the UK courts at the suit of any worker in the UK. Any dispute about whether or not the worker has less favourable rights than her EU comparator must be determined by the courts and not solely by Parliament, still less by a politically motivated Government majority in the House of Commons. Today’s proposals come nowhere near that and do not yet demonstrate that this Government take workplace rights seriously. I do hope, however, that, in this spirit of co-operation, we will work together to move towards more robust guarantees as a matter of urgency.
Greg Clark
I warmly welcome the tone in which the hon. Lady has approached this issue. We have different preferences on what would be ideal, and I know that both the TUC and her own Front-Bench colleagues would prefer EU directives automatically to take their place in UK law and to be enforced through the European Court of Justice, as they are now. She knows that we disagree with her on that—in our view, it would not be consistent with leaving the European Union or with the sovereignty of this Parliament—but I accept that that is her position and that she has said that, notwithstanding that, we should explore whether we can meet her perfectly reasonable observations. I am grateful for that.
What we are publishing this afternoon are draft clauses that have not yet gone into the Bill. I am open to working with all Members of the House—of course, continuing to include the hon. Lady—to see which of the observations can be accommodated, subject to the general approach we wish to take. I think that she recognises, and I hope other Members will recognise, that this is an important opportunity. If we are to pass a withdrawal agreement and implementation Bill, the chance to have on the statute book from the outset—literally within the next few weeks, I hope—some important protections for workers is one that I think we should all take.
The hon. Lady asked some specific questions, of which I shall attempt to answer as many as I can. She observed, in effect, that future Governments and Parliaments may take a different view from that which we intend. As we know, it is a fact that no Parliament can bind its successor, but it can express a clear intention, set up a test and provide mechanisms against which proper scrutiny of any proposal can be mounted, and that is what we are doing. I acknowledge her right hon. and hon. Friends’ contribution to and, in fact, origination of this idea.
The hon. Lady is concerned that the statements that are provided for could be ignored and may not be as effective as she intends. The case law clearly establishes that if a statutory consultation is provided for, it cannot be lightly swept aside. There is a requirement properly to engage with the recommendations that come from such a consultation, but I hear what she said about that process being open to workers as well as to people who might represent them. We can talk more about that.
The hon. Lady asked about the application to future changes to workers’ rights that may come outside primary legislation. Clearly, the big changes come through primary legislation, but in the spirit of what I said earlier, I am certainly open to exploring what assurances we can give on other significant pieces of legislation that might be in scope.
The hon. Lady mentioned the jurisprudence of the ECJ. It would clearly be inappropriate after Brexit for the ECJ to have a remit in the UK, but of course, as she knows as a lawyer herself, any court can have regard to the decisions of any court that it considers to be relevant in the case being considered.
The hon. Lady mentioned enforcement, on which we strongly agree. There are industries—sometimes concentrated in particular places in the country—in which what she described is correct: a calculation is made that employers who abuse the rights of their workers are unlikely to be detected and enforced against, which leads them to think that they can get away with it with impunity. The intention behind the strengthened enforcement body that I described, and our intention in terms of resourcing it, is to firmly remove that idea from the mind of any such employer. I will work closely with the hon. Lady on that.
It is appropriate to recognise in the House and draw some pride from our record of employment rights. We have a successful labour market that combines a reputation for high standards—standards that have been recognised throughout the EU as being among the best in Europe—while having what is the most important right for workers, which is the right to work. Many more people in this country are able to work as a result of the effectiveness of our labour markets. We need to preserve that while giving expression to the objectives articulated by the hon. Lady’s colleagues, to make sure that the commitment we have given to build on that strength in future is something that is not just a matter of words but has parliamentary force behind it. I am grateful for what the hon. Lady said about working together.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am assured that the Government and this Secretary of State want high standards of employment rules in this country, and I look forward to our having independence so that we can have our own domestically crafted high standards, which will be above the minimum EU standards, but will the Secretary of State please explain why he has proceeded with this statement? I thought its sole aim was to win over the Labour party, but it seems Labour is in complete disagreement with it.
Greg Clark
I was very much influenced by the exchange between my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) when the latter spoke to his amendment in January. As I recall, my right hon. Friend correctly intervened on the hon. Gentleman to reinforce his personal commitment to establishing and maintaining Britain as a place of voluntarily high standards. Because that represents a point of agreement in the House and is a reflection of our traditions—our reputation is as place of high standards, thanks to the accretion of steps taken by Governments of both parties—I think this is an opportunity to work together to see whether we can establish something that is rooted in the sovereignty of this House, which my right hon. Friend quite rightly insists on, but also provides assurance to those who want to see measures as well as words.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State started by talking about his party’s record on workers’ rights. He will forgive me for questioning whether the political party that put into legislation the Masters and Servants Act 1823, which codified corporal punishment for workers, has a good record on workers’ rights. Indeed, to bring us up to date, his party also introduced the anti-trade union Act.
Rather than guaranteeing or protecting workers’ rights, the statement does no such thing; in fact, it would be a misrepresentation to suggest otherwise. The Secretary of State will be aware that the EU is currently discussing regulations on the gig economy and rights for working parents that are far better than what can be found in the Government’s good work plan. If those EU regulations come to pass, how will the Government deal with them in this Chamber? Given that we keep being told that the next election is in 2022, is the Secretary of State committing the Government to at least matching EU regulations until then?
Given that the statutory instrument process is being used to weaken workers’ rights, as we saw recently with the denial of access to European works councils, what makes the Secretary of State believe that we should trust the Government on this? Will he, as a gesture of good will, table an amendable motion on the Government’s good work plan that will allow Members to strengthen regulations, particularly around zero-hours contracts and their elimination and sorting out workers’ status?
Greg Clark
On the good work plan, we will be introducing an employment Bill and it will of course be amendable, in the manner of legislation. We are provided, though, with a more immediate opportunity: that Bill is for the next Session, whereas I very much hope that the withdrawal Bill will be available during the weeks ahead and provide that immediate opportunity to express our determination to apply the commitment that the Prime Minister made on this issue.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the measures on the gig economy that are being contemplated by the European Union. Actually, that is a fine example of what I said earlier: those measures follow the commitments that we have made in the good work plan, and they are now making their way through Brussels. We were in advance of that. As I made clear in my statement, both those EU directives would go through the procedure that I described and would be available to the House, if Members thought there was anything extra in them. Actually, though, we think the directives are in many respects modelled on our own proposals.
On the ability of this House to enforce high standards, I say that that been the tradition. My experience as a Minister at European Councils over recent years is that our record of high standards when it comes to workers’ rights, employment protection and health and safety is looked at with admiration by many of our counterparts across the European Union. This allows us to continue that leadership.
Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)
I welcome this statement and the proposed clauses therein. As my right hon. Friend has been touching on this matter, does he agree that it is often the UK rather than the EU that has led the way not just on workers’ rights, but on environmental standards, and that we should be proud of that? Will he confirm that today’s announcements will ensure that we continue with these high standards in both areas and that we give due regard to any strengthening of environmental protections and regulations by the EU once we leave?
Greg Clark
My hon. Friend is quite right. Again, the provisions adopted by the Climate Change Act 2008 were not required by the European Union. They were a set of decisions that were taken by this House, and that has been our record. The proposals that I have set out allow us to continue to do that, while making sure that the House is not only properly informed but required to make an explicit determination that, if there are new policies that are adopted and directives that are proposed, they are debated and considered in this House. That seems to me to be a good mechanism to ensure that we are always aware of what is being done in the European Union after we have left it.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you and I remember doing an all-nighter in this House when the Labour Government took through the national minimum wage. In fact, we were here all night long, until 9 o’clock in the morning, because both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats filibustered and voted against the national minimum wage. I am glad those days are behind us—at least the all-nighters. I do not need lectures from anyone about being wary of the Conservatives, but may I welcome the statement today by the Secretary of State and the response by the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), as we try to forge assurances enshrined in law to protect workers’ rights as we leave the EU? May I press the Secretary of State to say something more about how we will ensure that any changes on workers’ rights and health and safety are consulted on and that they are not cherry-picked by a future Government? May I also support the concerns of my hon. Friend about the right to judicial involvement for workers who want to make sure that those rights are upheld?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for having initiated this conversation through her amendment to the previous motion, and I think a fruitful discussion has come from that. On the ability to cherry-pick those measures that are adopted by the European Union that might find favour with the Government but not those that do not, the requirement would be to report everything that the European Union has adopted during a six-month period and for the Government to have to make a statement in respect to all of those measures. The motion that would then be required to be put before the House would be amendable. The Government might say that they intended to implement one measure, to apply in a different way another, but to reject a third. That motion would be amendable, so the House could alter the Government’s intention and express its view directly. As for the direct access for workers to these procedures, I made a commitment to the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) that we would work together to see what can be done on that, and I am sure that the right hon. Lady will want to be part of those conversations.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I actually whipped the minimum wage Bill through Committee on that occasion, so I well remember Conservative hostility to it.
What the Secretary of State is really promising today is future consultation and future opportunities for votes. Looking behind him, I do not see a great deal of commitment from those Benches to such measures. Why can he not go further? Why can he not agree to put a commitment into the withdrawal agreement and the treaty that the UK will never fall behind EU minimum standards on workers’ rights either now or in future? I know that he has mentioned parliamentary sovereignty and not binding future Parliaments but, historically, Governments have negotiated treaties and Parliaments have approved them and those treaties are binding on future Parliaments until they choose to withdraw from them. Why can we not have that sort of arrangement?
Greg Clark
We are talking about legislation here, not the treaty, and the withdrawal agreement has already been established. In the future economic partnership, there is a negotiation to be conducted—it is specified there—on our level of alignment when it comes to workers’ rights, but this is in advance of that. This provides an opportunity at the point of withdrawal to give Parliament the ability to make sure that it takes an informed view of whether it wants to continue to be aligned. That is a valuable opportunity. The hon. Gentleman says that we should do it now with the treaty. That is part of the next phase of the negotiations. It is taking all the Government’s efforts to conclude the withdrawal agreement, without being able to conclude the future partnership in the next few weeks. But this is an important opportunity to establish, in primary legislation, a requirement properly to consider all new regulations that would come from the European Union and to assess the compatibility of legislation that we make in this House with that of the rest of the European Union. That, it seems to me, is a valuable opportunity.
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)
Let me start by echoing the warm words of the Secretary of State about Kumar Bhattacharyya. The Jaguar plant in my constituency is open, employing more than 2,000 workers, in no small way due to his herculean efforts over many years to turn around Jaguar Land Rover.
In my previous being, on behalf of the Transport and General Workers’ Union, I took the case of the Eastbourne dustmen all the way to the European Court of Justice because a Conservative Government refused to apply the acquired rights directive to 6 million public servants. We won and TUPE was extended to those 6 million public servants. In future, however, there will not be the same enforcement mechanism. The trade union movement has spoken with one voice today. Frances O’Grady said that this will not protect rights and that there is nothing to stop future Governments from tearing up the legislation. She added that no one should be “taken in” and that our rights are “still under threat.” Does the Secretary of State understand that residual concern and that, crucially, unless the Government go significantly further with regard to legally enforceable rights, not just depending on the whims of future Governments, she is right: these guarantees are worthless?
Greg Clark
These rights will be enforceable by the UK courts. I meet Frances O’Grady very regularly. As I said to the shadow Secretary of State, I recognise that the TUC has a different preference, which is to continue to embed European rights directly and to have them enforced by the Court of Justice of the European Union. That is a different approach. In my view, it is not compatible with Brexit. Therefore, we are looking for a way in which this House, this Parliament and the UK courts can provide the guarantees that I think everyone in this House wants to give.
Gloria De Piero (Ashfield) (Lab)
Trust is a big issue here. In July 2016, the Prime Minister told the nation:
“I want to see changes in the way that big business is governed…we’re going to have not just consumers represented on company boards, but workers as well.”
Can the Secretary of State confirm that that promise to workers was broken?
Greg Clark
No, what the Prime Minister set out in that speech was to have the voice of workers represented in the boardroom. The action that we have taken in requiring businesses to establish a worker representative, or to have a non-executive director with the function of representing workers, or to have a works council with an influence on the board, was something that I was proud to set out in furtherance of the Prime Minister’s assurance.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I am sure that the Secretary of State can see that there is a little bit of a credibility gap to close. He said in his statement that the Prime Minister has given a commitment that Brexit will not be allowed to erode workers’ rights, so can he explain why both he and the Prime Minister last week voted in favour of statutory instruments that do exactly that?
Greg Clark
I am very proud of the record of this country and this Government in advancing rights in the workplace. The “Good Work” report by Matthew Taylor established, way before many other countries, a means of ensuring changes to UK law around the platform economy and the gig economy to ensure that people are not disadvantaged by these new platforms. The Prime Minister and I have both given that commitment. In deference to some of the scepticism that the words of the Prime Minister should be sufficient, this parliamentary mechanism to enshrine a degree of scrutiny and give this House the ability to insist that that non-regression is abided by is the basis of the amendment that was proposed, and that we are accepting and acting on today.
Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
They say that the Secretary of State is a very nice man. I do not know him. I am sure he is. But I do not trust the gang that he is part of.
I was a Member of the European Parliament from 1979 to 1984. Before that, I took a petition to the European Parliament in ’77, arguing for equal rights for men and women. I then became a member of the employment committee in the European Parliament, and I am glad to say that some of the things in that petition became law because of the European Parliament, not because of this place. You will know very well, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I was a shadow Employment Minister when the Opposition were working on the minimum wage. I know how hard we had to fight every inch of the way, because we were told that that was not possible, that it would cost jobs, that industry would not be able to afford it, and so on.
When there were big job losses in steel and coal, I was an MEP for one of the affected areas, and I took a group of steelworkers to Brussels to meet the Commission. The big criticism of the Government at that time was that the situation here was unlike that in Germany, where steelworkers were also losing their jobs, but every man in the steel industry in the Ruhr had another job to go to. In this country, there was no safety net. The criticism then was that there was a lack of social policy in this country. Why should I have faith that things have changed when I hear that the number of factory inspectors has diminished? If we do not have factory inspectors, we do not have people looking at the limitations in the industries. I would like to believe the Secretary of State, but I am sorry; I do not.
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for the compliment that she paid me. I would reflect on the facts. She mentioned that introducing the minimum wage was a fight. This House is used to having fights and campaigns. The purpose of this Chamber is to have crusades that are successful. She will know that, far from that innovation having been rescinded, it was a Conservative Government who introduced the national living wage, which was the biggest pay increase for low-paid workers in 20 years. She should take confidence in that.
The right hon. Lady refers to drawing these protections from the European Union. Once we leave the European Union, the basis for a framework of workers’ rights will obviously not be there, and the alternative is that there would simply be no reference to what is happening in the European Union; that would be the default. We are responding to some helpful suggestions from the right hon. Lady’s colleagues that this House should keep a close eye on what is happening in the rest of Europe and that there should be an ability for the House to act on that. That is a good idea. I cannot say that it was my idea originally—it was brought to my attention—but when we recognise a good idea, I think we should back it.
John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I recall, as an MP, taking a delegation of miners’ leaders to Brussels to argue for jobs and investment, but we were blocked by the state aid rules that the European Commission enforced on us under a Labour Government. That is why Harworth colliery in my constituency closed.
I welcome the Secretary of State’s openness in his statement—both to amendments from Labour Front Benchers over the next few days, if there are precise amendments and, if they are not agreed, to the ability to table amendments to the withdrawal Bill that can be voted on by Parliament.
I negotiated the derogation, under the Labour Government, for one section of workers from the Work at Height Regulations 2005 because of the way in which the Commission framed the legislation. When it comes to health and safety, will there be automatic harmonisation—in other words, we accept everything that comes, regardless of its suitability to specific industries and groups of workers? When it comes to health and safety and sometimes environmental standards, that has been a fundamental issue, and it would be one if we had direct harmonisation.
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his work in crafting this proposal, and I repeat the commitment to continue to work together as the draft clauses become clauses that are laid before the House. The procedures of this House allow substantial debate of those clauses in Committee and on Report. I agree with his assessment. It is not the case that every regulation proposed by the European Union is ideal and well suited to our circumstances. From my experience in European Councils, there is a process that tries to apply a set of rules in many different countries and economies that may not actually be the best for the UK economy. The procedure that the hon. Gentleman has given us the ability to discuss today provides this House with a means by which to consider what the best form of regulation is, suited to our circumstances and respecting the sovereignty of this House and this Parliament.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
This is obviously an extremely important statement, but there is quite a lot of other business to get through this afternoon, so shorter questions and shorter answers might be in order.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
The Secretary of State speaks well and everybody wishes to listen to him. However, not all his colleagues are of the same mind. Before Christmas, the Attorney General stood at the Dispatch Box and boasted that the non-regression clauses in the deal are
“not enforceable either by the EU institutions or by the arbitration arrangements under the withdrawal agreement.”—[Official Report, 3 December 2018; Vol. 650, c. 559.]
So why on earth should we trust these clauses?
Greg Clark
The Attorney General was making a statement of fact that the provisions in that agreement are not covered by that arbitration mechanism. That is a statement that accurately reflects the reality, which is one of the reasons why availing ourselves of the opportunity to have a parliamentary mechanism to act on and see implemented that non-regression commitment—putting it in the hands of this House—is especially valuable.
Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
The Secretary of State will accept that there is a lot of scepticism among Opposition Members about the Government’s integrity on this issue, and the fact that the trade unions were invited in so late in the Brexit process only fuels that. As he says, we have never solely relied on the EU for workers’ rights and legislation in this country, and when we leave the EU we will need a framework within which to work, so his statement is welcome. Other issues such as electronic balloting are important to the unions. Have they featured in his recent meetings with the unions? How would that demand, and others, fit into his attitude to discussions and communications with the unions in the context of his statement?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he says. Of course, I meet the unions—both the TUC and individual unions—very regularly. My responsibilities there go beyond the matters we are discussing today, which are expressly about the European Union. The issue of balloting is outside of discussions on the European Union. It is important to have a good relationship with trade unions. When good ideas are put forward, whether they come from his side of the House or from the trade union movement should not prejudice their ability to be considered fairly and taken forward.
Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)
The Business Secretary knows, as I do, that he has Conservative colleagues who would like to see workers’ rights diluted or swept away in the name of deregulation, and—who knows?—one of them could be Prime Minister before long. Will he therefore confirm that the mechanisms he has outlined could be repealed by a future Government passing primary legislation? Is it not true that exchanging enduring EU protections on the environment and workers’ rights for these flimsy mechanisms is like trading in a car that has a lifetime guarantee for a lemon without a log book just because the floor mats are thrown in?
Greg Clark
I disagree with the hon. Lady. I would say that there are far more of my colleagues who recognise the benefits for the UK of being a country and a jurisdiction that is associated with high standards rather than a race to the bottom, and that that is the way we will prosper as a country. I think she should have a little more faith in that.
The hon. Lady talks about the framework that the European Union offers. We are leaving the European Union—I recognise that she would rather we were not—so the choice before us is whether, in leaving, we have no reference to anything that is done, now or in future, in the European Union, or we create a mechanism that allows this House to see what is going on and to be able to act on it, bolstered by the statutory requirements on any Minister, now or in future, to pay due regard to the statements that are made in terms of compatibility.
On the hon. Lady’s point about a future Government being able to repeal the whole lot, she knows enough about the British constitution to know that that is available for every law, in every circumstance, by every House of Commons following every election.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby) (Lab)
I cautiously welcome the statement by the Secretary of State. I think that we owe it to him to recognise the sincerity with which he has approached the discussions with our Front Benchers, with other Labour Members and with trade unions to try to seek some form of compromise—because that is what this is. It does not meet the gold standard of my private Member’s Bill—I recognise that—but there is much to be welcomed, including the facility of an amendable and votable motion. However, there remains a fundamental issue of trust that he cannot have failed to notice, and I suggest that he may need to do further work to try to reassure more people, specifically, perhaps—this is one of the issues that the TUC has raised—on the fact that statements from the Government might be made only in relation to primary legislation, whereas many employment changes come through secondary legislation. What assurance can he offer to the TUC?
Greg Clark
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for what she says. As I said to the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), most of these rights derive from primary legislation. We will see whether there is an ability to provide the assurance that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Melanie Onn) seeks.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for the contribution made by her private Member’s Bill. She has done the painstaking work of producing a great schedule of directives to which her Bill would apply. I propose—I hope she will not mind—that we plagiarise that and introduce it as the basis for our list of directives so that we can, if not replicate it in all respects, at least capture the spirit of her Bill.
Hugh Gaffney (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for saying that he recognises the abuse by “a small number of firms, in a small number of industries”, but I do not agree with the use of “small”. I think that should be “huge”, “large”, or “common practice”. Will he give a level playing field to the workers in these industries by stopping zero-hours contracts?
Greg Clark
I will not do that, because one of the conclusions of the Matthew Taylor report was that most people, of the small—and, indeed, shrinking—number of people on zero-hours contracts welcome that flexibility. The hon. Gentleman will know that many Labour councils up and down the country have casual workers on those contracts and say, in terms, that they are an important part of what their workers want.
However, I do agree with the hon. Gentleman on enforcement. A number of firms are doing such things, but they are not typical, by any means. Some of us will have read about some of the abuses in the garment industry in and around Leicester, for example. These simply cannot be allowed to continue without the steps being taken to restore confidence to those workers that their rights will be respected. That is the intention behind what I have set out in terms of strengthening and better resourcing our enforcement mechanisms.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
Fresh in the minds of those of us who feel scepticism about the commitments made by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister will be the fact that his party, in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, introduced employment tribunal fees, which were ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court, largely because of their hugely disproportionate impact on women bringing cases on maternity discrimination. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, contrary to comments made by the permanent secretary at the Ministry of Justice, his Government have absolutely no plans to reintroduce employment tribunal fees?
Greg Clark
The hon. Lady is a little churlish in ignoring some other examples. I would have thought she would welcome, for example, the introduction by a Conservative-led Government of the national living wage, which has made a big difference to many low-paid people across the country. Clearly, the judgment that was made by the Court struck down those fees. We will respect the judgment of the Court in the proposals that we make as we respond to it.
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
I listened to what the Secretary of State had to say, but the fundamental issues remain the same. This Government’s Brexit deal fails to protect jobs, living standards, and workers’ rights. I am sure that he will tell me otherwise, but if he is so confident that this is the right deal for our country, why will he not let the people decide and have the final say on it?
Greg Clark
I can report to the hon. Lady that employers, including in her constituency, are very anxious that we should get on and approve this deal because, as I said, the best right that a worker has is the right to work. The concerns that come from the uncertainty of not agreeing a deal that has been endorsed by employers is giving cause for concern to many workers up and down the country. I hope that in the days ahead, as well as advancing this package, which will provide a means for us to have regard to and take decisions on workers’ rights, and as we see what happens in the rest of the European Union, we will also act to safeguard the jobs of workers in her constituency and mine by approving the deal.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister previously told the House that one step the Government were taking was to abolish the so-called Swedish derogation, but can the Secretary of State confirm that in the regulations laid before the House today, agency workers will be forced to wait until 2020, at the earliest, for equal rights in the workplace?
Greg Clark
Having made the commitment to abolish the Swedish derogation, which previous Labour Governments signally failed to do, we have brought forward, at the earliest opportunity, a statutory instrument to do that. I have had representations from the trade unions as to the timing, and we will reflect on that. However, I think that the hon. Lady, being fair-minded, would acknowledge that we have brought forward the necessary legislation very quickly in response to the policy commitments that we have made.
Ruth George (High Peak) (Lab)
As well as echoing other tributes paid today, I would like to pay tribute to Lord Davies of Coity, who died on Monday. He was a doughty champion of workers and workers’ rights for many decades.
Problems with enforcement of employment rights are not just in particular areas, but are widespread and particularly affect young workers, careworkers and catering sector workers, many of whom work in my constituency and have few other options for employment. I welcome the Secretary of State looking again to expand the enforcement of employment rights. Will he commit to group cases being taken to tribunal and to third-party representations being made to HMRC about the minimum wage?
Greg Clark
First, I echo the hon. Lady’s condolences. She tempts me to go beyond my jurisdiction. My portfolio is pretty broad, covering energy, industry and the industrial strategy, but she refers to matters that are, properly, for the Ministry of Justice. I am happy to talk to the Lord Chancellor and meet the hon. Lady if she would like to talk about such grouping of cases.
Mr Paul Sweeney (Glasgow North East) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the Secretary of State secured the endorsement of any trade unions for his proposed course of action? If not, what does he propose to do to secure it?
Greg Clark
My ambition is not to secure the endorsement of trade unions. We have had fruitful discussions. As I said to the hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), I respect the fact that the trade unions would rather things were done in a different way—namely, that we continue to import, as it were, directives and regulations from the European Union and have them enforced by the European Court of Justice. That is their preferred policy; I understand that. It is certainly not our policy. I do not think it is compatible with leaving the European Union. However, leaving the European Union and the opportunity to put in statute various measures, which will allow the House to consider actions that we take on employment rights, does not mean that we cannot establish agreement across the House and take the advice of the trade union movement, even though it might ultimately prefer a different solution.
Point of Order
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have been contacted by residents in Camellia House in my constituency, who are distraught at being left without a lift for the last two months, which is causing great stress to many residents, and particularly those with young families or disabilities. The situation has now become more serious, with one of the residents, who has had a stroke, now being discharged from hospital. FirstPort has failed to provide any explanation for the delay or any compensation to residents. It has also failed to respond to inquiries from my office since the issue was first raised with the company on 25 January.
Madam Deputy Speaker, what advice can you give me on how to raise that matter in order to get Ministers’ attention, so that pressure can be applied to FirstPort to get the lift fixed and FirstPort can be held to account for its clear disregard for residents and their needs?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order and for giving me notice that she intended to raise it. I am sure we are all sorry to hear of the plight facing her constituents, but I hope she will understand that it is not a matter on which I can rule. However, she has placed her concerns on the record, which I am sure will be appreciated. As I am sure she knows, she could go to the Table Office for advice on the other ways in which she can raise that matter on behalf of her constituents.
Bill Presented
School Uniform (Gender Neutrality) Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Layla Moran, supported by Jo Swinson, Wera Hobhouse, Christine Jardine, Caroline Lucas, Hannah Bardell and Mhairi Black, presented a Bill to require school uniform policies to be gender-neutral; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March, and to be printed (Bill 350).
Charity Trustees (Time Off for Duties)
Wednesday 6th March 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Charity Trustees (Time Off for Duties) Bill 2017-19 View all Charity Trustees (Time Off for Duties) Bill 2017-19 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
Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Employment Rights Act 1996 to give charity trustees the right to time off work for the purposes of carrying out the duties of that office; and for connected purposes.
Charity trustees are the people across the length and breadth of our country who volunteer their time and expertise to provide governance for our nation’s charities, large and small. They deserve our thanks—I do not think anyone would disagree with that—but warm words on their own are not enough, which is why I am introducing this ten-minute rule Bill.
The Charity Trustees (Time Off for Duties) Bill has two clear purposes. The first is to value our existing charity trustees by giving them an improved status in law. The second is to provide the sort of support that might encourage a greater number of people from a wider diversity of backgrounds to take on this important but unpaid civic duty.
I am delighted that the Bill has been commended widely, and I would like to put on record my particular thanks to the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations, the Small Charities Coalition and the Wales Council for Voluntary Action for their support. I would also like to thank the Members from different political parties who are the Bill’s co-sponsors.
As the law stands, an employee can take a reasonable amount of time off work if they are a magistrate, school governor, local councillor or one of eight other categories of duty. Those categories do not include the role of charity trustee. This Bill seeks to change that. Let me be clear: this is the most moderate of Bills. I am not asking for a higher status in law for charity trustees than for those who undertake any of the other public duties already covered by statute. Under the existing legislation, one has the right to “reasonable” time off to carry out certain public duties. There is, of course, no requirement that it be paid time off.
“Reasonableness” decrees that the amount of time off must be agreed with the employer before taking it and that the employer can refuse a request if it is considered to be unreasonable. What is considered to be reasonable will depend on what duties need to be carried out, the time it will take, the impact on the employer’s business and how much time has already been taken. Moreover, staff cannot ask for time off work for public duties if they are agency workers, members of the police or armed forces, employed on a fishing vessel or a gas or oil rig at sea, merchant seamen, or civil servants if their public duties are connected to political activities restricted under the terms of their employment. The existing terms for “reasonable time off for public duties” would be totally unchanged by the Bill. The only change that the Bill seeks is to extend those terms to charity trustees, and that is not before time.
We cannot overestimate the importance of charity trustees in our society. Section 177 of the Charities Act 2011 defines trustees as
“the persons having the general control and management of the administration of a charity.”
Trustees are ultimately responsible for everything a charity does and can be held legally accountable for the decisions they make. Trustees freely give their own time, energy and expertise to help charities achieve their aims, and the contribution they make to civil society and our country is vital. While it is difficult—indeed, probably impossible—to put an exact monetary value on the contribution that trustees make to society, statistics from “Taken on Trust”, the 2017 report published by the Charity Commission, show that the estimated time value of trustee input per year is £3.5 billion.
Research from the National Council for Voluntary Organisations has found that 91% of charities rely solely on the work of volunteers. Many of these charities are community-based, and a significant proportion do amazing work to help tackle poverty and deprivation. Trustees often play both a governance and executive role. Without their trustees, these vitally needed charities simply could not exist. If these charities were not there, either the state would have to undertake the work, or no one would do so, with all the human and economic costs that that would entail.
The Small Charities Coalition asked its members if they would be supportive of this ten-minute rule Bill. The respondents were supportive and believe that the change would not only be beneficial to current trustees, but help small charities to attract new ones. This is something I believe we must aspire to.
The House of Lords Select Committee on Charities report “Stronger charities for a stronger society” expressed its concerns about the lack of diversity among charity trustees, which it saw as limiting the experience and knowledge of charity boards. The Charity Commission’s report “Taken on Trust” made a similar point when it stated that the average trustee is a 62-year-old white British male. Research by the Charities Aid Foundation—“Charity Street II”—found that young people and women are the most likely to use charity services, but there are double the number of male trustees as there are female ones, with charity trustees tending to have an above average income and level of education. A report from the agency Inclusive Boards found that the boards of charities in England and Wales are less diverse than those of FTSE 100 companies.
Today, I want to celebrate both our existing and our prospective trustees. If a 62-year-old white British male trustee is reading this in Hansard or watching BBC Parliament, I want to assure them that this House values their service. However, I would like that service to be enhanced by that of a wider range of people. Without this, I believe that charities will miss out on the huge range of skills, experience and perspectives that a wider pool of trustees could offer.
I also believe that we should take seriously the fact that whole swathes of the population are currently under-represented as charity trustees, and are losing out on the wealth of development opportunities that being a trustee provides. That is simply not good enough. Charities could greatly benefit from having young people on their boards, particularly in the ever more digital world we now live in, while being a charity trustee enables young people to develop key employability skills, interact with people outside their usual social groups and broaden their networks.
Trusteeships offer a rare opportunity for people to gain board level experience early in their careers or even before their career has fully begun. The best companies are already leading the way by supporting their employees as they take on trustee roles. They welcome the part that charity trusteeships can play in offering their staff vital board level experience. I believe it is essential that such experience is offered widely. John Gallanders, chief officer of the Association of Voluntary Organisations in Wrexham, makes the point that this experience should not just be for those who are on middle-management levels or above, commenting
“what is the difference between a parent who is a School Governor getting time off and someone who may be lower down in the staff structure perhaps wanting time for a playgroup meeting?”
I agree totally.
There was a time when the words “big society” were used quite a lot in this place, but I do not want us to get bogged down with the terminology of the day or the semantics of how we on different sides of the House sometimes use different words. Whatever words we use, I have no doubt that a society that values and supports its charity trustees is a bigger and a better one, so I commend this Bill to the House. I hope, too, that this House will support it, and that the Government will act.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Susan Elan Jones, Julie Elliott, Lilian Greenwood, Jo Stevens, Jeremy Lefroy, Tonia Antoniazzi, Mary Glindon, Victoria Prentis, Stephen Timms, Daniel Zeichner, Gareth Thomas and Wera Hobhouse present the Bill.
Susan Elan Jones accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 March, and to be printed (Bill 351).
Comptroller and Auditor General
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Mrs Theresa May)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will appoint Gareth Davies to the Office of Comptroller and Auditor General.
I would like to start by paying tribute to the outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir Amyas Morse, who has led the National Audit Office since 2009. The past decade has been a period of great change in the public finances, during which Sir Amyas has served with distinction, displaying the independence and professionalism that have been the hallmarks of his career. He has now reached the end of his non-renewable term, and I am sure I speak for the whole House when I thank him for his service and wish him the very best for his future endeavours.
Frank Field (Birkenhead) (Ind)
May I as a Back Bencher, but also as a Select Committee Chair who drew on Sir Amyas’s services, record one aspect of him that so struck me, which was his attitude to public service? He had a golden DNA that ran through him, with a knowledge and a certainty about how he should serve this House and, through this House, the public. However friendly one got with him—one might be on Christian name terms—one knew it meant nothing if he did not think something was the right thing to do.
The Prime Minister
As I have said, Sir Amyas’s professionalism and integrity shone through the work that he did and, as a Select Committee Chairman, the right hon. Gentleman knows that and has experienced it at first hand.
In line with the Budget Responsibility and National Audit Act 2011, the appointment of Sir Amyas’s successor, Gareth Davies, has been agreed with the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). With three decades of audit experience, gained in both the public and private sectors, Mr Davies is eminently qualified to be our 17th permanent Comptroller and Auditor General, a position he will hold for a non-renewable term of 10 years.
I am sure that, under Mr Davies’s leadership, the National Audit Office will continue its proud history of rigorous and independent scrutiny of Government, and that the people of the United Kingdom can have every confidence that their taxes will continue to be spent in an effective and proper manner. Mr Davies will be a worthy servant of this House and this country. I am delighted to support his appointment, and I commend this motion to the House.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I rise to offer the Opposition’s backing to the appointment of Mr Gareth Davies as Comptroller and Auditor General. The position was initiated by William Gladstone, a Liverpudlian at birth who lived at Seaforth in what is now my constituency of Bootle and actually went to school in Bootle at one point.
The importance of the position is reflected by the fact that the Prime Minister is in attendance and has formally moved this appointment. Similarly, its significance is demonstrated by the rigorous vetting process undertaken by the Chair and members of the Public Accounts Committee. This reflects the central role parliamentary Select Committees play in modernising Parliament, ensuring that the appointments made by Governments of whatever colour receive proper parliamentary scrutiny.
As the chief executive of the National Audit Office, the work of the Comptroller and Auditor General cannot be overestimated. The NAO provides an indispensable role in independently auditing Government Departments, ensuring financial transparency and good value for money, as was mentioned by the Prime Minister.
I know that I speak for all Members when I say that the NAO’s work is vital in establishing an accurate picture of Government spending and in helping Members to properly hold Ministers to account. That work will be more important than ever as Ministers continue to spend increasing amounts of public money in preparation for no deal, with appropriate oversight from this House. I have no doubt that the new Comptroller and Auditor General will continue the forensic examination of accounts that we have all come to respect and that I hope the Government and their Departments—particularly those that have “Transport” in their name—will recognise, now and in the future. At this pressing time, the NAO’s workload will be made even heavier by the Government’s departmental spending review, which may put more strains upon services.
I echo the Prime Minister’s tribute to the outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General, Sir Amyas Morse. He has served with distinction under difficult circumstances, given that under his tenure the NAO has not found itself protected from cuts to resources and staffing.
Let me turn to the appointment of Mr Davies, who has more than 30 years of mixed experience as a public auditor, including work with local public services, central Government and the charity sector. The Opposition support the recommendation of the cross-party Public Accounts Committee and its satisfaction
“that Mr Davies has suitable audit and professional experience and demonstrates the necessary independence and resilience to make a success of the role.”
It goes without saying that Mr Davies is taking over the position at a difficult time and has an important task ahead. However, the Opposition are confident that he will perform his role with distinction and diligence. On behalf of the Opposition, I wish him well.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
I am delighted to catch your eye in this important but short debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I first served on the Public Accounts Committee between 1997 and 1999, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). Since September 2017, I have served as its deputy Chairman. There is probably only one other Member of this House—my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon), who is sitting beside me—who has served on the PAC during the tenure of both Sir John Bourn, the previous Comptroller and Auditor General, and Sir Amyas Morse, the current holder of that office. Of course, they were both very different. In some ways the job has evolved with changing circumstances, such as the review of the whole of Government accounts, but in other ways it has not; the NAO’s basic auditing function and its value-for-money reports are exactly the same as when I first joined the PAC. Each CAG and each Chairman of the PAC has different ways of working.
Under the excellent chairmanship of my hon. Friend—as I call her for this purpose—the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), the CAG and the NAO are much more available to give briefings to Members and answer their queries than they ever were in the old days. The briefing session before each PAC hearing and the appointment of lead members has made the Committee’s huge workload—with public sessions twice weekly—manageable for its members. It also means that they are able to specialise, so the Committee’s work is much more professional. Together with the excellent work of the NAO, those changes have led to the Government accepting approximately 80% of PAC recommendations.
Departments could and should make better use of the information that the PAC and the NAO provide. The PAC is probably the most important Select Committee in this House and it’s whole raison d’être is to scrutinise the entirety of Government expenditure. That is reinforced by the convention that its Chairman is always an Opposition Member.
The CAG is a parliamentary appointment that is then approved by the Government, as in the motion so graciously moved today by the Prime Minister. I thank her for being present, given all the multifarious and difficult responsibilities that she has at the moment. Her presence demonstrates just how important an appointment it is.
That brings me to the appointment of the 17th Comptroller and Auditor General, Mr Gareth Davies. Having chaired his pre-appointment hearing at the PAC on 21 January, I have no hesitation in endorsing his appointment. There was an extremely strong shortlist, but he emerged as the best candidate. The CAG is instrumental to ensuring that Parliament is able to carry out its financial scrutiny of the Executive via the PAC, with the support of the NAO, so the vacant post was advertised to a very wide talent pool. The shortlisted candidates then underwent a technical assessment with the Auditor General for Scotland and extensive interviews and testing with a diverse panel of NAO staff. The process was stringent, and I believe that it has found an excellent successor to Sir Amyas Morse.
There can be no doubt about how eminently qualified Gareth Davies is for the job. He has more than 30 years’ experience as a public auditor and has worked at a senior level both in public services and in central Government. A University of Cambridge mathematics graduate, he qualified as a chartered accountant in 1992 and then worked in audit for several local authorities across London and the south-east, as well as for the Department of Health. Since 2012, he has served as head of public services at Mazars LLP, before which he was a managing director at the Audit Commission.
It would be wrong not to record my thanks to the departing CAG, Sir Amyas Morse, for his unparalleled and invaluable work. Under his tenure, the National Audit Office has been at the forefront of scrutinising the Government’s preparedness for exiting the European Union, so it has been influential in shedding light on the scale of the task that lies ahead. Where necessary, Sir Amyas has been unflinching in his criticism of the actions of Government Ministers, or the Government as a whole. It has been an immense pleasure to work with him, and I wish him well in whatever he decides to do in the future. He was not only extremely technically qualified for the CAG’s work, but unfailingly courteous. He will be missed.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
As other Members have done, I thank the Prime Minister for coming to the Chamber today to move the motion. It is a symbol of the importance of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s role that it is supported both by the Prime Minister and by myself, as a representative of the Opposition and as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. I am honoured to chair the Committee, but it is only 157 years old, whereas there has been a Comptroller and Auditor General in some form for considerably longer.
The position that we are approving today is a constitutionally significant one, because the Comptroller and Auditor General has to deal with whichever Government are in power. They need to be fearless and strong in their attention to how the Government spend the taxpayer’s money, manage projects that deliver for the citizen and ensure that they are being done as well as they can be. It is therefore important that we appoint someone with backbone, robustness and serious experience. Interestingly, this is the only time in the position’s history that we have required applicants to hold a financial qualification—although the incumbent, Sir Amyas Morse, does have such a qualification.
I am reminded today of Sir Amyas’s comment that it is not his job to be popular. It is important that the Comptroller and Auditor General be able to stand up for what they believe is right, based on the facts and the numbers, and ensure that the House is provided with the real numbers so that we can debate the issues.
I am delighted that the hon. Members for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) and for South Norfolk (Mr Bacon) are present. They have both served as my deputy Chair, a role that I created for Members of the Government party. As parliamentarians committed to scrutiny, we recognise the importance of the Committee’s work, whichever party is in power. It is important that we have the decent information that the National Audit Office provides.
As my party’s Front-Bench spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd), noted, the Comptroller and Auditor General is also the NAO’s chief executive, so it is important that they have the ability to lead an organisation of some 800 people. In that respect, Gareth Davies also has my confidence.
I put on record my thanks to the outgoing Comptroller and Auditor General, whose term of office is limited to 10 years and will come to an end on 31 May; Gareth Davies is due to take over on 1 June, if his letters patent are issued. Sir Amyas has been a fearless advocate for what is good in the public sector and for challenging Governments of whatever party—he has worked under different Governments of different hues—to ensure that Parliament is provided with the information that it needs to engage in scrutiny.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
May I add a word of appreciation for Sir Amyas’s accessibility to me and other Back Benchers who are not members of the Public Accounts Committee?
Meg Hillier
I thank my right hon. Friend for that comment. It is certainly my ambition, as well as the NAO’s, that the information and support that it provides should be available to all Back Benchers, so that all Members of this House can properly scrutinise whichever Government are in power. With a 10-year term it is possible, as it has been with Sir Amyas Morse, that the new Comptroller and Auditor General will deal with Governments of different political hues. I am confident in his robustness, his steel, his ability and desire to call out what is right and truthful, and his straight approach to his profession. As others have mentioned, he has been an auditor for 30 years. He is highly experienced, highly capable and I highly recommend him.
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). I would like to make two quick points.
The first point is about Sir Amyas Morse, who has been Comptroller and Auditor General for 10 years. I was one of those who cross-examined him when he appeared before the Public Accounts Committee before he was appointed. He has done an extraordinarily good job over 10 years and built up the National Audit Office, from a good position under his predecessors, to a point where it is now without question one of the best supreme audit institutions in the world, if not the best supreme audit institution in the world. He is widely respected both here and internationally. It is quite fair to say that he really has done the state some service. We are all deeply in his debt.
My second point is about the consequences of the abolition of the Audit Commission and the fact that we are now appointing, in Mr Gareth Davies, an individual of the highest calibre who has spent most of his life at the Audit Commission. Following the abolition of the Audit Commission, there are concerns about the departmental understanding of the picture emerging from local audit work. Indeed, as Mr Davies said in his evidence, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown), there is still a risk that, even when things are being flagged up by the local auditor, either the governance of the authority itself or the Department are not acting quickly enough to pick up and address those points.
My concern was that there might be, either in slow time or in quick time, a move to burden the NAO with a whole load of extra responsibilities, frankly swamping it with the work of local government audit. In fact, the work of local government audit is being done quite effectively. There is no evidence that it is not being done well. However, there is evidence that it is not being picked up quickly enough and, where local auditors are issuing qualifications, the Department of State concerned, in this case the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, is not necessarily responding quickly enough. Under the new Secretary of State, who has been in office for nine or 10 months, I am confident that changes are afoot, particularly since the debacle of Northamptonshire County Council. I just wanted to make the point that it is very important that we do not take an extremely good institution that is well-run and functioning extremely well, and try to extend its scope unnecessarily. I was therefore very relieved when I read Mr Davies’s other evidence where he said:
“When an organisation like the NAO demonstrates its capability, it is very tempting to give it additional tasks, and if you are not careful you can lose focus on your prime objectives.”
I was very gratified to see that he is extremely cautious about doing that. I commend his wisdom, evident in the evidence he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds, and I commend his appointment as Comptroller and Auditor General.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
Madam Deputy Speaker, as you know I am a newer Member to this House. There is no better apprenticeship for being an MP than sitting on the Public Accounts Committee. I would like to start by placing on the record my thanks to the hon. Members for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) and for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) for chairing our Committee so ably.
Without the National Audit Office and without the robustness of its reports, we could not do the job we do quite as well as we do. I pay tribute to Sir Amyas Morse who, right from the get-go, has been—the hon. Member for The Cotswolds said exactly this—unfailingly courteous. That is the first thing one notices about him: that easy smile. Behind that, however, is an intelligence of steel. He has a knack for calling out obfuscation, fudge and imprecision in our civil service, but also a reputation for being completely fair. That is exactly what we in the Public Accounts Committee aim to do. I will genuinely miss him and I wish him all the very best.
I am looking forward very much to working with Gareth Davies. We grilled him. Believe me, we did not give him an easy ride when he came before the Committee for his appointment. I was interested to know in particular, as a trustee of Oxfam and Save the Children, what part he had played in their recent scandals and what he had learnt from them. I have absolute confidence that that and all his other experience will bring great things to the NAO. I very much look forward to working with him.
Question put and agreed to.
Point of Order
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before I proceed to the main business, I wish to clarify the comments I made earlier today to the House during Northern Ireland questions in response to a question raised by the hon. Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly), which I believe may have been open to misinterpretation.
At oral questions, I referred to deaths during the troubles caused by members of the security forces. The point I was seeking to convey was that the overwhelming majority of those who served carried out their duties with courage, professionalism, integrity and within the law. I was not referring to any specific cases, but expressing a general view. Of course, where there is evidence of wrongdoing it should always be investigated, whoever is responsible. These are of course matters for the police and prosecuting authorities who are independent of Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the Secretary of State for her point of order.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thank the Secretary of State for her gracious clarification of her position. Will she take this opportunity to recognise that confidence in the judicial process is fundamental to all communities and all people across Northern Ireland? For those reasons, her clarification that those who have committed criminal offences will face the justice process is important and it emphasises the need to move on quickly with the legacy commitments brought about by the 2014 Stormont House agreement.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the Secretary of State for her point of order and for giving me advance notice of her intention to make it. I am sure the fact that she has come to the House very quickly to make that clarification will be appreciated. I also understand the point made by the Opposition spokesman. I do not want to reopen the debate we had earlier. The point of order has been noted and the Secretary of State has made her clarification.
Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) (No. 2) bILL (bUSINESS OF THE hOUSE)
Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) (No. 2) Bill:
Timetable
(1) (a) Proceedings on Second Reading and in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be taken at today’s sitting in accordance with this Order.
(b) Notices of Amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules to be moved in Committee of the whole House may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a second time.
(c) Proceedings on Second Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
(d) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings up to and including Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion (so far as not previously concluded) six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
Timing of proceedings and Questions to be put
(2) When the Bill has been read a second time:
(a) it shall, despite Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of bills not subject to a programme order), stand committed to a Committee of the whole House without any Question being put;
(b) the Speaker shall leave the Chair whether or not notice of an Instruction has been given.
(3) (a) On the conclusion of proceedings in Committee of the whole House, the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
(b) If the Bill is reported with amendments, the House shall proceed to consider the Bill as amended without any Question being put.
(4) If, following proceedings in Committee of the whole House and any proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, a legislative grand committee withholds consent to the Bill or any Clause or Schedule of the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill, the House shall proceed to Reconsideration of the Bill without any Question being put.
(5) If, following Reconsideration of the Bill:
(a) a legislative grand committee withholds consent to any Clause or Schedule of the Bill or any amendment made to the Bill (but does not withhold consent to the whole Bill and, accordingly, the Bill is amended in accordance with Standing Order No. 83N(6)), and
(b) a Minister of the Crown indicates his or her intention to move a minor or technical amendment to the Bill, the House shall proceed to consequential Consideration of the Bill without any Question being put.
(6) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (1), the Chairman or Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions in the same order as they would fall to be put if this Order did not apply:
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed;
(c) the Question on any amendment, new Clause or new Schedule selected by the Chair or Speaker for separate decision;
(d) the Question on any amendment moved or Motion made by a Minister of the Crown;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded; and shall not put any other questions, other than the question on any motion described in paragraph (17)(a) of this Order.
(7) On a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(8) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(d) on successive amendments moved or Motions made by a Minister of the Crown, the Chairman or Speaker shall instead put a single Question in relation to those amendments or Motions.
(9) If two or more Questions would fall to be put under paragraph (6)(e) in relation to successive provisions of the Bill, the Chairman shall instead put a single Question in relation to those provisions, except that the Question shall be put separately on any Clause of or Schedule to the Bill which a Minister of the Crown has signified an intention to leave out.
Consideration of Lords Amendments
(10) (a) Any Lords Amendments to the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(11) Paragraphs (2) to (11) of Standing Order No. 83F (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (10) of this Order.
Subsequent stages
(12) (a) Any further Message from the Lords on the Bill may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(b) Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (a) shall thereupon be resumed.
(13) Paragraphs (2) to (9) of Standing Order No. 83G (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on further messages from the Lords) apply for the purposes of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph (12) of this Order.
Reasons Committee
(14) Paragraphs (2) to (6) of Standing Order No. 83H (Programme orders: reasons committee) apply in relation to any committee to be appointed to draw up reasons after proceedings have been brought to a conclusion in accordance with this Order.
Miscellaneous
(15) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply so far as necessary for the purposes of this Order.
(16) Standing Order No. 82 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to any proceedings to which this Order applies.
(17) (a) No Motion shall be made, except by a Minister of the Crown, to alter the order in which any proceedings on the Bill are taken, to recommit the Bill or to vary or supplement the provisions of this Order.
(b) No notice shall be required of such a Motion.
(c) Such a motion may be considered forthwith without any Question being put; and any proceedings interrupted for that purpose shall be suspended accordingly.
(d) The Question on such a Motion shall be put forthwith; and any proceedings suspended under sub-paragraph (c) shall thereupon be resumed.
(e) Standing Order No. 15(1) (Exempted business) shall apply to proceedings on such a Motion.
(18) (a) No dilatory Motion shall be made in relation to proceedings to which this Order applies except by a Minister of the Crown.
(b) The Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
(19) No debate shall be held in accordance with Standing Order No. 24 (Emergency debates) at today’s sitting after this Order has been agreed.
(20) Proceedings to which this Order applies shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(21) No private business may be considered at today’s sitting after this Order has been agreed.—(Karen Bradley.)
Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) (No. 2) Bill
Wednesday 6th March 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Act 2019 View all Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the Whole House Amendments as at 6 March 2019 (PDF) - (6 Mar 2019)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Karen Bradley)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I rise to ask the House to give a Second Reading to a piece of proposed legislation that delivers on this Government’s commitment to ensure good governance and stable public finances in Northern Ireland. The Bill seeks to achieve those outcomes by bringing forward two essential measures. First, it will enable the collection of regional rates in Northern Ireland. Secondly, it will ensure that fair and appropriate tariffs and cost-capping measures are in place for the renewable heat incentive scheme in Northern Ireland.
As we discussed yesterday, the Government are committed to devolution. I am working hard to restore devolved government in Northern Ireland at the earliest opportunity. I firmly believe that this is the best long-term plan for the people of Northern Ireland and I profoundly believe it is in the best long-term interests of the Union. Important local decisions should be taken by locally elected politicians in Northern Ireland. I share the frustration felt by some Members of Parliament and the public that taking forward important proposed legislation in this manner in this House is not the ideal situation. However, in the absence of devolved government I have made it clear that I will continue to take the urgent and necessary decisions to ensure good governance and to protect public services.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will recall that during the passage of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018, we raised an urgent issue that crystallises at the end of this month: the forthcoming resources available to our housing associations in Northern Ireland. Because of an Office for National Statistics definitional issue, they would not have been able to draw down on financial transactions capital tax. Will she confirm today that Her Majesty’s Treasury has agreed to extend the derogation on that definition and that legislation will be brought forward in this Parliament to resolve this issue satisfactorily, so that our housing associations and co-ownership and other schemes have the funding available that will not impact on our block grant, but will allow people to have a sustainable future home in the Province?
Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that important issue. It is clear that the derogation needs to and will continue, but that is not a long-term, sustainable solution. As he will know, the Northern Ireland civil service is putting together legislation and we await copies of that so that action can be taken.
Gavin Robinson
I am very grateful for that response. I understand that the legislation is there and is ready to be brought forward. Will the Secretary of State confirm that subject to parliamentary business, it will be introduced as soon as possible, and before the summer?
Karen Bradley
The hon. Gentleman may have more information than me. All I can say is that we know the Northern Ireland civil service is looking at that and we will act appropriately at the appropriate time.
The measures in the Bill are limited yet necessary interventions in Northern Ireland. They provide the certainty and support that Northern Ireland Departments and, indeed, the wider public need and deserve for the year ahead. I will now give more detail on the measures. Clause 1 addresses the collection of the regional rate. The UK Government have set the Northern Ireland regional rate in the absence of an Executive for the past two years. The level of rate to be applied this year was set out in my budget statement to Parliament last week. As part of the wider budget package of support to Northern Ireland for the 2019-20 financial year, the UK Government have set a 3% plus inflation increase on the domestic rate and an inflation-only increase on the non-domestic rate.
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
The Secretary of State outlined the percentage rise in the regional rate. I will say something about that in my speech if I am called later, Madam Deputy Speaker, but will the Secretary of State say something to the House about how the 3% was arrived at?
Karen Bradley
Throughout the whole budgetary process, we have ensured that we have liaised with the main parties in Northern Ireland and politicians to make sure that we reflect both the priorities of the programme for government that was in place before the Executive collapsed and the priorities of the politicians of Northern Ireland. Clearly, an increase in the regional rate was needed to meet the budget gap. It is quite right that, as well as the Treasury providing additional money to bridge the gap in the budget, the people of Northern Ireland should make a contribution towards the public services that they receive, and 3% was an appropriate number.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
The retailers organisation, Retail NI, has expressed disappointment at the rates, and has argued that Northern Ireland businesses would be paying the highest business rates in the UK. Will the Secretary of State give some words of sympathy or encouragement to them?
Karen Bradley
I understand the concerns that have been raised; I have met Retail NI and others. Clearly, we are only increasing business rates in line with inflation, but a number of measures are available to businesses in my constituency that are not available to businesses in Northern Ireland. That is as a result of Northern Ireland not having an Executive to deliver those. This comes back to the point that we discussed at length yesterday: what we need is an Executive to deliver on the programmes, incentives and support that are available, as is right and appropriate for Northern Ireland. It may be that what is needed in Northern Ireland is not the same as the incentives in Great Britain.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way; she is being very generous with her time. On the domestic rate—the 3% plus inflation; so 4%, there or thereabouts—clearly some residents in Northern Ireland will be able to afford that based on their income, but lots of people living in Northern Ireland are on the minimum wage, in low-income families, so will she set out for the House what support she will put in place so that there is some sort of relief to meet the costs of that rise?
Karen Bradley
What we are doing today is setting the rate. We are not setting any of the reliefs or allowances or support that is already available. Nothing that is there is changing and we are not able to change anything with the Bill. We are just setting the rate, but the hon. Gentleman is right that there may be things that people in Northern Ireland would like to see. Again, if there were Ministers in Stormont, they could do the right thing for Northern Ireland. It would be wrong to transpose the situation for councils in England, Wales or Scotland to Northern Ireland because it needs specific measures, and only Ministers in Northern Ireland can appropriately and properly deliver those.
This approach to regional rates, and therefore the measures in the Bill, represent an important contribution to delivering a sustainable budget for 2019-20. The second element of the Bill concerns the administration of Northern Ireland’s renewable heat incentive scheme. I must make it clear that the UK Government have not taken the decisions on the revised scheme. This remains a devolved matter and the Government are taking forward this legislation at the request of the Department for the Economy. It is crucial that that happens because without this legislation, there will be no legislative basis to maintain the current cost-control measures.
Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene. I have received a large number of emails mostly, if not exclusively, from individuals who are not constituents of mine but who feel extremely aggrieved by the proposals in this legislation. They entered into the RHI scheme in good faith and feel that they are now being unfairly penalised. I would like the Secretary of State to address that issue this afternoon. Will she assure those people who have raised concerns and who feel very strongly aggrieved by the Bill that there is fairness in the proposals, and that they will not find themselves making their way to the local court to challenge the legislation, because it is in breach of human rights, for example?
Karen Bradley
I will come on to the details of why the decisions have been taken, the advice that we have received from the Department for the Economy and the request that it put in. However, I assure the hon. Lady that the measures we are taking today are the only legal ways in which any subsidies can continue to be paid to anybody on the RHI scheme. Failure to do this will mean the closure of the scheme and no subsidies at all. We need to bear that in mind when looking at this matter. I well understand that people feel concerned when they have entered into an obligation in good faith and then the subsidies that they receive are reduced. I will come on to explain why that is the situation.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The Secretary of State will be aware of our concern that there has been a lack of proper scrutiny of these proposals. While we await the report of the public inquiry in Northern Ireland, it may be that one of the issues on which it makes recommendations is how we scrutinise this kind of measure going forward. We would have hoped that Parliament could set an example for that, yet we are not getting that opportunity, so would she care to address that concern and the timing of this proposal, coming so close to the end of the financial year?
Karen Bradley
As I said, this situation has resulted from a decision by the European Commission on state aid rules, and failure to do this will mean no subsidies being paid to anybody. I fully accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point about scrutiny, but it comes back to the point we discussed at length yesterday: in the absence of an Executive, there is simply no way scrutiny can take place appropriately.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
While we await the findings of the inquiry, would the Secretary of State agree that whoever’s fault the RHI debacle is—policy makers or politicians—it is certainly not the fault of the people who entered the scheme, and that, at a time when farmers in Northern Ireland are facing great uncertainty and huge challenges, this will be seen as hugely detrimental to them?
Karen Bradley
As I say, I have enormous sympathy for people in this situation. I have met the Ulster Farmers Union and my officials have met individual farmers to talk about it. I well understand the concerns but, faced with a choice between no subsidies at all and cost cutting at 12%, I think this is the right and only legal approach we can take.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for at least acknowledging how grossly unfair this is to many people, but she must recognise that the Bill the Northern Ireland Office has put before the House today does far more than she has indicated. Less than half a page of the Bill deals with the regional rate. The rest—five pages—deals with the RHI scheme, and her proposal for the scheme will bring all renewable activity to an end for a generation. No one will ever again apply for a renewable scheme or a Government-backed deal in Northern Ireland. That will be the effect of her proposal.
Karen Bradley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I will come on to the detail of the renewable heat measures and the work undertaken.
The Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland undertook an extensive public consultation in the last year to ensure that revised measures could be introduced in time for new legislation to come into effect from 1 April 2019. The tariff levels set out in the Bill are based on an analysis of the additional costs and savings of operating a biomass boiler in Northern Ireland. The Department has also engaged with the European Commission in developing the long-term tariff. The Commission has indicated that it is not in a position to approve a tariff that delivers a rate of return higher than 12%. Recognising that a small number of participants with lower usage needs or higher capital costs could see returns below the intended 12%, the Bill makes provision for the introduction of voluntary buy-out arrangements.
I recognise that some scheme participants in Northern Ireland will be concerned about these new tariffs. Both the Department for the Economy and my own Department have heard their views in person and in writing in recent weeks, as I said earlier, and I empathise with those people and businesses across Northern Ireland.
Ian Paisley
I thank the Secretary of State for going into the detail. She mentions the 12% rate of return. Why can the rest of the UK set a rate of return on the same scheme fluctuating between 8% and 22%? Why are our officials being told that Europe will only accept 12% for Northern Ireland, but will accept a differential rate for the rest of the UK? Officials have a duty to tell the public why that is.
Karen Bradley
We cannot easily compare schemes: there are different set-up costs and fuel costs in different parts of the United Kingdom. Differences apply. The work done by the Department for the Economy with the Commission is thorough and has ensured that the recommendations it put to me and the tariffs we are legislating for today mean that the scheme remains legal. That is the important point. If we do not have a legal scheme, there will be no subsidies.
Ian Paisley
The Secretary of State says there are different set-up costs, but under state aid rules that is not allowed. State aid rules declare that the set-up costs are X for the provision of the boiler. In England, different set-up costs are being used, and our Department in Northern Ireland is changing those set-up costs according to its interpretation of what the law demands. Does that not ultimately reflect the need for more scrutiny? To rush the measure through the House is not right, fair or equitable.
Karen Bradley
There are differences in fuel costs and transport costs. There are differences between different parts of the UK. I am interested in making sure that the scheme in Northern Ireland remains legal so that people with boilers can continue to receive some subsidy. I know it is not at the levels they were receiving previously, but it is still some subsidy.
Maria Caulfield
I understand why there has to be a change, but for farmers who have borrowed £250,000 or £500,000 to install a boiler and went to the banks with a guarantee of 20 years of subsidy, a change from £13,000 to £2,000 a year per boiler is a real concern. Many will not be able to pay the money back and will go under.
Karen Bradley
That is why a buy-out scheme is available: so that boiler owners can choose individually. I cannot say exactly what the rate will be, because it will depend on, for instance, the subsidies that have been received to date. The calculations will be individual, but a buy-out will be available to boiler owners who do not believe that the subsidies now available will enable them to continue in business.
Karen Bradley
I do want to make some progress, but I recognise that many interests are involved. I will give way to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), but then I will conclude my speech.
Sammy Wilson
Does the Secretary of State accept, first, that the terms of the buy-out scheme are not clear and, secondly, that a large number of people—probably those who are most affected by these changes—will not be able to avail themselves of it?
Gavin Robinson
The Secretary of State talked about a 12% rate of return. She knows that participants in the scheme will be listening very carefully to what is being said today. According to figures that were given yesterday, over the 20-year period of the scheme the rate of return will be 60%, but whether it is 12% or 60%, officials were indicating that the money had largely been paid. Will the Secretary of State confirm that, and does she agree with those figures?
Karen Bradley
As I have said, the figures will all be individual, and it is impossible for me to give the hon. Gentleman a generality from the Dispatch Box. However, he is right to say that the subsidies that have been paid to date will, on the whole, be higher than the subsidies that will be paid from now on. The point is that unless those steps were taken, the subsidies that were being paid would breach state aid rules, and the scheme would be illegal and would be closed. This is the maximum level at which subsidies can be paid if the scheme is to continue to be legal.
Representatives of the Department for the Economy will meet other interested parties, such as the banks and those in the agri-food supply chain, to discuss the impacts and seek support for affected participants. The Department has also agreed to provide additional advice and technical assistance for participants. I know that this is a very difficult matter, but I believe that the measures proposed by the Department for the Economy are fair, and strike the correct balance between the rights of participants and the wider public interest.
To conclude—
Karen Bradley
I was about to conclude, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because he is irresistible.
Gavin Robinson
I am very grateful to the Secretary of State. She says that I am irresistible; how could I disagree? She is very kind to give way for a final time.
I want to focus on the fact that the Secretary of State said there was a fixed rate of return of 12%. Participants can hear today that they will not receive that money in the forthcoming years under the terms of the Bill. Is it not the case that the Department for the Economy is saying that they have already received it?
Karen Bradley
As I have said, these are the measures that we need to take now to ensure that the scheme remains on a legal footing. These are the steps that need to be taken to ensure that any subsidies can continue to be paid from the scheme and allow it to remain within the state aid rules. However, I am sure we will debate this issue further at a later stage, and I do understand the hon. Gentleman’s points.
The Bill does two things, both of which are required for good governance and stable public finances in Northern Ireland. I hope that colleagues on both sides of the House agree that it is important for us to make progress now to protect the best interests of all people in Northern Ireland, and to that end I commend the Bill to the House.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
The Bill is in many ways an abuse of the processes of the House. I hope that the Minister will take this seriously. There is no connection between the regional rates and the structure surrounding the renewable heat incentive scheme, and they should have been presented in two separate pieces of legislation. It is already obvious from the debate so far that there is massive concern about the RHI proposals on both sides of the House, and the level of scrutiny that we will be able to achieve this afternoon simply is not up to the importance of the Bill.
This is not a trivial matter. It is not trivial because in the end the concern expressed by the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) and others that there will be casualties of this process is real. My hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (Conor McGinn) makes the point that many farms in Northern Ireland—small firms, quite often—are in a parlous state. It matters enormously if we get this legislation wrong.
I hope the Secretary of State will consider that, and I hope that we will not see again an attempt to bludgeon legislation like this through the House in such a short space of time. This should have been taken in Committee; there should have been the opportunity in Committee for a much more leisurely but much more intense form of exchange between the Secretary of State, the Minister and interested Members. That is the right and proper way of doing something of this import.
On regional rates, I want to pick up the point raised about business rates. It is difficult to argue against business rates being uprated by inflation—I think even the greatest quibblers would resist that—but it is important to register that across the different towns of Northern Ireland in particular, there are businesses that are struggling. I do not pick as in a vendetta on the town of Ballymena. I know there is some good news that the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) has been involved in—there are some new jobs coming into the town—but I think he will accept that I make no criticism of one of his towns if I say that the Ballymena of today is not the Ballymena of my youth. It is a town that does need uplift; it needs its businesses supported and an injection of resource.
Ian Paisley
I appreciate the shadow Secretary of State making those kind and glowing references to Ballymena. It has a significant part of the industrial base of Northern Ireland, but that has of course been damaged by the loss of jobs and EU regulations, and to some extent just because of world economic factors. But the fact of the matter is that there is a spirit of change and a spirit of trying to get new jobs back, and I am delighted that today about 60 new jobs will ultimately be financed at USEL—Ulster Supported Employment Ltd—in Ballymena, which is a wonderful scheme that brings disadvantaged young people on and into the workplace and encourages the development of a circular economy.
Tony Lloyd
Like the hon. Gentleman, I very much welcome this piece of good news, but it has to be set against the fact that we do need to see renewal in many towns, and I want to return to a question I raised with Ministers yesterday about the stronger towns moneys. I did not get a response to the question I raised; there was no certainty on that. The Communities Secretary made it clear that the stronger towns moneys were available of course for England but also for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In Wales and Scotland, I assume those moneys will be diverted through the devolved Administrations there, but with Northern Ireland, we do need some certainty that there is political process and there will be political decision making that can ensure that, whether in Ballymena or any other town, there will be access to the stronger towns moneys. That is important in the context of the debate we are having; yes, we welcome the relative capping of the business rates but we want a recognition that there is still need for legitimate support for businesses across Northern Ireland.
I want to pick up the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore). He made some interesting comments about the impact of the domestic rate increase. An increase of 3% plus inflation is perhaps supportable for many people, but it is interesting to compare with the Government’s proposed uprating for benefits: for universal credit, for example, that will be 2.4% in total. So 3% plus inflation is a bigger cost being imposed on the many families in Northern Ireland who struggle—for instance, low-income families or families on minimum wage. That kind of impact must be considered.
The Secretary of State says that the people of Northern Ireland should make a contribution as well as the Treasury, but let me make the obvious point that the people of Northern Ireland do make a contribution to Treasury moneys: they pay income tax, they pay VAT and they pay all the other taxes that are paid by people throughout the United Kingdom.
In those terms, this is effectively a redistribution from UK-wide taxation—which is perhaps not as progressive as I would like, but at least it has some sense of progression—to a more regressive form of taxation around regional rates. Nevertheless, the many sectors such as local authorities and, most importantly, education spend and health spend that depend on regional rates certainly need to see these resources coming in, so it would be hard to resist the case for this legislation being needed. It also has time import, in that the new financial year will not be long delayed.
However, that is not the case with the legislation relating to the renewable heat incentive. The consultation on the present scheme began last May and finished last September, and this legislation should have been brought before the House long before now if the intention was to implement it on the third parties on 1 April. It is unacceptable that we are now having to legislate at breakneck speed, just as we did yesterday. The legislation is being forced through the House without the opportunity for proper scrutiny. I have to say to the Secretary of State, although not unkindly, that I did not find her answers convincing when she responded to questions raised by previous speakers. I did not honestly feel that the House knew whether the legislation was necessary. I shall go into further detail on that in a moment.
Will the Secretary of State tell me when the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland began to talk to the Northern Ireland Office about the need for an uprating? We know that there was an uprating last year, roughly 12 months ago, and it should have been obvious to everybody, particularly as this had gone out to consultation, that there would be a need for legislation, so why are we doing this so late on? Alternatively, why has it been necessary to do all this today? Could we not have had a Second Reading today, after which the Bill could have gone into Committee in the normal way and completed its progress later on, having had proper scrutiny throughout the process? This matters, for all the reasons that have already been given in exchanges with the Secretary of State. We have to be certain that the scrutiny is sufficient to reveal exactly what is happening.
On the specific details, I want to ask the Secretary of State some questions that are parallel to those already raised by hon. Members. An argument that is used to underline her case is that only by moving in this direction can we ensure state aid compliance and that this is the only legal basis, other than the complete abolition of the scheme, for reform of the RHI system. I do not know whether that is true. Nothing that has been presented to the House gives us any reason to believe that this is exactly what the European Union has said.
The hon. Member for North Antrim asked why the situation in Great Britain should be different from the situation in Northern Ireland. Why does one involve state aid compliance but not the other? Conversely, one of the proposals in the Ricardo review was to look at the introduction of the GB tariffs in Northern Ireland, and if those tariffs are legitimate for my constituents in Rochdale, why are they not legitimate for people in Northern Ireland?
Maria Caulfield
The shadow Secretary of State is making some good points. The financial difference is stark, because the amount in the rest of the UK will be £20,000 per year per boiler, whereas the amount that we will be moving to in Northern Ireland will be just £2,000 per year per boiler. That is not a small difference.
Tony Lloyd
The hon. Lady makes a valid point. Obviously, it is not a small difference; in fact, it is a huge difference to those on what could be described as the receiving end, those at the £20,000 level, or the non-receiving end for those at the £2,000 level. The details for a particular farm that I will come on to bear out exactly the point that she makes.
We need to know about state aid compliance, not only what lies behind it but how it has the system so circumscribed that we can do no other. I want to challenge Ministers on some of the things that they have told us. For example, the Secretary of State said that the cost of fuel might be different in Great Britain from Northern Ireland. I am told, however, that a lot of our non-home-grown fuel is imported from the Baltic states, where there is an awful lot of wood—I can assure the House of that, because I have seen it. Those pellets are shipped from the Baltic states to the UK generally, and I can recognise no enormous difference in the cost thresholds such as to produce a very different cost profile in Northern Ireland—a much cheaper one—from that in Great Britain. That we would have such different cost pressures does not seem logical. We need proper answers to such questions, although I fear that we will not get them today.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The purported purpose of this legislation is to give certainty. I have rarely seen the Government produce legislation that is so obviously ripe for legal challenge on the basis of legitimate expectation. In such circumstances, at the end of the day, surely we will not even give the people concerned, the recipients of the subsidies, the certainty that the Government claim they want.
Tony Lloyd
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and to the extent that some of those affected were in court this morning. Specifically, I understand that the judge said that he will not rule on the request for judicial review today because the scheme has not yet been implemented and is therefore not yet in breach. However, he will ensure that any judicial review is expedited once the scheme is in operation. I was going to make this point later, but I will simply do so now, and the Secretary of State and the Minister of State need to address it. What will the Government’s position be if they face judicial review and a challenge that the measure is outwith the competence of our legal framework? There is real risk of that, given that people have signed up to things in expectation of a certain income flow over the years and decades to come, as hon. Members have said. Such issues are not trivial.
Ian Paisley
The shadow Secretary of State is absolutely right. Apparently, this morning, at the High Court in Belfast, a judicial review was not launched and the date for the hearing will be the first week of April. We therefore have to wait until a few days after the change to the new financial year to have an answer. Surely it would be far better to postpone a decision until we have an answer, keeping the current rate until then.
Tony Lloyd
That seems logical, but—I am not a lawyer, so the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I am not right—the problem is that the judge has ruled that, because the scheme is not in operation, he cannot yet judicially review it. So we have to wait for the implementation of the scheme before the judicial review can be taken forward. One way or the other, that is not a satisfactory way of organising our affairs.
I now come on to the question of installation, which is important. The Secretary of State suggested that the buy-out scheme will protect people. I will use a specific example, which I have no reason to doubt. A Northern Ireland farmer installed a boiler and system in 2015, at the end of the scheme. He tells me that the boiler and the feed system cost just under £36,000 to install. On top of that he had to pay £8,600 for plumbing and electrical costs, so a total of £44,600. He also had to do necessary works to house the boiler properly. He talks about various different things. The total further cost was some £28,000. I will not go into the different costs, but his case to me is that, in total, he had to invest some £76,000 to make this system work for him and his farm.
When the Secretary of State tells us that the buy-out scheme will look at the cost of the boiler and so on, plus 12% for the expected return, what is the basis for the boiler costs that will be allowable? Is it simply the cost of the boiler, or is it the cost of the boiler, the necessary installation and those things necessary to allow the boiler to work? That is material because, in the real world, boilers do not sit in the middle of a field—they do not sit in isolation.
There are real issues in such cases. This farmer tells me that he is likely to have to find an extra £3,000 a year as a result of all these changes. That £3,000 is material to a marginal business, so we have to take into account the impact of real damage to individual farms. This farmer tells me that he took out a loan over 10 years at an interest rate of 3.5 percentage points over the base rate. The annual repayment costs are some £9,000. Those are material costs that he will continue to have to pay unless the buy-out scheme covers him on the impact of the change to the scheme.
Ian Paisley
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in giving way. Is it not a fact that the weight of what he says is that the scheme now operating here on the British mainland must therefore be flawed? It has to be in breach of the state aid rules, or else the Northern Ireland Office’s proposals are wrong. They cannot both be right, and that matter must be challenged and identified.
Tony Lloyd
I am not being generous with my time because we have to tease out these important issues, and we have to get answers to give us some certainty that the scheme is both necessary and sufficient to protect the interests of those who have acted in good faith.
Lady Hermon
It is crucial that we tease out the details before we give our approval—if we give our approval—to this Bill. In the wind-up, I would particularly like the Minister to give further detail on what the Secretary of State said about how the Department for the Economy will seek support for affected participants: those who invested in the renewable heat incentive scheme in good faith. She failed to give any details at all about the efforts of the Department for the Economy to get some support for those who will be adversely affected if we approve this Bill. They had a legitimate expectation of the tariffs that would be paid to them for 20 years, so I would like details from the Minister.
Tony Lloyd
That is a fair point. There is nothing in this Bill that talks about post-legislative scrutiny. We need some capacity to measure the impact of the legislation after it leaves this House, because it will have an impact. The scheme was a disaster from its inception. That is most certainly true. It is also most certainly true that controlling the overall level of cost is and ought to be a matter of public policy, which is in the interests of people in Great Britain as well as in Northern Ireland. Coming up with legitimate control is not something that divides the House, but we need to make sure that we measure the impact on those affected, and that is simply not there.
Maria Caulfield
The clause 4 powers to instigate the buy-out arrangements are to be exercised only in the period while there is no Executive. So this place would have a duty to scrutinise that, because under this legislation once the Executive are back up and running, the job of scrutiny would return to the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Tony Lloyd
That has to be right. We have a duty to ensure not only that we dispatch the legislation where it is appropriate to do so, but that we monitor its impact to make sure that no injustice is caused by the clumsiness of the legislation.
I will draw my remarks to a conclusion, but the point I have sought to establish all the way through is that the Secretary of State has not given answers with the level of detail that this House ought to demand if we are to say that this scheme is legitimate in terms of protecting the wider public interest, as it rightly and properly should do, and does no injustice to people who, in reasonably good faith—some may have seen a large amount of pound coins rolling in their direction—invested in a scheme that we as a society wanted to promote: a more environmentally sound system of heating. We need to insist that we get that balance right, but I am not convinced that I can see that in the Bill, the explanatory notes or the Secretary of State’s opening remarks
I repeat what I said at the beginning: the way the House is being asked to dispatch this legislation today is incompetent and unreasonable. I hope the Secretary of State will reflect on that, because even at this stage it would be possible for the Government to take part of the legislation back and say that the capacity to scrutinise could be done very differently.
Finally, I wish to make a slightly wider point. Once again, the House is being asked to do something that the Secretary of State talked about as being limited but necessary. There are many limited but necessary schemes that she is refusing to do. In response to the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), she made the point that she would be looking to legislate on providing the necessary support for housing associations in Northern Ireland. We would not want to oppose that, as it is necessary to have those housing associations working. Again, however, we come down to questions such as: who will make the decision on the medical school in the Derry and Strabane city deal; when will we see progress on Hart if we are still stalled on getting a devolved Assembly in Stormont; and what are we going to do about the important question of public sector workers, such as nurses, physiotherapists and others in the health service, who will not see the uprating in their pay that their counterparts will see in the rest of the UK? Such issues are within the Secretary of State’s capacity to address. It is difficult for us to see any longer when she will act. Yes, protecting public money and allowing public moneys to be spent by local authorities at the Northern Ireland level is important, but so are these issues. There is no clarity any more—
Emma Little Pengelly (Belfast South) (DUP)
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that, as far as we are aware, senior civil servants do have the power to give pay increases? In fact, many of them have done so, particularly for nurses, the police and those in the Prison Service—this has been recently announced. The senior civil service does have that ability because of legislation passed in this House previously. Does he agree that we also need to encourage those permanent secretaries to make those decisions earlier, because many of them have taken considerable time, and many people are waiting and are out of pocket? The power is there and we just need to get those decisions made by the senior civil service in a timely way.
Tony Lloyd
A guarantee that everybody in the health service receives the same uprate as their opposite numbers in the rest of Great Britain would be welcome. I think the hon. Lady knows, probably better than me, that the most senior civil servants are still traumatised by the judicial review that found that their level of competence to make decisions was limited. Although we brought legislation through the House, I think few people believe that that really did much more than to codify what was already there, rather than to expand their capacity to make decisions. I would love to believe there was a transparent and accountable decision-making process, and hence coming back to Stormont in operation, but we do not have that at the moment, so the only system of accountability for pressing matters lies ultimately in the House of Commons and the Department.
Emma Little Pengelly
Whenever that legislation was discussed by the House, it was very much part of the context that it should give clarity. I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point that because of the judicial review there was clearly apprehension among the permanent secretaries in some of the Departments about making decisions. The legislation was designed to give that certainty and that legal basis, but we are still seeing a reluctance in some Departments. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that guidance for all the Departments in Northern Ireland would perhaps be helpful, to tell all the civil servants exactly what types of decisions they could and should be making in accordance with the legislation passed by this House?
Tony Lloyd
It may be helpful to deliver that kind of guidance. The problem we all have to face is that, in the end, decisions made by senior civil servants without reference to a policy framework determined here, or in some logical sense determined when the Stormont Executive were operating, will be challengeable. Judicial review can and will take place, and if civil servants face such a review, that will make them cautious about making the wrong decision. Every Member of this House would face the same kind of reluctance. I am sure that some will by instinct be a little braver than others, but something still circumscribes such decisions. I do not actually think that the legislation we passed materially changed the boundaries. Perhaps that debate is for another occasion, but it is important.
I have come to the end of my remarks, but I wish to emphasise that we would not want to oppose the passage of the regional rates legislation, because it is timely and it is important that there is certainty at the beginning of the new financial year. However, I repeat that the Secretary of State should not have allowed these two separate items of business to be conjoined. It forces the hand of those in the House of Commons and in the other place in an unacceptable fashion. It forces us not to scrutinise properly the legislation she has put before us. She has to think seriously about whether this is the right way to take this legislation through the House. I suggest to her that, even at this stage, she should think about whether she can technically decouple these two pieces of legislation and allow a slower process and more time for the consideration of the RHI.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
These are unusual times for Northern Ireland and this is an unusual Bill. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that what we have today is something of an essay crisis; that is to say, something presented as being urgent and in need of consideration by the House in one day that could in fact easily have been considered more electively.
It has been said that we should decouple the two elements of the Bill. In truth, most of the Bill relates to the renewable heat incentive. The regional rate issue is largely unobjectionable and would pass with the greatest of ease through the House on a bipartisan basis, but we have to accept that politically the renewable heat incentive is an extremely toxic issue. After all, it has brought us to the sorry pass that we are currently in, with the collapse of the Executive and the Assembly. It is absolutely central to the political chaos that currently afflicts Northern Ireland and that is adversely impacting on the lived experience of people in Northern Ireland, so it demands that we look at the legislation closely and in a considered and measured fashion, of the sort that usually involves a proper Committee stage. That is not being offered on this occasion. I share the surprise expressed by the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) that these two completely different issues have been conjoined in this rather unusual Bill. I have sympathy with his suggestion that the two might be separated so that we can pass that which is unobjectionable and straightforward and consider on a more elective basis those bits—those clauses—that are more complicated.
A 12% return is pretty good by any standards. A casual observer of our proceedings would wonder, I suspect, what the fuss is all about—I would love to have a 12% return on my investments—but the fact of the matter is that those small businesses that invested in this technology did so on the copper-bottomed understanding that they would get a different rate of return. The institutions that lent on that basis would have been similarly advised, and the investment would have been procured on that basis. We now have to unpick something of a disaster on the part of the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland, and I understand the Secretary of State’s dilemma. This is not easy; something has to be done. However, when Bills are before us in this place, we must consider those people who will be inadvertently disadvantaged. Like most hon. and right hon. Members in this House, I have been lobbied by such people who point out that they invested in good faith and that their small businesses might be brought to the edge because of the change in circumstances over which they have no control.
Mr Carmichael
Does that not go to the heart of the matter? The existence of a voluntary buy-out scheme seems an implicit recognition to me that exactly the situation that the hon. Gentleman identifies is one that is likely to occur. That surely means that the legitimate expectations of the recipients of the subsidies are so adversely affected that any legal challenge would be successful.
Dr Murrison
I share the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns in that respect. As a lawyer, he will know better than me that there is every prospect of a judicial review in this matter. It would be very surprising, given the propensity of individuals and organisations in Northern Ireland to seek judicial review on a range of things, if that were not the case in this instance. Indeed, that includes their representative organisations. Clearly, the Government need to do everything in their power to ensure that they are protected against such an eventuality, including, I suggest, ensuring proper scrutiny of this Bill, as inadequate scrutiny will surely be cited as a reason for such a review to result in a judgment that is in favour of those bringing the case forward. However, fear of judicial review is one thing, but what we need to do in this place is to ensure that individuals are not disadvantaged. That means scrutinising this Bill properly and trying to ensure that, if possible, those hard cases are avoided.
I understand the rules on state aid and I understand that the buy-out is a mechanism of trying to be generous to those who may be disadvantaged, but within the rules that have been set. I also have concerns because the Department that has advised on this matter—the Department for the Economy—is, of course, implicated in the mess in the first place. I would be worried if the Secretary of State were being overly reliant on the advice that she is receiving from that Department and, in all candour, I suggest that she needs to be extremely careful about that.
Scrutiny—challenging advice—is what we do in this place. It worries me that this controversial Bill on this most toxic of issues is not undergoing such scrutiny. It would seem to me to be entirely sensible for Ministers to ensure that this measure has all possible scrutiny to hedge against the possibility that what it is doing, on advice from the Department for the Economy, is in fact erring in some important respect, as indeed the advice to Ministers has been from that Department in the past.
I also worry—this has been touched on already—about what confidence institutions will have in these sorts of Government schemes in the future, given that they will have assumed that anything backed by or instituted by Government is copper-bottomed, safe and triple A rated. They now find that that is not the case, and that any loan they may have made on the basis of an expectation of, admittedly, fantastically high returns—nevertheless, backed by Government—will in fact result in a return much less than that. Indeed, in the event that some of these businesses go to the wall, these investments may have to be written off.
We have to reflect on the fact that many of these businesses are marginal concerns. Many of the 1,800 businesses are farms, and we know that farming in Northern Ireland is quite different from farming in the rest of the United Kingdom. They tend to be small, marginal farms. The people from those farms who have invested in this scheme may find themselves embarrassed financially by this particular decision. It is quite possible that we might be able to design some sort of scheme that is based around hardship for special cases. There is no recommendation to that effect in this Bill other than the buy-out scheme. I commend the Secretary of State for that, as it is absolutely right to bring such a scheme forward within the constraints of state aid, but there is very little beyond that, and there will be cases of hardship. In the context of Northern Ireland—a small place with lots of small businesses and small farms—would not it be tragic if we found some of those businesses going to the wall as a result of this change in policy?
Of course, this legislation has to go through because if it does not, on 1 April people will be faced with getting nothing, but I gently suggest to Ministers that this is an imperfect Bill that needs further scrutiny and input. I hope very much that my new clause 1 will catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that we may debate this matter further in Committee. It would be extremely good if we could do so, because the new clause makes some sensible recommendations about how we can ensure that this difficult part of a Bill that is otherwise unobjectionable is given the scrutiny that it deserves so that people can therefore have greater confidence in it.
In general, the Secretary of State is quite right to bring this legislation forward. It is a pity that we have not had the scrutiny of the whole Bill that it really deserves. Given the issues that currently apply at Stormont, we need to be particularly careful in this place that we give matters that relate to Northern Ireland all the scrutiny we can possibly can. This represents something of an essay crisis that was absolutely avoidable had we brought the measures forward in a more timely manner and decoupled these two very different elements of a particularly unusual Bill.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I rise to speak briefly in this Bill on devolved Northern Ireland business. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) can rest assured that there will be no green cheese in today’s remarks; and these will be remarks, as they will hardly be a speech.
As the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee said, it has been over two years since the renewable heat incentive brought down the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, grinding all decision making to a halt. Since that occurred, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and the UK Government have simply not done enough to restore Northern Ireland’s political institutions and restore confidence in power sharing while championing Northern Ireland’s devolution settlement.
We have just passed yet another fast-tracked budget Bill that, by rights, should have been debated and decided on in Belfast. Today we will fast-track yet another Bill—this one on rates and the renewable heating scheme, albeit a scheme with huge and unintended political consequences, but the criteria of which were designed in Northern Ireland, for Northern Ireland.
I reiterate one of the central points that I made yesterday as we debated the Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill: these debates should not be ours to have and these decisions should not be ours to make. Decisions on devolved issues must only be taken in devolved legislatures or by Ministers of devolved Executives and Governments—not in this place and certainly not in Whitehall. Of course, Stormont’s politicians need to start serving the people they were elected to represent, but this Government must up their game to get the two sides round the table—and if they cannot, as I said yesterday, they should bring in a third party who can. I accept that this Bill must be passed, but we cannot continue passing such legislation in this place—that is not how devolution should ever work.
I promised to be brief, and brief I will be. I very much hope that this is the last time that I, or anybody else in this place, makes a contribution on a matter like this that is for other devolved legislatures.
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
The reason we are here is that the Assembly has not been sitting for over two years now. There are many members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee here this afternoon. In our public evidence session this morning, the leader of the Green party in Northern Ireland said that she thought that the Assembly would not be up and running for the rest of this year. It is therefore likely that we will be returning here in the next few months, or maybe even this time next year, with similar Bills looking at the budget, as we did yesterday, and rates. I hope that is not the case.
Many of us are putting pressure on all political parties to get back around the table and get the Assembly up and running because, as we now start to scrutinise devolved issues, we hear week in, week out, about the impact that that is having. We have heard from headteachers in Northern Ireland about issues of procurement. Even simple, basic supplies are not being procured properly and effectively, and money is being wasted on them. We have heard from the Commissioner for Children and Young People that the Salisbury review of education has meant that some funding reforms that should be taking place to enable money to be better spent in small rural schools are not happening because there is no one to take that decision. It is not just about not getting the money to spend; scrutiny of the decisions on how it is spent is not happening either. Both are equally important. The RHI is a classic example of why we need that scrutiny. The RHI was a significant factor in the fall of the Assembly in the first place. The fact that we are now making decisions on it without any real scrutiny apart from a couple of hours in this Chamber is significantly worrying given the impact that it will have on small businesses in Northern Ireland, particularly in the farming community.
I have sympathy with the Secretary of State, and I agree that we have to make a decision this afternoon, or else any subsidies will stop completely, which would be a huge disservice to the people of Northern Ireland. However, the fact that it has been left to the last minute to make this decision will have a real impact. As a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I have been contacted by Northern Ireland businesses telling me that many of them—some have 10 biomass facilities on their farms—have gone to the banks to borrow £250,000 or £500,000 in the expectation that they would get a guaranteed subsidy over a 20-year period. In any other walk of life, someone who breached that agreement would be in court having to defend that or having to pay compensation.
It is not the fault of anyone here in this Chamber that we are in this position, but neither is it the fault of farmers or businesses who took these decisions. Many will go under if we do not address this issue. To add insult to injury, people in the rest of the United Kingdom will be getting £20,000 per biomass incinerator, whereas farmers, or whoever else has installed them, in Northern Ireland will gain only £2,000. That is a real concern. The Ulster Farmers Union has rightly raised that issue; I know that the Secretary of State has met its representatives to listen to their concerns. They point out that this is happening at a particularly difficult time for Ulster farmers with Brexit day looming.
We should not be making these decisions, and that is a great reason why we need the Assembly back up and running. The decision was made to set up the scheme, and it should be the Assembly taking responsibility when the budget has spiralled out of control and tough decisions are required. It is frustrating that, once again, people in Northern Ireland have gone to the polls and elected representatives but have no representation in Stormont. Some communities have no representation here so are completely at the mercy of politicians such as me, who have an interest in Northern Ireland but are not at the coal face, experiencing the impact of the decisions. It is down to Northern Ireland politicians to get back round the table and sort this out.
I have a few questions for the Minister to respond to when he sums up. Can the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee have ongoing scrutiny of this issue, so that we can look at how the buy-out system is working and the impact of the reduction in subsidy and take quick action if it is having a devastating impact, as some fears suggest? What happens if the Executive are restored in the meantime? We heard this morning in the Select Committee that that is unlikely to happen soon, but if it did, there would be an impact on clause 4 in particular and how the budget would be set. We cannot set in place a system today that will be overturned in, say, six months. That would be really unfair on those affected.
Can we have clarity on why there is such a difference between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom? A number of Members have raised that, and it would be helpful to understand it. Can we have further scrutiny of how buy-out payments will be achieved? I have grave concerns that it will be based on the cost of biomass installations, but far greater costs, such as interest payments on loans, will have to be taken into consideration.
I share Members’ concerns—we should not be in this position. It is not this Government’s fault that a scheme was set up that was never going to work financially, but we have a responsibility to the people of Northern Ireland to ensure that the solution put in place is fair and does not have a detrimental effect on those who invested in all good faith.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield). I thank her for her genuine interest in Northern Ireland affairs and for contributing to the debate.
As has been pointed out, this Bill contains two totally unrelated pieces of legislation. The reasons for that have been given, although I am not convinced that this is the best way of dealing with the issues at hand. Let me deal first with rates. I accept what the Secretary of State said; it is important that people in Northern Ireland contribute through their rates to some of the public expenditure required to keep services going in Northern Ireland. But when we impose those additional charges, whether on domestic or business rates, it is important that we bear in mind two things: the ability to pay and the impact that any taxation has on either the businesses or households concerned.
I have reservations about the level of the domestic rate increase, which is above the rate of inflation—it is the rate of inflation plus 3%. That will cause difficulty for households, as some people will not qualify for housing benefit on their rates but are still in low-paid employment and want to stay in employment. That will cause difficulty, but it is nothing compared with what was originally proposed. Let us not forget that the original proposal was 10% plus inflation. I am glad that the Secretary of State did not pursue that. The party of government, like my party, believes in leaving people with as much of their money to spend as possible. People know how to spend their money better than the Government. It would have been a travesty if the Government had proposed an 11.8% increase in the rates that people pay for their home, especially given the Government’s boast time and again—one they ought to be proud of—that they are seeking to bring down the level of taxation. I am pleased that my colleagues and I had a role to play in knocking that figure down.
On the issue of business rates, this is really a 0% increase in real terms. Nevertheless, business rates in Northern Ireland are, for a number of reasons, some of the highest in the United Kingdom. The Chancellor has announced some business rates relief schemes—incidentally, we did have a Barnett consequential for that in Northern Ireland—but because of the non-functioning of the Assembly, it was not possible to revise the small business rate relief scheme in Northern Ireland. While that money was made available to the general purse, it was not translated into reductions for businesses.
In the long term, I think we need to look at the whole issue of business rates. It is of course a tax that is not related in any way to the ability of a business to pay. It does not reflect the buoyancy of the business or, indeed, the income from the business; it simply reflects the size of the premises and the rateable value of the premises that businesses happen to be occupying. For some people, that will lead to under-taxation because they could afford to pay more, but for many businesses it leads to over-taxation because their overheads go up or stay the same even though their income and their ability to pay are going down, which affects so many.
I suppose it is not just an issue for Northern Ireland, but this is one of the reasons why we have so many vacant premises on so many of our high streets. As businesses have come under pressure from online retailing and from the changes in the way consumers spend their money, they find their revenues going down, but the overhead of rates still remains the same. In the longer term, I think we need to have a review of business rates. I am pleased that at least there has not been a real-terms increase in rates for businesses, although I know many of them will struggle even with the inflationary increase in this piece of legislation.
Let me turn to the second part of the Bill on the changes to the renewable heat incentive payments. I do not think anyone can say that this scheme has been a success by any means. In fact, it has been a disgrace, and the way in which it was set up and has been abused required there to be a change. However, I must say that when it comes to subsidies for renewable heat, I do not think that some of the practices instigated through this Parliament and in this part of the United Kingdom would stand up to scrutiny any more than the renewable heat incentive stood up to scrutiny in Northern Ireland.
We have a situation at present that makes the subsidy in Northern Ireland disappear into insignificance. At Drax B power station, the subsidy has climbed from £250 million a year when the Liberal Democrat Minister introduced it to £800 million this year, and it is going to go up to £1,000 million a year, when coal could be mined two miles down the road. And what do we do? We bring in wood pellets from America. We chop down trees in America, put them in a boat, bring them to England and burn them in a power station, and we pay a subsidy of £800 million a year for it. I wonder how many houses in the south of England are having their outdoor swimming pools heated with boilers for which people get a renewable heat incentive payment. Is that a good use of public money? The renewable heat incentive has not received the same level of scrutiny in other parts of the United Kingdom as in Northern Ireland, where it was seen to be abused. However, there are big questions to be asked about the scheme, not just in Northern Ireland but in any other part of the United Kingdom.
I have several points to make about the need for review. We have been told that the legislation has to pass today instead of being given the level of scrutiny required. Many hon. Members have asked detailed, probing and important questions, but we are told that if the Bill does not pass today, no subsidy regime at all will be available at the beginning of the next financial year, and that if we continue with the existing subsidies, we will be subject to infraction proceedings from the European Union.
Why was all this brought forward at the last minute? It is not that the review of the scheme has been forced on the Department in the past three or four months; it was initiated by the last Minister for the Economy before the Assembly fell, more than two years ago. What has happened in the meantime? Why has it taken two years, with a rush to pass the legislation at the very end? The joke in Northern Ireland is that evolution works quicker than some of our Departments. However, given that the review was initiated more than two years ago, I have to ask why, at the last minute, we are suddenly being presented with a piece of legislation that raises a lot of questions, instead of being given time to carry out the proper scrutiny, in Committee and so on, that the hon. Member for Lewes and the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee have suggested.
Maria Caulfield
It strikes me, as an MP who is still fairly new in this place, that the attitude is often, “It’s only Northern Ireland, so we can whizz it through in a day.” It should not be right for any Bill to pass Second Reading, Committee and Third Reading in one day without any suitable scrutiny.
Sammy Wilson
The hon. Lady makes her point well, as she did in her speech.
Not everyone abused the scheme. Some did, and it is right that their subsidies were cut, but many people had the scheme sold to them by the then Sinn Féin Minister of Agriculture and by the Minister in the Department for the Economy. It was sold to farmers and many other businesses as a subsidy for heating their premises because they were using the kind of energy that was in vogue with the Department, which wanted to cut down on CO2. I am not really sure how burning wood cuts down CO2 emissions—I am told that it puts as much CO2 into the air as coal, and some of the pellets are imported from miles and miles away—but that was the thinking at the time.
People undertook in good faith to install the boilers. They borrowed money, expecting a certain level of return and a flow of payments. They could have put in gas boilers and got cheaper energy, but because of the hysteria against fossil fuels, it was decided to subsidise wood burning, so people installed a more expensive boiler and expected to get money in return.
We are told that the sudden and very substantial reduction in the subsidy happened because the EU said that it was required to keep us to the average 12% level. There has been some dispute, in discussions with officials, about whether the rate of return can be between 8% and 22% so long as it averages out at 12%, or whether it is a maximum of 12%. If we had had the time or a mechanism to bring forward officials we could have probed into that, but we are told it is 12%.
In England, the subsidy per boiler is about five times higher than the subsidy per boiler in Northern Ireland. The scheme in the Irish Republic pays about six times more per boiler than in Northern Ireland. The question is this: how can you pay a subsidy five times more in England and still be within EU state aid limits? You can pay a subsidy that is six times more in the Republic of Ireland and still be within EU state aid limits. In Northern Ireland, however, it has to be at the level of £2,000 per boiler to stay within the state aid limits.
The explanation given—I cannot question it as I do not have enough information—is that, “Oh, the cost of boilers and the cost of fuel is different in Northern Ireland from the cost in England”. I could believe that if we were talking about, say, a 10% difference, but we are talking about a percentage difference in the hundreds here. Why does a boiler cost substantially more in England than it does in Northern Ireland? You might argue that it is because of transport costs, but then why does it not cost more in the Irish Republic? If a boiler has to come from England or another country, it has to be transported across the sea to the Republic of Ireland. Why should fuel cost substantially more in Northern Ireland than it does across the border in the Irish Republic? There might be some explanations as to why it costs less than in England, but why should there be such a huge difference between the two jurisdictions on the one island?
There could be perfectly good explanations for that, but given that the Department for the Economy got its figures so wrong for the initial scheme, you can understand, Madam Deputy Speaker, why people in Northern Ireland are sceptical about any figures that come out of the Department. The Department did not spot that the subsidy was substantially more than the cost of fuel and got its figures so wrong that there was a massive overspend. Figures for any scheme it brings forward need to be scrutinised properly. There is no opportunity to do that, despite whatever questions we ask Ministers today. A lot of these things come out through discussion, not through a question and a quick answer back from a Minister.
Those are the kinds of issues that need to be addressed. Unfortunately, I think we will have to vote for the Bill tonight, because there really is no alternative and it would be far worse to leave people with no scheme by voting against it. However, the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee suggested that there ought to be a commitment to allow the Committee, even after the Bill is passed, to have the opportunity to bring officials and anyone else necessary along, so that it can question them on the figures. If those figures are shown to be wrong, the scheme has to be amended to ensure that the level of subsidy paid reflects the true costs of the scheme. That is the one assurance we have to give to those who have been badly bitten.
I welcome the intervention and the fact that there was also some discussion on the budget, albeit late in the day. I think it was only two or three weeks ago that we were first given sight of what was proposed in the budget, but because the decision had to be made internally—purely by the Northern Ireland Office and the Department of Finance—there was time to revise the enormous increase that was being proposed initially for the rates. In the case of the renewables scheme, it had to go back to Europe. Thank goodness that after 29 March, we will not have to worry about state aid rules. We can make our own decisions. That is a good thing and another reason why the House should make sure that we get out on 29 March, so that we can decide on the kind of support that we want to give industry or the lack of support—
Maria Caulfield
May we ask the Minister if—when we leave the EU on 29 March—we could look again at the subsidy issue, given that state aid rules will no longer apply?
Sammy Wilson
I agree with the hon. Lady. One of the reasons why we need scrutiny of the legislation, even after it has gone through, is so that we have a chance to revise it if we see that the figures are wrong. Since people have bought the boilers and had the infrastructure installed, would it be better to find a level of subsidy that enables people to continue to use them rather than just buying them out? The fact that we have a buy-out clause in the Bill shows that the Government and Department know that there will be hardship for people, although I suspect that the terms of the buy-out will be so draconian that it will not be worthwhile people doing that.
We will be supporting the legislation, albeit reluctantly, but on the basis that there will be an opportunity for the good questions that Members across the House have asked today to be looked at in more detail.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the next hon. Gentleman to speak, I have to announce the result of today’s six deferred Divisions on questions relating to regulations on exiting the European Union. In respect of the question relating to financial services and markets, the Ayes were 303 and the Noes were 250, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the question relating to electricity, the Ayes were 302 and the Noes were 44, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the question relating to gas, the Ayes were 300 and the Noes were 44, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the question relating to food, the Ayes were 303 and the Noes were 44, so the Ayes have it. In respect of the question relating to electronic communications, the Ayes were 301 and the Noes were 257, so the Ayes have it. And, in respect of the question relating to road traffic, the Ayes were 301 and the Noes were 251, so the Ayes have it.
We will recommence the Second Reading debate with Mr Vernon Coaker.
[The Division list is published at the end of today’s debates.]
Vernon Coaker (Gedling) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who, apart from the last couple of sentences, I thought made a really good, interesting speech.
I make these points very seriously. I agree with virtually every comment that has been made in the Chamber. It is particularly important, given the fact that the devolved Assembly has not been meeting for over two years, that we in this Parliament, without moving towards any sort of direct rule, are seen by the people of Northern Ireland to be joining others who take an interest because they represent Northern Ireland to scrutinise properly the legislation that has a massive impact on the people who live there. In that context, I will make a couple of points—first, about regional rates and more generally, about the RHI.
The majority of Members of this United Kingdom Parliament would consider it quite inadequate to be given information that makes bland statements of the sort the Secretary of State made in her introduction. That is why I intervened. She basically announced that the Government were going to increase the regional rate by 3% plus inflation. There is no explanation of how they arrived at that figure. What debate was had? I am not talking about the ability to amend the figure or take on the civil servants in Northern Ireland, but that figure was not plucked out of thin air. There have been discussions. There have been discussions—quite rightly—with representatives here, and we now hear that 10.5% or 11.5% was suggested. The vast majority of Members, given the absence of the devolved Assembly, would have been completely unaware of that.
Whatever the rights and wrongs, what is the consequence of reducing the rate to 3%? Somewhere along the line, the Northern Ireland Office, in consultation with representatives in Northern Ireland—business and so on—arrived at 3%. Was there an option to go lower? The right hon. Member for East Antrim rightly made the point that for some families even 3% plus inflation will be a significant cost. No information has been given to Parliament, yet we are set to agree the rate. I am not suggesting we should not agree it, but what reasons were given for a lower increase?
In her written ministerial statement, the Secretary of State said:
“This budget position has been constructed on the basis of a 3% (plus inflation) increase on the domestic regional rate, and 0% plus inflation on business rates. I consider that this is a necessary and important step to continue to support public services”.—[Official Report, 28 February 2019; Vol. 655, c. 24WS.]
In any other public debate, the Secretary of State or Minister would explain how they had arrived at that figure. I am not saying it is wrong; all I am saying is that I have no idea from the information I have gathered—from a few media reports and from what Northern Ireland Members have said—how it was arrived at. Since we are making this decision, in the absence of the devolved Assembly, the Government should be making more information available, while respecting the fact that we are in circumstances none of us wishes to be in.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP)
The regional rate will make up roughly 46% of the overall domestic rate in household bills from April. Most local authorities have struggled to maintain below-inflation rate increases, and they will be impacted because the public will not understand that a large percentage is a regional add-on to the rates bill. They will not see that the 5.8% is a regional add-on.
Vernon Coaker
That is an interesting point. The hon. Gentleman has shared with the House another important piece of information that will no doubt be reported and on which it is important that Parliament reflects. Nobody is saying this is wrong or that the Government are in a state of confusion, but where is the information that would allow us to consider this in a much more measured and informed way?
I know it is unrelated to the Bill, but we were told time and again in yesterday’s debate, “It’s been agreed we should spend more on education and health and that necessarily means less on other areas”. It is stated, not argued. The House is given no information for why it is. It is just asserted. In the present circumstances, I would suggest to the Minister, the Secretary of State and the Northern Ireland Office that they consider much more carefully how they inform the House of how decisions have been arrived at. That is not to usurp the functions of the civil service in Northern Ireland or to seek to replace the devolved settlement, but if we are being asked to make decisions, we should have much more information.
I have a similar view about the business rate. The business rate increase is 0%, but plus inflation, so it is not 0% as such. Again, the right hon. Member for East Antrim outlined some of the difficulties for business. Notwithstanding the investment that is taking place in Northern Ireland and the success stories there, there are issues surrounding the business rate. Those who google or read the Northern Ireland press will be able to see some of what businesses are saying about what they perceive as the unfairness with which it operates. It is not necessarily for the House to say that it should be changed, because that is not our function, but if it is 0% plus inflation, it is certainly our function to consider it.
Why was it necessary for the right hon. Member for East Antrim, rather than the Secretary of State or the Minister, to outline some of the problems that businesses were identifying in respect of the increase? The Secretary of State, and the Minister, when he responds to the debate, should say something about this, to demonstrate to the people of Northern Ireland that we understand what is going on, and that the decisions that are being made in the present circumstances reflect that. The hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) said something very similar, unless I misinterpreted what she said. As I have observed on numerous occasions to various Secretaries of State, we seem to be rubber-stamping things without proper scrutiny and without being given any proper information.
Let me now make some comments about the RHI scheme. No one would want us to be where we are now, but the seriousness of this is simply astonishing. As has been said by the right hon. Member for East Antrim and others—including, I think, the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison)—the House has not much alternative but to pass the Bill as it stands. According to the explanatory memorandum, 1,800 small and medium-sized businesses—about 100 per constituency, on average—will be affected if it is not passed, because no subsidy arrangements will be available to them. This is a phenomenal problem. No wonder the people in those businesses will be looking at what is happening here and, in many cases, will be in despair. As we all know, small businesses depend considerably on cash flow. Many are already struggling, and people are working hard to make ends meet. Of course some sort of scheme must be in place, but I agree very much with the Chair of the Select Committee. It does come to something when, essentially, we are approving this scheme because it is a case of “Oh my God, if we don’t, we will be in trouble.”
Ian Paisley
The hon. Gentleman has put his finger on a number of issues. We have been told that it is the legal opinion of the Department that that is the case, but we are not able to see or challenge that legal opinion. That is why a judicial review has been launched. It could actually be that the legal opinion that the Department is proffering is wrong, and that we could, at the end of the month, revert to the original payment scheme.
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. We are caught in the headlights. The threat that is being made is that if we do not do this, we will be responsible for ensuring that farmers get zero. That is not right.
Vernon Coaker
I cannot really add to what the hon. Gentleman has said, other than to agree with it. That sums it up. Members of the public will be looking at us—they will not be distinguishing between the Government and the Opposition—and wondering how on earth we have let it come to this. All I can say to the Minister is that, notwithstanding the fact that it looks as if we will have to pass the Bill otherwise people simply will not know what the position will be after 1 April, I think there is a great deal of merit in what the Chair of the Committee said. I think that the Minister—I hope he is listening to what I am saying—needs to take account of what has been said by every single Member on both sides of the House. They are saying even if it is necessary to pass this legislation for the reasons that we have heard—to give that certainty—notwithstanding the fact that there is a legal challenge and notwithstanding the fact that we seem to be doing this because we have no choice and we are caught in the headlights, the Government must recognise the strength of opinion about this. They must take up at the very least the very reasonable suggestion by the Chair of the Select Committee and check—particularly if there is a legal challenge, in which case they will have to—whether the statistics are right and whether the Committee can look at this. If it is found that there is an alternative to what is happening at present the Government can perhaps review the legislation.
I know what will happen in the civil service, with all due respect; it will say it is not possible. My experience of Government is that if there is a will everything is possible, and it is perfectly possible for the Secretary of State and the Minister of State—two of the most senior members of the UK Government—to take responsibility and say they are not prepared for 1,800 businesses to be treated unfairly, because by and large those people are totally innocent. In totally good faith, they took on the RHI, and they should not pay the price of a public policy failure. If that means that as a result in a couple of weeks, a month or six weeks, the Government have to review what has happened, I think that will be a price worth paying, because that will be fairness. People expect the Government to operate in a way that is fair to all.
I hope that the Minister heard what I said about information that should be made available to this Parliament on how things like a regional rate are decided, not in order to disagree, but to have greater information to understand how a decision has been arrived at. On the RHI, can the Minister reassure the House whether something can be done in a few weeks should it prove possible to do that and should it prove to be the case that the statistics were wrong?
I hope—as I know the Minister, the Secretary of State and every Member of this House does—that in the longer term, whatever that means, we can see a restoration of devolved government. I gently say to all of them that what might need to happen is, rather than just wishing it, we should try to see whether there is something new we can say or do that will hasten the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
It is good to follow the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker). When he said, “Where there’s a will there’s a way,” I thought he was going to get into the Brexit debate, like my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), and say, “If there’s a will, there’s a way,” and we hope that in the next few weeks we find that will from our negotiating partners and then find a way out, truly, of the EU. But I digress by straying on to the Brexit debate.
The debate on the Bill has largely been masked by the debate around RHI, and it would be remiss of me not to pass some comment on clause 1 and what has been achieved. My right hon. Friends the Members for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) have been heavily engaged for the last number of weeks on that point. As has already been alluded to, we would have been facing a massive rates hike if it had not been for that negotiation. If only it had been the same for the second part of the Bill: that we had had early sight of it and could discuss and challenge and probe it and therefore see a much more beneficial change than the one that has come forward on RHI. We must, however, congratulate our colleagues on their hard work in trying to significantly improve the rates issue.
The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), made some very kind remarks about the situation in Ballymena. I believe that there is an agreement today to see new opportunities created there by USEL, an employer that has set up a site on the Woodside Road industrial estate, and that is leading directly to the employment of 60 new workers in the constituency. Unfortunately, I was unable to attend the opening of that site because of duties here in Parliament, but I know that the Gallaher charitable trust, which I chair, led with key financial support to that building and that employer and that that has directly resulted in the employment of those people. Where did that charitable trust money come from? It is a legacy fund left over from when JTI Gallaher had to close its doors, and I am delighted that the first thing we have been able to do, through paying out money and resources, is to help to create 60 new jobs in the constituency. I hope that in the next few years we will see not only the charity that I chair but other employers adding to the local economy and creating new jobs and skills, leading to a revival in local employment.
I hope that the measures on the city deals will shortly come before the House, as they could apply very beneficially to the Mid and East Antrim Borough Council area, as could the Heathrow hub scheme. All those projects could see a huge increase in the employment and opportunities coming to my constituency, and I am delighted with the work that will be done in that regard. I want to ask the Secretary of State and her Minister to challenge Translink to hurry up and create more orders for the local bus building company in my constituency. It is great to see it getting orders from places all over the world, including Latin America and Hong Kong, but I would love to see more orders coming through to it from Translink, and I encourage the Secretary of State to push for those orders to come forward.
We now have to turn to the perplexing issue of the renewable heat incentive. The shadow Secretary of State was absolutely right to say that we are being presented with an amalgamation of two Bills. That is wrong; there should be a stand-alone piece of legislation on the RHI, because it is so controversial and far-reaching, and because the consequences of the issue will be felt by a lot of people in Northern Ireland for a very long time—indeed, probably for the next 20 years. Instead, these measures have just been stapled on to the back of this Bill, and we are now being expected to nod it through without serious, appropriate scrutiny. I do not believe in nodding through legislation; nor do I believe in the emergency process by which we are taking through this legislation. Northern Ireland deserves better, and this House has to demonstrate to Northern Ireland that we are going to give it better.
Officials in Northern Ireland have handed us these proposals, and I believe that they think we should accept them without challenge or scrutiny. That would be wrong, because it would be unfair on the people we represent. I think that people will understand and accept our caution, given that these are the very same officials who brought forward the first flawed scheme. We are now expected to accept the evidence they are giving us today as being good, beneficial, tested and rigorous and to accept that it will be all right on the night. That is not the case, however, because there are flaws in what is being put to us, and even in the manner in which it is being put to us, and they should be properly challenged.
Those in the Department are privately telling us that they would welcome the opportunity for further scrutiny. They do not want the debacle of the past to happen again; they want to learn from the mistakes of the past, rather than to repeat them. I believe that any such extra scrutiny would be very beneficial. A new clause has been tabled to the Bill—it stands in the name of the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Committee, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), and several other Members from across the House—and I hope that the you, Madam Deputy Speaker will be kind enough to select it and allow us to debate that issue properly.
Two wrongs never make a right. The obvious historical problems with the RHI tariff are the subject of an ongoing inquiry, and it would not be right to press those matters here today. However, the future ought never to be held to ransom by the past. Unfortunately, the Bill that the Secretary of State has brought to us today will hold the future of the RHI to ransom because of what has happened in the past, and that is wrong. We need to treat people fairly and honestly going forward. No matter what the RHI inquiry throws up, which will have to be dealt with on its own terms, we have a duty and a responsibility to treat the RHI owners in a way that is respectful, honest and fair, and equitable with the rest of the United Kingdom.
Everyone can look at the measures and the proposed cuts in support—from as much as £13,000 to about £2,000 per annum—and then at those same people who have bank loans signed up to on the basis of the original business plans and legal arguments. The banks, however, will not go back on the original plans. They will not say, “We’ll just forgive all that debt; it’s all over.” Banks do not operate like that, and why should they? They were given business plans guaranteed by the Government—legal guarantees—and they expect people to honour the payments agreed.
The Government have to accept that the way in which the issue has been brought forward tonight is not fair to 2,020 boiler owners in Northern Ireland. The vast majority of them, as the hon. Member for Gedling said, have done nothing wrong; they followed the rules, totally and absolutely, yet tonight they are being held to ransom by the system. Most of those RHI users are not abusers of the system, but they will all be punished by the system that is to be introduced now. Again, that is grossly unfair.
People can look across the channel to see the English system, or south to see the RHI system that has been proposed but not yet introduced in the Republic of Ireland, where support will be significantly higher than even here on the British mainland. The Bill will not only punish but in effect end for the next 20 years all renewable energy plans and damage forever anyone who claims a copper-bottomed guarantee from the Government, no matter the shade of that Government, because they will look back at this scheme and say, “Look how we were done over, treated shabbily and given no answers to our questions. This will lead us to a situation in which we are treated badly.”
Today, I tabled questions about levels of support and Barnett consequentials for RHI payments in both Scotland and Wales. The proposals in the Republic of Ireland will be so much more generous even than what will be made available here in England, as well as in Scotland and Wales. The only part of the United Kingdom that will therefore be treated unfairly is Northern Ireland. The cuts are to the bone, and through it.
The argument presented by the Department yesterday in a 15-minute presentation was that this would stop a breach of state aid rules. That simply is not good enough. We have to be given more substance and the legal arguments to demonstrate the precise nature of those state aid requirements, which do not appear to apply to another European Union member state—namely, the Republic of Ireland—or to the rest of the United Kingdom or any of its regions, whether Scotland, Wales or England. State aid rules are supposed to apply in the same way, yet Northern Ireland has been singled out to be treated differently.
The Department has a duty to make the case in public. It and the Secretary of State cannot give a 15-minute briefing to the shadow Secretary of State or us as Members of Parliament in a conference, and then expect us to sell it to the public. Do they think we are mad? That is not acceptable. The Department has a duty to stand up in public and to defend itself. Will the Secretary of State make herself and officials available to the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee for us to ask them the difficult questions? Let us at least have the opportunity to put those questions to the Secretary of State, because so far today we have had no answers to any questions.
For example, how did the Department come to the figure for the average cost of boilers in Northern Ireland? What was the basis on which that was done? The Department has given us a figure for the average cost, and are we just to accept it? We are not equipped to challenge that figure unless we see the evidence, but we are not allowed to see that evidence. We are just told that we have to accept it. We have the great sword of Damocles hanging over us—“If you don’t accept it by the end of the month, farmers will not be paid.” Blackmail is all that is, and it is wrong.
What is excluded from the cost assumptions in Northern Ireland? Are those same exclusions made to the cost assumptions here in England? We did not get any of that answer. We asked three or four times during the 15-minute presentation, and there were raised eyebrows, buts and tuts, and, “Ask someone down the video line. He might be able to tell you.” We were not able to confirm whether the £2,500 plumbing costs or the £1,000 electrical costs are included in the English scheme but excluded from the Northern Ireland scheme. If so, why? If they are, I am not the one to sell it to the general public in Northern Ireland on the basis of a 15-minute presentation; it is up to the Department to sell it.
When a person applies for one of these boilers, they have to seek planning permission, which is a costly exercise. They have to pay a lawyer and, usually, an architect. Is all that included in the English scheme but excluded from the Northern Ireland scheme? Apparently, it is included in the English scheme but excluded from the Northern Ireland scheme. If it is excluded from one on the basis that it is against state aid rules, I can tell the House there is an express train coming down the tracks towards those who try to include it in the English scheme. We have to address those issues.
Do the cost assumptions differ from what is permitted in England? If so, why do they differ? The Department and, indeed, the Secretary of State need to answer that question. If 12% is the rate of return, why can the rest of the UK work on a rate of return of between 8% and 23%, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim said? Why is there that differential? We were given an excuse yesterday. We were told 16 times that the European official had told the Department for the Economy that it could not move from 12%. Why can it not move from 12%? It is up to the Department to reveal the answer, if it has one. Why should I go out and sell it to my constituents when the Department told me that Europe has said it cannot do it? That might have been all right for the past 40 years, but from 29 March it will not be acceptable. Europe cannot tell us all those things, and it is therefore wrong, 23 days before we leave, that the EU is allowed to hold us to ransom on that point.
When we ask whether the state aid rules will still apply after 29 March, some lawyers say they will and others say they will not. Why should I make the case in public? It is up to departmental officials and the Secretary of State to make the case, and they have to answer those questions. Officials say that the EU does not allow them to stray from 12%. Why is that the case? A judicial review was lodged this morning, and the appeal will be heard in April. Is it really appropriate for us to change the tariff about 30 days before that judicial review hearing? I do not believe it is. I think that in itself could constitute knowledge that we were doing something wrong, and I think the Department needs to move.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) made the point well that the buy-out scheme is an admission that this scheme is flawed. If that is the case, the Government will pay out even more compensation if it goes to judicial review. Will the state aid rules apply after 29 March?
If we were successful in voting against the Bill tonight, would the payments stop on 1 April? The Secretary of State made that case. When we asked yesterday for evidence to back it up, we were told that it is just a legal opinion, but that legal opinion is being tested in the courts today because there is another equally valid legal opinion saying that it is a wrongful interpretation. We will know the outcome in the first or second week of April.
All those questions need to be answered in advance of our taking a decision. We are not being given the proper time to scrutinise this properly. It is little wonder that we have been inundated by calls, emails and personal visits from hundreds of constituents, businesses and farm families who are affected because this touches more than 2,000 owners in Northern Ireland. If those businesses go out of existence, that would be the equivalent of 60,000 or more small businesses closing here on the British mainland. That perhaps gives a sense of the proportion of what has been affected; we are talking about tens of thousands of families who would be affected if this was transferred over here. We have to address that matter properly. The Department has a duty to make that case in public. It is not our duty to make the case for it, because it is sitting on the evidence. I would therefore welcome the opportunity to scrutinise it properly; the Secretary of State and officials should come before the Select Committee. They should make themselves available instead of expecting us to nod this matter through.
I agree that if Stormont was in place tonight, this debate would be better placed there—that is where it should be taking place—but we have to deal with the cards as they are currently, and Stormont is not in place. It would therefore be a dereliction of our duty to do this in what we would describe locally as a “half-baked way”. Frankly, what we are doing here tonight is half-baked; this is not proper scrutiny, with Parliament at its best, but Parliament doing something and taking shortcuts. That will result in problems down the line. I fear that in a matter of months something will come out and people will say, “You really should not have taken that decision on 6 March 2019. It was a huge mistake.”
We are therefore right to be cautious about supporting this part of the Government’s proposal tonight. This House has a duty to carry out scrutiny, in the absence of the Assembly, and to do it properly. The Department, whenever we met its representatives, outlined how it came to its calculations, but the only conclusions I can draw is that if the Department for the Economy is right in what it has told us, the scheme currently operating here in England is unlawful. If that is the case, an even bigger question is raised. I have asked that very question of officials and looked at their answer. If officials know that that system was unlawful, they are on notice today that they had knowledge of it and, in effect, they let us know that they had knowledge of an unlawful system operating on the mainland. If that is the case, the scheme being proposed for the Republic of Ireland would, similarly, be unlawful under state aid rules. So the Government have a duty to allow us to scrutinise this properly. I welcome the fact that an amendment has been tabled, which we will get to debate later, and I hope the Government will be able to concede some of the points we have put to them and that we will be able to address those issues fairly.
I wish to end my remarks by referring to a couple of emails that I have received out of those from the hundreds of people who have been in touch with us. Whenever we boil things down to the actual person and family involved, we actually see what is happening. Jacqui and Thomas are from a farm family in my constituency. They said that the Department for the Economy has been “ignoring” them for months. They said that they have been emailing the Department, trying to make contact with it and sending it their questions about these matters when the consultation originally came out, but it has been ignoring “genuine RHI users”. Jacqui says:
“I totally object to be financially punished for adhering to the requirements of the Scheme and blame this department for putting my farming business at risk.”
That will have been repeated up and down the country, not just in my constituency, but across County Tyrone and in all of County Antrim, where we are a major food producer for these islands.
We must remember that this is largely about producing poultry that is sold in supermarkets up and down the UK. Most of the poultry eaten on this side of the channel is grown in County Antrim and County Tyrone. If this puts farm businesses at risk, it damages our food security and our biosecurity and everything is now at risk. That is the consequence of what we are doing; it damages businesses and it damages what we actually feed to our children. So let us address it and address it properly.
Sammy Wilson
Does my hon. Friend not think it is rather ironic that we have had all these debates in the House about the impact of Brexit on supply chains, yet here is a measure that, as he has rightly pointed out, could have a massive impact on the supply chain of the agri-food business in Northern Ireland and throughout the United Kingdom?
Ian Paisley
The consequences of and ripples out from this are so significant. It is not about cheap energy; it is about how we run our economy efficiently and effectively. What is our economy in Northern Ireland? It is principally small businesses that produce the best viable, traceable, tastiest food in these islands. We are putting that at risk, and we are putting those jobs and farm families at risk. We really need to pause, and the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire gives us that opportunity to try to get this right. I look forward to the second part of proceedings.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to speak in this House at any time, whether it be first or last—whatever the case may be—and I relish the opportunity to do so today. I wish to follow on from the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and others, but I wish first to touch on the regional rates. Come 1 April, when many people get their regional rates bill, they will wonder exactly what it is that they are getting for their rates. They will ask that question because of the degree of increase, and I can understand that.
I definitely very much appreciate the city deal relationship that the Government have put forward, in association with my party and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Nigel Dodds), my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Emma Little Pengelly) and those further afield. The advantage of the city deal is that we in Strangford, North Down, East Antrim and South Antrim will also get some of the benefit, because it will ripple out to the towns and villages.
What can we do for the high street? I ask primarily because in just the past fortnight several shopkeepers in Ballynahinch, Newtownards and Comber in my constituency were asking whether there is any help for the high streets at this time. The initial reason for this debate was the rates, so perhaps the Minister or Secretary of State can give us some indication of that.
I was very pleased about the stronger towns scheme, which was referred to in last night’s debate and which will ripple across and affect every region of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We are not yet sure what the figures are going to be, but there is potential to help the high street and those from all over the United Kingdom.
I wish to dwell on the RHI issue and scheme. I thank the Secretary of State for moving the motion. The RHI scheme has been an issue of tremendous difficulty in Northern Ireland, although I must make it clear from the outset that it has been used as a weapon by abstentionist Sinn Féin to strong-arm and foist an Irish language Act, among other things, on the people of Northern Ireland. They used it for their own purpose—for what they wish to achieve. They are not holding out for the inquiry conclusion and report on RHI to come back to do their job. They are using an opportunity to circumvent democracy and impose their will on the people of Northern Ireland. That cannot be borne and nor should it be allowed.
I was not overly au fait with RHI. We were never asked directly to help a constituent to apply and I was not in the Assembly at that stage, so the articles I read in the paper were the foundation of most of my knowledge of the scheme. Of course, as time has passed, I have been contacted by genuine businesses in my constituency—those people who applied legitimately, honestly and fairly, who never abused the scheme at any stage, and who have used it appropriately. Pastors and ministers of churches applied for the scheme. Farmers, too, applied for the scheme for their chicken houses and so on. Many of them invested tens of thousands of pounds in the equipment to qualify for the scheme and it is for those people that I feel extremely aggrieved—those people who did it right but who now find themselves in a very awkward place.
There is no doubt in my mind that the scheme has been massively abused by some people who do not even keep the livestock or the broilers in the sheds as the heat is far too much. They leave the windows open and are burning to make a profit. These people must realise that this cannot be acceptable and that they should not profit from this. They must be held to account.
However, by the same token, there are people who have loans based on an appropriate use of the scheme who may well not be able to pay those loans back and who will lose their businesses—not because they were greedy, but because they are using, and not abusing, the scheme. Let us be honest, when most of us have taken out a mortgage to buy a house or a new car, the bank manager will have always asked us how we would repay it. He would ask for a business plan for repayment or a direct debit. If the house is much more, he would look for collateral as well. Decisions to loan money—whether it be to a business or for a mortgage on a house—are based on a proven business plan, endorsed and agreed by the banks and, in this case, agreed by Government as well.
I wish to read out a letter from one of my constituents—I will not mention their name or where they are from in my constituency. Over the past few weeks, I have been contacted by many constituents—those who applied for the scheme and legitimately joined it on an honest basis. My constituent said:
“I am emailing to inform you of my circumstances as a poultry farmer in Co. Down in the constituency of Strangford. I have legitimate need for heat and I joined the scheme to make my business more sustainable, with the assurance of the 20-year RHI payment guarantee. Under this agreement, I took out substantial business loans. Although these boilers are significantly more expensive to purchase and install, and six times more expensive to service, I could budget for this knowing that RHI payments were secure for 20 years. I had confidence in the scheme when I entered it because the scheme was Government run”—
and so you would have—
“I now feel outraged that my business will suffer as a result of the lack of competence of some decision makers. It is not my fault that the rate was set too high, yet my business suffers as a result. I feel that I am being discriminated against; Northern Ireland is part of the UK so tariffs should have been set the same. I am already feeling the financial pressure to meet repayments and costs associated with running these boilers due to the 2017 amendments, but further cuts proposed by the DfE will leave my business under real threat.
Realistically, in order to keep my business running I will have to purchase oil boilers whilst still repaying off debt associated with the biomass. I don’t know where the money is going to come from. I therefore fear business closure. I would not have entered the scheme if the tariff was set at this proposed level! It is not financially viable! In addition, businesses from both communities in NI have joined the scheme”—
businesses from all parts of the community—
“I don’t understand why this has become a political issue. I hope you will support my business and do the right thing for the economy of NI by voicing my objection to the tariff cuts.”
That is one constituent of many who, under the deal that the Government introduced, went to the bank and got their loan with the tariffs. They did it the right way, yet they find themselves in a very serious position. These people have farmed all their lives. Their businesses are successful. They are family businesses; Northern Ireland is full of family businesses. These small and medium-sized enterprises across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland do great things for people and for their families. I despair that, through no fault of their own, my constituents find themselves in such financial difficulties.
Let me be clear that I am wholeheartedly behind a cut to the scheme, so that people burning ash to get cash cannot do so. However, the genuine people—the person I just spoke about and many others—will take a closer look at the 2019 GB scheme and see that alignment with this scheme would ensure that businesses, although not able to profit, will be able to survive. We want businesses to survive and to contribute to the Northern Ireland economy. That includes family farms. Individuals from churches and others also took out these schemes. The 2019 scheme is substantially lower than the original Northern Ireland scheme, and rightly so, but it also allows those who have invested more to recoup some of the running costs. My hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim and the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) referred to the buy-out scheme. That scheme indicates a certain legitimacy.
I stress again that this is not about retaining the current scheme or ensuring that people who abuse the scheme continue to do so; it is simply about a sensible UK-wide alignment that will not put genuine people out of business, while halting the systematic abuse. The Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has tabled an amendment, which others have signed. It is important for us to give that amendment an opportunity so that we can see what can be done about the scheme. Hopefully, it will bring us a bit closer to finding a system for the honest people who have found themselves in great difficulty. We must have more time to consider this issue, and the amendment would give us that opportunity.
I urge the Secretary of State to give consideration to alignment with GB at this time, and to understand the dire straits that some of my constituents are facing due to the machinations of unscrupulous people and a scheme that we now realise was not fit for purpose when it was initiated. This situation is not of their making, and it seems grossly unfair for them to pay for it when there is a UK-wide answer.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
During the wind-ups, it is customary to say that we have had a wide-ranging debate, but we have not. We have had a very narrow debate with very wide-ranging agreement, and there is a great deal of sadness at the fact that we are having to implement these measures.
I think we would all agree that it is a basic principle of any democracy that there should be no taxation without representation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker) said, we do not really know how this 3% increase has been arrived at and we do not know the implications, yet we are being asked to agree to it. We are all facing rate increases in our local areas, and local taxation is a subject of great debate in our constituencies. Rate increases are a controversial matter that generally need to be justified and accounted for by local councillors, and reported to local people. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) expressed well, the impact on our high streets concerns most of us, yet again we are not really able to dig beneath the figure to see the implications of this decision.
The Government are once again cherry-picking what can and cannot be discussed, and what should and should not be done, here in Westminster. There has been no assessment or mitigation of the impact of this decision and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) said in an intervention, there is no information about any support for those who face the impact of this decision, especially people on low incomes. As I said yesterday, we will of course support these measures this evening so that businesses can continue, but the situation really is highly unsatisfactory.
We all know that there is huge interest in the renewable heat incentive, particularly in Northern Ireland. Anyone following the inquiry will know how damaging this issue has been, further eroding confidence in Government and Government’s ability to deliver. I have been a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and I looked at some of the schemes operating in Britain, largely as a result of initiatives under the coalition Government. I think it was the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) who said that we must learn from the now rather large body of evidence across the United Kingdom about how incentives work in these sorts of schemes, and I agree with him. However, I do think—perhaps disagreeing with him—that these schemes have the laudable policy aim of reducing our dependence on fossil fuels.
Let me turn to how we have been considered in this process. The consultation closed in December. In that consultation, it was stated that legislation would be needed, so it was known by officials and the Secretary of State that we would come to the point at which someone would have to take legislative action. I ask the Minister—this has been raised by many other hon. Members—why we were not involved in those discussions before now, and why, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) said, we are again rushing through another important piece of legislation. I welcomed the opportunity, on behalf of the Opposition, to attend a briefing yesterday morning, although we were initially approached about it only on Monday evening. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) was not available for that briefing; many of us made ourselves available. We knew that legislation was coming, but there should really have been some sort of opportunity for pre-legislative scrutiny before we got to this point. I think that many of us would have made ourselves available for that, and then many of the questions that we rightly have could have been addressed.
Hon. Members have highlighted how this situation impacts on many good, genuine people who put their trust in Government. We have heard some examples today, and we have also received emails about the real impact on families and family businesses. It is fair to say, however, that the majority of individuals are not affected—and for the greater population, a decrease in the reliance on oil or fossil fuels is a good policy aim that we would support. There is not an awful lot of sun in Northern Ireland, but a fair amount of water and wind in order for renewable energy to play a really important role in future. It would be very unfortunate if this sorry episode blighted that developing agenda. This is important for the Department as it considers how to rebuild trust in any future schemes on renewable energy.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (John Penrose)
I will try to address a series of specific points that various Members have made during the course of this debate. I will also try to address some of the broader questions, some of them quite fundamental, about the RHI scheme and its many and manifest problems and shortcomings. That is partly because those issues were raised in the debate, but also because we are going on to consider an amendment in Committee and it may help to have a bigger shared fact base. This will not answer all the questions that will, quite rightly, be raised in Committee, but it may at least lay the foundations of that debate and help us to address them at that stage.
As the hon. Member for Bristol South (Karin Smyth) rightly said, we have had quite a narrow debate although with widely shared views across the House. I strongly agree with one point that she made at the end of her remarks, which is that it is easy to forget, amid all the concern about the flaws in the RHI scheme, that it was introduced for a very noble purpose as part of an attempt to decarbonise our economy by increasing the amount of renewable energy in Northern Ireland. That is part of a broader tapestry of other initiatives that are being introduced right across the UK and, indeed, in other countries around the world. We clearly should not lose sight of that—it is a vitally important point.
Sammy Wilson
Does the Minister agree that it is rather ironic that a scheme that is meant to decarbonise—for some people that is important; for others it is just an expensive burden on the economy—finishes up with wood being put into pellet form in North America, brought in ships across the Atlantic ocean, and then burned in boilers here in the United Kingdom? Does he really think that is a way of cutting down on carbon emissions?
John Penrose
The right hon. Gentleman said that he was not quite sure why burning wood was any better than burning other things, because the emissions are similar. If my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) were here, he would make the point that we have to be extremely careful about how we calculate the carbon footprint of some supposedly renewable fuels, because if we cut down virgin rainforests to grow things that are then pelletised and burned, the overall genuine carbon footprint is much worse than people like to pretend.
However, my hon. Friend would also make a sharp distinction between what I think is called long-cycle carbon—in other words, fossil fuels, where carbon has been locked away for millions of years, are a net release that makes an overall difference to the level of carbon—and short-cycle carbon, which is a sort of short-term recycling whereby things are grown in the course of our lifetime and burned. I will not try your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, by going into the detail of the level of greenery, but I hope we can all agree that this scheme, with all its manifest flaws, intended to pursue a noble purpose.
Before I go on to the details of the RHI scheme, I will address a few other points. The hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) asked a series of questions about Northern Ireland housing associations and, I think, was hoping to pin us down on when a piece of legislation might be introduced. I want to reassure him—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made this point, but I will repeat it—that the Government will take that forward as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd) asked about the stronger towns fund and said that he did not feel he had enough of an answer yesterday; I want to ensure that we try to provide that today. He will be aware that the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government made an announcement yesterday. The Treasury will apply the Barnett formula in the normal way and confirm the funding for each region in due course. We do not know that yet, but it will come out, and we will seek to ensure that towns in Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland can benefit, building on the success of the Government’s growth and city deals.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the applicable costs of the RHI scheme. I will address that specific item before coming on to the broader points. The scheme guidance, which I am sure we are all itching to go through in huge detail, has been published, and it sets out clearly the eligible costs. They are primarily the costs of the boiler. He mentioned costs to do with installation, pipework and the like, and some of those are included as well. Interest costs on borrowing are apparently not included as an eligible cost in this scheme. I wanted to share that with everybody, so that we have a shared fact base before we go into Committee and discuss the detail of the amendment tabled by the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison).
Questions have been posed about the up-front payments and how they would be calculated for people who wanted to opt out of the scheme because they felt that if they remained in it, they would lose out too badly. Straightforwardly, an individual’s costs—that means the cost of installation, the capital cost of the boiler and other eligible installation and running costs—will all be included, and they will be reimbursed up to the 12% target rate of return for the revised scheme. All the additional costs of the renewable technology above a fossil fuel one will be reimbursed. That is crucial, because a number of Members have raised questions about what happens to people who are worried that they are going to lose out. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) read out an email he received from someone with precisely those concerns. If they are concerned that it will no longer be economic for them to stay in the scheme, they can opt out. It will be a free option for them, and they are guaranteed to have made 12% on their money if they decide to opt out at that stage.
Lady Hermon
The Minister needs to address the point raised by a number of right hon. and hon. Members about those who entered the scheme in good faith with the legitimate expectation that it would last for 20 years on a particular tariff. How do the Government square that and address that really key point?
John Penrose
I am very happy to address that point. There is one thing that I know a number of people have found shocking. In fact, the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson)—I am probably slightly misquoting him, but this is broadly speaking what he said—was right to say that the RHI scheme as originally conceived has turned out, in spite of everyone’s best efforts, to be both a failure and a disgrace. Very sadly, he absolutely accurately describes what has happened.
It is also true to say—the hon. Member for Strangford was quite right to make the point—that very many did not go into the scheme with the intention of abusing it. Some of them were pastors in churches, and so on and so forth. The scheme was introduced for a good reason and, in the vast majority of cases, people entered into it for good reasons.
I therefore found it pretty shocking, and I am sure other people will share my shock, that of the participants involved—many of them with all the right intentions, as I have just described—80% have already, by today, received a 12% return for the entire 20 years of the scheme. If they did not get another penny piece, they would already have received a 12% return on their money. Even if there were another 14 years or however many years of the scheme left to run, since the day they entered it they have made a 12% return. The hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) is absolutely right to raise the question of legitimate expectations, but the participants have done incredibly well.
John Penrose
I will come to the hon. Gentleman in a minute, if I may.
I remind Members that although the scheme as it was originally conceived was supposed to have an average return of 12%, the actual rate of return on average for people has been 50%—a 50% return on their money. That is extraordinary, particularly when we consider that that money comes out of taxpayers’ pockets. Quite legitimately, people have asked why provisions on the rates and on the RHI modifications have ended up in the same Bill. It is fair to say that there are only five substantive clauses in total for both those issues, but it is worth remembering that one of the reasons they are together is that the costs of this extraordinary bounty are not just magicked out of thin air or paid for by nobody.
John Penrose
I will take interventions in a moment, but I want to finish this point.
The costs are paid for by taxpayers, and by rate payers in Northern Ireland as much as by anybody else. It is important for us all to remember the fundamental injustice that this unintentional, but none the less very serious, miscalculation has caused. I will go on to talk about what the miscalculation was in a minute, but a number of colleagues want to intervene and I will go to the hon. Member for Strangford first.
Jim Shannon
I gave the example of one of my constituents, whose legitimate expectation was to have repayments over a 20-year period. He negotiated the loans accordingly at a bank—the bank is very strict when it comes to borrowing money—and invested somewhere between £250,000 and £500,000, as did some other constituents. Given the expectation of a 20-year roll-out, the impact on these small businesses and family farms will be extensive. Is it not right that the 20-year long-term plan should be delivered?
John Penrose
Some people will have done very well out of this scheme, but I think the House will have a great deal more sympathy with those who have received below the average. I think that is the point the hon. Gentleman is making. The average may be extremely high and some people have done extremely well, even including those who have not run their boilers all the time, lived with the windows open and so on, and he gave examples of people who have not done that. Those who have received well below the average and are worried that they are going to lose out because they are well below the 50% average rate of return that has been achieved so far will still be able to opt out and will be made good. None of the historical payments they have received will be counted if they decide to opt out, and they will basically be told, “You will have a 12% return based on the money you’ve invested so far.” There is a route out for people who are worried; they will still be made whole and should not lose out. They may not make out extraordinarily or become rich, but 12% is a return that many of us would be very happy to earn on most other investments.
Tony Lloyd
I am grateful that the Minister is being so generous with his time. None of us has any brief for those who have done extraordinarily well out of all this; they should not have been allowed to be so lucky, but we should not let that delay us. The reality is that it is accepted as part of the scheme that there may be losers, as is recognised in the buy-out clause that the Secretary of State and the Minister pray in aid. A 12% return seems quite a good rate, but the fundamental problem is that the cost that the Minister tells us will be allowable as the basis for that return is not the same as the cost of the boiler plus installation. We need a guarantee that the problems faced by the potential losers will not be compounded by an incompetently designed buy-out scheme that cannot work for them financially.
John Penrose
I am delighted to be able to set the record straight. I think that I have already mentioned this, but perhaps I can expand on it: the point about the buy-out scheme is that it will be a 20% return—sorry, it is minus payments already made; I misspoke. It is a 12% return on the capital costs of the boiler and the other eligible installation and running costs that I mentioned in my reply to the hon. Member for North Down. It will be tailored to individual circumstances, and obviously people will need to produce receipts and so on, but if they have ended up paying slightly more for their boiler, they will not lose out. The hon. Member for Rochdale raises a perfectly valid question, but people who might otherwise lose out should be made whole, as the hon. Member for Strangford pointed out.
Ian Paisley
I appreciate that the Minister is making the case that has been given to him by the Department, but the crucial thing is how we set the average, because that is the basis of the calculation. The shadow Minister cited a cost to a constituent of £76,237, which suggests that the average cannot be £35,000. The more general average cost of the scheme in Northern Ireland appears to be settling at £44,607, but the Department in Northern Ireland has set the average at £35,900. If that average is set wrongly, the Minister’s figures go out the window. The trouble is that we have to rely on what the Department is telling us, but—as the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee points out—we have no evidence for it. We should be able to challenge the figures, but we have not been given the evidence to enable us to do so.
John Penrose
We will have to come back to the question of how to get more evidence into the room, as it were, but I will try at least to answer some of the questions that have been raised today. I appreciate that I will not be able to answer every one—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that—but I will try to cover as many as I can.
The averages that I am describing are average rates of return, which are calculated according to a whole range of things. Capital costs differ, because some people have bought bigger or more expensive boilers and because all sorts of other costs are involved, such as installation and fuel, but the target number is the average rate of return. As we have heard, the rates of return that are actually achieved will be distributed around that average; some people will do better, while some will do worse. That is why the buy-out scheme for those who will potentially lose out is so important. It is also worth while pointing out that the average rate of return is directly comparable across the rest of the UK. It will become 12% in Northern Ireland and it is 12% in Great Britain. As I understand it and for what it is worth—I appreciate this is of tangential relevance, but it is perhaps interesting information—the intended return of the Republic of Ireland scheme is 8%, not 12%.
Lady Hermon
The Minister, in response to a number of interventions, has repeatedly relied on data and detailed figures. Can he confirm that they are not in secret documents held in confidence within the Department for the Economy, and that they could be made public tonight and put in the House of Commons Library? I ask for the calculations to be published in the House of Commons Library within the next 24 hours. It is outrageous that we are being asked to approve a Bill tonight based on facts and figures that I certainly have not had sight of—perhaps others have—and I would like them to be made publicly available to the House within 24 hours.
John Penrose
There is an old saying that if you want something to be kept secret, you announce it on the Floor of the House of Commons and nobody will pay a blind bit of attention. I am trying to put some of the facts in, but I take the hon. Lady’s point. I will see if inspiration strikes me later on in my remarks as to whether that can be done, or whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can help in that regard. It is clear from everyone’s remarks on Second Reading that there is not just a thirst and an appetite but a genuine democratic need for proper scrutiny and for more details to be understood. That is what I am trying to do by what I am laying out now, but I take the hon. Lady’s point. Other Members have made a similar point. We had comments to that effect from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) the SNP spokesman, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), and the hon. Members for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), for North Antrim, for Strangford and for Bristol South.
I hope we have dealt with quite a lot of the points that were raised. The one point that I think remains at this stage—I am sure we will go into more detail in Committee in a moment—relates to process. Before I go any further, I should mention that a number of colleagues—there is clearly a political movement in North Antrim and in East Antrim—are pretty leery and worried about state aid rules. The hon. Member for North Antrim and the right hon. Member for East Antrim both raised this point and asked whether the state aid rules would continue after we leave the European Union. I am not sure if I am pleased or sorry to disappoint them both, but the answer is yes they will. We have agreed to port across, to begin with at least, all EU rules into UK law, including, obviously, state aid rules. They are both absolutely right to point out that it will then be up to this Parliament, rather than anybody else, to change them if we want.
However, we all need to be a little careful about what we wish for. For those of us who are free marketeers and free traders, or even those of us who are not but just want to see fair play, the changing of state aid rules needs to be approached with great care, because it can easily either slant the playing field in favour of foreign firms trying to export into Britain in ways that are unfair for British manufacturers and British producers, or alternatively create political favouritism and lobbying games. So we would need to approach that with a great degree of care. I know that it would be approached with a great deal of care on both sides of the aisle. It is theoretically possible, but on day one, I am sorry to tell the hon. Gentlemen from Antrim, they will not be changed and they will still apply.
Inspiration has just struck. I understand that the figures the hon. Member for North Down was asking about have already been published. They were published last May. We are trying to track down precisely where they are in order to make sure that they are properly available. I will come back to her, or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will come back to her, with the final version of the figures and make sure they are properly available. If we cannot track them down, we will try to come up with duplicates if we can.
Lady Hermon
The Minister said that the figures have been published. What I would really like are the calculations underlying those figures. We need to know how the figures were arrived at. Are those calculations in the public domain or can they be put in the public domain? That is what I would like to see.
John Penrose
I think the answer to the hon. Lady’s question is yes. I have not actually seen the figures—the ones published in May—but we will endeavour to clarify that and get them out there for her as soon as we can.
Let me finish by saying that there is a link between the decisions that have been taken by the Executive and where we are today. A number of colleagues asked whether the sunset clause will apply if we do not take a decision today. I remind people that back in March 2015, the Executive at the time took the decision to introduce some caps. Those were renewed roughly this time last year and expire at the end of March this year. That is the reason why we are so concerned about the timescale. I appreciate that this does not answer some of the questions about why we are having this conversation today rather than two weeks ago, or whenever it might be, but I reassure people that this is not something that someone has plucked out of the air. It has been extended on an annualised, fixed-term basis and is therefore due to expire at the end of this month. That is why this needs to be dealt with and sorted out, so that roughly 1,800 of the people who currently receive money can at least have the legal option of continuing to receive that money in future.
I should just say to the hon. Member for Gedling, who was muttering in concern, that when I said I had not seen the figures, I was talking about the precise figures that were published back in May. I have not seen those particular documents and therefore do not want to speak to what may or may not be in them at this stage rather than the broader point.
With that, I will sit down and let us move on to a more detailed conversation in Committee about the RHI scheme because there is clearly a material appetite to do that, and I do not want to stand in anybody’s way.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) (No. 2) Bill
Wednesday 6th March 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Act 2019 View all Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Committee of the Whole House Amendments as at 6 March 2019 (PDF) - (6 Mar 2019)
The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
I must inform the Committee that I have selected the amendment and the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison).
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Introductory
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chairman
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clauses 3 to 5 stand part.
Amendment 1, in clause 6, page 5, line 26, at end add—
“(4) Section (Regulations) comes into force at the end of the period of 3 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
Clauses 6 and 7 stand part.
New clause 1—Regulations—
“(1) The Secretary of State may make regulations by statutory instrument amending any provision within sections 2 to 5 of this Act or within the Schedule to this Act.
(2) Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing them has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.
(3) The Secretary of State may lay draft regulations under this section before Parliament only if the draft regulations take account of any relevant recommendations made by any select committee of the House of Commons.”
The purpose of this new clause is to ensure prior consultation, and full and proper scrutiny, of proposed changes to the renewable heat incentive scheme in order to ensure that current participants are not disadvantaged by changes to the scheme.
That the Schedule be the schedule to the Bill.
Karen Bradley
We have had significant debate on this matter on Second Reading and I do not wish to prolong proceedings any further at this stage. I look forward to hearing from right hon. and hon. Members.
Dr Murrison
I am grateful to you for calling me to speak in this stage of our proceedings, Sir Lindsay. The complexity of the Bill, apart from clause 1, has been demonstrated by the level of discussion that we have had. That really underscores the need for full and proper scrutiny of this Bill. Forcing this through all its stages in a day is a challenge, and I fear we have not explored sufficiently the complexity of this matter. It is a matter that bears on the lives of many people in Northern Ireland and we must get it right. I know the Secretary of State is as keen as I am to ensure that that happens.
I am grateful to the parliamentary draftsmen for their assistance in crafting my new clause, which is available in manuscript form. It turns what I thought would be a simple matter—that of dividing the largely uncontroversial part of the Bill from the more difficult bit on the RHI—into something that, in my mind, is really quite complicated, but that is the nature of this place and of parliamentary draftsmanship. We cannot consider these two parts separately and be sure the matter will be finalised in time for people to get their money on 1 April, so in consultation with parliamentary draftsmen, we have devised a new clause and an amendment to clause 6, which is the commencement clause.
I am grateful to the members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee who have co-signed the new clause and amendment. I have appended to the new clause what I hope is a helpful explanatory statement. It explains that the new clause is essentially a patch-up job that I hope will help to facilitate consultation and fuller and better scrutiny of proposed changes to the renewable heat incentive scheme to ensure that current participants are not disadvantaged by changes to the scheme. I appreciate that this is imperfect—I would have preferred for it to be dealt with separately and for the Bill to have been divided into two parts to allow for a proper debate on the RHI clauses and schedule—but I accept that we are faced with the choice of supporting the Bill or not and that if we do not support it many people will be financially disadvantaged, which is not acceptable. I hope that the new clause provides a mechanism for scrutinising this matter, albeit imperfectly, and for making recommendations that the Secretary of State might implement to ensure that as few people as possible are disadvantaged.
I am not in the business of job creation, and I gently point out that my Select Committee is the most productive in the House of Commons, according to figures I have seen—we are pretty busy, particularly at the moment—but it might be thought a proper Select Committee to undertake this work. If so, I will discuss it with my Committee, but I make no prescription. I am quite clear that this complicated element of our business needs proper detailed scrutiny and that we need to see and examine the data produced.
Several right hon. and hon. Members have been a little critical of the Department for the Economy. It is after all implicated in this situation, as the informatics it produced and the advice it gave are partly to blame for where we are, and that means we are doubly obliged to examine closely any material it has produced. That is fair and proper scrutiny. I gently suggest that whichever Select Committee undertakes this work focus heavily on that information so that we can be clear what is being recommended to the Secretary of State and are better able to make recommendations to minimise the hard cases that we are all concerned about in the course of this legislation. I hope she will consider the amendments carefully, and I look forward to hearing what she has to say.
Tony Lloyd
In his closing remarks, the Minister, who I believe was trying to be helpful, talked about the further exchanges that might take place in Committee. However, I think it would be remarkably difficult to prolong this debate in any meaningful detail, because of the granularity that was drawn to our attention by the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison). It will be about real-life cases of “winners, probably not, but losers, almost certainly”, which will become apparent only following the passage of some time. In that sense, I think the hon. Gentleman made an intelligent proposal when he said that we should consider how to proceed with pre-legislative scrutiny, and, indeed, I called for that on Second Reading.
In that context, I strongly support the new clause. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is not the perfect way forward, and it is probably not the best-structured way of achieving his ambitions and the wishes of other Members for adequate scrutiny, but it may well be the best that that we can achieve. I have confidence in the members of his Committee—I must have confidence in those colleagues of ours—because they do at least have a legitimate track record of both interest in the affairs of Northern Ireland and a determination to use the power of the Committee not only to hold the United Kingdom Government to account but increasingly, in this period of non-devolution, to raise matters that cannot be properly scrutinised in the context of Stormont. Ideally, if the world were different, there would be the equivalent of our Public Accounts Committee at Stormont level, but, although it existed in a functioning Stormont, it does not exist in the current circumstances.
I do not think I need to say any more, except that we support the new clause, although I am sure that if the Secretary of State has ambitions to take such action in an even better way, we will listen to her proposals.
Ian Paisley
It is always an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Lindsay.
I support the new clause. It has the overwhelming support of the parties here and of the Select Committee, which has been rightly identified as the Committee that should try to organise the scrutiny. I approve of the requirement in the new clause that the Secretary of State should bear in mind
“any relevant recommendations made by any select committee of the House”.
A number of points were made on Second Reading but, in particular, Members asked where the evidence came from and on what we were basing this, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) asked whether we could see the material. Yesterday was the first time that I, and many of my colleagues, were able to see the material on which tonight’s discussion is based. I have it in my hand. There is not a lot of it: it contains 300 words and three graphs. On the basis of a 300-word document with three graphs, we are being asked to agree a multi-million-pound subsidy cut in Northern Ireland. That is not right.
This requires scrutiny. Those 300 words may have convinced some people, and the Minister made a very good fist of making the case, but they are not a compelling argument. We need to be able to see the evidence that has convinced the Department that it is doing right and the rest of the United Kingdom is doing wrong, and that, if the Irish Republic comes on stream, it too will be doing wrong. We need to see the evidence for those claims.
I asked a few questions that need to be answered by the Secretary of State or her senior officials. That can happen only in a Committee, because they have not been answered on Second Reading, and I do not know if they will be answered in Committee. I welcome the new clause that has been tabled by colleagues; I hope that it attracts support and that the Secretary of State can demonstrate to us, if she does not want us to accept it, that she will take cognisance of what a Committee will say and of scrutiny that will actually take place.
Karen Bradley
I recognise the concern of Members and the spirit of this amendment, which seeks to provide for additional time and scrutiny. As I have said, I empathise with the participants in the scheme. I have been very clear, during discussion both of yesterday’s legislative measures and today’s, that this situation and this process are far from ideal. What I and I think everybody in this Chamber wants to see is scrutiny of Northern Ireland policies by locally elected politicians. Nevertheless, I am committed to bringing forward measures on behalf of Northern Ireland where they are critical to good governance, as these two Bills are. I remind Members about the point I raised yesterday about the normal estimates process: by taking this legislation through as primary legislation in this House, rather than subordinate legislation, as it would have been in the Assembly, we are affording a higher degree of scrutiny and accountability to these measures.
My hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, is right that full and proper scrutiny is what we need, and he is right to challenge us. He is also right to say that we must get this right, and I appreciate that his amendment would afford more time for scrutiny and offer a mechanism by which more scrutiny could be delivered.
The Northern Ireland RHI scheme has probably received more public scrutiny than any other. I have already mentioned the public inquiry into the scheme, which has interrogated myriad aspects of the scheme in detail, but additionally and specifically on these new tariffs, the Department for the Economy held an extensive public consultation from June to September 2018. That included making public the evidence base used by the independent experts who generated the tariffs. I believe that information is on the Department for the Economy website and we are looking to see if we can find it quickly and provide a link to it as soon as possible.
The Department held pre-consultation events for stakeholders, including all the local political parties and key representative groups, including the Ulster Farmers’ Union and the Renewable Heat Association Northern Ireland. Following the closure of the consultation, the Department set out its analysis and response in January 2019 and said that final proposals for the revised tariffs would be delivered in February this year. The Department and my officials have in recent weeks briefed parliamentarians and local parties on the new tariffs and the new legislative measures before us, including the new buy-out clause. My hon. Friend’s suggestion that there may be a role for further scrutiny in either his Committee or another Committee in the House is very welcome and I certainly would appreciate that.
With regard to the timing of the legislation today, it is important to recognise the comprehensive and technical nature of the work involved. As I have mentioned, the Department for the Economy engaged independent experts to carry out a painstakingly detailed review of the scheme, went through a full public consultation exercise and more recently an extensive discussion with the European Commission on state aid. These discussions only reached a conclusion at the end of January, meaning the Department for the Economy could not finalise its position any earlier. The current legislation is sunsetted and a failure to enact the clauses before us will mean more than 1,800 participants will not be able to be paid by 1 April.
Ian Paisley
On that point—I think this is critical and is probably subject to the judicial review at the present time—is it the case that payments stop? Is that the opinion of the barristers advising the Department? Or is it the case that this reverts to the original payments scheme? There is contrary advice on this and the Secretary of State must be clear with us which advice she is taking and why.
Karen Bradley
The advice I have received is that the payments will stop, because there will be no legal basis on which to make any payments. The payments that are currently being made have been found to breach state aid rules, so there is no legal basis on which to continue to make payments. The payments with the cost-capping involved expire on 31 March. The Department cannot go back to the original payments, because they would be illegal payments, and we will not have any other mechanism by which legal payments can be made after 31 March. I recognise that this is far from ideal, but the facts of the situation have meant that an expedited process is required.
Ian Paisley
The Secretary of State says that we cannot go back to the original payments, but I do not think that anyone is asking for that. However, the payments were stepped down, and I understand that she could continue with those stepped-down payments.
Karen Bradley
I cannot continue with those, because the advice that I have is that to continue with them would be illegal. Under the ministerial code, I cannot, as a Minister of the Crown, legislate for something that I am advised is illegal. So I am left in a very difficult situation. I understand how people feel about this. I empathise with people and I understand the implications for them of a reduction, but as Secretary of State, legislating for something that none of us wants to be legislating for in this place, I am faced with the choice of legislating for something that is legal, to allow some subsidies to continue, or not legislating, which would result in no subsidies happening after 31 March. The legal basis on which the reduced subsidies, as set out by the Executive, are paid expires on 31 March.
Dr Murrison
I appreciate the Secretary of State’s dilemma. She is having to act on the basis of advice that she is getting from the Department for the Economy, a Department whose advice has been shown to be flawed in the past. Does she understand that we need to examine this closely? She has been told that, legally, she has to do this, and we in this place have to accept that, but we also have to scrutinise the legislation. I hope that she can give me sufficient reassurance that she will note our examination of this matter and our recommendations on it, and that she will not take at face value the advice that she has been given from a Department that has erred in the past. I very much hope that she will be able to tailor her remarks accordingly, and I am all agog as to what commitment she can give to providing the scrutiny that I have described in my amendment.
Karen Bradley
I thank my hon. Friend for his questions, and I will come on specifically to those points in a moment.
I want to come back to the question of whether there is an option to delay. I agree with the principle and intention behind the amendment, but it is not the solution to the wider problem. As I have said, the tariffs set out in the legislation are the only tariffs available that will bring the returns on the scheme into line with the 12% approved by state aid. The tariffs strike a fair balance between the interests of scheme participants and the wider public interest, in ensuring that the Northern Ireland budget and public services are protected and that taxpayers’ money is spent to achieve value for money. The only lawful alternative would be the closure of the scheme.
Paul Girvan
In relation to the figures that are being presented, I have done a very simple back-of-the-envelope calculation—perhaps not a very wise thing to do—of the payments that would have been received in the early stages at the maximum permissible amount. If we calculate that in, then take the reduction over the next couple of years that has been calculated in, then multiply by the factor that has been put forward, it comes out at 3.1 times less than what the rest of GB is getting on the average tariff.
Karen Bradley
I hope that the scrutiny that the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee has offered will help to address a number of those issues. I know that there is concern about the differences between the scheme in GB and the scheme in Northern Ireland. I am not using a visual aid here, but I can assure Members that we have a copy of the document that is on the Department for the Economy website. It is available for download, and we would be happy to send a link to all Members here today, to ensure that they have an opportunity to see the very detailed information, tables and calculations, which I am sure they will absorb and enjoy.
To resume, delay of the legislative measures, such as the amendment would achieve, would serve only to put at risk payments to all the participants in the scheme. For there to be a lawful basis for the RHI scheme come 1 April, the legislative process and Royal Assent need to be completed by 31 March. The current tariffs are designed to pay the maximum 12% rate of return to a typical participant, so there is no lawful way to introduce higher tariffs to the scheme. A delay would not change that fundamental issue.
Karen Bradley
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank everyone who has participated in this debate and the one yesterday. We have had a good discussion. We are all dissatisfied with the level of scrutiny afforded to these measures in the absence of an Executive, but I think it is fair to say that the debates in this Chamber yesterday and today have meant that there has been scrutiny and that we have aired a number of the issues that right hon. and hon. Members wished to air. I thank all who have participated and look forward to the work that the Select Committee has set out it will do.
I thank my Minister of State, the Minister in the other place, the Whips, the Opposition, the Scottish National party, the Members from the Democratic Unionist party and the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) for their participation over the past two days. Finally, I thank the Bill officials because, if it were not for the people who spend hours and hours coming up with the very technical points and working incredibly hard through that, we would not be able to deliver in this place in the way that we do.
Tony Lloyd
I reiterate to the Secretary of State that these proceedings are not satisfactory. Everyone recognises the legal imperative to make sure there is a scheme in operation, and therefore there is time pressure, but none of us accepts that this is the right use of the parliamentary process. It would still have been undesirable had we separated the two very different strands of the Bill, one relatively non-controversial and the other significantly controversial. To be honest, we are still lacking in adequate answers to the many questions that have been raised on the Floor of the House, including in Committee, today.
I appreciate the efforts of the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, to move forward on the question of scrutiny. I accept that he understood the need not to press the amendment, but that was on the basis that the Secretary of State is committed to making sure that she listens carefully and closely to any recommendations that come from that Select Committee, which is now most important.
It may well be that the Secretary of State and the Minister are right in their ambition that there will be no losers. I think everyone in this House wants a scheme that does not see winners racing away to the bank in quite the luxury they did before. Equally, there is a determination to ensure that, if there are people who lose out, we are not putting viable businesses and people’s livelihoods and incomes at risk. In that sense, I recommend that the Chairman and the members of the Select Committee now take forward the work of proper scrutiny in a way that simply has not been done up to this point.
Dr Murrison
I thank the Secretary of State for listening to the concerns expressed and articulated through my amendments. I note her remarks from the Dispatch Box that she will carefully consider the result of further scrutiny of this Bill and any recommendations that my Committee, or any other Committee, might make on how to ensure that this necessary measure does not disadvantage businesses in Northern Ireland. I look forward, if my Select Committee agrees to undertake this work, to the scrutiny that the Bill deserves, so far as we are able to provide it, and to making recommendations to her in very short order. I particularly look forward to her response to any recommendations that we might make.
Ian Paisley
The shadow Secretary of State put his finger on it when he said that this is not a satisfactory process by which to scrutinise legislation. We have kicked that one around a lot today, and there is general agreement that the process could be better, whether through a functioning Assembly or through Northern Ireland business not being conducted in this truncated manner—either would be very beneficial.
It would, however, be remiss of me not to thank the Secretary of State, the Minister of State and their officials for helping us in recent days, especially on the non-controversial aspects of what we have debated today, namely the rates bill. Of course, we would like to see some elements tweaked further but, by and large, it has been a success story. It could have been a very different story. We could have been looking at a 12-point rate hike, which was averted largely down to the hard work of officials and Members of this House. We welcome that, and it would be remiss of me not to put that word of thanks on the record.
I agree with the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), the Chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, that we look forward to scrutinising this matter further. I hope the Secretary of State will make herself, the Minister or, indeed, senior officials available to whatever Committee ultimately considers the Bill so that the probing questions asked here today can be properly scrutinised. We look forward to hopefully finding something that allows us to go back and give some hope and satisfaction to genuinely needy people in Northern Ireland.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Business without Debate
Mr Deputy Speaker (Sir Lindsay Hoyle)
With the leave of the House, we shall take motions 6 to 14 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),
Exiting the European Union (Merchant Shipping)
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Passengers’ Rights) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 17 January, be approved.
That the draft Merchant Shipping (Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 29 January, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Designs)
That the draft Designs and International Trade Marks (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)
That the draft General Food Hygiene (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Food)
That the draft Contaminants in Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
Exiting the European Union (Agriculture)
That the draft Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
That the draft General Food Law (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 31 January, be approved.
Local Government
That the draft Greater Manchester Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.
Constitutional Law
That the draft Forestry and Land Management (Scotland) Act 2018 (Consequential Provisions and Modifications) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 11 February, be approved.—(Amanda Milling.)
Question agreed to.
Closure and relocation of Solihull Post Office
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
My constituents are deeply concerned by proposals from the Post Office to close its large, accessible branch in Mell Square, in the town centre, and to replace it with a counter on the first floor of the nearby branch of WHSmith. An official public consultation on the move by the Post Office closes today. Although it invited residents’ views on many important questions, especially regarding site accessibility and the impact on the wider community, it explicitly did not allow them to pass judgment on the move itself. It is not right that a growing town such as Solihull is facing such cuts to important community resources such as our local post office. That almost 1,000 of my constituents signed this petition shows that their objection to the Post Office’s plans runs deeper than the fine details, and it is a privilege to put their concerns directly to this House today.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Solihull,
Declares that local residents have concerns over the proposed closure and relocation of Solihull Post Office, Mell Square.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Post Office to re-consider the closure of the Solihull Post Office in Mell Square due to its size and accessibility.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002434]
Special Educational Needs: Wiltshire
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Society can be judged by the quality of the provision it makes for its most vulnerable members. I therefore welcome this opportunity to raise the situation of vulnerable people in my constituency, particularly those who have special educational needs.
Last week, the consultation ended on Wiltshire Council’s plans for a dramatic change to the provision for children with SEN in the county, and I would like to begin by highly commending Wiltshire Council for prioritising special needs and for being prepared to pledge serious money—£20 million—on a root-and-branch upgrade to provision for children who have complex and severe learning and physical disabilities. That does Wiltshire Council a great deal of credit, and I pay tribute to the councillors and officials involved in trying to make things better for some of my most vulnerable constituents.
However, the edge was taken off that for me when I was summoned at the end of last year to hear precisely what the council was planning to do with the money it wants to spend. I wish to take some time this evening discussing that and impressing upon the Minister how important it is that the council thinks again. Survey data shows just how unpopular the council’s approach is, closing, as it does, two well-loved schools that are at the very heart of their communities in order to create a very big one in a relatively remote location. I hope the local authority will listen to concerns expressed and adopt a different model for my most vulnerable young constituents that retains at least one of the threatened schools.
I want the Minister to help, because the Government have already been quite helpful: they have helped with £350 million in new funding for SEN announced in December; they have helped through the dedicated schools grant, with an 11% uplift in real terms for high needs between 2014-15 and 2019-20; and they have helped through the Children and Families Act 2014.
A key feature of that legislation was the SEN “local offer” that local authorities are now required to make. The offer has to be developed in partnership with the children and young people involved, their families and the relevant professionals. The attached code of practice is clear: it expects the local offer, from birth to age 25, to be developed and revised over time through regular review and consultation. Indeed, that collaborative, consultative approach runs through the legislation like a vein through granite. It is mandated; it is not an optional extra; it does not mean the local authority making up its mind and presenting users with faits accomplis. It suggests a collaborative, consultative approach that does not waste public money on working up a case that is so clearly contrary to the wishes of its intended beneficiaries.
Wiltshire Council has for some time wanted to close smaller special schools. We got wind of a warming-up exercise last year, when a member of the council made some adverse remarks about the inadequacy of hoists at Larkrise School in Trowbridge—claims that were incorrect and had to be retracted. It all runs contrary to the approach encouraged by the 2014 Act and its associated code of practice. Wiltshire Council’s vision for special education in Wiltshire is in many ways an exemplary document—it says all the right things—but at its heart it would close two schools, one in my constituency and one in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan): Larkrise in Trowbridge and St Nicholas in Chippenham.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this issue forward. As Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, he will know only too well the experiences we have had in Northern Ireland in relation to special needs education. The increasing demands on special needs education are exceptional. In England, some 1.3 million children are in special needs education and needing it. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we need sweeping reform of the support available to pupils and schools to ensure, as he, I and everyone in the House would agree, that a pupil is not prevented from reaching their potential because of a lack of support services available in their postcode? What he needs in Wiltshire, we also need in Northern Ireland.
Dr Murrison
I of course agree with the hon. Gentleman. I was once a governor at a special school, before I was elected. If I reflect on the provision then and the provision now, I am quite clear that matters have improved, but that does not mean to say that we should be complacent. What the hon. Gentleman said is correct: we need to ensure that every child has the ability to reach his or her potential. That is as true of a mainstream child who is going to become a doctor or a lawyer—or even a politician—as it is for a child at a special needs school whose horizons, in a classic sense, are necessarily going to be rather more limited. They are equally important and their potential needs to be maximised.
The proposition before the council is that it closes two schools and builds a big school on the site of a third one. That would be a very big school by SEN standards, and many of us have concerns about that, because this particular subset of the school population undoubtedly benefits from a provision that is more intimate than perhaps would be necessary for their mainstream compatriots. That would necessarily not be the case were this big school to be created in place of the ones it would replace. The council refers to the big school as a centre of excellence, but my contention is that we already have a centre of excellence in my constituency—it is called Larkrise School.
The claim is made that Larkrise is bursting at the seams and that its facilities and equipment are insufficient, but there is more to a school than bricks and mortar, and there is more to a special school than hoists. The school community understands that, which is why it is so opposed to the local authority’s prescription. It is clear that, being strapped for cash, the council has to balance the books. Rightly, it worries about the financial deficits that have been projected for each of the special educational needs schools, but deficits are projected at several mainstream schools, too, and nobody is suggesting that the solution is to close them.
The county’s financial position is not helped by its having to place 300 special educational needs pupils outside Wiltshire because of the long-standing insufficiency of in-county provision. Those of us who represent seats in Wiltshire will be well used to people attending our advice surgeries to discuss that. The council wants to remedy this out-of-county placement situation by creating a new school with 350 places serving the north of the county. Although the way that the numbers are presented in the consultation documents makes comparison very difficult, 350 places seems inadequate to cope with the planned closures, the out-of-county placements and the growth that is projected given local population increases, housing demand, and the recently announced moves of the residue of the British Army in Germany largely to Wiltshire and the need to accommodate them. Even by its own arithmetic, the council appears to be set on under-provision. That means that out-of-county provision is bound to continue, that projected spend on the new school will be greatly exceeded, or that the new school will very quickly become overcrowded, or, more likely, a combination of all three.
The plans anticipate no sixth form. Instead reliance will be placed on the county’s further education college, Wiltshire College, for 16 to 19 provision, together with a vaguely defined private provision. No further details are given. For example, we do not know how many days a week pupils aged 16 to 19 will have.
All this is of great concern as SEN pupils across the UK have been let down historically in our system in the transition from school to adulthood—from school to life as supported young people in the community. Provision for 16 to 19 is absolutely crucial in this transition. Wiltshire Council’s consultation document asserts that the new centre of excellence will be able to provide what is called
“outreach capacity to support mainstream schools.”
It is not clear what is meant by that. On the face of it, there is a risk that resource will be diverted from the severe and profound to the milder end of the SEN spectrum. That is surely not what is intended. If it is, it needs to be stated in plain terms. The perception is not helped by the confusing terminology used in the text and the apparent misunderstanding of which schools currently offer what, in what is admittedly a complex and overlapping needs mix. Response to the consultation has rightly honed in on that.
Last month, I took part in a march in Trowbridge in support of the threatened schools. Predictably, there were children, parents and teachers, but what struck me was the number of ordinary citizens with no direct link to the school. The orthodoxy is that society wants people with disabilities of the kind that special schools deal with to be hidden away. The orthodoxy is that society is embarrassed by them and that they make it feel uncomfortable. Well, that may be the orthodoxy but it is not true in Trowbridge. Larkrise has a very special ethos. It does not believe in the hiding away of kids with the most profound difficulties. Its students are part of the local scene, out and about in the community. Nobody gawps at them, looks away or crosses the road, because they are an accepted and expected part of the community. They are recognised, welcomed, and helped in the shops, and that does not happen by accident.
We must not hide special needs children away in remote large, impersonal facilities, miles from their homes and communities. That is the very opposite of inclusion. It is segregation. Now I know that that is not the intent of the council, but it would be the consequence of its plans as drafted. Mobility today means that, like as not, children in mainstream schools will make their adult lives away from the towns in which they grew up, but children with special educational needs are much more likely to remain. Where they are is where they will be. Larkrise understands that, which is why its staff, ably led by headteacher Phil Cook, have put so much effort into local involvement and ensuring that their children are integrated in the community. I know that a similar situation applies at St Nicholas.
It is not surprising that, in its latest report, Ofsted rated Larkrise as “good”. It is surprising that the council believes that shutting this good school in Wiltshire’s county town should be part of its plans for raising standards. That is particularly so, as the council’s own task group stated that
“it would not be appropriate to combine all three schools into one site”,
and its “School Places Strategy” document says that children are best educated at the heart of the community—absolutely.
Over the year, parents with statemented children, and now children with educational health and care plans, have been to see me in my advice surgery. Invariably, the issue is not directly about care or education, but about transport.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and speaking out so passionately for his constituents in Trowbridge. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) on speaking out for the parents from St Nicholas. Does my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) accept that there are a great many children with special educational needs throughout the county for whom Rowdeford would actually be a great deal more convenient than either Trowbridge or Chippenham, and that what the county is proposing—a £20 million investment to build a really state-of-the-art school—might well be welcomed by children with special educational needs across the whole of the northern county, leaving aside his own town of Trowbridge?
Dr Murrison
I am particularly grateful for my hon. Friend’s presence here today, and the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham. I join my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) in welcoming the extra money that is going into special educational needs, and I commend the council for that, but it is counterintuitive to suppose that the replacement of effectively three schools with one at Rowdeford would reduce travel times.
It has been a constant throughout my 18 years as a Member of Parliament that transport is the overwhelming preoccupation of parents with children at special needs schools. It is difficult for many of us who do not have direct contact with children with special education needs to understand how important it is. For the parents of a mainstream schoolchild, getting their child to school may be difficult, but for the parents of a child with special educational needs, it can be a preoccupation. It can be the cause of anxiety, distress and behavioural difficulties, and it can be the key focus of the parents’ day. Sometimes we forget how vital it is to ensure that the impact of travel-to-school times is minimised in order to enhance the quality of these young people’s school experience. That is why the council needs to think again about the plan to replace the three schools with one school, as it seems intuitive that that will increase the trauma that travel to school causes.
The council has made great play of getting more therapists into the proposed new school, and it is right to want to improve the level of service for children in school, but it is not clear how that will happen, since the principal difficulty with therapists right now, as I am sure my hon. Friends will agree, is a county-wide shortage of suitably trained staff. How will the council magic up physios, occupational therapists, and speech and language specialists at the new establishment when it cannot at existing schools? To what extent has it taken into account the disincentive introduced by increased travel-to-work times for them? As a rule, therapists are not wealthy people. They tend not to live in premium price market towns such as Devizes and associated villages. They do live in larger settlements such as Trowbridge and Chippenham.
Local campaigners have produced a helpful map to evidence precisely that. Wiltshire Council is rightly concerned about the number of SEN out-of-county placements and the cost, but it is not clear that the new mega-school will help. By the council’s own figures, it will be inadequate to satisfy demand. The council has not published evidence that it has consulted with other local authorities to see whether a model based on collaboration might be possible given that the administrative borders hold very little interest for a mum or dad trying to get their child to school.
In many ways, Wiltshire Council has been showing the way. It has grasped the 2014 Act imaginatively and worked on its version of the local offer, from birth to 25, all the way to placement in the community. I applaud it for that—I really do—but I also believe that it has temporarily lost its sense of direction. Its plans to close Larkrise School and for a new super-school are plain wrong. Its action and its conduct in this matter is wholly out of character. I expect the council to respond to the consultation fully and openly—
Dr Murrison
I expect the council to respond to the consultation fully and openly, and I expect it to be prepared to change course in accordance with the intent and the ethos of the 2014 legislation.
I extend an invitation to the Minister to visit Wiltshire to see the good work that has been done and to better understand the SEN vision of service users, their families, and staff. I invite him, furthermore, to visit Larkrise School—a good school, according to Ofsted—and to view the council-owned site next door on Ashton Street that is the very obvious place to spend some of the £20 million to expand provision in Wiltshire. I hope that he will apply his good offices to assist the council in matching its very good intentions with a plan that genuinely improves the lives of the vulnerable young people I have the very great privilege to represent.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Nadhim Zahawi)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) on securing this important debate. He has spoken eloquently and passionately about Larkrise School and about special educational needs and disability—SEND—provision in Wiltshire. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan), who is unable to speak on behalf of St Nicholas School in her constituency because she is a member of the Government.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire will know, SEND is a key part of my ministerial portfolio and an area where this Government have made significant reforms in recent years. I am sure that he would agree that all children, whether or not they have special educational needs and disabilities, should have a good start in life. We want them to achieve well in school and in later education. As adults, it is important that they find employment and lead happy and fulfilled lives. The reforms that this Government introduced in 2014 were put in place so that those ambitions could be achieved.
We have done much to help to implement these reforms. We have invested £391 million in local areas to support implementation since 2014, and £252 million has been provided direct to local authorities. We have also invested in supporting families. For example, in November 2017 we confirmed two further years of funding for parent carer forums—£15,000 per forum per year, or £4.6 million in total. Those forums started modestly nationally with about 500 individuals, and over 90,000 are now involved. Between June 2018 and March 2020, we are providing £20 million to improve the quality of local information, advice and support services and to provide a national helpline and online support services for families who have children and young people with SEND.
Local authorities such as Wiltshire County Council are critical in ensuring that the SEND reforms succeed. In this respect, as my hon. Friend said, Wiltshire is a council that has done much of which it can be proud, and there is significant evidence for this. In early 2018, Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission conducted a local area inspection of Wiltshire’s SEND provision. The report of that inspection, published in March that year, stated that the senior leaders were working together constructively to deliver and improve services and demonstrated ambition to deliver high-quality outcomes.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (James Gray) for reminding us of the great work that Wiltshire has done. Other strengths identified in the report included effective joint commissioning arrangements, children achieving well in early years, the local area’s website for the local offer providing a wealth of information and guidance, and safeguarding being a priority for the council, where concerns are swiftly acted upon.
The latest figures from January 2018 show that 3% of pupils attending schools in Wiltshire had an education, health and care plan or a statement of special educational needs, which is just above the national average of 2.9%. In the latest figures available, from 2017, Wiltshire’s performance on issuing education, health and care plans by the statutory deadline of 20 weeks was 91.8%, which is well above the national average of 64.9%. In 2017, the number of appeals to the SEND tribunal was 0.8% of appealable decisions, which is much lower than the national average of 1.5%.
Wiltshire is doing excellent work on engaging with local parents in strategic decision making in relation to special educational needs and disabilities. Working with families in that way is a central theme of the SEND reforms that we introduced. By the end of its 10th year, in March 2018, the Wiltshire Parent Carer Council reported that it had grown its membership to 2,448 parents. Sixteen parent carer representatives sit on strategic boards and are involved in tasks groups across health, social care and education. Both the local authority and the local health authority provide funding to support the WPCC, on top of the £15,000 per year that the Government provide.
I had the pleasure of meeting representatives from Wiltshire Council and the Wiltshire Parent Carer Council in October last year. They demonstrated a number of things that they were doing in co-production to improve SEND arrangements in the local area. For example, they told me that a new short breaks scheme designed by parents led to increased take-up from families of this important service. Fewer than 100 families were accessing short breaks schemes in Wiltshire before 2008, and that has risen to more than 1,500 families over the years. Importantly, over 98% of those families said that they were happy with the short breaks they accessed.
All this is evidence of a council that is embracing the SEND reforms and making a success of them. Like many other councils, Wiltshire faces significant challenges, but it is clearly making considerable efforts to overcome them. This strong track record is very much to Wiltshire’s credit, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, and I am sure it is appreciated by local families.
Local authorities have a duty to ensure that there is sufficient provision in their area to meet the needs of children and young people with SEND. I am aware of the council’s proposals published for consultation in November 2018 to close two schools for children with complex needs and disabilities and create a single so-called super-special school. That proposal has been challenged locally, and I understand that the grounds of challenge include failure to properly consult before publishing a notice of closure, breach of public sector equality duties, breach of statutory provisions for the welfare of children and appearance of predetermination. I note the concern that if the change proposed by the local authority is implemented, it could have implications for some children who may need to travel further to school. That point has been made forcefully to me by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire tonight and by my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham, on behalf of children in her constituency. I must, however, be clear tonight that I cannot intervene in or comment on this decision; this must be left up to the courts and the local authority.
We recognise that local authorities, including Wiltshire County Council, are facing high needs cost pressures. In response to these pressures, we have allocated an additional £250 million of funding for high needs over this year and next year—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire for commending us for this further funding—and this is of course on top of the increases we had already promised. Wiltshire will receive £2.3 million of this additional funding.
Of course, our response to these pressures cannot simply be additional funding. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote in December to local authority chief executives and directors of children’s services to set out our plans. These plans include reviewing current special educational needs content in initial teacher training provision and ensuring a sufficient supply of educational psychologists trained and working within the system.
We will shortly be issuing a call for evidence on the financial incentives within the current arrangements, in particular on the operation and use of mainstream schools’ notional special educational needs budgets up to £6,000. We of course want to continue to engage with local authorities, along with schools, colleges, parents and health professionals, to ensure that children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities get the support they need and deserve.
I am enormously grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire for raising this important issue. I am particularly grateful to be able to offer praise to a local area through the work not only of the local council and other statutory authorities, but of local families and the voluntary and community sector organisations that make such an important and positive difference to the lives of children and young people with SEND and to their families and friends. The collective efforts they are making to implement these important reforms will have a lasting and positive impact on families locally.
I am pleased to see that, while there is clearly still much to be done, many other areas across the country are also making strong positive efforts, and they are to be applauded. The Government will continue to play our part in supporting all local areas to succeed. I hope that my hon. Friend is content that the Government understand the issues he has raised in this debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Deferred Divisions
That the draft Transparency of Securities Financing Transactions and of Reuse (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 28 January, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 303 / Noes: 250 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Electricity and Gas (Market Integrity and Transparency) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 44 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Gas (Security of Supply and Network Codes) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 300 / Noes: 44 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Nutrition (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 30 January, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 303 / Noes: 44 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Mobile Roaming (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 4 February, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 301 / Noes: 257 - Question accordingly agreed to.
That the draft Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which were laid before this House on 24 January, be approved.
The House divided: - Ayes: 301 / Noes: 251 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. The draft regulations are among a number of statutory instruments under the affirmative procedure, to be considered as the UK leaves the European Union, and will ensure that legislation that protects biodiversity through the conservation of natural habitats and species of wild fauna and flora, and conserves wild bird populations, will continue to function after exit.
The draft regulations make technical legal amendments to maintain the effectiveness and continuity of legislation that would otherwise be left partially inoperable. The adjustments represent no changes of policy, nor will they have any impact on businesses or the public. The draft statutory instrument is introduced under the correcting powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, and principally makes amendments to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 to address technical operability issues.
The territorial extent of the draft regulations is the United Kingdom, with some exceptions. Part 2 extends to England and Wales. Part 3 extends to England and Wales, but also extends certain provisions in certain circumstances to Scotland and Northern Ireland, in relation to certain specified reserved matters. As the implementation of biodiversity and nature conservation policy is a devolved matter, we have worked closely with the devolved Administrations on the regulations and on their respective instruments. Where the regulations relate to devolved matters they have given consent.
The Scottish Government and the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland are making similar changes through their own secondary legislation. The Committee may be aware that we debated the DAERA measure in Committee on Monday, and it was passed by the House of Commons last night. The Scottish measure was debated in the Scottish Parliament’s Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform Committee yesterday.
Members of the Committee may be aware that the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds expressed concern that management objectives for the new national network of protected sites established under the regulations with regard to special protection areas were not commensurate with the objectives for the EU Natura 2000 network of sites, which are being replaced under new regulations 16A and 18A. We had some back and forth legal debate between Government lawyers and the RSPB, and to make sure the position was absolutely clear the Secretary of State took the decision to withdraw the provision in question, and re-lay the measure after redrafting. That was to make it absolutely clear that existing protections for species of wild birds and their specially protected areas will continue when we exit the EU. That has been welcomed by the RSPB.
Part 2 of the draft regulations amends the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to ensure that species of wild birds found in or regularly visiting the UK, but not elsewhere in the EU, continue to be protected. Part 3 amends the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 covering England and Wales. Part 4 amends the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 covering the United Kingdom’s offshore marine area. The changes in part 4 largely mirror the changes made in part 3.
Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)
What is the impact if we do not pass the Fisheries Bill and we crash out of the EU? Would that have an impact on this statutory instrument?
Dr Coffey
The Government have no intention of crashing out of anywhere. It is important to state that the statutory instrument is not directly related to fishing. I am aware of the issues, because I have signed legislation with regard to fisheries in the past 48 hours, when for a few short days we did not have a Minister. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) is now in post. He was due to attend this Committee, before he was elevated. He has significant fishing interests in his constituency, and he will now be cracking on, I am sure.
Part 5 of the regulations amends the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001 with regard to the functions concerning imperative reasons of overriding public interest—often known as IROPI—and is consistent with changes made to the 2017 regulations.
The majority of changes under this instrument involve various terms in regulations or directives that relate to the EU being amended to be relevant to the UK. For example, the instrument removes references in the EU legislation to the UK as an EU member state. The five main changes mainly involve a transfer of functions from the European Commission to Ministers.
Sites designated in the UK under the nature directives are currently part of the EU’s Natura 2000 network. That is the contribution from the UK to what is called the Emerald network, which is run and administered by the Council of Europe, fulfilling the Bern convention. The sites in the UK will now form a national site network and will continue to fulfil the UK’s international biodiversity obligations. That was covered for Northern Ireland the other day, and it is being covered separately by the Scottish Parliament for Scotland, so we are dealing with other sites in the rest of the UK, as laid out. At the end of November last year, I wrote to the secretariat of the Bern convention, confirming that the sites would continue to form the UK’s contribution to the convention’s Emerald network of protected sites.
New regulations 16A and 18A set out ministerial responsibility to manage and, where necessary, adapt the national site network in co-operation with other Ministers. The network’s management objectives look to secure compliance with the overarching aims of the habitats and the wild birds directives, which will be in retained EU law.
This instrument transfers to Ministers functions relating to the designation of special areas of conservation that are currently undertaken by the Commission. Ministers will assess any new SAC designation proposals, acting on advice from the appropriate nature conservation body—Natural England in the case of the Government—and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and using existing criteria. Selection of those sites will continue to be based on the criteria in annex III of the habitats directive.
This instrument, at regulations 25 and 26, transfers to Ministers the role of the Commission to offer an opinion to local decision makers, such as local planning authorities, as to whether IROPI apply where a plan or project may adversely affect priority habitats but there is no feasible alternative. In doing that, Ministers will need to take account of the national interest and consult widely, including with devolved Administrations and the JNCC. I think it is worth sharing with the Committee, as I did on Monday, that there have been no instances of that ever happening in the UK. Nevertheless, the Commission currently has the power to offer an opinion, and we thought it important, for operability, that that be brought over and made a power of Ministers.
A new instrument-making power, in new regulation 145 of the conservation of habitats regulations and new regulation 84B of the offshore marine regulations, allows Ministers to make amendments to the annexes and schedules where those reflect technical and scientific progress. The devolved Administrations will have the same powers. In essence, this is a “keeping pace” approach. Quite regularly, we see certain changes and learn new and different things about a variety of issues in relation to habitats, species and birds, and it is important that we have the power to keep up to date. Any amendment under the provision would need to be supported by expert opinion. Once the statutory instrument is, as I hope, passed, we will set out in guidance the means by which Ministers will seek that expert input, including from our statutory advisers, before deciding on any amendment to the schedules and annexes.
To ensure transparency and accountability of environmental performance, new regulation 9A of the conservation of habitats regulations will require Ministers to report publicly on the implementation of the regulations in their jurisdictions within six years from the date of exit and every six years thereafter. The position is exactly the same now, and the Secretary of State will compile reports into a combined UK report within two years. The requirement for biennial reporting on the use of any permitted exemptions or derogations from the strict protections of habitats and species is maintained. As a contracting party to the Bern convention, from which the habitats directive arises, the UK will remain obliged under article 9 and resolution 8 of the convention to submit those reports to the secretariat.
The draft instrument will ensure that the strict protections that have been in place for many years for our most vulnerable habitats and species will be maintained once we leave the European Union. For that reason, I commend the draft instrument to the Committee.
Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson. The Minister helpfully explained that, following concerns from the RSPB, Greener UK and Wildlife and Countryside Link, and from the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the original SI was withdrawn and re-laid with changes. While some welcome changes have been made, I am concerned that not all the issues raised seem to have been adequately addressed. I therefore have a few questions that I will be grateful if the Minister will address. I will also highlight the severity of the biodiversity crisis and the urgent need for effective action to reverse the catastrophic decline in species that we are seeing.
I stress that the Opposition continue to take a dim view of the Government’s conduct of the entire process of EU exit secondary legislation. They have recruited thousands of extra civil servants and lawyers and spent £100 million on consultants, and the result of their work is now being dumped on Parliament in hundreds of SIs, most of which have not been scrutinised or debated at all. We believe, quite frankly, that the citizens of this country deserve better.
On the draft regulations, regulation 8 deals with reporting requirements. Will the Minister set out what the reports will cover and explain the apparent differences in the reporting information required between protected species and habitats and between special areas of conservation and special protection areas? We agree with Greener UK that the draft instrument is wrong to omit the requirement for independent review and recommendations on any further action and/or measures needed. How will simply making reports public and sending them to the Bern convention ensure the timely identification of concerns and the taking of additional measures? Will the Minister look at whether the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, for example, could exercise independent review until the new environmental watchdog is established?
Regulation 13 inserts new regulation 16A into the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Will the Minister explain whether the use of “proportionate” in the new regulation diverges from the habitats directive, as Greener UK contends, and will therefore permit less stringent management of species with a smaller natural range in the UK? Regulation 30 gives Ministers the power to amend the list of prohibited methods of taking or killing wild animals as necessary, to adapt to technical and scientific progress. What consultation and scrutiny, if any, will such changes be subject to? Will the Minister formally pledge that expert input and advice will be both sought and taken into account, including by the devolved Administrations, before any changes are made?
Greener UK and Wildlife and Countryside Link both point out the potential for confusion in introducing a new term, “national site networks”, into the already crowded vocabulary of protected sites. We already have national sites—sites of special scientific interest—as notified under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and international sites listed under the Ramsar convention. The draft instrument includes Natura 2000 sites, which the Scottish amending regulations have redefined as “the UK site network” to include terrestrial, marine and offshore European sites. Greener UK and Wildlife and Countryside Link sensibly recommend the term “international sites network”, to recognise the status of the sites and to include Ramsar sites. This would avoid any confusion with the current national network of SSSIs and marine conservation zones. Will the Minister consider that?
The explanatory memorandum refers to the Bonn and Bern conventions but omits other relevant international conventions to which the UK is a signatory, such as the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, the convention on biodiversity and the convention for the protection of the marine environment of the north-east Atlantic, or OSPAR. How will the Minister ensure that the need to reference these agreements is clearly understood when the regulations are being considered and applied?
Loss of habitat is one of the main contributors to the decline of bees and other insects across the world, causing great environmental concern. Buglife says that without sufficient action to tackle this fragmentation of our landscapes, between 40% and 70% of pollinator species could become extinct. It is critical to biodiversity and the whole ecosystem food chain that we take urgent action to protect insect habitats.
How will the policy framework established by this SI support steps to reverse the decline of pollinators and insects, as well as the alarming rate of species decline in the UK? Will the Government reverse the severe cuts to Natural England in particular, to enable it to halt and reverse species decline while taking on the additional responsibilities being brought back from the EU by this and other Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs SIs?
I hope the Minister will take these concerns very seriously and look again at the matters I have raised. Having said that, we do not intend to vote against the SI on this occasion.
Dr Drew
I am very pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hanson, and delighted to follow my boss. I will make just a couple of additional points, which I hope the Minister can answer. This is about my past, because in a previous incarnation I spent a lot of time with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), worrying about the environmental liability directive.
That may not seem pertinent to this bit of legislation, but it was based around the Natura 2000 network. That was at the height of the genetically modified crops issue, and the directive effectively said that if a farmer in one place caused, through emissions in the air or indeed through the watercourse, pollution or some form of deterioration in another site, they were responsible for making good the damage.
This SI is about conservation and habitats, so I ask the Minister: do we intend to continue with the environmental liability directive in a UK context? If not, what are we going to put in its place? It would be interesting to know, because I am not sure whether different bodies will oversee this—perhaps I am not reading this correctly.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Workington has said, Natural England is under enormous pressure at the moment. It may well be that, through the way the EU operates, it has already subsumed a lot of the responsibilities that the Commission imbued it with, and therefore this is something it will do as a matter of course, but I would be interested to know the structure of accountability. These things matter when they go wrong. When things are working perfectly all right, that is fine, but we all know that these pollution events are not uncommon. Certainly with air pollution, we are in the era of air quality and it is important to know what we will do if these important conservation areas are adversely affected. It will be no good if our current protections are not carried forward; indeed, one would hope they would be enhanced.
The Chair
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those last comments, and I am sure the Minister will answer in relation to the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which are before us today.
Dr Coffey
I will start with the hon. Member for Stroud; he is right to be concerned about the impacts that pollution can have on the natural environment and biodiversity. The environmental damages regulations have already been covered in a separate SI, so that is already coming into UK law. He will be aware that the polluter pays principle is very much included in the principles under which this Government and the law in this country operate. The current protections that are there today will continue.
There will be different bodies to oversee this, because this is a devolved matter, so each of the four nations in the United Kingdom has its own regulator. However, we share between us the JNCC, which covers all four Governments and consequently is another way to provide that cohesiveness across the network. Ultimately, the United Kingdom Government—this Government—are responsible for our obligations to international treaties. That is why we will continue to work collectively with them.
To turn to the questions of the hon. Member for Workington, on reporting, the provisions to provide a composite report, including an evaluation of progress and of the contribution of the national site network, replicate the current legal requirement of the Commission. I have made it clear that the UK Government will pull together a summary and a composite report of the four different reports that will come from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The regulations require the reports to be published, which will allow transparency. There will also be parliamentary and public scrutiny. It may be the case that the future office of environmental protection wishes to scrutinise the reports as well. That element of transparency will open the door to scrutiny.
As a contracting party to the Bern convention, we will continue to report on conservation status, as I have laid out, including by submitting reports every two years on any exceptions. The role of the Bern secretariat, which I met last year, is to fulfil that. At the moment, I recognise that, in effect, the Commission largely does it on behalf of the Bern secretariat for member states of the European Union.
The hon. Lady asked about whether the measure is proportionate. I assure her that it is not the provision’s intention to reduce existing nature conservation protections in any way. I do not agree with Greener UK’s assertion about a legal error. The provision is not about the designation and management of sites, and therefore the permitting of certain activities, but about the overall management of the network across the country in the context of achieving status for species and habitats across their biogeographical area and within their natural range.
The new regulations place a wide duty on Ministers, in co-operation with other UK authorities, to manage and adapt the network and to maintain or, where appropriate, restore threatened and vulnerable habitats and species to favourable conservation status throughout their natural range. We can contribute to achieving that favourable conservation status only in proportion to how far the range of the threatened or vulnerable species and habitats falls within UK jurisdiction. In that respect, the provision reflects the requirement in article 3 of the habitats directive to have a coherent ecological network and to maintain and manage species and habitats, and for future Ministers to have regard to what is being done beyond UK borders to contribute most effectively to maintaining and restoring those features in their natural range.
I was surprised that Greener UK decided that the naming of the national site network was a significant issue. Regulation 4(2)(a) makes it clear that the national site network is made up of former Natura 2000 sites in the UK and any new sites we designate under the regulations. Sites will continue to be selected under the criteria set out in the annexes of the habitats directive and the birds directive, as they are retained in UK law, which makes them distinct from SSSIs.
It would not be appropriate to include Ramsar sites, because they are selected on different criteria. As a matter of policy, they are already protected in the same way as special areas of conservation and special protected areas, so including them would represent a legislative change and effect a change of policy, which is not the intention of any of the statutory instruments introduced under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
The “national site network” is a legal term for the purposes of the regulations. It will be open to UK Ministers to agree a distinct name for the network, in a similar way to the Natura 2000 or Emerald networks. We certainly do not need a legal power to do that. The marine protected area network already includes marine conservation zones, which were established under national legislation, and special areas of conservation or special protection areas, with marine components established under the EU directives, without giving rise to confusion.
I want to make it clear that I do not think Greener UK should worry so much about the legal term used in a statutory instrument. We will continue as we are and I hope to announce the latest tranche of marine conservation zones fairly soon. I hope people accept that what has been done under domestic legislation, rather than European legislation, is still part of our contribution to a wide variety of networks.
The hon. Lady talks, quite rightly, about the importance of our international obligations. The explanatory memorandum makes it clear that the UK will continue to meet its international commitments. It specifically refers to the Bern and Bonn conventions, because those are the basis of the habitats directive. The Bern convention deals with that directly. The Bonn convention, which is about migratory species, is also covered in helping to fulfil the habitats directive. We chose two of the most prominent international conventions of which we are already members. We will continue to fulfil our international obligations.
The hon. Lady referred to one of those international obligations—the convention on biodiversity. She is right to be concerned about the decline in natural biodiversity in this country and around the world. I believe that the actions and strategies that we are already developing and consulting on will really help us to reverse that turn. Those include conservation covenants, which we are consulting on at the moment, the nature-based networks, the net gain on biodiversity when we consider development, and the complete reform of what will effectively become the replacement for the common agricultural policy. Those actions and strategies will put the environment at the heart of how we help our farmers—who are, let us be candid, the original friends of the earth—in having that stewardship and rewarding them for it in the future.
I recognise the hon. Lady’s concerns, but I hope that while she may not agree with every policy—I understand why the Opposition may not always agree with the Government on every policy—she will recognise the efforts that we are making and our international work with the convention on biodiversity. I was pleased to visit the conference last year in the build-up to 2020. There is a real call to action around the world. I am delighted to say that the United Kingdom is playing and will play its part.
The Chair
I am pleased to see the hon. Member for Gloucester arrive just in time to shout “Aye”.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Human Medicines (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Draft Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jackie Doyle-Price)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Human Medicines (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Jackie Doyle-Price
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. In the event of a no-deal Brexit, I am confident that every Member of this House has a shared intention to protect and improve the safety of patients who use medicines and medical devices and, at the same time, enable access to the most innovative of treatments.
Our regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, otherwise known as the MHRA—not the last acronym that we will rely on this afternoon—has over 30 years’ experience as a key regulator in the EU. Its expertise and experience is recognised and respected globally, and we want to ensure that that continues to the benefit of UK patients. It is with that at the forefront of our minds that the UK’s plans for the regulation of medicines and medical devices in a no-deal scenario have been developed. Before I set out those plans, it is important to reiterate our real aim of retaining a close-working partnership with the EU to ensure that patients in the UK and the EU continue to have timely access to the safest and most effective medicines and medical devices through the co-operative network that we have built over the years.
As is described in the explanatory memorandums, the system for regulating medicines and medical devices is currently set out in EU legislation. The draft statutory instruments have been introduced to ensure that our national regulatory system continues to function appropriately in the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal. In developing the regulations, the Department’s priorities have been to ensure that the timely availability of safe and effective medicines and devices continues, to minimise disruption to patients and businesses, and to ensure that the UK regulator is able to continue to protect public health.
Members will want to note that the draft regulations have been developed through continued close consultation and co-operation with stakeholders. After a period of informal consultation in August last year, the MHRA published an initial proposal for the UK medicines and medical devices regulation framework, before following that up with a four-week public consultation in October. The feedback of the 170 responses to that consultation led to revised proposals, which were published in January and informed the draft SIs.
I will set out some details of the arrangements and how we have sought to maintain continuity and minimise disruption. First, wherever possible, we have sought to maintain existing arrangements, which should obviously be the first port of call to ensure a smooth transition in the event that we leave the EU without a deal.
With respect to medicines, the UK regulator already operates a national licensing route. In fact, about 90% of medicines used by patients in the UK already have national licences, which will remain valid. The provisions deal with the outstanding 10% of medicines. In the event that the UK leaves the EU without a deal, it will no longer be a part of the European Medicines Agency. The draft regulations therefore provide for the automatic conversion into UK licences of all centrally authorised products and licences, to ensure continuity for patients. One such product is ritonavir, which is a drug for treating patients affected by HIV type-1. The draft legislation deals with specialist products that are not in the national licensing system.
With respect to devices, the UK is already a part of the EU system of conformity assessment for medical devices. That system sets out the standards for pre and post-market assessment of medical devices, and the MHRA is the competent authority within the UK. Those standards will not change, so the draft devices regulations will ensure that UK law aligns with EU regulations in this area after we leave. That is the straightforward part.
In other areas, we have faced a choice regarding the UK’s regulatory requirements, and in those instances have sought to maintain current arrangements while ensuring the regulator still has sufficient ability to protect public health. For example, we will continue to recognise batch testing of medicines in the countries we recognise today, which include those in the EU and European economic area. By that, we mean that by becoming a third country we would be seen as importing, rather than as part of the single market. If medicines have been tested by a trusted regulator, we would accept that testing.
We will continue to recognise the CE mark on medical devices and in-vitro diagnostics that have demonstrated their conformity with EU regulatory requirements. It is intended that that recognition will be time limited while we consider the need to revise the UK’s system of regulation, linked to the development of new international trading arrangements that the Government are now pursuing. However, any subsequent change would clearly need to be brought before Parliament. For the time being, we plan to maintain the existing arrangements.
There are a few areas in which it has been necessary to add a new requirement as a result of the UK no longer being part of the European regulatory framework. Examples for medicines include a new regulatory hurdle to ensure that medicines do not enter the UK supply chain without having been certified by a qualified person. We are creating a new position within the wholesale licence holder regime, known as a responsible person for import, or RP-I—not to be confused with another RPI. That person will be responsible for providing assurances that such certification is in place, which is a function of having to maintain a national regulatory system with integrity, given that we can no longer rely on the EMA regime.
We will ensure that all new medical devices and in-vitro diagnostics being placed on the UK market are registered with the MHRA by establishing a new national database for all devices. Obviously, that will be a new cost for business, and the fee will be £100. Manufacturers based outside the UK will be required to have a UK-based responsible person who acts on their behalf to carry out specific tasks, such as registering with the MHRA. There will be a transitional period to enable the industry to implement those requirements.
In conclusion, in the event of a no deal, these draft regulations will put in place a pragmatic solution that ensures the UK’s medicines and medical devices regulation legislation continues to function effectively after exit day. The provisions will minimise any impact on patients and businesses and ensure the timely availability of safe, effective medicines on the UK market.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. Here we are again, discussing statutory instruments that would make provision for the regulatory framework after Brexit in the event that we crash out without a deal. That possibility has been known about for nearly two years, since article 50 was triggered, yet this pair of detailed and important draft regulations are being debated only three weeks before the proposed exit date.
The volume and flow of EU exit secondary legislation is deeply troubling in terms of accountability and proper scrutiny. The Government have assured the Opposition that no policy decisions are taken as part of these regulations. However, establishing a regulatory framework inevitably involves matters of judgment and raises questions about resourcing and capacity that I will address in detail later on. It is our view that secondary legislation ought to be used for technical, non-partisan, non-controversial changes, primarily because the legislative accountability process is not suited for anything beyond that. Instead, the Government continue to push through contentious and detailed pieces of legislation with high policy content in this manner.
As legislators, we must get this process right. The regulations could represent real and substantive changes to the statute book. As such, they need proper, in-depth scrutiny. The draft Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 alone are over 200 pages long. The draft Human Medicines (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 are just under 200 pages long. They cover several EU directives and cannot possibly even be read in the time we have, let alone debated sensibly. We therefore put on record our deepest concerns that the process for these regulations is not as accessible and transparent as it should be.
Decisions made today could have huge implications for a multi-billion pound industry, potentially affecting millions of patients’ lives. Yet we are presented with non-amendable instruments with a derisory amount of parliamentary time allotted to debate them. People who voted to restore parliamentary sovereignty might feel that this is a long way from what that should look like. I appreciate that this wholly unsatisfactory approach is not down to the Minister. I thank her for introducing the regulations and for the time that she and her officials gave me yesterday to discuss them, but as the representative of the Government seeking to trample all over proper scrutiny, she has the onerous task of defending this approach, although I believe no one can defend this mess.
As we have heard, the UK participates in an EU-wide system for the testing and approval of medicines and medical devices. The regulations transfer responsibility for those activities to the MHRA—a standalone medicines and devices regulator for the UK—in the event of a no-deal Brexit on 29 March. The instruments intend to ensure the continuity and safety of medicines and devices in the UK, while retaining the UK regulator’s ability to take regulatory action to protect public safety. We do not disagree with that objective, which is why we will not oppose the regulations, but that is not to say that we do not have serious concerns about how that objective will be achieved in practice—there are many questions about that.
Although the objectives set out in the instruments are intended to be met with minimum disruption and burden on businesses and the supply of medicines and devices in the UK, we have serious misgivings about how realistic that proposition is.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentions minimal disruption to patients, which the Minister mentioned twice. Does he share my concern that any patient listening to or reading the record of these proceedings, who regularly has to take medicine or receives a medical device, will not know whether the minimum disruption may affect them? That may cause significant distress.
Justin Madders
My hon. Friend is right; we will all have had constituents raise those real concerns. I will go into more detail about what the Government’s impact assessment says about some of these issues, which justifies our concerns.
Under the draft regulations, the MHRA, which already carries out a wide range of work, including medicines licencing, pharmacovigilance, inspections of standards and enforcement, will take on an expanded role in the registration, assessment and post-market surveillance of medical devices. Listening to the Minister, we could be mistaken for thinking that that massive expansion in responsibility and bureaucracy will take place with no disruption and with no impact on businesses and patients but, as we have just heard, we have real anxieties about that.
The regulations will enable the UK to continue to recognise prescriptions from the EEA. They provide transitional grandfathering rights for medicines and products that have already been authorised in Europe up to exit date, and provisions that would allow the Secretary of State to make temporary changes to the authorisation process or to allow alternative medicines to be dispensed in the case of potential shortages. Their importance cannot be overstated.
As 29 March is fast approaching, the regulations are increasingly crucial. It is right that we make arrangements, although it is a matter of regret that we are dealing with them in this manner at the last minute. We support efforts to ensure regulatory continuity, to ensure the ongoing safety of medicines and medical devices entering the UK market and to avoid disruption to the UK supply chain. But we have several questions about the additional cost to businesses, about the MHRA’s capacity and resources to take on these additional roles and responsibilities, and the Government’s general ill-preparedness to deal with medicine shortages and additional regulations.
Let us start with the impact on businesses. The Government’s own impact assessment for the medicines regulations recognises
“a possibility that some medicines that would have been authorised in the UK because of the UK’s involvement in the EMA will not be submitted to the MHRA due to business decisions. This could have an impact on access to certain medicines and therefore to public health.”
The phrase “business decisions” is, on the face of it, quite innocuous—all businesses make decisions all the time—but the impact assessment almost suggests that such decisions are being made in a bubble, in isolation from the regulatory environment in which they operate.
The impact assessment for the medical devices regulations is a little more explicit. It says:
“It is likely manufacturers would seek to recoup these additional regulatory costs through price increases, which would affect NHS budgeting and spending choices”.
That seems at odds with previous assurances. Indeed, the Minister’s colleague, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), said in a Westminster Hall debate in November 2017 that one of the three key principles for medicines access post-Brexit was that,
“patients should not be disadvantaged”.—[Official Report, 21 November 2017; Vol. 631, c. 349WH.]
Yet that is what we are facing now, and it is a damning indictment of the way the Government have mishandled the entire process.
Has the Minister made an assessment of which specific medicines might not now be submitted to the MHRA? Are any particular conditions or patients more at risk than others? What actions has she taken to speak with businesses and ease their concerns about the decisions they will have to make? What public health impacts has her Department been planning for? What contingency plans are in place? Will she clarify exactly which medicines the Department believes will increase in price and by how much, and what the Department will do to avoid the possibility of those costs being passed on to patients or indeed the taxpayer? Has there been a revised estimate of the annual NHS drugs bill, for example, as a result?
The Government’s impact assessment also recognises that there will be,
“ongoing costs for businesses currently operating in the UK as they would need to adhere to additional UK only regulatory requirements if they currently sell in the EU/EEA. This includes additional fees, legal and administration costs.”
Given that there will also be,
“familiarisation and set up costs as businesses transition into dealing with both systems”,
will the Minister confirm whether the Department will be providing any financial relief to the largely small and medium-sized enterprises that will be affected by the changes? What about the MRHA’s capacity and funding to take on additional roles and responsibilities? The impact assessment recognises that there will be,
“costs to the MHRA of establishing and sustaining new regulatory capabilities”,
although it states that,
“these will be largely recouped through fees.”
In light of those statements, I have a number of questions for the Minister. Will she outline whether the MHRA will receive additional funding to support the work it will have to take on independently of the EMA, or will costs be passed on to businesses and therefore, by extension, to patients and the taxpayer? Will she outline more precisely what costs the MHRA will face and over what time period? How much of those costs will be recouped through fees and how soon will those fees be recouped? Will she confirm whether the Department intends to cover any of the additional costs that will not be recouped through those additional fees?
Can the Minister confirm whether the MHRA will be given additional staffing and funding to establish and sustain its new regulatory capabilities? Is she aware of what the make-up of any additional staff would look like and whether that is already in place? If so, how many new staff have already been hired, what training have they undertaken and who is regulating them? Is there, in fact, a ready-made market of suitably qualified and experienced staff just waiting to go and work for the MHRA? That is a critical point in the light of our general debates on NHS and healthcare shortages.
The new framework will be far from the rosy picture that has been painted in some quarters, but before we even consider the effect of what will happen when we get there, there is a basic point for businesses to consider. If they decide to continue to trade in this country, do they know exactly what it is they need to comply with, and by when? One only needs to look at the commencement dates for these regulations to understand the scale of the task ahead of them. The medical devices regulations alone contain over 10 pages of commencement dates, and they are not set out in a user-friendly way at all.
Here is one example, from proposed new regulation 4B of the Medical Devices Regulations 2002. Sub-paragraph (1) says:
“Part VIII only applies before 26th May 2020 in respect of a device or accessory that is a relevant device for the purposes of Part II or III if the conformity assessment that the person placing it on the market or putting it into service relies on for doing so is the conformity assessment required by Part VIII (rather than by Part II or III).”
Sub-paragraph (3) says:
“Where Part VIII applies—
(a) Part II ceases to apply, apart from regulations 7A and 19 (to the extent that those regulations otherwise apply, for which see regulations 4D(1) to (5) and 4E(4)); and
(b) Part III ceases to apply, apart from regulations 21A and 30(3) to (5) (to the extent that those regulations otherwise apply, for which see regulations 4D(6) and 4E(4)).”
Another example is proposed new regulation 4E of the 2002 regulations, which states:
“(1) Subject to paragraph (3), regulations 91 to 95 do not apply until the date which is 6 months after the date on which the UDI database managed by the European Commission becomes fully functional (a date that the European Commission is required to publish in the Official Journal of the European Union), unless that date (‘the operational date’) is before 26th May 2020.”
Paragraph (3) states:
“(3) Regulation 91(4) only applies in respect of a device to which Part VIII applies, or in respect of an accessory to such a device—
(a) on and after 26th May 2021 (or on and after the operational date if later), in the case of a device classified in accordance with Schedule 9 as—
(i) an implantable device, or an accessory to such a device, or
(ii) a Class III device, or an accessory to such a device;
(b) on and after 26th May 2023 (or on and after the operational date if later), in the case of a device classified in accordance with Schedule 9 as—
(i) a Class IIa device, or an accessory to such a device, or
(ii) a Class IIb device, or an accessory to such a device;
(c) on and after 26th May 2025”.
I could go on. [Hon. Members: “More!”] Okay, I will do a bit more, then. [Interruption.] Hon. Members are regretting that now. Sub-paragraph (d) states:
“(d) on and after the date which is 2 years after the operational date, in the case of a device considered to be a reusable device, or an accessory to such a device, in circumstances where it is required to bear the UDI carrier on the device or accessory itself.”
The proposed new regulation continues:
“(4) If the operational date is before 26th May 2020, regulations 7A and 21A cease to apply on the operational date in respect of a device or accessory to which Part VIII applies because regulation 4B(1) applies.
(5) Subject to paragraph (7), regulations 157 to 160 do not apply until the date which is 6 months after the operational date, unless the operational date is before 26th May 2022.”
I am sure that Members do not want to hear any more of that, so I am not going to read out the rest of the regulations, but there are another four commencement dates in proposed new regulation 4E alone, and they are subject to different exceptions and qualifications. At least another dozen regulations contain similar provisions. The Minister will be relieved to hear that I am not going to ask her to explain all those and how they relate to one another. I am conscious that we have limited time, so we would never be able to do that anyway, but how on earth can any business be expected to understand, adjust to and comply with all those different dates without a massively increased burden upon them? What support will be made available to businesses so they can be confident that they are complying with the rules correctly?
I feel the need to lie down after that, but I am going to continue and look at the specifics of the draft human medicines regulations. That statutory instrument relies on the power in section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to amend the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and modify the effect of the restated EU regulations to ensure that all aspects of retained EU law in relation to human medicines operate effectively and are not deficient after exit day as a result of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU.
Will the Minister confirm whether the Secretary of State intends to report back to Parliament on any amendments to existing HMRs after exit day? Will she outline the arrangements for collecting data, monitoring the effectiveness of the regulations and regularly reporting? Will she confirm what bodies will be able to scrutinise performance and delivery, and what assessment has been made of their capacity to take on that additional work?
On pharmacovigilance, in the event of no deal, the sharing of common systems and formal exchange and recognition of data submitted for regulatory activities between the UK and EU countries would cease, and the MHRA would have primary responsibility for the conduct and oversight of all pharmacovigilance activities. The Government’s impact assessment recognises that there will be administrative costs to businesses that need to provide that information to the MHRA. Does the Minister intend for the Department to help businesses with those increased costs, and does she have an estimate of what they might be?
On pharmacovigilance information, the draft regulations provide for reporting by the pharmaceutical industry of suspected adverse drug reactions associated with its medicinal products directly to the MHRA database rather than to the current EU database, which is known as the EudraVigilance database. Will the Minister confirm whether, in a no-deal scenario, the UK would be able to access the existing EudraVigilance database, which may be more detailed than the existing MHRA database of pharmacovigilance information?
On serious shortage powers, this contingency legislation enables regulations to be made to modify the application of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 to deal with serious shortages of medicinal products, which, as we know, is a matter of great public interest. That would replace the regulation-making power in the European Communities Act 1972 for certain limited purposes and would ensure that Government continue to have the power to make temporary changes to the 2012 regulations in a no-deal scenario. That is a clear example of Ministers being given Henry VIII powers over many regulations if they think there is an urgent need because of shortages.
Does the Minister anticipate a doomsday scenario where it will be necessary to use those powers? Or is she saying, “There’s nothing to see here; we don’t anticipate any problems, but we are going to give ourselves these powers anyway”? Will she outline how the process will be handled if there are shortages and what scrutiny will be available for decisions made under it?
The draft regulations introduce a new targeted assessment route to incentivise novel medicines and biosimilars, which currently use one of the routes involved in the European regulatory network to receive a UK marketing authorisation, or MA, in the same timeframe as today. That involves changes to regulation 58 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012 and to the Medicines (Products for Human Use) (Fees) Regulations 2016, and may also involve the implementation of further non-legislative changes in order to ensure the
“continued competitiveness of the UK market.”
Will the Minister outline what further non-legislative changes the Department intends to implement? Will she outline details of what the new target assessment route will look like in practice? What assessment has the Department made of the impact of introducing the new route, and how does the Minister propose that we will keep in step with, or ahead of, improvements as the EU makes them while we are in the process of exiting and after we exit?
The generics industry expressed concern in response to the Government’s consultation about whether the targeted assessment routes would be made available for generics. In response, the MHRA proposed to review that and work with industry to shorten the timings of UK national licensing of generics. Will the Minister clarify the timeframe for the review and outline any progress made towards its completion?
With regard to “legal presence”, the medical devices regulations ensure that a UK-based marketing authorisation holder, or MAH, and a UK-based qualified person for pharmacovigilance, or QPPV, will need to be in place for all medicines in the UK. Will the Minister outline how many QPPVs are in operation, what their remit is, what support and training they receive and what net funding they receive? Is the Minister confident that the UK-based QPPVs will immediately have the necessary access to safety data systems for medicines? Can she confirm what ongoing communications there will be between QPPVs based in the EU or EEA and new ones based in the UK? Is she concerned that the additional costs for the UK industry of having to establish domestic pharmacovigilance may make the UK less of a priority market?
Transitional provisions require UK MAHs and QPPVs to be in place within 21 months after exit, to allow time for business to comply. That is especially the case for the QPPV, which is a specialist role. Can the Minister outline the process in that 21-month period? The Government’s impact assessment notes that
“there would be a cost to industry in establishing a contact person, MAH and QPPV presence in the UK for those who do not already have a UK presence”.
Those costs include a direct cost to change an MAH to a UK MAH and to establish
“premises, familiarisation and administration for the interim contact person or MAH, and QPPV to comply with the new legal requirements, and labour costs for these representatives.”
Will the Minister confirm whether the Department intends to help to meet those costs, or will businesses, and ultimately patients and taxpayers, again pick up the tab? What safeguards will be in place, and what are the risks of having our own set of MAHs and QPPVs? Will they require their own insurance? Are there minimum levels of liability that they must be insured for? What is the risk of some random individual being set up as an MAH because there are not people with experience and knowledge available to take up the roles in the first place?
The medical devices regulations ensure that existing centrally authorised products that are currently licensed for the UK market through the EMA will continue to be licensed in the UK in a no-deal scenario. The regulations provide for all existing CAP MAs to automatically be converted into UK MAs, and issued with the UK MA number on exit date, unless the MAH indicates that it does not wish its MA to be converted in that manner. Will the Minister confirm what contingency planning she will undertake if an MAH declines to have its MA converted into a UK MA? Can she guarantee that, in such a scenario, patients will not miss out on medicinal products that are CAPs? Can she outline the cost implications for CAPs of having to supply a full set of data? What will she do if an MAH does not provide that data within one year of exit day?
With regard to packaging, the requirements placed on all actors in the UK supply chain from February this year regarding the safety features aspects in the falsified medicines directive will be removed by the human medicines regulations. Furthermore, this instrument ensures that there will be no obligations on the UK supply chain to affix the safety features or scan packs of medicines. In the interests of public safety, the Government have said that they will evaluate the options for a future UK falsified medicines framework, but ending falsified medicines monitoring without replacing it with a similar UK equivalent is a very serious matter that has clear patient safety implications. Quite simply, it will be harder for the UK to monitor fake medicines coming in from non-EU and EU countries. Will the Minister outline how she intends to resolve that matter as a priority?
The human medicines regulations will also introduce into UK law a new authorised activity as part of the existing wholesale dealer licence, enabling the importation of medicinal products from countries on a list. On exit day, that list will comprise all EU and EEA countries, but the list may change over time. Does the Minister not feel that Parliament should have oversight of those lists, or at least an ability to block or make additions or subtractions, particularly as they will allow medicinal imports?
As we have heard, the medical devices regulations also introduce a new RP-I role to allow wholesale dealers to import medicines from the EU and EEA on to the UK market. Can the Minister confirm how many RP-Is she expects there to be? How will they be trained and regulated? Who will they report to? What arrangements will there be for oversight and holding them to account, including taking legal action against them if there is a concern that they are not carrying out their duties effectively? How will complaints in relation to this new role be handled?
Moving on, the human medicines regulations will allow the recognition of prescriptions from an approved list of countries following EU exit. On exit day, the list will comprise all EEA and EU countries. For a prescription to be eligible, the prescriber must be of equivalent professional status to a profession that is eligible to prescribe in the UK. Will the Minister clarify how oversight will be maintained, to ensure that prescribers are indeed of a professional status equivalent to a profession that is eligible to prescribe in the UK? What will the arrangements be for collecting data and monitoring the effectiveness of these regulations, and how will errors be compensated?
Coming back to medicines, in the event of a no-deal Brexit, there are two possible scenarios for manufacturers marketing biological medicines in the UK. First, where the UK agrees with one or more countries to accept each other’s independent test certificates for biological medicines, it would mean little change from the current arrangements, except as agreed and set out in a formal mutual recognition agreement between the countries. What progress has the Minister made in drawing up the list of those countries with which the UK has an agreement in place, and how many countries does she anticipate the UK will have an agreement with by exit day, whenever that is?
Secondly, where there is no mutual recognition agreement in place, that scenario would involve the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control issuing UK certificates for batches of biological medicines used in this country. Where the batch is destined for use in both the UK and another country, if it has already received independent certification in a country that is on the UK’s approved country list, the NIBSC will take a public health risk-based approach to deciding whether to rely on a paper assessment of that certificate or to issue a UK certificate to carry out testing.
Will the Minister clarify what is meant by a public health risk-based approach in this context? Can she confirm whether the NIBSC has drawn up a clear set of guidelines by which staff will be making those decisions? If so, is she aware of whether staff have received suitable training in using those guidelines, and will she confirm whether the NIBSC is being given extra resources to manage the extra workload that that will require? Can she guarantee that there will be no time lag in making approvals after exit day?
Looking at the sale of medicines, we see that EU-based online sellers currently have to register, comply with relevant requirements and display an EU common logo linked to the competent authority in which they are based. These regulations remove the requirement for UK-based online sellers. Does the Minister not agree that removing that requirement for UK-based online sellers might make it harder to work out which sellers of medicines online are legitimate?
With regard to manufacturing and wholesale dealing, the current good manufacturing practice directive is preserved, with modifications to reflect the fact that the UK is no longer a member state, but with a regulation-making power for Ministers to modify the directive or replace it in the future. The power is also placed on the licensing authority to publish guidelines on good manufacturing practice and good distribution practice, while preserving the EU guidance in place immediately before exit day until it does so. Can the Minister confirm today that these guidelines will be ready on exit day?
I feel I need to sit down, but I have a few further concerns.
Thangam Debbonaire
My hon. Friend is attacking the detail of these statutory instruments with forensic attention, and I do not envy the Minister in trying to respond to all his many pertinent questions. Does he agree that his analysis of these draft instruments shows that we have been, at best, misled about how straightforward, simple and easy it would be to translate EU regulations, directives and laws into UK law, and also how easy it would be to scrutinise that process? It is important that hon. Members such as him undertake such scrutiny.
Justin Madders
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. I feel that we could be a double act on the stage, but I am not sure that we would get many people in to watch us talking about these draft regulations. However, she makes a valid point. We have a lot of these problems because of the foolhardy decision to come out of the European Medicines Agency, which has created an unnecessary amount of work. There are serious questions to answer for those who portrayed leaving the EU as a straightforward matter, and who must now justify our having to interpret, debate and agree this absolute minefield of regulations at very short notice.
I will now talk a little about medical devices. You will be pleased to know that I do not have that much more to say, Mr Robertson; I am sure that the Minister is quite pleased about that as well. I will not go over the section 8 powers of the EU withdrawal Act, but they also apply to the draft medical devices regulations and modify the effects of the re-stated EU regulations, so the questions about reporting to Parliament, oversight and the collection and monitoring of data apply in that context, too.
I also have concerns about the conformity of devices, the expansion of registration requirements and data exchange. The Government announced their intention to continue to recognise, for a time-limited period, the CE mark on medical devices and in-vitro diagnostic devices that have demonstrated their conformity with EU regulatory requirements. Will the Minister clarify what is meant by a “time-limited period”, and what the arrangements will be once that period comes to an end? Will she also outline what assessment she has made of the impact of that on access to new devices?
Furthermore, in the event of no deal, UK-based notified bodies responsible for verifying medical devices will no longer be recognised by the EU, meaning that the devices that they have certified will no longer conform to the applicable EU directives after 29 March. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of not being able to place those products on the market, and what are the Government’s contingency plans for that? While UK law will give UK-based notified bodies an ongoing legal status and will continue to recognise the validity of the certificates that they issued prior to 29 March 2019, those bodies will be unable to issue certificates for new products. What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of that on products being developed for the UK market?
With regard to registration requirements, in a no-deal scenario, all medical devices will need to be registered with the MHRA prior to being placed on the UK market. Where a device manufacturer is not established in the UK, the registration of a product with the MHRA will be undertaken by a “UK responsible person”, who will be established in the UK with a UK-registered address. That person, as the name suggests, will take responsibility for the product in the UK. Will the Minister confirm how many manufacturers will need to establish a UK responsible person? Will she also clarify the oversight and regulation arrangements for such persons? I note that the impact assessment says that it is uncertain how many people will have the necessary expertise to fulfil that role. Does the Minister have a plan for if enough suitable people do not come forward to be a responsible person?
The draft devices regulations also refer to an appropriate transitional period for people placing medical devices and IVDs on the UK market to comply with the new requirements. The transitional period will vary from between four and 12 months, depending on the risk category of the devices. Will the Minster clarify what the arrangements will be when that transition period comes to an end?
Regulations 76 to 133 of the draft human medicines regulations place a large number of obligations on manufacturers, and corresponding powers to the Secretary of State to require compliance. Who, in reality, will perform that role, and what additional resources will they be given to ensure compliance?
Finally, in a no-deal scenario, the UK will no longer have access to EU data systems, including Eudamed, the European databank on medical devices. These systems are vital for data exchange, facilitating the exchange of information between notified bodies, national competent authorities and the European Commission. The MHRA is building an electronic system that expands on the current registrations database, which the Government say will mirror, as far as possible, the Eudamed requirements. Will the Minister confirm that the new electronic system being built by the MHRA will be operational by exit day? What are the additional costs and where is the funding coming from? Will she outline which aspects of the new database will not mirror Eudamed, and what steps are being taken to mitigate that?
Members will be pleased to hear that I have come to the end of my contribution. I appreciate that I have raised a significant number of questions, and it may not be possible for the Minister to answer them all in the time we have, particularly as we also have to hear from the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. The amount of material I have gone through today demonstrates without question why this process is so wholly inadequate for dealing with such important and complicated issues. There are many important questions about the impact on businesses, patients and the taxpayer. We really deserve a better attempt at this than that we have seen today.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I thank the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston and I echo many of his points. I certainly echo his points on the complexity and the short time that we have had to go through the draft regulations. I do not feel that it is sufficient scrutiny for something so technical and complex.
The three main groups affected will be the MHRA itself, the industry—both pharmaceutical and device producers and wholesalers and those who are involved in research and trials—and, thirdly, the NHS and the patients that it serves.
The MHRA will have to massively expand its organisation and its staff. It will have to take on people with skills that it does not currently require. As was mentioned by the shadow Minister, it will also have to develop systems to replace what the EMA has been doing. The EMA typifies one of the benefits that we get from the EU, because we will have to duplicate massive amounts of systems, and we are asking pharmaceutical companies to duplicate staff in the UK and the EU.
The immediate and urgent challenge the MHRA faces is grandfathering the central market authorisations, of which there are about 1,000 from 1995 to 2017. They are central authorisations, and only about a third are held in the UK. It will also have to transfer parallel import licences for similar drugs. The explanatory memorandum cites 21 days. How many of those licences exist? Is it remotely feasible to expect the MHRA to transfer them over within three weeks?
Data access will become more difficult, as this often involves looking at commercially sensitive data. As the UK will not be covered by the European Court of Justice in the future, many companies will be more wary, as they will be asking what their recourse to law will be if they feel that their data has been misused.
In the longer term, the MHRA will have to treble the number of new drug and new agent assessments to produce market authorisations for the UK. It will have to replace the pharmacovigilance work that the EMA does, both the major work and the regular reviews and updates. It will have to replace new data systems, because the UK will no longer have access to EudraVigilance data. That is the key loss—a loss of collaboration.
Although I have tried to raise it, one point that has been overlooked a lot in the past couple of years is the issue of quality control and batch release authorisation. The National Institute for Biological Standards and Control will be leaving the EU shared group of official control authorities on batch release, which means it is losing access to a collaborative network. It will have to ensure that all that work is replaced in the UK. That also means losing mutual recognition.
The MHRA will also have to license people. We heard that there will have to be marketing authority holders and qualified persons for pharmacovigilance for every single company here in the UK, as well as this new creation, the responsible person for import. What will their qualifications be? Exactly how will they be judged and licensed?
I recognise that it is a practical thing just to say that drugs that will be certified in the EU should be recognised in the UK, but this is not driven by our wanting to stay close to Europe; it is driven by the fact that the UK simply does not have enough qualified persons to do it any other way. That shows the threat. This is demanding a big increase in staff and skills, both for pharmaceutical industries and for the MHRA.
Under “Responsible Person”, the explanatory memorandum says that a licence holder must
“put in place an assurance system”.
Why is it not the Government putting in a single assurance system? Do they really want every drug company to come up with their own assurance system for licences?
MHRA funding has been based on the work that it has done for the European Medicines Agency in the past and on statutory fees. We are told that that will all be replaced through fees: more than £60,000 for a major assessment, more than £50,000 for a major pharmacovigilance assessment and smaller fees for some of the reviews and updates. When we hear so much about a Brexit dividend, why are the Government not looking at putting some funding into the MHRA, particularly in relation to set-up, but also in relation to maintaining these things?
For the pharmaceutical industry, the issue is duplication —having a legal marketing authority holder in the UK and a qualified person. It will mean the time involved in processing the grandfathering of marketing authorities. It will mean the costs of the additional fees, and as I said, those are substantial fees. It will mean a disincentive to launch medicines in the UK when a fee has to be paid to the EMA and then another fee has to be paid within the UK.
The aim is to negotiate bilateral recognition for batch-testing. How long will that take, and how many jobs are likely to go to the EU? What the paper that I am discussing focuses on is purely drugs being made available in the UK market. Although that is understandable, because it is about the MHRA, there is no talk about what support and help there will be for the industry. Forty-one million packets of drugs go to the EU, and the EU rules are that they need to be batch-tested within the EU. At the moment, 10% of batch-testing is UK only; three quarters is EU only; and only 13% of batch-testing is in both places. There is no talk about what support there will be for the industry. We risk losing those jobs, and the problem is that although those jobs might go first, other jobs tend to follow. Will a big, multinational drugs firm that is opening a new production unit in Europe pick the UK? The chances are that it will not, so the issue is future jobs as well.
Then we come to the NHS and patients. We hear, obviously, about costs for the NHS, because it will have more paperwork to do. There will be delays in accessing new drugs for patients; Australia and Canada have significant delays—sometimes as much as three years. That means that patients will lose access, and there will be an impact on future trials. Trials are always carried out on the best available versus the brand-new. If the UK is not able to deliver the best available drug to patients, it will not be able to take part in future trials.
The papers to which I am referring state that the UK Government will incentivise innovation in relation to rare diseases, but in fact the big step forward in the past 10 or 15 years was collaboration across a population of 500 million people. If we are talking about incredibly rare diseases, the bigger the population from which we recruit people to take part in the trials, the sooner we will find the answer.
As was mentioned, there is also the issue of leaving the falsified medicines directive and the safety packet measures therefore not being required in the UK. Similarly, it is stated that UK producers will not have to register, or to register their products, if they sell online. The worry about devices is that the sheer pressure of all this on the MHRA could lead to shortcuts and to rushing things through to try to keep up.
We have had multiple debates and discussions in the House about the impact of vaginal mesh. That was automatically passed on, because there was no recognition that the device was changing and that the operation to use the device was changing. Unless we have people with expertise looking at these devices, it will be very easy to think that they are exactly the same, but there might be substantial changes in how they work, the materials they are made of and how it is proposed that they will be used. Again, I come back to collaboration. Not sharing pharmacovigilance information through the EudraVigilance database is a real concern to patients in the EU and here.
On shortages, the documentation simply mentions that Ministers will have new powers if there are significant shortages after leaving the EU. I have raised the issue of the Human Medicines (Amendment) Regulations 2019, regarding the serious shortage protocol, which would allow a pharmacist to change a patient’s medication without consulting their GP. They do not have access to the patient’s medical records, only their prescription. A patient might have been on multiple drugs in the past to reach one that controls their condition. They will not remember all the drugs they were on over the years. They will not necessarily remember which drug caused them to have blackouts or other side effects. Those regulations were put through as a negative SI with no scrutiny and no debate. This measure proposes exactly the same powers.
When I came across the serious shortage protocol, I was shocked to find that there was no consultation with the General Medical Council, even though it would be a significant reversal of medical legal responsibility. I have concerns that in the future such moves on shortages will be simply rushed through, with insufficient cognisance taken of the impact they will have on patients. What other changes does the Minister envisage that Ministers will have powers to enact? Does she not recognise that doing things through the negative procedure does not allow for any scrutiny or debate, and does not allow us to protect our constituents?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I thank the hon. Members for Ellesmere Port and Neston and for Central Ayrshire for their probing questions. They have both made compelling arguments. I recognise their concerns about scrutiny, but we are where we are. The Government have to make provision for a no-deal scenario, even though we remain determined to leave the EU on 29 March with a deal. None the less, we need to put these statutory instruments in place to deal with the event that that does not happen. Both hon. Members asked probing questions, and I shall try to address all of them. I am sure I will miss some, but I promise to write to them both with full answers to the points they have raised.
Overall, there are concerns about the costs to businesses, patients and taxpayers, all of which need to be addressed. However, I should be up front about this. Clearly, there will be a cost to business. One reason why Margaret Thatcher was such a big believer in the single market was that a single-market regime would reduce costs to business. Therefore, unilaterally leaving the single market will increase costs. We need to be frank and honest about that. We also need to be frank and honest that some of those costs will be passed on to taxpayers and patients. That is a given, but it underlines why we are determined to leave with a deal and minimise any disruption, recognising that we want to make the best out of this scenario for Great Britain.
Some issues were also raised about resources and personnel in respect of the MHRA, which I will come on to. I appreciate that hon. Members feel that they have not had sufficient opportunity to scrutinise this. However, I can assure the Committee that the proposals have been taken forward by MHRA in full consultation with business with a desire to minimise disruption and additional cost, and with a full view to planning to ensure that MHRA is equipped to deal with it. Much of the machinery is in place, given MHRA’s role in being such a key player within the EMA.
As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the Government’s approach has been to minimise burdens on business while enabling the most robust action for the UK to protect public health. As I have said, I acknowledge that that will place costs on business. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire explained the disproportionality of EMA costs with regard to what might be replicated with the MHRA. She is absolutely right about that. I can tell her that the fees have been developed based on existing processes. For example, the targeted assessment fee is based on the existing MHRA incoming mutual recognition fee. Furthermore, the MHRA regularly reviews its fee levels and will continue to do so. There is a commitment from the MHRA to review the overall system of fees to the industry following exit with no deal so that we can maintain that they are fair and proportionate to business.
Dr Whitford
Obviously, the MHRA uses a trading fund now and must basically wash its own face financially. Will the Government provide more direct funding to the MHRA or is it envisaged that all of the costs will still be recouped from fees?
Jackie Doyle-Price
On day one of exit under this scenario, the MHRA will, as the hon. Lady says, continue to wash its own face. As to what might materialise subsequently, that would be subject to further discussion. I would not rule out anything at this stage. We are trying to ensure that the business can continue as usual on 30 March if we leave without a deal, but—let us set this in stone—that is if that is the result on 30 March. If we end up in that scenario, we will of course want to make sure that we have got things working effectively. It is also true that we will have to see how relationships work in practice. We can already see that some market practices are preparing for a no deal; others are not. We have said what we are prepared to do to recognise what has happened and what is licensed and goes through the regulatory system in Europe. We are being quite open about accepting that.
The hon. Lady mentioned batch testing, for example. We cannot be sure the same will happen in Europe. We will have to monitor how that works out in practice before setting in stone what the future regulatory regime will be. I come back to my original point: this is for day one of exit to keep the show on the road.
Dr Whitford
The Minister talks about preparing for a no deal, but as the EMA does not have associate membership, most of what is being put in place will be required, deal or no deal.
Jackie Doyle-Price
That is right. As I have said, we are seeing that some parts of industry are preparing for that scenario on the basis that there will be no associate membership. Having left in that scenario, if we look broadly at how the MHRA discharges its functions and how it is funded, at this stage we are looking at it continuing as usual and washing its own face. The hon. Lady mentioned that we could use some of the Brexit dividend to meet the cost. All of that is completely wide open at this stage. This measure is really just to keep the show on the road.
We have put some expectations down in terms of review. Most of the commitments we have made are to review all of the operations within two years. As for any conclusions we reach, we will come back to Parliament to institute any change if that is what we wish to do, but that would be done very much in consultation with industry and in a transparent way, recognising that all Opposition Members are not entirely satisfied. Clearly, we will go back to business as usual when it comes to scrutiny of these matters. Again, I cannot say often enough that I do not want that eventuality to materialise. It is my determination that we leave with a deal.
There was a reference to the impact on SMEs. The MHRA is taking steps to ensure that the burden on them is minimised. It will look at things such as fee waivers for some products to encourage further research and innovation. Again, that recognises the real concern about that.
Justin Madders
I know that we have asked a lot of questions, but there is almost a contradiction in what the Minister has just said. She expects the MHRA to wash its own hands still, but talks about fee waivers in some circumstances. If it is a trading fund, and there are new obligations on it, I am not sure how all that will realistically work.
Jackie Doyle-Price
I trust the MHRA to manage its own finances and take a proportionate view as to what is an appropriate fee, because it has the day-to-day contact with businesses. Overall, it will still be expected to settle its budget on the basis of the fee income that it incurs. That still gives it the freedom to do that, if that is in the sector’s strategic interest.
We have responded to some of the representations made by business about the potential additional costs. One reason that we introduced the responsible person for import assurance procedure was to minimise, as effectively as possible, the burden on the trading of the wholesale sector. Again, that recognises that where things have been checked and have gone through an appropriate European regulatory procedure, we should be satisfied that that is good enough for us. I am confident that that pragmatic approach will be repeated as the MHRA takes the matter forward.
Several points were made about the MHRA’s ability to take on new roles. The UK already has substantial capacity and expertise to regulate and evaluate the safety of our medicines and medical devices. The MHRA has real expertise in many areas, including pharmaco- vigilance and clinical trials regulation, which provides benefits to patients across the EU. I am confident that the EU will want to retain access to that expertise. That also shows that the MHRA has the expertise and human resources to discharge those roles. It has 30 years of experience as a lead regulator, it has led on the registration of more than 3,500 medicines, and it is globally recognised for its expertise. None the less, it will manage the demands on its service and I have every confidence in its ability to do so.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised the issues of continued access to medicines and of reviewing the fees. The statutory instrument provides continuity for patients and businesses by providing for existing EU licences to be automatically converted into UK licences, which should give continued access to medicines and will be done at no cost to industry. It also puts in place a new licensing route that will allow the MHRA to accept the same information from companies that apply for an EMA licence and that will allow the UK to grant a licence in the same timeframe as one would be received today.
Effectively, we will follow and replicate what the EMA does. There has been much talk of the UK being rule takers and hon. Members might suggest that there is no change here. That recognises, however, that we are in a global marketplace for medicines and that we all want to have access to the best medicines. In practice, there is much shadowing and sharing of expertise in this area. That raises a question that we do not have time to debate this afternoon, but there is much to be gained from international co-operation in this area.
Obviously, we want to make sure that the UK remains an attractive market for new medicines and for innovation. As I said earlier, we will review the fees set out in the SI within two years to make sure that they remain competitive and fit for purpose, and that they deliver the objectives that we want to achieve through the regulatory system.
The hon. Gentleman laid down a challenge; he said that the regulations go beyond a simple technical implementation of the directives into UK law and raise new powers for the Secretary of State. Clearly, the regulations are made under section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, which gives Ministers powers, where appropriate, to take additional powers. However, the changes are the minimum necessary to maintain continuity while protecting the health of UK patients while we are outside the EU, although clearly there is concern about issues of supply, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire mentioned.
We do not anticipate needing to use the Henry VIII power. We are confident that the regime that we have set out will ensure continuity of supply. However, in the event that that did not happen, provision would be needed. The power is a safeguard to be used in the case of serious shortages. I would not choose to describe it as a Henry VIII power, but I recognise the right of Opposition Members to do so. It is limited to temporarily modifying the effects of the human medicines regulations, for a limited time or purpose. As has been mentioned, the statutory instrument would use the negative procedure, but it could obviously be annulled. However, it would be used only where existing processes had been exhausted.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston raised the question whether any particular medicines would be at risk, and also mentioned prices in that regard—a concern that I think the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire will share. Clearly the MHRA consulted on the issue, and that informed its analysis. Any potential increase in medicine prices will depend on the extent to which costs are passed on to the consumer; but we shall bear the matter in mind, with regard to future medicines price negotiations. It is something that we shall have to keep an eye on at this stage. It is difficult to quantify. None the less, we have made clear commitments to the public about what they can expect, and about ensuring a continuous supply of medicines, and we shall have to find ways to deliver on those commitments.
Dr Whitford
Is the Minister aware that the Royal College of Radiologists has now produced emergency guidance to nuclear medicine departments, simply because the UK Government did not, on the potential threat of shortage of radionuclides and radiopharmaceuticals, both for scanning and for cancer treatment?
Jackie Doyle-Price
I was not aware of that, but I encourage everyone to participate in the dialogue, because in such an event the whole system would need to be ready. I shall perhaps come back to the hon. Lady on that specific point because, although much of our no-deal preparation is happening within the confines of Whitehall, it is not all being shared publicly.
I emphasise that there have been massive conversations with industry, including those in the life sciences industry—and with charities—about the changes, to make sure that everyone is prepared.
Dr Whitford
The Minister says that preparation is happening in Whitehall that is not being shared with the public, but we are talking about the president of the Royal College of Radiologists. The people who actually deliver scans have not had any guidance from the Government. That is not scaremongering. They have to be ready for something that could happen in a few weeks. They are talking about delaying patients, planning light weeks, and when the molybdenum will arrive, because those things cannot be stockpiled. Why has there not been guidance to the NHS about how to prepare to deal with shortages of radionuclides?
Jackie Doyle-Price
My understanding is that those conversations have been taking place. However, the hon. Lady is right that the very nature of those products, which cannot be stockpiled, has brought complications. I fully expect the president to be involved in those conversations. I do not have that knowledge to hand now, but I will write to her afterwards, to give her some reassurance.
We had two waves of consultations on the draft instruments. For the last, in October, we issued a consultation that received 170 responses, through which we ended up with the proposals before us. Again, these are subject to further consultation with the industry.
It is obviously a priority for us to make sure that Britain remains a competitive location for life sciences companies, and we are committed to maintaining our renowned strength in science and research. Since the referendum, we have seen many signs of the industry’s continued confidence in the UK. In 2017, we received the highest level of life science investment in Europe, and were second globally only to the US. That illustrates the confidence in our regulatory system, which is why we are confident that the MHRA is well up to the task given to it by the draft statutory instruments.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston gave an impressive illustration of what he described as the confusion regarding the various dates at which parts of the draft regulations will come into effect and the complexity of some of the references within them, and he posed legitimate questions on how business would understand and prepare for them. However, as I say, we have produced detailed guidance to support everyone in interpreting the draft instruments, and the MHRA does not expect anyone to navigate this alone and will be there to give advice. That support is partly reflected in the length of time that businesses will have to prepare for and implement these measures. We will ensure that that dialogue continues.
The hon. Gentleman also raised questions about market access and legal accountability, and whether we will have sufficient people to discharge that role for the industry. We believe that those skills are already in place, bearing in mind that a lot of companies will already have to fulfil these functions with the EMA, particularly when exporting. We do not anticipate that this change will be disproportionately onerous on business. However, we have given the industry 21 months to implement that aspect. To make sure that only genuinely qualified people undertake that role, anyone who vouches for a medicine that is then potentially harmful to patients faces a maximum two years’ imprisonment. The sector has sufficient integrity to engage only properly qualified people; to do otherwise would be foolhardy.
Questions were asked about the degree to which UK consumers could be protected from false medicines. To reassure Committee members, the falsified medicines directive, implemented in 2013, will remain in UK law, even in the event of a no-deal exit. We will make sure that we continue to apply the same protections as before. We obviously want to retain a close working partnership with the EU on medicines regulation, and I think that we will be able to share expertise and information on such issues over and above any potential mutual recognition of regulations. We will all benefit from that information sharing. Issues were also raised about the wholesale sector. We will obviously continue to ensure that the MHRA keeps a good eye on that and makes sure that that regulatory regime is fit for purpose.
Turning to some of the comments about the devices, we will continue to recognise the CE mark on medical devices. It is also fair to say that the existing regulatory regime has perhaps been seen as rather liberal in its approach—the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire alluded to this when she referred to mesh—and it has been subject to some revision at EU level. Certainly, we want to follow what is happening with that review and consider whether there are any further improvements we would wish to make to that CE mark system.
To those colleagues who thought that leaving the EU might lead to a bonfire of regulation, I say that, clearly, when it comes to medical devices, some of which remain within the body for a length of time, we should not stint in our approach to the protection of patients. Patient safety should be the primary objective, notwithstanding the importance of maintaining a competitive marketplace. Patient safety is crucial.
There are estimated to be around 600,000 medical devices available on the EU market, many of which have not been produced in the UK or approved by UK-notified bodies. It would be quite a big undertaking for the MHRA to license those products, but we will increase our market surveillance by requiring all new devices being placed on the UK market to be registered with the MHRA after exit day by the manufacturer or a UK responsible person, in accordance with the transitional timetable. Our emphasis is patient safety first and foremost, while doing our best to improve access to the market. We will require, as the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston said, all overseas manufacturers to register those products here with the MHRA themselves.
We have also had some discussion about the RP-I. That is a new role; the hon. Gentleman asked how many will be required and where we will find them. We are giving the industry a two-year transition period, to give it the opportunity to register those persons with the MHRA, and it will depend on the number of wholesalers who intend to import products from the EEA. We are satisfied on the basis of the discussions we have had with the industry that that two-year implementation period is appropriate, and there has been consultation on exactly what sorts of skills those persons should have, with the intention that they should fill the regulatory gap caused by our removal from the EMA, but without putting undue burdens on the industry.
Justin Madders
In essence, the Minister is saying that, having consulted the industry, the general view is that there will be sufficient people in place with the right skills within 21 months. If that is the case, that explains the position, but is there a fall-back position if that does not transpire?
Jackie Doyle-Price
As I say, that timescale has been arrived at between the MHRA and the industry. On that basis, I would not anticipate a problem, but we will have to monitor that none the less, bearing in mind that we are effectively introducing a new regime and any market adjustments that happen in that intervening period will have an impact on it. A lot can happen in those 21 months. We are effectively altering the terms of trade, and we cannot be sure of all the consequences of that, but the MHRA will maintain that close dialogue with the industry to ensure that we are being sufficiently responsive.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the national database of all devices. The fee for establishing that database will be £100 for each device. Manufacturers outside the UK will be required to have a UK-based responsible person, who would act on behalf of that manufacturer to do things such as registering the product. Again, there will be a transitional period to enable the industry to implement those changes.
Some questions were asked about access to medicines. Obviously, we want to make sure that UK patients have access to life-transforming drugs at the same time as people in Europe. Whether we might be placed at a disadvantage by being outside the EMA has been a real concern. We want to ensure that when a drug is registered with the EMA, we consider it at the same time, so that there is no advantage for any manufacturer in delaying entering the UK market because it would not get any ongoing benefit from that, in terms of protective rights on intellectual property. We would effectively start the clock at the same time as the application with the EMA to give an incentive to enter the UK market as soon as possible. Again, we will wish to monitor how that works in practice.
We will assess whether countries from which a registered importer operates might change over time, and whether that needs scrutiny by Parliament, on the basis of whether the technical standards in that country are consistent with ours. Obviously, that would be a constantly moving feast. The MHRA is ideally qualified to make a judgment on that, but I would expect it to do that with sufficient transparency to allow any challenge to take place.
I apologise if I have not addressed all the points that have been made this afternoon. I will write to hon. Members. I reassure all hon. Members that the Government are fully committed to a system of medicines and medical device regulation that intelligently balances patient access to new, innovative and world-leading projects. As part of these measures, the MHRA will have in place a suite of licensing routes for medicines and vigilance systems for medicines and devices. The Government also place enormous value on the contribution to public health of the research charities, industry and the life sciences sector as a whole, and as such, the MHRA will continue to support innovation in the life sciences through its innovation office and scientific advice.
We remain committed to offering a competitive regulatory environment to ensure that the UK has access to the safest and most effective medicines in the world. As I said, we have tried to replicate the current regime, but there has been a need to add additional requirements for industry to deal with the fact that we are leaving the EMA and its regulatory structure. We have done so in the most competitive way possible, while maintaining patient safety and remaining the best place in the world for science and innovation.
Question put and agreed to
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Human Medicines (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Draft Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Medical Devices (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.—(Jackie Doyle-Price.)
Draft Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019
Draft Agency Workers (Amendment) Regulations 2019
Draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Kelly Tolhurst)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Agency Workers (Amendment) Regulations 2019 and the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2019.
Kelly Tolhurst
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Austin. These three statutory instruments contain five measures to clarify and extend workers’ rights, taking forward the Good Work plan—the biggest boost to workers’ rights in over 20 years. They demonstrate this Government’s firm commitment to upholding and improving workers’ rights as we leave the European Union.
The first SI is the draft Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019. It would extend to workers the right to a written statement of employment particulars. Currently, only an employee is entitled to a written statement, and only after a month with the same employer. The current written statement provides an employee with information on the main conditions of their employment, such as their job title and a description of their work, how much and how often they will be paid, and the hours of work. Matthew Taylor’s review recommended greater transparency for extending to workers the right to a written statement. All workers should have the same clarity of information from which employees currently benefit.
We also laid the Employment Rights, Employment Particulars and Paid Annual Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2018 in December, which made written statements a day one right and extended the content of the written statement to include paid leave details, such as maternity and paternity leave, where applicable—specifics of when a worker is expected to work, whether the work is variable, and the benefits beyond pay for which the worker is eligible.
The changes that will be implemented by the draft Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019 and the Employment Rights, Employment Particulars and Paid Annual Leave (Amendment) Regulations 2018 are crucial to achieving Taylor’s recommendation for
“greater transparency around the employment law framework to help ensure that legal rights and responsibilities are not misunderstood or exploited.”
The second measure in the draft Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019 would amend the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, lowering the threshold for a request to set up an information and consultation arrangement in the workplace from 10% to 2% of the total number of employees. The Government agree with Taylor that engaging in dialogue is key to good work. The draft regulations would make it easier for workforces to request employers to be more open about what is happening in their workplace.
It is important to note that this SI would not change the important rights that the information and consultation representative has, including paid time off and protections against detriment. There would also be no change to the number of employers in the scope of the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations: they would apply to employers who have 50 or more employees, and a minimum of 15 employees would be required for a request to set up an information and consultation arrangement.
Good employers engage regularly with their workforce. To quote Taylor:
“Well-run companies recognise the importance of the people who work for them. They invest time and effort in good management relationships”.
The third measure in the draft Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019 would increase the maximum penalty available to employment tribunals where there has been an aggravated breach of workers’ rights. The maximum penalty of £20,000 would be applicable from 6 April 2019, quadrupling the current amount. The current maximum penalty of £5,000 does not always reflect the higher-value awards. The new maximum would align with the current maximum penalty per worker for non-payment of the national minimum wage. It is important that all parties are aware of this penalty. We have published guidance to increase awareness and highlight how tribunals can make use of these powers.
This measure is targeted at businesses that breach the law deliberately or maliciously. Compliant businesses will welcome this detriment against anyone seeking advantage by exploiting workers. The increased penalty is part of a wider package to deter repeated employment law breaches. We are committed to legislate to oblige employment tribunals to consider imposing additional sanctions against employers that repeatedly breach workers’ rights. We are also helping workers to receive tribunal awards promptly through the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy penalty scheme, which has recovered more than £1.5 million of unpaid awards so far. We will now also name employers that are not paying employment tribunal awards.
The draft Agency Workers (Amendment) Regulations 2019 would abolish the Swedish derogation. This reform has been welcomed across the House. It is a fundamental shift in agency workers’ rights, entitling all agency workers to the same pay as a permanent employee after 12 weeks in the same role with the same hirer. At present, agency workers can opt out of the entitlement to equal pay in return for pay between assignments through a Swedish derogation contract. Matthew Taylor highlighted that Swedish derogation contracts can be exploitative, and that workers sometimes do not receive the equal pay that they are entitled to. Our 2018 response to the Taylor review included a consultation on the Swedish derogation. That and earlier BEIS research uncovered cases in which pay between assignments was not given. We concluded that agency workers are not benefiting from the Swedish derogation, and we are therefore taking action.
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments drew the special attention of both Houses to this instrument, on the grounds that one aspect required clarification. My Department provided that clarification to the Committee. The instrument relies on powers in section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. The Committee asked how the instrument would survive exit day, given that section 2(1) of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 saves legislation made under section 2(2) of the 1972 Act, as it has effect in domestic law immediately before exit day and this instrument does not come into force until after April 2020. The answer to that question is that this instrument would be on the statute book immediately before exit day and is due to come into force in April 2020. That effect is preserved in section 2(1) of the withdrawal Act, so the instrument will still come into force as intended.
The Committee accepted that that is one possible interpretation. It is the clear view of the Government that instruments such as this will come into force as intended. That can also be seen from the explanatory notes to the withdrawal Act, which confirm that legislation referred to in section 2(1) includes legislation that has been passed or made but is yet to be in force. The repeal of the Swedish derogation will make a significant positive difference to agency workers in the UK. We have listened to agency workers’ concerns and have taken firm action in response.
The draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2019 would introduce a key facts page for agency workers who sign up to an employment business from April 2020. The Taylor review identified transparency of information, particularly around pay, as an issue of engagement with agency workers. The different ways that they can be paid are often confusing. Taylor was concerned that some workers were being exploited as a result. This regulation therefore requires a key facts page that will give agency workers more clarity over their pay, and some other key facts, before signing up with an employment business.
That reform was welcomed by unions, businesses and workers alike in our consultation. Employment businesses will give a key facts page to all agency workers signing up from April 2020. It will contain a number of largely pay-related facts, presented clearly. In particular, if an agency worker is paid through a third-party umbrella company, the key facts page will reflect that, including information about deductions that the umbrella may take and how they are calculated. That means that agency workers will have more information about who is responsible for paying them and how much pay they will receive for an assignment, enabling them to make better-informed decisions before they agree to take the work on. The regulation means that, before signing on with an employment business, agency workers have the information they need to make an informed choice.
With the exception of the quadrupled aggravated breach penalty, the measures I have outlined take effect from April 2020. That gives time for employers to adapt their systems, and time for individuals to understand the increased transparency and their rights.
I commend these three sets of regulations to the Committee.
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairpersonship, Mr Austin.
I will set it on the record that we do not oppose these statutory instruments, despite their narrow scope and their utter failure to address the grotesque and growing inequality in the quality of work, and increasing insecurity and low pay in the UK. They implement some of the few actions contained within the Government’s Good Work plan, which makes some very limited improvements to workers’ rights but does not address the crisis of work in this country, where millions are struggling to make ends meet, and where work is certainly no longer a preventer of poverty.
Mr Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
When the hon. Lady refers to a “crisis” in the workplace, is she aware that we now have record employment, with more people in employment than ever before in the history of the United Kingdom?
Gill Furniss
I certainly am aware of that. I am also aware that many of my constituents are in low-paid work or on zero-hours contracts, when they would rather be in good, well-paid, full-time work.
Gill Furniss
I am quite aware of that fact, but I think the hon. Gentleman will find that they were small in number at that time; they have most certainly increased under this Government. I will try to move on.
Any improvement in the rights of workers is welcome, but it is an absolute travesty that these changes are so limited, and the Government seem intent on ignoring the scale of the crisis for many working people. The Government have described their Good Work plan as the
“largest upgrade in a generation to workplace rights”.
What a damning indictment that is of their previous lack of ambition.
If the Minister really wanted to improve the rights of workers across the country, she would introduce legislation to allow trade unions access to workplaces and promote collective bargaining, and to rule out the reintroduction of employment tribunal fees, which it must be stressed have only been removed following union legal action that resulted in their being found unlawful. She would also ban zero-hours contracts and give all workers access to day one employment rights, as Labour will.
Before addressing each of the SIs, I want to put on the record my concerns that the Government have said that they intend to legislate to “clarify” the existing case law around employment status. Legislation in that area could make it easier for employers to avoid honouring workers’ rights, and unpick recent union victories in the employment tribunals. I should be grateful if the Minister would confirm that that will not be the case.
The draft Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019 propose three main areas of change. The proposed strengthening of employment tribunals’ power to increase sanctions on employers who breach employment law is overdue and welcome, and it should certainly be made easier for employees to trigger information and consultation rights in their workplaces. However, it is clear that the changes being proposed to the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 will fall short of the action needed to facilitate meaningful consultation between an employer and their workforce. All the evidence shows that collective bargaining is the best way of achieving that. Trade unions are the collective voice of workers, and a collective voice is stronger than an individual one. Trade unions are the best way of ensuring that the interests of the many are prioritised in the workplace and in the wider economy. So, can the Minister explain why this legislation and the Good Work plan completely ignore trade unions and do nothing to strengthen their rights in the workplace?
Why does the Minister think the proposed ICE reforms should not cover agency workers and other casual workers? Under these proposals, such workers will miss out on important information and consultation rights. The SI provides that workers will be entitled to a written statement of particulars of employment from day one in their job. However, people on zero-hours contracts and workers in the insecure economy need much more than a weak right to request a contract and more predictable hours. As the General Secretary of the TUC, Frances O’Grady, has stated:
“The right to request guaranteed working hours is no right at all. Zero-hours contract workers will have no more leverage than Oliver Twist.”
Why are the Government treating workers with such a Dickensian attitude?
I welcome the draft Agency Workers (Amendment) Regulations 2019. After years of campaigning and pressure from trade unions, the regulations will effectively close the Swedish derogation loophole, which has been used by employers and recruitment agencies to avoid their obligations to provide pay parity for agency workers. However, why has it taken the Minister so long, and why do agency workers have to wait over a year—until 2020—for the regulations to come into force?
Although any increase in the information to which workers are entitled is welcome, the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2019 are barely an improvement on the status quo. If I was the Minister, I would be embarrassed to present them. The proposals allow agency workers to be signposted to further documents, rather than having all the information in one place as Taylor recommended—undermining the Government’s stated objective of making key information more transparent and easily accessible.
Why does the key facts sheet not include all relevant information? Why has the Minister not introduced it immediately, instead of after a year’s delay? Importantly, who will enforce the new requirement? The employment agency standards inspectorate employs just 16 people to cover an agency sector that includes hundreds of thousands of workers. Without enforcement, the legislation is meaningless.
Only one in six low-paid workers in the last 10 years managed to secure a full-time job with better pay, meaning that many workers face a lifetime of being trapped in low pay and poverty. Issuing workers with a key facts page about their workplace rights will do nothing to address such a systematic crisis. Why is the Minister not embarrassed by the empty rhetoric of that response?
Labour is committed to giving all workers equal rights from day one. Why are the Government not committed to that? Wider reforms are needed to ensure effective information and consultation in the workplace. Labour believes that the law should presume that a worker is an employee with full employment rights unless the employer can prove otherwise. Why have the Government failed in these statutory instruments to take up the Taylor review recommendation to shift the burden of proof, where the status of the worker is in dispute, from the worker to the employer?
TUC research shows that the number of people facing insecure work has risen by 27% over the last five years under this Government. The Good Work plan and these weak SIs do nothing to address the growing crisis. It is clear that only a Labour Government will take decisive action and ensure that working people get the rights to which they should be entitled. For more than 60 years, the UK, like most other countries in the world, had a Ministry of Labour. We will restore it, to give workers and trade unions a voice at the Cabinet table. The new Ministry will ensure that workers’ rights are enforced with proper resources and tough sanctions for those who do not meet legal standards.
Labour has set out a 20-point plan for equality and security at work, including banning zero-hours contracts, giving all workers equal rights from day one, doubling paid maternity leave, increasing maternity pay and banning unpaid internships. If the Government were serious about improving the lives of workers, they would implement those policies, not announce superficial tweaks via secondary legislation that will not come into effect until 2020, and that barely scratch the surface.
Kelly Tolhurst
I respect the comments made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough. I like to think that when I work with her in her role as shadow Minister we have quite good communication. I respect her position, and thank her for the tone in which she always presents her comments in Committee.
I am not embarrassed to be standing here today as the Minister; I am very proud to be the Minister responsible for labour markets, and to be introducing these three SIs on the back of announcing our Good Work plan at the end of 2018. In my view, as a 40-year-old woman—[Interruption.] Yes, everybody knows my age now. Most of my days in employment were under a Labour Government. I had a lot of different experiences, and saw what it was like to be a young person trying to follow a career. I then ran my own business, and I am now in a Conservative Government, looking at these matters. I am proud of this Government’s record in bringing forward the Good Work plan and in initiating the work that went into the Taylor review, to get to where we are now. To move to where we are going is a big step change. The initiatives that we have announced in the Good Work plan go further than before. We have expressed our intentions about what we would like to do going forward. These SIs are limited in scope to give us the ability to move quickly and make changes that enable our ambitions to be realised as soon as possible.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I echo the Minister’s comments. Many of us in this Palace, and all of us here today, care passionately about this issue—I do not think there is any disagreement about that—and bitterly resent the few examples of terrible employment practices that the Government are moving to clamp down on. I thought the shadow Minister’s comments were slightly old-fashioned. Those of us who have had a career in starting technology businesses—fast-growing businesses with modern workforces, where many women want flexible hours—understand that this is not about the trade union rep in a company with six employees. It is about good employers, good regulations and good standards in the modern workplace. We have moved on a bit from the 1920s.
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments; I concur with them. Ever since I have had this role I have been committed to making sure that our workers are put at the centre of what we are doing around business, and making sure that, quite rightly, we listen to workers, businesses, unions and all kinds of representatives when we are formulating—hopefully—good legislation for the future.
We have, I believe, been seen to have a good record in what we have done in recent times. We have got a record-breaking number of people in work, and 80% of jobs created since 2010 were full-time jobs. We are continuing with our commitment to increase the minimum wage, with the new increased rate starting in April, when it moves to £8.21. We are committed to, and on track to meet the 60% of median earnings target.
I will turn to the questions that I was quite rightly asked by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough. She is quite right about employment status. That is something that came from the Taylor review and has been outlined in the Good Work plan. We are committed to aligning employment status with tax. There is evidence to suggest that that is what we need to do. We need to get it right, to consult properly and to make sure that anything brought in is done in the right way. The engagement that I have had with businesses and workers shows that they welcome this move. It has to be done correctly and in the right way. It has been expressed in our Good Work plan and it will be consulted on further.
On the unions and the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004, I make it clear to the Committee that the new regulations strengthen workers’ ability to request consultation in the workplace.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. It is interesting to listen to her. Her Department is running a series of adverts at the moment, under the headline, “Holiday pay: it comes with the job”. Underneath that is a photograph of a Deliveroo rider. Could she confirm that even after these regulations have been passed, Deliveroo riders and other people in the gig economy who are self-employed will not be entitled to statutory holiday pay?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is not a picture of a Deliveroo driver. As Members will be able to see, it does not say the word “Deliveroo”.
Peter Kyle
If somebody is wearing the uniform of a Deliveroo rider, has a backpack on their back that is identical to that of a Deliveroo rider, and is riding a bike, as Deliveroo riders do, does the Minister agree that most reasonable people looking at that advert will assume that it indicates that Deliveroo riders will get statutory holiday entitlements?
Kelly Tolhurst
I stand by what I said: it is not a Deliveroo driver. The hon. Gentleman may believe that it is a Deliveroo driver, or cyclist, but there are a number of players in that particular market.
Kelly Tolhurst
I am not going to name them here, because I am not here to talk about Deliveroo drivers—or any driver, for that matter. The essence of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to get at is that I will defend an advertising campaign by my Department to make it clear to people that they are entitled to holiday pay, which we are committed to delivering. Part of that is about making employees aware and raising the profile of that. I will defend our campaign, even though I dispute that the driver in the ad is a Deliveroo driver.
Kelly Tolhurst
To move back to union representation, about which the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough feels strongly, it is true that the changes that we are making to the thresholds will ensure that workers are able to get consultation with the organisations in which they work. It is correct that in some workplaces there is contention relating to unions, and they are not necessarily representative of the whole workforce, so there is already a system in place—a threshold within unions, separate to what we are talking about with the ICE. Obviously, that is a different system. The changes that we are making will give people who are not part of a union the ability to have a conversation and consultation with the companies that they work for.
I personally feel very strongly about zero-hours contracts. I have seen many, many examples, as a constituency MP and in the working world, of zero-hours contracts being a perfect solution for people who want to be able to work. They give people the flexibility that they are unable to get in other forms of employment. It is a fallacy that every organisation that uses zero-hours contracts is bad, and that all zero-hours contracts are weighted against the worker. I can name a number of examples of where employers go much further to aid individuals and enable flexibility. The 80% increase in jobs has been in full-time employment. The Taylor report identified that keeping that flexibility in the workplace is really important. I understand that people have concerns about zero-hours contracts, but our intention is to strengthen them where we can. My narrative is that they are a good option for a lot of people who want to work. They are not always one-sided.
Gill Furniss
I just want to put it on the record that this obsession with zero hours seems very weird to me, because there are many other options for making jobs flexible. There are things like job shares and part-time appointments. It does not have to be a zero-hours contract. I would like the Government to take a look at that, rather than clinging on to the notion that zero-hours contracts are the only way of offering flexibility. In my book, they certainly are not.
Kelly Tolhurst
I actually agree with the hon. Lady. They are not the only way of offering flexibility. That is why we are bringing forward the proposals that we set out in the Good Work plan. We are moving towards giving workers the right to request a more stable contract and stable hours. Less than 3% of our workforce use zero-hours contracts, and there are many other ways to do it. In my view, the narrative that zero-hours contracts are all weighted against the employee is not always the correct interpretation of how they are used. However, we have tried to outline that, as a responsible Government, where we see any potential difficulty or breaches, we will always seek to close those gaps where appropriate.
I understand the hon. Lady’s concern about the timescale. She will be pleased to know, in the light of debates that we have had on certain other SIs, that impact assessments have been carried out. Because an impact has been assessed to business, these measures will come into force on 6 April 2020, giving businesses 12 months to prepare, giving us time to work with businesses on guidance and implementation, and giving workers an opportunity to understand what is coming forward.
The key facts page is a step forward, particularly for agency workers. When the regulations come into force, workers will be entitled not only to a written statement of rights but to key facts. The whole point of that is that when individuals go to agencies, they will be able to ask questions and make decisions about whether to take on work in an informed way, which we hope will ensure that there is no concern in the future. Also, where there are workplace issues, that will give individuals something on day one with which to hold their employer to account at a later date. It is a great way forward; it gives workers better information and provides transparency. Obviously, we will be working with employers over the next year to ensure that those key facts pages are implemented.
I like to think that the regulations show that we are absolutely committed to improving workers’ rights following the Taylor review. I would like to put on the record my gratitude to Matthew Taylor and his review colleagues, Greg Marsh, Diane Nicol and Paul Broadbent. I thank them for all their work in this area. It has been a pleasure to work with them over the last 12 months, even though I have only been in post since July.
As we set out in our industrial strategy, flexibility is an important UK strength. Over the past year, the UK has experienced its highest rates of economic activity and employment. The employment rate was estimated at 75.8%, the highest since comparable estimates began in 1971. We have also experienced the lowest rate of unemployment since the mid ’70s. There are now 32.53 million people in work. The strength of the jobs market in the past eight years means that over 3 million more people are in work, unemployment is lower in all regions and nations of the UK than in 2010, and wages are growing at the fastest pace possible.
The regulations implement the recommendations of the Taylor review. They will directly benefit all workers by giving them transparency about their rights on day one. We are removing the opt-out from equal pay for agency workers and giving them clear information to make informed choices about who they sign with. We are making it easier for the workforce to establish formal engagement processes for information and consultation, and we are empowering employment tribunals to impose greater penalties against the worst employers.
Members will know that the regulations are not the extent of our plans, as I hope I have laid out. Many of the other commitments in the Good Work plan are being taken forward. Last week, we launched the holiday awareness campaign, which was beautifully alluded to by the hon. Member for Hove. Our scheme to name employers that fail to pay employment tribunal awards is now live. Many of our ambitious reforms will require primary legislation, and I look forward to having further discussions with Members across the House as we bring forward further measures.
I commend the statutory instruments to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Rights (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2019.
Draft Agency Workers (Amendment) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Agency Workers (Amendment) Regulations 2019.—(Kelly Tolhurst.)
Draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2019
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2019.—(Kelly Tolhurst.)
Westminster Hall
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Transport Infrastructure: Essex
(5 years, 8 months 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
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered transport infrastructure in Essex.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for having granted this debate, and to his office for having worked with me, as they understood the background to why this debate has been called. I also put on the record my thanks to two colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) and for Colchester (Will Quince), for joining and supporting today’s debate. There is a great deal of interest in this issue not just from constituents across the county of Essex, but from colleagues and representatives from Essex County Council, who have joined us today.
Transport infrastructure across Essex is an issue of major importance. As the Minister knows, I have secured a number of Adjournment debates on the topic and asked one or two parliamentary questions about it. I suspect that in his office and his Department, there might be some filing cabinets containing much correspondence on a number of issues, and about Essex in particular. I have no doubt that, when being briefed by officials for this debate, he had a peek into those filing cabinets and so is well prepared to deal with the questions and issues that will come up.
The debate is about emphasising the need to progress infrastructure across the county of Essex, and addressing some of the serious questions that need answering about how we do so. Before going into details about specific transportation schemes across Essex and projects that need to be progressed, it is important to give the Minister an overview of the economy of Essex. That will demonstrate why investment in transport infrastructure—which naturally brings a return on investment back to the county and to the country—matters so much, and why we need Government support and intervention to ensure that we keep Essex moving and have the right factors and catalysts driving those projects.
The economy of the county of Essex, including the unitary authorities of Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock, is dynamic and innovative. The House has constantly heard that where Essex leads, others follow; that is because we are a county of entrepreneurs, who have seen our county throughout the good times and the bad. I think all Members present who represent Essex have seen some of those good times and bad times. Over the past decade there has been a 25% increase in the number of enterprises across Essex. In 2010, when I became a Member of Parliament, that number stood at 61,540. By 2018 it had risen to 77,365. That is a phenomenal level of growth, and I do not think anybody can say it has just happened automatically; it has happened because of the dynamic nature of our county, and because of the risk takers and entrepreneurs who believe in the county of Essex and seek to invest in it. It has also happened despite our crumbling, inadequate and poor infrastructure, so we can speculate on how much more investment Essex would have seen if we had received infrastructure investment as well.
We have highly skilled firms in Essex. We are fortunate enough to have business groups, including the brilliant Essex chamber of commerce, which champions many businesses across a range of sectors. The Minister will be aware of an organisation that I established and chair, the Essex Business, Transport and Infrastructure Forum—it is a mouthful, so we call it EBTIF. When I established it, we worked with business and the Essex chamber of commerce to engage directly with the Government to highlight the importance of infrastructure investment in our great county, which will be a recurring theme in this debate, and certainly in my remarks today.
The Essex chamber of commerce has an outstanding record. It is proactive, both in mobilising business and in engaging Government. Just this week we met the Housing Minister to speak about transport and housing. We also met the Secretary of State for Transport in the past month, which I am going to come on to when I talk about specific schemes. I invite the Minister to come to one of EBTIF’s meetings and to visit our county, to sit in our traffic jams and see our infrastructure so that he will appreciate the nature of the challenge across the county, even more than he already does from the filing cabinets full of correspondence.
Of course, it is not only individuals who depend on our transport sector, but businesses and everyone else. Essex has a strong advanced manufacturing and engineering sector that employs over 50,000 people in over 4,200 companies. We are host to a range of household names across the constituencies of all right hon. and hon. Members present, including BAE Systems, Teledyne e2v, Fläkt Woods in Colchester, and Crittall in Witham. We have a high-tech cluster; we specialise in life sciences, renewable energies, aerospace, defence, security, biotech, digitech—you name it, we have it going on.
We also have a vibrant agricultural and food production sector. In the county of Essex, farming alone is worth over £400 million to our economy and employs over 8,000 people. We have the famous Wilkin & Sons, Wicks Manor, and Shaken Udder Milkshakes, which is based in my constituency. All those businesses are testaments to Essex. If the Minister would like some more statistics, I can tell him that we produce every year enough wheat to make 1.3 billion loaves of bread, enough barley to make 280 million pints of beer, and 150 million eggs. We also grow outdoor vegetables on 5,000 acres of land, so roads and transport are important to us.
On top of that, we are attracting more and more businesses and professionals across the finance and insurance sectors; we have 66,000 professionals in Essex, so it is important that we continue to grow and support them. We have a dynamic academic and educational sector, with Writtle University College, Anglia Ruskin University and the University of Essex—my former university—with its knowledge gateway. It is an outstanding university with a first-class international reputation.
We have so much going on in the areas of multi-modality connectivity and logistics. We have over 1,000 acres of port-adjacent, tri-modally connected logistics and distribution sites, which are the backbone of our economy, and we are connected by road, rail, sea and air to global markets. We have four major seaports—London Gateway, Tilbury, Harwich and Purfleet—with a fifth major port, Felixstowe, just over the border in Suffolk. There are also six port-side rail freight terminals and three key tri-modal logistic sites at London Gateway and the London distribution park. Of course, we also have our airports: Stansted, which is the UK’s third largest air freight hub by capacity, and Southend airport. Those airports are not just growing, but experiencing considerable passenger growth and, in the case of Stansted, benefiting from private sector investment to the tune of £600 million. Essex is also connected to Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton airports through our connections to the infamous M25.
However, we need to ensure that our roads keep traffic moving. One statistic says it all: it is not surprising to learn that Essex is the local authority with the second-highest traffic level in the country, with 9.68 billion vehicle miles in 2017 alone. That is 2 billion miles more than in 1997, and if the unitary authorities of Thurrock and Southend-on-Sea are included, the greater Essex area has the highest traffic level by distance, with 11.2 billion miles. To put that into perspective, it is equivalent to the distance from Earth to interstellar space, so it is fair to say that we in Essex spend a lot of our time on the roads.
Despite Essex’s strategic location, the importance of ports, airports, roads and rail, and the work of our businesses and local authorities—I pay tribute to my colleagues in Essex County Council, who have put Essex’s transport infrastructure at the heart of their policy making and the representations they bring to Westminster through us, their Members of Parliament—our transport infrastructure, especially our roads, is at capacity. Our roads have reached their limits and it is beyond a joke.
It is important that we grow and take strategic advantage of our location and boost our global trade links—of course it is—but there has to be a recognition in Government that we are being held back by key parts of our strategic infrastructure that are no longer fit for purpose. They need new and urgent investment to boost the economy not only of Essex, but of the country.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this important debate, which is very important to the people of Essex. She is absolutely right to highlight the infrastructure challenges we face, particularly on our road network. She is right to say that Essex County Council, and in particular Councillor Kevin Bentley—he is the deputy leader and looks after infrastructure for the county—have been struggling manfully in trying to cope with all this. The Minister must understand that our main arterial routes—the A13, the A127 and the A12—are bursting at the seams. The Government want more house building in south Essex and the rest of the county. I make it plain to the Minister that he has to pay for the infrastructure if he wants those houses built. If the Government will not come up with the money, for instance to make the A127 the M127, they can forget their housing targets.
Graham Stringer (in the Chair)
I remind Members that, although this is not a well-attended debate, interventions should be short, brief and to the point.
Priti Patel
I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks. He is right on a number of points. First, Essex County Council and my colleague Councillor Kevin Bentley, the deputy leader and cabinet member for infrastructure, have been ensuring that we lean in—I think that is the right term—with the advocacy that has been brought to this place and the Government. My right hon. Friend’s point about roads and housing is timely, because I am just about to speak about key schemes and the whole issue of where the pressure points are.
A number of important projects and schemes need to be backed by the Government and progressed to ease the pressure on infrastructure. The costs of investing in the schemes will be paid back. We can work out the return on investment and the number of jobs that will be created through the investment and the subsequent tax receipts. Dynamic modelling facilitates and enables that.
I want to focus on two particular schemes for important strategic roads in the east of England that traverse the Witham constituency. I think we could all write books on both roads—history books, I dare say. There is a long history of delays and congestion, but their futures are linked. They are also connected to the potential future housing and development growth plans around mid-Essex and the Witham constituency. The delays caused by congestion are worse than inconvenient; they have a devastating impact on local communities and the economy. An additional half-hour delay every day for some of our great logistics businesses can mean a loss of tens of thousands of pounds a year. We hear that all the time as Members of Parliament, but it is no good just sitting and agreeing with my constituents and businesses; we need to put our foot on the gas and do something.
In debates on Brexit, the future relationship, supply chains and border checks, we need to ensure that we also look at how our inadequate infrastructure is hindering basic supply chains in our county and in the country as a whole. The delays caused by traffic and congestion on key strategic roads could be far more damaging to our economy, particularly in Essex, because of the infrastructure. The case for investment in the A12 and the A120 is compelling and has been recognised, but there are some major barriers, and that is what I want to focus on.
Back in the 2014 autumn statement, the Government announced their commitment to invest in and support the widening of the A12 between junction 19 at the Boreham interchange and junction 25 at Marks Tey. It was part of a major announcement that we all welcomed on a number of strategic road upgrades for the east of England. The work was described as an investment to
“begin phase 1 of a major upgrade to the A12, with the addition of a third lane between Chelmsford and Colchester”.
That decision was long-awaited and welcomed by everyone: commuters, businesses and our local authorities. It also opened up the prospect of further widening north of Marks Tey in later phases. It was rightly a phased scheme.
I think all Members here travel on the A12—I travel on that stretch every week. We all see the problems, the congestion and the need to expand capacity. Highways England has stated that
“the road is almost past its capacity. Motorists regularly experience major delays at peak times. Up to 90,000 vehicles travel between junction 19 and 25 every day. Forecasts reveal that the traffic on the A12 will exceed capacity by 2038. Congestion will increase if nothing is done to address this problem.”
Three fatal collisions and 12 serious accidents were identified in a five-year period. Concerns were raised about the eight junctions on this stretch, with problems including
“below standard slip roads and capacity problems which can result in tailbacks.”
The condition of the road is also poor, so a comprehensive widening scheme offers a chance to improve the surface of the road. The widening scheme also comes with the prospect of altering junctions to better suit local needs and alleviate pressures on local roads. For example, a new junction by Kelvedon to better connect to roads into Tiptree has the prospect of alleviating congestion and traffic through Kelvedon and Feering. That part of Essex had been neglected and ignored for too long, so we need to crack on with developing the widening scheme. It was prioritised to get it started in the first road investment strategy, or RIS1.
A range of stakeholder engagement activities took place. I give credit to Highways England for how it worked with us at the time. There were many events where it looked at options through route alignment. Engagement took place with parish—I sat with parish councils—district, borough and county councils, as well as the business community and local residents. It all seemed to be going well. There was consensus on the approach being taken by Highways England. With Braintree District Council and Colchester Borough Council in the process of updating their local plans, there was supposed to be integrated working and engagement to ensure that the widening scheme and local plans complemented each other—that speaks to the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) made about housing—and did not compromise one another. Throughout stakeholder meetings the issue was raised and it was thought that the work between Highways England and the councils would ensure a smooth process and collaboration and joint working would naturally maximise the benefits of the widening scheme. That all made sense.
After that work, Highways England went out to public consultation in early 2017, presenting four options to the public. Option 1 was to widen across the current route alignment. Option 2 was to widen the western side on the current route with a new alignment from just before junction 22 to junction 25. Option 3 was a realignment between junctions 22 and 23. Option 4 was a realignment between junctions 23 and 25. The consultation process was a massive exercise with more than 18,000 people attending public exhibitions and more than 900 responses received. It was backed by our local councils, which raised no objections to the consultation or the options put forward at the time.
The outcome was due a year later in early 2018, when Highways England was scheduled to announce its preferred route alignment. That would have enabled further consultation to take place, a development consent order to commence and diggers to go into the ground in 2020. In fact, the position and timetable were made clear to me in an email from Highways England on 29 September 2017. The email gave an update on the consultation, stating that
“key issues were raised relating to other major developments in the area, environmental impacts, non-motorised user service provision and safety related issues. The independent analysis of the responses received, as well as a Report on Public Consultation will be published when a preferred route is announced.”
The email went on to reference the importance of giving careful consideration to
“emerging and proposed major developments”.
Highways England said that it had
“decided to extend our options selection assessment and expect to announce the preferred route this coming winter.”
It then went on to confirm the timescale, stating:
“Following the preferred route announcement, we will undertake detailed engagement with all affected landowners and hold a further consultation, giving local communities and other stakeholders a second chance to have their say. This consultation is likely to be held in spring 2018 and will include detailed plans of a preferred route...Despite extending our options assessment, the first phase of construction is still anticipated to start in 2020.”
In October 2017, the Minister wrote to advise me that owing to a review of RIS1 and some resequencing of schemes, there could be a three to six-month delay to the scheme. I questioned that and the Minister confirmed that
“the recently announced optimisation of the Road Investment Strategy relates to the start of works and does not impact on the decision about the route. I want to reassure you that the Government and Highways England’s strong commitment to this scheme remains. While the start of construction will get delayed by 3-6 months as part of Highways England’s plans to reduce disruption for road users and businesses, Highway England will work with you and other local partners to ensure that any impacts are minimised.”
At the end of 2017, therefore, the position with the A12 widening scheme was that an announcement and further consultation on the preferred route were to start shortly, with construction likely to start in 2020, probably later in the year owing to some resequencing work. There was no indication from the Government or Highways England of the bombshell that was about to knock the scheme off course.
Two years after the consultation was completed, we are no further forward with this key scheme, so we have to ask where is the delay and where has it gone wrong? We know that Colchester Borough Council made a last-minute change to its housing and development plans: plans that had been in the making for years were abruptly changed. They redrew on the map the garden settlement community proposals in a way that completely blew apart the options in the A12 consultation, adding costs to the scheme and pushing the scheme back into RIS2. It has profound consequences for strategic investment across the region. It pushes back opportunities to widen the A12 north of Marks Tey, and it has an impact on the A120 dualling scheme, which I will come on to shortly. It also means that the A12 widening scheme could take place at the same time as the construction of the lower Thames crossing, putting pressure on construction costs and supply chains. That means adding congestion to the county.
I do not want to go over the past, in particular the local development plans, but constituents living in the vicinity of the A12 and the proposed realignments from the 2017 consultation are in limbo, creating too much uncertainty. According to my postbag, people cannot decide whether to sell their homes or move. Huge inconvenience has been caused by the local plan triggering a chain of events. We need to look at the whole issue. We cannot progress the road until we have the housing scheme in place. In fact, the Minister for Housing was in touch with me in September last year. He also referred to the delays and said the issue
“highlights the need for greater certainty of the funding and feasibility of these two schemes”,
in relation to housing.
A written parliamentary answer from the Department in January this year stated:
“The Department for Transport and Highways England have been considering how best to take forward the A12 scheme, in the light of concerns raised by the Planning Inspector in June 2018 regarding the proposed Garden Community at Marks Tey and its interaction with the A12 scheme.”
The situation is now becoming absurd. The roads will not progress until the housing and development plans have progressed, but those plans will not progress until the roads have progressed. What has happened? We need answers now. What about the principle of alignment and integrated working? The matter must be addressed sooner rather than later.
I have specific questions for the Minister. At what point will the Government step in to take control of the A12 scheme and work with local authorities to provide the leadership that they need to drive the matter forward? When will the Government, the Department for Transport, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and the Treasury make a decision on progressing the scheme if the local plan is subject to delay? How much longer will we have to wait? Will the Minister ensure that, as a matter of urgency, Highways England brings forward a proposed route alignment that is future-proofed so that housing proposals can evolve around it? We cannot continue to wait.
What assessment have the Government made of the economic impact of the delays, which bring additional costs, and of the impact on other strategic road schemes such as the A120 dualling scheme? What work is being done to support my constituents who live so close to the A12 that they are stuck? They are unable to sell their properties or even determine their futures. They are victims of the failure to get the scheme going.
Does the Minister recognise that the delays to the A12 widening scheme between junctions 19 and 25 are causing delays to widen the A12 north of junction 25, which local people in the county need to see? I want to be part of the solution and we all need to come together, so will the Minister agree to set up a working group that is led by me and brings together Highways England, his Department, MHCLG, the Treasury, our colleagues at Essex County Council, the business community and other stakeholders to get on top of the widening scheme, as well as the A120 proposal? We cannot run the risk of this issue moving into RIS3. The delays are phenomenal and have an enormous impact, which brings me on to the A120, a road of strategic importance not only to the county, but to our country.
The A120 is a strategic economic corridor that cannot be underestimated. The Minister and all Members in the debate today know the history of the single carriageway. The stretch between Braintree and Marks Tey is 12 miles long and is regarded as one of the most dangerous in the country. There is a litany of safety issues. It has been a death trap. Last week I met two parish councils, Bradwell and Stisted, that have highlighted the road safety concerns constantly. We have campaigners, including Save Lives Not Time, whose campaign has been phenomenal, working with the local community to actually do something to reduce speed along the A120.
The road needs to be dualled and it needs to meet the increased capacity. It has been 10 years since the previous Labour Government abandoned proposals to dual the A120. Endless studies have been undertaken, and I pay tribute to my colleagues at Essex County Council who have been instrumental in driving proposals and leading them forward with me and other MPs.
A report from Atkins in 2008 stated:
“The A120...currently constrained by the capacity of the single carriageway section...between Braintree and the A12...is congested and suffers traffic delays.”
Traffic delays result in pollution. They are caused by accidents and have an incredible impact. Evidence from 2005 demonstrated that an estimated 25,000 vehicles used that stretch of road every single day. In 2010, around 14% of traffic—one in seven vehicles—is accounted for by HGVs, compared with an average of 6% across Essex. Had the scheme been progressed 10 years ago, we would have a road that is fit for purpose. We would have integrated roads connecting with the A12. We would have a better and more resilient local road network. The evidence is compelling: the road must be dualled. To be fair, we have all made the case for years and years.
Essex County Council has worked very closely with Highways England. Work was led on developing a scheme and holding a consultation by the county council. It worked with Highways England throughout to ensure that there was a strong and robust case. Options went out for consultation at the same time as the A12 consultation, with a view to securing agreement from the Government to put the A120 dualling scheme into RIS2 and sequence construction on both schemes to maximise the benefits, while reducing the impact that comes from major highway improvements.
The Minister knows about the favoured route, option D from the consultation, which was brought forward by Essex County Council. It has a benefit to cost ratio of 4.5, which is important because it scores far higher than any major projects the Government have invested in. It will help to unlock 20,000 jobs and support housing growth by perhaps as many as 32,000 new dwellings, if needed. The improvements in journey time and reliability are valued at about £48 million, with £350 million of benefit to freight traffic. The overall costed journey time savings could total £1.2 billion. Safety will be improved. Congestion through villages will be reduced, with Silver End set to experience 59% less traffic, Cressing 44% less and Bradwell 43% less. According to the proposals, construction will take around three years and will support about 500 construction jobs.
In total, the scheme can add £2.2 billion in gross value added to the local economy at a cost of £550 million. Few schemes are as attractive as this one. The Minister knows it is one of the best prepared business cases for RIS2 because of the evidence contained in it. The feasibility work was supported by Government funding, for which I thank the Government and the Minister, after lobbying by myself and others to put the project forward. That case has been made consistently.
The Government have committed to dualling the scheme; we now need the backing, Minister. We need to ensure that there are no contradictions between the Department, Highways England or local authorities. I would welcome an update from the Minister on the timetable for submissions for RIS2 and on the decision making. It is pivotal to securing the road, and strengthening our infrastructure across the county. The A12 and the A120 need to be sequential.
I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that the delays to the A12 widening scheme will not hamper or hinder in any way the proposals for the A120 dualling scheme to be included in RIS2. With the road currently operating beyond belief in terms of capacity, people need certainty. We are looking for a fresh impetus so that we can recalibrate both schemes and take a stronger, fresh approach to secure the Government’s national mission to build more new homes. There is a willingness in our county to be resilient and to ensure that we do everything that we can.
I have a few other points to make, and then I will give colleagues time to speak. There are other roads across Essex. The lower Thames crossing will provide a vital link connecting Essex and Kent. I would welcome a progress report from the Minister on that scheme, and on whether there will be connectivity. We are all about connectivity and joined-up, integrated working. We must ensure that the schemes are delivered on time and progress on time, and that Essex County Council is supported in the right way in the work that it needs to do to achieve that integrated approach across the county, so that all road schemes are progressed in the right way. My colleagues will speak about other roads. I think it is fair to say that road investment is pivotal, not just for Essex County Council but for the Government in terms of delivering for the county of Essex.
I will turn to a different modality: rail. I thank the Department for Transport and the Rail Minister for the amount of time that he has spent with me recently. As the Government have recognised, the Great Eastern main line and the West Anglia main line are poor relations to other parts of the rail network. I am chair of the Great Eastern main line taskforce, which was established back in 2013. The then Chancellor of the Exchequer supported the establishment of the taskforce to look at the strategic rail needs of the region. We have been an instrumental voice in putting business cases to the Government. The first business case that went to the Government in 2013 secured some important outcomes, off the back of a very robust rail prospectus that colleagues and I worked towards.
We released a package of investments that were linked to a new franchise, including new rolling stock and timetable changes. The package amounted to £4.5 billion in gross value added to the region’s economy, meaning thousands of new jobs. We are now interested in moving the scheme forward, and are working with the Government on the new process by submitting a revised and updated rail prospectus. We intend to restate the economic benefits, which can of course be multiplied. A multiplier effect in rail can be complemented by a multiplier effect in road investment; I argue that the two must almost be coterminous.
We will clearly restate what investment in the Great Eastern main line should look like, and that it should be focused on as a national economic priority. I know that it is not in the Minister’s portfolio, but I would welcome an update on a number of project schemes for which we are seeking commitments and support, including the introduction of a passing loop in the vicinity of Witham, the redoubling of Haughley junction, improvements to the Trowse swing bridge, resignalling south of Chelmsford, and Liverpool Street station improvements.
Combined, those key investments will increase capacity on the network and, importantly for all rail users, reduce delays. There are some long-awaited new developments, including Beaulieu Park railway station—or, as some call it, Chelmsford parkway—which will support new housing growth. A three-track or four-track option with additional platforms would serve to future-proof the line and to increase capacity.
We also need investment in infrastructure to implement digital railway technology for the Great Eastern main line, and to bring in the new 15-minute Delay Repay system, along with new technology to help commuters claim compensation for poor and delayed services, which have resulted in a lack of investment in the past. I know that we are getting close to an announcement on Delay Repay 15. The Minister might be limited in what he can say, because of commercial terms, but any signal that he can give regarding the direction of travel would be greatly welcome, including any improvements on the Witham to Braintree branch line.
I will draw to a close, as I have spoken for a considerable time and there are other speakers. From my perspective as a Member of Parliament for an Essex constituency, the chair of the Great Eastern main line taskforce, someone who has led the Essex Business, Transport and Infrastructure Forum, and someone who has worked—I think it is fair to say—quite diligently with my colleagues at Essex County Council, our deputy leader, Councillor Kevin Bentley, and all Members across Essex, there is a severe need for investment. The business cases have been made consistently to the Department and to various Ministers, including the Minister who is present today.
We are not shy as a county. I am proud of our diligence and our ability to understand economics, business and a return on investment. Essex is a net contributor to Her Majesty’s Treasury, and has been for a number of years—from the days when entrepreneurs sought to move to Essex. Our rail line has been under-invested in. The Minister knows the case for the A12 and the A120. I urge him to clarify the position on the development of both schemes. We cannot have further delay, or contradictions between what the Department says and what Highways England says.
We need an integrated way of working that involves Essex County Council, Highways England, the Department, and myself and other colleagues, so that we are all facing in the right direction and can deliver the economic benefits of jobs and housing, which we all want. It is important that the Government send a strong message to the county of Essex, investors, commuters, businesses, constituents and our local authorities, to say that we will work with them and support them to ensure that, as we say constantly, where Essex leads others will follow.
James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing the debate and making an excellent case. I have great admiration for her work in chairing the Essex Business, Transport and Infrastructure Forum, which I find invaluable in bringing together stakeholders across the whole county. Although I, of course, have a parochial interest in Rochford and Southend East, like my right hon. Friend I attended the University of Essex, and follow issues in that area in great detail. No doubt we will hear more from that neck of the woods soon.
Minister, if this were legislation, I would suggest a very simple amendment: delete “A” and insert “M”. I refer, of course, to the A127. We want it to be a motorway. When I say “we”, I do not mean me, or a collection of a few random individuals; the whole of Essex wants it to be a motorway. In November 2018, a group came together—the south Essex A127 taskforce—led by Councillor Mike Steptoe, who is both of Essex County Council and deputy leader of Rochford Council. That group included Essex, Southend, Thurrock, Rochford, Basildon, Castle Point, Brentwood, Chelmsford, Malden, Havering, Transport for London and Highways England. Anyone who knows anything about transport and local politics will know that to get that number of local authority leaders and chief executives in one room agreeing anything is absolutely amazing. They want improvements to the A127.
The A127 carries more than 75,000 people every day. It is the lifeblood not only to the end of the road—almost literally where I live, in Thorpe Bay—but throughout Southend, Shoeburyness and across the corridor, into London. Rather like the c2c line, it is a pipeline of money and prosperity for the area. I am asking for just a small change—a little letter. I am sure the Minister will be able to manage something along those lines.
I have five more detailed asks. We would like the A127 widened, so that it would be at least three lanes along its length. We would like a consistent speed—at the moment, there is bit of stop/start and differential speed limits. We would like the road to be made a trunk road, part of the strategic network. At one point, the Government had a strong case against that because it just goes out to Southend, but now we have London Southend airport—an international airport that has grown massively, with more than 1 million passenger movements and flights to more than 30 destinations. From a transport perspective, that in itself makes Southend a strategic asset for the country, and on that basis alone the road should be trunked.
Fourthly, we need to make sure that all incremental improvements to the A127 do not stand in the way of a future motorway—developments such as the Fairglen interchange between the A130 and the A127 need to be motorway-proof. Finally, I am not a great negotiator, but just in case the Minister cannot offer me the small change of letter, perhaps he might go for another small change and call it the A127(M), while we wait for the full motorway in a few years’ time.
Will Quince (Colchester) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I echo the comments congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) on securing this important and timely debate. I want to focus my remarks on Colchester, but will touch on a number of the different routes that she has already referenced. It has been a pleasure to serve with her on the Great Eastern main line taskforce, where we have made huge progress, although there is a lot of work still to do, and on the A120 and A12 campaigns.
Colchester is not only Britain’s oldest recorded town, but the fastest-growing town in the country, which it has been for some time. We have had tens of thousands of homes built without the adequate infrastructure to support that. Anybody who has visited Colchester, at peak times in particular, will have seen that there is considerable congestion and regular gridlock. Essex County Council, under the leadership of Councillor Kevin Bentley, is doing its best and there are some significant schemes under way in Colchester, but anybody in Colchester knows that that is not enough, and we need to secure further investment from the Government to keep our town moving.
Colchester has considerable potential: we have unbelievable links because of our location; we are central, for road, rail, air and sea; we are 50 minutes from the City of London, 30 minutes from Harwich international port and 45 minutes from London Stansted airport; we are the small and medium-sized enterprise capital of East Anglia; and we have around 600 creative and digital businesses, and that figure is growing almost by the day.
To unlock our town’s business and economic growth potential, we have to ensure that it does not regularly grind to a halt, as it sadly does at the moment. For that, we need significant infrastructure investment. I want to focus on the large-scale infrastructure projects of the A12, the A120 and the Great Eastern main line, but we should not forget local transport infrastructure too.
The Government want Colchester Borough Council to build around 1,000 homes every year, and so far it has been hugely successful in that endeavour, building more than double of any other district or borough in the county of Essex. For that to be facilitated and for it to work—many in Colchester would question whether we should be building so much—the Government have to provide adequate transport infrastructure funding along with it. As a result, housing infrastructure fund bids are very important, and it is essential that the Government look favourably on those from our borough.
One example is the East of Colchester garden settlement plan. The garden settlement plan is not an uncontroversial programme in Essex, but the garden settlement to the east of Colchester is probably the less controversial of the two. It can work only if we secure funding for a new link road between the A133 and the A120, together with a rapid transport scheme to get people in and out of Colchester, because that will unlock the congestion on the Ipswich Road through Highwoods, St John’s and St Anne’s. That is the only way that the scheme can work, and I ask the Minister to look on it favourably.
My focus today is on the main projects—the A12, the A120 and the Great Eastern main line. While my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham was taking a sabbatical in the Cabinet, I stepped up and took on the chairmanship of the Great Eastern main line taskforce. Tens of thousands of commuters in and around my constituency use our station—certainly 15,000, and perhaps 20,000—and any one of those commuters will know that the Great Eastern main line is operating at capacity between Colchester and London. Given the growth pressure and the housing that the Government expect Essex to deliver, that is not sustainable.
We need infrastructure investment on the Great Eastern main line, and on projects already mentioned by my right hon. Friend—the Bow junction remodelling; the loops between Shenfield and Witham, probably the most important in enabling capacity on the line; the loops south of Colchester; the Haughley junction doubling; and, of course, the digital railway.
I sat on the Transport Committee with you, Mr Stringer, and we looked at the digital railway and the opportunity there to increase capacity by up to 40%. I was disappointed that we were not included as part of the initial pilot, despite the lobbying of every single MP on our line for the Great Eastern main line to be part of the digital railway pilot. I know Greater Anglia, our rail operating company, is looking into other options, but I implore the Government to look at this seriously, as capacity is a major issue and we know that the digital railway is an opportunity to unlock it. We have a brand-new fleet of trains on order, the first of which arrive this year. The equipment is therefore built into those trains already, and it is essential that we get the signalling right. Investment by the Government will unlock huge capacity on our line and, dare I say, enable the housing growth that the Government want to see.
That is part of why we must address capacity, but also, our commuters are not getting value for money. At peak times, they are very often standing. My Colchester commuters pay in excess of £5,000 a year for a season ticket, just to get to and from work. We must ensure that we deliver value for money for them.
My right hon. Friend touched on Delay Repay; I know it is not hugely relevant to the debate, so I will touch on it only briefly. We were promised that it would be delivered within weeks of the Adjournment debate a few weeks ago, so I push the Department for Transport to make that announcement as soon as possible. The eyes of rail users across north Essex and the wider region are certainly on the Department.
I very much welcome the new trains, but they are only part of the jigsaw. They will inevitably lead to fewer delays because we will have fewer train breakdowns and issues, but the Network Rail piece is equally important. I welcome the £2 billion Network Rail settlement, but I ask the Minister to make sure that it is delivered on time and that it is kept under close consideration, because we have to ensure the full jigsaw—the new trains along with signalling and track work—so that we are not suffering the delays we so frequently experience at the moment.
As my right hon. Friend mentioned, the A120 is one of the most important east-to-west roads in Essex, between Braintree and the A12. It is little more than a country lane on many parts of that route. Anybody who has tried to get between Braintree and Colchester and got stuck behind a caravan or a crash will know that people can be waiting there for a considerable period.
The A120 is the only single carriageway road in England connecting a major international airport with a major international seaport. As my right hon. Friend mentioned, the dualling was cancelled under the last Labour Government. Heaven forbid that we have another Labour Government in the near future, but would it not be a huge wasted opportunity if, 10 years on from the cancellation of the previous scheme, some future Labour Government, just as we got round to delivering it, cancelled it all over again? I implore the Minister to get on with this and to make sure that A120 dualling is part of the road investment strategy, RIS2. That is absolutely vital. As eloquently and passionately put by my right hon. Friend, the reason is that the A120 is heavily over capacity.
Around 25,000 vehicles use that single-track road every single day—15% of them are heavy goods vehicles—and traffic volume is set to increase further year on year. Some 24% of the road is regularly congested. For five hours a day, journeys are delayed in both directions. For six hours a day, sections of the road carry more vehicles than it was built for.
As my right hon. Friend pointed out, we have an increasing collision trend, which should worry us all. There is a high rate of serious casualties compared with the national average for a single carriageway trunk road. Even if we park all those issues, which are compelling enough reasons to upgrade the A120, we have the even more compelling ground of economic growth. Essex County Council’s favoured option would see a benefit-cost ratio—my right hon. Friend has already pointed this out, but it is well worth repeating—of 4.5, which means that it would deliver £4.5 million-worth of benefits for every £1 million spent, including unlocking up to 20,000 jobs and £2.2 billion in gross value added to the local economy. It is important to note that this option has wide support from businesses, local authorities, parliamentarians and business leaders. In mid and north Essex, we very much sing with one voice in calling on the Government to invest and ensure that we see that scheme as part of RIS2.
The A12 is another road that is hugely important—it is an artery through Essex. It is already approaching capacity, with the flow-to-capacity ratio on the two-lane sections well over tolerable limits: typically, it is between 70% and 90% in peak hours. From the many tweets I receive from my constituents, I know how many times they get stuck on that road. RIS1 identifies the whole route for upgrading to a three lane standard throughout, starting with the section between junction 19 at Boreham in Chelmsford and junction 25 at Marks Tey in Colchester.
We desperately want the Government to announce preferred route status for that section in RIS1. We accepted a short delay; when the Minister sent us the letter, we met him immediately afterwards and were told that it would be a delay of three to six months, which has drifted somewhat. We wanted that delivered as part of RIS1. Ideally, we then wanted the north of junction 25 on the A12 to be delivered as part of RIS2. That is absolutely vital to our county.
I want Highways England to look at my plan for a new junction at Lexden between junctions 26 and 28, because junction 27 has no southbound exit. There has been much growth in Stanway—mostly housing, but also the huge retail development at Tollgate. That is at junction 26. Likewise, at junction 28, we have future plans for the northern gateway—a huge leisure development. Those junctions will become more and more congested, so my plan for a new junction southbound on the A12 deserves serious consideration. I hope I can meet the Minister to discuss that further.
I have reiterated the points made by my right hon. Friend, but they are so important to our county and my town of Colchester. I want to emphasise that there is huge potential to unlock economic growth across Essex and in my home town of Colchester, but we need investment in our transport infrastructure to realise that potential.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I welcome this morning’s debate and the case made by the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and the hon. Members for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) and for Colchester (Will Quince), who are all rightly standing up for their constituents in making the case for future transport investment. They have highlighted the A12, A120, A127—perhaps I should say M127—junction enhancements and the Great Eastern main line.
The Minister and I have debated transport infrastructure in the past 24 hours, not just focusing on Essex but looking across the country. Getting a national perspective is really important when we look at the microcosm of Essex and the opportunities the county offers. Both the Government and the Opposition see investment in the future of infrastructure as crucial, and it is something to which we are deeply committed. We are committed to transport infrastructure investment because we are committed to widening and unleashing the opportunities for the economy in Essex and across the country, and to ensuring that we get the connectivity right for the future.
Although right hon. and hon. Members have extolled the economic opportunities for their areas and discussed the housing developments that are putting pressure on the infrastructure, which is clearly under severe pressure and needs to be redressed, I urge the Minister to take a more strategic view of how we develop our transport infrastructure. The reality is that we need to plan not just for the next decade or two, but for the long term. Today we are living off our Victorian railway infrastructure, which has lasted for nearly 200 years, but we need a greater vision for how we want to drive infrastructure forward. Instead of hearing a list of pleas—I hear them very loudly—it is really important that we look more strategically at how and where we want to develop our economy, then mesh that with the housing demands across our country and ensure that there is good connectivity between economic opportunity and housing. We need to hardwire that into the infrastructure in order to meet those demands in future.
I heard the frustration of the right hon. Member for Witham when she asked which Department is leading—is it Housing or Transport? It is right to have interdependency, but there needs to be leadership in driving this forward. It is also important to draw together the necessary spatial planning between economic growth and housing, and we therefore need to ensure that transport is hardwired into all spatial planning in future.
As we look to the longer term and beyond the current crisis, we really need to think about infrastructure that will last in the long term. To be kind to the Government, the unfortunate way they handled RIS1 and CP5 highlights that this is still short-term thinking. Although we saw an improvement in year-on-year funding, moving to control periods or the RIS process has meant that we are still talking about short-term cycles of investment. The Rail Delivery Group has highlighted the damaging impact that short-term cycles of funding has created, particularly on the issue of skills—having to create skills, believing we are driving down one path of development of infrastructure, then seeing the cancellations and having to lay off those skills. That adds 30% to the costs for the industry—a premium that, frankly, we could be investing elsewhere.
It is really important that we heed what the sector is saying about planning, which is why Labour is very focused on long-term planning and rolling the money forward to ensure that there are sustained periods of funding. We very much hope that the Williams report will coincide with what we and the industry are saying: it is about removing the cliff edges from different control periods as we move forward on funding. If we can achieve that, we will be able to plan for the long term rather than just the short term. There are real benefits to looking at the infrastructure required to build sustainability for the long term.
The economic opportunity of Essex and the surrounding area is important because of the ports and airports connectivity. We therefore need to hardwire in the freight routes. We need to take one in seven lorries off the road and put them on to lines to ensure that they have priority. We must also ensure that we have the passenger infrastructure in place for the future, which is really important. I urge the Minister and right hon. and hon. Members to think more widely about the opportunities that can be delivered—particularly by rail, but also by light rail, which is being developed across different conurbations. We must certainly not focus only on urban areas; it must stretch into the surrounding rural areas. Great opportunities could be realised if we make serious investment in the longer term. Labour will certainly prioritise that in government.
As we move forward, we must embrace the modern technology that is available to us. I share the right hon. Lady’s disappointment that we have not embraced the opportunity of digital rail. We have heard evidence about its capacity benefits, but we are miles behind. Essex is leading in electronics—it is a major part of its economy—so it surely makes sense to bring digital rail into the region. Other countries are far more advanced than us and do not understand our delays and why we are just tiptoeing forward into digital rail. I share those concerns.
I urge the Minister, as I did yesterday, to justify the scale of the road building programme. Hon. Members will obviously make the case for their own areas, but 50,000 people die each year in the UK as a result of air pollution, so we must address emissions seriously. It is concerning that the carbon footprint of the transport sector, which accounts for 30% of emissions, is increasing. We need a 15% reduction year on year just to reach our Paris commitments, but of course that will not be enough to prevent the catastrophic global impact and the impact here at home.
The Minister will say that the Government are planning to remove diesel vehicles by 2040, but in 41 years’ time more than 1 million people in our country will have died prematurely. That national crisis should be on the front pages of our newspapers daily until the Government address the issue. To date, I have not heard how they are planning to do so with the road building programme. Yesterday he said that I was rude to call it catastrophic, but the damage it is causing is indeed deeply catastrophic. I ask him to reflect more on the impact it is having. We are talking about lives being lost.
I hear right hon. and hon. Members’ pleas, but I urge them to think about the impact on the environment of these road-building schemes. We know from the evidence that, with induced capacity, we will be having the same debate in 20 years’ time. I therefore encourage them to think bigger about the infrastructure they want in Essex.
I want to highlight the opportunities for other modes of transport. Some 80% of journeys are local, so we could see a modal shift into active travel. We have not heard about cycling and walking today, but that infrastructure is important. Fantastic work has been done in Manchester, but it is important to extend that beyond the local vicinity. I ask the Minister why the Highways England budget for building infrastructure for cycling and walking along highways has been underspent. We really need to focus on active travel, so that seems like another missed opportunity by the Minister.
We have a real opportunity to invest in our infrastructure and our country, and to develop skills for the future. We have a skills crisis across the sector. I again ask the Minister to address that issue and ensure that, when bids come forward, we invest in jobs in transport construction so that we have the right skills in place. Although the Government are rightly focusing on unlocking the opportunity of electric vehicles, the investment in the infrastructure to support them is woeful. That does not give confidence to the manufacturers whose production will be driven by the infrastructure. I again ask the Minister to have a laser focus on ensuring that we get the infrastructure right for a future generation of electric vehicles.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Jesse Norman)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. This has been a very interesting debate. Of course, the focus has rightly been on Essex infrastructure, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) for raising some other issues, and of course I will discuss them all.
Above all, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) not only on securing the debate, but on her Churchillian 37-minute speech. That is a new record for me in a Westminster Hall debate. It was very wide-ranging and interesting. She has been absolutely tireless in pressing the claims of not merely her constituency but Essex as a county. She gives indefatigability a bad name. If it were not for our relentless desire to maintain efficiency in the Department for Transport, we would have Patel SWAT teams scrambling every time she moves, and cross-modal engagement klaxons going off every time we heard something. If we did that, we would hear an awful lot of noise, because she has been very active in this area.
I am also aware of the work that my right hon. Friend has done elsewhere—my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge) touched on this—not just as head of the Great Eastern main line taskforce but as chair of the Essex Business, Transport and Infrastructure Forum, highlighting the importance of infrastructure in building sustainable local communities and strong local economies. That is all extremely welcome.
My right hon. Friend rightly focused on the natural, physical and human endowments that Essex has as a county. It has a very strong local economy and a resident population of 1.5 million-odd people. It has a very entrepreneurial spirit and workforce, and the growing economy reflects that. It is a very exciting place to do business, and that is tremendous. That has drawn on and created a need for transport connectivity.
The nationally important M11 and M25, which colleagues did not mention, and the A12 and A120 run through the county, and there are major local roads, including the A13, the A27—my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East was very eloquent on that topic—the A100 and the A414. Rail connections ensure that the county remains tightly linked to London, with three main lines, the London underground to Upminster and branch lines serving more than 55 stations. It would be wrong not to mention its international gateway of Stansted and Southend, which is growing very rapidly, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham mentioned. Harwich provides nationally important sea connections to Holland and Denmark. There are also Tilbury and the new London Gateway port. It is a very exciting place.
My right hon. Friend mentioned Essex’s agricultural strength. It cannot quite match the astonishing range, diversity and depth of my county of Herefordshire, but it is right up there. As I am sure she will agree, the transport network is not just of critical importance to the economic growth and development of Essex, but of national significance. It is an important piece of infrastructure in its wider economic growth and development benefits across the country.
Let me touch on the issues that my right hon. Friend raised in some depth. She is right to focus on the importance of infrastructure. We have recognised that and have invested in the strategic road network, which is critical to delivering that growth. In December 2014 the Government launched the first road investment strategy, which outlined how more than £15 billion is to be invested in our strategic roads between 2015 and 2021. That is the biggest upgrade to strategic roads in a generation, and it will be exceeded in RIS2 from 2025, which is of the scale of £25 billion.
The hon. Member for York Central rightly drew attention to the importance of combating emissions. We have a very strong air quality strategy and have launched an enormous amount of work not just on emissions but on decarbonisation. We have a lot of work about to come out shortly on future mobility, electric vehicles and the like. It includes not just cars, but the full panoply of electric vehicles that are transforming our streets.
It is important to recognise that some road building is vital, and it would be a poor Minister who did not recognise both that and the validity of claims for road building in counties, not merely as an economic and housing enabler, but as an investment in skills, supply chains and businesses, and one that will prepare us for a green future with electric and, in due course, autonomous vehicles.
Jesse Norman
I have so much to get through in only 10 minutes. I will be delighted to come back to the hon. Lady when I mention her remarks later in my speech, but I will make the important point that we must recognise balance and that, even by her lights of supporting skills and reducing emissions in the longer term, this is actually an enlightened policy. Much of it is about maintenance—autonomous vehicles will require high-quality roads—and that process cannot begin too soon. RIS1 and RIS2 place a very high emphasis on maintenance.
To zero-in on Essex, my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham pointed out that the first road investment strategy includes the widening of the A12 between junction 19 at Chelmsford and junction 25 at Marks Tey, where it currently joins the A120. Delivery of that scheme remains a top priority for my Department, as it is an important strategic route for continued economic prosperity across the region. She also highlighted the delays that have affected the scheme. I will not get into the causation, and she has been very delicate in hinting at causation without specifically stating it. As she knows, there was an initial re-profiling delay, but the fundamental delay was not at all of the Government’s making. Local priorities have changed and we are seeking to accommodate those changes. I will respond to her specific questions—we owe her that as she was kind enough to share them in advance—but I can assure the Chamber that we understand the frustration felt by local communities that works will not begin by March 2020 as was originally proposed. We very much understand that.
We have been considering how best to take forward the A12 scheme in the light of the interaction with the proposed garden community in Marks Tey, as my right hon. Friend touched on. That interdependency was of course raised by the Planning Inspectorate, which examined those housing proposals in June 2018. We believe—as I think she does—that it is important to find the right long-term solution for the local community and to support delivery of the proposed housing at Marks Tey, which would mean the delivery of up to 24,000 much-needed homes.
Highways England is working with partners in Government, local planning authorities and promoters of the new housing development. The next step is for Highways England to consult on the revised route options for the A12 between junctions 24 and 25. The route options will have regard to the housing proposals and—we hope—ensure that the improvements are right for those who use the A12 now and in the future. In the light of the recent delays, Highways England’s latest delivery plan, which was published in July 2018, proposes that works for the A12 begin in the second road investment period, from 2020 to 2025. I wish that were otherwise, but we have had our hand forced somewhat and are scrambling to make the best of the situation.
As I am sure my right hon. Friend will also know, Essex has ambitious plans for housing delivery. The housing White Paper set out the Government’s wider vision to address issues such as unaffordable housing and the provision of proper transport infrastructure, and the Department works closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government in that area. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) mentioned housing infrastructure fund bids. They are a crucial part of Essex’s further development, and I say good luck to any hon. Member in the Chamber. Trying to tie in the response to those housing bids with local and strategic transport links is part of the importance of our wider strategic approach, unlocking new housing developments with good transport connections in places where people want to live. Essex is delivering that kind of substantial housing growth in major sites such as Braintree, Chelmsford and Marks Tey, which are critical to meet housing demand. Of course, we recognise the centrality of transport to making them happen.
Well-planned, well-designed and locally-led garden communities can play a vital role in helping to meet this country’s housing needs well into the future. That is why the Government recognise and have invested in the development of capacity towards 23 places across the country as part of our garden communities programme. We are pleased that Essex County Council has decided to further support North Essex Garden Communities by submitting a HIF bid. That has the potential to make an enormous difference, including by releasing funding that ensures that the proposed A12 improvements can accommodate and allow access to the garden communities at Marks Tey, subject to further public consultation.
There has been some concern that the delay to the A12 scheme will compromise the proposal to dual the A120 between Braintree and Marks Tey, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham mentioned. Essex County Council is developing that scheme for potential inclusion in the second road investment strategy. I can confirm that, from our perspective, the A12 delay does not affect or compromise consideration of the A120 scheme and that, although we cannot make announcements on the fly, I expect us to make a consolidated set of announcements on this area and others later in the year.
The A120 is recognised as an important route in the wider transport network, but currently the single-carriageway section between Braintree and the A12 near Colchester is regularly a bottleneck, as has been pointed out. The heavy traffic passing through the area is a burden on the local villages and towns. We have supported Essex County Council with a contribution of £4 million to the development work for an affordable and deliverable improvement scheme for the A120. I thank the council and take my hat off to Councillor Kevin Bentley, who is sitting in the Public Gallery, for their excellent work in developing those proposals, including taking them through a non-statutory public consultation on a range of options.
The council’s favoured option for the A120 scheme, which was announced in June 2018, is supported by a strong analytical assessment and has gained the backing of both the public and the local business community. It forms the foundation for consideration of the scheme as a candidate in the competition for the bidding process of our second road investment strategy, which focuses on the period between 2020 and 2025 and has been subject to enormous competition, as colleagues will understand. It is in the nature of politics that everyone regards their own bid as the only one that the Government should ever meet and do so as a priority, and this debate has been no different. I remind colleagues that that can be said for every single Member of this House, and across all parties.
Submissions in favour of the A120 upgrade have been received but there was also support for the schemes that were originally included in RIS1 for development in RIS2, such as the A12 Colchester bypass widening that we discussed and the improvement of the A12-M25 to Chelmsford. They are all being considered for inclusion in RIS2, alongside other proposals from across the country.
Beyond the upgrades and improvement schemes, the Government continue to invest in essential maintenance of the road network. For the period 2018-19, £34.8 million was allocated for Essex road maintenance, with a further figure of almost £700,000 earmarked for pothole action funding in the area. Through the local growth fund, we have also allocated £15 million to the proposed £28.7 million improvements to the A127-A130 Fairglen interchange, which will improve traffic flow, journey times and road safety at an important local junction. Essex County Council is developing the final business case and, if the scheme is approved, work could start in the summer of 2020 and be completed in early 2022.
My right hon. Friend rightly mentioned the lower Thames crossing. If ever there were a scheme that underlined—contrary to the shadow Minister’s suggestions —the genuinely strategic nature of the investment that this country is making, that would be it, with between £4.4 billion and £6.2 billion-worth of investment to increase capacity by 70% for drivers crossing the Thames to the east of London. That investment is orientated absolutely towards the longer term. A Government preoccupied with the short term could not make an investment of that scale or magnitude, or with such a degree of planning. It will almost double the road capacity across the River Thames to the east of London. It is the largest single road investment project in the UK since the M25 was completed more than 30 years ago.
Obviously, there is a need for better road connectivity between Essex and Kent, and we believe that the benefits of the lower Thames crossing are clear. We expect it to have a positive impact on the major road network, contribute to a reduction in the number of vehicles using the Dartford crossing—releasing some of the pressure on it—and assist and support local communities.
The other strategic connection is of course rail. My right hon. Friend mentioned the importance to the Essex economy of the Great Eastern main line and the West Anglia main line. The Government recognise that and—again, contrary to the imputation that we are not being strategic—are pursuing the biggest railway modernisation programme since Victorian times, with investment continuing at record levels. That was announced by the Secretary of State within the final statement of funds available—approximately £47.9 billion will be spent during the period 2019 to 2024, which is a run rate of about £10 billion a year. That is an astonishing level of investment. Greater Anglia is committed, through the franchise, to delivering an entirely new train fleet, which will increase passenger capacity with new high-quality rolling stock. The first of 169 new trains are on course to enter service from the end of May 2019, with the full roll-out expected to be completed by the end of 2020. That £1.4 billion train replacement programme is the most significant investment in new trains for East Anglia.
I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the work done by the Great Eastern main line taskforce, chaired now by my right hon. Friend and previously by my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester. It is working to complete the study undertaken by Network Rail, which will help to prioritise future rail enhancements on the main line to meet predicted growth, and updates to a previous route study. My right hon. Friend mentioned a number of other rail schemes. If I may, I will refer those via officials to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), as he can respond in more detail to her questions.
The hon. Member for York Central asked if we would take a more strategic view. I refer her to the work we are doing on intermodal connectivity, the link between transport and housing and the longevity of the investment scheme. Let us not forget that there was no five-year investment programme before 2015. We are now preparing for a second five-year road investment scheme. We are extending that to major roads, and I hope that in due course we will extend it to a five-year investment scheme to support local authorities on local roads. We take these things very seriously. She mentioned light rail, and I am delighted that we announced a consultation on it a few weeks ago. I look forward to her contribution and those of many others. She rightly mentioned active travel, in which we have significantly improved investment since 2010, and I hope that will continue to do that.
On Highways England designated funds, RIS2 is not yet completed so it is too early to say that money has not been spent, but we welcome further bids from local authorities and other interested parties. I am taking steps to increase the availability of designated funds in future.
Jesse Norman
Yes; RIS1 has not yet completed so it is premature to suggest that the money has not been used.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East seductively enticed me towards a tiny change of one letter to another—a wafer-thin change. I am grateful to him for that. He pointed out the importance of widening for consistent speeds, with the impetus on re-trunking with a focus on the airport. I understand that, but the key question is whether either the A127 or the A13 should be trunked. Discussions are happening, or are about to happen, with local councils on that question. I can make no judgment on the merits of the case—that is a matter for official scrutiny and discussion—but I would have some worries about the potential environmental impact. It is important that there be a properly wide-ranging conversation, and we are engaging on that. If my hon. Friend wishes to discuss that further, I would be happy to meet him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester rightly pointed out the importance of HIF bids and the centrality of the new link road between the A133 and the A120, which he has called for. I cannot comment on the road, but his emphasis on road safety is right. I have addressed many of the other issues he raised already. I would be delighted to meet him to talk about the A12. It is important that we adopt a strategic approach when we have such meetings, not least because there has been a lot of discussion with Essex MPs in any case on roads. We can have one-off meetings, but it is helpful to have them in the context of a wider strategic conversation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Witham asked at what point a Government Minister will give leadership. I have explained that we are still reliant on a series of local decisions. I would be delighted to meet her to discuss the best way to take forward the A12 scheme. Once those housing proposals are settled, we will be in a much better place. Highways England, which works closely with Essex County Council and other district councils in promoting garden communities and developing the realignment options for the A12, is not in a position—neither are we—to commit now to a realignment of the A12. That is potentially a very significant additional cost, but may prove not to be needed in the event that the housing proposals do not go ahead. She is right to maintain the tempo and we will meet her on that, but we are reliant on decisions made locally. I understand that the council has agreed to undertake the work requested by the inspector; that is scheduled to be completed by June 2019, with a public consultation expected in autumn 2019. With luck, decisions on route alignment can be made in a co-ordinated fashion after that.
My right hon. Friend asked what assessment the Government may have made on the impact of the delays on the economy and on other strategic road schemes. We are acutely aware of the economic impact, which is why it is a priority for us to ensure that we get the right solution across all the considerations. The Government have made it clear that we are committed to strategic road schemes such as the A120 dualling and the delays. We also believe that the A12 scheme delays should not affect the prospects for the A120 proposal or compromise its consideration for inclusion in RIS2.
My right hon. Friend asked what has been done to support constituents who live close to the A12 and are unable to sell properties, and the victims of blight. I have massive sympathy for people in that situation—it goes with uncertainty about these decisions. We have not been the cause of that uncertainty. There are established rules about property and compensation for residents affected by major infrastructure proposals. They apply in this case, but I understand the human cost of the delay.
My right hon. Friend asked whether I recognised that the delays to the A12 widening scheme might delay plans to widen the A12 north of junction 25. The scheme to widen the A12 Colchester bypass was included along with the Chelmsford bypass in RIS1. These are being developed as potential candidates for RIS2, along with the proposed A120 scheme and other proposals across the country. We are determined to run a fair process on the merits, but the merits of Essex are considerable, so we hope they will be successful.
I recognise the importance of the county of Essex as a driver of growth and a source of much-needed housing. However, there are also further opportunities for the region to take advantage of Government funding and investment, such as the housing infrastructure fund, and I urge colleagues and Essex County Council to renew their excellent work in developing a robust, evidence-based case for the inclusion of their schemes in the second road investment strategy.
Priti Patel
I thank all colleagues for their contributions, and the Minister and his team for his very considered and detailed response. I do not need to press him on anything in particular, but I thank him for the opportunity to meet and follow up with him on the need for a working group, to ensure that we stay on track and pursue the integrated way of working across the Department, Highways England, local authorities and Members of Parliament. There is a lot of work to do, and we are all committed to supporting each other to deliver for our communities and for the county of Essex.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered transport infrastructure in Essex.
Civil Nuclear Constabulary: Pensions
(5 years, 8 months 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
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the pensions of Civil Nuclear Constabulary officers.
This is an opportunity to set out the case for the Civil Nuclear Constabulary’s pension age to be set at 60. That is not just a common-sense position but an urgent issue of national security. I am sure we can all agree that the effectiveness of the Civil Nuclear Constabulary is essential for maintaining the UK’s nuclear security.
The job with which the CNC is charged must be clearly understood as part of any discussion about the retirement age of its officers. In partnership with the civil nuclear industry, national security agencies and regulatory bodies, the CNC deters any attacker whose intent is the theft or sabotage of nuclear material, whether static or in transit. It defends such material and will recover it should it be seized. Such dangerous work means that all CNC officers are heavily armed and are required to meet demanding levels of physical fitness. In addition, they are employed as armed officers alongside other UK armed police, as we have seen in recent operations following terror attacks. They play a crucial role in keeping us—the public—safe, and theirs is one of the most dangerous professions to enter.
The prospect of a retirement age of 67, rising to 68, is causing real concern to CNC officers. The chief constable of the CNC has warned that the change to the retirement age would render the service “unsustainable” and is undoubtedly creating “insurmountable” difficulties for CNC officers and the mission they seek to fulfil. Indeed, that unrealistic retirement age is already damaging recruitment. Police Oracle reports that turnover among CNC personnel has deteriorated, rising to 12%. The Civil Nuclear Police Federation says that the force is 142 authorised firearms officers under strength and has seen 79 unscheduled leavers since April 2018, with 32 signalling their intention to quit recently and recruitment numbers decreasing by half. Alarmingly, one in every eight CNC officers is leaving for another force or heading for civvy street.
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that the CNC’s size means that if an officer were injured or unable to carry the equipment it would be practically impossible, or certainly very difficult, to redeploy that officer within the force? That has to be considered as a factor in arguing that the default pension age should be 60.
Patricia Gibson
Absolutely. That is a very important point. When any of these officers suffers an injury in the line of duty, the service has a duty of care to look after them until they are fit to return to duty. They will not necessarily be on sick leave the whole time, but it is difficult to redeploy them because of the nature of the work they undertake.
It is not difficult to see why the number of CNC officers has been eroding. CNC officers have been categorised as public sector workers for the purpose of their pension, meaning that full benefits kick in only at age 67 or 68, whereas conventional Home Office police officers are able to retire at 60. Does the Minister think that disparity fair, given that CNC officers are expected to carry five different weapons and 30 kg of heavy equipment at the age of 65-plus, as they are charged with protecting UK nuclear assets and act as a vital armed reserve force? If these officers’ retirement age is not given parity with the rest of the police service, there can be little doubt that it will continue to damage the recruitment and retention of CNC officers.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Lady from the bottom of my heart on bringing this debate forward. Although I represent the far north of Scotland, this issue is every bit as big to my constituents who serve in the force at Dounreay. I recognise the contribution they make, which she outlined, in assisting Police Scotland in its endeavours. Surely, the loss of skills as people leave the force represents a misuse of money. A lot of money is spent training these officers up, so it seems to me that public money is poured down the drain if they leave altogether and go to civvy street.
Patricia Gibson
Absolutely. That is a very important point, which I need not add to. I am sure the Minister is listening. That loss of skills is extremely concerning.
The damage to the recruitment and retention of CNC officers can only compromise, perhaps dangerously, the effectiveness of the force, and it could have extremely serious consequences for public safety. In addition, if we expect such exacting standards of CNC officers, while demanding that they wait until 68 to retire, of course there will be a temptation for ageing officers who know their job could be under threat to mask health conditions that may undermine their performance.
We all know that most public sector workers are now expected to work for longer. However, there are exceptions for certain classes of worker, and it seems obvious that CNC officers should be included in those exceptions. Perhaps the Minister can explain why conventional police officers will continue to retire at 60 but CNC officers will not. What is the logic for that? Despite that fact, CNC officers must meet much higher standards of physical fitness to keep their jobs. Conventional police officers perform firearms duties as an optional part of their duties and can relinquish them as they get older. Every single CNC officer is required to be fully trained in firearms, and they cannot relinquish firearms duties as they get older; they are an inherent part of their duties. In addition, the requirement for CNC officers to retain a very high standard of fitness until the age of 67 or 68 discriminates against women, since only an elite standard of fitness is expected to be sufficient for those aged over 60 to continue their duties.
The vast majority of public servants will be able to draw down a full pension. Should a public service employee choose to retire early, they will have 6% of their pension deducted for each year they retire early. The problem for CNC officers is that they are not choosing to retire early; they are being forced out because of physical inability to maintain obligatory standards of physical fitness and weaponry skills. CNC officers are likely to have their careers terminated as they approach the higher retirement age, and they will see their pensions reduced, perhaps by up to 25% to 30%, as a result. That considerable financial penalty is proving a major career disincentive. In such a situation, how can the CNC stem the decline in recruitment and retention?
I hope the Minister does not respond by telling us that we are all living longer and that keeping the CNC retirement age at 60 would set a dangerous precedent. The CNC is asking only for the same provisions that are in place for conventional Home Office police officers.
Let us turn our attention to costs. Perhaps the Minister will find it reassuring to learn that the CNC has done its own cost modelling, which shows that the gross cost of a retirement age of 60 versus the current plans would be only £4.4 million per year from 2023 to 2030 and £5.2 million a year in the long run. In the short run, those costs would be more than offset by extra case management costs, early retirement and compensation costs, so keeping the retirement age at 60 would produce a net saving of £4.3 million a year. In the long run, once compensation costs were paid, the net saving would be around £1.9 million per year.
Make no mistake, the Civil Nuclear Police Federation has accepted the potential for increased employee contributions to cover increases in costs. That means there is no real financial obstacle to correcting the unfairness between police services created by the Public Service Pensions Act 2013 and securing the UK’s nuclear safety.
I say to the Minister that increasingly this fine service has been rendered ineffective, due to the dithering and delay from his Government’s unwillingness to resolve the issue.
Trudy Harrison (Copeland) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Does she agree that with the addition of the £40 million CNC training facility at Sellafield, where we have the biggest CNC employment base, and with the nuclear future we are looking forward to, it is more important than ever that we ensure we have a CNC fit for the future?
Patricia Gibson
Absolutely. I applaud the new training facility that the hon. Lady mentions, but I am sure that many CNC officers would see an irony in investing in training when there is a serious recruitment and retention crisis. There has to be more joined-up thinking.
We know that potential recruits are looking elsewhere and serving officers are voting with their feet. If the UK Government are not willing to listen to CNC officers and continue to deny the truth that everyone in this Chamber can see, perhaps the Minister will explain why his Government have set a pension age for this service which he and they know full well cannot be realistically reached by those who put themselves in harm’s way to keep us safe. Does he accept that if this service continues to be eroded as it has been in recent years—the Government were warned that it would be three years ago and the truth of that is becoming clearer every single day—it will be for his Government to explain its decisions if there is a situation where nuclear security in the UK is compromised? The service will continue to erode unless action is taken.
As this service is eroded, every single CNC officer’s job becomes more unsafe and more dangerous. As the Minister’s Government dither and delay, the welfare, wellbeing and morale of our 1,250 CNC officers is being undermined. That is simply unacceptable. In today’s context, nobody needs to be reminded of the increased importance of the role these officers play in keeping us safe.
CNC officers do not want the Minister to stand up and pay them compliments about their bravery and the value of their work. They do not want platitudes; they want action, commitment and parity with conventional officers. I know that the Minister is sympathetic and that there is sympathy on the Government Benches for CNC officers. It is time to get this matter sorted. It has already dragged on for far too long and every day is doing more damage to the service.
If the Government do not see, or will not pay attention to, the evidence that is staring them in the face, they should not be surprised if we see serious and catastrophic consequences for national security. The CNC will undoubtedly struggle increasingly to fulfil its important mission of protecting the UK’s civil nuclear sites at home or in transit, and to supplement the resources of armed conventional officers as a part of the strategic armed policing reserve and Operation Temperer.
I urge the Minister to be mindful of the fact that this debate is not just about pensions. It is not about pounds and pence. Ultimately, it is about whether or not his Government think nuclear security, public safety and national security are worth paying for and valuing, and how much he and his Government believe they matter. I know that those things matter to everyone in the Chamber and to my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, in which the nuclear site of Hunterston sits. We all know it matters. What are his Government willing to do, in the face of a mountain of evidence, to show that they too believe that the work, health, wellbeing, careers, and, ultimately, the safety of our CNC officers matter?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Richard Harrington)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Stringer, as, indeed, on other mornings and afternoons.
I thank the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) for securing the debate. I know that is a platitude and she asked me not to use platitudes, but I felt I ought to say that. She and I have been involved in quite a few things together, always on opposite sides, but I hope we have a mutual respect and she knows I am doing my best to resolve the issue. I cannot disagree with a lot of what she said—that is the last platitude, I promise.
The other Members who intervened showed their commitment to everything that goes on with nuclear in their areas. I mention first my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison), not because she is on my side of the House, but because rarely a week goes by without us meeting two or three times, including the night before last, when we met the Secretary of State. I have had discussions on these matters with the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) and the hon. Member for Liverpool on many occasions, and I am always available to them for further discussion.
Jamie Stone
I thank the Minister for giving way. There is a level of frustration. I appreciate the kindness of intent in his having discussions, but, as the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said, there is frustration over the continuing delay, which has gone on for years. Could we all keep it our mission to try to reach a positive conclusion?
Richard Harrington
I utterly accept that point. I must apologise to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mike Hill) for mixing up Hartlepool and Liverpool; I do not know why I did it. I hope the hon. Gentleman is not too offended. Perhaps it is because I come from Leeds, which is between the two. I got mixed up.
I am not going to say how important the Civil Nuclear Constabulary is to the nuclear industry, because everybody knows that. One of my early visits, and one of the most significant I have had in this job, was to Sellafield, where I saw the training centre. I did not just have a tour; I also saw how heavy the kit is, I spoke to a lot of officers and I heard about the training regimes they undertake. I do not think I could walk around all day and be fully mobile with the kit they have to wear and carry. I fully accept the level of fitness that is required. Chief Constable Mike Griffiths, who is about to leave the force, explained it clearly to me. He transformed the CNC so that it has become the modern force it is today.
The CNC is moving to the new pension scheme on 1 April next year. I have been keen to hear evidence and representations on the effect of the higher pension age on the effectiveness of the force. We engage with the CNC and the Civil Nuclear Police Federation, which I met last year, and I am well aware of their views. As soon as those views were brought to my attention, I contacted the Treasury and others in Government to try to resolve the issue. The least I could do was hear their representations—that is my job, as I am doing today—but I fully accept the importance of getting the matter resolved as quickly as possible.
I have contacted the Cabinet Office, because it administers the civil service pension scheme. The Treasury is responsible for public pensions policy and I have set out the arguments to officials there. It is easy to regard the Government as one collective group—that is perfectly reasonable and I understand that—but it is my job to support the causes within my Department within Government, and this issue is a top priority.
My officials have been working with the constabulary to gather additional evidence of the impact on national security, which the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran mentioned, of the higher pension age. I have also facilitated a meeting this week between special advisers from No. 10 and the constabulary, in which these matters were discussed. I am trying to bring all these things together to resolve the problem.
However, like most things in life, the problem is more complex than it would appear on the surface. We know, as I have said, that the tests and weapons are very important; I do not think anyone who visits or sees pictures of them could deny that. On the question of why CNC officers are not treated as police officers in the normal way, a judicial review in 2016 determined that they are employees of the Civil Nuclear Police Authority, so they come under the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and are not defined as police officers for the purposes of the Public Service Pensions Act. That is the legal position.
Fitness standards were rolled out, as the hon. Lady said, in 2015-16, and authorised firearms officers must meet College of Policing mandated standards.
Patricia Gibson
The Minister has set out his understanding of the challenging and important job that CNC officers do. I put it to him that perhaps the reason for the dither and delay across Government is because there appears to be, as I know from questions I have asked on the Floor of the House, a real lack of understanding at the heart of Government of what these officers are required to do, the challenges they face and the importance of the role they play.
Richard Harrington
I must respectfully disagree with the hon. Lady, if only because I have tried it myself. I have been there and seen that, so my understanding is not just based on representations. I hope she accepts that I understand this; there may be others who do not, but it is my job to make sure that they do. I accept that—it is my responsibility and my job.
The capabilities are very complex. The two tests of fitness and firearms capability determine whether an officer is deployable. It is the officer’s capability, rather than age, that is the determining factor, and I think that must be the right approach. Being in the age range of those who would be in such a position, as I was explaining to the hon. Lady before the debate started, I admit that, although some people are vastly fitter than I am, I would find it very difficult myself at my age of 61. I know it is harder for older officers to attain the fitness standards, but the College of Policing independently determines the standard that authorised firearms officers must achieve to do their job effectively and safely. That is a matter of national security and I accept that it cannot be compromised.
The Public Service Pensions Act legislated to introduce the link between scheme normal pension age and state pension age for most public service pension schemes, to ensure that the cost over the long term remains sustainable. I will not go further into that, because the hon. Lady marked my card that I might, and she does not want platitudes about people getting older. She is quite right, so I will not say it, but we must accept the fact that, in the end, all public service schemes have to be funded and public service employees have to work for longer.
In certain areas—prison officers are another case—there are not a lot of back-office jobs that people who are older can do. In the police force generally, there are plenty of those functions; I do not just mean some back-office clerical function, because there are many things that are less active but still fully contribute to the objectives of a particular police force. I accept that nuclear is one sector where that is less possible, because there just are not many similar functions.
The equality analysis accepted that it is harder for older female officers to attain such high fitness standards. A pension scheme has to be fair to females too, because they have a flatter career trajectory for that reason. The proposed pension scheme, alpha, is a career average earnings scheme rather than a final salary scheme. Changed contribution rates under this scheme will help employees with shallower career trajectories, which historically means women rather than men, although, obviously, male officers in the same position will also benefit.
I will also highlight the ill-health retirement provisions. We recognise that CNC officers have a higher rate of musculoskeletal disorders from carrying the heavy kit. The ill-health retirement provisions in their current pension scheme are quite strict and allow an ill-health retirement only where the officer is not capable of any other work. Consequently, officers who gain an ill-health retirement are not allowed to do any work after their exit from the force.
The alpha scheme, however, gives its members choice and recognises that it is desirable for people to continue working if they are able. It affords a lower tier of benefit to those who are unable to continue working in their role or a comparable one, so an officer could leave the CNC with an ill-health pension but still gain employment elsewhere to supplement their income and have a full working life in a more suitable job.
I am very aware of the current retention issues affecting the constabulary. I have been informed that there have been an unusually high number of resignations—in the last month alone there were 26—and that 19 officers are moving across to the Ministry of Defence Police. I do not think that the evidence presented is strong enough to draw a direct link between the current retention issues facing the CNC and the move to a different pension scheme, since many of the officers resigning are moving to a force that has the same pension scheme that the Civil Nuclear Police Federation is resisting.
I also do not consider the current retention issues facing the CNC to be a national security crisis. The CNC has assured us that it can operate with its current force strength, albeit officers are being asked to do overtime. If that changes, I will reappraise my position, but the CNC is still policing our nuclear sites to its required regulatory strength and our nuclear estate remains secure. I am grateful for the explanation and arguments that the hon. Lady and other colleagues have given today.
Patricia Gibson
I thank the Minister for his response, but can I ask him to explain something? I know that a lot of CNC officers do not understand this, and I do not either: why has a retirement age for CNC officers been set that, realistically, they cannot reach?
Richard Harrington
I do not accept the hon. Lady’s premise that realistically those officers cannot reach it. I accept that some of them cannot, but obviously some people can and some cannot; I mentioned myself, but many people are far fitter than me in doing that job and other dangerous jobs in society.
The hon. Lady told me—I know this is not your fault, Mr Stringer—that she had applied for this debate quite some months beforehand. I am glad we have had the debate, but if that happens in the future, she is welcome to contact me directly to discuss issues such as this. That would perhaps not be in such a public forum, but if she finds the system frustrating and she cannot get a debate, she is welcome to contact me.
In summary, I have met everyone concerned in this matter. I am pushing colleagues in the Treasury and the Cabinet Office, and I would like to see it resolved as soon as I possibly can.
Question put and agreed to.
Housing Associations and Public Contractors: Freedom of Information
(5 years, 8 months 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
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered extending the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to housing associations and public contractors.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. This issue is very dear to my heart and, I know, to those of several colleagues. I am pleased to see the hon. Members who have attended, particularly the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who is here on his 60th birthday. I will try to keep my remarks on this complex and interesting topic within reasonable bounds.
I start by referring to a report from BuzzFeed News this morning on the specialist police unit that investigates crimes against MPs, which has received 558 complaints since it was set up after the tragic death of our colleague Jo Cox in 2016. Those complaints include four assaults, five bomb threats, seven hoax noxious powders, four reports of trespassing and 20 reports of criminal damage. There has been a threefold increase in reporting in the second half of that period since 2016, compared with the first part. I would have thought that was of great interest to many people, and particularly to Members.
Those details were obtained under the auspices of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and are just one topical example of the importance of that Act, which was one of the great successes of the last Labour Government. It is used by individuals, campaign groups, journalists and Members to obtain information that the Government and public authorities have been unwilling to disclose voluntarily. In a 2012 report, the Justice Committee described it as
“a significant enhancement of our democracy.”
In a Supreme Court judgment of the same year, Lord Mance said the Act
“reflects the value to be attached to transparency and openness in the workings of public authorities in modern society”,
while Lord Phillips said it
“adds to parliamentary scrutiny a further and more direct route to a measure of public accountability”.
It is therefore sad that some former exponents of the Act have in the past 20 years sought to limit its scope, usually on one of two grounds. The first is on policy grounds, saying that they believe the Act restricts the ability of the Government to debate freely, because sensitive matters might be disclosed, which is at least honest. Secondly, and more commonly, it is on resource grounds by trying to restrict the amount of money spent by public authorities on responding to inquiries inquiry, which is ostensibly to save public money but is really to restrict the right of the public and others to freedom of information.
I am afraid that that still goes on. The excellent Campaign for Freedom of Information published a report only this week on the variation between London councils’ response times to freedom of information inquiries. I will not go there, because that is not the topic of the debate, but that report bears a lot of scrutiny, as all its reports do. Interestingly, the establishment of the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information, chaired by Lord Burns, by the coalition Government was widely believed to be paving the way for new restrictions; I believed that it was. However, having looked at the merits of freedom of information, it ended up recommending the opposite. Its 2016 report found that freedom of information had “enhanced openness and transparency”, and called for the right of access to be strengthened, not restricted.
Indeed, one of that commission’s recommendations for strengthening the Act was to address the problem of obtaining information from contractors, which would also be addressed by my private Member’s Bill, the Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill, which is still before the House but is rapidly running out of time.
However good the legislation, in the 20 years since its passage, as it will be next year, we have fallen behind other countries and some of the limitations of the Act have been exhibited, which we probably now need to correct. I hope to hear from the Minister that we will attend to that. I am sure that my friend, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East, will tell us that things are done better in Scotland, but they are also done better in Brazil, Estonia, Macedonia, New Zealand, South Africa, Ireland and Hungary, some of which have incorporated some of the measures I propose. That is a rather eclectic group of countries.
It is right that there have been some changes to the Act, but they have been limited; a certain number of bodies that were perhaps in a grey area are now subject to the Act. The only ones that have been added since the Act’s passage are—I think this is an exhaustive list—the Financial Reporting Council, the Association of Chief Police Officers, the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, the Financial Ombudsman Service, Network Rail and, most recently, the National Police Chiefs’ Council. It is inarguable that any of those bodies should have been within the ambit of the Act, but it took two years to designate the NPCC in that way. I will come on to this in more detail in a moment, but there are essentially two ways to expand the ambit of the Act: by adding bodies to the schedule or by incorporating different types of bodies, such as contractors, under the powers granted by section 5 of the Act. No use of those powers has been made at all, so far as I can see.
An enormous range of public services are now delivered by private companies, charities or not-for-profit agencies under contracts with public authorities, ranging from the running of prisons and immigration removal centres to the provision of meals on wheels, social care visits and parking services. The Information Commissioner estimated recently that more than £284 billion—a third of all Government spending—goes on the purchasing of public services. Some of the main recipients of that spending have become household names; some are perhaps better known than certain Government Departments, including Serco, G4S, Capita and the now infamous Carillion. Unfortunately, under FOI, those contractors are significantly less accountable to the public than the authorities that previously delivered the services directly.
Here the story becomes a little more complicated. The Freedom of Information Act applies not only to information held by a public authority, but to information held by someone else on an authority’s behalf. But when is information held on an authority’s behalf? The test applied by the Information Commissioner and, on appeal, the information rights tribunal, is whether the contract between the authority and the contractor empowers the authority to demand that information from the contractor. If it does, that information is considered to be held on the authority’s behalf, and is available, via an FOI request, to the authority. If it does not, the information is considered to be held for the contractor’s own purposes and is not subject to FOI.
The FOI requests that have been refused because the contract gave the authority no right to the information form a long list. That list includes a request for information on fire safety defects in the CT scanner room of a hospital that the NHS trust leased under a private finance initiative contract that did not give it the right to such information from the PFI body. When the request was made, the trust could not obtain the information, so neither could the requester. The list also includes a request for information on the number of complaints made against court security staff, and the number of those staff with criminal convictions. The staff were provided by G4S, and the Ministry of Justice’s contract did not entitle it to such information.
There was also a request for information on the number of prison staff at the privately run HMP Birmingham, and the number of attacks at the prison. Again, that information was held only by G4S and was not covered by the MOJ’s contract. A request for information on the value of penalty fares issued by London Overground and docklands light railway was also refused, as the information was held by private sector inspectors, as was a request on the cost of bringing TV licensing prosecutions, because the information was held by Capita and was not even known to the BBC.
I will add two examples that are close to home. Last Friday, I attended a demonstration outside Hammersmith Hospital in my constituency by porterage, cleaning and catering staff, who are on very poor terms and conditions and, in many cases, the minimum wage. They are all employed by Sodexo—another large multinational company—and I heard horrific stories of the conditions that people had to work under and what happened when people were sick. If they had been directly employed, I could have made inquiries to find out the truth of the matter about at least some of those terms and conditions, but I know there is no possibility of that. I could try to talk to Sodexo if it would talk to me; I could try to talk to the trust about the contract, but I would like to be able to get access to information of that kind. I have only praise for the workers, who provide an essential public service, and for the GMB union, which is representing them in the dispute. It is difficult to do that when one hand is tied behind your back.
The other example is from the neighbouring constituency of Kensington and relates to a tragedy with which we will all be very familiar—the Grenfell Tower fire. For some time, the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation, which managed Grenfell Tower, refused FOI requests on the grounds that it was not itself a public authority. The Information Commissioner upheld such a refusal in 2012.
KCTMO latterly accepted that it held information on behalf of the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and began to reply to requests, but in July 2017, after the fire, it refused another request, again on the grounds that it was not subject to the Act. That was in relation to a 2005 consultant’s report documenting the failure by KCTMO and one of its contractors to maintain the Grenfell Tower emergency lighting system. The extraordinary risk of allowing such information to be withheld from the public is obvious. We need to remove the uncertainty that led to that thoroughly unsatisfactory and dangerous situation.
It is common to find contracts containing some impressive-sounding clause such as: “The contractor undertakes to assist the authority in complying with its obligations under the Freedom of Information Act.” That sounds fine until we realise that the authority’s obligations are to deal with FOI requests for information that the contractor holds on its behalf. What information is held on the contractor’s behalf? Such clauses take us no further in establishing that.
One answer is to introduce into contracts an umbrella clause saying that all information relating to the performance or planned performance of the contract is held on the authority’s behalf for FOI purposes. All such information will then be accessible under the FOI Act or under the Environmental Information Regulations 2004 via a request to the authority. That is what my private Member’s Bill would do. The Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill would insert into the FOI Act a new section 3A stipulating that all contracts entered into by public authorities for the provision of services are deemed to include such a disclosure clause. The clause would also apply to the contractor’s subcontracts. It would cover existing as well as future contracts.
The result would be that all information about the planned or actual performance of the contract would be subject to the FOI Act or, in the case of environmental information, to the parallel EIR. That does not mean that all such information would automatically be released. Disclosure would depend on whether exemptions applied—for example, for information whose disclosure would be harmful to the contractor’s or the authority’s commercial interests, or be a breach of confidence. I stress that the measure is not intended to guarantee disclosure of contractors’ information. Its aim is to ensure that the FOI process applies, so that information is disclosed unless there is good reason not to disclose. The advantage of that approach is that it would not require contractors and, in particular, small bodies with few staff to spend time learning how to deal with FOI requests. The request would be answered by the public authority.
The Freedom of Information Act itself contains a separate, but so far never used, mechanism for bringing contractors directly within its scope. Under section 5(l)(b), contractors can be designated as public authorities in their own right for FOI purposes and required to deal directly with requests. The procedure can be used only where the contract is for a service that it is the authority’s function to provide, which is not the case for all contracts. The Scottish Government have brought contractors that run prisons and their subcontractors under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 via such a mechanism. I regret that that has not been done under the UK Act as well.
There is substantial support for action to deal with contractors. In 2012, the Public Accounts Committee said that
“where private companies provide public services funded by the taxpayer, those areas of their business which are publicly funded should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act provision.”
In 2018, the Committee on Standards in Public Life urged the Government to consult on extension of the FOI Act to cover information held by public service contractors. The Burns commission, which I have mentioned, recommended, in relation to larger contractors, that
“information concerning the performance or delivery of public services under contract should be treated as being held on behalf of the contracting public authority. This would make such information available to requestors who make requests to the contracting public authority.”
Most importantly, this January the Information Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, published her report entitled “Outsourcing Oversight? The case for reforming access to information law”, which calls for changes in the FOI Act similar to those proposed in my Bill. It is not the first time that the commissioner has indicated that that is what she wishes to see, but this weighty and authoritative report makes the case far more stringently than I can, with the resources available to me.
The report calls for, as one option, greater use of existing powers under section 5 of the FOI Act. It recommends—this is what I was explaining earlier—that the Government should:
“Designate contractors regarding the public functions they undertake where this would be in the public interest”.
It also recommends that they:
“Designate a greater number of other organisations exercising functions of a public nature, and do so more frequently and efficiently.”
The report states:
“Designation orders under section 5…would give the public the right to make requests directly to these organisations and require them to proactively disclose information in line with a publication scheme.”
The alternative would be to amend the primary legislation. Given the 20-year gap, that might be a more sensible course. It would allow for amendment of the environmental regulations as well.
The Government often plead lack of time for this, but given that there are at least three routes to reach the same objective, as I have explained, one of those must suit the Government’s purposes. As I have said, there has been no attempt at all to bring private contractors within the remit of the Act so far. There have been some additions—I read out the list earlier—to the schedule of bodies that are subject to the Act, but that has been, if not grudging, rather nugatory in its effect. Some of the leading contenders are not yet on the list, and perhaps the leading contender—this is the second part of the debate today—is housing associations.
Housing associations are not covered by freedom of information, although many of them have inherited local authority housing stock. This will be a matter close to your own heart, Mr Betts, given that you chair the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee. In some cases, the tenants, and therefore the public, have lost freedom of information rights that they previously enjoyed when those homes were under council control. I have examples of such estates in my constituency. The Grenfell fire has highlighted what I would say is the irresistible need for a right of access if only on safety grounds, yet when Inside Housing asked 61 housing associations for copies of their fire risk assessments in 2017, only seven provided them.
Let me give just a few more examples. A housing association tenant who asked for information about the cause of a fire in his premises in 2009 received no answer. A tenant who asked whether the water supply to his premises was provided through potentially toxic lead pipes received no answer. A tenant was refused a copy of an electricity bill, which led to his being charged £1,200 to cover the cost of six communal light bulbs. Another unsuccessfully asked for the make and model of estate street lighting that he found “overpowering” at night. He wanted the information in order to contact the manufacturer to see whether it could suggest a remedy, but he was refused. Requests for the number of repossession orders served since the bedroom tax came into force and the number of those tenants who had no arrears before that date were also refused.
Those are hardly state secrets; they would be available to any council tenant. It seems entirely anomalous and illogical that they are not available to other social landlords’ tenants as well. In 2011, the coalition Government announced that they would consult housing associations on bringing them under freedom of information. Regrettably, they failed to consult or act, and the current Government show no sign of doing so either.
I will refer briefly to the National Housing Federation. I ought not to have a go at the National Housing Federation, because it generally does a good job in representing its members. However, its arguments for not coming under the Freedom of Information Act, which it barely puts forward in its briefing, are thin. I think it knows in its heart of hearts that it should just give in gracefully, which actually would be to its advantage. The NHF’s arguments, whether commercial confidentiality, the ability to purchase land or the idea that housing associations might need to be reclassified as public bodies, are chimeras and fabulous tales. I believe that the legislation has been passed in Scotland and housing associations there will come under the equivalent Act later this year. There seems to have been no problem there.
As for commercial confidentiality, there are exemptions in the Act, which are there to be used. All institutions, including universities, have used the excuse of financial burden. Any public body or a quasi-public body of this kind will have expenses. It will have to do consultations, run democratic organisations and be subject to more regulations on the whole than individual private citizens. That is just a fact of life, and freedom of information is another fact of life along those same lines. There is no barrier to charities—universities are a good example—coming under the Freedom of Information Act. There is no reason why they will be reclassified as public bodies simply by coming under the Freedom of Information Act. I cannot even say “good try” to the NHF on this occasion. It cannot actually bring itself in the document to say what it wants us to do. It just leaves it there. I think another push might take it on to the side of the angels on this one, but we will see.
For completeness, in the Information Commissioner’s report and in my Bill there are some other anomalies that we ask the Government to address as a matter of simple logic. One such anomaly is electoral registration officers and returning officers. At one stage the Government agreed with us on that, so why it has not been done is a mystery. Local safeguarding children boards are another anomaly. They are not the subject of this debate and therefore I will not say a great deal more about them. However, it is an indication that, rather than being entirely resistant, having to be pushed every time and taking their time over it, it would be nice if the Government had a proper review and decided what would bring the Freedom of Information Act up to date in some of the ways that have been indicated.
To conclude, I believe that a consensus is growing. The Information Commissioner is doing an excellent job not only of clearing the backlog of complaints and administering the scheme, which was the primary function, but of championing the cause of freedom of information. Equally, Maurice Frankel and the Campaign for Freedom of Information, which was instrumental all those years ago in getting the Freedom of Information Act passed, are constantly scrutinising and pushing it in an exemplary way. I thank them in particular for their assistance with my Bill and with this debate.
There have been previous attempts at legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), the shadow Policing Minister, is ably ploughing the same furrow. There is even some support from the Government Benches. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), after talking out my Bill, assured me that is was nothing personal; he was actually talking out another Bill at the time, and he commended my Bill and said he will fully support it next time there is an opportunity. What more rousing recommendation does one need than that? Not only my party, but the Scottish National party, the Liberal Democrats and the Green party support this measure. The Minister might begin to cotton on to the fact that she is in a small minority here, constantly being pushed in the right direction.
I will end by putting the following questions to the Minister. Given that the situation that I have outlined—in respect of contractors and the work that they do, and in respect of housing associations and other organisations—is exactly analogous to those public sector bodies that are fully subject to the Freedom of Information Act, so that there could be two institutions next to each other operating under completely separate regimes, this is not really a question of the Government making concessions, but simply a case of the Government correcting anomalies. Whether they do that through secondary legislation, by supporting my Bill or through primary legislation, the time has come for it to happen.
I hope the Minister is grateful for this opportunity to indicate where the Government’s thinking is on this matter, in respect of the individual examples that I have given and in respect of reviewing the Freedom of Information Act generally. I hope that there will be enough time for her to reply in detail.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) on securing the debate and making an extraordinarily persuasive case, as he always does. It was so persuasive that, were the Minister not constrained by her place on the Government Front Bench, I am sure she would agree with it entirely.
This is not a new issue. I should declare at the outset that when I worked for the public services union Unison before coming to this place, it was already a matter of great concern to us. We could see the way the world was changing and the potential pitfalls that lay ahead. We were delighted that through our work with the Labour party, via our Labour link, we were able to secure a commitment from the then shadow Front Bench that freedom of information would indeed be extended to all public service providers.
The coalition Government at the time did not agree with that and sadly—2015 did not see the return of a Labour Government—this woefully out-of-date position persists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith said, the Information Commissioner agrees. In the weighty report—we have all been carrying it around—entitled “Outsourcing Oversight? The case for reforming access to information law”, the commissioner makes a compelling case. The argument is essentially that the Freedom of Information Act should be extended to all public services, even when they are carried out by private companies.
I will say a bit more about the report and give some examples of where this creates problems in my constituency—I suspect that similar cases would be found across the country. The Information Commissioner recently came to Parliament to launch her report at an event, which I was very pleased to be on the panel for, organised by the parliamentary internet, communications and technology forum. Her team has done an excellent job of highlighting the problem, which is central to the issues that my hon. Friend has pointed out.
The key point is to understand how different the world now is from the world of the late 1990s, when the Freedom of Information Act was first introduced. Government now spend almost a third of our total expenditure with external suppliers—some £284 billion a year, which is an extraordinary amount of money. These external suppliers deliver services on behalf of public authorities. They are often private companies, charities and other not-for-profit organisations, which are not necessarily subject to freedom of information, thus massively diminishing the accountability of public service delivery.
As we have heard, the Information Commissioner uses the examples of the Grenfell Tower tragedy and the collapse of Carillion to show the consequences of a lack of transparency and accountability. They are both particularly awful examples. I have raised that concern with Ministers before. The answer was that extending the Freedom of Information Act would have made little difference, but I disagree. I think there is an essential problem with delivering public services in an opaque manner.
When councils run services, if we think they are doing a bad job, there is a simple solution: we vote them out—we get rid of them. That concentrates minds. Sadly, however good the service delivery may be through housing associations or public service contractors, or local charities providing social services and so on, when questions are asked it is much harder to know what to do about them. Extending the Freedom of Information Act hands that power of exposure and transparency back to citizens, and that ultimately is how to drive up standards. It reduces the risk of narrow or neglectful practices in the delivery of those services.
As constituency MPs—I am sure colleagues have the same experience—residents write to us about all manner of issues, some of which we have more control over resolving than others. In Cambridge, where the cost of living is extremely high, housing makes up a significant part of my postbag. For example, Montreal Square is a small area of housing—a delightful oasis of calm in the busy Romsey part of the city. Cambridge Housing Society, a local housing association, proposed to replace the 18 existing homes with 45 new, affordable, energy-efficient homes. Understandably perhaps, it wants to modernise existing homes on the site, and add more. Equally understandably, some of the residents who live there—some have been there for more than 35 years—are very unhappy about that fundamental change to their local community.
I pay tribute to Cambridge Housing Society and its chief executive, Nigel Howlett. It is an excellent organisation doing a great job, and Nigel is an outstanding leader in the sector. It is a charity that aims to provide the maximum amount of housing possible, but it also wants to take into account the concerns of the local community, so it is in a difficult position. It is trying to balance the needs of existing tenants against potential future tenants who do not have homes at the moment. That is a hard choice, but essentially it is a political one and, in my view, it should be taken by people who are democratically accountable. People come to me and ask, “Who makes the decision? What can be done about it?” If it was a council decision, the answer would be very clear.
Extending freedom of information to housing associations would not automatically solve the problem, but it would be a significant step forward. It would allow far greater accountability for residents and members of the wider community. It would give them a much stronger lever to question how decisions are being made and, most crucially, to get the information behind the decisions. I know that the Minister will say, “We are putting out more and more data.” It is not more data we want; it is the key data that they do not want to share that we want. That is what freedom of information gets to.
My hon. Friend already referred to the National Housing Federation’s briefing. I am delighted to say that there has been no collusion, but my reaction was exactly the same—my office colleague will testify to my reaction. The briefing states that extending freedom of information legislation could put
“not-for-profit providers at a disadvantage against commercial bodies in bidding for land...reducing housing associations’ ability to obtain private investment.”
As my hon. Friend so eloquently put it, those are fairly woeful excuses. The Information Commissioner has assured me that the Freedom of Information Act already has mechanisms in place to deal with such issues. It is a flimsy set of arguments, frankly. I certainly want to find ways of helping housing associations in their battle against developers for land, but diminishing public accountability is the wrong way to go about it. It would be much better to address the very real problem of secrecy in the commercial land market. It should not be forgotten, of course, that huge amounts of public money goes through housing associations, and has done so in the past, to provide essential homes for people. We must protect the democratic accountability of our public services.
I have two further examples in other sectors, which show how freedom of information can make a difference. Across the country, and in Cambridge and Cambridgeshire, we have seen mass academisation of schools, which is often unpopular. Parents, children and local communities feel very strongly about this issue. In my city there is currently a proposal for a merger of a local multi-academy trust with a large national one, which has caused some upset among my constituents, who are concerned—rightly, in my view—about the potential consequences.
Both academies and multi-academy trusts are subject to FOI, but the position is far from clear. Academies were brought under the FOI Act in 2010 and have to answer FOI requests. With multi-academy trusts, the situation is a little more complex. I sought advice from the Information Commissioner’s Office, which told me:
“MATs will be covered by the FOI Act (and are ultimately responsible for the FOI obligations of all the academies)”,
but
“the information requested must be held ‘for the purposes of the proprietor’s functions under Academy arrangements’. It’s very likely that the information held will fall into the purposes specified”.
However, it is not hard to imagine that if a multi-academy trust wanted to, it could use the FOI exemption for information that is a trade secret or
“would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of any person or body”
in some of those cases. Where questions have been asked locally regarding the merging of academy trusts, I have been assured by the MAT in question that it is releasing as much information as it is permitted to through the current FOI regime. I commend them for that, but it is easy to see that less scrupulous trusts may not always choose that course of action.
This is not simply about the facts of legislation; it is also about how it feels to the public, and the need for communities to feel that they have genuine ownership over the services that their taxes fund. After all, whose schools are they? I think they are our schools, but all too often it does not really feel like that. Extending the Freedom of Information Act in the way suggested might help a little, although I would argue that a much more substantial overhaul is needed.
This is not my first foray into arguing with the Cabinet Office about extending the Freedom of Information Act. I have an excellent exam board in my constituency, Cambridge Assessment, which is a major local employer. As Cambridge Assessment is a department of the University of Cambridge, it is subject to freedom of information requests. Other exam boards are not. That issue was first raised with me, astonishingly, as long ago as 2010, at a public hustings event hosted by Cambridge Assessment and chaired by the inestimable Simon Lebus, then chief executive. He challenged each candidate to declare whether they would pursue the issue and help him resolve it before his retirement, which at that point he thought was still some way off. As happens at public hustings events, we all pledged to pursue it. Little did we know that it would be quicker to build the fantastic new buildings that those visiting Cambridge see on the railway line—a huge set of buildings—than to get the Cabinet Office to move on this question. The skewed playing field for exam boards does a major disservice to Cambridge Assessment, because it is treated differently from its competitors. It argues that the Act should be extended to all exam boards because they use public money to perform a public service.
The Minister has been good enough to sit down with me and her officials on a number of occasions on this issue, a while ago. The letter I received from her this week was profoundly disappointing. She told me that she had had discussions with the relevant Education Minister, with the conclusion that although
“the Minister of State agreed in principle that there are other awarding organisations that carry out functions of a public nature”,
because
“the Department for Education has undertaken significant reforms of A Levels and GCSEs, which has placed significant additional burdens on awarding organisations, the Government is currently not in a position to being another process of consultation and possible legislative change”.
That is a dreadful argument, even by this Government’s miserable standards—I am cross about this. They have made some woefully unpopular and regressive education policy changes, and they are using that as an excuse for not being prepared to make some that might actually improve the accountability and transparency of the way we educate our young people.
Andy Slaughter
My hon. Friend has a long track record of campaigning on FOI—far longer than mine—and I am grateful that he is here for the debate. Does he agree that the decision to move freedom of information to the Cabinet Office—I do not mean this to reflect on the current Minister—was a mistake? It has been put in with data protection, which is often about restricting access to information, for the right reasons. In the Ministry of Justice, and with the Justice Committee, there was a far more robust approach to calling out the Government’s questions. A reassignment of Department and Committee might be a suitable step.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend is far more of an expert than I am on the matter. He has made an interesting observation that might be worth pursuing further. He may well have a very strong point there.
To return to my quest that is now nine years on. In fact, it is probably more than nine years, because I know that my predecessors, Julian Huppert and David Howarth, pursued the matter. I fear it might go back as far as Anne Campbell’s time. As I have said, I made a pledge to Simon Lebus that we would try to resolve the issue before his retirement. Sadly, it has not been achieved. I fear it might have to wait for a Labour Government, which I am sure will be along soon.
Freedom of information is sometimes considered a slightly nerdy issue—no apologies to colleagues present—but it is an incredibly important mechanism to secure proper accountability and democratic oversight. It is disappointing that we have not yet had a proper Government response to the Information Commissioner’s report, although, to be fair to the Minister, she has said that they are considering it carefully and will respond in due course, which of course is wonderful civil service speak. We will await events. We cannot let private companies get away with always doing their dealings out of the public eye when their decisions have a serious impact on the lives of all our constituents. We need the tools to provide the checks and balances. Too often it seems to be a carry-on behind closed doors and it cannot continue.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
We will now move on to the Front-Bench speakers. The first is the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), who will be pleased to know that it is not the Chair’s responsibility to sing him happy birthday.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Betts. I can think of no finer way to celebrate my 60th birthday than to be here arguing for an extension of the rights of people to information from the companies that do things for them or sometimes to them. I had hoped the debate would be a little better attended; we are somewhat thin on the ground. I assume that that is not to do with the importance that colleagues attach to the topic, but more to do with the bizarre timetabling of this week in Westminster where we have a faux tranquillity—the calm before next week’s storm—because there is not much going on in terms of debates and votes. Perhaps that has led colleagues to make a beeline for their constituencies to do important work there, rather than being available to participate in this discussion. We will have to make up for absent colleagues, but that does not undermine the importance of this subject.
My purpose here today on behalf of the third party is to support the arguments of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) and to advocate for a change in the law. Also, I will try to use this brief presentation to suggest some of the things that have already happened in Scotland, from which colleagues here might be able to learn.
Before I go into that, I want to put on the record a first-principles argument as to why freedom of information is important, because sometimes that gets lost in debate when it becomes technical and legalistic.
The greatest advocates for freedom of information are journalists—the press. That is correct because it is impossible to have a free press without the people who look at and scrutinise public institutions having the right and the ability to gain information about what the institutions are doing. If barriers are put up against that process, we diminish the role of a free press and undermine one of the pillars of our democratic system.
Freedom of information is also important for campaign groups that seek a change in how things are organised in our society. For me, the most fundamental importance of freedom of information relates to the individual: it gives the individual citizen, who is often the client, the consumer and the user of what is provided by corporations and companies, the right to understand what is being done to them or for them. It is very much about the contract between governors and the governed and making sure we live in a democratic society. Information flow and the ability to get it are absolutely central to that.
There has been debate about who should be covered by freedom of information legislation. The purpose is to try to look at organisations or institutions that operate in the public interest or at the behest of the public. They provide a public service. Even before the complexities of today’s modern governmental apparatus, it was the case for decades and for generations that the purpose of Governments was not always just directly to provide things. Often, the purpose of Government was to regulate or mandate other independent organisations to provide things. So, if we do not cover those organisations that are directed by public bodies, as well as the public bodies themselves, we get only half the picture.
In this world in which we live, where over the past 10 to 20 years we have seen an awful lot of debate about whether a public service should be provided directly or put out to the private sector to provide on behalf of the public, as that debate has got more and more complex so our legislation and its reach need to become more complex. If the privatisation of a service can be used to deny people the right to information on how it is run, that is a process where one Government policy—privatisation—leads to the undermining of another, freedom of information. So it is right that we review that situation.
In Scotland, the situation has been different. The UK passed the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and two years later the fledgling Scottish Parliament passed the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, which had many of the same provisions and many of the same abilities in terms of the Parliament being able to extend the reach of the legislation. Of course, the Scottish legislation applies only to Scottish organisations. Organisations that operate in Scotland but are headquartered here are covered by the UK legislation, which is another reason it is in our interest to share information and let colleagues benefit from the experience that the Scottish Government have in this area, and a reason it is important for us to try to see the legislation here at Westminster improve—because Scotland is still, for the time being, part of the UK, and we therefore wish to benefit from any improvements that might be made at UK level.
The Information Commissioner, Elizabeth Denham, is fairly clear—scathingly so in many ways—about the fact that the current legislation is not fit for purpose. She also commends the experience in Scotland. I will quote from her recent speech. The hon. Member for Hammersmith compared us to other countries, and she said:
“Closer to home, the Scottish law provides greater coverage than our own.”
On page 7 of the report, she states that
“we are falling behind our counterparts in Scotland... who have done more to expand the reach of information access”.
In Scotland, we have already extended the scope of freedom of information provision to a range of bodies operating on behalf of the public sector—for example, private prisons, private contractors providing public services, and some private contractors or organisations that provide an important component within the matrix of social services where services are provided by a number of different providers. I think, for example, of independent special schools, which provide a vital service and to which the reach of the law now applies.
In Scotland, we have spent much of the past year debating the proposal that is in front of us today: to extend freedom of information legislation to registered social landlords, principally to housing associations. I recommend that colleagues look at not only what happens, but the process by which we got there and by which the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament got there. An 11-month consultation took place throughout 2018, a lot of it with the housing associations—either individually or collectively—that were going to be affected by it. A lot of complex aspects of this debate came to light, but the important thing is that they came to light, were considered and were resolved. They were not barriers to moving forward. I hope the Minister will take it upon herself to be the champion of navigating this process and these reforms, rather than seeing what are perceived as difficulties or anomalies, or things that need to be exempt, and regarding those as a reason for inaction.
I will give a couple of examples from the consultation. There are specific requirements in the Scottish housing legislation—and, I think, in the equivalent English legislation—on providing accommodation for particular groups. Gypsies and Travellers are mentioned, for example. Some housing associations did not think it was right for freedom of information to apply in that case, because what they did would be specific to the client group, not a matter of general public interest. The matter was debated and the Scottish Government came to the conclusion that it probably was in the general public interest for anyone to have the opportunity to know what was happening with regard to Gypsies and Travellers, because the consequences if something went wrong, or if the action in question was not taken, would be borne not just by Gypsies and Travellers but by the wider community. The Scottish Government identified and defined a wider community interest, which meant that the area in question should be included.
Housing associations in Scotland spend a lot of time not only directly managing housing, but providing services to other landlords—sometimes in the private sector—through the process of factoring, which might include cleansing or environmental services. The housing associations argued quite strongly that factoring for third parties should be excluded from the legislation because it was a private contractual matter between them and a third-party organisation; it was not a matter of the public interest. After a long period of debate, which is written up in the report that was published two weeks ago, the Scottish Government came to the conclusion that they were minded to agree in this instance with the housing associations that factoring was a specific additional service that need not come within the scope of the legislation.
Finally, some housing associations argued that the scope of the information should be limited to what they were directly providing, by way of a contracted or legislated public service, and that people should not be able to ask questions or get information about the financial or constitutional governance of the organisation. They argued quite strongly to put blinkers on the legislation so that it would be possible to look only in certain areas. Again, after a long process of debate and consultation, that argument was rejected and it was felt that the public have a right to know about the general financial governance of housing associations because that is so critical to their ability to do the job that the public expect them to do.
The report process has concluded in Scotland, and many concerns were not only listened to but taken on board. Some were agreed and some rejected. The Government are now in a position to go forward with genuine broad consent and do exactly what the hon. Member for Hammersmith proposes should happen in England—extend the scope of freedom of information legislation to registered social landlords and housing associations. That will happen in Scotland in November, and I hope that when it does it provides further information and assistance to colleagues here, in ensuring that the rest of the United Kingdom does not lag behind and that where Scotland has pioneered, the rest of the UK will catch up.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and to follow the birthday boy, the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard)—I wish him the best on his special day, and many more of them to come.
The debate, obtained by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter), follows on from his work on his private Member’s Bill, the Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill, as well as from work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). It also follows the report from the Information Commissioner’s Office, which has been referred to. This is clearly not a case of the Information Commissioner making a power grab, or of mission creep. The report is based on evidence showing where the current situation is not working, or where the ICO does not have sufficient power to challenge bodies that undertake work on behalf of public authorities, such that the balance needs to be redressed. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith for his persistence on the matter, but I cannot help thinking that at some point the change he proposes will become inevitable.
I, too, received a briefing from the National Housing Federation, and I gave it a read. I confess that my response was similar to that of my hon. Friends: “Is that it?” The reasons given for not adopting the proposals seemed pretty thin. I wondered why such bodies might not want the change. Perhaps it is because of concern about a regulatory workload and burden. However, it is clear to me that, where freedom of information operates, there is a possibility of change in the culture of the organisations operating under its auspices. They realise that they can no longer hold on tightly to information or act in a secretive manner, and so they become more open to the people whom they exist to serve. Their manner of doing business, internally and externally, therefore becomes more open, and perhaps they become better and more efficient organisations as a result. That culture change should be embraced and welcomed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith discussed occasions when freedom of information requests were denied, such as requests regarding the number of attacks at HM Prison Birmingham, and the number of prison staff there—figures that G4S declined to provide. G4S also declined to provide information on the number of complaints from the public against court security officers. My hon. Friend discussed television licences and Virgin Care providing NHS services—something that has recently happened in my area, where increasingly community health services are delivered by private sector contractors. That has been a deliberate policy of the Government, and we have a philosophical difference about that privatisation. However, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East said, the law must be able to keep up with changes in the way society is structured.
I noted something that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said about public money being used for public services. That is at the core of the issue, and there cannot be any real argument about it. Where public money is being used to provide a public service, there should be no hiding place, and neither should there be any desire to hide from the necessary and, I think, welcome scrutiny that freedom of information provides.
Under the current Conservative Government there has been a clear trend in favour of large outsourcing companies, which tend to operate with little accountability or public responsibility. Carillion, Interserve, Capita and G4S are names that we regularly see. The reach of those companies is huge. I think I am correct in saying that Interserve had construction contracts to build motorway junctions, and it was running the probation service. Those companies’ reach goes right across society. The Opposition believe that the lack of responsibility and openness can amplify the possibility of problems. As the companies in question have less responsibility to act openly, they tend to clam up—for want of a better expression—hunker down and try to conceal any problems. We are clear that public services need to be transparent and accountable to the people who use them, regardless of whether they are delivered by the public sector or by private companies. We were clear about that in 2017, when our manifesto stated:
“We will extend the Freedom of Information Act to private companies that run public services”.
That will also be in our next general election manifesto, whenever it is required. We shall also extend the Freedom of Information Act to cover housing associations and other social landlords, as well as tenant management organisations, and we will consider extending it to cover contractor-held information.
The housing point is important because of the dreadful example discussed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith: the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. We shall never know whether openness might have prevented the tragedy. The public inquiry under way at the moment will consider those issues. We know, however, that residents were battling for several years beforehand to try to find information that was consistently denied to them—I will say no more, because the matter is currently under consideration by the inquiry.
The Freedom of Information Act does not generally apply to information held by contractors about the public service they provide to local and central Government—for example for social care, health, public transport, school inspections and privately run prisons—and that is because of a loophole in the system. Section 3(2) of the Act states that information held “by the public authority” also includes information
“held by another person on behalf of an authority”.
The information that a contractor holds on behalf of a public authority is therefore within the scope of a freedom of information request, even if the authority never physically holds that information as its own hard copy or electronic files. However, that does not include all information that may be held by the contractor in connection with the performance or proposed performance of a contract.
The kind of information that has been withheld from the public includes some examples that have already been mentioned, such as the cost of TV licence prosecutions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith reminded us, not even the BBC is allowed to receive that information, even though it always takes a battering from the general public for prosecutions undertaken by Capita.
The Freedom of Information (Extension) Bill contains provisions to ensure that all information about the provision of public service under contract could be obtained via an FOI request to the relevant authority. It seeks to provide legal certainty on the position of contractors and subcontractors by requiring all contracts between a public authority and a contractor to be deemed to include a provision that all information held by the contractor or sub-contractor in connection with the performance, or proposed performance, of a contract is held on behalf of the public authority and therefore lies within the scope of the Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith stated at the time:
“The general public has a right to know as much about Carillion or Serco when they are given public contracts or providing public services as we do about public authorities doing the same work. My Bill would bring freedom of information into line with the way public services are now being delivered in 2018”.
The report by the Information Commissioner’s Office states:
“In the modern age, public services are delivered in many ways by many organisations”—
the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East—
“yet not all of these organisations are subject to access to information laws. Maintaining accountable and transparent services is a challenge because the current regime does not always extend beyond public authorities and, when it does, it is complicated. The laws are no longer fit for purpose.”
The ICO recommended that private contractors should be FOI-able where that is in the public interest,
“whether because of the scale, duration or public importance of the contracts”.
The report continues:
“Without information to understand how public services are performing, how levels of service compare and how problems are tackled, the public will be left in the dark about the operation of public services. Access to information legislation is essential to democratic accountability and helps to create what we all want to see—better public services”.
In the case of Carillion, that lack of transparency prevented small businesses from making informed decisions as to whether to enter into contracts with it, at a time when it was financially risky to do so.
A recent TUC report recommended a number of steps to improve transparency in outsourcing. Those included, among other things, the creation of a so-called Domesday Book for all contracts. A new public body would be set up to operate at arm’s length from central Government, and it would have statutory powers to require both commissioners and contractors from across the public sector to supply it with data. It should maintain a Domesday Book for all contracts, including performance on the outsourcing of services. At the moment there is no centralised place to find a list of contracts for a specific company. I tried to find a list of contracts for Capita, but that information seemed to be fractured and diffuse across Government.
Tenants and the public have the right to information about councils under the Freedom of Information Act, but not about housing associations, which provide the same essential housing services and receive significant public investment. In my area almost all public housing is provided by three or four housing associations, and they were stock transfers previously owned by Chester City Council. The previous Labour Government and the Conservative-led coalition proposed that the legislation should cover housing associations, but that has not yet been achieved. Obtaining information from contractors, including on fire safety, can prevent a problem, and my hon. Friend’s Bill seeks to correct that serious omission by making housing associations public authorities for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act.
Public authorities are suffering from the difficulties of austerity and cuts, and they will find it onerous to provide responses to freedom of information requests. However, the 2000 Act does contain provisions to prevent mischievous or repetitive requests from the same residents. Perhaps that has given public contractors a sense that they do not want to take on the same burdens, but if they are happy to take on public contracts they should surely be happy to take on the responsibilities of being a public contractor.
We have seen in the Government’s approach to public contracting what I believe to be a form of reverse redistribution that takes large amounts of public money and puts it into the pockets of big public contractors. From there it goes into the pockets, bank accounts, or indeed—dare I perhaps inject an unwelcome political element into the debate?—the offshore bank accounts, that belong to some of the owners of those public bodies.
Listening to the contributions from my hon. Friends, it seems that when public money is being spent on delivering public services, there can be no reason why the same public scrutiny should not be applied. It is a matter of time. Let us hope that it is only a matter of minutes, while the Minister responds, but if it does take longer to introduce such a measure, that will be achieved when the next Labour Government take office.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I call the Minister. I hope that she will allow a couple of minutes at the end for the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) to wind up the debate.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, and I thank you for that reminder. I thank the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Andy Slaughter) for his points. I know that his thoughtful presentation follows on from the work on his private Member’s Bill. I also thank the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). As he noted, we have looked in some detail at an issue regarding one particular examination board, but if he will forgive me, this afternoon I will focus on responding to the more general points that have been raised.
Freedom of information is, of course, one of the pillars on which open government operates. The Government are committed to supporting the effective operation of the Freedom of Information Act 2000. That Act has been in operation for more than 10 years. It received post-legislative scrutiny by the Justice Committee in 2012, and it was reviewed by the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information in 2016. One of the key questions raised by the hon. Member for Hammersmith is whether the time is right for an overall review of the Act, and I point him towards that work from 2016. It considered whether the Act still ensures an appropriate balance between transparency and the need for a private space—for example for advice and discussion—as well as whether the costs of freedom of information are proportionate to its many benefits.
The Government welcomed the commission’s focus on enhancing transparency, which went a little wider than just the 2000 Act. The Information Commissioner’s Office has added an important piece of research to the scrutiny of that Act with its recent report, and I am grateful to the commission and the commissioner for their work on a significant and complex matter. I will respond to that report shortly—I am sure hon. Members look forward to having that response on their bedside tables, just as they did the report itself.
As the Information Commissioner identified in her report, since the passage of the Freedom of Information Act, the UK has been at the forefront of opening up data to allow the public and press to hold public bodies to account. The Government are among the most open and transparent in the world and remain committed to the principles of transparency and openness. We launched updated transparency principles in 2017 and it is a fact that we are publishing more data than ever. We will continue to support the effective operation of the Act as part of that.
On the question of how housing associations ought to be dealt with, we fully share the view that landlords, including housing associations, should be accountable and transparent in their dealings with tenants, and should be responsive to their needs. I am not necessarily persuaded, however, that the extension of FOI to housing associations is the sole best means of achieving that. As landlords, housing associations are private sector bodies that deliver a social benefit, rather than exercising
“functions of a public nature”
or providing public functions under contract on behalf of a public authority, as the Act says. It is important to maintain that distinction; I do not think the analogy is as simple as the second key question of the hon. Member for Hammersmith suggests.
If any Government were deemed to exercise too much control over private bodies, there would be a significant risk that they could be classified as public sector bodies. That would mean that, in this case, their private debt of about £70 billion would be added to the Government’s debt burden—the public’s debt burden. Housing associations would also be subject to public sector borrowing constraints, which would limit their ability to finance the development of new social and affordable homes. I note that housing associations deliver 93% of all new affordable homes, so it is not a small matter.
In terms of accountability, the vast majority of housing associations are voluntarily registered with the regulator of social housing and if they seek public funding, they must be registered and subject to that regime. That means that they have a duty to comply with the standards set by that regulator, including making information available to tenants about the running of the organisation. The key point is that last summer, the Government announced a review of social housing regulation that will look at how transparency and accountability for tenants can be further improved, including better access to landlord information.
As with every hon. Member, I add to the record my sympathy and personal anguish at the tragedy at Grenfell Tower. As the hon. Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) acknowledged, the inquiry is looking at some of the issues, including communications with residents, which specifically covers whether there was a formal system for recording concerns, what concerns were raised at the time or after the recent renovations, how and to whom any such concerns were expressed, and what was done in response.
Andy Slaughter
I gently say to the Minister that there are two weaknesses in her argument. First, disclosing information voluntarily, however laudable the aim or honestly done, is not the same as giving citizens the power to interrogate an organisation. Secondly, if the Minister is right—I think it was the policy of a previous Conservative Government to put the onus on housing associations, rather than councils, to deliver the lion’s share of social housing—and they are standing in the shoes of councils, there is all the more reason for them to be accountable in that way. If Scotland and other charities can do it, why does the Minister appear to envisage the risk of a housing association suddenly being classed as a public body, just because it is subject to FOI?
Chloe Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for those points and for the way he has put his arguments. I am simply saying that such issues should be considered through the review.
I am also grateful for the points added by the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard), to whom I wish a happy birthday. I add two points in relation to the situation in Scotland. First, we are looking to see the record that will develop there. As I understand it, the provisions have not yet come into force, so we will look at how effective they are in increasing transparency. Secondly, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh East mentioned, the Scottish Government laid the planning for the consultation on these matters in 2016 and began it in 2017, so it is not a short process. I would like to think that all hon. Members present recognise that the provisions of the 2000 Act mean that such things are not necessarily quick, simple or short. I will come on a little later to how the Act may be used to extend the scope, if desired.
On contractors—the other half of the case made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith—I remind hon. Members of the arguments made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office last year about why we as a Government use outsourcing. I say “we”, but successive Governments have used it. I will use his arguments as context in response to the contextual points that have been made today. As the hon. Member for City of Chester said, we may have philosophical differences, but this is why one would look at outsourcing as a benefit to the public.
As the Minister for the Cabinet Office said,
“you can have both good and bad in both the private and the public sectors”,
as we all know from what we get in our constituency mailbags every week. He continued to say that
“what matters is that the service works for the people who use it in their everyday needs”
and that it provides
“value for money for the taxpayer.”
It is the case that
“the private sector has a vital role to play in delivering public services,”
and the Government continue to support that position, as have successive Governments since at least the 1980s, as I said.
As my right hon. Friend said, outsourcing can deliver “economies of scale” that can mean greatly better value and lower costs for the taxpayer. It is also the case that
“open and fair competition…encourages creativity and innovation”
that simply would not otherwise come about. Again, that benefits the user of that public service. The private sector can also bring
“a range of specialist skills, world-class expertise and deeper knowledge to bear on what can be complex issues.”
His argument is really that the Government
“cannot do everything by itself”,
and should not, because
“It needs the…innovation that only a…marketplace of suppliers can provide.”
In another speech last year on the subject, my right hon. Friend made the argument that small businesses and the third sector have a great appetite for taking part in providing those public services, and for a good reason. In many ways, they are often “closest to our communities” and are
“in the best…position to deliver social value”
through those contracts. That is an important further argument to think about when we look at outsourcing.
Because the Government remain committed to supporting that position, we are sceptical about the introduction of additional reporting burdens on those small organisations. We think that it would weaken the resilience of the delivery for the taxpayer, reduce the value for money that the Government can deliver for the taxpayer, and affect the support that the Government can give indirectly to those jobs when we use such suppliers.
In respect of contractors, the Government have certainly considered how best to balance the competing interests of transparency and burdens. As I have said, we recognise the importance of transparency in how public money is spent, but we are concerned about a disproportionate burden, because we do not want to discourage smaller organisations from serving the public.
Andy Slaughter
I am listening to the Minister’s argument, but again, I thought I had dealt with that point in my speech. The majority of inquiries will be about the major contractors that take the lion’s share. I entirely take her point about small contractors, but my Bill would put the onus and the responsibility for the cost on the public authority to do that, so there is a way round it.
Chloe Smith
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification, and before I finish today I will talk briefly about that relationship between a contractor and the supplier, which is relevant to the proposal.
I will make one further general observation about the position of contractors; actually, I think the hon. Gentleman made it himself in his remarks. Of course, the Act exempts all organisations from providing information in certain ways, for example on grounds of commercial confidentiality. There are other exemptions as well. Extending freedom of information to another category of organisation does not necessarily change that fact, which is set out in the Act. I do not think the case can be made that extending freedom of information would have prevented supplier failure, of which some examples have been given this afternoon.
Let me move on to what is already done to provide information, because it is important to assess where we are working from. It is already policy for Departments to publish information during and after the awarding of a contract, with the exception of information that is commercially confidential, as I have said. That information includes a range of details. The Government’s model services contract includes clauses that reinforce that increased transparency.
The Government are now going even further and we will publish information about how our most important contracts are performing against their contractual targets. That will, of course, hold both Government and our suppliers to account. As well as increasing transparency for citizens to monitor outcomes, we think that this change will drive behaviour and improvements in delivery where they are needed. In addition, Departments are now required to publish their own commercial pipelines twice yearly, which is important to the public.
Since the Information Commissioner first published a report on this subject in 2015, the Government have introduced a range of measures to increase transparency. No doubt hon. Members have made use of the Contracts Finder website, where data can be found, and data.gov.uk, where details on spend can be found. In 2016, the transparency principles were also introduced, which make it clear to suppliers what information from bids will be released, and that any genuinely sensitive information should be highlighted with procuring Departments. That all ensures that citizens can see a clear public record of how Government money is spent on public contracts, and with what results.
I said I would turn to where information is held between the public authority and the contractor. Again, the Independent Commission on Freedom of Information looked at the issue of private contractors providing public services. First, it concluded that
“extending the Act directly to private companies…would be burdensome and unnecessary.”
However, it went on to say that
“information concerning the performance or delivery…should be treated as being held on behalf of the contracting public authority.”
Our amended freedom of information code of practice sets out that public authorities should agree what information is held on their behalf with private companies when entering into contracts, that those arrangements should be set out clearly and, indeed, that requests made to private companies providing public services should be passed to the relevant authority to answer. At present, therefore, the Government feel that the Freedom of Information Act strikes broadly the right balance.
Before I close, I will deal briefly with how the Act currently functions. Of course, the point has been made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith that secondary legislation is easy to use in this space. As he knows, orders can be made under section 5 of the Act, if it appears that particular bodies are exercising functions of a public nature; a number of other specifications are also made in that section. Such an order must be preceded by consultation with every person to whom it relates or with persons appearing to represent them.
I come back to the point that, although it may appear that section 5 orders are a straightforward and quick way to bring particular bodies into scope, the provisions in the legislation require consultation with all affected parties, and they further require a careful definition of what information that is held should fall within the Act. That is complex to do, and carries risks.
Adding to the scope of the Act through section 5 also requires a debate in both Houses. Some examples have been given of where these provisions have been used most recently, but I raise this matter to emphasise that the process is not necessarily a quick or straightforward one, and indeed that it is a virtue that such a process is set out in the Act already. Although the process is neither quick nor simple, it is the process that we should use to assess questions about scope.
To conclude, before obviously leaving time for the hon. Gentleman to sum up the debate, I say again that the Government are committed to the principles of transparency and openness across the public sector. We are proud of our reputation as a leader on data transparency. Indeed, we have evidence of that from one particular index that ranks the UK as eighth in the world for transparency, which is an important record. Transparency is crucial to deliver the public value for money, to assist taxpayers and to get the best services for citizens. However, proactive publication needs to be balanced with the other considerations that I hope I have set out for the Chamber today. The Freedom of Information Act is a very important tool in that box of transparency and the Government are absolutely committed to it. We want to see freedom of information used widely, but I hope that it has helped the Chamber today that I have set out some additional considerations in response to the hon. Gentleman’s arguments.
Andy Slaughter
I am grateful to all those who have attended and taken part in this debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) used some very good examples from his constituency, but he also exhibited his encyclopaedic knowledge of this subject and his long track record of pushing for freedom of information. I think that he and I feel that we may be getting somewhere at last.
I also thank the shadow Housing Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), for attending the first part of the debate. He did not speak because of his elevated status, but I know he has a particular interest in housing association issues and particularly the issues around Grenfell. I am grateful to him for his support.
I also thank the two Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons, my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson) and the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard, for their comments and associate myself with them.
The Minister, in her usual gracious way, put the Government’s argument as best she could, but it is wearing a little thin on these issues, as she conceded when saying, in response to my request for a fuller review, that there was the Burns commission. She quoted the matters relating to private contractors’ rights, but on the whole the Burns commission was sympathetic to the points that we are putting forward today. I hope that, when the response to the Information Commissioner’s report comes through, we may at last see some movement.
I remain hopeful, as always. I have noticed that there have been three private Members’ Bills in the past two years that would not perhaps have been expected to receive Government support: the Homelessness Reduction Act 2018; the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, which was put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck); and the equal civil partnerships Bill, which I believe is shortly to be enacted, once it has completed its stages in the House. Indeed, there are more recent examples of the Government taking over the Bills on upskirting and female genital mutilation. I am sure that that must be happening in so many cases because of the Government’s generosity and not because of their lack of a majority.
I therefore remain hopeful that—perhaps not in this Session and perhaps not even in the form of a Bill sponsored by me—a Bill of the kind that I have brought forward to extend freedom of information in the way that I have indicated will be achieved, and in the very near future.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered extending the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to housing associations and public contractors.
Rail Services: South-east London
(5 years, 8 months 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 David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered rail services in south-east London.
It is a particular pleasure to speak in this debate with you, Sir Henry, my long-term friend and colleague, in the Chair; it is a real privilege to do so.
I am grateful to be able to raise an extremely important issue that affects my borough of Bexley, and north-west Kent—indeed, it is a common problem across south-east London and north-west Kent—and that issue is rail services. I had hoped that I would not need to raise it again, but, unfortunately, improvements have not been forthcoming. It therefore remains a real concern for my constituents and for the constituents of my neighbours, who I am particularly pleased to see in their places: my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon), my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), and my neighbour and fellow campaigner for better rail services in Bexley, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Teresa Pearce).
My constituents, and residents across the borough of Bexley, are entirely dependent on Southeastern when travelling into central London to commute and to work, or for social or other reasons. However, that operator has a poor reputation in our area. Bexley has endured a terrible rail service, with delays and cancellations occurring regularly. In our area, we have no underground services that could be used as an alternative, so Southeastern has a monopoly, but it is failing its customers on a regular basis. Warm words and apologies will not suffice when action is required, although I apologise that I did not mention the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook); I had thought he was here for the previous debate, but it is great to see him as well, because we all suffer from this appalling rail service.
The 2018 rail passenger survey found that just 78% of commuters were satisfied with their journey—a 2% decrease from the previous year. A mere 39% thought they got value for money, which is 5% below the average for London and the south-east. Only 72% were satisfied with the punctuality and reliability of trains, which represented no improvement from the autumn of the previous year. That shows that Southeastern is not heading in the right direction. Trains are constantly delayed, even if only for a short time. Between 2010-11 and 2017-18, Southeastern achieved its right time measure for only 62% of its main line and metro services. I regularly travel to London from my home in Barnehurst, which is in my constituency, and we recently suffered as a consequence of the Barnehurst landslip. While I appreciate that these things occur and cannot be predicted, that was the fourth landslip along the same cutting in the past 10 years, which is totally unacceptable.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having secured this important debate. He is absolutely right: when a landslide last happened along that line, questions were asked in this House about surveying the infrastructure to ensure it would not happen again, yet it keeps happening.
Sir David Evennett
The hon. Gentleman is quite right. We have been ignored, which is unacceptable. Travellers have faced huge disruption, with little or no support from the operator, Southeastern.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having secured the debate. He, and every Member in this Chamber, is a veteran of the campaign to improve rail services for our constituents. Does he agree that one way to improve the reliability of the service would be for a decision to be made about the franchise, which seems to be a never-ending process? I understand that a decision needs to be made by April. The making of that decision is imperative, so that investment in future services for our constituents can be forthcoming.
Sir David Evennett
I totally agree with my hon. Friend, and I will be coming to that point later.
Network Rail, of course, is responsible for the tracks and for the problems that we have had with the landslip. I recently met with its route managing director, John Halsall, to discuss the situation, and he understood that it was unacceptable. There is nothing new in that; it is unacceptable.
Network Rail has regularly let down rail users, but it is not just that: Southeastern has been unable to act when contingency plans are required. It never seems to have them, and it does not provide information to our constituents about what is going on. It supposedly put extra trains on to the Erith and Sidcup line during the Barnehurst landslip, but many of us used that service when the Bexleyheath line was out of action, and when we got to Charing Cross or wherever, those trains were cancelled. The extra trains that Southeastern put on did not exist, so it is no good Southeastern saying that it is looking after the customer, because it most certainly is not.
As I have always said, Southeastern’s timetable is a work of fiction at the best of times; it was even more so on that occasion. The overcrowding, the cancellations and the distress caused to constituents who were trying to get home, pick up children from childcare, get to meetings or whatever were appalling.
Teresa Pearce (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
Southeastern is full to busting at the moment, and given all the new development in my patch and in the right hon. Gentleman’s patch, does he share my concern about how on earth Southeastern is going to manage when it cannot manage at the moment? Does he believe that those developments will increase the risk of critical failure, given that the system will be overworked?
Sir David Evennett
The hon. Lady makes a good point. Our area is ripe for further development, which is what we want. We want jobs, houses and opportunities, but we cannot have those without infrastructure. If the infrastructure cannot cope with that development, more problems are going to occur.
The Minister may be able to tell us different, but I believe no other rail network has had as many problems as ours. The excuses for delays and cancellations beggar belief: bad weather, leaves on the line, snow, low-level sunshine, overrunning road engineering works, and even drivers not turning up at Dartford because their taxi from Gravesend did not arrive on time. Southeastern could not run the train from Dartford because the driver did not turn up—it is really appalling. There have been breakdowns en route and doors that will not close—the list goes on and on. In my view, older rolling stock is the cause of some of these issues, not maintenance.
Many of my constituents have been appallingly disappointed that no decision has been made about the new franchise, as was mentioned earlier. That ought to have been in place by now, but we have just extended the existing franchise, which is one of the worst possible options that we could have chosen. If the operator cannot invest for the future, it is not going to do anything.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There have been two extensions to the franchise; the latest, I think, takes us up to 22 June. Does he agree that our constituents at least deserve to know pretty soon who the new operator will be, so they can have some confidence that, going forward, that new operator is going to improve the service?
Sir David Evennett
I totally agree with that. The sooner we know, the better, so the new operator can get cracking on what needs to be done to improve the service.
The new franchise contains some good proposals. Working more closely with Network Rail will be a great improvement, because I do not think the operator and Network Rail work together terribly well at the moment. We welcome the fact that there will be direct services from Bexleyheath to Abbey Wood, tougher demands for reliability and more frequent services to Charing Cross. However, with no decision having been made and no action, we suffer more and more, and our constituents have had enough. I know that the Minister is relatively new to his post, but I have a high opinion of him, and he is well respected across the House. I hope he will take some action within his Department.
Teresa Pearce
On the point about the new franchise, commuters in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency and in mine have journeys that are meant to be about 30 to 40 minutes, but Delay Repay kicks in only if people are 30 minutes late. Under the new franchise, it will kick in if they are 15 minutes late. Does he agree that as Southeastern has opted to bid for the new franchise, it should bring in that change now?
Sir David Evennett
That would show good faith to the public, who are suffering from that situation now, would it not? I totally agree with the hon. Lady, and I hope that a 15-minute Delay Repay policy will motivate whoever holds the new franchise to operate a better service.
As the Minister will know, we have been blighted by endless signal failures at Lewisham, which again have caused misery, delays and cancellations. Sometimes, once those signals start to go wrong, they go wrong all through the day—it is unbelievable. We have already suffered from the London Bridge development, which caused considerable distress and disappointment. I understand from Network Rail that it is going to fix the signalling problems at Lewisham; it is going to start this Easter and finish next Easter, in 12 months’ time. Do we have to continue to suffer over the next year? Frankly, that is not acceptable.
There is also the problem of Crossrail. We were hopeful that Crossrail from Abbey Wood would give us an alternative and be part of what we need, but, regrettably, that has been delayed. It should have happened last December, but we do not yet have a date for when it is expected to be operational. That is a huge disappointment for our constituents. I know that it is not the Minister’s responsibility, but that of Transport for London and the London Mayor, but he should put more pressure on to get a date, at least, for when it will start. We have no date.
The other thing I want to raise is something we have been campaigning for. Originally, Crossrail was not going to stop at Abbey Wood, but would go to Ebbsfleet, and we are really keen to see that happen. We have had meetings with the Secretary of State. He came down, along with the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead and me, to have a look at what could be done and to have discussions with the council. An extension there would be so welcome. Other parts of the capital have Crossrail going out much further. We, who do not have an underground and have a poor rail service, have been put on the back-burner.
Gareth Johnson
My right hon. Friend mentioned Ebbsfleet. Does he agree that this is not so much about an extension out to Ebbsfleet as it is about completing the project as originally envisaged? We have High Speed 1 there, but it is increasingly overcrowded for my constituents who use it. Having Crossrail go out to Ebbsfleet as originally planned is exactly what the Government’s policy should still be today.
Sir David Evennett
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Solutions are what are needed. I therefore hope that the Crossrail to Ebbsfleet campaign proposals will go forward to a full business case, allowing for a detailed engineering design, land and financial modelling, and a legal framework to be progressed, because then we could get the plan on the books to look at it. Extending Crossrail is not just for commuters; it would allow a redevelopment of our area for jobs and houses eastwards along the south Thames.
Clive Efford
The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. I agree with absolutely everything he is saying about transport infrastructure. He has already referred to this, but I want to underline the fact that south-east London is a desert when it comes to infrastructure. If the rail service breaks down, we have no alternative. There is no direct access to the underground for those who are slightly away from the river. That is a real problem for south-east London and it needs to be addressed.
Sir David Evennett
I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the Minister will look seriously at other alternatives we could also have, such as going into Thamesmead or wherever with the docklands light railway or something. That could help not only our regeneration, but the existing population who live there and need to commute.
I will not go into all the benefits that an extension of Crossrail to Ebbsfleet would bring, other than that it would help to deliver the Government’s housing and industrial strategies, directly unlocking 55,000 homes and 50,000 jobs, as well as supporting thousands more across the sub-region. It would also deliver a vital strategic link between HS1 destinations, Canary Wharf and London City airport, and onwards to the City of London and Heathrow. With our roads so congested in south-east London, it would be a godsend to travellers and commuters. The Department has certainly procrastinated a bit on this matter and we need some action.
The Thames gateway has huge potential for economic growth and development. It has huge opportunities for the development of brownfield sites, yet connectivity is significantly holding things back. In pushing forward the original plans, we would have a unique opportunity to transform our area. When the Secretary of State visited Bexley, we highlighted the problems with our existing rail service, the problems with there being no decision on the franchise, the problems with Crossrail and the problem that when things break down, we are in difficulty.
We need the new franchise. We need Crossrail to open. We need the finance to pursue the business case for the Crossrail to Ebbsfleet campaign. I hope the Minister will respond positively.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks wants to say a couple of words, if that is acceptable, Sir Henry. He has a slightly different perspective, being somewhat further out into Kent. We are suburban south-east London and Dartford, and we are a little region.
It is a privilege to be able to raise these matters on behalf of my constituents and my borough, and neighbouring boroughs and constituents. Their Members of Parliament have worked tirelessly together, across parties, to get things done and to improve the facilities and services for our constituents.
Sir Henry Bellingham (in the Chair)
We have just heard a superb example of how to present a Westminster Hall debate. With the permission of the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) and the Minister, I call the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) to make a brief contribution.
Sir Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I am most grateful to you, Sir Henry. I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) on securing this important debate. Others may want to contribute, and we want to hear from the Minister, so I hope in two minutes to cover three points very briefly.
First, in recent years we have had fare increases that are too high, but they are also unfairly constructed. For Harlow and Sevenoaks, the cost of a weekly season ticket is over 15% of average weekly earnings. There is no reason why that should be the case there when the cost is less than 11% in Brentwood, Barking and Reigate. We need to look again at the fare structure and ensure some reasonable level of equity for our respective commuters.
Secondly, I hope the Minister will be able to dispel the rumours circulating about the franchise and say that it will not in fact be delayed again. There are even darker rumours about the faster service from Maidstone East stopping at Otford and Swanley, after already being postponed for a year. Will that still go ahead this December?
Finally, there is the whole issue of accountability. We learned during the timetable chaos of last May, as we pursued the two train operators—Southeastern and Thameslink —Network Rail and Ministers in the Department, that overall no one was actually in charge. As we look at implementing the Williams review when it comes up with its findings, we need to move to a better system where it is clear to all of us who is in charge.
I believe that our commuters deserve better. They are suffering from ever higher fares every January and unnecessarily complex fare structures. They need services that are more reliable and more fairly priced. Above all, they need a railway system that is properly accountable.
Sir Henry Bellingham (in the Chair)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his brevity.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Andrew Jones)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I, too, congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) on securing this important debate. Many important issues have been raised, and I will be scampering through trying to answer all the comments from colleagues, including on the landslip that my right hon. Friend raised with me before the debate, as he is a vigorous champion for his constituency. I will also talk about the infrastructure works, Southeastern’s performance, Crossrail and Ebbsfleet.
I will start with the landslip at Barnehurst. Landslips cause significant delays and cancellations, as trains obviously have no real capacity to deal with any kind of small obstacle. If there is debris on the track after a landslip, Network Rail will often need to re-route services to enable the landslip to be cleared and the infrastructure to be checked to ensure that it is safe and operational. There are always concerns, even after a small landslip, that the slope may be permanently weakened. Some of the slopes, or cuttings, on the side of the tracks may need to be strengthened as a result. That may include improved drainage or adding stronger materials to the slope, such as steel rods or soil nails, and that work can take some time.
The landslip at Barnehurst took place on 11 February and the service was not fully reopened until the following week on Monday 18 February. That was a significant inconvenience for the travelling public in the area, but work has been done to mitigate future landslips. I know that it has been a regular problem in the area, and to help to prevent further landslips Network Rail has installed remote sensors and cameras that send its monitoring headquarters regular information, including visual information, about the condition of the cutting.
While removing the debris and the slope, Network Rail has taken the opportunity to put in place some further mitigation. It has taken away 300 tonnes of earth and trees, and built a 30-metre retaining wall with steel beams piled six metres into the ground to stop another landslip. Network Rail has also removed and replenished the contaminated ballast, and tested all the signalling. If any slips occur again in the area, the wall that has been erected should prevent any further disruption to the line.
I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford met representatives of Network Rail to discuss the issue, and that they have explained to him what is going on. That work includes geotechnical surveys to understand the cause, not just to deal with the symptoms. Network Rail also plans to carry out more intensive remediation work at the site over the next two years. That underpins the wider investment that is being put into the south-east through a Network Rail funding settlement for the next five years. That will allow for a significant increase in expenditure on maintenance and renewals, all of which is designed to reduce the frequency of serious incidents and to provide a more reliable service. That underpins the comments we heard from Members across the Chamber.
I note the clear concerns about Southeastern’s performance in the recent passenger survey. I fully understand, and strongly agree, that passengers want a timetable that they can rely on. Their days and working careers are built around predictable structures, and timetables matter. The May 2018 timetable changes caused some unacceptable disruption, but important lessons were learned and implemented. The December timetable change was introduced successfully. The industry has significantly reduced the timetable changes to minimise the risk of severe disruption, and has introduced a phased, more gradual approach to enhancements.
Many changes were focused on improving performance and reliability for passengers. It might be of interest that in the next control period, starting only next month, we will introduce a new “on time” performance measure to assess the reliability of every journey. That will provide greater transparency about performance at every station along the route, not just whether trains reach their final destination on time. It is part of a much wider commitment by the industry, and by Government, to provide a rail service on which passengers can rely.
If train operating companies are unreliable, we must hold them to account. We have worked closely with consumer groups and the industry to create an independent rail ombudsman. That scheme is free, easily accessible and simple to use. It is designed to be a one-stop shop for passengers on issues to do with complaints handling, customer service and compensation. Of course, we want to get to a place where we do not have to worry about compensation; we just want the trains to be on time, every time. That is the purpose of our investment.
Matthew Pennycook
As the right hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) mentioned, rolling stock is key to reliability. The rolling stock on this line is, I think, 25 years old or more. Is the Department working with the operator to introduce new rolling stock in the near future?
Andrew Jones
I am coming on to the next franchise, but I should point out that we are seeing a fantastic change to the rolling stock right across our nation. We are going through a change that is equivalent to when we went from steam to diesel, with about 7,000 new vehicles entering service across our nation.
There were clear concerns about Southeastern’s performance. It has been improving recently and remains stable. Cancellations are reducing. A key change has been the improved collaboration between Southeastern and Network Rail. The latest statistics on the public performance measure indicate that 88.1% of services arrive at their final destination within five minutes of the planned arrival time. Today, it is 96%—I checked just before coming into the Chamber. However, we recognise that there is much to do, and we want the trains to be on time every time.
The issue of Lewisham signalling was raised, which is a significant piece of work. More than £130 million-worth of work will take place between now and Easter 2020. This Easter, £55 million will be invested in the Lewisham, Woolwich and Charlton area. In Easter 2020, £81 million will be invested in the Hither Green area. All of that will upgrade the signalling to provide a more robust service.
I cannot announce to the House when a decision will be made on the next franchise. The current franchise was extended in December, and the agreement will now expire, as was said, on 23 June. We are still in the process of evaluating the agreement for the next franchise. It has taken longer than anticipated because we want to ensure that passengers get the best possible deal. The invitation to tender is expected to bring some significant benefits in the new franchise, including longer trains, more space for passengers, increased availability of staff and improved communication with passengers, especially during periods of disruption. A comment regularly made whenever there is disruption is, “Just tell us what’s going on.” That is the voice of passengers, and it has not been as strong as it should have been.
Gareth Johnson
As the Minister will know, I was very pleased to have the Oyster card extended to Dartford. Does he agree that the provision of smart ticketing must be included within any new franchise agreement?
Andrew Jones
I strongly support smart ticketing, and it will be in the next south-eastern franchise. It is popular with customers, and helps them with the convenience of their journey, though it is tough to deliver. We have also had requests regarding Delay Repay compensation. The next south-eastern franchise will include Delay Repay compensation kicking in from 15 minutes of delay. Alongside that we will see new services on Sundays, and wi-fi and mobile connectivity. I am keen to bring that significant range of customer benefits to the constituents whom the Members present serve as soon as possible. I have heard what has been said about the urgency of delivering it, and I will update the House as soon as we can.
I share both the excitement about the scale of Crossrail and what it will deliver for the country and the frustration that it will not be delivered on time. The Crossrail board decided to delay the opening on 29 August last year, and informed the Government of that. We do not yet have a new date for the opening. I have met representatives of Crossrail to press the case. I want to see the scheme out there as fast as possible. It will increase capacity and rail transport in London by 10%, and bring an extra 1.5 million people within 45 commuting minutes of London’s key business districts.
On extending Crossrail or, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) said, completing it, I am instinctively sympathetic to the idea that transport investment is a driver of economic growth. It unlocks potential for commercial and residential opportunity. I fully understand the strategic importance—not just in the areas represented by the Members present, but nationally—of the potential of the Thames estuary. A strategic outline business case has been submitted to the Department, looking at options to extend Crossrail to Ebbsfleet. We are considering those proposals and will respond to the promoters in due course. I cannot give a date yet, but I recognise the urgency.
I will look at the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Sir Michael Fallon) regarding fares. The Government want to help people to keep more of their own money. That is why we have increased the personal allowance, and why we are in our sixth year of freezing the regulated fares, or capping them so that they can increase only in line with inflation. However, I will look at the specific points mentioned. I will also look at the point about Maidstone. We are certainly committed to improving regular services between Maidstone and the City as soon as possible, and we are working very closely with the industry to finalise plans for the remaining stages of the Thameslink timetable. That work includes future services from Maidstone East.
I fully recognise the importance of rail to the constituents served by colleagues present. Work is taking place to strengthen the area around the Barnehurst landslip, and we are working to bring the matter of the franchise to a conclusion as quickly as possible, so that people know where they stand and the travelling public receive the benefits. I thank right hon. and hon. Members for their contributions. I hope to leave the travelling public watching the debate with the clear impression that we are working to give them the rail service that they deserve.
Question put and agreed to.
Kurdistan Region in Iraq
(5 years, 8 months 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
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered bilateral relations with the Kurdistan region in Iraq.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. It has been nearly two years since our last debate on bilateral relations with the Kurdistan region of Iraq. The political context has changed dramatically and is now improving quickly for the Kurds and for Iraq more widely.
When we last debated this matter, we were weeks away from a referendum on the principle of eventual and negotiated independence from Iraq. I supported the referendum, whereas the all-party parliamentary group for the Kurdistan region in Iraq, which I chair, broadly took a neutral position but supported the Iraqi Kurds’ right to self-determination. The APPG sent observers to the referendum, including the former UK security envoy, Sir Simon Mayall, who disagreed with the referendum. We observed it in Irbil, Kirkuk and Slemani on 25 September 2017. It was clearly a joyous and colourful day, and the result was also clear: a 93% vote for independence on a 72% turnout.
Nothing changed much on 26 September, the day after the referendum, and the Kurds hope to keep negotiating with Baghdad—maybe not for full statehood, but for confederation or genuine federalism. The referendum was a reaction to the failure of federalism and the feeling that the Kurds could no longer rely on Baghdad, which had grown increasingly hostile to them. After the referendum, Baghdad quickly realised these fears by blockading the airports for six months and issuing punitive diktats to stop international money transfers. Worse than that was its use of the army to seize Kirkuk—that violated the constitution, which bars the use of the military to settle internal conflicts. Some 100 peshmerga were crushed to death by Iraqi army tanks and Iranian proxy militia, using the same tanks that were sent there to help deliver the defeat of Daesh.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and I am following his speech with great interest. Given the fact that if it had not been for the Kurds, Daesh would have been all over Iraq, does he agree that the reaction of the Iraqi Government was even more extraordinary? When the Iraqi army was in full flight, it was only the Kurds who prevented Kirkuk from being taken by Daesh, and they also saved Irbil. Without the Kurds, Daesh would probably still be in control of Iraq.
Jack Lopresti
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the Kurdish peshmerga saved Iraq. When the Iraqi army dumped its weapons and ran, the peshmerga took up arms and helped contain Daesh. They were then instrumental in pushing them back. I will come on to that later in my remarks.
As my hon. Friend just said, Kirkuk had been saved by the peshmerga in 2014, but Kirkuk turned against the Kurds after the referendum. Their language was banned and their flag torn down, and Shi’a militia displayed photos of Ayatollah Khomeini in the governor’s office where we met Najmaldin Karim, who only just escaped with his life thanks to an American tip-off. Arson, rape, murder and extortion fuelled a mass exodus of Kurds from Kirkuk, and the situation there is not yet back to how it was in the past. I ask the Minister to make it clear that Kirkuk and other territories are still disputed and should be subject to article 140 of the 2005 Iraqi constitution, which promised resolution of the Kurds’ final status by 2007. I ask the Minister to encourage the UN mission in Iraq to make that a much bigger priority.
The Iraqi forces then sought to invade the Kurdistan region but were repulsed at several battles. France, Germany and the Holy See broke the diplomatic blockade by sending an invitation to the Prime Minister of the Kurdistan Regional Government, Nechirvan Barzani, who was able to transit via the land border—obviously the airports were out of use. Thankfully Baghdad backed down, and the KRG has parked the referendum result for now. I put on record that whatever the tactical or strategic wisdom of the referendum, I am disgusted by Baghdad’s violence, which was carried out, ironically, in the name of upholding a constitution that it had flouted. Its opening article states that Iraq is a “voluntary union”.
Fortunately, the supposed strongman in Baghdad, Haider al-Abadi, lost the premiership. His successor, Adel Abdul Mahdi, who once fought alongside the peshmerga, seems to be a much more reasonable character. A host of positive measures have now been agreed. Stranded oil in Kirkuk will eventually be piped via Kurdistan, and there seems to be a deal in the offing that finds a third way between total Kurdistani or Iraqi control of Kurdistani oil. Some will be sold by Baghdad in return for guaranteed salary payments to KRG civil servants and peshmerga, and some will be sold by the KRG. Internal customs posts are being demolished, which means that Shi’a militia can no longer extort duties and that Kurdistan can again become a dynamic gateway from the world to Iraq.
I think that is a positive and a potentially win-win position for all sides. Baghdad and Irbil are finding myriad ways to rebuild their relations, and we can do much more to make a strong KRG within a unified and fully federal Iraq. The Kurds might one day seek independence, as is their right, but not for now and perhaps not for a very long time.
The Minister will know that the UK is highly respected in Kurdistan. Many political leaders hold British passports, English is the second language and there is a strong Kurdish diaspora here in the UK. Four Kurdish universities teach only in English, and our active consul-general, Martin Warr, ably flies the flag and looks after and promotes our interests there. I praise the work of the British Council.
The UK Government are assisting the KRG’s reform programme by encouraging a modern Finance Ministry and the professionalisation of the peshmerga. I pay particular tribute to our servicemen and women at the Zorbash base in Irbil for their work. I visited their camp on two or three occasions and have always been impressed by their professionalism and what they are doing to help train the peshmerga in things like counter-improvised explosive device measures and how to train their own troops and keep a cohesive military force.
Michael Tomlinson (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (Con)
I was with my hon. Friend on the APPG’s delegation. I congratulate him on securing this debate and on leading that successful delegation. We were there to monitor the referendum, but, as he said, we also had an opportunity to visit the Mercian Regiment, which was working alongside the peshmerga. Does he agree that that is another strong link between this country and the Kurdistan region in Iraq, and that it was a delight to see our troops working so hard, side by side with the peshmerga?
Jack Lopresti
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was an honour and a privilege to see our people making such a contribution there by training the peshmerga in vital skills such as counter-IED measures, the conduct of war and the cohesion of a modern military unit. It was inspiring to see our forces and theirs working so closely together.
I am pleased to honour the sacrifice of the peshmerga, who lost 2,000 soldiers and had 10,000 injured in defending themselves—they were our frontline against the monsters and fascists of Daesh. We owe them a massive debt of gratitude and respect, and their efforts will never be forgotten. From my four visits to Kurdistan, I can say that it is a hospitable, beautiful and relatively safe place. They have significantly advanced women’s rights: nearly 40% of their MPs are women, which is a higher proportion than in Iraq and the UK. Christians, other religious minorities and ethnic minorities are respected.
The Kurdish Parliament has asked British MPs to help train its MPs in order to make it a more accessible institution and to instruct them on how better to hold the Executive to account. However, Kurdistan needs further and faster economic and political reform to take advantage of its better relations with Baghdad and its central position in the middle east. The peshmerga should be a single-state force. No political party should control security or have armed militia. The oil-dominated and state-centred economy should be diversified, and more efforts should be made to build a strong private sector so that economic pluralism underpins political pluralism and the agricultural, tourist and light-industry sectors are strengthened. We can help with that. I hope the Minister will reiterate the Government’s position on favouring direct flights, and thereby encouraging a commercial carrier service to establish such routes. That would send a very strong signal indeed that Kurdistan is open for business, and would fortify our good relations.
Will the Minister look at amending the Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advice, which currently says that people should visit Kurdistan only for essential purposes? That raises insurance costs and presents liability issues to British companies and institutions that want to operate there. With new advice, it would, for instance, be easier for British universities to set up campuses with accredited UK degrees, which are in demand and can improve the quality of higher education there.
British companies also need to invite Kurds here for training, but as the Minister knows, there is a very high visa rejection rate—over 70%, often for what seem to be spurious reasons. That does us great harm and hinders our ongoing relationship. Of course we need to control our borders, but we could do that better by reinstating interviews so minor details can be ironed out. We should allow our Ministers and diplomats to exercise their discretion in our national interest. Trade and investment will be much more important after we have left the European Union, so we need to put Kurdistan back on the map. I suggest that she encourage an official trade mission.
We are honoured that the Kurdish Parliament has decided to set up an all-party group for the very first time, and that it will be on the UK. Kurdistan could be a hub for companies that want to help rebuild Mosul, as their personnel could be placed in relative safety in Irbil or Dohuk. We already have a small military base in Kurdistan, which is doing fantastic work, but I ask the Minister to consider the possibility of expanding our military presence there more permanently.
I welcome the Bishop of Truro’s review, and suggest that the Minister and the Foreign Secretary examine the good treatment of Christians and other religious minorities, including the Yazidis, in Kurdistan. I encourage them both to go there.
There is still some unfinished business. My very good friend, Karwan Jamal Tahir, who is in the Public Gallery, said only yesterday in an email:
“Four years have passed since the crimes of genocide committed against Yazidis but as yet we have seen no justice for the victims and survivors, despite many efforts made internally and internationally. The KRG highly values all the efforts made to recognise these acts as genocide, we acknowledge that British public opinion, MPs, Lords are all asking for justice and prosecution of the perpetrators. The KRG thinks that, if previously there was no international basis for the trial, well now—there is an international and legal base in place—and that is UN resolution 2379 to collect the evidence and bring the perpetrators to justice. The KRG highly value and appreciate the British Government in initiating this resolution, lobbying to get it passed and dedicating budget for it.”
The UK took the lead at the UN, but there has been slow progress in bringing the Daesh perpetrators to justice, so further action is required. Does the Minister agree that, given that the KRG has collected evidence, we should consider an international tribunal? I also ask the Minister to make plans for an official visit of the KRG President and Prime Minister. I hope that, in the very near future, they will meet our Prime Minister.
I am very pleased about the new state of relations with Baghdad. I ask the Minister to keep encouraging that and the full implementation of the Iraqi constitution. None of the all-party group’s requests are about trying to encourage statehood. That is and has to be a matter for the Kurds. Next week, we are organising a unique briefing with the Minister, the Iraqi ambassador and the KRG high representative. I do not know whether I made it clear at the beginning of my remarks that I chair the all-party group for the Kurdistan region of Iraq. I draw Members’ attention to that.
March is a month of many memories for the Kurds. Yesterday marked the beginning of the 1991 uprising against Saddam Hussein. We protected them thanks to public outrage and the actions of John Major and our RAF through the no-fly zone. Another anniversary is 16 March 1988, when Saddam Hussein used chemical weapons against the civilians of Halabja, killing 5,000 men, women and children in an instant and injuring 10,000 more, as part of his appalling genocide, which the Commons officially recognised in 2013.
As 21 March is the Kurdish new year, Newroz, the Minister can give the Kurds an early new year greeting by making progress on the points I have raised, and building a better, bigger bilateral relationship with a pivotal autonomous region that is our friend and ally in defeating extremism and helping make the middle east safer and more pluralistic. The Kurds in Iraq keep surviving and thriving, but could do so much better with a bigger, deeper bilateral relationship with the United Kingdom.
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I congratulate the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) on securing this important debate. He is the excellent chair of the all-party group for the Kurdistan region of Iraq, of which I am pleased to be a member. Although I have not visited the region yet, it has been an honour to meet representatives of the Kurdistan Regional Government, MPs and others from Kurdistan through my involvement with the group. It has been enlightening and valuable to learn about the region and its past struggles, and particularly about its pro-western values, its immense religious tolerance, which is unique in the middle east, and its role as the primary force in defeating Daesh.
I want to focus on early-day motion 2122, which I tabled last week, on establishing direct flights between the UK and the Kurdistan region. It focuses on an issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised and which has been pursued by the all-party group with Ministers over a number of years. We tabled it following the news that the KRG high representative to the UK, Karwan Jamal Tahir, recently met representatives of British Airways, which is considering establishing direct flights to Irbil from Heathrow from next summer.
As things stand, there is no choice but to travel via a third country. I am sure hon. Members agree that there is no incentive for companies from the UK or from across the Atlantic to explore the business opportunities that are available, especially as the region’s economy improves due to the increased stability between the Kurdistan region and Baghdad, if there is no opportunity to fly there directly. I know from my airport, Newcastle International, about the importance of seeking new markets, particularly after Brexit. Connectivity is a primary factor for businesses, as it enables them to trade abroad.
A survey has deemed Irbil the fifth safest city in the world, and direct flights would surely encourage more tourism to that beautiful region, which has a wealth of cultural history. A lift in tourism would strengthen the region’s economy and help to diversify it away from reliance on oil reserves. I am quite able to fly to Chicago—the most dangerous city in the whole world, in terms of murders—to visit my daughter, but not to a safer country. We should perhaps bear that in mind when considering where is safe for people in the UK to go.
Mr Hollobone
I am listening to the hon. Lady’s speech with great interest—she makes a powerful point. Is she aware that Kurdistan attracts 2 million visitors per year for its tourism industry? Although it has a well-established tourism industry, very few of those tourists are westerners. Given that 95% of the economy is dependent on oil, she is absolutely right about the urgent need to diversify.
Mary Glindon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for emphasising that particular point. I think it adds fuel to the fire of why we want that situation to change.
The prospect of enhanced business connections and increased tourist travel depends on whether the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will consider revising its travel advice to UK travellers. At present, the advice means that UK travellers have to buy extra travel insurance, on top of their ordinary annual global insurance, to travel to Kurdistan. That sends out completely the wrong message to would-be travellers, who might question why they have to go for that extra insurance, and perhaps suggests to them that there might be more safety problems than there actually are. We do not want to deter would-be travellers from visiting that beautiful country.
Although the Government have to be cautious and do all they can to ensure the safety of all UK citizens, wherever we may be or are travelling to, in the light of the increased stability in the region—the hon Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke referred to it—which boasts English as its second language, I hope that the Minister will tell us that her Department will give serious and urgent consideration to revising advice for travel to Kurdistan, and that many more people will be able to enjoy all the delights that that wonderful region in Iraq has to offer.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) for his speech introducing the debate.
I want move away from the areas that my hon. Friend covered to look at some of the capacity-building and humanitarian aid issues that occur in the country. If one thinks back, only a few years ago the humanitarian aid made available to Kurdistan was not reaching its target by around 63%. The UN could manage only 37% of its aid fund target. We have to ask why, and maybe the Minister will be kind enough to give a take on that.
It is crucial, in the light of the history of warfare with Daesh and the huge number of people who have been caught up in it, that the humanitarian aid for the crisis is more prevalent there than in other regions. The area’s need for humanitarian assistance is much greater and we should therefore mention that there is and has been a major short-term funding gap in the provision of humanitarian aid for the country. That need for humanitarian aid is not finished—it is still growing because of the result of the conflict; the aid needs to be predictable; and improvements need to be seen and appreciated on the ground.
A number of things are putting enormous pressure on the provision of that humanitarian aid, one of which is the mass movement of people. Where there is a mass movement of people, there will always be a need for more humanitarian aid. As to a country where there is such need for that aid, it is difficult to talk of the need for capacity building, but I will mention five points in no particular order. They are not ordered by priority, but are just my thoughts on a number of issues.
First, I want to stress the need for capacity building in the provision of gender equality. There are two aspects to gender equality: the provision of humanitarian aid and the way women and girls have been treated as a result of the prevalence of Daesh in the area for so long. The number of vulnerable women is quite large, and they are vulnerable whether or not they are the female heads of their households. There is an enormous risk of gender-based violence and there have been absolutely horrific reports of sexual and gender-based violence throughout the region.
We need to concentrate on a number of things to improve women’s ability to survive and function in that society. A larger point on that, as we look to build an area with a great deal of capacity in future, is to ensure that women can use their skills to the best of their ability and that they play a full role, whether in politics, the economy or whatever it may be. We need to make sure that there is a tremendous amount of activity on that.
My second point on capacity building, which may seem a little strange in that these aspects are chalk and cheese, relates to cultural heritage. The UK has an enormous capacity in archaeological and cultural artefacts. In fact, I must admit that I am a product of that, having spent most of my early years as an archaeologist. I am not volunteering to go out to Kurdistan to provide the information and the training that people need, but I think we should make use of the skills that we have in the UK to deal with the tremendous trashing of cultural heritage in that region. One has only to look at the activities of Daesh there to see the effect it has on many people.
The third area is education, which my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke mentioned in the context of further education. We should be building capacity not just in further education, but in education throughout the lives of young people in the area. We should not necessarily concentrate solely on academic education, but we need to provide the skills that people need to ensure that the programmes of placements can be improved enormously—I have seen in other parts of the world how our concentration on education can achieve enormous results.
The fourth area is in the medical field. We have already heard that 10,000 people were injured in Kurdistan, and they need treatment. We need hospitals and qualified doctors to be able to provide that, and I think that a tremendous amount of capacity building could take place there to improve that situation.
The last point that I will raise, which encompasses all those things, is about dealing with corruption. I have a lot of experience of dealing with corruption—I am the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Nigeria, after all. The way corruption is dealt with needs to be tackled and made specific to each country. Corruption is not corruption is not corruption is a much broader picture there. Where there are not effective institutions that can function properly, there will always be a risk of corruption. Corruption is corrosive on everyone. It needs to be tackled head on.
Those are the five areas that I would recommend that the Department for International Trade and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office concentrate on. That does not take away the need for humanitarian aid, but those are the areas we need to concentrate on next as we develop.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
It is always a pleasure and a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) on introducing the debate. My first contact with Iraqi Kurdistan was in 2010, when I received a telephone call from the then Chief Whip of my party, asking me whether I would be willing to fly via Vienna—no direct flights even then—to Irbil in order to speak to the Kurdistan regional Parliament about the importance of opposition parties. That was a good introduction to being in opposition in 2010, which was fairly new to us after 13 years in government. I had been to Iraq once before, in 1980, but I had never been to the north, to Irbil.
As the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke said, what a surprise it was to arrive in a region of a middle eastern Arab country that I had visited so long ago—it was quite progressive in 1980 and went downhill after that—and to see the progress being made. What a surprise to see how that Parliament was developing, and to see the Kurdish values that I already know from my constituency, where we have a small but substantial population of Kurdish refugees in the city of Leeds, who sadly are now increasing. I saw for myself what was going on, and it felt like a separate nation. It felt like a region that was going to secede from the Republic of Iraq any time soon, because the values seemed so different. We were told that a visa was needed to go from Baghdad to Irbil at that time.
I was fortunate to go back to Irbil and Slemani just a year later with the all-party parliamentary group, under the leadership of the hon. Gentleman’s predecessor, and with the secretary, Gary Kent, who knows the region and the country very well. During that visit we learnt more about the Anfal—the terrible slaughter of Kurds because they were Kurds under Saddam’s presidency. We learnt what the Halabja gas attack really meant for men, women and children. We heard more about that in a conference two or three years ago in London on the anniversary of the 1988 atrocity. The Labour, coalition and Conservative Governments have since learned—we have agreed—that was genocide.
There is no doubt that the violence by the then leadership of Iraq was aimed at the Kurds. The Kurds always seem to attract the wrath of the regimes in the region. Let us look at what is happening in Turkey—nothing like what happened in Iraq, but quite a lot of oppression—and in Syria and Iran. But it is in Iraq that there has been the only regional autonomy, until the referendum—as the hon. Gentleman so clearly stated, until the disgusting attack and oppression by the Iraqi army in Kurdistan. We were all shocked by that violence. I was in regular contact with Gary Kent at the time.
The Opposition believe in people’s right to self-determination, in whatever part of the world. I know the Minister will emphasise that too. If they have cultural integrity, linguistic individuality and cultural separateness, no matter the religion, they have the right to self-determination, to decide for themselves what their future as a nation should and could be.
In talking to the families of the victims of the Anfal in 2011, I was struck by the comparison they made to the holocaust of the Jewish people in the second world war. I come from a Jewish background—it meant a lot to me; it meant a lot to me. My family died in the holocaust and in the concentration camps. To hear people of the Muslim faith, who are Kurds, talk about their empathy with the Jewish people and the state of Israel was a revelation. One MP said to me, “You know, if Israel opens an embassy in Baghdad tomorrow”—unlikely, but perhaps more likely today than it was seven or eight years ago—“they will open one the next day in Irbil. We would welcome an Israeli presence here.” I had never heard anybody in the region say that before, and I was struck by it.
When we drove from Slemani on that road route back to Irbil, I took a number of photographs—we were delayed by a whole load of sheep crossing the road. I was struck by the similarity of the countryside to my native Yorkshire, which I have represented for 22 years. When I showed the photograph to my wife, she asked if it was Ilkley moor. I replied, “No, this is an area you won’t visit. This is Slemani to Irbil.” She was as shocked as everyone else.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising such an important issue. He said that the Kurds could no longer rely on Baghdad. He pointed to the army seizing Kirkuk after that referendum was crushed. He talked, most importantly of all, of the Kurdish peshmerga saving Iraq. The Opposition would certainly concur with that. They contained Daesh through their bravery and extraordinary organisation. Their army contains men and women—something unseen and unheard of in the region.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mary Glindon), who has considerable experience of Iraqi Kurdistan and Iraqi Kurdistan and the Kurdish cause, talked about the direct flights issue. Anyone who has been to Irbil knows what a struggle it is to have to change in Vienna, or whichever third country, but it is much more important than that. If they are going to develop tourism, as she said, there must be direct flights. The contrast with Chicago was a brilliant one, because I got that feeling too. I am sure every other right hon. and hon. Member who has been to Irbil, and had the pleasure of seeing school children in Slemani dancing the local dance and of listening to the music of the region, will know that it is a safer, more accommodating and more welcoming city than Chicago or many other American cities. They will have felt safer and not vulnerable, and that nobody was out to attack them. That is very important to the development of business and communities, and to economic development in general.
The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) talked about the need for humanitarian assistance. We should never forget how important that is; that need may well still be growing, as he indicated. Gender inequality and the risk of gender-based violence is something we need always to be aware of and to combat.
Between 1986 and 1989, about 180,000 people—the numbers are disputed—perished in the Anfal. The UK supported the creation of the Iraqi constitution after the invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Kurdistan Regional Government were formalised in the present constitution of Iraq in 2005. The UK has given military and financial assistance to the peshmerga, especially during the ISIS surge. I hate to quote him, but the former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), stated that
“we owe a great debt to the Peshmerga for their bravery and sacrifice. What they are doing is on behalf of all of us.”
That is perhaps one of the few things I have agreed with him about over the years.
Governments of all colours have agreed that it is important to have a strong Kurdistan region of Iraq, within a strong, successful, unified Iraq. We know that would ensure stability in the country and the whole region, which is why we are so concerned about the destabilising effect of what happened a couple of years ago. The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs stated in a report on the subject in 2018 that
“the FCO should support meaningful political participation and representation for Kurds, as well as cultural recognition, equal rights, and economic opportunities for them, underpinned by national constitutions and achieved through negotiation, as a means of fulfilling Kurdish aspirations. It is not in the UK’s interests for any state to deny Kurdish identity through law or force.”
I am sure that the Minister will refer to that.
The UK Government have played a diplomatic role in attempting to reduce tension between the Kurdish and the Iraqi federal Government. I pay tribute to the Foreign Office and to current Ministers for that. However, bafflingly, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside said, the Foreign Office still advises against all but essential travel to Iraqi Kurdistan, putting it in the same category as Baghdad and southern Iraq. That needs to change, and I hope we will hear more about that from the Minister.
In February 2019, one of the people I shadow, the Minister for the Middle East, announced £30 million in funding to help rebuild Iraq and to aid the economy. He visited the region in January 2019, and he gave particular support to policies preventing sexual violence in conflict areas in Iraq. As we know, since 2014 the Department for International Development has provided more than £250 million towards humanitarian assistance in Iraq, the vast majority of it in and around the Iraqi Kurdistan region. I hope that I have not stolen the Minister’s thunder—she is also a DFID Minister.
The United Kingdom gives indirect support through international bodies such as the United Nations Development Programme funding facility for stabilisation, which has focused on areas liberated from ISIS. The UK trained more than 9,000 peshmerga in infantry, counter-IED, engineering and medical skills, and provided—I believe it continues to provide them—arms and ammunition to the peshmerga.
As we know, there are still no direct flights from the UK to Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan. As Members have said, there have been rumours that British Airways will commence flights next year. Let us hope that happens and that the Government can encourage that. As I mentioned, the authorities in Iraqi Kurdistan are particularly proud of the religious tolerance in the region. The Kurdish authorities launched a commission to investigate crimes by ISIS, particularly against the Yazidis, during the conflict. I think we all welcome that.
I again congratulate the hon. Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke on bringing this important issue before us. Let us hope that we can continue to work together to ensure that the people of Iraqi Kurdistan have a truly autonomous future, that they can govern themselves, and that we can look forward to Irbil, Slemani and the many other cities of Iraqi Kurdistan being tourist destinations for everybody from Europe.
The Minister for Africa (Harriett Baldwin)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Henry. I add my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Jack Lopresti) on securing this debate and on his long-standing passion and interest in this area. I am probably the only person to speak in the debate who has not had the pleasure of visiting the Iraqi region of Kurdistan. Obviously, my colleague the Minister for the Middle East would usually have responded to such a debate, but he is travelling. He sends his apologies for not being able to take part.
We have heard a range of really interesting and enlightening speeches. I will start by trying to address some of the common points that were raised before recapping the UK’s long-standing partnership with the Kurdistan region of Iraq.
Some important issues have been raised. We heard questions about the UK’s position on the 2017 referendum for independence. Colleagues will want to know that we continue to support the unity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Iraq. That is why we did not support the Kurdistan region’s referendum and do not recognise the results of the referendum. We believe that any referendum or political process towards independence must be taken as a result of an agreement with Baghdad and in line with the Iraqi constitution. We continue to help Iraq to build a more stable, prosperous and inclusive Iraq in which all Iraqis, including Iraq’s Kurds, have the security, jobs and opportunities they want and deserve.
The UK continues to encourage the Iraqi Government to resolve outstanding disputes with the Kurdistan Regional Government, and we continue to encourage the Kurdistan Regional Government to respect the Iraqi federal court ruling that the referendum was unconstitutional. At the right time, when both parties are ready, we would want both sides to return to substantial negotiations to resolve all outstanding issues, in line with the Iraqi constitution, including making further progress on oil and revenue sharing and the status of the disputed territories, so the Baghdad-Irbil relationship is placed on a more sustainable footing within a unified Iraq.
Turning to the specific question of Kirkuk, as my hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke noted, in 2014 Daesh captured large swathes of territory in northern Iraq that were disputed between Baghdad and Irbil. As the Kurds pushed Daesh back, they controlled many of those disputed territories, including the oil-rich city of Kirkuk. Following the referendum on 25 September 2017, the federal Government of Baghdad reasserted control over those areas. The UK wants to see a long-term, peaceful and sustainable solution to the governance of those territories, in line with article 140 of the Iraqi constitution.
A number of colleagues raised the question of flights. Of course, individual airlines will want to make their own commercial decisions. I certainly thought that a range of colleagues made some powerful points in support of direct flights. The Foreign Office, the Home Office and the Department for Transport keep the issue under constant review, as indeed we at the Foreign Office keep travel advice for the Kurdistan region of Iraq under constant review.
My hon. Friend also raised the question of visas. He may want to raise that question more directly with colleagues from the Home Office, but the Foreign Office can commit that we will continue to work with Home Office colleagues to ensure that the requirements for visas to the UK are clearly, simply and effectively communicated to those applying for them.
My hon. Friend raised important issues to do with the atrocities committed during the conflict. The UK took action in 2017 to secure United Nations Security Council resolution 2379, which established an investigative team to gather evidence of Daesh’s crimes in Iraq. That team has now deployed. It has the full support of this Government, and we continue to encourage the UN to make rapid progress on that important work.
My hon. Friend raised the question of an inward visit from Kurdistan to the UK. He will know that the Prime Minister herself visited Iraq in 2017, and he will appreciate that she had a bilateral meeting with President Salih last week in Sharm El Sheikh. We would be very glad, at the appropriate moment, to welcome a delegation from the Kurdistan region of Iraq to the UK.
The UK has long and historic links with the Kurdistan region of Iraq, which colleagues alluded to. My hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) raised the important work we have been doing on the humanitarian side through the Department for International Development. I did not realise that he had such an interesting experience of archaeology. I think he will be very interested in the British Museum’s Iraq scheme, which is funded by the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and trains Iraqi archaeologists. It brings them to London for two months and then gives hands-on training in Iraq for a further two months. I think we can all agree wholeheartedly how important that is.
Successive British Governments have enjoyed a close working relationship with the Kurdistan Regional Government since its formation in Iraq in 1992. As a number of colleagues noted, we stood by the Kurdish people in 1991. We introduced safe havens, we policed no-fly zones, we protected thousands of lives in the Kurdistan region and we provided a refuge from the brutality of the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein for many years. We also stood by the Iraqi people in their fight against Daesh, and I take this opportunity to pay particular tribute to the courage and tenacity of the Kurdish peshmerga and the Iraqi security forces in the face of the barbaric assault by Daesh on their livelihoods and their cultural identity.
I pay tribute to the incredible generosity of Iraqis from across the country, including the Kurdistan region of Iraq, in supporting millions of people displaced from their homes by the brutality of Daesh in Syria and Iraq. As an integral part of Iraq, the Kurdistan region is a natural partner for the UK. We share many strategic interests. We respect the Kurdish people and our relationship is strong.
The strength of our partnership was evident during the recent visit to Iraq, to which the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) alluded. During the visit, the Minister for the Middle East met senior politicians and leaders in Baghdad, as well as the Kurdish Prime Minister, Nechirvan Barzani, and Chancellor Masrour Barzani. He reiterated the United Kingdom’s deep and unwavering support to all Iraq. He also met representatives from Christian and Yazidi communities, and stressed that all groups, regardless of religion or ethnicity, should be treated equally. We continue to emphasise to our partners the importance of upholding and protecting the human rights and fundamental freedoms of all minority communities in Iraq.
It is clear that Iraq, including the Kurdistan region, continues to face significant challenges. The UK remains committed to working in partnership with the Kurdistan Regional Government to ensure a successful Kurdistan inside a thriving, multicultural, multi-ethnic and multi-religious Iraq.
As colleagues have noted, since 2014 the UK Government have committed over a quarter of a billion pounds-worth of humanitarian support to Iraq, including to the Kurdistan region. That money has provided vital food, shelter, medicines and clean water to millions of people. In addition, we have committed over £110 million to Iraq since 2015 to help to stabilise the liberated areas and to enable internally displaced persons to return to repaired homes, with rebuilt water supplies and restored electricity networks.[Official Report, 12 March 2019, Vol. 656, c. 2MC.] To be sustainable, that infrastructure support needs to be underpinned by an ongoing commitment to reconciliation and security. That is why we are supporting community-level reconciliation in the liberated areas of Iraq through our conflict, stability and security fund, which we believe will play a vital role in building long-term stability.
While Daesh no longer holds territory in Iraq, it continues to pose a security threat to the Kurdistan region of Iraq, and to other parts of the country. The UK is committed to working with the Iraqi Government and Kurdistan Regional Government to counter this security threat, through our ongoing support to the Iraqi security forces and to the Kurdish peshmerga. The success of the Kurdistan region of Iraq requires much more than security capabilities. It also needs political and economic stability. We are encouraged by some early signs of a rapprochement between Baghdad and Irbil, and we will continue to support the strengthening of this critical relationship.
The formation of a Government in the Kurdistan region is crucial. The people of the Kurdistan region need a stable and functioning Government who can attract business and investment, grow the economy and provide much-needed jobs. Reform will be important too—not only to strengthen the economy, but to improve public services. The current leadership recognises that and we stand ready to support it in its efforts. We will continue to urge the political parties to conclude their negotiations as soon as possible, and set a forward-thinking programme of government focused on building prosperity and security for the people.
The UK’s commitment to the Kurdistan region of Iraq is long term, and we will continue to work with the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government to strengthen our partnership. Our defence and security support is helping to strengthen and reform the peshmerga; our humanitarian and stabilisation efforts are helping to rebuild communities; and our political support is helping to bring politicians closer together, so that trade and investment can grow the economy and bring the prosperity that the people of the Kurdistan region of Iraq want and deserve.
Jack Lopresti
I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to this important debate and offered their support, from across the political divide.
I will not list all the Minister’s points, but I thank her for addressing important matters to do with disputed territories, religious freedom and tolerance, and giving hope on direct flights. I will take her advice and bring up matters about visas with the Home Office.
There were some kind comments from the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton). I agree with what he said when he reiterated what some of us had said about the peshmerga saving Iraq. Not only did they save Iraq; they also helped to a large degree in keeping our own streets safe and defeating some of our enemies. We owe them a huge debt of gratitude.
I was intrigued by my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell) and his past in archaeology. I would be happy to spend some of my summer with him, because there are lots of artefacts, historic battlefields and great historical places to visit in Iraqi Kurdistan, where he could have a good dig around. I would implore anyone who has not yet done so to visit the region, for all the reasons we have discussed. It is a fantastic, wonderful place, with wonderful people, where people are always made to feel welcome and, as others have said, safe and secure.
Gary Kent would normally be here—it is rare to be at event that has anything to do with Kurdistan and find he is not there—but I hope he does not mind me saying that he is on a pre-arranged family holiday in Madeira. He has still been emailing this week and I have spoken to him most days. He has been very helpful indeed and he epitomises what we are doing in the all-party parliamentary group for the Kurdistan region in Iraq in his running of the secretariat.
I thank hon. Members again and I thank you, Sir Henry, for your chairmanship.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved.
That this House has considered bilateral relations with the Kurdistan region in Iraq.
Written Statements
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Justice and Home Affairs Pre-Council Statement
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
The EU Justice and Home Affairs Council of Ministers will meet on 7 and 8 March in Brussels. This will be the last JHA Council meeting that the UK will attend as an EU member state. I will represent the UK for Interior day. The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, the right hon. David Gauke MP will represent the UK for Justice day. The Scottish Government Minister, James Wolffe QC, Lord Advocate, will also attend for both days.
Interior Day on 7 March will begin with a policy debate on the proposed regulation to amend the European Border And Coast Guard Regulation. The regulation aims to reinforce the EU’s integrated border management strategy and further protect the external EU borders by providing the European Border and Coast Guard Agency with a standing corps of 10,000 staff with executive powers, dedicated equipment and the remit to act in third countries. This is a Schengen building measure which the UK does not participate in.
There will then be a progress report on negotiations on the package of seven legislative measures constituting the reform of the common European asylum system. The presidency are seeking compromises to enable them to make progress on these measures ahead of the European Parliament elections in May. The UK will only participate in the regulation relating to Eurodac, the EU’s fingerprint database of asylum seekers and irregular migrants.
The presidency will seek an exchange of views on co-operation with third countries on migration following the recent EU-Arab League summit. Over lunch there will be a discussion on achievements and perspectives on Home Affairs activity from 2014-19. I will use these opportunities to note the UK’s contribution to EU JHA activity, and to emphasise the importance of future co-operation between the EU and the UK on these issues.
The Council will then discuss the state of play on the EU’s response to terrorism. Ministers will be asked to consider whether there are any gaps in EU counter-terrorism policy, and whether new legislation or activity is required. I will highlight areas where the UK considers the EU can add value to member states efforts, and emphasise the importance of future co-operation between the EU and the UK to tackle the terrorist threat.
Finally, Ministers will discuss the issue of disinformation in the context of securing free and fair elections. I will intervene to indicate our continued willingness to share examples of UK good practice and expertise in this area post-exit.
Justice day on 8 December will begin with a progress report on the directive on whistleblowing. The presidency will update on trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament on this issue. The UK has concerns about the proportionality of this measure, and has indicated its preference for providing whistleblowers with a choice of reporting channels to support their disclosures.
The presidency will then present the text of the directive on legal representatives for gathering electronic evidence (‘e-evidence’), seeking agreement for a general approach. While the UK has not opted into the regulation (which requires service providers providing services within the EU to preserve or produce electronic data on request from a law enforcement authority of an EU member state), it will be bound by this directive, which obliges the same service providers to designate a legal representative in a member state to comply with requests. The UK supports the e-evidence proposals’ overall aim of enhanced international co-operation on e-evidence and its use in preventing and tackling harms to public security, and is thus content with the provisions in the directive.
The Council will also discuss Council decisions for negotiating mandates with the US for an agreement on cross-border access to e-evidence, and for negotiations on a second additional protocol to the Budapest Convention on cybercrime. The UK will need to decide whether it wishes to opt in to these Council decisions.
The Commission will provide a state of play on the implementation of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. The UK does not participate in the EPPO.
The Commission will present the results of the 4th monitoring of the code of conduct on tackling illegal hate speech and to underline the importance of the correct implementation of the framework decision on racism and xenophobia to ensure the continued effectiveness of the voluntary co-operation under the code of conduct as well as of the need to ensure that the offenders of illegal hate speech are brought to justice.
Over lunch, Ministers will discuss the impact of lawtech and artificial intelligence in the Justice System.
[HCWS1381]
Seasonal Workers Pilot
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sajid Javid)
On 6 September last year, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I announced that our Departments would implement a nationwide pilot to enable non-EU migrant workers to work on UK farms, commencing in early 2019 (HCWS940).
We are now pleased to announce that the seasonal workers pilot will commence operation on Wednesday 6 March 2019.
The seasonal workers pilot will operate in the edible horticulture sector, to support farmers growing UK fruit and vegetables. This is the sector of agriculture which has been experiencing the most severe seasonal labour shortages, and which the pilot aims to support.
The horticulture sector is of course a particular UK success story, with soft fruit production having grown by 131% in the last 20 years. Seasonal migrant labour has played an important role in helping soft fruit farmers to grow, sell and export more great British food. We therefore believe that it is the right sector to host this pilot.
This pilot will enable growers to employ up to 2,500 non- EU migrant workers for seasonal work for up to 6 months. We anticipate that the first workers will start to arrive in the UK before the end of April.
Two scheme operators—Concordia and Pro-Force—have been licensed to manage the pilot and will be responsible for identifying suitable migrant workers and matching them to UK growers. They will also be required to ensure the welfare of migrant workers whilst they are in the UK. We will be working closely with the scheme operators and the gangmasters and labour abuse authority to ensure that work rights of participating migrant workers are protected.
This is a UK-wide pilot and we have placed a specific duty on the scheme operators to ensure that all regions of the UK are able to benefit.
The pilot will run until the end of December 2020 and will be monitored closely by the Home Office and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
[HCWS1380]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, good afternoon. I remind the Committee that, in the event of a Division in the Chamber, the Committee will adjourn for 10 minutes from the sound of the Division Bell.
Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, given the interconnections of the three instruments, I hope it will be helpful to your Lordships if I speak to all three together. The instruments before your Lordships make technical corrections to maintain the effectiveness and continuity of EU-derived legislation that would otherwise be left partially inoperable on exit.
The conservation of habitats and species regulations extend in part to the UK and to England and Wales only. The Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 relate only to Northern Ireland.
The UK Government remain committed to the restoration of devolved government in Northern Ireland. However, in the absence of a Northern Ireland Executive, UK government Ministers have decided that, in the interest of legal clarity in Northern Ireland, the Government should take through the necessary statutory legislation at Westminster for Northern Ireland, in close consultation with the relevant Northern Ireland department. In pursuing this course, we have worked closely with the Northern Ireland Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs—DAERA —and I am most grateful for the support given by DAERA officials.
The technical changes made by the Conservation of Habitats and Species (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 enable the UK to continue to meet its international commitments, such as the Berne and Bonn conventions, and ensure that regulations transposing the EU habitats and wild birds directives are operable. Principally, it makes amendments to three existing instruments that transpose the habitats and wild birds directives so that they are operable: the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017, and the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001. The instrument also amends Section 27 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 to ensure that existing protections continue.
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and the Conservation of Offshore Marine Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 are the principal pieces of secondary legislation that transpose the terrestrial and offshore marine aspects of the EU habitats directive and certain elements of the EU wild birds directive—commonly referred to as the nature directives—into domestic law. The Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001 apply to specific activities only in relation to the directives. The nature directives lay down the rules for the protection and management of habitats, and the protection and exploitation of species. These three regulations fulfil the objectives of the nature directives in the UK’s terrestrial areas and inland waters, and its inshore and offshore marine areas, by ensuring that activities are carried out in a manner consistent with the directives.
The territorial extent of this instrument is the United Kingdom, with exceptions. Part 2 extends to England and Wales. Part 3 extends to England and Wales, but also extends in certain circumstances to certain specified reserved matters in Scotland and Northern Ireland. We have worked with the devolved Administrations on this instrument, and where it relates to devolved matters, they have given consent. The Scottish Government are making similar changes by means of their own secondary legislation within their areas of legislative competence.
As part of national operability, this instrument implements a number of changes, one of which is a national site network. Sites designated under the nature directives have contributed to the EU’s Natura 2000 network. These sites will now form a national site network and will continue to help fulfil the UK’s international biodiversity obligations, for example under the Berne convention, where they will continue to form the UK’s contribution to that convention’s Emerald network. New Regulations 16A and 18A set out ministerial responsibility to manage, and where necessary adapt, the national site network in co-operation with Ministers in the devolved Administrations. That obligation will be exercised with the support and expertise of the statutory nature conservation bodies. The network’s management objectives look to secure compliance with the overarching aims of the habitats and the wild birds directives.
I turn to the issue of reporting. To ensure transparency and accountability, Ministers will produce reports on how the regulations are being implemented within six years from the date of exit and every six years thereafter. The Secretary of State will compile these reports into a combined UK report within two years of that. This is in line with existing reporting requirements, and the reports will be publicly available. The requirement for biennial reporting on exemptions or derogations from the strict protections for habitats and species is maintained.
Let me turn to the designation of special areas of conservation. Functions currently undertaken by the European Commission in designating any future SACs will be transferred to Ministers. Ministers will assess new SAC proposals acting on specialist advice from the appropriate nature conservation body. In Defra’s case that will be Natural England, along with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, using existing criteria.
I turn now to imperative reasons of overriding public interest. This instrument transfers the role of the European Commission to Ministers in being able to offer an opinion to local decision-makers such as local planning authorities. The opinion concerns whether imperative reasons of overriding public interest may apply in the granting of a planning application for a proposal which may adversely affect priority habitats, but where there is no feasible alternative. In doing so, Ministers will need to take account of the national interest and consult widely, including the Government and the other devolved Administrations, along with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. It is my understanding that imperative reasons of overriding public interest have never been deployed in relation to priority features with regard to planning proposals anywhere in the UK, in that no file or dossier has been submitted to the European Commission for an opinion.
I will now address the amendments to annexes and schedules. A new instrument-making power allows Ministers to make amendments to the annexes and schedules where this is supported by technical and scientific progress. This brings into a national context provisions which already exist at EU level. The devolved Administrations will have the same powers. Any amendment under this provision which cannot be supported by expert opinion is open to challenge in Parliament or the courts. This instrument will ensure that the strict protections that have been in place for many years for our most vulnerable habitats and species are maintained when we leave the European Union.
On consultation, although there was no statutory requirement to consult publicly on the instruments, officials undertook engagement with key stakeholders. Indeed, following concerns raised by the RSPB, we chose to withdraw and re-lay the SI to provide absolute legal clarity that the management objectives of the new national site network to protect wild bird species and their special protection areas remain equivalent to those in the wild birds directive. The RSPB and Greener UK have welcomed this. It is a very good example of where there has been consideration by people who can look at these things with a fresh eye, and we were absolutely seized of the importance of making it absolutely clear. So I welcome this as an example of where, if one does not get it perfect the first time, let us try again.
I turn to the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. As I have said, these regulations extend to Northern Ireland only. Importantly, they mirror the five main changes to the regulations I have just set out—in short, replicating for Northern Ireland Parts 1, 2 and 3 of the England and Wales legislation. It was felt that Northern Ireland officials should draft a separate regulation for two reasons. First, nature conservation is a devolved function in Northern Ireland. Secondly, the structures in Northern Ireland are different from those in England and Wales in that DAERA, a government department, undertakes all aspects of nature conservation. Therefore, many of the amending clauses could not simply be replicated for all three countries, and several Northern Ireland amendments would have to sit separately in any encompassing statutory instrument.
As is evident, Northern Ireland is unique within the United Kingdom as it shares a land border with the Republic of Ireland. There are excellent working relationships on nature conservation between officials in Northern Ireland and their counterparts in the Republic. This co-operation occurs within a framework of the North/South Ministerial Council, in which the environment is identified as an area of joint working. For example, the Loughs Agency is a cross-border body set up under the 1998 Good Friday agreement to manage commercial fishery activity in Lough Foyle and Carlingford Lough and to undertake valuable work in the conservation of vulnerable species. Similar arrangements apply on an east/west basis. The British-Irish Council has played a positive role in nature conservation issues, for example the sharing of information and experiences on the many invasive alien species threatening our important habitats. The council has also supported initiatives such as an all-Ireland pollinator strategy, which contains practical actions and information designed to increase the number of pollinators throughout the island of Ireland.
Finally, I turn to the Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019. These regulations address failures of retained EU law to operate effectively with regard to six pieces of Northern Ireland primary legislation and two sets of regulations, as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum. The regulations are similar to the amendments made to legislation in England and the UK by the Environment (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, which have already been affirmed in both Houses. We have a separate set of regulations for Northern Ireland, as in the areas covered there is a well-established body of Northern Ireland legislation. Where there are already UK-wide instruments, we have taken forward regulations that include Northern Ireland and other jurisdictions. Taking forward Northern Ireland-only amendments in this case helps preserve the integrity of Northern Ireland’s statute book—albeit that the amendments are being made by UK statutory instruments rather than by the normal Northern Ireland statutory rules.
As an example of the amendments made by the instrument, Regulations 15 to 17 make changes to the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Northern Ireland) Order 1998, replacing,
“obligations of the United Kingdom under the Community Treaties”,
with, “retained EU obligations”. This is an example of where, if we did not make the amendment, the references to the UK’s obligations under community treaties would be inoperable as there would be no obligations.
In this instrument there is no policy change and—I must emphasise—no reduction in the environmental standards or obligations to which Northern Ireland is currently subject. I beg to move.
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. This statutory instrument brings over legislation from the nature directives, which have been the bedrock of nature protection in Europe and the UK for many years. We know that species resident on sites protected by the habitats directive are recovering more strongly than species on sites that are not covered by it. The nature directives are the bedrock of protection and are important for species such as the bittern, which has recovered far more strongly by virtue of the habitats directive.
I shall give credit where credit is due. As the Minister rightly said, this statutory instrument was removed and relaid after concerns were raised by the RSPB and other environmental stakeholders. That is a model of how such matters should be treated. I commend the department on that, and I will not be opposing this statutory instrument.
I shall touch on a particular issue the Minister raised. He did not quite address it to my satisfaction, so I shall press him a little further. It is about reporting under these regulations. The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the reporting requirements will be carried across, and I pay tribute to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee which teased out a bit more from the department on that matter to make sure that there was greater clarity about the format of those reports. The formats for reporting are very clear under the directives, but they are not clear in the statutory instrument or the Explanatory Memorandum. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee got the department to put on record that the formats for reporting will be agreed with statutory agencies and the devolved Administrations. That is to be welcomed. However, there is no clarity on the provision for reviewing those reports and highlighting any failures for action. The Government say that they will meet their international obligations, which is welcome, but there is no guarantee that that reporting will be timely or at a pace that will allow failures to be rectified speedily. At the moment, the EU has the power to enforce action for failures. Is there any sufficient capacity to enforce, including by fines for breaches of the regulations?
When he sums up, will the Minister say a bit more about how the Government see these vital reporting requirements being reviewed and how we can be sure that transgressions against them are speedily rectified? I am sure the Minister will talk about the office for environmental protection, which we hope will be forthcoming in due course, but it will not be truly independent since the Government will appoint its board and will be responsible for its budget. Discussion so far suggests that there will be insufficient enforcement mechanisms. For example, there is no power to call the Government to hearings or, as a last resort, to levy fines. We do not have the office for environmental protection yet, so what will happen to reporting in the meantime? If the Minister could offer us some reassurances on how reporting will be reviewed and how we will rectify any failures, I would appreciate it.
Lord Krebs (CB)
I welcome and appreciate the Minister’s introduction. Overall, what he said is reassuring. In addition to the point that has already been made, I want to pick up on scientific input, which was mentioned in the Minister’s introduction. Will he clarify in a little more detail the point that changes will be allowed only due to “technical and scientific progress”? The statutory instrument does not specify where the expert input will come from and whether it will involve the statutory nature conservation advisers. Will the Minister elaborate a little on the nature of the scientific input, how it will be taken into account, the degree of transparency in the publication of any scientific advice and how it will work across the four nations of the United Kingdom?
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his exposition on these three statutory instruments. I shall start with the first two on the conservation of habitats and species. I have spent almost 30 years of my life campaigning for the nature directives—for their introduction, refinement and implementation, and, on occasion, in their defence. They have been hugely instrumental in protecting internationally important species and habitats, so I say to the Minister: tread gently because you tread on my dreams.
I am delighted that the Government accepted many of the concerns of the NGOs and others, and withdrew and then relaid the first statutory instrument. I commend the excellent work of Greener UK and its constituent NGOs in that respect. The SIs are certainly in better shape now, but there remain a number of points on which I seek ministerial assurance.
We welcome the new provision for statutory guidance to be produced in consultation with the appropriate nature conservation body. This guidance will be required urgently to ensure clarity across all sectors on the meaning of all these changes. I hope the Minister can assure the Committee that consultation on the statutory guidance will begin right away and not take more than a few months to conclude.
We welcome the new regulation introducing management objectives for special protection areas and special areas of conservation, and for their joint network, but I must admit that I am rather perturbed at the wording of the first SAC objective, which talks about achieving,
“a favourable conservation status … (so far as it lies in the United Kingdom’s territory, and so far as is proportionate)”.
This proportionality is about the management of sites, not their designation, and seems to introduce a new restriction that is not in the habitats directive—which, of course, I read nightly before I go to bed. The Minister kindly organised a briefing session with his civil servants, where it emerged that this was about prioritisation, and we explored on what basis that prioritisation process would take place. Surely if a site has been designated as being of international importance, the objective of achieving favourable conservation status ought to be axiomatic; we do not designate sites in order to watch them get worse. We may have only a small proportion of a particular European habitat and species, but we should still have a responsibility to get it into favourable conservation status. Equally, if we are the principal guardian of a habitat such as blanket bog or a species such as the great crested newt, we have a particular responsibility on behalf of the European biosphere to do a good job in looking after them. Do the Government think we have too many newts and blanket bog sites? I may be misjudging the Government, and I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what is intended by the concept that management effort should be “proportionate”.
I turn to reporting, which has been raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter. We welcome the change to the instrument, which brings in a requirement for reporting on progress, and on exceptions and derogations, but, as the noble Baroness said, the regulations do not make provision for anyone to review these reports or highlight any lack of progress, as is currently undertaken by the European Commission. As it stands, the statutory instrument is a diminution in protection for these vital species, sites and habitats. Although the reports will be forwarded to the Berne convention, the convention has not exactly been alacritous in following up failings and enabling action to be taken.
I ask the Minister to ensure that provisions be made for an independent review to be included, with the stress on the word “independent”. This would preferably have been in the legislation but we are now beyond that point, so can the Minister assure the Committee that a suitable independent body such as the OEP will be given this reviewing role? Although the progress in setting up the OEP is slightly glacial, the first report under these provisions is not due for two years, so I hope it would be set up in time to pick up the reviewing function.
The regulations introduce a new power for the relevant authorities to make changes to the birds and habitats directives’ annexes and the habitat regulations’ schedules, which will include prohibited methods of capturing and killing mammals and fish. Changes would be allowed on the basis only of technical and scientific progress. I echo the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that expert input, and a duty to consult relevant statutory nature conservation advisers and take account of their advice, is needed in connection with this change, particularly since the changes would be achieved through negative procedure SIs, with their inflexibility to challenge once laid. It would be useful if the Minister could say whether the guidance that will be issued for this SI will confirm the process by which the Government will seek expert input, including from the statutory advisers, and whether this process will be agreed with the devolved Administrations.
On the amendment to Regulation 36, to move the paragraphs on prohibited means of killing mammals and fish into a schedule that would then be amendable by Ministers, could the Minister confirm, firmly and unequivocally, that these powers will not be used to roll back animal welfare standards? I am not sure the Government understand what a hornets’ nest they are inviting in making it easier to challenge what has been quite a difficult process of changing this particular set of provisions about killing.
A highly important issue, which some may see as a bit of a sideshow, is the name of the network of sites designated under the nature directives—currently Natura 2000. I declare an interest, because about 25% of the sites in that network were designated under my chairmanship of English Nature, a piece of work of which I am immensely proud. We are talking about my children and I love them all.
The statutory instrument proposes that this network be called the national site network. This has problems on three counts. The first is practical: sites of special scientific interest are also known as national sites, since they are important for national and not European criteria. Also, planners across the country risk getting mightily confused, as there is already reference to national sites in the National Planning Policy Framework. These are different sites with different criteria.
The second issue is that several of the Natura 2000 sites in Northern Ireland span the border with the south. I have happy memories of driving along the border in the dark during the Troubles, in an RSPB Land Rover, which I hoped was clearly marked, trying to track down the last crekking corncrake in Northern Ireland. If we crash out on 29 March and have a hard border in Northern Ireland, presumably wildlife will have to wait at the border, in common with everyone else, but we certainly should not call these border sites national sites because they are clearly transnational. Also, “national” has a distinctly different meaning in Northern Ireland.
The third and most important reason for not calling the network of sites the national site network is that the one thing that distinguishes the sites designated under the nature directives is that they are not national in importance, but designated for the very reason that they are international in importance. Therefore, could I persuade the Minister to confirm that no matter what this statutory instrument calls the network, the Government will swiftly announce that for the purposes of clarity it will forthwith be known as the international site network? This network would include the Ramsar sites to complete the set, and would be clearly distinguishable from the SSSIs and the marine conservation zones.
On the impact of the statutory instruments on provisions in Northern Ireland, the office for environmental protection will not operate in Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is also the only country in the UK that does not have an independent nature conservation advisory body, so who will take an independent role in overseeing the implementation of these statutory instruments in Northern Ireland? For example, when I spoke on the need for reports to be reviewed by an independent body or for independent conservation advice to be taken, it was not clear who could take this role in Northern Ireland. We are sweeping away the powers that the European Union had in ensuring protections were enforced, but we are not proposing anything to replace that vital function in Northern Ireland. In the absence of a functioning Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, what do the Government propose?
I see from the scrutiny of these statutory instruments in the other place that the Minister indicated that DAERA civil servants had asked that the possibility of the OEP covering Northern Ireland should be kept in play until Northern Ireland Ministers returned and could decide. Can the Minister cast more light on this? I hope he will confirm that these are issues that need to be tackled and tell us what discussions have been held on this with Northern Ireland civil servants. I hope the Minister will also agree that continued environmental co-operation on the island of Ireland will be vital post Brexit, since it is, after all, a single biogeographic unit.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful for all of the contributions, and I was struck hearing about bedrocks and bitterns, treading on dreams, and hornets’ nests. I found the experience rather more frightening than I had already intended. However, this is an important area and I am most grateful to the noble Baronesses for acknowledging that we did the right thing in withdrawing and re-laying the instrument, because we wanted to make it absolutely clear that our good faith in these matters is strong.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Parminter and Lady Young, both raised the important issue of reporting. As we explained in our written evidence to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, the reporting requirements introduced at Regulation 8 of this instrument are intended to ensure that, at a minimum, they reflect those set out in article 17 of the habitats directive and article 12 of the wild birds directive. However, as that regulation makes clear, these requirements are not exclusive since currently within the EU, the Commission determines the full extent and format of the reports, in consultation with experts across member states. Similarly, UK Ministers would expect to determine the format of such reports administratively, in consultation with our statutory advisers and those from the devolved Administrations, ensuring that we meet all our international reporting obligations.
The provisions for a composite report, including an evaluation of progress and contribution of the national site network—about which I will speak in a moment—in our view replicates the current legal requirement on the Commission. Accordingly, on operability, there is no need to provide an additional statutory review provision. This instrument also converts environmental reporting obligations in the directives into a requirement to publish reports in the future. This will ensure transparency and scrutiny of our environmental performance. The UK will continue to report on a similar basis as a contracting party to the Berne convention and will be obliged under resolution 8 of the standing committee on the convention, adopted in 2012, to report on the conservation status of species and habitats every six years, covering the previous six years.
We are also required under article 9 of the Berne convention to submit reports every two years on exceptions that have been permitted, the protection of wild fauna and flora, and an assessment of their impact, in the same way as we do now via the EU. The convention standing committee can review the implementation of the convention through legal and policy reports from independent experts. Indeed, the OEP—more about which in a moment—will be an independent, statutory environmental body and may well be interested in this matter. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that on reporting and timeliness—timeliness is important—six years is the usual period for compiling these reports, which are comprehensive. That is what is in the nature directives.
Perhaps I could spend a little time on proportionality, which was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. I wish to assure or reassure her—whatever the right word is—that it is not the intention of this provision to reduce in any way existing nature conservation protections. This provision is about not the designation and management of sites, and therefore the permitting of certain activities, but the overall management of the UK network in the context of achieving favourable conservation status for species and habitats across their biogeographical area and within their natural range.
New Regulations 16A and 18A place a wide duty on Ministers, in co-operation with other authorities in the UK, to manage and adapt the network to maintain or, where appropriate, restore at a favourable conservation status threatened and vulnerable habitats and species throughout their natural range. This duty can be exercised only where those natural ranges fall within UK jurisdiction. It is also to be discharged with regard to the importance of the UK globally in the conservation of those species or habitats. We can contribute to achieving a favourable conservation status for vulnerable or threatened species and habitats only in the proportion to which their range falls within UK jurisdiction.
In this respect, the provision reflects the requirement in article 3 of the habitats directive to have, “A coherent … ecological network” to maintain and manage species and habitats,
“at a favourable conservation status”,
and therefore for Ministers in future to have regard to what is being done beyond UK borders to contribute most effectively to maintaining and restoring those features at favourable conservation status in their natural range. If I may return to where I began, I place it on record that there is absolutely no intent at all for this provision to reduce in any way existing nature conservation protections.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised the office for environmental protection, the independent statutory environmental body which will hold government and public bodies to account on environmental standards, replacing the current oversight of the European Commission. This body will provide independent scrutiny and advice on environmental legislation and the Government’s environmental improvement plan, and hold government to account on the implementation of environmental law, including taking legal action where necessary. It will also of course have access to these publicly available reports. I say particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who raised this, that we are finalising interim measures that may be necessary under a no-deal scenario and before the office for environmental protection is established. Again, the Government are doing what they can in Brussels and elsewhere to ensure that we have a deal, but with or without a deal there will be no period of time during which government actions cannot be held to account.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, queried—rightly, given his expertise—the availability of technical and scientific expertise. I hope he might agree with my impression, from going around the Council of Ministers and other bodies, that this country has significant expertise in nature conservation, which is recognised at home and at international level. Hundreds of scientists are employed in our statutory nature conservation bodies and the depth and breadth of their experience is hugely regarded. Ministers will continue to benefit from the advice of their statutory nature conservation bodies: in England, this is Natural England while at the UK level, it is the JNCC. Natural England provides statutory advice to public authorities and is responsible for ensuring that the natural environment is protected and improved. It has a responsibility to help people to enjoy, understand and access the natural environment.
The JNCC already has a statutory duty to advise Ministers on developing and implementing policies on nature conservation matters. The JNCC has an independent chair and five independent members, some with scientific experience and some with a legal background. The majority of the joint committee is made up of appointments by the four countries’ statutory conservation bodies.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, raised the question of committing to produce statutory guidance. We plan to issue guidance on the operability changes to the regulations as part of our EU exit arrangements. We are developing a page for GOV.UK to explain the main changes to the regulations and to signpost to existing guidance. Following the UK’s exit, our intention is to review and update our own domestic guidance on all aspects of the regime. We plan to consult and involve a range of interested stakeholders to ensure that guidance on wildlife legislation is fit for purpose and can contribute to ensuring that we maintain and enhance existing protections.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, queried the power of the Secretary of State to amend schedules. This is where she referred to a hornets’ nest; I hope that I can reassure her. The prohibited capture and killing methods listed in this schedule are those set out not only in annexe 6 of the habitats directive but in the almost identical appendix 4 of the Berne convention, from where it derives and of which we will remain a contracting party. There has been no reason to amend appendix 4 since 2002. The provisions for amending the annexes and schedules in this instrument, including moving prohibited killing from the body of the regulations to the schedule, simply ensure that we retain the same power of amendment as the Commission has at present to update annexes. This is an updating power to be used only—I emphasise only—for the purpose of adapting these annexes to technical and scientific progress, and therefore a power that can be exercised only where it is supported by expert opinion from the JNCC and Natural England. We will, of course, continue to work closely with devolved Administrations to secure nature conservation outcomes across the UK.
Northern Ireland was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is important—again, I hope I can reassure her—that in the case of Northern Ireland, DAERA has a statutory advisory body known as the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside. This body includes academics, land managers and environmental non-government bodies with a wide range of conservation expertise in terrestrial and marine environments. The CNCC is tasked with providing a focused view on DAERA’s functions, including relating to nature conservation. There could be a specific role for the CNCC in future reporting mechanisms.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, also asked about a possible extension of the OEP to Northern Ireland. She is absolutely right that Northern Ireland Civil Service officials have requested that the scope of the office be expanded to include Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State has agreed to this; I hope that is helpful to your Lordships. Discussions are ongoing between officials as to how this might be taken forward. Any decisions by Northern Ireland officials will be taken in light of the requirements of the Northern Ireland (Executive Formation and Exercise of Functions) Act 2018 and the Northern Ireland Secretary of State’s guidance thereunder.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, also raised the name of the national site network. These sites will continue to be selected under the criteria in annexe 3 of the habitats directive and article 4.1 and 4.2 of the wild birds directive, which—as she will know better than I do—makes them distinct from SSSIs. The National Planning Policy Framework and other policy guidance does not particularly recognise the Natura 2000 network by offering planning protections but is concerned instead with the different types of protected sites, such as special areas of conservation, special protection areas and European sites. This instrument retains those names. I emphasise to the noble Baroness—I have noted her appeal for a different name—that the term “National Site Network” is a legal one for the purposes of these regulations. It will be open to Ministers in the UK to agree a distinct name for the network in a similar way to, for instance, the Emerald network. We do not need a legal power to do that. It might be my duty to play back her commentary on the national site network. I should also say that we intend, nevertheless, to publish guidance explaining the main changes that will arise due to operability.
Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc.) (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A)
Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Grand Committee do consider the Environment (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Northern Ireland) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
That the Grand Committee do consider the Animal Welfare (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
My Lords, this instrument makes primarily minor operability changes to three pieces of legislation to ensure that retained direct EU legislation protecting the welfare of animals kept at control posts while being transported and at the time of their killing will continue to operate effectively once the UK has left the EU.
The first piece of legislation, EC Regulation 1255/97, relates to control posts. Control posts are approved areas for animals to be unloaded, fed, watered and rested for at least 12 hours or more during long journeys. There are currently 11 control posts designated in the UK. The regulation sets out the health and hygiene requirements for control posts and details how they should be constructed, operated and approved. It makes a number of minor operability changes, including updating references and definitions. The power to designate or suspend control posts will remain devolved to the relevant Ministers in the devolved Administrations, as is currently the case. These regulations will not alter the current requirements or standards for control posts, which will be maintained after exit.
The second piece of legislation relates to the welfare of animals during transport. EC Regulation 1/2005 sets out the standards to be applied when moving live vertebrate animals for commercial purposes as well as the necessary documentation to accompany the journey and the checks to be carried out on consignments leaving or entering the EU. The regulation also sets out the requirements for transporters, drivers and vehicles to be authorised. These regulations will continue to enable authorisations for transporters, drivers and vehicles issued by an EU member state to be recognised within the UK. This approach will help to minimise friction at the border and prevent potential animal welfare issues arising from delays of animals coming from the European Union entering the UK.
Finally, the instrument makes technical changes to EC Regulation 1099/2009 relating to the protection of animals at the time of killing to ensure that it remains operable after the UK exits the EU, including transferring obligations on the European Commission to the relevant UK authorities. The regulation requires that animals shall be spared any avoidable pain, distress or suffering during their killing and related operations. It sets out detailed rules for the accepted methods of stunning and killing animals, as well as the layout, construction, equipment, handling and restraining operations at slaughterhouses. This instrument will not alter the current requirements or standards which will be maintained after exit.
However, I want to draw noble Lords’ attention to one policy change contained in these regulations. EC Regulation 1099/2009 requires all slaughterers to be trained and competent in the tasks they undertake, with certificates of competence issued by a competent authority. Currently, a certificate of competence issued by any member state must be recognised in the UK. These regulations will end that requirement. Continued recognition of certificates issued in other member states would open up potential enforcement issues. We would be unable to suspend or revoke a certificate issued in another member state if a slaughterer breached the requirements of the retained EU legislation or domestic legislation. The impact on businesses will be minimal. A very limited number of slaughterhouse employees will need to apply for a certificate of competence issued by a competent authority in the UK to be able to continue to work in the UK after exit. Applying will carry a cost of around £225 and we expect that fewer than 200 individuals out of a total population of 6,000 people with this certificate will be affected. This is around 3% of all slaughterers.
While there was no formal duty to consult, we have engaged directly with industry representative bodies on this issue and more widely, and we have not received any expressions of concern. The devolved Administrations have been consulted on this instrument and they are content. The purpose of the instrument is to ensure that the three pieces of EU legislation relating to animal welfare will be fully operable after exit. For the reasons I have set out, I beg to move.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I declare an interest as I have a link with the British Veterinary Association. I should draw that to the attention of the Committee, although it is not a financial interest. This order provides significant recognition of the variation between the devolved authorities. That is right, and it already exists to a large extent. However, it requires effective co-ordination between the devolved authorities to ensure that where there are matters of common interest, they are brought together. Can the Minister give us some assurance that those mechanisms are in place or, to the extent that they need to be strengthened, they can be put into place in good time?
The second point I want to raise is with regard to the certificate of competence issued to slaughterers by other member states. As things stand, they must be recognised in the UK, but that will end for the reasons the Minister has mentioned. Such certificates of competence are required by slaughterhouses in the EU to show that individuals have been trained to the necessary standard to undertake animal stunning and killing. If these changes occur in the UK and there is a reciprocal change in the EU 27, will that affect the number of competent people who will be available to undertake the work? We are aware of the number of people from European countries who are working in these areas in the UK. If there is a danger of us losing some of the supply of these essential people, what proposals do the Government have to ensure that there is not a lapse in this area that could have an impact on animal welfare?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive introduction and I thank her and her officials for the briefing we had earlier this week. This is a very important statutory instrument that will move into UK law aspects of EU law pertaining to the welfare of animals while they are being transported, when they are at control posts and at the time of killing in slaughterhouses. Much of the SI refers to the need for those involved at all three stages to have a level of competence which ensures that animals do not suffer unnecessarily. I am sure we all want to ensure that that does not happen.
This SI gives the Government power to set their own standards on live transport and control posts once we leave the EU. The UK Government have always said that they will manage live exports once we leave the EU. The public are extremely interested in the issue of the live export of animals and it frequently comes up as one of the important Brexit matters. Can the Minister say whether the Government are likely to decide soon on this subject and what evidence they will consider when they make this decision?
I have a small number of minor questions to ask. In paragraph 2.4 of the Explanatory Memorandum, reference is made to the protection of animals during transport and related operations within the EU. However, it applies to the transport of animals which does not take place in connection with an economic activity. Would the transportation of racehorses to take part in a race—for instance, le Prix de l’Arc de Triomphe in France—come under the heading of an economic activity or would it would be classed as a sport? This is important as racehorses are a valuable commodity and their safety and well-being are paramount to their owners. I mention, just for interest, that the prize money for winning that race is €2,857,000.
The movement of animals to and from slaughter is a particular issue on the island of Ireland where consignments of animals can move from Ireland across the border to Northern Ireland for slaughter and then back again, and vice versa. This is something that needs to be addressed before Irish farmers find that they can no longer move their livestock.
On assembly centres, paragraph 2.7 of the Explanatory Memorandum refers to animals being grouped together to form consignments. Domestic equidae—that is, donkeys—are specifically mentioned, and I wonder how often and how many donkeys are moved around either in the EU or in the UK.
There is reference in paragraphs 2.17, 2.18 and 12.2 to certificates of competence. After exit day the UK will not recognise certificates issued in the EU, and for its part the EU will not recognise those issued in the UK. As the noble Baroness has said, this is particularly in relation to the protection of animals at the time of killing. The change will result in a number of slaughterhouse employees who work in this country having to apply and be reassessed for their competency. The estimated cost of this per employee is around £225. We do not know exactly how many employees will be affected but that is not an insignificant sum of money and it could lead to some employees deciding to look for more conducive work. This will have an impact on the running of our slaughterhouses, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, has indicated.
As a result of a freedom of information request, we can see that the Government have failed to consider the impact of Brexit on sheep farmers. Sheep farmers are not wealthy people but their farms, especially hill farms, are the backbone of many of our remote rural communities. To run their businesses, farmers need certainty and the ability to plan far ahead, not just to next year but for five and 10 years ahead. They need to know what funding is available, what standards must be met and what tariffs need to be paid. There is a rumour that vast numbers of sheep will have to be slaughtered if they cannot be transported for export. This would have a catastrophic effect on sheep farmers in this country. Can the Minister comment on this issue?
Lastly, I understand that the report by the Farm Animal Welfare Committee, the Government’s independent science advisers, is likely to be presented this week. Can the Minister confirm that that is the case? As the Government have said that they would announce what they intend to do in England following that report, can the Minister give an indication of when there will be announcement and what it is likely to contain?
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her introduction and for the courtesy of arranging a helpful meeting with officials beforehand. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, said, the live export of animals is a very sensitive subject about which there is considerable public concern; there have been some shameful public images of animals suffering or dying in transit that have highlighted the fact that in many cases the current rules are simply not being respected in practice. This is why I am pleased that my party is committed to banning most exports of live animals for slaughter or fattening, with exemptions for those crossing the Northern Ireland border.
At the current time, more than 50,000 cattle and some 500,000 sheep are exported live annually for further production or slaughter in other regions of the UK and to EU member states. I echo the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, about the effect on sheep farmers of not having clarity over these rules at a very early stage. We must ensure that those markets are still open and available for business.
The 2017 Conservative manifesto stated that the UK could take early steps to control the export of live farm animals for slaughter once it left the EU. Since then, Defra has stated that a ban is one of the options being considered, and it launched a consultation in April 2018. Do the Government intend to introduce meat-carcass only export so that animals do not have to endure inhumane conditions to be slaughtered? Can the Minister confirm whether a ban on live animal exports would be compatible with the provisions of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, often referred to as the World Trade Organization rules, which prohibit countries imposing quantitative bans or restrictions on imports or exports?
Livestock legislation has been the same for 12 years now, despite European scientists calling for improvements on conditions and a reduction in journey times. Meanwhile, paragraph 2.14 of the Explanatory Memorandum states:
“The controls on control posts in the UK will remain identical to those in the EU (at least initially) after EU Exit”.
Can the Minister confirm whether, following Brexit, the Government will introduce better animal welfare provision at control posts? Is that what the phrase “at least initially” is meant to capture?
There is also concern about the lengthy delays that are common at the border, and we can all agree that there is a risk that this can only be exacerbated during or post-Brexit. There is also concern that we will not have enough vets to check on animal welfare and approve export licences at the UK border. What steps are the Government taking to reduce delays and cut maximum journey times for live animal exports? What discussions have taken place with veterinary bodies to ensure sufficient staff are in place? Will the Government introduce a “fit for travel” provision to ensure that animals are of an appropriate age, not in certain stages of pregnancy and do not have pre-existing injuries?
According to the Sustainable Food Trust, one in three small abattoirs in the UK has closed in the past decade. There are now just 249 red-meat abattoirs in the UK, down from 320 in 2003. The Association of Independent Meat Suppliers acknowledged that there are now black spots in the country where no abattoir provision exists. Is the Minister concerned about this? What action are the Government taking to reduce abattoir black spots and ensure that slaughter can take place close to areas where cattle, sheep and poultry are raised, and achieve the objective of travelling no longer than eight hours, as recommended by the BVA.
Turning to authorisation documents for the transport of animals, paragraph 2.15 of the EM states:
“The standard forms that are contained in the legislation will be removed and a power is given to each constituent nation of the UK to make their own versions of the authorisations and documents”.
Can the Minister advise whether the forms need to be changed in the event of a deal and/or no deal? If so, is the Minister confident that the required amendments to these forms will have been made in time for day one, if necessary, or can there be a period of grace while the old forms are still used? Will there be accompanying guidance ready in the event of no deal? Why was the EM worded in that way? What changes to the forms were envisaged? Will the detail required on the forms be on a par with the information currently required by the EU? Since it is proposed that the devolved Administrations will be responsible for amendments to those authorisations and documents, what impact will different versions have on businesses which export live animals through ports in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and across the borders between the devolved Administrations?
Currently, all drivers and attendants must hold certificates of competence evidencing their training in animal welfare during transport. This instrument amends the legislation to allow authorisation and certificates of competence issued by member states to those involved in transport to be recognised in the UK after EU exit. However, paragraph 2.16 of the Explanatory Memorandum advises that enforcement action,
“will not be possible after EU Exit”.
As that is now in the public domain, people may begin to realise that there will be no enforcement action. Does the Minister share my concern that without that enforcement mechanism, and with the knowledge that no action is going to be taken, unscrupulous traders may employ drivers and attendants who do not hold that certificate of competence in transporting animals and that that may lead to more breaches of animal welfare and worsening conditions for animals being transported?
What action are the Government taking to improve enforcement? Can the Minister assure the Committee that we have the appropriate resources and staff in place at border control posts to ensure that animal welfare standards are enforced? Can she confirm that the recognition of transporters’ certificates of competence is not reciprocal and that certificates issued in the UK will not be recognised by the EU 27 after the UK has left the EU? If that is the case, how many transporters will be affected and what costs will they incur if they are required to appoint a representative and seek authorisation in each EU country through which they will travel?
As the Minister said, the SI also sets out a change in policy on the certification of slaughterhouse staff. It removes the recognition of certificates of competence issued to slaughterers by other member states. Paragraph 2.18 of the EM states:
“Continued recognition of certificates issued in other Member States would open up potential enforcement issues as we would be unable to suspend or revoke a certificate issued in another Member State in the event a slaughterer breached the requirements of the retained EU legislation or domestic legislation”.
As a result, a number of slaughterhouse employees who gained their qualification in an EU member state will need to apply for a certificate of competence in the UK to continue to work in the UK after exit.
As the Minister also said, Defra estimates that applying and being assessed for a certificate of competence in the UK will carry a cost of around £225 and will affect fewer than 200 individuals, which comes to around 3% of slaughterers. The EM suggests that £225 is not a large sum of money, but it could put some people off. Has there been any discussion with the industry about whether it could pay for that extra certification and whether that would be good practice, rather than individual staff members having to pay for it? What other discussions have taken place with the industry to ensure that those affected are aware of and understand the policy change and those new requirements which could come on stream very quickly?
When will affected slaughterers need to apply for a new certificate of competence? Will it be literally from exit day? How long will the process of getting the new certificate take? Will their applications be expedited, given that they hold existing EU qualifications? Given that the EU has already confirmed that it will not recognise UK certificates of competence, do we know how many UK-qualified staff will be affected by that decision if they try to work in the EU? I do not know whether that information is available.
Finally, this SI will permit meat produced in member states, the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland to be accepted in the UK without a third-country health certificate. Can the Minister confirm whether this is the case in both a deal and no-deal situation? Is this a reciprocal arrangement? Do we have the same opportunities to trade with those additional countries that are not member states? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions today. This has been an interesting debate and we have covered all the key elements of what I hope is a fairly simple SI that largely leaves everything exactly as it was. I shall spend a few minutes answering questions raised by noble Lords. There has been a variety of them.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigley, brought up the issue of divergence with the devolved authorities. I reassure him that, as a department, we have been working closely with the devolved authorities on a wide range of areas and on this area in particular. We are working on developing common frameworks. One was agreed in October 2017 with the Scottish and Welsh Governments, and further frameworks were agreed in April 2018 to deepen and broaden the relationship. We are very clear that the Scottish and Welsh Governments are committed to not diverging in ways that would cut across future frameworks where it has been agreed that they are necessary and where discussions continue. We would expect, for example, the forms issue that was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, to be one of those issues; it makes no sense whatever to have different forms in different countries.
I turn to the issue of slaughterers. I completely understand that this issue has been highlighted because it is clear that fewer than 200 people will be affected by this issue; we expect it to be about 170. That is the number that we got when we asked the Food Standards Agency, Food Standards Scotland and DAERA to provide the information. The noble Lord was concerned about whether there would be a shortage. I feel that 170 people out of a total of 6,000 definitely do not make for a shortage, but they would be able to get retrained pretty much immediately. That is usually carried out in-house by slaughterhouse operators and there is certification by a private assessor provided by the UKAS-accredited body, which is FDQ.
Lord Wigley
I thank the Minister for responding to the points that I raised. Does she appreciate that, although the numbers may be some 200 or fewer, there can be a diversity of intensity of those? In some slaughterhouses, as we know in Wales, there is a quite disproportionate number of European-originated workers, so there could potentially be points of difficulty even though the overall situation is okay.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I completely accept the noble Lord’s point. He is right, and I did not mean to denigrate their contribution. Certainly we have been in communication with the industry—we communicated in August 2018 and then with other groups more broadly in January 2019—so there has been time to think about this. We believe that, as was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, a number of people are offering to pay the £225. It is important to understand that these individuals would still be able to work under supervision anyway. If they are within that sort of environment, they would be okay. It seems that the training and accreditation is not measured in years; it is much shorter than that.
I turn to the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell. The point about the banning of live exports was also raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I know, having been in your Lordships’ House for a little while now, how important this issue is, because it comes up frequently. Our manifesto commitment made it absolutely clear that we would take early steps to control the export of live animals for slaughter once we leave the EU. Last year, as noble Lords will know, we sought evidence on how we could achieve that, including through a possible ban. A number of noble Lords mentioned that we are awaiting advice from the Farm Animal Welfare Committee on this issue, as well as advice on how we can more generally improve welfare for all animals in transport, which I believe will address some of the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones.
I cannot confirm that the report will be published this week. I very much hope that it is, but I have a note saying that it will be published by the end of March. I hope that is acceptable to the noble Baroness. We will consider all the options, in line with the commitment that we made in our manifesto, and we will ensure that any measures introduced are consistent with the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade.
I confess that the issue of economic activity was something that confused me, too, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for asking her question. I will try to be helpful here, but I am not sure that I will be very helpful. The regulation states:
“Transport for commercial purposes is not limited to transport where an immediate exchange of money, goods or services takes place. Transport for commercial purposes includes, in particular, transport which directly or indirectly involves or aims at a financial gain”.
So I think the €2.5 million-odd at the Arc de Triomphe would fall within that. Indeed, the note says that it includes transporting horses to race abroad.
Noble Lords touched on the issue of the Irish border and movement over it. We have been clear that there will be no physical infrastructure or related checks and controls at the border. It will be a key part of our ongoing relationship with the EU and with our friends and neighbours in the Republic of Ireland. If we leave the EU without a deal, we will be treated as a third country. At this time, there is no reciprocity being offered by the EU, but one might imagine that it might at least be open some conversations if the worst comes to the worst—certainly from my perspective—and we leave with no deal.
The question of donkeys is one that I asked myself. I reassure the noble Baroness that, although we do not have figures for how many exports may involve donkeys, mules or hinnies, no equines were exported for slaughter. That is pretty much all I can do with that one, I am afraid. I think it is a minority sport, so to speak; I do not think that there are donkeys heading anywhere to be killed for meat.
Noble Lords mentioned sheep farming. It is an incredibly important issue. I answered a Question, I think from the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, about sheep farming in Wales. We all feel that this is a very important issue. I think it is something that we will be discussing as the Brexit process happens. I certainly hope that we have a deal. However, if we are in a situation where we leave with no deal, the Government will look to do whatever they can to intervene in the event that there is significant market movement in the price of lamb. We do not consider—as was suggested in the Sunday Times, I believe, this weekend—that a mass cull is an option. It is not an option, and we would certainly work very closely with the sheep farming communities on what we can do.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, talked about border delays, and she was right. In planning for leaving the EU, we have three objectives: to maintain the current high levels of UK biosecurity; to maintain the flow of goods at the border; and to minimise the impact on businesses. Animals and animal products originating in the EU will continue to enter the UK without needing to be checked at a UK border inspection post. We will continue to have risk-based border import checks for live animals, germinal products and some animal by-products, as are carried out now. The only additional inspections will apply to live animals, animal products and high-risk food and feed not of animal origin that originate from a third country and have travelled through the EU. We believe that we have the resources in place, and we are confident that there will not be significant delays at the border resulting from any changed arrangements as we leave the EU.
The noble Baroness spotted the “at least initially” in the Explanatory Memorandum. I would like to reassure her—because it does look quite suspicious—that we have no intention of lowering any of our current welfare standards after we leave the EU. In fact, we will look to raise standards substantially over time as new research and evidence emerge. So there may well be divergence in future, but we do not expect it to be to the detriment of the welfare of animals in our country.
Another issue that often arises when we discuss animal welfare is the small abattoirs sector. The Government acknowledge the role that small abattoirs play in local economies and in reducing the distance that animals have to travel for slaughter. The decline in the number of small abattoirs is the result of a combination of different factors, including consolidation in the retail sector and greater efficiency, so much of the slaughter is now taking place in larger, more efficient abattoirs. However, officials from Defra and the FSA are working with the Sustainable Food Trust to understand the issues facing small abattoirs and what scope there may be to reduce regulatory burdens that may not be appropriate in those very small settings. The Government will not reduce animal welfare standards, but there may be other things that we can do. We are also aware that the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare has just announced a review of the small abattoir sector and we look forward to seeing that report.
The issue of forms was mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch. This is extremely important because the forms contain the information and data that go into ensuring that we are able to meet the regulations, et cetera. That is the issue which underpins all of this. We do not envisage that the type of data in the forms will change in the future. However, if it needs to do so, it will be only in order to meet the regulations. Therefore, it is not the case that you could suddenly knock off half the data, because then you would not have the information to prove that you were complying with the regulations. We do not envisage any significant change and we will continue to use the current EU forms after exit day. Over a period of time it may be that we will introduce our own forms, but there is unlikely to be a significant change and the industry is very used to providing this information.
I turn to the issue of transport enforcement. This is indeed critical, and it is the case that we have had to strike a balance. We will not have the powers to suspend or revoke certificates of competence for individual transporters. However, we will be able to make a formal notification to the issuing member state to address issues of non-compliance, and the local authority will have powers to take action against the EU transporter if it commits an offence in the UK under the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006 or the Animal Welfare Act 2006. We are clear that this is for an interim period. The purpose here is again about balance. It is to make sure that as little as possible changes, particularly in the very short term. However, over the longer term as the future relationship settles down, particularly in a no-deal situation, we will be looking at the system again to ensure that enforcement is possible. It also could be that a relationship with the EU may develop over time. But we cannot say how it will be affected at this stage, especially on transportation, because the options are so many and varied. Also, there is movement in the area of haulage in general, which I do not think is quite within the scope of this SI.
Almost finally, I turn to consultation, an issue that frequently comes up. I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that we have done our best to provide guidance to all of the affected stakeholders. As I mentioned earlier, we did this in August 2018 and in January 2019.
I shall say a little more about transporter costs and numbers. The cost of acquiring EU 27 authorisation will vary across the different member states. Our understanding is that the direct and administration costs are on average around £300. This could have an impact on around 500 transporters, although some will have the option of using EU-authorised transporters to mitigate some of the impact—as I alluded to earlier.
I believe that I have covered nearly all of the questions put to me by noble Lords, particularly those relating directly to this SI. I beg to move.
General Food Law (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
That the Grand Committee do consider the General Food Law (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their consideration of the draft regulations—the General Food Law (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the General Food Hygiene (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, the Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 and the Contaminants in Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
The Government’s priority is to ensure that the high standards of food safety and consumer protection we enjoy in this country are maintained when the UK leaves the European Union. These instruments are crucial to meeting our objective of a functioning statute book on exit. They are made under the powers in the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 to make necessary amendments to the overarching food regulations so that we can continue to protect public health from risks that may arise in connection with the consumption of food. These instruments correct deficiencies in those regulations.
I wish to be clear that no policy changes are made through these instruments, nor is there any intention to make any at present. These instruments propose a transfer of responsibilities to UK entities to support a UK-centric regulatory regime. Responsibilities incumbent on the European Commission are designated to Ministers in England, Wales and Scotland, and to the devolved authority in Northern Ireland.
The European Food Safety Authority, EFSA, is the EU body that provides scientific advice on food safety. These regulations designate EFSA responsibilities to the food safety authority. This will be the Food Standards Agency, the FSA, in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and Food Standards Scotland, which has a close working relationship with the FSA. The draft instruments being considered today will ensure that the following key EU regulations on food and feed safety and hygiene will function effectively on exit day.
Regulation 178/2002 lays down the fundamental principles that underpin food law and the essential requirements that food and feed businesses must comply with, as well as describing certain functions to be carried out by EU institutions. A key principle set out in the legislation is that food placed on the market must be safe to eat. It also provides for other fundamental safety and hygiene requirements, including rules and expectations on traceability. It establishes a requirement for open and transparent public consultation if food law is revised.
Regulation 852/2004 contains the basic food hygiene requirements for all food businesses. It sets out the general requirements for the hygienic production of foodstuffs through the provision of effective and proportionate controls throughout the food chain to the final consumer.
Regulation 853/2004 relates to the specific hygiene rules for products of animal origin, and Regulation 854/2004 relates to the organisation of official controls for products of animal origin. These specific hygiene rules set out the requirements and specific health standards for establishments on land or at sea for slaughtering, processing, storing or transporting products of animal origin.
The regulations on chemical contaminants protect consumers by ensuring that they are protected from the adverse effects of exposure to contaminants that may be present in food. Chemical contaminants may be present in food from the environment or as a result of growing conditions. The legislation sets out maximum limits for certain contaminants in food and provides a clear legal basis on which enforcement action may be taken, where necessary, to protect consumers by facilitating the removal of unsafe food from the food chain.
These instruments do not introduce any changes in how food businesses are regulated or managed. They do not introduce extra burdens and therefore provide continuity and clarity for businesses and continued protection of consumers’ interests. It also means that non-compliances can continue to be addressed in the same way. These will ensure a robust system of controls that will also underpin UK businesses’ ability to trade both domestically and internationally.
It is also important to note that the devolved Administrations have provided their consent for these instruments. Furthermore, we have engaged positively with the devolved Administrations throughout the development of these instruments. This ongoing engagement has been warmly welcomed. A full public consultation indicated support for the proposed approach to retained EU law for food and feed safety and hygiene. These instruments therefore constitute a necessary measure to ensure that the important food safety regulations will continue to work effectively after exit day. On that basis, I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these SIs, which replace references to the EU in regulations with references to the UK, and as such are relatively innocuous. The first question I want to ask was raised in Grand Committee last Wednesday by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who is in his place. Is the Minister satisfied that all relevant regulations on these important food safety matters have been copied over into the SIs we are discussing today? The noble Lord found some SIs where some important matters had not been copied over. Perhaps he has spotted something which I have not in these regulations, and we will hear from him in due course.
Secondly, the general food law SI, the general food hygiene SI and the contaminants in food SI allow only one hour for a single officer in a local authority to familiarise himself or herself with the new regulations and disseminate the information to staff and stakeholders. I wonder whether it is a coincidence that they will have to do it on April Fools’ Day, the first working day after Brexit. The problem is that cuts to local authority funding have meant that some authorities no longer have any full-time food and feed officers to take charge on this issue, so who is going to do it, and who is going to pay for it? How can they do it in only one hour? Is this not just a covert way of ensuring that an impact assessment does not need to be produced? All those who responded to the consultation claimed that this cannot be done in so short a time and will certainly cost more than the Government estimate, and the Government have not offered to cover these costs. How did the Government reach the conclusion that the implementation time for businesses would be so staggeringly short?
The food hygiene SI allows a 21-month implementation period for food labelling changes from EU to GB or UK, but even here, the industry has concerns that some small businesses may struggle to comply. Other respondents to the consultation raised concerns that a common framework across the whole of the UK has not been properly addressed. The NFU pointed out that some farm holdings cross borders and animal feed moves across the Welsh and Scottish borders frequently. Is the Minister satisfied that devolution issues have been settled to the satisfaction of the Welsh and Scottish Governments?
Thirdly, can the FSA and its Scottish equivalent, the FSS, fulfil their additional responsibilities? Do they have enough staff and resources? Can the Minister respond to these concerns? Other respondents are concerned about how the Government intend to provide a suitable replacement for the risk-management function for food safety currently undertaken by the European Food Safety Authority. Can the Minister say what is being done about this? The whole of the food safety regime is based on risk management, and it is far from clear who will be responsible for this after Brexit and whether they have adequate resources. The National Pig Association is keen to retain a close working relationship with the EFSA to ensure that we in the UK receive food problem alerts in good time to take effective protective action against livestock diseases coming to us from the continent. This will also be a concern for other livestock producers. Can the Minister say what arrangements for this have been put in place?
I hope I will be forgiven for straying slightly beyond these SIs to some relevant matters, and I hope the Minister will find my comments useful for the future. If we are to leave the EU, the Government have always said that there is no danger of reducing our food standards and that, on the contrary, it gives us an opportunity to improve them. That is why I am surprised we have heard nothing yet of the Government’s plans to do that. One thing I would have wanted to improve in the common agricultural policy is to link food production and trade policies to the better dietary health of the European population. So here is a challenge for the British Government. They can start with two things, which I put down as markers for the future. First, they should ban the use of nitrites in processed meats, such as bacon and ham, in favour of other processes which have not been designated as carcinogenic by the World Health Organization, as nitrites have been, but which preserve meat just as well and protect it from botulism just as effectively.
Secondly, they should introduce supply-side regulations to reduce the UK population’s intake of free sugars by two-thirds to comply with the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition’s recommendations, which make clear that overconsumption of sugar is responsible for the crisis of obesity, diabetes and all their associated preventable diseases, and for tooth decay in children, which is responsible for most of their hospital stays. Agricultural and trade policy are central to the supply of sugar, and amendments could be effective in changing the market for sugar before it even reaches the consumer. Reformulation programmes, sugary drinks tax and nudges towards behaviour change have their place, but we could make a greater and faster change if we addressed the supply side.
Once they have got all the relevant SIs about retained EU law through Parliament, will the Government look at these two opportunities as a matter of urgency? Has the Minister had any discussions or made any representations from her department to the rest of Government about such measures, as we move into the years after Brexit?
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, this is my first opportunity to welcome the Minister and congratulate her on her government appointment. I sincerely wish her well for the future.
As for interests to declare, I recently chaired an egg summit for the largest retailer in the country, which is in the register, and of course at one time, along with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who is in his place, I was chair of the Food Standards Agency. Before that, I was one of the last food safety Ministers, so I go back a little bit. This is my guest appearance only, at the personal invitation of my noble friends Lady Jones and Lady Smith; if the party leadership find out about it I will be in real trouble, although I can say that I am speaking for myself today since there is nobody else here from the Labour Party. I serve on Sub-Committee B of the Lords process for Brexit. We deal with all the FSA SIs as they come through. That was agreed simply because the chair is my noble friend Lord Cunningham, who was the Minister at the MAFF when we started work on setting up the FSA. I also sit on the Lords environment sub-committee. This morning we had the pleasure of having the chair of the Food Standards Agency and the Minister’s colleague, the Minister for Public Health and Primary Care, with us for an hour to discuss risk assessment and risk management post Brexit.
We are at one with these regulations. I am not going to waste the time of the Minister or of officials with details on the regulations. They provide continuity for people in terms of public health, the legal framework stays the same and there should be no problem with businesses. We were given quite good commitments in public this morning in terms of resources both for the Scottish end and the FSA, dealing with the rest of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and therefore I do not want to duplicate everything.
There is one area which the Minister and officials might want to take away for the future. There is a lot of concern about local authority performance, and in terms of inspections there is no question about that. Environmental health officers are the unsung heroes of food safety. They do the takeaways and all the bits that people do not normally think about, but that is not politically sexy for councillors, to be honest, and therefore it is one of the first things they will go for chopping. Of course, without them, in terms of managing the situation, the FSA is powerless, because of lack of information.
Lord Krebs (CB)
I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness on her appointment as the Minister in the Lords for health and social care. I would like to pick up on a point mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and to reiterate the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I am also a member of the EU Sub-Committee on Energy and the Environment, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. We heard evidence this morning from the Minister for Public Health and Primary Care and from Heather Hancock, the chair of the FSA. The point that I want to pin down here is the one concerning risk management because we have heard contradictory statements over the past six to nine months about who is going to be in charge of risk management after Brexit day. What we learned is that at the moment, the arrangement is that EFSA produces the risk assessment, the risk management decisions are taken by the standing committee, on which the UK is represented by the Food Standards Agency—and on only rare occasions are decisions on risk management escalated to the Council of Ministers.
Heather Hancock has proposed, and indeed has set up an equivalent arrangement for post Brexit, so there will be an equivalent of the standing committee in which the FSA on behalf of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and Food Standards Scotland will make the risk management decisions. That is her proposal. On the other hand, we have been told on numerous occasions that Ministers intend to take risk management decisions in relation to food safety and standards, which of course would take us right back to the old days before the FSA was set up when Ministers got themselves in a tangle when confronted with having to make difficult decisions about risk management and they sometimes got them wrong. I will not go into detail, but we are all aware of the mistakes that were made in the 1990s. I would like to get confirmation from the Minister of what Steve Brine told us this morning; namely, that it is his intention—I do not believe I am putting words into his mouth—that risk management decisions on most issues will be delegated to the Food Standards Agency. I would like confirmation that that is indeed the Government’s position because we have heard contradictory points of view.
That was my main point. My only other point is that I picked up this morning some difficulty over who is in charge in ministerial terms between Defra and the Department of Health and Social Care. I would like confirmation that it is indeed health Ministers who are accountable to Parliament, even if they are not making decisions. The current situation is that the FSA through the standing committee makes the decisions, but health Ministers account for them in Parliament if necessary. They are a kind of conduit from the Food Standards Agency to Parliament. I would like to hear confirmation that that will remain the case after Brexit and that responsibility will not somehow be split between Defra and the Department for Health and Social Care.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I will make some brief comments. I too welcome the Minister to her position. I also particularly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, coming back to the Opposition Front Bench. I remember great times when he was a Defra Minister and the work he did when the climate change Bill went through.
I will raise two points that relate in many ways to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Krebs. Although these SIs make technical replacements to make sure that the regulations work, which I accept and understand, subject to my noble friend Lady Walmsley’s question about what has been left out, the whole crux of this comes back to how the structures that enforce and flow from these SIs will work. Is the Minister satisfied that the Food Standards Agency will be sufficiently independent of political influence when it comes to important decisions about consumer safety, food safety and agriculture? At a time of major incidents, decisions taken by Ministers can be very difficult in their effect, in particular on the food processing industry and indeed the agriculture industry.
The other area concerns our meeting with the Minister this morning at the sub-committee. I was very impressed by the chair of the FSA, Heather Hancock, and what she has achieved over time to put all the systems and people in place, but I was not convinced by the liaison between Defra and the Department for health over these negotiations. It seemed that on the question of systems the Minister was not entirely in touch—I do not mean this over-critically—with the negotiations in this area that Defra has undertaken. It is that liaison on which I would like some assurance.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
I thank all noble Lords for their contribution to this debate on my first SI. I think it is quite unusual for your first SI to involve two former chairs of the independent body that you are in part debating. I shall do my best to tread appropriately carefully.
I shall respond to some of the questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about why the instruments deal specifically with these questions and do not think beyond Brexit. I am sure she will know, having experience with previous statutory instruments, that the instruments are responding to the fixing power of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which is limited to making appropriate changes to prevent, remedy or mitigate failures of retained EU law to operate effectively, so these instruments aim specifically to ensure that food safety and hygiene legislation functions in a no-deal scenario. I state at the outset that we think it is unlikely that the UK will leave without a deal—indeed, it would be very undesirable—but we must be prepared in all scenarios. I wanted to put on record at the beginning why these SIs were drafted in this specific way, although I know she knows that.
To respond to the noble Baroness’s question about whether we are confident that they have all the necessary read-across from EU law into UK law, we have been very careful to review the EU law in FSA policy areas to check that. We believe we have identified all the EU law that needs to have those connections across.
The noble Baroness asked about the consultation, and this was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, regarding the responses about the impact on local government. The SIs were very effective, in as much as the FSA did a full public consultation that lasted six weeks. It should be praised for following that route and for engaging with local authorities and industry. It is reasonable to point out that local authorities are under pressure at the moment, but I think the reason why we have come to the view that it will take a relatively brief amount of time to get familiar with the new legislation is that there are no changes to the vast majority of requirements in the read-across. We are therefore confident that the time that has been predicted in the impact statement is sufficient, so we believe that that impact assessment is robust.
In addition, we wanted to discuss the devolved Administrations and consultation there. We are very pleased that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have provided their consent for these instruments. We have worked very closely in developing them. The principles and rules set out in retained legislation in these SIs are intended to ensure that we have the same level of food safety protection throughout the UK, so that we can have a free flow of trade through it to address exactly the concerns that the noble Baroness raised. However, the FSA is not going to leave it there: it will continue that close working relationship with the Administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland so we can be confident that in practice it will be possible to make arrangements to operate a framework of food safety regulation across the UK in whatever exit scenario we may face.
I turn to the important series of questions about RASFF risk assessment and management in a potential no-deal scenario, asked by noble Lords with great experience. I know there has already been something of a debate about this in Select Committee with my colleague the Minister, Steve Brine, so I suspect I will repeat some things that he has said—perhaps not so eloquently, but I will do my best.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, rightly said, securing continued access to and participation in the RASFF system after leaving the EU is one of the UK Government’s top food safety priorities. We recognise its importance for UK food safety, but we also recognise the important role that the UK has played in establishing that system. We are proud of that, and would like to continue to play a role. We are pressing for full access to that system in our negotiations with the EU, and I am sure that is what my colleague the Minister said earlier. As he would have said, though, the exact arrangements for participation in RASFF are still a matter for the next phase of negotiations. It is therefore hard to provide any further detail on that, as I know noble Lords will recognise. We recognise the importance of it and of a continued strong relationship with the EU.
In communications back to us, the EU has recognised the important role the UK played in the establishment not only of RASFF but of equivalent food standards bodies in the European Commission, so I think the close relationships we have there will bear fruit. They are not just close relationships at a European Commission level but scientific relationships, which tend to weather political storms a little better than political relationships, if I may say so, so I have a sense of optimism about this. We must be clear that negotiators recognise that there is no precedent at this point for third-country membership of RASFF, but we will continue to make the point that we have an unusually strong contribution to make to it and therefore there is value in us engaging with it.
The mutual benefits are an important element of maintaining food safety for both parties, and we think it is important for the EU, as well as for the UK, that this close trading relationship can continue without compromising confidence in food safety. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, pointed out, FSA officials have been working closely on this point with Defra officials to ensure that there is a seamless approach to dealing with the challenge of exit, and that contact is maintained at not only a policy and legal level, but, most crucially, an operational level. That will need to continue as we go through this next period.
I now turn to what will happen in the undesired scenario of no deal, where we may well have to cope without access to RASFF, even if it is in the short term. Noble Lords will have heard earlier today from Heather Hancock, the chair of the FSA, on the plans she has put in place to ensure we have robust protections and operational measures in place to ensure that food safety standards are in no way compromised, no matter what the outcome of EU exit may be. In the first instance, we have ensured that the FSA is increasing the level of engagement with the International Network of Food Safety Authorities, INFOSAN—which, noble Lords will know, is managed jointly by the FAO and the WHO—to provide the UK with an extensive reach for communicating food safety issues to INFOSAN. Indeed, we believe that, with our extensive experience, we have done work to improve the effectiveness of that organisation.
We have to bear in mind that we have effectively been managing food risk from imports from and exports to non-EU countries through some of those bilateral and non-EU routes, so we can have confidence in the effectiveness of the FSA as a world-leading regulator—up until this point, in any case. Nevertheless, there has been no complacency in this. The FSA has put in place a number of measures to strengthen the domestic risk assessment and risk management measures. To do this, it has recruited additional staff involved in risk assessment and risk management, implemented an expanded role for the independent scientific advisory committees, which are now being strengthened by recruiting new experts and establishing three new expert groups, and expanded access to scientific experts who can provide scientific advice and other scientific services to inform our work on a contract basis, including by expanding our register of specialists. It has ensured that it will put in place a slightly new system that is based on current practice but includes: a structured separation of risk assessment and risk management; a new executive advisory committee that draws together officials from government; an expanded role for the independent scientific advisory committees, which, as I have said, have been strengthened by recruiting new experts; and a new process for authorising regulated products, such as food and feed additives, enzymes, flavourings, GM food and feed, and other novel foods.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, raised an important question about the independence of the FSA and the role of Ministers. It is right to assure him that the response he received from my honourable friend Steve Brine in Select Committee is right. While food safety decisions will be made by Health Ministers, the FSA and FSS will continue to lead and make risk management decisions during food safety incidents, providing risk management advice to the enforcement authorities, which take action. Of course, this independence is set out by statute. No proposal is in place to change that. All food safety and risk management decisions will be proportionate and evidence-based. They will be based on a package of supporting analysis in line with the fine tradition the FSA has of openness and transparency. We can be proud of the FSA’s tradition of doing that.
I hope I have answered the questions raised. On that basis, I beg to move.
General Food Hygiene (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
That the Grand Committee do consider the General Food Hygiene (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Specific Food Hygiene (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
Contaminants in Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford
That the Grand Committee do consider the Contaminants in Food (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019.
House of Lords
Gender Equality and Rights in the Workplace
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Crawley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the United Kingdom maintains gender equality and rights in the workplace in line with other European Union member states.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
My Lords, in begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I refer noble Lords to my pension as a former MEP, which is in the register of interests.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the UK has a proud record of supporting workers’ rights and some of the strongest legislation on equalities in the world. We have committed to maintaining these rights but we already go beyond EU requirements in many areas: our ground-breaking gender pay gap reporting regulations and public sector equality duty, to name just two. Our new strategy, to be published later this year, will restate the Government Equalities Office mission on gender and set out the ambitious work taking place across government on this agenda.
Baroness Crawley
I thank the Minister. We can agree that current UK gender equality legislation is indeed in good health, although I am sure she will agree that it is not always complied with. However, does she agree that we are where we are only because the EU has been a backstop—if noble Lords will excuse the expression—against the unilateral lowering of standards by member states? I am aware of the Prime Minister’s announcement today but how can we be confident that her Government will protect women and workers’ rights when members of her own party have regularly voted against them?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree that the UK has a long-standing tradition of ensuring that our rights and liberties are protected domestically and of fulfilling our international rights and obligations. The decision to leave the EU does not change that.
Baroness Mone (Con)
My Lords, what steps, events or campaigns are Her Majesty’s Government undertaking to encourage more female entrepreneurs?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank my noble friend as the epitome of a female entrepreneur in this House and commend her on her recent app, Connect 2 Michelle Mone, which provides mentoring to would-be female entrepreneurs. Of the start-up loans that the Government have provided, 39% have gone to women and, through our industrial strategy, we are focusing on barriers to women in business.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that the majority of carers in the UK—an estimated 58%—are women, and many struggle to find and hold on to good jobs. A reported 76% felt that they were forced to make changes to their job or quit. A recent survey by the Disability Law Service discovered that, of those carers who have applied for flexible working, a shocking 52% have had their request refused. A simple amendment to the Equality Act 2010 could resolve this by giving carers the same rights to reasonable adjustments as are currently given to disabled people. This would send a powerful message to both carers and the business community that a carer is to be accommodated in a similar way.
Baroness Hussein-Ece
Perhaps I might finish. Will the Government consider this?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am sorry, my Lords; the noble Baroness seemed to stop mid-sentence. The first point that she made—on low-skilled, low-paid women—is very important. Those women tend to be stuck in that low-skill/low pay situation both at the beginning of their potential career and at the end. Graphs very clearly show that pattern. We have a ring-fenced returners fund for marginalised women, and we are actively encouraging women and girls to take up STEM subjects so that they can get involved in things such as engineering. In addition, the economic empowerment strategy that I talked about will very much focus on women throughout their career journey and on how to get them out of that low-skill/low-pay rut.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, compared with our fellow Europeans, the UK lags behind quite a lot in terms of the number of women on boards and in leadership positions. At the moment, only a third of companies place any emphasis on this, but it is clearly crucial to provide good role models for girls coming up through the business community. Last year, research showed that there were more people called David or Steve running FTSE 100 companies than the total number of women and people from ethnic minorities. For the record, there were five minority-ethnic bosses and seven female CEOs, versus nine bosses called David and four called Steve. What are the Government going to do about this?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
David and Steve must be listening. The noble Baroness really pinpoints how far we have to go, but at this point I must also talk about how far we have come. I think that way back in 2014 12% of board members were women; now, over 30% are women. The noble Baroness talks about women in leadership positions. Of course, leadership is provided by ensuring that women are on boards, but I think that at this point in time there are no male-only boards. That may be a small step but it is a step none the less.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister talked about the “proud record” but analysis by leading scholars from Manchester University shows that,
“far from being a pace setter in the area of European gender equality law, the UK has usually sought to stall, dilute or divert legal measures”.
Therefore, how can we have confidence that these rights will be real? As a minimum, can the Minister give us an assurance that we will implement the work-life balance directive currently under consideration by the European Union and, in particular, following on from the earlier question, introduce paid leave for carers?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, we are sixth out of 28 in the EU’s equality index. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to talk about carers—they are the typical low-skilled, low-paid people who often cannot get out of that situation. The noble Baroness talked about another directive—we have implemented all relevant directives into UK law. In many ways, we have gone further with our gender pay gap and public sector equality duty.
Baroness Gale (Lab)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that the TUC has said that the current deal does not protect existing rights or guarantee that the UK will not fall behind in future? The TUC described the Prime Minister’s promises today as “window dressing”. Promises to do the right thing are not enough. What plans do the Government have to give a legal guarantee that there will be no regression on existing rights for women?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As I explained, we have implemented the transfer of all relevant equalities directives into UK law. I am not concerned about that. We leave the European Union with that intact. However, even if we were not leaving, I am very satisfied that on equalities we punch well above our weight. Far from falling behind the EU, the EU is falling behind us.
Prevent Strategy
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Sheikh
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the review of the Prevent strategy.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, as outlined in the Counter-Terrorism and Border Security Act, which received Royal Assent on 12 February, further details of the review of the Prevent strategy will be provided by 12 August.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her reply. I am pleased that Her Majesty’s Government have agreed to undertake an independent review of the Prevent strategy; this has been very well received in the Muslim community. Will the review have sufficiently broad terms of reference, including community engagement, public consultation and full government disclosure? To what extent will Her Majesty’s Government commit to the recommendations in the review when it is completed?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I thank my noble friend for his Question. I echo the words of my right honourable friend the Security Minister in the other place, who has agreed to engage across the House on the review and ideas for the terms of reference. As I said, the review will report by August 2020, but arrangements for how it will be carried out will be made by 12 August 2019. We absolutely recognise the importance of hearing community views. Now is the opportunity for any noble Lords or members of the community who are concerned or otherwise to feed into the review, and we will welcome them.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the internet is a hugely powerful tool: it has been a force for good but it has also been used for crime and to draw people into terrorism. Will the Minister ensure proper cross-over of the Prevent review with the Government’s White Paper on internet safety?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right: we cannot discuss what is happening in this area without talking about the online sphere. I entirely agree with him that the White Paper on internet harms has to include that important element.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that “prevent” is too weak and negative a word for trying to get different communities to behave responsibly and with respect towards one another? Does she further agree that religious leaders have a particular responsibility to counter bigotry by emphasising that the one God of us all is not interested in our different religious labels but in what we do for one another and wider society?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is indeed right. Our gods, whoever they are, care about how we treat each other and work together. On the question of whether “prevent” is too weak or has become too divisive, what is often forgotten is that many of the referrals—in fact, almost half now—arise from concerns about the far right. I hope that the noble Lord will feed into the review when it comes.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, what lessons have the Government learned from the numerous attempts to appoint the chair of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse that will help to ensure that the independent inquiry into Prevent has the trust and confidence of the communities most affected?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I do not think the independence of the IICSA chair was ever in doubt. Some of the concerns were around—
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Process, absolutely—I thank the noble Lord. Independence was not in doubt, but for the reviewer to have confidence is of the utmost importance.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, has there been any increase in the 8.6% of tip-offs about potential terrorists to the Prevent programme and our security services that come from within our close-knit Muslim communities? What plans do the Government have to encourage greater collaboration with our Muslim friends against their radical co-religionists?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, given that Prevent is a safeguarding measure for young people—usually—who are vulnerable, “tip-offs” is not necessarily the correct term in this context. If authorities are in any way warned that somebody is vulnerable, they will take action to ensure that that person is protected. We have seen over the last two years that sometimes—in fact, oft-times—Muslim communities have been the biggest victims of terrorism and suffer the worst aftermath of its effects.
Lord Blair of Boughton (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest, having been involved in the original conversations that started the concept of Prevent. Will the Minister make sure that those conducting this review—nothing should get in its way—recognise that, when the British came up with the idea of a system to engage with communities so that they could protect themselves, there was nothing like it in the world? There still is not. Law-enforcement communities across the world regard Prevent as the gold standard for working with communities to protect them against terrorism. I ask the Minister to make sure that that view is represented in the review.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is absolutely right, and I look forward to hearing his views when the review comes. If we look back at the start of the process—I am talking way back—integration and counterterrorism were sometimes muddled. I think that is what started some of the accusations that came with Prevent, but he is right: we are looked upon across the world as a model for this sort of intervention.
Royal Navy: Type 31e Frigates
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord West of Spithead
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to award the contract to build five Type 31e frigates.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Earl Howe) (Con)
My Lords, there has been no change in the Government’s plans. It remains our intention to award a single design and build contract for five Type 31e frigates by the end of 2019.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his answer. Many of us who are concerned about the number of ships in the Navy have been concerned about this delay in ordering. Only yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Trafford, accosted me and asked whether the ships’ names committee could call them the “Grayling Class” as there were no ships, which I thought a little unfair. Can the noble Earl reassure the House that the first of these ships will be fully active in the Royal Navy in 2023? If not, as the noble Earl knows, “HMS Argyll” will pay off and the number of frigates that this great maritime nation possesses will have dropped to 12.
Earl Howe
My Lords, we see no reason at all to depart from the timescales that we set ourselves; they remain unchanged. We want the first ship in 2023 and all five by the end of 2028. I say to the noble Lord that we have streamlined the procurement procedure in a way that should be helpful, to enable us to award the contract by the end of this year.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend will be aware that we are both designing and building frigates for other Commonwealth countries, notably Australia and Canada. Will he encourage his friends to consider the proposal that these frigates—I am not sure whether they are Type 26 or Type 31e—shall be crewed and operated jointly by Commonwealth navies?
Earl Howe
My noble friend draws attention to something very encouraging. The UK shipbuilding sector has been able to compete in the world market for very high-end specification frigates—it is the Type 26 frigates which he was referring to. This aids the issue of interoperability between allies, which he also highlighted. We welcome the fact that Australia and Canada have entered the fold of nations which will operate this vessel.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, in light of the National Audit Office’s November 2018 report, which suggested that the MoD’s equipment plan remained unaffordable, falling about £10 billion short over the next 10 years, will the Minister explain to the House what plans the MoD has to ensure that the Type 31e frigates are delivered on time and, crucially, on budget? Are the new procurement arrangements intended to deliver that?
Earl Howe
The noble Baroness is quite right: in April, the forecast cost of the equipment plan exceeded the allocated budget of £7 billion over 10 years, which is the central estimate. Indeed, if we took no action, the plan would not be affordable. However, based on past experience as well as what we are doing, we are confident that we will successfully deliver the plan within budget, both this year and next year, through effective management, by monitoring and controlling costs as we go, and with the benefit of the additional money secured in the Budget.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, on 20 July 2016, the then chief executive of Defence Equipment and Support, said to the Defence Committee that,
“the eight Type 26 frigates are approximately £8 billion-worth of planning going forward”.
I interpret that as meaning that a Type 26 frigate will cost £1 billion. The Government have consistently said that the Type 31e frigates will cost a quarter of £1 billion each. Just how incapable will these frigates be, or does the Secretary of State have a magic wand?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the Type 26 is a high-end specification, anti-submarine warfare frigate; not unnaturally, that specification makes it expensive. The Type 31e is an adaptable, general purpose frigate, subject to completely different procurement processes. However, it should not be inferred from that comparison that the Type 31e will be in any sense a low-grade warship. Of its kind, we intend it to be a world-beater, which other Governments will wish to buy.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, will the Minister confirm that these frigates will be based in Portsmouth, and when a decision will be announced to this House? As the home of the Royal Navy, Portsmouth is the obvious home for these frigates, not least because the general purpose Type 23 frigates are currently based there. This decision would bring much support and give reassurance to the city, community and the diocese I serve.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest in defence procurement issues, as reflected in the register. I wholly support the noble Lord’s aspiration to increase the size of the surface fleet—it must be expanded. The Minister will, however, recognise that the three principal trade-offs in a great military procurement exercise are performance, cost and time. Cost is fixed. Time is fixed. Performance must be traded down. Does the Minister agree that the best way to trade on performance is in some way to compromise on the exquisite nature of the platform to ensure that the combat and command systems on board are state of the art?
Earl Howe
The noble and gallant Lord speaks with great experience and he is right: we are consciously prescribing an adaptable but general-purpose specification for the Type 31e, as opposed to the more exquisite high-end specification of, for example, the Type 26. That is not to say—as I emphasised before—that the Type 31e will be in any way an inferior warship—quite the contrary, in terms of the capability that we will require of it.
United States: Trade Deal
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the government of the United States’ negotiating objectives for a future trade deal with the United Kingdom, published on 28 February.
Baroness Manzoor (Con)
My Lords, negotiating an ambitious free trade agreement with the USA that maintains our high standards for business, workers and consumers is a priority. We welcome this demonstration of the commitment by the US to begin negotiations. The UK and US economies are already highly compatible. We welcome the emphasis on state-of-the-art provision in financial services and digital trade, where the UK is recognised as a world leader. We will publish UK objectives for parliamentary consideration ahead of negotiations.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I think that is a generous interpretation of the aims of the United States Government. It is clear that the price of a trade deal with the US, which this Government will be desperate to achieve, will be high. It will certainly include the possibility of the UK having to pay more for US medicines, of our data protection provisions being swept away, and, with US access to our food markets, of lower standards in food safety and animal welfare. That comes with the added bonus of the US ambassador lecturing our farmers on the delights of chlorine-washed chicken and growth hormones in cattle. In their desperation for a deal, are the Government exchanging so-called vassalage to the EU with subjection to the United States Government?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I do not agree with the noble Lord. As with all negotiations, these objectives mark the starting point for the USA and not the end. They are entirely in keeping with the objectives mandated in US legislation for all trade negotiations and are not surprising. In relation to the NHS, the Government have consistently made it clear that they will continue to ensure that rigorous protections for the NHS are included in all trade agreements. Protecting public services, including the NHS, is of the utmost importance, and the Government will continue to ensure that all decisions about public services are made by the UK Government and not by our trade partners.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend join me in ensuring that the US ambassador should be in awe of UK producers and the high standards of animal welfare that they meet? Will she make representations to the US ambassador to tell us what the density of their chicken and beef production is?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that question. The USA is already our largest single-country trading partner. Trade between us is worth more than £180 billion and accounts for one-fifth of UK exports. We have been clear that any future deal with the US must work for UK consumers, farmers and companies, as well as ensuring food safety, animal welfare standards and environmental protection. As I said, it is too soon to say exactly what will be included in the future UK-US deal, but we are committed to reaching a high-quality, high-standards deal—
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, a month before the US published its trade negotiation objectives for the United Kingdom, it published its Summary of Specific Negotiating Objectives for trade with the European Union. The sections on agriculture, for both the European Union and the United Kingdom, are identical—word for word. We have long held that the use of decontaminants on carcasses, as a replacement for good hygiene in farms and slaughterhouses, is not acceptable, and we prohibit it under UK law. We will have a choice: either to align ourselves to the existing European standards, which are the highest, or to adopt the US standards, which the US is asking us to do. Which will we be aligned to: high standards or low standards?
Baroness Manzoor
Among the other things said by the US ambassador on the “Today” programme this morning, he stated: “I don’t think we would want to lower any of these standards but just want to have more trade between the US and the UK”. On agricultural scope, we are committed to negotiating a full and comprehensive free trade deal. That means discussing all areas of free trade. As with all negotiations, the US objectives on matters such as agriculture mark the starting point and not the end.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, it was all going to be so easy, according to Mr Fox and his friends, since when an amendment has been moved. Have the Government realised that they are now confronting a nationalist President who wants to do deals and that commerce is largely under the control of the Congress, whose members want to bring home the bacon to their own districts?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, once again, I do not agree. An ambitious UK-US free trade agreement will benefit the UK economy, improving access to the whole of the world’s largest, most dynamic economy. It will make it even easier for the UK and US to trade with each other and to invest in each other’s economies. Surely that is a good thing for our country.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, this is the second Question today where Ministers have promised that leaving the European Union will make no difference to our regulations. The leave campaign promised us before the referendum that part of the whole rationale for leaving the European Union was to change regulations—indeed, to lower their number, get rid of them and have a free market. Are the Government now betraying that leave promise?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, we are not betraying any promise. This Question is about negotiations between the US and the UK. We are working closely with our closest allies to get the best deal we can for UK businesses, consumers and others. We should support that aim wholeheartedly.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that, with the primary US negotiating objective being to,
“Secure comprehensive duty-free market access”,
for the US, the UK will be forced to concede on standards, eliminate barriers and agree restrictions on who we can trade with? Page 2 of the recently published US-UK negotiating objectives paper lists as an objective:
“Establish a mechanism to remove expeditiously unwarranted barriers that block the export of U.S. food and agricultural products”.
I understand the US’s aim, but what will the Government do to push back on that?
Baroness Manzoor
My Lords, as I have said, as with all negotiations, those objectives mark the starting point of the US and not the end, so we will continue to discuss these issues very closely. We have already taken concrete steps towards further developing our strong trading relationship with the US. This includes signing early last month a mutual recognition agreement on conformity assessment, which will secure trade in goods worth up to £12.8 billion as we leave the EU.
Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) (No. 2) Bill
Wednesday 6th March 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2019 View all Northern Ireland Budget (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the Whole House amendments as at Tuesday 5 March 2019 (PDF) - (5 Mar 2019)
Draft Domestic Abuse Bill Committee
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Holbeach
That this House concurs with the Commons message of 28 February that it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to consider and report on the draft Domestic Abuse Bill presented to both Houses on 21 January (CP 15);
That a Committee of six Lords be appointed to join with the Committee appointed by the Commons and that the Committee should report on the draft Bill by 17 May;
That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following members be appointed to the Committee:
Armstrong of Hill Top, B. Bertin, B. Blair of Boughton, L. Burt of Solihull, B. Farmer, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
That the Committee have power to agree with the Committee appointed by the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman;
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records;
That the Committee have power to appoint specialist advisers;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;
That the reports of the Committee from time to time be printed, regardless of any adjournment of the House;
That the evidence taken by the Committee be published, if the Committee so wishes; and
That the quorum of the Committee shall be two.
Motion agreed.
Stalking Protection Bill
Wednesday 6th March 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Stalking Protection Act 2019 View all Stalking Protection Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 23 November 2018 - (23 Nov 2018)
Baroness Bertin (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the honourable Member for Totnes, Sarah Wollaston, for all her hard work in creating this Bill in the other place and for her determination to get this legislation on the statute book. Furthermore, the Bill would not be in existence without the many brave stalking victims speaking out and the dedication of campaigners such as the Suzy Lamplugh Trust. I sincerely hope that anyone currently suffering from this terrifying crime will take some comfort from today. More help and protection for them is on its way. I thank this House for its cross-party support, the Home Office—particularly Andrew Lewis and his team—the clerks and Ben Burgess in the Whips’ Office, who deserves a medal for his patience with me. I have had the privilege of meeting many victims and grieving families, who have somehow found the strength to channel the pain of their trauma into changing the system to prevent others going through the same horror. I dedicate this Bill to them and to the ones they lost.
Bill passed.
Energy Efficiency (Private Rented Property) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2018
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Henley
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 27 November, 17, 19, 20 December 2018, 21 and 30 January be approved.
Relevant documents: 10th and 16th Reports from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee A) and the 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (Sub-Committee B). Considered in Grand Committee on 13 and 26 February.
Motions agreed.
Trade Bill
Wednesday 6th March 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Trade Bill 2017-19 View all Trade Bill 2017-19 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 127-R-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report (PDF) - (5 Mar 2019)
19:44 - Division on Amendment 12 - Ayes: 215 / Noes: 168 - Amendment 12 agreed.
20:27 - Division on Amendment 13 - Ayes: 207 / Noes: 141 - Amendment 13 agreed.
The Minister of State, Department for International Trade (Baroness Fairhead) (Con)
My Lords, this House has debated many issues during the passage of the Trade Bill, none more important than the scrutiny of future free trade agreements. That was the subject of the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, seeking further details of the Government’s intentions in this respect. In response, last Thursday we published a Command Paper setting out further proposals for the parliamentary scrutiny of future FTAs. Those proposals drew heavily on the views put forward by Members of this House.
Noble Lords raised questions about Parliament’s role in future FTAs, the role of the devolved Administrations and legislatures, and public transparency. We listened, we considered carefully and we have acted. In particular, we hear concerns about transparency and scrutiny of negotiating objectives, transparency over negotiations themselves and the desire for Parliament to be involved at every stage of the negotiations and not just at the ratification stage. As a result, we have brought forward comprehensive proposals on public transparency and the role of Parliament and the devolved Administrations. I will not go into detail on those proposals now, as we will debate them fully during Report, but they give Parliament, and this House in particular, the reassurance that this Government are fully committed to effective parliamentary scrutiny and public transparency.
It is often said that no legislation passes the scrutiny of this House without being improved. From my perspective, this is unquestionably true here. Equally, it should be recognised that this House can and does influence and improve thinking beyond the strict confines of the Bills that pass through it. The Trade Bill focuses on continuity of existing trade agreements, but throughout its passage we have touched on issues of great importance outside of the scope of the legislative provisions before us and, as I said, none is more important than the scrutiny of future FTAs. It is perhaps not often that the Government welcome a Motion tabled by the Opposition on one of their Bills, but in this instance I can say that the Motion tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, served our common objective of ensuring that the scrutiny arrangements for future FTAs are robust, effective and informed by the passionate and expert Members of your Lordships’ House.
This Bill is essential to providing continuity and certainty for UK businesses as we leave the EU. I look forward to making progress on the Bill this afternoon and I beg to move.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, first, I thank the Minister for her efforts to meet the requirements of the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon, who is unfortunately indisposed at the moment. I know that my noble friend keeps a beady eye on everything that goes on here, so she will have noticed the welcome given to her Motion, even though it was not quite so well received on the Government Benches at the time. Nevertheless, we are where we are and we have made some progress. It cannot have been easy for the Minister or the Government as a whole to get a White Paper prepared and laid in an atmosphere that is probably best not gone into and in the very short time available. It is a major achievement and we appreciate it. It is also clear that the Government’s thinking has progressed in recent weeks and we welcome much of the analysis set out in the White Paper.
As we all know, trade negotiations are complex and difficult. They should engage civil society and feed in the views of consumers, trade unions and companies. The negotiations require a proper and effective system, involving this Parliament and the devolved Administrations, in relation to the negotiating mandate, and feedback on the negotiations as they progress and the final agreements. We think that requires underpinning with a statutory framework so, in the absence of any government amendments covering these points on Report, and in view of the assertion in the White Paper that no legislation is needed to deliver the Government’s proposals, we have tabled an amendment setting out a possible scheme. It is on that basis that we are happy to agree with the Motion moved by the noble Baroness and proceed to Report.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, we welcome the Minister’s comments from the Dispatch Box. This is an occasion when parliamentary persistence has proved effective. We started this process when the Government had indicated that the Bill would be about only the existing continuity agreements and we made a very strong case, across all parts of the House, that it should also signal a direction of travel which, in many respects, would create precedent. It is on that basis that we on these Benches welcome the Command Paper that the Minister has published and her willingness to engage with and meet opposition parties and Members from across the House.
One reason this has been so important is that it has been a consistent practice of this Government, in relation to continuity trade agreements or starting discussions with countries about future trading relationships, to delude themselves that it will be easy, then deny that there is a problem when it is highlighted that they are difficult. Then they demur when frustrated officials leak information that allows us to glean the reality from the media. Then, unfortunately, on occasions, they deflect the problem, saying that is not their problem or responsibility; it is other countries that are not lifting the burden, or the European Union that is not being forthcoming with its position on a future relationship. We want to be in a position where we can put all that behind us and move on to a platform where we have much greater clarity as to what the trading relationships, and the role of Parliament and the devolved Administrations in their oversight and approval, will be. I welcome the Command Paper as the start of that.
To quote the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, from Question Time, this can be only the start of the process, and this is the platform on which we will seek to build. This is not the end. In that spirit, I hope the Government will be very favourable to Amendment 12 later today to ensure that that platform can be built on in the most constructive manner. On that basis, I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, as one of those who supported the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, I thank the Minister for her efforts in the meantime and for the publication of the Command Paper, which is a useful production and provides greater clarity on the Government’s intentions.
I shall make two small points. First, this legislation really matters. It could be—I hope it will not be—that within three weeks we will have left the European Union without a deal, in which case the Bill, by then perhaps an Act, will be the basis for Britain’s future independent trade policy. So we need to get it right. On the issue of parliamentary oversight, mandating and scrutiny, the Bill currently before your Lordships’ House on Report contains not one word added in that respect to the version we saw in Committee. The problem is the Government’s unwillingness to put in the Bill the provisions described in the Command Paper. That is at the heart of the debate we will have on Amendment 12.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, with the indulgence of the House I should like to welcome the start of Report. A number of points were made on the preceding Motion, but I believe that they will be picked up in our discussions on further amendments over the course of the day.
I have listened carefully to the thoughtful contributions that this House has made on the Bill so far—not just in our debates, but in meetings I have had with a great number of noble Lords over the past few weeks. I look forward to continuing to benefit from the experience, expertise and knowledge of your Lordships, and the continuation of the constructive dialogue we have had so far.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I would like to ask one question of the Minister. I welcome the White Paper; it is full of commitments to transparency. What will be the tariff regime of the United Kingdom for imports on 30 March if we have left the European Union on 29 March with no deal? We know what the European Union’s tariff will be against us—it is the one we are currently applying—and we know that two months ago the European Union sent out instructions to the member states on how to apply the common external tariff against United Kingdom goods in the event of a no-deal Brexit. As far as I know, however, we know nothing apart from rumour about the regime that British importers will pay. Could the Minister enlighten us?
Baroness Fairhead
As the noble Lord will be aware, the Government’s aim is to achieve a deal. As this House will also be aware, we seek to achieve some important agreements on or before 12 March. We are therefore not planning for no deal, which is not our preferred option. If and when that occurs, that would be the appropriate time to publish those schedules, but as I have said before on the Floor of this House our objective is to achieve an agreement, at which point we will move into the implementation period.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
I understand that that is the Government’s aim, but it is also the case that the Government have deliberately kept no deal on the table. British importers, businesses and farmers do not know what no deal means for them. Is that fair?
Baroness Fairhead
I understand the point that the noble Lord is making. As we have always said, we will seek to balance the protection of our consumers and downstream users from the possible price impact of no deal. The tariff regime will be subject to the approval of the House, and secondary legislation to give effect to the tariff will be laid in line with the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. The Government aim to secure a deal, so we hope that that announcement will not be required.
Lord Lansley (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down, I draw the attention of the House to Amendment 10, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, which relates to tariffs. It permits a debate of the kind that I think the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was hinting that he wanted. It seems to me that we do not start on 29 March without a schedule. We have notified a schedule to the WTO, and it is in line with the EU’s external tariff. On that basis, we should talk about it later rather than now. We know where we start from. The issue is to what extent we might vary—that is, apply a rate of duty lower than the EU’s external tariff at some point after 29 March were we to leave without a deal.
Baroness Fairhead
I thank my noble friend for his clarification. That is indeed true but I think he will also accept that, if we were aiming to have a deal, we would not need to publish. If we got to a stage where no deal looked likely, clearly we would have to provide the information that he and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, mentioned.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My noble friend will be aware that the Secretary of State for Agriculture promised, at the NFU Conference more than two weeks ago, that the tariffs would be published. It would be immensely helpful for the House to have that information before us for the purposes of the Bill today. I wonder if there is a reason why the tariffs have not been published now.
Baroness Fairhead
I hope I have addressed that. Should no deal appear to be what is happening, they will be published. We are focusing very much on achieving a deal, so we do not feel that this is the right time to publish.
I thank all the noble Lords for their additional contributions. I look forward to debating these and other issues as we progress through Report.
Baroness Fairhead
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, as this amendment touches on the GPA, I inform the House that the UK has formally received an invitation to accede to the GPA. This was agreed by the GPA committee at a meeting in Geneva on 27 February, and I am sure that the House welcomes that news.
Government Amendments 1 and 2 have been tabled to clarify that the powers in the Trade Bill may be used to modify retained direct principal European Union legislation. These amendments are very simple in nature. They make it clear that the regulations made under either Clauses 1 or 2 may, like the powers conferred under the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, modify retained direct principal EU legislation. This will allow qualifications to be made which make retained direct principal EU legislation workable in the context of a UK outside the EU.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, perhaps there is a report from the Constitution Committee that would answer the question I am about to ask, but what is the concept of direct principal European legislation? I do not recall it being referred to—perhaps I should. Is it the main pieces of legislation? Could my noble friend be more specific?
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, the concept of retained direct principal EU legislation is that of EU legislation that will come into UK law upon leaving the EU. This amendment will make a clarification to ensure that the same wording is used as in the withdrawal Act. Just for further clarification, because I asked it myself, saying “retained direct principal EU legislation” includes minor legislation.
Baroness Fairhead
“(5A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be used to make provision which will have the effect of reducing standards in comparison to those applying immediately before exit day.(5B) Standards in subsection (5A) include, but are not limited to, those relating to—(a) marketing of agricultural products,(b) animal health, hygiene or welfare,(c) environmental protection,(d) food safety,(e) public health,(f) employment and labour,(g) human rights.”
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will also speak in support of Amendment 4, which I have put my name to.
I thank the Minister and her civil servants for meeting me to discuss my amendment outside this Chamber. She has been incredibly generous with her time, and I very much appreciate that. It is thanks to the meeting with the Minister and the constructive criticism from noble Lords in Committee that I have tabled this much refined amendment on Report.
The sole purpose of my amendment is to give legislative effect to the Government’s own policy, which, as I understand it, is that the Bill will be used only to roll over existing free trade agreements that we enjoy as a member of the EU so that we can continue to enjoy them after we leave. Rolling over means no renegotiation, changes in terms or reduction in standards. My amendment is a way of giving effect to the Government’s own policy. I am not looking to cause trouble here, nor to undermine the Government—for a change.
The problem with the Bill as it currently stands is that it does not give effect to this policy. The Clause 2 powers are much broader than they need to be, and would allow for a significant undermining of precious protections for our environment, workers’ rights, food safety and a whole host of other provisions. Clause 2(1) allows an appropriate authority to,
“make such provision as the authority considers appropriate for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement”.
Clause 2(2) and (3) restrict the regulation-making power only to implement agreements with signatories which are already signatory to a trade agreement with the EU, but that is the only limit on the power. There is nothing to say that the terms of an agreement have to be the same or similar to the existing EU trade agreements. There is no reference to protecting standards and no limit on renegotiation, nor on implementing a totally new trade agreement. There is not even a time limit, or sunset clause, on how long into the future these powers can be used. Hundreds of years from now, a Government could implement a completely new trade agreement on the sole condition that the partner country had a deal with the EU before Brexit. If this sounds ridiculous, it is because it is. Clause 2 grants Ministers an incredibly broad, almost uncurtailed power to enact whatever trade agreements they negotiate.
At Question Time today, chlorinated chicken was mentioned with regard to trading with the USA. A Bryan Smith got in touch with me to say, “As a microbiologist, I can tell you for sure that washing chicken carcasses in bleach does not kill all salmonella. It forces the bacteria to form cysts which can hatch later. It is much harder to detect in this form, so it hides the problem”. I used to joke that it was just as well that chickens were chlorinated because at least they were clean. In fact, they do not now use a chlorinated wash; they use other substances—for example, peracetic acid. This is an organic peroxide—a colourless liquid—and it can be highly corrosive. The practice is not dangerous in itself but it might hide poor farming hygiene practices. Other animal welfare issues are very concerning, such as stocking density, sow stalls, animal transport, antibiotic use, veal crates, battery cages, debeaking, tail docking and castration. We could be subjecting our food to these practices and people to whom I talk outside this House are absolutely horrified.
The Minister told the Committee that none of this mattered because the European Union (Withdrawal) Act brought all European standards and rules into UK law. They say that everything is fine; everything is protected. This is completely undermined by Clause 2(5)(a) which allows the Minister, by regulations, to modify,
“retained direct EU legislation or primary legislation that is retained EU law”.
So the Government, having incorporated all EU law into the withdrawal Act, would have the unrestricted power to tear it all up in order to implement whatever terms they agreed in these trade deals. The Government’s assertion that the withdrawal Act resolves all my concerns could be correct only if Clause 2(5)(a) were removed from the Bill or curtailed by restrictions, such as those in my amendment.
The truth is that we are not protected by retained EU law at all because the Bill allows the Government to scrap it in the interests of trade. The only protection left is the assertion from the Government that they will not use the powers in the Bill to undermine our prevailing standards. This is not good enough. If the Government are not going to use the powers, as they have promised they will not, my amendment will not make the slightest difference. It would cause a problem for Ministers only if they go against their promises and try to undermine prevailing standards when incorporating a trade agreement. We must not allow this to even be an option.
I have tried to draft my amendment in the simplest possible terms. This is for my own reference and not because this House in any way lacks understanding. The amendment uses as reference all the standards which apply immediately before exit day—the existing standards on which current trade deals operate. Some trade deals might have higher standards than others, so my amendment is designed to allow whatever level exists in each specific trade deal to be rolled over. The Government have a problem only if there is any reduction in standards in the rolling-over process. This is a much more restricted approach than I would have liked. Amendment 4 expands on it and could be much more powerful. I have gone to great lengths to develop an approach that can be supported by noble Lords across your Lordships’ House, and even be accepted by the Government. Personally, I should like much higher standards, but I am compromising here, which is not easy.
The Bill gives far too much freedom to Ministers to change the law and undermine our precious standards on a whole range of issues. The Government’s promises and ambitions will easily give way to the harsh reality of trade negotiations. By that point, it will be too late for Parliament to reject whatever deals are made. Your Lordships’ House must put a backstop on the Government’s promises, so that these trade deals cannot be renegotiated in a way which would undermine any of our prevailing standards. My amendment will achieve this. I beg to move.
Baroness Henig (Lab)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 3 and 4 and speak in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. We had a wide-ranging debate in Committee about standards and Members from across the House argued that we should not allow standards to fall in a whole range of important areas, as outlined in the amendment. The Government’s reply was to agree in principle. The Minister said at the time that the Government were committed to high standards and that they were the right policy for the country, but that they should not be written in the Bill. When asked why not, she was unable to give a convincing reply.
It is essential that we take this opportunity to ensure that existing standards in a number of areas cannot be lowered as a result of the Bill and that that is made explicit in the Bill. One reason for that comes down to the issue of trust. In 2017, the Trade Secretary promised that the United Kingdom would not lower the standards. He said:
“We have made very clear we are not going to see reductions in our standards as we move forward, partly because British consumers wouldn’t stand for it”.
But at the same time, the self-same Trade Secretary has prioritised a trade deal with the United States. It is no secret that the prime aim on the United States’ side will be to negotiate lower food standards with the United Kingdom to enable their food products to flood in to the UK. There is no secret that that is their ambition.
Asked about this last weekend, when asked about food standards, the Trade Secretary replied:
“The question is not about safety”.
This is a bigger issue than the safety or not of a way of preparing food, which is also subject to rules at the World Trade Organization: it is about the decisions we make between the EU and United States approach to regulation. It is about the barriers to trade that that may impose, the impact on our producers and, most of all, the level of trust over trade policy.
The absolute worst way to make significant changes would be through the power under the Bill, because that would cause huge resentment and distrust of United Kingdom trade policy, which would damage our long-term prospects of achieving consensus and wide support for trade deals in future. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, points out, under the Bill, the Government could make any change they liked to any regulations as long as it was relevant to implementing a trade agreement and that tariff changes are handled by another piece of legislation. Let us take the much cited chlorinated chicken, which she mentioned, beloved of the United States.
Lord Lansley
My Lords, surely the point is that the Bill relates only to agreements in place before exit day. There is no agreement on chlorinated chicken or with the United States, so any such argument is irrelevant to the Bill.
Baroness Henig
The noble Lord is clearly prescient, because I am just about to cover the very point he raises. As I said, let us take the question of chlorinated chicken. There is nothing to stop Ministers making that change in implementing existing trade agreements. For example, perhaps Mexico would want us to declare that we will accept chlorinated chicken in return for continuing our trade agreement. There is nothing to stop a country with which we have an existing agreement asking for that in future as a part of the rollover, which is what I think he was asking about. Slightly more far-fetched, perhaps, there may be a change of Minister. Perhaps the current Secretary of State for Transport takes over at trade and makes the change by mistake. Who knows?
That is why it is so important to agree the amendment. Major changes in standards in all these important areas should not be covered under the Bill: they need to be fully discussed in terms of our future trade relationship with the United States and the EU in the light of the terms under which we depart from the European Union and with the involvement of a wide range of businesses, trade associations, producers, consumers and local communities. The Bill should not allow a departure from standards, and that is why I put my name to the amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, and thank her, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brown of Cambridge, for their support for the amendment in my name. Since we last met in Committee, there have been two positive developments. One is the fact that the Government have published their report on the implications of no deal for business and trade. The second is the promise to publish the tariffs.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My Lords, we now know for a fact that only a tiny fraction of those rolled-over trade agreements to which we are a party and will have ratified before exit day will be considered continuity agreements. The reality is that within a short period of time—a number of weeks, in fact—we will not be able to rely on the fact that our existing trade agreements will be considered as continuity agreements. The noble Baroness, Lady Henig, is absolutely right that, for the vast majority of the agreements we enter into prior to exit day, there will have to be a degree of certainty as to the underpinning, replicating or agreement of standards after exit day.
In many respects, the only continuity agreements that will exist are those we will have ratified before exit day, which is a tiny fraction of those that exist. Everything else will be, in effect, a trade deal. The concern is that the Government may choose to use the regulatory framework in this Bill rather than the CRaG procedure in making treaties. It is absolutely right that in this Bill we should have a degree of legal underpinning of the standards to which we are now a party and which we wish to see continued after exit day.
In Committee there were a number of amendments from me, my colleagues on these Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, the noble Baronesses, Lady Henig and Lady McIntosh, and others. I am happy that this has coalesced around a cross-party amendment and I look forward to the Government’s response. On exit, we are looking to baseline the standards that already exist. It is necessary to maintain these standards in any of the agreements now that we are likely to carry forward—which can be permanent. Regulations made under this Bill would last for three years, but could be extended for a further three years and then a further three years. The lifetime of the regulations could become very long indeed.
As much as the Government say there is no difference in them as they are simply continuity and will not include any of the contents, that is merely a statement of policy. As we just heard on tariff policy, we know what schedules have been submitted to Geneva. However, we now know that if there is a likelihood of no deal, potentially there will be a revision to the schedules put forward by the Government. We cannot rely simply on the policy of the Government: we must rely on the legislation being clear.
We already know through the EU Select Committee of this House that there are some differences in the agreements that have already been signed beyond legal terminology. We know that interpretation of text can sometimes be as important as the text itself when it comes to trading relationships. That is why I have lodged Motions to debate each of the three deals that have so far been agreed, so that the Chamber has an opportunity to look at them. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and others will, I am sure, want to take part in a debate on the Faroe Islands agreement and others. I have had to lodge the Motions to debate those agreements because the Government did not intend to do so. The EU Select Committee report said it was “bizarre” that the Government chose not to bring those agreements at least for consideration in the Chamber. However, they will be debated because I have ensured that. The Minister, who has expressed openness and transparency all along, was seemingly content for there to be no debate on those agreements—the only ones that we are likely to have, with the addition of Switzerland in the next week or so. That is regrettable.
With regard to the amendment, the Minister may say that she has difficulty with the words “reducing”, “standards” and, in particular, “animal … welfare”. Proposed new paragraphs (a) to (g) are reasonable areas in which we have current regulatory standards as a baseline that we wish to protect. The Government should have no problem in accepting proposed new paragraph (f) on labour rights. The Prime Minister seems to have accepted it as regards guaranteeing employment and labour rights, and I would be surprised—putting it lightly—if, the day after the Government said a “lock” would be put in place to guarantee the future of these standards, they opposed an amendment that secured those standards’ continuity.
If the Minister says that she is concerned about the word “reducing”, she need not be. We have well-established systems of oversight through the courts to consider whether the current regulatory regime for standards is being upheld. The Government seem content with their approach on migrating such existing laws into domestic law so it should not pose problems for civil society groups or any interested parties to consider whether or not standards are being reduced. In the amendment, we are stating that they should be upheld in the implementation of any new agreements by virtue of the continuity agreements being new treaties. That is reasonable.
The Minister should also be content with the use of the word “standards”, as this is commonplace. Indeed, that is clear in, for example, the Air Quality Standards (Amendment) Regulations 2016, which this Government brought forward and Parliament passed. None of those areas should pose them any difficulties.
The Government also seem to have been opaque in recent days about animal health, hygiene and welfare—the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Henig—and whether it is necessary to continue these approaches when we engage in trade agreements. In many respects, this is the litmus test for how the Government will approach the discussions. The Secretary of State’s rather glib comparison on television at the weekend between the process of surface-washing salads with chlorine prior to packaging and its use as a decontaminant in the United States as a replacement for good hygiene practice at farm level and in slaughterhouses, thereby directly masking poorer hygienic practices, was utterly misleading. He should not have said that. The EU, with full UK support, has made it clear that good hygiene practice is a prerequisite to the application of hazard-based controls, and that these are an essential element in any discussion on market access for such animal products.
Lord Lilley (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for pointing out the distinction between whether chlorine washing is bad for our health or masks the different treatment of animals during their lives. Is he saying that chlorine washing is not bad for our health, whether it is used on fruit from the EU or animals from the US? He and others have been using the issue as a scare to make us think that our health would be put at risk by having things rendered salmonella-free by this kind of treatment, whether by the EU or the US.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
It is a shame that processes do not allow interventions on interventions. When have I said that this is a health risk? When has the noble Lord heard me say that? He intervened on me and said “he”, as in “me”.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I am grateful for that. The point I am making is that the EU, with full UK support, has had a consistent position on the use of chlorine on chickens—that it should not be used to mask the lack of hygiene on farms and in slaughterhouses. The separate issue of the effect of its use on public health is, and always has been, a moot point which the European Union has always recognised, and that is why it has consistently commissioned a number of reports. The final conclusion from those reports, which the EU and the UK have relied upon, has come from the World Health Organization, which has said that, as far as the use of chlorine in agriculture is concerned, the current position is the one to be maintained, because the primacy is that the United States, as a policy, uses it to mask poor hygiene practices in farms and slaughterhouses. When it comes to trade and the trading of goods, that is the critical aspect, and that would be reflected in a trade agreement.
Lord Garnier (Con)
What else does the noble Lord have in mind in proposed new subsection (5B) when he uses the expression,
“but are not limited to”?
Lord Purvis of Tweed
As the noble Lord will know, we have engaged in a number of legislative standards across all the different aspects of the British economy. If they are not captured in proposed new paragraphs (a) to (g), which we believe to be comprehensive, and if there are some elements of the economy where legislative standards currently exist and we would consider them to be of equal status, there is a requirement for them to be protected. That is why these are baseline standards. If areas are excluded, they will be captured by “not limited to”. The list of standards is not necessarily designed to be open-ended; these are meant to be the existing legislative standards that are already on the statute book that we wish not to be impacted by any of the regulations that could be made through this legislation.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we have had a very good debate on an important and long-lasting topic which we need to draw to some form of conclusion. We have before us two amendments that cover the ground very admirably, although their approaches are rather different. Indeed, the essence of what we are trying to get at may become a little masked in the timing. That last exchange is a good example of the way in which aspiration, interests and enthusiasm can sometimes lead us to a position where the drafting does not support where we are trying to go to.
We should be clear that there is support around the House for putting into the Bill at an appropriate place a clear and unambiguous statement which reiterates what the Government have said on a number of occasions—and we will probably hear again in a few minutes when the Minister responds—that they are committed to not lowering domestic standards in the EU agreements that are transitioning into bilateral agreements or in any future trade agreements that they wish us to enter into. If we can hold on to that and find the appropriate words rather than the ones before us, which need to be merged if we are to get the best out of this, we might make a way forward. I hope the Minister will give us hope that there will be the opportunity for further meetings and discussions on this issue. It is worth trying to go the extra mile to get us to a point where, by Third Reading, we have an agreed procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was right to try to drill down into some of the points that may need to be bottomed out. I will not repeat where there are difficulties but simply acknowledge that we need to be clear about whose standards we are talking about, where they are to be found in current statute, how they apply to UK interests and how they are limited in what they might say to any future Government about third-party Government arrangements, which are clearly not right.
Another point is to pick up how the WTO and other international agreements and treaties that we make covering the list in subsection (5B)(a) to (g) would fit best in a statutory form. That is the way that we need to go. I therefore hope that all parties will accept that this is not the time to force through either of these amendments but to come forward with an agreed position, if we can, in time for Third Reading.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, I appreciate the attention that this House has paid to the vitally important issue of standards at each of the Bill’s stages, and for the amendments tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Henig, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Lady Brown of Cambridge, and by the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara and Lord Purvis of Tweed. I also thank their Lordships for the productive meetings that we have had on the subject.
The Government, like your Lordships, do not want and do not intend the strong environmental protection, food safety, and animal welfare standards that the UK is proud of to be lowered once we leave the EU. As I mentioned in Committee, the Prime Minister and Ministers from across government, including Defra and DIT, have made public commitments to the maintenance of the current protections and offered many assurances that we will not lower these rigorous levels of protection in order to secure trade deals.
Let us not forget that, first and foremost, our policy is one of continuity. We seek to carry over the effect of the existing EU agreements. Our trade continuity programme is rooted in our desire to deliver consistency to businesses and consumers as we leave the EU. This approach has been widely endorsed by partner countries, businesses and Parliament. The International Trade Select Committee report in March 2018, for example, stated:
“Almost no one who contributed to our inquiry suggested that the Government’s policy objective of seeking continuity was the wrong one”.
In relation to standards, I can confirm that, under the provisions of the EU withdrawal Act, we will start at a point of maintaining the high standards that we have benefited from as an EU member. This provides us with a strong basis to build on in future. This includes those provisions that the House will be aware of on chlorinated chicken or hormone-treated beef, which will not be able to enter the UK market. The UK has already transposed the relevant EU Council directive into UK law prohibiting the use of artificial growth hormones in both domestic production and imported products. This is now UK law. No products, other than potable water, are approved in the EU to decontaminate poultry carcasses, and this will still be the case in the UK when we leave the EU. EU food safety provisions will come across through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, where they will be enshrined in UK law.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, raised an issue about the unlimited duration of this clause. I would just like to clarify that there is a sunset clause for this power: unless it is extended by both Houses of Parliament, it will expire three years after exit day. That is set out in Clause 2(7).
I turn to the issue of reducing standards in future trade agreements. Our future trade agreements provide us with the greatest opportunities for the UK to develop its global trading position. The demand for UK goods, as I have seen first-hand, is based heavily on our outstanding reputation for quality and the British mark of excellence. The Government have no intention of harming this reputation. Indeed, we intend, as a minimum, to maintain the standards that we currently have, which are set out in our primary and subordinate legislation, and the high standards that we have led on maintaining as a member of the EU. We will continue to retain these as part of the retention of EU legislation, as we exit the EU, through the EU withdrawal Act. The desire to maintain the high levels of standards that we enjoy in the UK is therefore at the heart of the Government of this country and, more than not planning to reduce those standards, we have a strong policy of ensuring that those standards are maintained.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, raised a point about the WTO schedules and the fact that we are already suggesting that we might change them. I want to clarify that our WTO schedules will not change. These set out the maximum tariffs that the UK would impose. The UK, like any country, remains free to impose lower tariffs than those set down if it so chooses.
On Amendment 3, I thank the noble Lords for their amendment and for my conversations with them on this important issue. I fully understand the sentiment with which the amendment is laid and have already reiterated in my response the Government’s strong commitment to maintaining standards as we leave the EU. However, we feel that the amendment as currently drafted is problematic for a number of reasons.
First, the amendment comes with some uncertainties as to its scope. The term “standards” does not have a single legal definition which can easily be called upon. Any legislative commitment not to lower standards would need to make crystal clear what regulations are in scope. This amendment does not, and instead requires the Government to report against an open-ended list of potentially relevant standards, as my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier highlighted. This would require the establishment of a process to determine what constitutes “standards”, not only in each of the listed groups of standards but beyond. Outcomes of this process could then be easily questioned in a court and, until a court ruled on the matter, they would simply be the Government’s own assessment rather than legal certainties.
Secondly, on the notion of “reducing” standards, how the Government would prove that they were or were not reducing them would be problematic. This contains a degree of subjectivity, which would create considerable legal uncertainty if it were to be added to the Bill. Again, the term “standards” can mean a voluntary, best-practice way of doing something. Standards are often not set by Governments but developed by consensus among relevant stakeholders. Of course, there are minimum levels of safety, quality and environmental protection—for example, where voluntary approaches are not effective. These rules and regulations are mandatory and enshrined in our laws, which, of course, are subject to parliamentary approval.
We sincerely believe that the best way to influence standards in other countries is to forge strong trading relationships where we can positively influence those countries through the reputation of UK businesses. Through such relationships, we can insist on the proper treatment of workers and their rights, so that UK consumers are assured that the products they buy from reputable UK businesses are from suppliers whose practices those businesses have assured. In order to achieve that, we need to have trade agreements in place.
On human rights, which are referred to in paragraph (g) of the amendment, noble Lords will recall that the Government have already reaffirmed that the UK is a signatory to the ECHR and will continue to uphold human rights in the UK under the Human Rights Act. The Clause 2 power cannot be used to amend the Human Rights Act, and it would be unlawful for any regulation under the Trade Bill to be incompatible with the rights enshrined in the ECHR.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I have been looking at the continuity agreement reached with the Faroe Islands. I understand that it could potentially result in an implied annual increase in total duties of up to £11 million. It goes on to say that that is unlikely to be true, but I wonder: will there be scope to discuss these continuity agreements—as the noble Lord, Lord Purvis suggested? Perhaps we could do so in an afternoon session and take them all together. This agreement raises issues which will be of interest to the House.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, as I tried to explain, the Motions laid by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, will be dealt with in the usual way. We look forward to those further discussions taking place.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
I may be able to help the noble Baroness. I am grateful for the response from the Government Whips’ Office and its suggestion of tabling time for these to be debated. I will not pre-empt these exciting debates on Faroe Islands fisheries, but they look likely to happen next week.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her response and her promise to bring this back at Third Reading, so I will not go through any of the arguments again. The sunset clause, however, is not secure, simply because Clause 2(5)(b) allows Ministers to scrap it by statutory instrument. It is not, therefore, secure, and that is a matter of concern to me.
However, in the interests of even more co-operative working—and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who has worked very hard, along with the Minister—I beg leave to withdraw this amendment, on the assumption that we will return to it at Third Reading.
Lord Judge
“( ) Regulations under subsection (1) may not create or extend criminal offences, impose fees, amend primary legislation other than retained EU law, or create new public bodies.”
Lord Judge
My Lords, this amendment has very little to do with trade as such, but it raises a constitutional issue. If you looked at those supporting me on this amendment, you might even think that this is a bit of a geeky constitutional issue. It is not. All three of us are members of the Constitution Committee. We speak on our own behalf but feel it essential to draw the attention of the House to what we believe to be a total misunderstanding of the purposes of Explanatory Notes.
The misunderstanding arises in this way. Under the Bill, Clause 2(5) provides the regulation-making powers that may—forgive me for underlining this—among other things, “make provision”. Then there are paragraphs (a), (b), (c) and (d); paragraph (d) is about the penalties. We also looked at the Explanatory Notes. I wonder how many of your Lordships have recently looked at the front page of Explanatory Notes any Bill. I will read parts of them:
“These Explanatory Notes have been prepared by the Department … in order to assist the reader of the Bill and to help inform debate on it. They do not form part of the Bill and have not been endorsed by Parliament”.
I do not suppose that a single Member of the House is surprised by that because, constitutionally, it is impeccable. The Explanatory Notes do not form part of whatever legislation may at some future date be enacted by Parliament.
Faced with the wide-ranging regulation-making power, and that assertion in the Explanatory Notes, can we look at the Explanatory Notes themselves? Paragraph 59 —I will not read the first part—in unequivocal terms says that:
“Subsection (5) does not allow for regulations to make or extend criminal offences, charge fees, amend primary legislation other than retained EU law, or create new public bodies”.
The Constitution Committee produced a report on this that expressed some concerns. Noble Lords may remember that in the EU withdrawal Act there was an absence of safeguards, but eventually—through the efforts of Members of this House—safeguards were put into it that prevented the use of delegated powers to impose or increase taxation and fees, to create a relevant criminal offence, or to establish a public authority. That was the step. The Constitution Committee then looked at the provision in relation to subsection (5), to which I have referred. The committee noted that the Explanatory Notes contained the assertion that the Government were not interested in the worrying provision for creating criminal offences and the like, but that this was not stated in the Bill. The committee then pointed out what subsection (5) extends to and recommended that the Government introduce an amendment to include in the Bill the restrictions on the use of the Clause 2 powers set out in the Explanatory Notes. That is what this amendment is designed to achieve.
There is something rather strange about this. You win some, you lose some. If you lose, you come to the House to ask the House to look at it. In a sense, that is what I should do. However, a more important issue has arisen in relation to the response of the Minister, who in effect is saying, “Look, there is nothing to worry about—what are you getting so concerned about? Just read the Explanatory Notes. That is all you need”. Lest you think that I am exaggerating, let me read the words:
“we believe that the explanatory notes to the Bill, which explain the purpose of the provisions contained in the legislation, is the most suitable document to outline the restrictions to the use of the clause 2 power”.
In other words, the issues which were raised as being of concern to the Constitution Committee, and which were referred to in the Explanatory Notes showing that the Government did not wish to have the powers that would have been troublesome, were simply to be found by looking at the Explanatory Notes. That is a troublesome approach to these issues. As I am aware, it is new: “Look at what the regulations do not contain and you’ll find that in the Explanatory Notes”. It seems a rather strange way of going about legislation.
The letter from the Minister was followed by a reference to an observation by a former Law Lord—who sadly is no longer with us, the highly respected Lord Steyn—based on a decision of the House of Lords called Pepper v Hart in which it is said that he allowed for the possibility of looking at Explanatory Notes in exceptional circumstances. I would argue that that was not as an aid to construction but in effect to say, “If the Executive have said this, you can draw that to our attention while we resolve the issue”.
Pepper v Hart is a troublesome case. Perhaps I may summarise what it is meant to mean in the following way—hopelessly inadequately in view of the presence of some noble and learned Lords here. It means that you can look at what has gone on in the House if the legislation itself is unintelligible. Legislation should not be unintelligible; it should be intelligible. At this stage when we are looking at this legislation, if it is not, we should make it so.
On how far Lord Steyn went about allowing for examination of Explanatory Notes, if it offered a diminution of the principle that Explanatory Notes are not, never were meant to and never should be treated as a legislative provision, I say with great respect to Lord Steyn that I think he got it wrong. I do not believe that that was what he was saying, but if he did it is wrong. We surely must not countenance the arrival of a pernicious new form of legislation, the Explanatory Note. We have enough trouble with guidance. Guidance is a seriously problematic source; it sort of hands over power to the Executive, but at least when we do that we have listened to the debate, have decided that that is the right way to approach the problem and have legislated accordingly. In relation to Explanatory Notes, there has never been a debate; there has never been anything. This comes from the department. The department tells us what the department thinks it wants. It cannot possibly be a guide to what we in this House or in the other place decide that the legislation should be. But we will now look at the department’s own Explanatory Notes to decide whether a provision which is an important safeguard against regulations creating criminal offences, imposing fees, amending primary legislation or creating new public bodies should be found. It is a constitutional absurdity. I beg to move.
Lord Garnier
My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, thought that his thinking was inadequate compared to that of Lord Steyn, it is the only inadequate thing that he just said. I rise briefly to encourage him in his arguments and to encourage the Government to understand that it is not only on the Cross Benches and on the Liberal Democrat Benches that the concerns that he has expressed can be found.
I want to look at Clause 2 through the lens of Amendment 3A, because it gives both United Kingdom Ministers and devolved Administration Ministers the power to make regulations that make provision among other things to modify primary legislation and impose penalties, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, pointed out.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment because I share the concern expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that it is simply not appropriate for Explanatory Notes to be used as the means by which overbroad powers enjoyed by the Minister are to be confined. I will add one point, however: the Minister gave an answer to the concern that we are all expressing. The answer was given in a letter on 19 February to the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, the much respected chairman of the Constitution Committee. In her response to the Constitution Committee’s report, the Minister suggested that the courts would apply a well- established legal presumption that, if powers were intended to be used for any of the purposes set out in the amendment, there would have to be an express reference to that effect in the legislation. Indeed, the Minister also expressed concern that this amendment, if accepted and written into the Bill, would undermine this legal presumption in relation to other legislation that does not include an express reference to these limitations.
My concern about that argument is that these powers are being conferred in this Bill in a Brexit context. The Minister’s letter emphasises that the Government are going to use the Clause 2 powers only to implement obligations and agreements that seek to provide continuity in respect of those already signed by the EU. My concern is that in this specific legislative context it might be said that when a Brexit Bill of this nature does not contain these express limits on the Minister’s powers—the limits set out in the amendment—it should be contrasted with Section 8 of the main Brexit Act, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act, which expressly contains restrictions that are similar but not identical to these limitations. It is my concern that such a contrast might be drawn in this context.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, made the important point that the Pepper v Hart principle is a troublesome one but, if the Government are not going to accept this amendment, at the very least it would be helpful for the Minister to give the House the clearest possible response to it, in the terms set out in her letter—that the Government understand that the powers in Clause 2 do not extend to the sensitive issues—so that her comments could if necessary be relied on in court proceedings under the Pepper v Hart principle.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, we should be very grateful to the Constitution Committee for drawing our attention to this matter, which might otherwise not have been observed. I shall add just a few short points to those that have been made. The first is to stress the importance of the words in subsection (5), to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, drew our attention:
“Regulations under subsection (1) may, among other things, make provision—”.
It is the words “among other things” that cause me concern. They appear in the Healthcare (International Arrangements) Bill as well: they seem to be a feature creeping in to this kind of legislation, which is quite disturbing. If we find that phrase, I suggest that we have to be even more exacting in setting out the qualifications to the power, otherwise the words “among other things” may be used to expand the power in a way that we have not foreseen. It is really very important, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, pointed out, that we take those words into account in what we make of this amendment.
My second point is to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said about the comparison between Section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and what we have now, in reply to the point that we do not need to be concerned about that, because express provision would be needed for a regulation that sought, for example, to create a criminal offence. These exceptions, or almost exactly the same ones, are expressly set out in Section 8(7) as,
“regulations … may not … impose or increase taxation or fees … create a relevant criminal offence … establish a public authority”.
If it was thought appropriate to put those qualifications in that very important subsection, which does not contain the words “among other things”, I should have thought it was all the more important to have them here.
My last point is made with reference to the point made about Lord Steyn’s use of Explanatory Notes. I had the privilege of sitting with Lord Steyn for a number of years and of discussing with him how Explanatory Notes might be used. I do not think that at any point in our discussion he suggested to me that Explanatory Notes could be regarded as a form of legislation or its equivalent—certainly not. He was referring to them as a means of understanding ambiguities in legislation; he thought that one could look to the Explanatory Notes to understand the legislation one was seeking to explain. That was his point, and it was made in a number of cases where I agreed with him. It would be a mistake to think that he was embarking on something outside the normal use of Explanatory Notes, which is to explain but not to legislate. For these reasons and the others mentioned, I warmly support the amendment that the noble and learned Lord has brought to our attention.
Lord Beith (LD)
My Lords, I do not need to add to the masterful laying out of the reasons for the amendment by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, or to what was said by the two Members who have just spoken—particularly the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. But I will refer to the consequence of going about the matter in this way. Lord Steyn’s judgment does not place any obligation on the courts to have a habit or practice of referring to Explanatory Notes—it is entirely up to the courts whether they choose to do so—but, if the Government persist in this interpretation, which appeared to us for the first time in a letter from the noble Baroness, it says to parliamentary draftsmen and departments, “Don’t worry about ambiguity; there are the Explanatory Notes and we do not have to get those through either House”. It is an invitation to careless and sloppy drafting; it is an invitation to leaving open a possibility that the Government may not want to specify at this stage, but might be useful at a later date, when the Explanatory Notes would be relied on for a purpose that I do not think Lord Steyn intended. I was quite shocked to find this interpretation of Pepper v Hart coming into the Government’s responses to the Constitution Committee. We need to squash it pretty quickly, before it influences the habits of departments and parliamentary draftsmen any further.
Lord Wilson of Dinton (CB)
My Lords, I offer a footnote in support of noble and learned Lords and the points just made. It should be remembered that Explanatory Notes were for many years produced by officials to brief Ministers on what the Bill meant. They were usually classified—because we used to classify things. Occasionally, when Ministers were having real difficulty explaining a clause to either House, in a kind of noble gesture they would hand over their Explanatory Notes as a way of trying to get their opponents on side. That is the history of this. The idea that, with the slow creep of the Executive’s power, they are becoming a form of legislation of their own is appalling. I can only support very strongly what has already been said.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I suppose I ought to take some part in this discussion. I hope to do so briefly, because I was a strong dissenter, on my own, against the decision in Pepper v Hart. I did not believe it was right to allow extraneous matters to be taken into account in construing an Act of Parliament. That Parliament had used the words, and that some Minister had said something in explanation, should not, to my mind, be used to deal with ambiguity. However, I was overruled then, and I am waiting for that judgment to be overruled in due course. Certainly, that judgment does not include statements not made in Parliament by people who are trying to say what they want to happen in the Act of Parliament, and the Explanatory Notes in no sense come within the judgment in Pepper v Hart. I have no doubt at all that the correct way to restrict a power to impose penalties is by putting the restriction into the Bill.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lords, Lord Pannick and Lord Beith, for tabling this amendment and for highlighting what is clearly an area of genuine concern—not just from them, but from the Constitution Committee.
I start by reassuring the House that the Clause 2 power will be used only to implement non-tariff obligations of our continuity trade agreements. For example, we will have to implement procurement obligations in several of our agreements, including the Chile agreement we signed recently. Without the Clause 2 power, we would not be able fully to implement such obligations under these agreements.
I stand before this House not professing to match in any way the legal brains and experience of noble Lords—and, indeed, noble and learned Lords—but I will give the Government’s position. Explanatory Notes are always admissible aids in the construction of an Act. Exceptional circumstances, as in the Pepper and Hart case, are not required. Indeed, I am asked to refer to the House of Lords case R v Montilla and Others in 2004, in which it was said:
“It has become common practice for their Lordships to ask to be shown explanatory notes when issues are raised about the meaning of words used in an enactment”.
Lord Pannick
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness. Under the Pepper v Hart principle, what matters is not the Government’s intention but the Government’s understanding of the scope of the provision they are putting before the House. I am asking the noble Baroness to say on the record, in Hansard, that it is the Government’s understanding and intention that the Clause 2 power does not give them a power to create or extend criminal offences, impose fees, amend primary legislation other than retained EU law or create new public bodies. It is not about the intention, but about the Government’s understanding of what they are putting before the House.
Lord Garnier
Can I press my noble friend a little further? Why does she not simply arrange for Amendment 3A to be included in the Bill?
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, there is a genuine difference of legal opinion here. My proposal is that we reflect on this and have a meeting, if your Lordships are content to do that, because we have to work through this.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I apologise for interrupting at this stage, but is my noble friend prepared to say on the record that this matter can be referred to at Third Reading, if necessary?
Lord Judge
May I respectfully ask what, in that case, would be the purpose of the meeting with the Minister to which she referred?
Baroness Fairhead
My understanding is that we have a clear legal position which is strongly believed, and the meeting would be to see whether we can reach a mutual agreement.
Lord Judge
If we can reach a mutual agreement on it, it is at least possible that the Government may decide to amend their Bill.
Baroness Fairhead
There will be other opportunities; perhaps we could have a meeting before the second day on Report.
Lord Judge
Provided it is understood that the resolution of this issue will abide or at least wait for a meeting between those of us who wish to meet the Minister—I would certainly be one of them—and those whom the Minister wishes to meet, that is fine. But I cannot leave the House in the position that we will now leave this for ever, and if the Minister deigns to do us the kindness of giving us what we want, we will have it. We have to know exactly where the Government stand on this. I know the argument, but where do we stand procedurally in the House?
Baroness Fairhead
I have heard a very well-argued case—the first time I have heard the impact of that case. I can commit to writing a detailed letter on our position, having a meeting and bringing this back on the second day on Report, if that is what this House would prefer to do.
Lord Pannick
I suggest that this matter cannot be brought back on the second day, because this is an amendment to Clause 2, which we will have passed. Given that the noble Baroness, fairly and properly, has accepted that what she has heard today requires further discussion, and that the Government may wish to consider further this matter after they have met with noble and noble and learned Lords who are concerned about this, surely the way to proceed is for the Government to accept that it is appropriate for this matter to be raised again at Third Reading to see whether any progress can be made.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, we are in a very similar situation to where we were in an earlier debate. Clearly there is an issue which needs to be resolved between the Minister and those who feel strongly about it. She is putting the mover of the amendment in a difficult position, because the only right thing to do at this stage is to test the opinion of the House, and I am sure that that is not where we need to go on this. We need to give the Minister time to reflect on the issues and to be convinced, if she has to be convinced, by further points made, and, if necessary, to come back at Third Reading. That is not an onerous consideration.
Baroness Fairhead
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and I agree with that position.
Lord Judge
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. I think that calling for a Division at 5.24 pm when we have so many other things to deal with might not have been very popular, although I suspect we would have won. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Wilson, for enlightening me as to where Explanatory Notes come from.
I thank everybody who has spoken in this debate. I will leave it at this: the Executive accept that these powers should not be given. There should be no difficulty whatever in putting them into legislation, rather than leaving them in an Explanatory Note. Although the noble Lord, Lord Pannick has sought—and graciously been given—an assurance of the Minister’s position, I do not think that is enough. For the time being, at any rate, I shall not press this amendment.
Baroness Henig
“(5A) A Minister of the Crown must lay a report before both Houses of Parliament during each session of Parliament reporting on the progress made in all negotiations relating to agreements Her Majesty’s Government intends to ratify under this section. (5B) A report under subsection (5A) must include, at a minimum—(a) a summary of proposed changes against the existing agreement,(b) the estimated date for the completion of the negotiations, and(c) the date when the agreement is expected to be laid before Parliament.”
Baroness Henig (Lab)
My Lords, I hope that my amendment will prove a little more straightforward than the one we have just debated. When the issue of parliamentary scrutiny of trade agreements covered by this Bill was discussed in Committee, the Minister made much of the issue of speed. Speed, she argued, was of the essence in rolling over these agreements. She said that the Government were opposed to any detailed scrutiny arrangements which might slow the negotiations down and delay conclusion of the deals. Since then, it has become increasingly clear that, whatever the Government’s intentions, these deals will not be speedily concluded. Indeed, it could be two or three years before they are all finalised. This being the case, we surely need to put in place some clear scrutiny arrangements. At the very least, these should replicate the information that the EU Commission regularly supplied to us. They should keep parliamentarians and, more importantly, businesses and their customers informed about what is being discussed and the timescales envisaged for the conclusion of deals, so that they can plan effectively for the future.
I am sure I am not alone in having been shocked at the level of secrecy imposed by the Department for International Trade with regard to its progress on trade talks during the last 18 months. In 2017, the Secretary of State for International Trade made his much quoted promise about having up to 40 trade deals,
“ready for one second after midnight”,
at the end of March 2019. Businesses would have assumed with some confidence that all was going well and that, in the course of 2018, progress was being made in rolling over the deals. It was only through a leak in the Financial Times in January of this year that we learned that, in fact, only a handful of deals was going to be finalised by the end of March. Not surprisingly, this has caused great consternation among business leaders and companies, great and small. Now we learn, through a second leak—again in the Financial Times—that the Department for International Trade’s consultations with business representatives have been suspended because information was being passed out of the meeting, allegedly in an unauthorised way.
Where is this obsession with secrecy coming from? Is it from the Department for International Trade or from 10 Downing Street? Whatever the source, this cannot be a recipe for successful trade negotiations, either now or in the future. Both Parliament and businesses have a need and a right to know what is being negotiated, what stage discussions have reached, and when they are likely to be concluded. Successful trade negotiations require consensus—from business groups, sectors of industry and wider stakeholders about the interests that are being pursued and the goals that are going to be set. This requires extensive consultation and collaboration between the Executive, Parliament, businesses and stakeholder groups. The reality is that the secrecy demanded by the Department for International Trade is counterproductive to successful trade negotiations, both in relation to those being rolled over and to future deals.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
I am most grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I know that she is an expert in the subject. Does she agree that when the European Union has been conducting trade negotiations with a view to reaching trade agreements with third parties, it has always set very high standards of consultation and transparency, reporting regularly to the European Parliament as well as consulting business interests that might be at stake, trade associations and other potential stakeholders? Does she further agree that it is a terrible pity that the British Government do not seem to be following that excellent example?
Baroness Henig
I absolutely agree. That is precisely my concern: that there is an effective scrutiny process in place to replace what we will lose at European level. In later amendments, we shall discuss future arrangements, but my concern is that in the rollover of the existing deals, we have effective scrutiny so that everybody knows where we are in the negotiations.
Parliament and business leaders should not be seen as the enemy from whom important national secrets must be kept, which seems to have been the way things have been going. Our businesses, exporters and trade bodies need to plan. They need to work in tandem with the Government. Of course we accept the need for confidentiality in trade negotiations. We all understand that, but the level of secrecy we have experienced in the past 18 months has been totally counterproductive.
My amendment would put some basic scrutiny arrangements in place to cover the period for which these deals are being rolled over. It enables Parliament, businesses and the wider community to know what stage they have reached and when they may be completed. Reporting once a Session is hardly an onerous requirement on the Executive. After all, our current Session is now nearly two years old. That seems to me a basic requirement for effective parliamentary scrutiny.
I hope that the Minister will tell me that the amendment is unnecessary, as the Government will bring forward something similar at or before Third Reading, but meanwhile I beg to move.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, for tabling Amendment 5. It gives the House an opportunity to revisit the issue of how the Government will update Parliament on the status of negotiations on the continuity agreements. We enjoyed a useful discussion on this in Committee.
First, let me reiterate that Parliament plays a crucial role in scrutiny of free trade agreements, and we intend that to continue. It is right that Parliament should expect to be updated by the Government. That is why the Government have already informed Parliament on progress of our continuity agreements through a Written Ministerial Statement. As your Lordships will be aware, they have already gone through a process of scrutiny in becoming free trade agreements with the EU.
We have also laid our first free trade agreements for scrutiny in Parliament ahead of ratification, which we believe is the right level of scrutiny, along with their accompanying parliamentary reports and explanatory memoranda, in which we have committed to giving explicit information about any significant changes, should any occur, making clear where they are, and any economic impact, should there be any.
Unfortunately, we cannot give a running commentary on the progress towards signature of our other continuity agreements. We believe that doing so would create a handling risk with our partner countries. Some partner countries may not wish to share such information, and a commitment to do so might prejudice the prospect of a successful negotiation. We are trying to get the best possible outcome for the UK.
However, let me assure the noble Baroness that, as we are aiming for continuity, we do not expect there to be significant changes. I therefore argue that the detailed reporting required by the amendment would be unsuitable for the continuity programme. For the future free trade agreements programme, the Government have committed to publish updates on the conclusion of each substantive negotiating round and to publish an annual report on all future trade agreement negotiation programmes under way. In this way, we will ensure that Parliament is kept fully updated on progress as we pursue new FTAs with partner countries.
Although I understand the desire to know what progress we are making towards transitioning continuity agreements, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Henig, understands the Government’s position and therefore request that the amendment be withdrawn.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
Before the Minister finishes, I do not think that she answered my noble friend’s question about comparing the Government’s policy on non-disclosure agreements and secrecy with what the European Union has done for many years. That applies not just to these trade agreements, but to most discussions with industry and everyone else to do with the whole Brexit process. People seem to be required to sign NDAs before they get any information at all. Is that now the Government’s policy—that no trade agreements or anything similar can be achieved unless the industry concerned signs NDAs? That seems a pretty draconian change.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, the engagement we have with civic society, businesses and trade unions will be critical as we develop our future trade agreements, and we will continue those discussions. We have already talked about creating a strategic trade advisory group, which will contain members from civic society, trade unions and business organisations. We have also agreed to have expert bodies, so I hope that will reassure the noble Lord that we are intent on continuing very active engagement.
The difference here is that these are continuity agreements that have already been negotiated and scrutinised through a process, and we are aiming for continuity here. Therefore, we believe that the appropriate level of scrutiny by Parliament is for the Government to bring forward the reports when they have been signed, alongside a detailed report on the changes, if any, and the economic impact. Of course, ratification will be required, and that will go through scrutiny in the normal way.
There is a very different position on future free trade agreements, on which I wholeheartedly take on board the points made by the noble Lord and the noble Baroness.
Baroness Henig
I have listened carefully to what the Minister said. She talked about a “running commentary”, and I do not think that is what my amendment sought. It sought a report once every Session, which, I respectfully suggest, is not quite the same thing. As has been said, these are continuity agreements. What I—and, I am sure, many other Members of this House—seek is continuity: when we are no longer members of the EU, we want the same level of information as we were getting from the EU. We seek a level of information; we do not want a dilution of processes, with more meagre information and more difficulty in finding out what is going on. That is what lies at the heart of this.
I have listened carefully to the Minister, and I do not propose to pursue the matter at this stage—but I am sure that I and many other Members of this House will keep the Government’s feet to the fire on the issue of getting hold of information and making sure that everybody, particularly businesses, commercial organisations and people throughout the country, know where we are and what is going on. They should not have to rely on leaks from newspapers for their information. Having got that off my chest, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Fairhead
“Post-ratification report
(1) This section applies where—(a) the United Kingdom has ratified a free trade agreement, and(b) the other party (or each other party) and the European Union were signatories to a free trade agreement immediately before exit day.(2) Before the end of the period of five years beginning with the date of ratification, a Minister of the Crown must publish a report giving the Minister’s assessment of the impact of the agreement on trade between the United Kingdom and the other party (or each other party) to the agreement.”
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, this group includes Amendments 6 and 7. With the indulgence of the House, I shall speak now to Amendment 6, and then respond to Amendment 7 when my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, who tabled it, has spoken.
I thank noble Lords for their contributions during the discussion on post-ratification reports during the Committee stage. Once again, the debate demonstrated the value of this House and your Lordships’ expertise and knowledge. In the light of that debate, I can confirm that the Government accept that post-ratification reports are important tools for understanding the real effect trade agreements have on the economy. They are useful not only in informing our discussions in joint committees but in refining our strategies for future trade negotiations.
Having had the benefit of this House’s wisdom in Committee, the Government have tabled an amendment that would require a Minister of the Crown to publish a report on the impact on trade of each of our continuity free trade agreements. These reports will need to be published within five years of ratification of the agreements. The reports will assess whether trade flows between the UK and the other signatory or signatories have changed since the agreement began to be applied. If there has been a change, the reports will then discuss how much of that change can be attributed to the agreement itself.
Given that these reports will consider impacts across the whole of the UK, this will include an assessment of any impacts on the devolved nations. We will of course share these reports with the devolved Administrations. I hope the House will support the amendment.
Amendment 7 (to Amendment 6)
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for a useful meeting, and for responding to my amendment in Committee and to the concern that was expressed on all sides about the need to monitor and review trade agreements. I support this proposed new clause. Good government requires objective review in the light of performance and the priorities of the day. Regulations are reviewed every five years in many areas.
I have tabled the amendment to establish two points. First, I wanted my noble friend to explain why she felt we could not include my simple proposal that the Secretary of State should arrange for the report to be laid before the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Northern Ireland Assembly. Can she agree that this will be done? Secondly, the review clause applies only to trade agreements ratified before exit day. I am also interested in having such provisions apply in the case of new agreements made after Brexit. Can the Minister outline her intentions on this point? We are entering a period of profound change, where a habit of looking back critically would be both desirable and helpful. I beg to move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My Lords, in Committee there were a number of amendments, including one in my name, which sought to make the case that some of the agreements that we are party to by virtue of our membership of the EU are significant for the economy as a whole and certain sectors of the economy. Some have a greater impact on some of the nations and regions of the UK and, therefore, to understand the impact of our trading policy it is necessary to have the report. So I welcome the Government’s position, as outlined by the Minister.
However, there are a couple of areas where I would wish to press for further information. One area relates to comments I made earlier about the status of the vast majority of the agreements to which we are party and have signed prior to exit day but which we are looking to replicate or agree after exit day. These will not necessarily be considered as continuity agreements—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe.
The agreement with Japan is a good example. It has been in force since 1 February and, given all the powers under this Bill, is a candidate to be considered as a continuity agreement. The Japanese Government have said that they do not wish it to be a continuity agreement but a new trade agreement. Under the Government’s amendment, how would that be reported on? It would not come under its remit. That is one of many examples.
Lord Lansley
I declare an interest as the UK co-chair of the UK-Japan 21st Century Group. My understanding of the Japanese Government’s position is that they have made it clear that the procedures that are required by the Japanese Diet for a treaty would make it impossible for them to bring this forward as an agreement between the United Kingdom and Japan in the event of a no-deal exit. They would require it to be considered as a new treaty because we were no longer members of the European Union or covered by the withdrawal agreement. Were we, however, to sign the withdrawal agreement and to have a transition period, the Japanese Government, in their view, could consider it to be a rollover agreement during the transition period.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
That is helpful. However, my question to the Government remains as to what the status of the Bill would be, under the amendment, with regard to the reporting mechanism. Japan is one example among the vast majority of examples also in this category. A degree of clarification on that would be helpful.
The second issue is: why five years? Under the regulations, the agreements have to be renewed by Parliament after three years. One could therefore have a situation whereby an agreement could be renewed twice, lasting nine years, but with only one report. Would it not be better if the Government brought forward their report prior to the conclusion of the three-year life of the agreements? It would be no more burdensome for there to be a reduction from five years to three, and the report would be one of the key documents that Parliament would use when considering whether or not to renew the regulations after the three years; otherwise, they would be significantly out of kilter and either the report would not be helpful to the extension of the regulations or we would be unable to have a meaningful discussion on their extension in the absence of a report on the impact on Britain of the agreement.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for Amendment 7, which brings reporting on future FTAs into scope, and her support for Amendment 6. The engagement I have had with my noble friend, as with others in this House, has been invaluable.
My noble friend asked why we are not agreeing in statute to lay the reports before the devolved Administrations. The UK Government, as a point of constitutional principle, are not responsible for laying documents in the devolved Parliaments. However, I recognise the importance of ensuring that the devolved Administrations are appropriately involved. That is why we are proposing that the Minister will make a commitment in the House that the Government will send the reports to the relevant Ministers in each of the devolved Administrations. We hope that that solution addresses the objective and the constitutional agreement.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
From my experience of the Scottish Parliament, there is nothing to prevent any UK Government submitting to the Library of the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly documents similar to those laid in the Library of this House, so that MSPs and AMs can be informed and do not have to rely on their Governments submitting them.
Baroness Fairhead
That is a helpful interruption, but we would probably like to have a more formal process for handing the reports to Ministers and devolved Administrations.
As my noble friend may be aware, the Government published a Command Paper on 28 February on our processes for making free trade agreements after the UK has left the EU. In that paper, we outline our plans for transparent scrutiny of future FTAs, including publishing a scoping assessment prior to launching negotiations. We will also publish full impact assessments of new FTAs once negotiations are concluded. It is important to note that we have not yet begun negotiations on new FTAs, but the Government would be willing to consider publishing similar reports for future FTAs to those required by the amendment or continuity free trade agreements.
As regards our helpful discussion on the agreement between Prime Ministers Abe and May, the UK undertook to make an enhanced agreement with Japan. My noble friend Lord Lansley was correct in saying that the Japanese Government have agreed that, subject to there being an agreement, the EU-Japan agreement will continue during the implementation period, as with all our other continuity agreements. The Command Paper on scrutiny and transparency sets out our overall approach to scrutiny and consultation in relation to trade agreements. The UK and Japan have agreed to deliver a bilateral trade agreement based on the EU-Japan EPA, enhanced in areas of mutual interest, as I said. In scenarios such as this, the exact approach that we take on scrutiny and consultation will obviously depend on the nature and potential impact of the agreement that we seek.
The noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, asked whether the reporting requirements referred to in the proposed new clause would apply to Japan. The answer is that they would. The reporting requirements apply to all agreements with third countries that sign an FTA with the EU before exit day.
I hope that with that assurance my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I thank my noble friend for her very helpful assurances and have pleasure in withdrawing my amendment.
“Trade in legal services in the EU
It shall be an objective of the Government to ensure that any future trade agreement between the United Kingdom and the European Union contains reciprocal rights for UK qualified lawyers to practise law in the European Union after exit day.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, as I mentioned earlier, since Committee the Government have published the very helpful Implications for Business and Trade of a No Deal Exit on 29 March 2019. Paragraphs 39 and 40 set out the importance of the services sector, which overall accounts for 80% of the UK’s GDP. The last available figures—from 2016—show that the legal services sector generates £31.5 billion in UK revenue. The UK has signed an agreement with Switzerland, and this is an example of a rolled-over agreement that will potentially bring direct benefits to UK lawyers. The Government say at paragraph 40 of their paper that in a no-deal scenario,
“the EU has said that UK nationals would be treated in the same way as third country nationals with regards to recognition of their professional qualifications. This would mean the loss of the automatic right to provide short term ‘fly in fly out’ services, as the type of work lawyers can do in each individual member state may vary, and the loss of rights of audience in EU courts. UK lawyers and businesses would be responsible for ensuring they can operate in each Member State they want to work in”.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister, my noble friend Lord Bates, whom I am delighted to welcome. What provision has been set out in the rolled over agreement with Switzerland, particularly regarding the insurance and banking sectors, for rights of audience, rights to establish and rights to continue to provide legal services in Switzerland for this purpose? I would be very grateful if my noble friend would take the opportunity to update the House on the provision that the Government are making, in a potential no-deal scenario, to ensure continued rights of audience, continued rights to “fly in, fly out” services, continued rights to establish themselves and continued rights to provide services in the interim between no deal and a future deal being signed. When the regulations went through this House, it was pointed out by my noble and learned friend Lord Keen that EU lawyers would have the right to enjoy those privileges in the UK. It would complete the circle if my noble friend could update the House with an assurance that mutual recognition is being sought with other member states and in the agreement signed with Switzerland.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
I emphasise how important this issue is. From my experience, the UK has arguably the finest legal services in the world. As the founding chair of the UK India Business Council, I am aware that foreign lawyers are not allowed to practise in India. That makes it very difficult for our lawyers to provide advice not just to British companies in India but to Indian companies, and that is a huge loss for India and our British legal services. The ability of our lawyers to practise abroad is crucial. The EU is another area where we have taken mutual recognition for granted. All sorts of situations could arise in a no-deal scenario—situations involving not just advice to companies but disputes. What about consumer rights, for example? British consumers will no longer be able to sue in relation to a European product here in the UK. It will have to be done in the country of origin in the EU and, if our lawyers cannot help out, that will be to the detriment of our consumers. Therefore, this is a very important point that cannot be taken for granted and should be included.
The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady McIntosh for presenting this amendment and for giving us the opportunity to put on the record further remarks on where we are with regard to legal services. As she reminded us, legal services contribute around £25 billion to the UK economy, with a trade surplus of around £4 billion. They directly employ well over 300,000 people in the UK, two-thirds of whom are outside London. The UK is a world leader in the provision of legal services, as the noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, also pointed out, and English law has a reputation for excellence across the world. We are determined to continue to build on this success.
We acknowledge that leaving the single market might have implications for market access and that some UK and EU service suppliers will not enjoy the same rights as they do today. That point was made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh when referring to Implications for Business and Trade of a No Deal Exit on 29 March 2019, published by the Government on 26 February—specifically paragraph 40, which sets out a case study on legal services. In a sense, that underscores that the Government see this as a key priority in the future economic framework negotiations.
That is why, in the political declaration on the future relationship between the EU and the UK, there will be comprehensive arrangements on the trade in services, covering a wide range of sectors, including legal services. The political declaration includes a commitment to conclude arrangements for services and investment that go well beyond WTO commitments and build on recent EU free trade agreements, as well as a commitment to make appropriate arrangements for professional qualifications.
The Government want to secure positive outcomes for the professional business services sector, including legal services. However, as my noble friend will be aware, our future trade relationship with the EU is subject to negotiation with the EU. A trade deal must be negotiated before its terms can be set out in law. I am aware that this is perhaps a probing amendment that seeks to get some points on the record, but clearly the Government’s view is that what my noble friend proposes is not the correct vehicle.
I am aware that in previous debates on this Bill and on some no-deal secondary legislation my noble friend has raised concerns about the impact of a no-deal outcome for lawyers. We do not want a no-deal scenario but, as a responsible Government, we have to prepare for it.
The no-deal SI relating to the practising rights of European lawyers in England and Wales and Northern Ireland, which this House debated in January, and was made on 13 February, provides transitional arrangements for EU-EFTA lawyers. The purpose of this no-deal SI is to clarify the position of EU qualified lawyers who are practising in England, Wales and Northern Ireland immediately before exit day, so that they can be secure in the knowledge of what their position will be in the event that we exit without a withdrawal agreement.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for such a comprehensive response. I am sure some in this House will agree that English law has a reputation for excellence, but speaking as a non-practising Scottish advocate, perhaps Scottish law is pre-eminent. I am grateful to my noble friend for updating the House on transitional arrangements for EU-EFTA lawyers and the position in Scotland. I was particularly pleased to hear of the arrangements in the UK-Swiss agreement.
I wish to return to this subject in the next trade Bill on our future relations—I do not know whether we have a date for that. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lansley
“Preferential trade schemes: parliamentary approval
(1) The Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 is amended as follows.(2) In section 32 (regulations etc)—(a) after subsection (3)(a) insert—“(aa) the first regulations under section 10 (preferential rates given unilaterally),”,(b) in subsection (3)(b) omit “that section” and insert “section 8”.”
Lord Lansley
I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to Amendment 9 in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. Amendment 9 follows our constructive discussions in Committee and outside the Chamber with the noble Lord, Lord Bates, and his colleagues on the question of the trade preference scheme, typically referred to as the generalised scheme of preferences in the European Union context.
A generalised scheme of preferences or the trade preference scheme established by this country would be one intended to give unilateral access to our markets for the products of some of the least and less-developed economies, assisting in their economic progress.
In so far as we have been discussing continuity, the intention is for the United Kingdom to maintain some continuity between the European Union preference scheme and a future preference scheme in the United Kingdom. However, I want to talk about where there may be scope for differences. If noble Lords want to look at the measure, it can be found in Schedule 3 to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. That is why the amendment amends that Act, not to interfere with its revenue-raising functions but in relation to the scrutiny to be applied to regulations to establish a trade preference scheme.
Under that Act, when the Government bring in a trade preference scheme, the first such regulations will be subject to an affirmative procedure. As I understand it, the scheme may be established in line with the existing European Union preference scheme. However, it will be helpful for me to raise a number of issues with the Minister to give him a chance to put the Government’s intentions on record—as he helpfully did on the last group—about the character of the regulations and the extent of detail to be provided.
First, when we looked at Schedule 3 to the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act, we found it very difficult to relate that directly to what is in the EU’s preference scheme. That is mostly because the EU’s preference scheme does not include those countries with which it has association agreements that effectively supersede and replace the unilateral preferences. They have entered into bilateral or multilateral arrangements.
Whereas “least-developed countries” corresponds directly and derives from a UN classification, the list of “other eligible developing countries” is referenced to a World Bank classification, “among other things”. It is not the same as the classification by the World Bank. In particular, it would be helpful if my noble friend would confirm whether it is the Government’s intention to follow the EU practice and to identify in that category a sub-category of “vulnerable developing countries”. I think the intention of the unilateral scheme of preferences is to support economic development in circumstances where they are not the poorest countries of the world but none the less have significant issues—often they are structural or governance issues—that require additional preferential support.
Secondly, can access to preferences be suspended or withdrawn, as Section 10 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act makes clear, in recognition of or in consequence of human rights abuses in those countries or in relation to United Nations sanctions? Will the regulations make that clear?
Thirdly, what is the situation where the availability of this unilateral system of preferences none the less gives rise to dumping? I remember way back in 1981 that I was responsible in the Department of Trade and Industry for the generalised scheme of preferences as it applied to chemical products. The dumping of petrochemicals produced in Middle Eastern countries illustrated this point: the fact that one is a developing country does not necessarily mean that one does not have the ability to have serious competitive issues with producers in this country.
Where preferences might lead to dumping, or to subsidy, or to an increase in imports that could give rise to injury to markets and producers in this country, will the Secretary of State under the regulations be required to ask the Trade Remedies Authority to investigate any such complaint? As is the case elsewhere in the Act, will the Secretary of State be required only to act and to implement remedies in so far as the Trade Remedies Authority itself determines that there is a need to act and in line with its recommended remedy? It is not clear in the 2018 Act that the Trade Remedies Authority is required to be used by the Secretary of State in relation to the preference scheme.
Will the first set of regulations make clear the overall structure of the preferences scheme? Will it also make clear the structure in relation to specific products from developing countries, which are not to have the unilateral nil duty of tariff but are to be treated as graduated products? This sometimes happens for reasons of relative competitiveness or due to the need to protect industries in this country—as might, for example, be the case with textile imports from India or Bangladesh. Will the availability of the preferences for those graduated products be specified in the regulations, so that the two Houses can look in detail at the way in which the preference scheme is to vary in relation to certain sectors and certain countries, which might give rise to differences between the EU scheme and our scheme? Clearly there are graduated products, particularly in the agricultural sphere, where the protection afforded is to southern European producers for certain agricultural products that have no relevance in the United Kingdom. This could be true for industrial products as well.
As was said in the previous group of amendments, that is my list. I hope the regulations will include—but not necessarily be limited to—those details. There may be other issues that noble Lords will want to make sure are set out by the first regulations. It will be helpful for us to have an idea because, depending on circumstances, it may not be long before the shape of the trade preference scheme becomes clear in detail, not just in its overall application, as was set out in the 2018 Act.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I rise briefly to support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, which I have signed up to. The meeting that he referred to was extremely helpful in drawing out some of the confusion that emerged during our first debate in Committee. The issues of how countries get on to the lists, how the lists get managed and shaped, and how the changes might come forward were all explored carefully; we now have a much better understanding. In these lists, there are bound to be curious decisions which do not seem to match up to one’s perspectives. I was in Tanzania on holiday recently and it certainly did not come across as one of the least-developed countries, although clearly there are issues around how it will progress and develop its own trading arrangements.
The point behind the amendment is to get on record some further points that have emerged. The noble Lord was kind enough to suggest that we might have further questions, but his all-encompassing knowledge and brilliant, incisive questions are quite enough for me.
Lord Bates
I thank the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Stevenson, for moving the amendment standing in their names and giving us another opportunity to discuss this important area. We are moving to a stage where we can consider how having an independent trade policy could provide opportunities, particularly to the least developed countries in the world.
I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Stevenson, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for the debate we had in Committee and for then participating in what I was glad to hear reported as a helpful meeting. I join noble Lords in saying that I found it an incredibly helpful meeting, which improved my own understanding not only of the barriers and hurdles but of the opportunities that are there.
I should perhaps deal directly with my noble friend Lord Lansley’s questions, rather than outlining issues that have been previously discussed in Committee and on which the House is already aware of our position. The noble Lord asked whether it is the Government’s intention to identify a sub-category of vulnerable countries. The answer is yes: we will be replicating the GSP+ tier of economically vulnerable countries.
The noble Lord asked whether these trade preferences would undermine human and labour rights. The UK has a longstanding commitment to universal human rights, and this will be reflected in our trade preferences schemes. As part of transitioning the EU preferences scheme, we will be maintaining a similar approach to human rights commitments.
On the question of who will investigate accusations of subsidies, dumping, surges of imports et cetera, the Trade Remedies Authority will be able to investigate cases against any country, including preference-receiving countries. In doing so, it will consider allegations of dumping, subsidies and unforeseen surges in imports which cause injury to UK industry. Where the TRA determines that a trade remedy measure should be applied, it can make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who can accept or reject that recommendation. Such measures usually take the form of an additional amount of import duty above the most favoured nation rate.
Lord Lansley
I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister and indeed to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for their contributions to this short debate, and for the discussions that we had, which were not so short but were extremely helpful in clarifying many of the issues; they have enabled us to be brief today. I am grateful to my noble friend for his responses to my questions, which were very satisfactory.
I have two things to say. First, what he described as the role of the Trade Remedies Authority seems an appropriate one and mirrors what would be the case with other countries who are not part of the GSP scheme. I hope he implied that the Secretary of State would follow the TRA’s recommendations on the extent to which the preferential access is suspended or withdrawn; this can lead to a rate of duty that lies between nil and the standard rate—the most favoured nation rate. It is not necessarily in excess of the most favoured nation rate, as my noble friend said, but might fall somewhere between the nil rate and the MFN rate.
On the second point, I completely understand that noble Lords might expect us to start with a preference scheme that mirrors the European Union scheme and then consider the extent to which we can, or need to, change it in order to improve it—to address both the different circumstances of EU industries relative to those of developing countries and some characteristics of the scheme itself. Given that the legislation is structured so that the first regulations get affirmative processes and subsequent regulations do not, I hope that that will not inhibit Ministers from trying to consult proactively, as they have done through the White Paper and otherwise, on how the preference scheme could be improved if and when—there is definitely an “if” as well as a “when”—we come to establish a trade preference scheme that is the UK’s own scheme, rather than one which simply reflects the EU scheme. However, on the basis of the very helpful response from my noble friend, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lansley
“The customs tariff: parliamentary approval
(1) The Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 is amended as follows.(2) In section 32(3)(b) (regulations etc)—(a) leave out “an increase in” and insert “to vary”, and(b) after “section)” insert “from that which is in the United Kingdom’s Schedule notified to the WTO”.”
Lord Lansley
Amendment 10 stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. In Committee, we did not discuss what tariffs the United Kingdom would apply if we were to leave without a deal with the European Union. Since Committee, although Ministers have not published a proposal—notwithstanding some hints that they would—we are told something about it by virtue of reporting by Sky News. I do not know whether that is true or not; I tend not to rely on media reports for these purposes. As it happens, I tabled Amendment 10 before Sky News started reporting anything of this kind, because it seemed that noble Lords would want to talk about what such a tariff structure might look like.
This amendment relates to the implementation of import duty under Section 8 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. There are regulation-making provisions in Clause 32 of that Act, which specify that the first regulations under the Act require an affirmative procedure in this case, and that the affirmative procedure should also be used when there is an increase in duty in the standard case. For these purposes, “standard case” means when there is not a preferential rate or a tariff-rate quota, or when something is not subject to trade remedies. In that sense, it is what my noble friend referred to in the last group as an “MFN rate”. That is the standard case for these purposes.
The provision currently says it would be an affirmative procedure when there is “an increase in” that duty. The effect of Amendment 10 is to change that, so that it would be an affirmative procedure for any regulation that sought “to vary” the rate from the rate set in the schedule notified to the WTO. One of the points I hope to make is that this enables us to say something about the shape of how we might approach the situation if there is no deal. If we remain in the transition or implementation period, we will clearly abide by the EU external tariff. Depending on the nature of the future relationship with the EU, we may continue to be within a single customs territory and, by implication, within a single EU external tariff. That does not necessarily reflect the Government’s point of view, because they appear to want to be able to reduce tariffs below the EU rate, even though we remain in a single customs territory. This is a debatable proposition, which we will perhaps debate later but not on this group.
In this amendment, there is an expectation that, if we leave without a deal, we will start with our schedules to the WTO being those that we have notified—as I said right at the beginning of our proceedings today, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. They are essentially in line with the EU external tariff. My proposition is that there is no need for this; indeed, there would be significant detriment if we did not maintain those schedules. Under the WTO rules, we should have what is known as a bound rate, which is in line with the EU external tariff. The bound rate is the one that we are, in this sense, bound not to exceed. However, that does not mean that that is the rate that is applied. It is not widespread, but it is entirely normal practice under the WTO rules to have not only free trade agreements of the kind which are contemplated under Article XXIV, which lead to preferential arrangements, or the kind of preference scheme that we were just talking about for the less developed countries, but also to apply a rate of duty that is lower than the rate which one is bound to under the schedules for the WTO.
The proposition I put to your Lordships is that we should be thinking constructively about how to use the flexibility under the WTO rules to vary the applied rate of tariff from the bound rate, if we were in the unhappy circumstances of leaving without a deal. We would leave the bound rate, the WTO schedule and the EU external tariff where they are, in the expectation that, even if we leave without a deal, we may enter into a relationship with the European Union with a customs relationship which might require us not to vary from the EU’s external tariff—we would just leave that alone for the time being. In the short term, this would enable us to reduce tariffs on products from around the world which are presently subject to a higher tariff or to tariff-rate quotas. It would enable us to offset what is otherwise a significant risk of overall price increases for UK consumers.
The reasoning of course is that the EU will not change its external tariff. If we leave without a deal, we will be subject to the EU’s external tariff. Roughly half of our imports come from the European Union; a significant proportion of those—for example, cars—will have a 10% tariff applied. To turn it the other way round, UK producers would be in the unhappy position of being subject to increased costs when they try to sell. What we do not want to happen is that, simply by virtue of leaving, we impose high tariffs, leading to higher costs for UK consumers.
When people have speculated about what the tariff on a no-deal basis might look like, in some quarters they have tended to say, “We cannot lower our tariffs because the consequence of that is that we will have given something away unilaterally, which would prejudice our ability to enter into bilateral trade deals with other countries”. This is not the case. If we proceed by having an applied rate that is lower than the bound rate, first, it will become apparent to us and other countries to what extent liberalised, lower rates of duty stimulate imports from those countries, in some cases in competition with the EU at a level of duty which it has not been able to match in the past. It will begin to tell countries, and us, what the impact of lower rates of duty might be on trade between those countries.
Secondly, those countries would know that, if no bilateral deal was brought to a successful conclusion which then gave a preferential rate of duty to the United Kingdom under a free trade agreement, we could restore our applied rate back to the bound rate. They would then lose the benefit we had given them in the short run. In a nutshell, the short-run benefit of lowering tariffs not only potentially offsets what might otherwise be price increases but enables us to demonstrate to other countries what the benefits of a bilateral deal in the long-run might look like.
My expectation, and the expectation of most developed economies, is that the bound rate and the applied rate will converge in the long run. They are generally the same thing, but we are not required to have them as the same thing. It gives us an opportunity to vary rates and see what the future might look like. In the short run, it also gives us the opportunity to vary the rates of duty from those in the EU tariff to give specific benefits on things such as agricultural products or some industrial products where the protection that is required for European producers does not apply to UK producers. In that way, we can start to benefit from lower rates of duty where the European Union does not currently offer that option to us.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I have a private joke with the former Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that there is a small and declining number of people in this House with an interest in intellectual property, and that we used to gather to discuss arcane issues using incomprehensible language to our hearts’ content. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, is clearly a member of that group, and there are one or two others. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, who is unfortunately not in her place, has joined the group recently. I say that because the discussion of the WTO tariff rate is coming down to that rather narrow group of people who have a deep knowledge of and fascination for the issues and are interested in exploring them, but are frustrated by the fact that the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Bill, on which we should have had the chance to discuss the points so ably made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, was held back from us by procedural rules and went through without much debate. We are therefore having to invent a way of getting into that discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has done a great service to the House by going through some of the very intricate and complicated issues around setting tariffs and rates and how you play the game against the very complicated rules of the WTO. He does it, however, from a position of knowledge and experience that, I am afraid, will be frustrated again tonight, because there is not the will in the House to go through it in detail. Indeed, I tabled an amendment a week or two ago—when I thought there would be more time to discuss these things—on the prospect of the GSP tariff rates, setting and mechanisms. He is right that there are broader issues around those that we should discuss. However, this is not the time—and we do not have the time—to go into the detail, so I will not press my Amendment 14, which comes later, because the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has raised the same points in a broader context. I hope that the Minister will respond briefly to the points raised, so that some of the issues that need to be on the record are on the record, but perhaps we should save some of the more detailed issues for another day.
Lord Bates
I thank my noble friend for moving the amendment. The noble Lord is right: my noble friend has raised, effectively, three issues that need to be examined. One is the level of tariffs. In that regard I will probably disappoint my noble friend by referring back to my noble friend Lady Fairhead’s response from the Ministers’ Bench to the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to set out a timetable for when those tariffs might become known. She made her points and they stand on the record; I probably do not need to repeat them. I also draw to the attention of the House The Implications for Business and Trade of a No Deal Exit on 29 March 2019, which was published on 26 February. On this occasion I draw my noble friend Lord Lansley’s attention to the section on tariffs, beginning at paragraph 31 and continuing into paragraph 32, which explores some aspects of the setting of tariffs.
Those are two aspects on the level of tariffs, but I now turn to some of the specifics to which my noble friend referred. He asked about the status of the common external tariff applied by the WTO. The noble Lord is correct that we have notified our bound tariff schedule to the WTO. Our bound schedule represents the upper limits of what tariffs the UK could apply on imports. If, for example, our bound schedule says 10% for product X, we could choose to apply 9%. The Government have yet to announce their applied tariffs for a no-deal scenario, but the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, is correct to say that on leaving the EU we will be free to set out tariffs within the parameters of the bound schedule that we lodged last year.
The EU’s common external tariff—as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley—is the EU’s version of its applied tariff schedule. These are the tariffs that will apply to UK exports to the EU in a no-deal scenario. My noble friend also referenced the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act, which states that the first time a tariff is set, and whenever an import duty rate increases, the made affirmative procedure will apply; otherwise the negative procedure will apply.
These amendments would make the made affirmative procedure apply in different circumstances. In the case of Amendment 10, that would be any time the rate of import duty diverged from the bound commitment made by the UK to the WTO; in the case of Amendment 14 the made affirmative procedure would apply in all circumstances. However, under both amendments it is currently stipulated that the setting of the tariff would remain a matter for the other place. The Act ensures that the scrutiny procedures applied to the exercise of each power are appropriate and proportionate, taking into account the extremely detailed nature of the tariff and the frequency with which it may be changed. The tariff is long and complex; it currently contains 17,000 types of goods and is more than 1,000 pages long. The EU tariff is subject to regular, almost daily, amendment, so the current balance of the chosen procedure reflects that understanding.
Once again, I express the Government’s appreciation to my noble friend Lord Lansley for moving this amendment, giving us the opportunity to expand on our positions and put those additional remarks on the record. I hope that is helpful and reassuring to him, and that he feels able to withdraw his amendment at this stage.
Lord Lansley
I am grateful to my noble friend, and to the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara. This debate has been very helpful, and the takeaway from this—one I am grateful to my noble friend for confirming—is that the bound schedule has already been notified to the WTO. People need to be very clear about the fact that if we leave without a deal and the Government come forward and say, “These are the tariffs that we intend to apply”, they are not varying the WTO bound rate but saying that, on a most favoured nation basis, they will apply these rates. That provides a basis for negotiations on preferential schemes that could emerge over time. I read the document about the implications of no deal for tariffs, and it is correct: the Government must balance the desirability of supporting liberalised trade, with benefits for consumers through price and choice, with protection for producers in this country. That will be a delicate balance to strike. If people are aware that we can behave in this way with an applied rate that varies from the bound rate, it removes the argument that by applying a lower rate in the short run we have prejudiced our ability to conduct trade negotiations with other countries in the future—we have not done that. If we get rid of that argument, it helps to shift the balance in many cases in favour of lower rates in the short run, rather than higher rates. I am most grateful to my noble friend for his response. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Lea of Crondall
“UK membership of the European Free Trade Association and the European Economic Area
It shall be the objective of an appropriate authority to achieve before exit day the implementation of an international agreement to enable the United Kingdom to become a member of the European Free Trade Association and continue as a signatory to the EEA Agreement.”
Lord Lea of Crondall (Lab)
My Lords, last summer the House supported a proposition along the lines of retaining our membership of the EEA. Given that all other ideas seem to be falling by the wayside one after the other like dominoes, it now has even more steam behind it. I expect this will be demonstrated in the other place quite soon, with the proposition supported by cross-party groups in the Commons and in this House.
Before I come to the main issue, I want to make a point about all the bad news from the car industry, with BMW and Toyota adding to it. This is another demonstration of the need to stay in the customs union, which will be debated later.
We are talking in this Bill against a background of leaving the EU—not about whether it is a good idea, which it certainly is not—and moving from Pillar 1 of the twin-pillar European Economic Area, which is the European Union, to Pillar 2, which is EFTA. Given where we are now, I think that it is the only way we can still be part of a family of agreed rules and justiciable arrangements, with the emphasis shifting on the latter point from the European Court of Justice to the EFTA Court.
I wish to get out of the way a rather unnecessary obstacle. I refer to the publication by this Government on 20 December of the EEA EFTA separation agreement with the UK. Although this is a treaty provision whereby we will leave the EEA on 29 March, will the departure requirement in Article 71 of the draft agreement be automatically frozen in the hypothetical situation of our reaching agreement with the EU to extend the Article 50 period, which is becoming more likely, so that it does not happen on 29 March? If we crash out, would we not have the right to apply to rejoin EFTA? Would not Parliament have the right to vote on such a treaty change if it were no longer logically derivative of the wider constitutional Act? Many lawyers think that there should be such a vote.
Jeremy Corbyn paid tribute in the Commons recently to the cross-party Norway-plus group, echoing its view that we need full access not only to the single market but to a customs union. This policy is supported by the TUC under the distinguished leadership of Frances O’Grady. As I have said previously, I prefer to say “the” customs union, because I am agnostic about whether there is a cigarette paper of difference in this context between the definite and the indefinite article. The EU customs union and the single market between them—they are intertwined—cover a wide range of electronic data, driving licences and product standards, as well as labour standards. Given what has been said in the newspapers today, membership of them would be the only way to guarantee that workers’ rights in this country kept pace with further improvements in the EU. As we have seen from today’s reports, the Prime Minister restricts her commitment to consultation, which past experience suggests gives a veto to the CBI, even though I suspect that it, like the TUC, will remain part of the employers’ negotiating team in Brussels. In other words, it could have its cake and two bites at the cherry, given its reluctance to be part of this arrangement.
Lord Monks (Lab)
My Lords, the House has carried an amendment such as this before and has done so overwhelmingly. It crops up in the context of this Trade Bill and will do so again whatever the Government do. If they achieve their withdrawal agreement, the direction of travel of what happens next will have to take account of the Norway-plus option. If they fall flat on their face next week, we will see that the options which the country needs to consider urgently are likely to include this one.
It is the only option that combines reconciling the referendum result with single market membership and the customs union arrangement as well. I know that time is tight, but I ask the House to keep this option in mind; the fact that it is being treated briefly tonight does not mean that it will not be very important in the future. I hope people will reflect on the points made by my noble friend in moving this amendment.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, to follow what the noble Lord, Lord Monks, said, I was one of the noble Lords who led on the amendment—along with the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others—suggesting that the EEA was the least worst option. That amendment to the withdrawal Bill was passed overwhelmingly. That decision, therefore, has been made by this House; it was overturned by the other place, but it could quite probably—as the noble Lord, Lord Monks, has said—come up again as the least worst option.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, although the key point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Monks, that this might seem a little out of keeping with the rest of today’s discussions, points were made here that will be resonant as we move on with the Bill. I commend them to the House.
Lord Bates
My Lords, I am conscious of the time, but I also want to ensure that noble Lords have an opportunity to reflect on the serious issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lea. We may deal with them briefly this evening but we did not deal briefly with them when they came up in Committee. There was quite some debate on them on 4 February, and for those noble Lords who are interested, they can read it in glorious technicolour between columns 1360 and 1370 in the Official Report of those proceedings. Perhaps if the noble Lord, Lord Lea, will permit me to summarise what the key arguments were at that point, I will try to answer two of the points that he raised.
EFTA membership would not be acceptable because it would mean accepting the free movement of people between its four existing members. To gain access to the 29 existing free trade agreements negotiated by EFTA, the UK would have to negotiate its way into each and every one of them with the relevant third countries. There is no guarantee that that would be successful: EFTA’s trade agreements were not negotiated with the size and type of Britain’s economy in mind. Were the UK to join EFTA, it would constitute 71% of the enlarged area.
If we rejoined the European Economic Area to stay in the single market, we would not have control over our borders. It would mean having to accept all four freedoms of the single market, including free movement of people across the 30 EEA states. On laws, it would mean having to implement new EU legislation covering the majority of the sectors of our economy. In contrast, we are making an up-front sovereign choice to commit to ongoing harmonisation with EU rules on goods, covering only those necessary to provide frictionless trade in the context of our agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Lea, said that if we crash out, we need to keep the right to rejoin EFTA. If we leave the European Union without a deal, we fall out of the EEA and EFTA. We would be able to apply to rejoin, but this is contrary to government policy for the reasons that I have explained. He asked what the impact on the EEA Agreement would be if we extended Article 50. If we were to extend Article 50, the UK would, of course, stay within the EEA under the EU pillar until we left the EU. With regard to citizens’ rights agreements made with the EEA and EFTA states, these would enter into force only when we leave the EU or at the end of an implementation period.
I hope that, with that brief summary, the noble Lord—whose contributions I always enjoy and listen to attentively—will not feel that I have not responded to him, but in the context of the wider consideration of this issue in the debate, the Government’s position remains as it was in Committee. I therefore ask him to consider withdrawing his amendment at this stage.
Lord Lea of Crondall
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In fact, he did not answer all the questions on 4 February. I could draw attention to some of them, but I will not. This could have been an opportunity today. Free movement of persons is, of course, an issue of which we have experience within the European Union. We would be cutting off our nose to spite our face on areas of the economy, such as the whole entertainment, theatre and ballet industry, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, referred to on one occasion. There are many, many others, so these sweeping statements about control of our borders are really over the top and not a sensible way to address this issue.
I am not going to say more at this stage. Suffice it to say that the initiative is now with the House of Commons. I have some confidence that in the next few days and weeks this will become, as my noble friend Lord Monks said, a strong policy in the Commons. I rest on the fact that it is still the policy of the House of Lords, as has been said by my noble friends. On that basis on this occasion, I will not seek to test the opinion of the House.
“Parliamentary approval of trade agreements
(1) Negotiations towards a free trade agreement may not commence until the Secretary of State has laid a draft negotiating mandate before the appropriately constituted Committee and it has been approved by—(a) resolution of that Committee, and(b) a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.(2) Prior to the draft negotiating mandate being laid, the Secretary of State must have consulted with each devolved administration on the content of the draft negotiating mandate.(3) Prior to considering a resolution approving a mandate relating to the negotiation of a free trade agreement, the Committee must produce a sustainability impact assessment.(4) Before either House of Parliament may approve by resolution the text of a proposed free trade agreement, the Secretary of State must lay the text of the proposed agreement before the Committee and that text must be approved by a resolution of that Committee.(5) Prior to the laying of the text of the proposed agreement, the Secretary of State must have consulted with each devolved administration on the text of the proposed agreement.(6) Prior to considering a resolution approving the text of a free trade agreement under subsection (4), the Committee must produce a report setting out a recommendation in relation to the ratification of the agreement.(7) The Secretary of State must lay the report produced under subsection (6) before both Houses of Parliament.(8) Schedule (Committee on Trade Agreements) contains further provision about the reports under subsection (6).(9) A free trade agreement may not be ratified unless the agreement has been laid before, and approved by an amendable resolution of, both Houses of Parliament.(10) The Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is amended as follows.(11) At the end of section 25(2) insert “, or a treaty containing a free trade agreement as defined in section (Parliamentary approval of trade agreements) of the Trade Act 2019.”(12) In this section, “free trade agreement” refers to any agreement between the United Kingdom and one or more partners that includes components that facilitate the trade of goods, services or intellectual property including but not limited to— (a) Free Trade Agreements (FTA) as defined by section 8;(b) Interim Association Agreements, Association Agreements (AA);(c) Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA);(d) Interim Partnership Agreements;(e) Stabilisation and Association Agreements (SAA);(f) Global Agreements (GA);(g) Economic Area Agreements (EAA);(h) Cooperation Agreements (CA);(i) Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreements (CETA);(j) Association Agreements with strong trade component;(k) Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnerships (TTIP);(l) Investment Protection Agreements.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, after that brief pause for dramatic effect, we move on quickly. We have already begun to discuss this issue because it was the subject of the Motion before the House before we began to consider Report, so I can be relatively brief. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Purvis of Tweed, for joining me on Amendment 12. I will speak also to Amendment 35, which would be a new schedule dependent on Amendment 12 and which I consider to be consequential.
The background is the White Paper on future trade deals that was referred to. It is very good to read in that paper that,
“the Government is clear that we must have a transparent and inclusive future trade policy that delivers for all parts of the United Kingdom … that there must be a strong and effective role for Parliament in scrutinising our trade policy and free trade agreements … We recognise that the best free trade agreements will be those that draw on the extensive expertise and experience of both the House of Commons and House of Lords and have its full support”.
Unfortunately, those good recommendations in the White Paper do not follow on from the analysis. The problem that we have come across is that the stumbling block seems to be the rather startling assertion:
“The making amending and withdrawing from treaties are functions of the executive which are carried out in exercise of the Royal Prerogative”.
I thought that we decided some time ago that the royal prerogative had had its day. It is a bit odd to see it prayed in aid in this case.
Trade negotiations are no longer just a matter of the import and export of physical goods. They are about societal rights, environmental rights, the provision of healthcare, and investment protection. There are trade-offs between services and tariffs, which was exactly the point that we were discussing earlier today. The public are entitled to know what the Government are doing. We in Parliament are duty-bound to have a role in scrutinising what the Government intend to do. Surely our country needs a modern approach to the approval of trade agreements, with proper roles identified for the Executive and for Parliament, which can operate a sensible scheme rooted in reality, not fantasy, and which is appropriate for our representative democratic system.
The Government say that this proposal,
“should draw on the expertise of Parliament … via a close relationship with a specific parliamentary committee in each House”.
They suggest that these committees,
“would have the power to produce a detailed report … to assist parliamentarians and the public in understanding the agreement and its potential implications”.
Moreover:
“Where the Committee(s) indicated that the agreement should be subject to a debate prior to the commencement of parliamentary scrutiny under CRaG, the Government would consider and seek to meet such requests where those requests are made within a reasonable timeframe and subject to parliamentary timetables”.
These are a pale imitation of what we already have in the EU, where the relevant committee follows trade negotiations extremely closely and a plenary vote in the Parliament is required before the conclusion of an agreement.
In our view, the arrangements proposed in the White Paper do not provide a solid role for Parliament that meets the expectations of those who are interested in trade and which is required for modern trade negotiations, particularly during the scoping and negotiating phases; n or do they accord Parliament the role it should have in ratifying the final agreement, with positive votes being required in each House. I hope the Government will engage with us on this issue and I would be very happy to meet them again to explore the way forward. In the interim, I beg to move.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
My Lords, this amendment is in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Purvis, and my own. I do not wish to appear disobliging towards the Command Paper the Government tabled last week and to which the Minister referred this afternoon before we started Report. It contains some useful material but unfortunately it falls short of providing a proper role for Parliament in three important respects, and thus fails to bring this Parliament anywhere close to the degree of mandating, oversight and approval that will prevail in some of the main trade partners with whom we will, in the future, be negotiating if and when we become responsible for a new, independent trade policy—most significantly, of course, the European Union and the United States.
The first defect is the Government’s refusal to put any of these provisions that they referred to in the Command Paper into the Bill. The degree of mandating and oversight will remain entirely in the Government’s gift on every occasion in which we set out to negotiate a major free trade agreement. Their willingness to give Parliament a say is clearly absent when one considers the consultation the Government have been holding on proposed agreements with the United States, Australia and New Zealand. No doubt having a public consultation, which they are engaged in at the moment, is entirely valuable and appropriate, but there has been no involvement at all by either House of Parliament in that consultation. That, surely, is a sad defect.
A second defect is that there is no provision at all in the Command Paper for mandating ahead of, and oversight during, the negotiations for parliamentary bodies—the word “mandate” never appears at all. The EU will be seeking a mandate from the European Parliament before negotiating with us and the European Parliament will no doubt have oversight throughout the negotiations. In the US, the Administration have just tabled their proposals for an agreement with us and these will undoubtedly be subject to detailed scrutiny and consideration by both Houses of Congress. Why should this Parliament not receive the same provisions and opportunities?
The third defect lies in the process of parliamentary approval for any agreement once the negotiations have been successfully concluded. The CRaG procedure, which is the Government’s preference, provides only for a negative procedure, which I suggest is inadequate for the very complex and sensitive issues that free trade agreements now entail. It is a much weaker instrument than the affirmative procedure proposed in this amendment. I hope that the Government will reflect carefully on how to remedy those three major defects. Without such remedies, the Bill clearly falls short of what is required in a period when trade negotiations have, quite rightly, become the object of careful parliamentary scrutiny and approval all across the world at every stage. Why should this Parliament be left on the sidelines?
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Stevenson, for working collectively to condense a number of amendments in Committee into one composite amendment. It captures the two broad areas that were left outstanding in the Government’s Command Paper, the presentation of which I and others welcomed. The first area explores how the Government see the prerogative power of the Executive taken forward in a new, more complex world. The second concerns the devolved Administrations. Both areas are deficient in the Command Paper, as has been said already.
To illustrate the first point, I was born in 1974, when there were four regional trade agreements in the world. In 1992, there were 24 and in 2019 there are 471. That shows the massive growth in breadth and complexity of trade agreements that have been notified with the WTO. Nine been notified to the WTO during the tortuous process of our consideration of this Bill, which shows how trade moves fast but also widely and with growing complexity. Therefore, reverting, in effect, back to a consideration of the prerogative power before our membership of the EU is not really sufficient. It is why the International Chamber of Commerce, in a meeting I chaired, was so disappointed with the British Government seeking,
“to address the issue of 21st-century trade with 19th-century constitutional practices”.
This amendment seeks to address this fundamentally.
There is no direct replication of the relationship between the Commission, the Council and the European Parliament. The European Parliament has formally notified and engaged from the start of a trade negotiation 12 times. We are seeking to maintain this as the same form of platform of relationship, and if there is no direct read-across from what we have at the moment we will seek to use that as an opportunity to enhance the role of Parliament, rather than enhance the role of the Executive. That is why the first element seeks a role for Parliament in supporting the mandate or the negotiating objectives. The Government may say they have an issue with the word “mandate”: we are just taking the word of the Prime Minister when she sought and secured, “the mandate I need” when it came to negotiations with the European Union recently. When that passed the House of Commons she said she was,
“armed with a fresh mandate”.
This is the Prime Minister’s language and if the Government are opposed to it, they need to explain why the Prime Minister’s language is wrong.
On the second area, we have changed the use of the prerogative power over recent years. Canada still deploys troops without parliamentary approval—we do not. We have moved to fixed-term Parliaments. We have changed, adopted and modernised the prerogative power and that is why it is appropriate that Parliament has a role in setting the negotiating objectives and mandate and also has a vote on the final ratification.
My final point concerns consultation with the devolved Administrations. This formal statutory underpinning of consultation was sorely lacking in the Command Paper. It is welcome that there will be a process through the concordat, that there will be a forum and that there will be ongoing discussions with Ministers, but just to give the current example of the Faroe Islands trade agreement, the draft text was not shared and the level of consultation with devolved Ministers was not appropriate. We seek to address those two areas in this amendment, with consultation with the devolved Administrations, an updating and a more appropriate role for Parliament. I hope that the Government will see this in the spirit in which it was tabled—that we wish to build on the Command Paper and improve it—and that they will accept it.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly simply to explain why I do not feel I can support the proposed new clause, although generally speaking I agree with the views that have been expressed in its support. I shall indicate what I could support with some changes to the new clause. I shall deal first with proposed new subsection (9), which makes the ratification of the agreement subject to approval by resolution of both Houses. This provision, in fact, goes much further, as the noble Lord will appreciate, than the procedure set out in the 2010 Act with regard to the approval of treaties, but I welcome the principle and I have no difficulty with it. However, I have a question which I hope the sponsors of the proposed new clause will address. I may have overlooked the answer—it may be staring me plain in the face. What happens if the Lords decline approval but the Commons approve the trade agreement?
There is no provision in the Bill to deal with that situation, and it would be profoundly unattractive if the House of Commons were to approve the trade agreement and the House of Lords were to refuse it, the result being that the trade agreement could not pass. This is actually dealt with specifically by Sections 20(7) and 20(8) of the CRaG Act of 2010, but there is no similar provision in the new clause. Because the procedures between the new clause and CRaG are fundamentally different, I do not think you could simply import the procedures in CRaG to the new clause. Perhaps I might seek guidance from the mover of the amendment on how to resolve a difference of opinion between the two Houses.
To move very quickly to proposed new subsections and (1) and (4), so far as the former is concerned it is very good idea that the negotiating mandate should be placed before an appropriate committee and discussed in both Houses of Parliament. It is a splendid idea, and I also agree with the supporting procedure set out in the proposed new clause. The one thing I do not agree with is that the negotiating mandate should be made subject to approval of the committee or the House. That is an undue restriction on the ability of the Executive to negotiate. I would say yes to consideration and discussion, but no to express approval.
The same point relates to proposed new subsection (4). I see no reason why the agreement of the appropriate committee should be obtained before the matter is put to a vote under subsection (9), because that subsection is already a parliamentary lock on the agreement. Why, therefore, should there be a pre-agreement by the appropriate committee before it goes to both Houses of Parliament? It seems to me that that restricts the ability of Parliament to do that which it thinks is right, and it is unnecessary because the parliamentary lock already exists.
To summarise, I cannot agree with this new clause, but I could agree with it if the principle of consideration and discussion were substituted for that of express approval in subsections (1) and (4).
Lord Lansley
I thoroughly agree with my noble friend Lord Hailsham in his argument. I will add one thing. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association just a few weeks ago brought together people from across the Commonwealth to discuss a number of issues. The meeting I attended was a discussion on the ratification of treaties. It was clear that Australia and New Zealand—which of course have a long continuing history of negotiating their own trade agreements—still use the prerogative power as the basis on which the Executive enter into a trade agreement, but they do it in the context of continuing scrutiny, oversight and an approval process following implementation of legislation.
What I read in the White Paper last week went a long way towards replicating that in a very satisfactory way—that is, we would do those things in a similar way to Australia and New Zealand such as the outline approach being presented, reports on rounds and negotiations being reported back to Parliament and of course an approval process. It is perfectly reasonable to wait on the two Houses of Parliament to tell the Government what they think should be the committee processes by which these are considered. Australia, for example, has a joint standing committee on treaties, which looks at the way treaties are ratified. I do not think it is the case that mandates are being taken all over the world; some of the countries that have the greatest constitutional consistency with us do not have a mandate. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, was right about scrutiny and oversight, but he elided them with the necessity for Parliament to issue a mandate. Under our constitutional processes we should not be issuing a mandate, and the proposed new clause falls on that count.
Lord Bilimoria
My Lords, at the heart of this is Parliament taking control. What has been a problem for the past two and two-third years is that the Executive have continually tried to bypass and bully Parliament, whether with Article 50 or the statutory instruments that are going through now. This is really frightening. I am sorry to say to the noble Lords, Lord Lansley and Lord Hannay, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, but there is a big difference between Australia and New Zealand, and, for example, the United States of America. Not only does that country undertake a meaningful public consultation before negotiating, but it releases all the negotiating text to a large representative panel and subjects the deals to an affirmative vote by Congress, which is also entitled to amend deals unless it waives its right. That is Parliament having a say. That is transparency. The European Union, with its mostly mixed agreements, needs ratification by member states. It is crucial that we accept these amendments, to make sure, in the words of the Brexiteers, that we take back control.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My Lords, my perspective is that of a former negotiator. I do not think that a serious parliamentary procedure of the kind set out in the amendment for the approval of a mandate and the approval of the outcome of a negotiation damages one’s negotiating stance or limits one’s flexibility. I do not believe that at all. Having negotiated against Americans, I know that it greatly strengthens their hand to be able to say, “Here is the proof that I cannot give you what you want, because Congress would turn it down”. At the end of the day, when Congress turns one down—and it does—that is a very serious and effective deterrent to those disagreeing with the Americans in a negotiation. Speaking against unilateral disarmament in 1957, Aneurin Bevan talked of the dangers of sending the Foreign Secretary naked into the conference room. If we do not accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, we will weaken the hand of British negotiators in the future.
Lord Tugendhat (Con)
My Lords, I will intervene very briefly. The proposers of this amendment put forward their arguments so admirably that there is little more to say, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, who compared the role envisaged for this Parliament with the roles of other parliaments. As we all know, one of the key arguments in the referendum campaign was about taking back control. Here is an absolute instance of where Parliament ought to take on greater powers if it is to take back control over an important area of British policy. The other thing is that a great deal has been made by the Government, the Secretary of State for International Trade and the Prime Minister about the centrality of being able to do trade deals. The argument is put forward that one of the great reasons for being outside the EU is that it gives us the ability to do trade deals. They are going to be a central part of government activity once we have left the European Union. For those two reasons, it seems to me that the Minister will have to put forward some very strong arguments indeed if she is to convince me and perhaps some others that it is right for the Government to ignore the principle inherent in this amendment.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, Lord Purvis of Tweed and Lord Hannay of Chiswick, for tabling Amendments 12 and 35. They seek to ensure that Parliament has a significant role in free trade agreements and impose obligations on the Government and a scrutiny committee in relation to mandate-setting, transparency and approval of free trade agreements.
I fully understand the desire of noble Lords right across the House to ensure that there is strong and effective scrutiny of future trade agreements. It is an objective that the Government share. We have listened carefully to the views put forward in both Houses on this topic and last week published comprehensive proposals for enhanced scrutiny of future trade agreements in a Command Paper. This included confirmation that we would publish our outline approach to negotiations, including our objectives, accompanied by detailed economic analysis.
We further committed to publishing progress reports after each negotiating round and an annual trade report across all live negotiations. This draws on best practice internationally and will ensure a high degree of public transparency around our negotiations. In terms of Parliament’s role, we committed that we would work closely with a committee, or one in each House, to ensure that it could effectively scrutinise negotiations from start to finish, as well as setting out opportunities for scrutiny of FTAs throughout negotiations.
It is to this role that Amendments 12 and 35 apply. I will address these amendments and our proposal in this area in more detail. Amendment 12 would disapply CRaG to trade agreements and instead require that the agreement secured the approval of both Houses prior to being ratified, as well as requiring the approval of both Houses for negotiating mandates. Without wishing to revisit ground that was covered during Committee, it is worth reiterating that such a proposal goes to fundamental constitutional principles that underline the negotiation of international treaties. The negotiation and making of treaties, including international trade agreements, is a function of the Executive. This rule is not only the result of centuries of constitutional practice but also serves an important function. It enables the UK to speak clearly, with a single voice, as a unitary actor under international law. It ensures that partners know our views and are able to have faith that our position, as presented formally in negotiations, is the position of the United Kingdom.
Regarding the setting of mandates, we have considered international practice, and it is telling that there was none among those we considered in which the legislature had this role. That includes the EU, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The noble Lord, Lord Bilimoria, referred to the United States. It is true that the United States legislature is different from ours. Congress does not vote on a mandate for each agreement but delegates authority for brokering trade agreements through a trade promotion authority. This includes setting out overall objectives for trade negotiations and legislation but not specifically for individual deals. The trade promotion authority then enables an expedited process for the consideration of trade deals whereby Congress has 30 days to consider the mandate for an individual country negotiation and can call hearings on them with the United States representative. They are therefore consulted in relation to the specific mandate for each country and during negotiations, as we plan to consult Parliament.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said that there had been no consultation with Parliament, but there was a debate on 21 February to consult the Commons on four new free trade agreements we are considering. As he will understand, we are unable to negotiate right now while we are members of the EU. We will ensure that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the outline approach to negotiations, and those would usually go to general debate in each House.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I am most grateful to the Minister for that clarification. I think I heard her say that there will now be an opportunity to consider the objectives the Government are pursuing in their negotiations—when they are able to conduct them—with Australia, New Zealand and the United States. That is very helpful, but she seems to be making rather heavy weather about the word “mandate”. She gave us a very lengthy exposition of the royal prerogative, which is something that is behind us but is now exercised, of course, by the Government. Could she not possibly think a little more carefully about ways in which this objective could be achieved? She has said already, I think, that the Government intend to set out their objectives in the negotiation. Why can they not say that they would seek the view of both Houses of Parliament on their objectives, which would be a mandate for the negotiations? That is all that is being suggested.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, the chosen words of the Government are “outline approach”. On the noble Lord’s point, the ability to have objectives in that outline approach and the ability for both Houses to debate and scrutinise those objectives is the key part of what we are discussing here. I agree with my noble friends Lord Hailsham and Lord Lansley, who talked about the critical issue here, which is consideration and discussion. That is absolutely what this Command Paper proposes—in the initial stage of the outline approach, to particularly scrutinise those objectives.
Lord Bilimoria
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said very clearly that the power of having Parliament behind the Government enhances our negotiating position with the mandate that that gives. The exact example is: why have we been outgunned by the EU in the negotiations over the past two and two-thirds years? It is because it has had a clear mandate from 27 countries, whereas we have a divided country and a divided Parliament. That does not give a clear mandate whatsoever, which is all the more reason we need the amendment.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, I do not want to go into the world of semantics, but the preferred term is “outline approach”. The objectives will be the objectives set, which will be scrutinised in the way in which we are proposing in both Houses. I agree totally with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that you want the ability to go back and say, “I do not think that will get through my executive board” or whoever because we want a clear set of objectives. This is what we intend to have, and an ability to say, “I do not think that will rub”. I also note that the International Trade Committee in the other place did not call for the power to approve the mandate.
We recognise the legitimate desire of this House to ensure that Parliament is able to shape our approach to negotiations. That is why we are committed to publishing the approach to negotiations. It will include those objectives. We will ensure that Parliament can scrutinise these. My noble friend Lord Tugendhat asked whether it is sufficient. We are trying to ensure enhanced scrutiny, so that is exactly what the Command Paper proposes. As I said, we expect that this would usually be through a general debate in each House.
Lord Warner (CB)
Does the Minister not accept that a Command Paper does not give the assurance to Parliament that provision in legislation does?
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, I will come to that point later, which relates to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, raised on whether these matters should be on the face of the Bill.
The essential point is this: this is the first time in 40 years that we have been negotiating a free trade agreement. We are keen to make sure that we do not lock ourselves into a process by having detailed elements on the face of the Bill which would then be difficult to change. What we want to do is to ensure that, through this Command Paper, the process of an enhanced scrutiny is clear, that there is an ability for Parliament to scrutinise at every stage and, furthermore, that there is a committee which will meet in confidence, which I think was something that was raised in this House as critically important. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, raised this with reference to the ISC, pointing to the fact that sometimes confidential discussions need to be held in a room with a committee of experts. That is what we are proposing. We would also expect these outline approaches and objectives to be the subject of close dialogue with the relevant committee.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I will keep the Minister in suspense about what I am going to do, but not for long. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, which has been high level, and interesting in that some of the issues which perhaps have been a bit confused have been allowed to emerge in it.
I make it absolutely clear at the start that I do not believe that the amendment in my name and those of the other noble Lords who have joined me is a perfect solution to the problem we are facing. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, is quite right to pick up a number of inconsistencies in that—noble Lords do not have to laugh that loud. But in my mitigation, may I say that it is not the job of the Opposition to draft for the Government the sort of detailed legislative framework which is being talked about here? This needs a lot of time, effort and attention which we are not able to bring to it.
Viscount Hailsham
Does the noble Lord then accept that it is necessary to have some provision to deal with the situation that would arise under proposed new subsections (1) and (4), where the two Houses disagree?
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Yes—but I do not have it. I challenge the Minister: if she is asserting that we are as close as she says we are, would she agree to have further discussions and bring forward an amendment we could both support at Third Reading? I will give her time to seek inspiration. I am not confident that it will come in any palatable form but I make this offer genuinely. It is so important and the principles so germane to what we are doing that we should try to go the extra mile if we can.
Having said that, I think the Government are hiding behind a completely fantasised world in which everything is rolled back, as someone said, to the 19th century with the royal prerogative secure in its place. Somehow, Parliament would be consulted; it would be able to scrutinise and look at the outline approach. The clue is in the language: why outline an approach except to mandate? Why scrutinise, when what we are talking about is post hoc discussion in Committee, reports that will gather dust in libraries but not have any effect, and no chance to influence at a parliamentary level what is being decided.
There are issues of principle at stake—about who has the right to make the decisions that will literally affect the people of this country in a very material way. This is because of the way in which trade has moved away from being simply about goods. It now involves services and a whole range of socioeconomic issues that need to be addressed in the round, at the highest level, by those elected by the people they serve. We have a role, though not as an elected House. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, that, in any discussion about priority, of course it has to be the Commons that takes the final decision.
These proposals need to be worked through properly. I will pause for a second to allow the Minister to respond on whether she is prepared to take this up at Third Reading. I will talk until I have to sit down, but I will give way to her if she wishes to make a comment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
While my noble friend is proposing to make a comment, it is highly important that the question of whether something should be discussed at Third Reading is a matter for this House. We have become rather accustomed to attempts on the part of Ministers to decline the opportunity of a Third Reading, but it is for this House to decide. I have no doubt that this particular, very important problem, which involves a delicate balance between the Executive on the one hand and Parliament’s two Houses on the other, should be handled with the utmost care. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, noted, this is an issue about which there is already a bit of difficulty with the detail. We must try to get this right. I have no doubt that, if it is agreed at this stage, the House will allow it to be raised at Third Reading.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, we have had very fruitful discussions and come quite a long way on this point. All I can say is that I would be happy to discuss it further but I cannot guarantee to come back at Third Reading with any changes. On that basis, the noble Lord will have to decide how he chooses to treat his amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
The Minister is certainly very brave to take on a former Lord Chancellor in his pomp. I agree with the noble and learned Lord. The House has a very strong view about this and would like to see it back, but I am stuck with the procedural arrangements, as far as I understand them. I cannot amend the amendment before the House at the moment. I assume that the only way to do this would be to vote it through—if the House will agree to its view being tested—and hope that we can bring it back either through ping-pong or in some other way. I give way to the noble and learned Lord to see if he has inspiration of his own.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
Inspiration is not my line but there is no doubt at all that it is for the House to decide. The mere fact that the Minister has not been able to agree that the matter should come back does not seem to be a bar to the House deciding whether or not it is right. If the noble Lord tables a new amendment for Third Reading, the clerks will have a view but, ultimately, whether it should be considered is a decision for the House.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I am getting inspiration in the form of a book from my noble friend.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My noble friend could retable the amendment. He should, really.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
In short, the advice is confused, but I am going to think about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Tugendhat, set a very high test for the response today. He wanted a detailed response that would assure him that the Government had in mind significant changes that would meet some of the questions raised. I think the view of the House is that the response was not up to that level; therefore, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Customs union
It shall be the objective of Her Majesty’s Government to take all necessary steps to implement an international trade agreement which enables the United Kingdom to participate after exit day in a customs union with the European Union.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to give the other place a chance to consider whether the UK should seek to remain in a customs union with the EU. It is an option that we know is realistic and negotiable, as signalled by senior EU figures over recent weeks and months. It has demonstrable support among communities throughout the United Kingdom, this House and the Commons, as well as business and trade unions, and would go a very long way to providing a permanent solution for Northern Ireland.
A customs union with the EU would guarantee continued UK access to existing EU trade agreements without having to roll over after 29 March, although that does not seem to be going terribly well. It would enable the UK to have a say on the direction of future European trade negotiations, allowing us to push forward our principles of development and strong standards, and our values in tackling issues such as climate change. It would offer certainty and stability to British industry, thereby protecting jobs and allowing businesses to secure new trading opportunities. When coupled with a close single market relationship, it would create the conditions for our vital services economy—80% of our GDP—to flourish and grow. The other place narrowly rejected a customs union when it considered the Bill, in part because the Prime Minister promised to replicate the benefits in her deal. However, they are for negotiation and certainly not yet agreed.
If this House supports the amendment, we are doing our duty in allowing the Commons to think again about a really important issue. I beg to move.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
My Lords, there is no doubt that we on these Benches support the free economic movement of goods and people, which benefits all parts of the British economy and of our United Kingdom. The news today from the motor manufacturing industry is no surprise to those who have been following the assets leaving the United Kingdom and seen the people leaving the United Kingdom. There is a growing and depressing trend of businesses making a choice to move away, or at least to move some elements away, from the United Kingdom.
One of the principal reasons for that is the uncertainty about our trading relationship with our biggest market. The amendment, to which I have put my name, is better than the Government’s current position, or any position they are likely to take. That is why I support it. It is becoming a cliché that business needs certainty, but for many businesses it is now too late. The least this House can do, through the Bill, is to offer a higher level of certainty to businesses that there is some support for the UK remaining a member of a customs union.
I shall give one small example, of the many that could be offered, of why it is important to avoid the kind of disruption that leaving a customs union would bring about. This was highlighted in the Government’s recently published paper, Implications for Business and Trade of a No Deal Exit on 29 March 2019, and it illustrates what leaving a customs union would mean. There is a requirement for all businesses trading with the European Union to have an economic operator registration and identification number, in order to,
“complete the necessary customs documentation for goods they are importing”.
It is not simply desirable; it is necessary. As the Government themselves say,
“an EORI number registration is one of the most basic and straightforward parts of the process most businesses would need to undertake to prepare for no deal”.
Businesses will need that number on exit day. The government document goes on:
“As of February 2019 there had only been around 40,000 registrations for an EORI number, against an estimate of around 240,000 EU-only trading businesses”.
So we are one-sixth ready to leave.
The document highlights the fact that on an issue for which government communications have been strong, and the information to businesses about the fact that they needed to prepare has been clear, they have not done so—for a number of reasons. This illustrates the complexities required of the business community if we are outside a customs arrangement that would amount to a union. That is one reason, among many others, why we support the amendment.
We on these Benches reserve our right to campaign strongly for the UK to retain membership of the single market, as well as the customs union, of the European Union, and to say that if there is to be a withdrawal agreement it should be ratified by the people in a referendum. I hope that those on the Labour Benches are also moving faster in that direction. That debate is for another time. The debate on the movement of people is for the next day on Report, but for the moment we can give a signal to businesses across the country that the House of Lords, at least, is focused on providing a degree of certainty, even if the Government are not.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
My Lords, for this House it is déjà vu all over again. We voted for a customs union in the withdrawal Bill on 18 April, by an enormous majority of 223. The amendment then was in my name, and I made a speech of coruscating brilliance taking up several columns of Hansard, advancing five very strong arguments for the customs union. I refer the House to my speech on that occasion.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, I shall try to be as brief as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I too tabled an amendment early in the Committee stage—the predecessor to the amendment that he so ably moved at that time. My feeling is that we have lost an opportunity to find a satisfactory compromise in the negotiations. The red lines laid down by the Prime Minister have stopped the possibility of getting a deal, including a customs union and possibly a single market—that would have avoided the difficulties with Northern Ireland and safeguarded the position of Gibraltar. More than anything, it would have looked after the manufacturing industries for which we in Wales worked so hard, with different parties in government, to secure over the past 30 years. I think that it was 52 Japanese companies that came to Wales, to sell to the European Union: they came for that reason. We now see the danger of Japanese companies and others being lost. Let us also look at the situation of the agricultural industry, and the need to ensure that we have that export market. For all those reasons, I hope that the amendment will be carried—by the same majority as last time.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I know I am in a small minority in your Lordships’ House on this one, but I would like briefly to put the other argument. According to the trade data published by the ONS in September 2018 the customs union, of which noble Lords would like us to remain a member, has not actually achieved any benefits for the UK during the 20 years for which we have been a member. The UK’s slowest-growing export trade since 1998 was goods exports to the EU.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick
I just want to correct the noble Viscount. We have been a member of the customs union with the European Community since 1972—rather more than 20 years.
Viscount Trenchard
I do not disagree with the noble Lord—but the point I was making is that in the period since 1998 goods exports to the EU have grown by only 0.2% per year, or 3.7% over those 20 years, reaching £164 billion in 2017. However, the UK’s goods exports to countries outside the EU customs union have grown in the same period by 3.3% a year—over 60% in total—to £175 billion. So the customs union has not been quite as marvellous for this country as noble Lords opposite suggest. I very much hope that the Government will stick to their policy of leaving on a basis whereby we will have our own independent trade policy, which will enable us to do more trade and enter into trade agreements with the economically faster-growing parts of the world.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment. I hope we will send back a clear message to the other place that it needs to reconsider the importance of having a customs union—for our integrated supply chains, for the success of our manufacturing industry and, indeed, for peace in Northern Ireland and security on the Northern Ireland border. I am afraid that a number of colleagues in the other place do not seem to understand how international trade deals work. The idea that we would have rolled over all 40 trade deals that we had through the EU by now has been shown to be fanciful. I do not believe that it is safe, in the 21st century, to assume that operating as a medium-sized country outside a customs union will deliver us more and better trade than remaining within it.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (LD)
My Lords, I would like clarification from those who tabled this amendment: they refer to “a” customs union but other speakers have used the expression “the” customs union, as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has. For the purposes of what I am going to say. I will assume that they mean remaining in the EU’s customs union and common commercial policy.
If that is the case, I understand the motivation for seeking a halfway house between leaving and remaining, which is what this implies. However, being in a customs union and being entirely subject to the EU’s common commercial policy, which is the overarching umbrella under which the customs union sits, is the worst of all options. That is why Switzerland and Norway—two countries with different arrangements in the EU—have chosen not to be part of the customs union. So while the idea may be attractive to protect trade in goods—and I admit that is important—given that we have an economy where trade in goods is a relatively small part of our exports, the sting of the common commercial policy, although it is encroaching into services, is primarily about trade in goods, not trade in services.
Being under the umbrella of the CCP without membership of the EU will mean that we will not be present in the European Council, which has the ultimate say over trade deals; we will not be present in the European Parliament or in regional parliaments. Noble Lords may remember the Canada-CETA story and the Parliament of Wallonia. We would not even have the status of the Parliament of Wallonia in future trade deals were we stay in the customs union. We would be a rule taker without a seat at any table. It would also render the previous amendment, which the House overwhelmingly passed, entirely redundant.
Turkey feels so disadvantaged by its current arrangement in the customs union—which, incidentally, was only agreed as a stepping stone towards full membership—that it is seeking to change those terms. However, I suspect that by now it is not seeking to change the terms because it accepts that it is not going into membership of the European Union.
The CCP is designed to serve the interests of member states—and so it should—but it is not designed to serve the interests of the fifth biggest economy in the world. Even those who feel that the United Kingdom will be much diminished if it leaves the EU must surely recognise that we are a more significant economic power than Turkey. So when the EU rightly seeks to advance its own interests, who will speak for UK interests? When the EU moves to use trade remedy laws—we have had a great deal of discussion during the passage of this Bill about trade remedies—to protect its own industries, and when that does not cohere with the United Kingdom’s interests, while we remain a member we can say something about it; we can indicate our preferences. If we are out of the EU but within the customs union, we would have no say over our interests being disadvantaged in the interests of any of the 27 member states which would be at the table.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
The situation the noble Baroness is describing will obtain if the Prime Minister’s deal goes through and we go into an interim transition period. It is certainly the situation that would obtain if we go into the backstop. We would be a rule taker. We would have no say in the making of the tariffs but we would have to apply them. We would not be consulted; we would be notified.
The amendment refers to “a” customs union. We have never attempted to work out what kind of customs union the EU would be prepared to agree with us. We have never done that because the Prime Minister’s rash red line ruled it out. We are now going into the worst possible case, if the deal goes through, of being absolutely a rule taker and absolutely not in the European Council, as correctly described by the noble Baroness. However, that is not what the amendment is asking for. It is asking for the negotiation of a real customs union between the United Kingdom and the European Union.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
The noble Lord has expressed sentiments that I have heard many times over the past three years from Mr Corbyn. In our various EU Select Committee meetings with the EU’s chief negotiator Mr Barnier, some of us raised the issue of whether there would be a possibility of negotiating a different sui generis, unique, bespoke customs union. We have been told in terms that that is not possible. I fear that concealing one’s intentions behind “a” customs union in the hope that if all else fails the EU will come around to providing us with a customs union presents the EU with a situation where it would have to consider how it could give each country it does any negotiation with in the future a bespoke customs union.
Anyone who knows anything about EU law—I accept that the noble Lord does, but I do too—will tell you that it will not uniformly make such an enormous exception in a law that has been there from the 1950s to accommodate the United Kingdom, particularly not at this late stage.
Baroness Altmann
I think what the noble Baroness is doing for the House is eruditely explaining the trade-offs that the country is facing as a result of the decision that was taken and the red lines that were imposed. What this House is talking about—and what the amendment seeks to achieve—is to protect the manufacturing success, jobs and the integrated supply chains that we have built up in this country on which so many people’s livelihoods depend, as well as protecting the border in Northern Ireland. That is entirely accepted. Indeed the House has already passed the amendment which would also require us to have some kind of regulatory alignment in order to better achieve the aims we are trying to set out. However, that does not mean that we should not have and do not need a customs union.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine
The noble Baroness has just told your Lordships that the House was trying to protect manufacturing through being in “the” customs union. So we have on one side “the” customs union, which is the EU customs union, and on the other side we have a bespoke customs union. That in itself illustrates the problem with those who want to reverse where we are today.
I urge the House to look at the common commercial policy carefully, not only in the light of Articles 206 and 207 of the TFU, and to look at the jurisprudence. The jurisprudence on the part of the CJEU expounds the EU’s common commercial policy into foreign direct investment rules way beyond common commercial policy and into the EU’s external action policy. Some of us may have no problem with that, but the jurisprudence will continue while we are outside the room and not at the table. The jurisprudence will reflect the EU’s priorities, not ours. It would leave us in a vulnerable position going forward whether we were in “a” customs union or the bespoke customs union, which would potentially give us bargaining rights and some say in jurisprudence. Certainly that customs union would give us no rights at all.
I am not used to evoking Mr Blair in support of any cause—I suppose it will have the same impact here as it does elsewhere in the country—but even he has gone public to say that the worst of all worlds would be for us to stay in the customs union. If noble Lords want to support trade in goods they need to move either towards the withdrawal agreement and the FTA that is likely to come with it, or to move to simply remain in the EU. This amendment is an ambush to try to achieve that latter aim. I am pro that latter aim—I am pro remaining in the EU—but I can see, with 20-something days to go, that either we have to agree with the withdrawal agreement, as I voted the last time, or we have to go the other way, as I said in my previous speech, and ask the Prime Minister reconsider our position. A customs union is not going to do that and, on that basis, I will be voting with the Government.
Lord Bates
My Lords, at this hour, and given the debate, there will probably not be many Members of your Lordships’ House who are carefully weighing the arguments on either side, wanting to know what the Minister is going to say from the Dispatch Box that could just persuade them another way. We have been around this course many times and the arguments have not changed. The House knows the Government’s position on this: they have set it out many times. The people of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union and to take back control of their laws, borders and money, and have an independent trade policy. If we had a customs union, we would not get that. That is the central point against the amendment. On the other hand, we have a withdrawal agreement that allows us to have many of the benefits of our membership of the European Union without being members of it, and honours the referendum result.
I shall come to two points. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, when moving the amendment—which is worthy of further examination as to what it is seeking the Government to do—said that he wanted to give the other House an opportunity to think again on this issue. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in a brilliant, brief contribution—perhaps because we had heard his eloquence on this point in Committee—reminded the House that it voted in favour of his amendment. What they did not mention was that when it went to the other House, giving it an opportunity to think again, it rejected not only your Lordships’ amendment but the concept of a customs union put forward by Stephen Hammond when the Bill was at this stage in the other place. If the purpose is to give that House another opportunity to think again, perhaps it could shout down the Corridor, “We have already said it; did you not hear us the first time?”
Some noble Lords have pointed out that the uncertainty is damaging for business. I accept that. Uncertainty is always damaging for business. What business needs is certainty. However, right at the 11th hour, when we are within sight of and have an agreement, with an exit day that meets the criteria, the amendment proposes to require Her Majesty’s Government to reopen the whole negotiation process that has taken place over the past two years. Somehow that is supposed to help business. Not many businesses would sign up to that level of reopening negotiations and uncertainty. The presentation of the amendment presupposes that the outcome and benefits of a customs union are known. No—they would have to be negotiated. That would be the case unless, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, rightly said, it actually related not to “a” but “the” customs union. In that case, the noble Lords’ option would be there immediately. That is the position of those who want to stay in the European Union, and we understand it.
The amendment therefore plunges us further back into uncertainty and more years of negotiation. The House has already given its view, not once but twice, on this issue. The other place does not need the chance to think again and I therefore urge noble Lords to vote against the amendment if it is pushed to a Division. Most importantly, I urge all Members in the other place not to listen to the amendment but to look at the withdrawal agreement before them next week and make sure that they vote for it, so that we leave the European Union on 29 March, as the British people wanted, but with a deal.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
Follow that wonderful peroration! The Minister has been practising, I am sure. I congratulate him on his brilliance in getting out of the Tugendhat trap. He obviously thought that he would be judged on whether he met the very high standards required of an answer in this place before going down to an ignominious defeat—as I hope will be the case. He did it by setting his own bar and then deciding whether he had passed it by inventing, as often happens in these debates, the things that I did not say and then arguing against them effectively. He ended up by appealing to the green Benches down the Corridor, where I think he will probably find a slightly better response than he will get today.
I am sorry that the Minister has to defend the indefensible. As he said, all the arguments have been exhausted. In response to two of the charges, yes, the other place has considered this matter before, but somebody once said, “When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?” On the question of uncertainty, surely it is better to have a certain target, even if it takes time, than the continuing uncertainty of whether there will be a target, and that is what this amendment tries to do.
Customs unions are not very widely found in the world. They are a very special thing, particularly when they involve equality of partners trading with each other. The majority of customs unions in the world involve single dominant economies forcing terms on others. This customs union is a particularly good example of the way in which mature democracies coming together can create good for all and we should be very chary of moving out of it.
The Minister challenged the wording of the amendment but it is incredibly inclusive and was drafted to make sure that it stood the test of time. It simply states:
“It shall be the objective of Her Majesty’s Government to take all necessary steps to implement an international trade agreement which enables the United Kingdom to participate after exit day in a customs union”.
It does not imply staying in the EU. I think that we have had the debate. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“Involvement of judicial systems in trade disputes
(1) A trade agreement is not eligible for signature or ratification by the United Kingdom unless the agreement includes the provision in subsection (2).(2) Subject to section (3), legal proceedings brought against the United Kingdom under investment protection provisions included in a trade agreement will be heard by the courts and tribunals system of the United Kingdom.(3) If in the view of the Secretary of State there is a substantive case for including an investor state dispute settlement chapter in a future free trade agreement, regulations to that effect must be laid before both Houses of Parliament in advance of the approval of the mandate for that free trade agreement; and such regulations must be approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament before the mandate may be approved.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
My Lords, Amendment 15 deals with whether future trade agreements should have a chapter or separate part relating to investor-state dispute settlement systems. These complicated issues have a long history and have been a feature of trade agreements for many years. I think the UK has some 90 in place. As a country, we have not found much difficulty with them. Their main purpose was to ensure that in the case of arrangements for financing and operating the agreements set up under various free trade agreements and similar arrangements, those who put money at risk had a secure route to ensure that when issues outside their control or the control of one of the partners concerned caused difficulties, there was a chance to recoup the monies involved.
In that sense, these ISDS chapters and separate agreements have a place, but they have some downsides, which have not yet had as much discussion as they should have had. The arrangements have been used in the past to prevent social change in countries which have been subject to a free trade agreement where investors have thought that their investment was at risk. They have sued in courts which have been set up specifically for the purpose and which are not transparent or available for wider scrutiny, in order to recoup the investment involved or to change the policies that have been brought about.
For example, in a recent case in a western European country, an investor sued a town authority which had introduced a national minimum wage on the basis that the deal under which they had been brought in to support the scheme did not make provision for additional wages to be paid out and, as a result, the company was losing funds. That case was not a question of cash transfer, it was the cancellation of a policy, which I think many people would find a rather strange outcome.
These schemes have been the subject of recent debate and discussion, particularly around TTIP, but in particular about the fact that they were included in the agreement with Canada signed by the EU only a few years ago and now in the process of being ratified. However, it is being ratified at the expense of the ISDS chapter. In order to ameliorate that in some ways, the EU has set up a special judicial system under which these schemes can be considered. It may be that the future of ISDS measures, if they are included in schemes, lies in that sort of approach. As will be argued, I am sure, that is a very intensive system in terms of salaries, structures and procedures and it may not be worth the candle.
This is a probing amendment to get a better understanding of where the Government stand on these issues. In moving the amendment today, we are also reaching out to the Government to suggest that it is time we got more organised. It seems strange that, at quite a high level, a mature democracy such as the UK, with tried and trusted judicial systems, has to go to the trouble of setting up a parallel system to deal with this class of activity. Surely our existing legal systems should be capable of drawing these in and working with them. Even it were necessary to set up a separate arrangement, does it need to be a permanent system or could there be an alternative route? If the Government were interested in further discussion on that, we would make an offer to see if we could find an amendment that would work. I beg to move.
Baroness Fairhead
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, for tabling this amendment. I will make some statements about why we are much more supportive of ISDSs and these dispute resolutions. I draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that, as this House is aware, the Trade Bill is not intended to cover future free trade agreements or the investment policies associated with them. As a result, Clause 2 allows the Government to change domestic law where necessary to ensure that these continuity agreements can operate in a UK context. To be clear, no powers in the Trade Bill will be used to implement investment protection provisions, because such provisions in trade agreements do not require legislation.
I want to comment about investment protection provisions more generally because I believe they have a place. According to UNCTAD, foreign direct investment in 2017 was around $30.8 trillion. There are around 3,000 international investment agreements, most of which include these sorts of provisions. They have been going for over 40 years and, to date, only 855 claims have ever been completed. This means that, for the vast majority of investment agreements, no claims have been made. Furthermore, states have won more claims than investors—37% to 28%—with the rest either settled or discontinued. This does not suggest a bias in favour of investors and, I hope, offers a bit of comfort.
I understand the concerns that have been raised in the past, but our assertion is that many have been overstated. Often, ISDS mechanisms are attacked because they seem able to force a Government to regulate in a particular way in the public interest. However, they do not infringe on that right to regulate. The right of Governments to regulate is protected in international law. I reassure the noble Lord that the threat of potential claims has never affected the UK Government’s legislative programmes. We have more than 90 agreements with these clauses, as the noble Lord said. We have never had a successful claim made against us.
The amendment would require investment disputes to be heard by UK courts or tribunals in all instances, which has the potential to undermine what we think has been quite an effective process—an internationally accepted framework which has successfully supported our investors worldwide. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned new concepts, including the multilateral trading court. I agree with him that that is just one of a number of concepts. Work is at an early stage internationally. Future negotiations should take place in a forum where states will be fully involved to ensure that the system delivers. I fully agree with the noble Lord on that. We support the objectives of ensuring fair outcomes of claims, high ethical standards for arbitrators and increased transparency, which is another of the points that have been held against the previous systems. We have pushed hard for greater transparency.
As the noble Lord is aware, we in the UK expect other countries to treat our businesses operating abroad as we treat their investors in the UK. Our concern is that if the amendment were passed, it would be likely that any future partners would also insist on reciprocal provisions. That would mean that any disputes brought by UK investors against a host state would be required to be heard in its national court. This has the potential to be to the disadvantage of our investors.
The amendment could also create a precedent by encouraging some existing bilateral investment treaty partners to seek amendments with the UK to ensure consistency. UK investors—I am sure we all agree—can make incredible contributions to the countries in which they invest, including in hospitals, schools and other infrastructure. Potentially, this amendment could lead to decisions by UK investors to not invest. These countries would therefore not benefit; indeed, our assertion is that countries could be damaged in investment terms. I also ask noble Lords to note that, while international arbitration has been a valuable tool for our investors—who, in some cases, have been subject to egregious treatment by local Governments—we have never been successfully sued.
Most of our future negotiating partners who favour the inclusion of investment protection and ISDS would expect this to include some form of dispute resolution through a means that the international community is trying to work out. Securing agreement on an alternative domestic process could lead to the UK having to accept an unwelcome trade-off.
Additionally, as I highlighted at the start of my comments, the Trade Bill is not intended to deal with future free trade agreements. Therefore, we do not propose coming back with any changes on this at Third Reading. I am very happy to have discussions with the noble Lord outside the Chamber, but in respect of the true aims of this Bill and the systems already in place to resolve those disputes, I ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I am very grateful to the Minister for her full response. I look forward to reading it in Hansard. I will take her up on her offer of further discussions, but at this stage, I think the best thing is to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tyler
“Geographical Indications
It shall be an objective of an appropriate authority to take all necessary steps to implement an international trade agreement which ensures mutual recognition of Geographical Indications in the United Kingdom and the European Union.”
Lord Tyler (LD)
My Lords, I am a co-signatory to this amendment. I will be exceedingly brief because of the late hour, and also because I am extremely optimistic about the response I will get from the Minister. On 23 January, the Committee heard an extremely helpful response from her and since then she and I have exchanged correspondence, which has underlined the commitment of the Government to try to support the objectives that we were seeking on that occasion, and which are included in the proposed new clause here. It is purely declaratory; it strengthens rather than undermines the Bill, so I hope I can expect a very positive response.
Much as I am tempted, even at this late hour, to wax eloquent on the merits of Cornish clotted cream, pasties and sparkling wine—particularly as, this week, the people of Cornwall celebrate their great patron saint, St Piran—it is more appropriate that we move smartly on and get a very enthusiastic response from the Minister. I am sure that the Government will recognise that what we have sought to do here is to give form to the precise reassurances that she gave in Committee, and which she has subsequently repeated in her correspondence. I beg to move.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I wish to make a confession: when I was a Minister responsible for this area, I disobeyed the Government’s policy. Then, it was that we should be opposed to all these appellations and very determined in insisting that they were a restraint on trade and a disgrace. I thought that was nonsense. We have done great damage to our food industry by not defending so many of the things we have. Cheddar cheese, for example, can be manufactured almost anywhere in the world, but it is a Great British invention. The noble Lord, Lord Tyler, referred to what Cornwall has produced; in Suffolk, we now have a kind of local food industry which is really important. The fact that the food is made locally matters hugely, even if it is sold a long distance away.
This is much closer to what people want; it is much closer to what food ought to be like. It is much further from the kind of industrialised agriculture and food industry which, we must understand, is the “museum”—if I may use the expression of the ambassador from the United States. It is a museum of the kind of food we have produced, which has not had this very important distinction. Part of that distinction is the geographical identification. I know that my noble friend will be hugely supportive of this, but I thought I ought not to leave the opportunity to admit my past transgressions.
Baroness Fairhead
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, for tabling this amendment. I fear, however, that I may not be able to give it the wholehearted support that he wants, because it seeks to bind the UK into a negotiating position of agreeing reciprocal protection of all EU and UK geographical indications—GIs—as part of the future economic partnership agreement. I can, however, reassure this House, the noble Lord, Lord Tyler, and my confessional noble friend Lord Deben, that the Government fully recognise the importance of continuity in the protection of UK GIs. We have heard, loud and clear from all parts of the UK, the concerns of our producers. It remains a priority for us to secure this protection; we agree that it is very important to maintain it.
While we share the objective of continuing the protection of UK GIs, we do not support the amendment because its effect would be to restrict our negotiating position on the detail of the future agreement. It is important for the Government to retain options that give us the flexibility to conclude negotiations successfully, with both the EU and potential future partners, in line with UK interests. These negotiations will be to the great benefit of UK industry, not least the UK’s superb food and drink industry, by opening markets to our products.
As I hope I explained in the House on the last occasion, the protection of UK GIs in the EU has been confirmed as continuing in both negotiated-deal and no-deal scenarios. This has been confirmed by the European Commission and is consistent with our understanding. These GIs should continue to have the same level of protection.
For the future protection in the UK of both UK and other countries’ GIs through the withdrawal Act, we have agreed to establish our own GI scheme, which will be very similar to the EU scheme—a good scheme, to echo the point of my noble friend Lord Deben. This was confirmed in the White Paper. The scheme will provide a simple set of rules giving all 87 of our GIs continued protection in the UK when we leave the EU. The independent scheme will be established in both a no-deal and a negotiated-deal scenario. It will be open to new applications from both UK and non-UK applicants from day one, and it will fulfil our obligations under the WTO agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property.
In the rest of the world—again, as I confirmed last time—we are working with our global trading partners to transition the EU trade agreements, including ongoing obligations towards, and recognition of, our GIs.
While existing UK GIs will automatically remain protected whether we reach an agreement or not, existing EU GIs in the UK do not automatically benefit. As the House is aware, the withdrawal agreement with the EU means that all existing EU GIs will get the same level of protection as now until a future economic partnership agreement between the UK and the EU comes into force. The potential long-term protection of existing EU GIs would, therefore, not be determined then but as a result of the future economic partnership. This amendment, which proposes a reciprocal agreement, would, therefore, prejudice the negotiation. Furthermore, by requiring a reciprocal system of mutual recognition, it would tie the UK into accepting EU GIs created in the future. That would mean that the UK would be forced to protect successful EU GI applications without the ability to assess them ourselves.
As I emphasised earlier, not agreeing to a reciprocal arrangement would have no consequences for the protection in the EU of existing UK GIs, which should enjoy continued protection after exit regardless. In summary, therefore, we believe fundamentally in the importance of GIs, particularly for the agricultural community, but if this amendment passes it will remove the flexibility necessary for the UK to successfully negotiate new trade relationships outside the EU.
Additionally, I have assured noble Lords that the desire of UK GI producers for continuity of recognition and protection is fully acknowledged and is a key priority for us. In that context, the comments of the European Union grant us additional assurance that they will continue to be protected. On that basis and in the light of the negotiation of the future economic partnership, but with the absolute conviction that we are committed to UK GIs, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Tyler
My Lords, I have listened with great interest to what the Minister has said. There is a simple trade-off here. She said that if we were to pursue the declaratory proposed new clause, it would reduce flexibility. The more flexibility there is in a case such as this, the less one can be sure and confident that the situation is going to continue to protect in the way that my noble friend Lord Stevenson—I think that I can call him that on this occasion—and I would like. Various producers in the UK want that continuity as a certain guarantee for the future. However, we will read with care in the Official Report what the Minister has said and see whether further action may be needed. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) (No. 2) Bill
Wednesday 6th March 2019
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Act 2019 View all Northern Ireland (Regional Rates and Energy) Act 2019 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Committee of the Whole House Amendments as at 6 March 2019 (PDF) - (6 Mar 2019)
Schools: Swimming and Life-saving Skills
(5 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Storey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve the swimming and life-saving skills of children provided through schools.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a patron of the Royal Life Saving Society. I thank those organisations which have sent briefings, particularly the Royal Life Saving Society, the MCA, the RNLI, the Local Government Association and our own Library, all of which have been very helpful. I thank, too, those few Members who are here; I am sorry that the debate is happening so late.
Swimming is a bit like riding a bike. Once you learn to do it, you never forget it. The best time to learn to swim is when you are very young, although taking 30 infants to the swimming pool once a week was a nightmare in terms of getting them dressed and undressed.
I was asked last October to go to Worcester Cathedral, where the Royal Life Saving Society has its annual awards for volunteers. Before that event, a family went into one of the private chapels and lit a candle, because their son had tragically died in a drowning accident. I can think of nothing worse than receiving the telephone call, the knock on the door or the visit from the police or emergency services to say that family or friends have died in such tragic circumstances, yet, every year, on average 600 people lose their lives through drowning.
Quite rightly, we are at the moment concerned about knife crime and asking, “What can we do to prevent knife crime?” That is a tragic occurrence and lives are needlessly lost. Equally, through drowning, lives are needlessly lost, but there are things that we can do about it. One is to ensure that children and young people can swim. It must be concerning that only somewhere in the order of just over 50% of children leave primary school being able to swim. That really is quite a worrying figure.
I want to praise the Government first of all. The decision to introduce CPR and first aid as part of health education is a very good move forward. I congratulate them on that and thank them. They should at the same time realise that, just as we will be teaching children first aid, we should also be teaching them water safety. Children and young people need to know that if they see someone in difficulties, they should not automatically jump into the sea or the lake or the river or the canal to help them because they might put their own life in danger. There are simple things they can do: they need to know the colour of the various flags being flown at the seaside and a whole host of other things about water safety. It seems to me to be a really good fit to learn CPR, life-saving skills, first aid and water safety. I put down a Written Question about this a few weeks ago, and the Minister gave a very detailed reply. I hope that in his response, he might add to that.
Swimming is, of course, one of the best defences against drowning and we must ensure that we teach children to swim. I am sure that in his reply, the Minister will tell us that swimming and water safety are taught in primary schools and are a compulsory element in the PE curriculum. However, I question that because they do not have to be taught in all schools: they do not have to be taught in free schools or academies, and he will know that more than 1,000 schools do not teach them at all. Perhaps it is no wonder that just over 50% of children are leaving school unable to swim. We should ensure that every school has the facilities. If there are no swimming pools—if they are in a rural area, for example—there are ways around that. For example, there are mobile pools that can be inflated—children can get into them and learn basic swimming strokes.
We should be bold enough to say, “We want to ensure that nearly every child who leaves primary school can swim. In every school, every city, every village, every town and every county, every child should learn to swim”. Perhaps we should suggest targets: we are good at setting targets on the number of apprentices we are going to have. Why not set a first target that over the next period—say over the next three years—we want 60% or 70% of children, when they leave their primary school, to be able to swim? Just think of the lives that we would save.
Of course, it is not just the people who drown whom we are discussing. It is also the non-fatal drowning cases, sometimes referred to as near-drowning. For every person who loses their life through drowning, there are six hospital admissions through near-drowning. This is, again, unacceptable. If we were to sort out the issue, it would also relieve pressure on our hospitals.
I know that the Government are anxious about this. They set up the Swim Group to submit an independent report with recommendations for curriculum swimming; its final report was submitted to the Government in the spring of 2017. It focused on six key areas and made 16 really good practical recommendations for improving curriculum swimming in primary schools. New guidance on the PE and sport premium has been released to help schools understand how they can use this funding to support swimming and water safety sessions. There is also a requirement to show the percentage of pupils in year 6 who meet the minimum national curriculum standards.
I have a question for the Minister. I think I gave him notice and if I did not, perhaps he could tell me in writing. One of the issues about the whole question of drowning is that it is left to the voluntary organisations—which do fantastic work and, in common parlance, I give a big shout-out to them and all their volunteers—to do the recording of drowning incidents. It would make their job significantly less difficult if the statutory bodies were required to contribute to the database, either directly or through one of these voluntary bodies. Will the Government make the reporting of drowning to the National Water Safety Forum mandatory for the NHS, coroners, the fire and rescue service and the police service, so that we can know, quickly and accurately, the number of people who have drowned and the lessons we can learn? I am happy for the Minister to write to me about that.
I want to raise one other issue. There has been, over the last few years, an increasing number of students at our universities losing their lives through drowning, often, or in most cases, alcohol related. There was the recent tragedy of a student at, I think, Reading University, who died in the lake on the campus. We ought to be writing to student unions at universities, copying in vice-chancellors, suggesting that they should make their students aware of the issue and give them some simple and non-patronising advice about how they should conduct themselves, because the trend is an alarming one and we must do something about it.
Finally, I quote Steve Parry, who, noble Lords will remember, was an Olympic swimming medallist:
“Water safety is the only part of the national curriculum that will save children’s lives, it can’t be treated as an optional extra”.
Lord Dunlop (Con)
My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on securing this short debate and on the thoughtful way in which he introduced it. I declare my interest as a board member of Scottish Swimming. The benefits of sport to physical and mental well-being are well documented and beyond dispute. This is particularly true of swimming, which is one of those sports that can be enjoyed at all ages and by people of all abilities throughout life. It is no surprise, therefore, that swimming remains one of the most popular mass-participation sports in the country, with 2.5 million people swimming at least once a week. The ability to swim is also essential for at least 20 other water-based sports, such as canoeing, rowing or sailing, but what sets swimming apart from other sports is that it is a key life and life-saving skill, which every child has a right, and should have the opportunity, to acquire.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, mentioned drowning and it is a sad fact that accidental drowning is the third-highest cause of death in children. Talking from my own Scottish experience, in Scotland the total of accidental drownings is 50 per year. That is 50 too many and almost double the rate of drowning in the UK as a whole. Perhaps this is explained by Scotland’s extensive and varied coastline.
As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, mentioned, in England the importance of swimming has been recognised by virtue of the fact that it is a compulsory part of the national curriculum, and has been since 1994. I will again draw a contrast with Scotland, where education is devolved to the Scottish Government—happily, the Minister therefore does not have responsibility for it. There the system is different. Swimming is neither mandatory nor part of the curriculum, although I hope this is something the Scottish Government will now look at.
However, one of the features of devolution is the scope to adopt different approaches in different parts of the country and then to share experiences across the UK of what does and does not work. In that spirit, perhaps the Minister, when he winds up, could say what, if any, discussions there have been between his department and the Scottish Government to share best practice. There is certainly very close co-operation and a shared vision among the swimming governing bodies in England, Scotland and Wales. We all want to ensure that every child has the opportunity to learn to swim at primary school and that no child leaves school unable to swim with confidence.
I too congratulate the Government on the action they have taken. Swim England has acknowledged the Government’s consistent support for school swimming. I welcome the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, the Government, established in 2016 a working group to consider the challenges of delivering curriculum swimming and water safety lessons and have since acted on its recommendations. In particular, primary schools are now able to use the extra funding from the PE and sport premium to top up swimming lessons and to provide extra teacher training. This action is certainly timely, because there is still a mountain to climb—or perhaps more appropriately when talking about swimming, a gulf to cross—to arrive where we need to be.
Some of the working group’s 2017 findings on primary school delivery of swimming at key stages 1 and 2 are troubling: 26% of primaries are either not currently providing swimming lessons or not recording any attainment levels; 27% are providing lessons but not getting the results on any of the three national curriculum outcomes; and 11% are providing lessons but getting results on only one of the outcomes—swimming 25 metres unaided. That leaves 36% of primary schools providing lessons with all children reaching the national curriculum standards.
As part of the package of changes introduced by the Government last year, my understanding is that primary schools are now required to publish their swimming and water safety attainment levels as a condition for receiving funding under the PE and sport premium. If this is so, it is clearly welcome and will improve levels of accountability. Can the Minister confirm that this is indeed the case, and can he provide any recent data, two years on, to show whether the picture is improving?
The challenges in Scotland are similar. Over 30% of children in Scotland leave primary school unable to swim. For those from the most deprived backgrounds, school swimming is likely to be their only opportunity to learn to swim. In Scotland, 25% of children aged between five and 12 take part in community Learn to Swim programmes. The majority of these children are from the 20% least deprived areas of Scotland. Only 10% of those taking part come from the most deprived parts of Scotland, so school swimming has a vital role to play. However, a quarter of Scotland’s local authorities —8 out of 32—do not offer a primary school swimming programme, and those that do vary between schools opting in and comprehensive programmes. The picture is very varied.
The relevance of the Scottish experience for England is that, for five years, until it was ended in 2015, the Scottish Government supported school swimming through investment in a national top-up swimming programme. Most of the funding was used to improve the quality of the school swimming programmes by reducing child-to-teacher ratios, which in many cases were as high as 25:1. This funding was starting to make a difference, with some areas reporting a 5% to 10% increase in the number of children achieving the Scottish triple swimming standard and increasing the number of children in the most deprived areas learning to swim.
The lesson from the Scottish experience is that relatively modest levels of investment, effectively targeted, can have a disproportionately beneficial impact. Although funding was not extended beyond 2015, it is encouraging that there appears to be a renewed willingness on the part of the Scottish Government to explore what practical steps are needed to ensure that every child in Scotland can swim.
In conclusion, whether north or south of the border, the aspirations and the challenges are similar. If our children are to acquire this lifelong skill, it is important that their initial experience of swimming needs to be fun and positive. That is why school swimming programmes should not be about simply the numbers game, about how many children we can get through the programme. Quality is critical, and quality means: first, sufficient and consistent availability of properly trained swimming teachers, with the time to get to know the kids and sufficient pool time in modern facilities to make a difference; secondly, effective communication between pool operators or swim schools and primary schools so that one hand knows what the other is doing, and attainment is accurately recorded and passed on; thirdly, overcoming transport issues and getting easily from school to pool without taking too much time out of the weekly timetable; and fourthly, the ability to cater for diverse and special needs.
All this will help to secure better buy-in from both primary teachers and parents and to enhance prospects of success. The Government’s aspirations are rightly ambitious. Of course, there are considerable challenges to overcome but, overall, things appear to be moving in the right direction, but we need to move further and faster.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is one of those debates in which you find yourself rapidly agreeing with everybody in front of you. The basic tenet of it—that swimming is a skill that will save your life and is best learned early—will have nobody disagreeing. The fact that it is a social skill that allows you to do other things is pretty obvious as well. I asked the Minister if he had a list of all those sports you cannot do. The noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, said there were 20. I did not get that far. I just knew that there was a big list of activities which are not available to you if you cannot swim.
There is a little bit of social isolation in there as well, and it is something that is dangerous. It is something which we are supposed to be doing. The noble Lord read out a list of figures I had seen as well. More than a quarter of schools are not doing anything. The Government set targets. How are we not actually implementing this? If we have got ourselves into a mess where a few people are saying, “We can’t get there, we can’t afford the bus fare to get to a pool because the local authority has shut it down because it didn’t have enough budget”, this may go beyond the Minister’s area of control, but this is a factor that plays into it. There is no way that you can ignore the capacity in local government with this figure because most schools, particularly junior schools, do not have their own pool.
We can also say, “What about independent schools? How are we accessing them? How are they helping?”, but ultimately it is still the transport to them. There is a big interaction here going on from the various bits of government and the approaches to it. The prioritisation of this is very important as well. Is this regarded as something that you will have to do, or something that you will fit in round the edges?
When most of these situations come up—usually less life-threatening ones—it is the same thing that is happening in education in other areas, such as the arts, sport, et cetera. An interaction here is of course more direct—“Here is your core, and here are the things we would like you to do”. Learning to swim cuts across this. It becomes a real priority, so the figure of 26% of primary schools is utterly unacceptable. It would be nice to hear from the Minister exactly what we are doing to address that.
I return to the idea of sports, and the idea the noble Lord, Lord Dunlop, mentioned, that swimming is one of those activities that are easier to do in later life. If you are in water that carries your weight, you are less likely to damage yourself in various ways. That applies if you are taking exercise, and it is useful for rehabilitation from sports injuries—even for horses—and it is a good way of taking gentle exercise. It is also an essential part of making sure that there is social interaction in many mainstream sports that are readily available; canoeing is one example. How can you get in there and become a part of it? We often talk about mental health problems, and once you are part of that sport, company, activity and focus help. If you take that away, you are cutting off whole bits of activity.
The anecdotage of the Bishops’ Bar comes out. Somebody said to me, “I knew somebody who was a good sportsman and went to live in Australia. He discovered that he couldn’t swim, so he spent large parts of his life watching the rest of his family on the beach as he hid from the sun under towels”. Possibly that is a more jokey part of it, but it is still something that says, “You can’t do it”.
How are we doing on water safety? The fact of the matter is that if you fall into certain types of water, it does not matter how good you are at swimming—you are in real trouble. Deep, cold and fast-running water are things we do not like being in. If you hit cold water, you go into a sort of system shock, where you try to take a breath, and if you are underwater, you are probably not getting out. So training about what to avoid and what not to go near is another important part of this.
How do we train people to make sure that you do not go in there—you do not swim in that small river with a current of, say, a couple of knots, because most people cannot swim against that, and they cannot do it for any length of time? That sort of education is also a key part of what is going on, making sure that you stay safe. It is also a good thing if you are taking it as a social activity, because you will know the limitations of your capacity as a swimmer. This is the sort of information that we need, and we need it early.
We live predominantly in cities, and virtually all of them have rivers running through them; that is probably why they were built there in the first place. We have access to open, cold, running water all the time. Mix that with alcohol—we have a habit of building bars beside these nice bits of water—and we end up with situations where people go in. Something else that comes in here is whether people know—it may cut through the fog of the cheap cocktail—that you should not go for a little paddle in there now, and whether your friends, who are hopefully not quite as far gone, know what to do to get you out and call for help. There is no downside to making sure that we get better figures for making sure that people can swim, and early on. I hope that when the Minister gives his answer, he will be able to do that.
I have one last specific question, which I sent through to the Minister’s office. There seems to be a suggestion in the briefing provided by the Library that those with special educational needs in schools are not getting access to this. Anybody who has suffered me in a series of debates on this subject will know that that is one of my key areas. However, I do not think that we are talking about dyslexics en masse but about specific groups. Are we, for instance, talking about groups of people who are autistic, because they are difficult and people do not want them in that situation, or are other groups included in that because it is not considered that they would benefit? Many people with quite alarming physical disabilities can swim—they can action in water. It might even be easier for them. What are we doing to make sure that they get access as well? It may be of even greater benefit to them than it is for people in the mainstream, because it may be an area of exercise that they can take safely once they have had that initial training. I hope the Minister will have an answer on that. If not, I hope he will write to me, because we should look at it.
I look forward to the Minister’s reply because this is something we should all be working together to achieve. I can see no party-political advantage in not achieving it.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, for initiating this debate on the very important—though often underreported—subjects of swimming and life-saving skills. All primary-aged children should learn to swim. It is a basic life skill and a life-saving skill, whether it involves developing the ability to save themselves—and possibly others as well—in difficult circumstances, or learning particular life-saving skills, such as CPR and how to get help in a medical emergency.
The Government seem to be clear on the additional action required to achieve this, as evidenced by the announcement in October 2018 that primary schools were to receive extra support and improved guidance to help make sure that all children can swim confidently and know how to stay safe in and around water. It is to involve the provision of more swimming lessons, extra teaching and improved guidance, supported by the PE and sport premium. All this is to be welcomed.
What was not spelled out was how much of the PE and sport premium would be dedicated to this extra support for swimming and life-saving skills. The premium has around £300 million available to it, so can the Minister say whether the swimming initiative is to be taken from that, or have new resources been allocated to fund the enhanced activity?
Presumably, the intention is to build on the 2017 Review of Curriculum Swimming and Water Safety, published by the National Water Safety Forum—an association of bodies with a range of interests and responsibilities. As the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, their review contained 16 recommendations to the Government. Almost two years later, how many of those recommendations have been met or are in the process of being met?
The Local Government Association has called on the Government to do more to raise awareness of water safety issues. It stressed that there needs to be greater emphasis in the school curriculum on water safety, drowning prevention and messages around cold water shock and what that can do to those who unexpectedly find themselves in water. The statistics that most resonated with me in the LGA briefing were that more people in the UK die each year from drowning than from fires at home, and that more people drown while out walking or running than while swimming.
These facts underline the need for young people to be prepared for the dangers that can await them. This is why the initiative announced by the Government in October last year is to be welcomed. It will be delivered in partnership with Swim England, as part of the Government’s sport strategy, Sporting Future, committed to ensuring that every child leaves primary school able to swim. This is a very necessary objective.
The measures were announced days after a government-backed review of swimming and water safety in primary schools, entitled Swim England Parents and Curriculum Swimming Research 2018, was published. That survey found that swimming standards vary in schools—as noble Lords have mentioned—despite it being compulsory in the national curriculum. Following its recommendations, the Government was said to be,
“working with Swim England to provide extra guidance to help schools deliver safe, fun and effective swimming lessons”.
This is necessary because, as the RNLI reported in its excellent briefing for this debate, and has been mentioned already, today around 1,000 schools in England do not teach swimming, even though it is a statutory requirement.
I hope the Minister will confirm that schools failing to meet their legal requirements will quickly and decisively be brought into line. These include academies, which may not have to follow the national curriculum but have a duty to see that their children are properly trained to ensure their safety. Children who attend schools that do not provide swimming lessons—and their parents—are being failed. This cannot be allowed to continue.
The problem may be much greater than this. There are around 18,000 primary schools in England. When the Swim England survey asked parents of children in reception, year 3 and year 6 about their child’s swimming provision—as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said—it emerged that a mere 53% of primary school children in England have swimming lessons, just over half. For the figure to be 33% for reception children is perhaps not too much of a surprise, but for year 3 the figure was only 63%, with an even more disappointing 64% receiving lessons in year 6—that is, children aged 10 and 11. To say that there is much room for improvement would be an understatement.
Access to pools may be an issue, although that should not be used as an excuse, because timings can be flexible. The Local Government Association highlighted that 72% of primary schools use publicly owned facilities for their swimming activity, but access can be compromised as a result of issues of cost, availability and transport. Quite a few independent schools with swimming pools work in partnership with state schools to provide access, and I hope that that can be increased.
Swimming comes under physical education, and the narrowing of the curriculum since the introduction of the EBacc has reduced opportunities as a result. Recent research in secondary schools by the Youth Sport Trust found that timetabled PE time is decreasing, and the reduction is greater as students get older. At key stage 4, 58% of schools had reduced timetabled PE in the past five years, and nearly a quarter had done so in the past year. By the time young people are in sixth form, they are doing barely half an hour a week.
The same survey found that nearly 40% of teachers said that their provision had declined because core or EBacc subjects had been given additional time, with students taken out of timetabled PE for extra tuition in those subjects. Those results were cited last week by her Majesty’s chief inspector, who said that the result,
“chimes with our own two-year research programme on the curriculum”.
PE is likely to be a subject that has been affected by that curriculum narrowing, and it would appear that that is not contested by the DfE, because I found Amanda Spielman’s speech on its website. Children learning about water safety cannot be treated as an optional extra and must not be squeezed out of the curriculum.
Life-saving skills are equally important, and we welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State in January that all secondary school-leavers in England are to be taught cardiopulmonary resuscitation and general first aid for common injuries, including defibrillator use, from 2020. The British Heart Foundation described the plans as a decisive moment in attempts to improve on the less-than-10% survival rate for people in the UK with cardiac arrests while not in hospital. It is surely no coincidence that in countries that teach CPR in schools, cardiac arrest survival rates are more than double those in Britain. There are 30,000 out-of-hospital cardiac arrests every year and, each day, people needlessly die because bystanders do not have the confidence or knowledge to perform CPR and defibrillation. It is absolutely appropriate that all schoolchildren should be given the opportunity to learn these skills. Introducing CPR lessons in health education in all state-funded secondary schools is a significant step that could lead only to increased survival odds for countless people.
Of course, schools alone are not the answer. The responsibility for ensuring that children have enough opportunity not just to exercise and live healthier lives but build the skills that may save lives ultimately rests with parents. The combination of parental awareness and good-quality, consistent learning options in school will lead to future generations being better able to keep themselves and others safe.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to answer this Question for Short Debate, and thank the noble Lord for raising the important issue of swimming and life-saving skills in schools. Swimming is a vital life-saving skill. This is why pupils are taught to swim and about water safety at primary school. I am delighted to be able to update the House today on the work the Government are doing to improve swimming and water safety skills in schools. Being able to swim and learn about water safety, including the dangers of open water swimming and cold water shock, can prevent accidents and drowning fatalities.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked how many sports are impacted by one’s ability to swim. It opens up opportunities to participate in a wide range of water-based activities, such as canoeing, rowing and sailing. I cannot get to the figure of 20 that he mentioned, but he is correct that it impacts on many opportunities, which is why all pupils should have the opportunity to learn to swim.
The Government support the view of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that no child should leave primary school unable to meet a minimum standard of capability and confidence in swimming. This is reflected in the national curriculum, which includes swimming and water safety as compulsory elements at primary level. It also provides a frame of reference for academies in deciding what to offer as part of the broad and balanced curriculum. We know that too many pupils leave primary school unable to meet those expectations. We are working closely with colleagues in government and the sport and education sectors to raise attainment.
In 2015 the Government asked the Swim Group to submit an independent report setting out recommendations for improving curriculum swimming as part of the Sporting Future strategy. The Swim Group includes representatives from across the swimming and education sectors. The report demonstrated the need to do more to support schools in delivering swimming and water safety lessons to all pupils.
The noble Lord, Lord Watson, asked about progress in implementing the recommendations. To date we have implemented four of them. Sport England is also updating its facilities guidance for local authorities. We have increased the flexibility of pupil premium funding, and we are including a communications strategy, which was recommended, for educational stakeholders. For secondary schools we are also including an updated communications strategy. We took the recommendations very seriously, and we are endeavouring to implement as many as possible.
All primary schools in receipt of PE and sport premium, including academies, have to report on how many of their pupils meet the swimming expectations. We have increased support for schools to use their PE and sport premium to increase training and provide additional top-up swimming lessons. New free guidance is available from the Swim England website, which covers everything schools need to know about how to provide high-quality swimming and water safety lessons to all pupils.
We have worked with the Independent Schools Council to encourage meaningful partnerships between independent schools and their local state primaries. For example, Cheltenham Ladies’ College is working with local partners to provide additional swimming lessons to pupils not able to swim after being taught swimming in their core PE lessons.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about SEND pupils. We agree that it is most important that all pupils have the ability to learn to swim. The Swim Group reported that not all pupils with SEND have access to swimming and water safety lessons in school. More work needs to be done to understand the current provision, and any barriers to inclusive lessons. We have funded a project to help address this issue—the Youth Sport Trust-led Inclusion 2020 project has identified five local areas to form partnerships to improve swimming and water safety: Durham, Dorset, Milton Keynes, Northamptonshire and West Yorkshire. We will review the evaluation of these local innovation partnerships when it is available in 2020.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington also asked about the resources available for swimming generally, and I can reassure him that, again, there is a lot going on. Sport England is working with nearly 100 local authorities that have plans for additional swimming pool provision. Since 2012 it has invested £67 million in 46 local authority facilities to include pools, which results in about £700 million in investment from those authorities.
We will continue to build on this work across government, working with and supporting schools, county sports partnerships, and swimming and water safety bodies and charities. We are working with Swim England to publish online videos that will support teachers in assessing pupils’ swimming capabilities. These will be available to all schools this spring. Our swimming and water safety communications activity will focus on supporting a water safety awareness week. This addresses part of the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Addington, about highlighting the dangers of being around water. The awareness week will include information on that subject, and a new guidance pack for parents on school swimming and water safety will be published on the Swim England website by the end of March, including information on how to be safe in and around water.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked some related questions—and one in particular, about drowning following excessive intake of alcohol. The noble Lord is right to highlight this as an important subject. Issues around alcohol will make up part of the health education taught in schools. Combating alcohol-related drowning is a priority for partners such as the Royal Life Saving Society, with its national campaign, “Don’t Drink and Drown”. This campaign reaches out to universities and warns drinkers to steer clear of walking by or entering water when under the influence of alcohol.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, also asked about the collection of data on drowning. The collection of data on water-related incidents is an important part of reducing the number of deaths by drowning. I welcome the collaboration on data collection through the water incident database, but I will raise the issue with the Department for Transport, which has the overall responsibility for water safety.
County sports partnerships review schools’ reporting of the use of their PE and sport premium and this year we will be looking at those reports in more detail. We will be launching a school sports action plan in the spring of this year. It will have at its heart how sport can assist in the development of character and well-being in pupils. Swim England is involved in its capacity as a national governing body of sport.
My noble friend Lord Dunlop raised several questions. On the sharing of experiences between English and Scottish schools on swimming, Swim England is working closely with Swim Scotland and other swimming national governing bodies. They are sharing the outcomes of the Swim Group report and the government actions to support these national governing bodies to work with their own Governments.
My noble friend asked about data. The Active Lives Children and Young People Survey will provide annual data on swimming following findings on school swimming and water safety in the December 2018 publication of the survey. These annual findings will give us robust information on the swimming and water safety skills of pupils. We have also changed the reporting for primary schools to ensure that the mandatory requirement to report the use of the premium on their school website includes a requirement to publish information on their pupils’ swimming and water safety ability.
Lastly, my noble friend asked whether the picture is changing. Sports England’s Active Lives Children and Young People Survey collected data on more than 100,000 pupils and reported its first findings in December last year. Seventy-seven per cent of year 7 pupils reported being able to swim the 25 metre unaided requirement in that survey.
Life-saving teaching in schools also relates to work that the Government are doing in health education. We are making health education compulsory in all state-funded schools in England and voluntary teaching will begin in September of this year. In doing this we have responded to the sustained calls for mandatory first aid in schools so that pupils can have the access they need to knowledge about life-saving and first-aid skills.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, asked about the teaching of water safety and rightly highlighted the importance of learning about it. Our guidance on health education encourages schools to look for opportunities to draw links between subjects and integrate teaching where appropriate. There will be an opportunity for schools to bring together what they teach in life-saving with their swimming lessons. The new water safety guidance pack can help them to do that more effectively.
We have proposed in the updated draft statutory guidance that health education will include first-aid and life-saving skills in core content for the first time. This will support whole school approaches to fostering pupil well-being and developing pupils’ resilience and ability to self-regulate. We encourage teachers to draw upon high-quality resources in the classroom, including guidance on first aid and emergencies from the British Red Cross, St John Ambulance and the British Heart Foundation.
As such, health education should complement what is already taught and develop pupils’ core knowledge and broad understanding to enable them to lead healthy, active lives. It will be up to schools to decide whether and how to build on the core swimming expectations in the context of their wider health education provision.
The debate we have had today has highlighted how important swimming and life-saving skills are.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
The Minister has answered a considerable number of questions but he has not answered one of mine in relation to the funding that supports the announcement in October last year of additional support for schools. The figure of £300 million in the PE and sport premium was mentioned. My question was whether the activities announced in October 2018 are to be paid for through that—and, if so, how much—or is it to be new resources from the DfE?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
Apologies to the noble Lord; I omitted that in my reply. Extra help for schools was announced on 18 October but there was no new funding specifically for school swimming. However, we have encouraged use of the £320-million PE and sport fund, from which all primary schools receive each year to support school swimming and water safety. This works out on average at about £18,000 per single-form-of-entry primary available for sports activity. More broadly, as part of the 2012 Olympic legacy, we have invested nearly £1 billion in sport in aggregate since then.
This debate has highlighted how important swimming and life-saving skills are, and the role that schools can play in teaching them. I hope that the range of actions I have set out demonstrate just how seriously the Government take the ambition that all pupils ought to leave primary school being able to swim, and that the new health education requirements can help to build on that. I hope all noble Lords will join me in doing all we can to make sure that schools are aware of the support and take advantage of it.