House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)
Mr Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
We are investing more in schools and high needs over the next three years, starting with an additional £2.6 billion, including £780 million for high needs in 2020-21 and £1.5 billion for the cost of the teacher pension scheme.
Bridget Phillipson
While the north-east is home to some of the best performing primary schools in the country, sadly, at secondary level, there are issues with poor outcomes for young people. Rather than reannouncing an initiative from two years ago using existing departmental funding, when will the Secretary of State properly tackle the fact that far too many children in our region are not receiving the education they deserve?
Gavin Williamson
I recently had the great pleasure of visiting schools across the north-east, as well as Opportunity North East, a new programme aimed at raising attainment in the key area of secondary schools. This already seems to be having an impact on schools—that was certainly my impression from conversations I had with school leaders—and we want to continue to build on that across the north-east.
Mr Bacon
Since 2013, the total schools block grant in my constituency has gone down, whereas funding across London regionally has increased by 4.5%. I know that my right hon. Friend recognises the historical imbalances towards metropolitan areas, so what reassurances can he give me and the excellent schools in Orpington that the NFF will rebalance funding?
Gavin Williamson
The Department and the Government are working towards a hard national funding formula to ensure fair funding across the country in every single constituency. I know that my hon. Friend has been campaigning hard to raise the issue facing his schools, and we will listen closely.
Giles Watling
I thank my right hon. Friend for his earlier answer. The national funding formula is letting down some of Clacton’s schools financially because of the way Essex County Council is rolling it out. Can the Department not have oversight and work with the council to rebalance the books in favour of our hard-pressed schools in Clacton?
Gavin Williamson
I hope that Essex County Council will move towards the national funding formula as rapidly as possible and will see it as clear guidance on what per-pupil funding it should be giving at every school. Part of the reason we have introduced a basic minimum at primary and secondary school level is to ensure that those minimums are delivered to every school across the country, but I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this in greater detail.
Alun Cairns
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the way he is levelling up spending in schools across England, but teaching unions have identified a significant difference between the funding for schools in England and Wales. My constituency is near the bottom of the league table for schools funding in Wales. Will he use all his influence to encourage the Welsh Government to make more money available to schools for them to spend on pupils as he is doing in England?
Gavin Williamson
It is disappointing to see what the Labour and Liberal Democrat Government in Wales have been doing on education. I hope that every penny of the almost £200 million extra the Welsh Government will receive, which has been as a result of the funding increase for schools in England, will be passported to every school in Wales to start raising standards in Wales for every pupil.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
The Times Educational Supplement reported this week that academies in England were putting pressure on older, more experienced and therefore more expensive teachers to leave their jobs in order to save the academies’ money. Teachers in England already earn more than £6,000 less than their counterparts in Scotland. What use is any promise from this Government of pay increases when it comes in tandem with such bullying levelled against some of England’s most experienced teachers?
Gavin Williamson
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the teaching unions and the headteacher unions for the work they have done with the Department on our recruitment and retention policies, which is making sure we work together across the board to make teachers of all ages and experience understand that they can have a fulfilling, rewarding and incredibly important career within education for a generation and more. We will continue that work, recognising the importance to the education of every child of having experienced teachers in our classrooms.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
Levelling up opportunity across the country is my Department’s top priority, and we have made progress. We are reforming technical education, backed by up to £500 million of investment in T-levels once fully rolled out. Since 2011, the disadvantage gap has narrowed, and over the next three years we will be investing £14 billion more in primary and secondary education, which will allow for a cash increase of £7.1 billion by 2022-23.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Schools in my constituency face the dual challenge of rural and coastal deprivation, and, despite the welcome increase in funding, Devon will remain in the bottom 10% of local authorities in terms of dedicated schools grant per pupil. Will the Secretary of State work with me to ensure that North Devon schools have the funds that they need to support and encourage the aspirations of every child?
Gavin Williamson
I know that my hon. Friend is very passionate about this issue, having been a teacher herself. I am sure that she will welcome the 6.5% per pupil increase in North Devon, which is making, and will make, a real difference to children’s attainment. This is a Government who are delivering extra money for schools throughout the country, but what is also important is that this is a Government who recognise that it is not just about cash—although we are delivering extra cash—but about standards, and about raising standards in every single school for every pupil.
Michael Fabricant
My right hon. Friend and neighbour will know that Staffordshire has been right at the bottom of the pool in comparison with other counties when it comes to money. What good news can he give his schools in South Staffordshire, as well as mine in Lichfield?
Gavin Williamson
As my hon. Friend will know, schools are enjoying an 8.2% cash increase, and schools in Lichfield are receiving an increase of more than 5%. That is to be welcomed, and it is making a real difference. We are also investing in teacher quality and teacher training, and ensuring that the basic starting salary will increase to £30,000. That will be one of the most competitive graduate packages in the marketplace, and will attract the very best into the profession.
Matt Vickers
Levelling up opportunities for young people is a vital part of delivering for constituents such as those in Stockton South. How will my right hon. Friend improve school standards across the north-east so that every child has the best possible chance of succeeding?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend and I saw the reality of the impact in his constituency when we had the privilege of visiting Thornaby Academy. The academy was recently taken over by Falcon Education Academies Trust, which specialises in supporting schools that are experiencing some of the most challenging circumstances. That was a great example of how injecting leadership and extra support can ensure that schools which have had troubles in the past can reach for a new and more positive future.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
In a review published last week, my constituent Sir Michael Marmot argued that a highly educated and well-paid childcare workforce was essential to the improvement of early-years provision and the tackling of healthcare inequality. Both are essential if we are to provide equal opportunities for the next generation. However, under this Government early-years staff suffered a real-terms pay cut of 5% between 2013 and 2018, and thousands of staff are leaving the profession because of low pay. Will the Secretary of State join me in asking the new Chancellor to pledge more funds for early-years provision in the upcoming Budget, so that we can pay our staff properly and the next generation can have equal opportunities?
Gavin Williamson
I am always happy to make representations to Chancellors. I have in the past, and I am certain that I will in the future. I almost thought that the hon. Lady was going to welcome the extra £66 million that we secured last year, and perhaps if she had had the opportunity to go on for a little longer she would have reached that moment.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
Has the Secretary of State seen the report by Anne Longfield, the Children’s Commissioner, in which she points out that between 19% and 20% of kids leaving our schools have no qualifications at all? That is an absolute stain on the conscience of this country. What is he going to do about it?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Gentleman raises an incredibly important point. I would like to pay tribute to the Children’s Commissioner for her incredibly important work in highlighting some of these issues. It is incumbent on all of us in this House to look at what we can do to make a difference to every child. If we look back to 2010 and even before that, we have seen many young people leaving school without the kind of qualifications that we would want to see for our children. It is incredibly important to note that, although so many more children are now leaving school with the basic English and maths that we would want to see as an absolute minimum, the figure is not high enough. The key element to making that difference is ensuring that we continue to drive standards in schools. That is what we are looking at doing in terms of school improvement and working with organisations such as Ofsted to make a difference.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
Gavin Williamson
I would certainly like to join the hon. Gentleman in welcoming any good figures from any part of the United Kingdom—England, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland. I always very much welcome the opportunity to see closer co-operation between schools in Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and to ensure that we learn from the very best practice across all four nations.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I hope that we can now get through the Order Paper a little more quickly. This applies to Members on both sides.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
My hon. Friend will, I am sure, be glad to hear that further education is at the heart of this Government’s plans to level up the skills of the nation by providing high-quality provision and delivering on key policies such as T-levels and apprenticeships. We have been supporting colleges to do this through investment in the further education workforce, and we will increase 16 to 19 funding in 2020-21 as well as investing in the college estate to ensure that colleges are well placed to deliver the skills our economy needs for the future.
Mark Fletcher
The Bolsover constituency currently has no sixth form or further education college. Does the Minister agree that if we are to unleash the potential of young people in my constituency, we need a proper post-16 pathway that is both local and linked to industry?
Gillian Keegan
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I know that he will do everything possible to increase opportunities for young people in Bolsover. Of course, every area needs good provision that meets the needs of local employers and learners. He will be aware that, in addition to the RNN group, there are two general colleges that recruit students from the Bolsover area: Chesterfield College and West Nottinghamshire College, both of which supply a bus for students travelling from Bolsover. There are also a number of independent training providers in the surrounding areas that offer a wide range of high quality apprenticeships.
Stephen Metcalfe
As the Government envoy for engineering, may I welcome last week’s announcement of over £14 million to improve college leadership? Does my hon. Friend agree that quality leadership is a vital part of ensuring that colleges are able to deliver the engineering skills our economy will need in the future?
Gillian Keegan
I should like to start by paying tribute to the leadership that my hon. Friend has shown in championing the cause of apprenticeships in his role as a national apprenticeship ambassador, a role that I held myself. On the issue that he has raised, strong leadership and governance are critical to the success of colleges, and this funding will help colleges to invest in current and future leaders. South Essex College, which has campuses around the south Essex area, is just one example of how good leadership can deliver for local businesses and for young people, including many of my hon. Friend’s own constituents.
Alexander Stafford
As the Minister is aware, the Dinnington campus, run by the RNN group in Rother Valley, is set to close after over-expanding. What support can she provide to those who are currently studying at the Dinnington campus to ensure that their studies are unaffected and that Rother Valley continues to have a leading FE establishment?
Gillian Keegan
The Further Education Commissioner and the Skills Funding Agency provide a wide range of support to colleges, and both are working closely with the group to discuss the implications of the college’s decision to close its campus. It is essential that learning is not disrupted and that good access is maintained, with support for all students. I know that my hon. Friend has already met the FE Commissioner to discuss his concerns, and I will ensure that he is kept closely briefed as we work with the college to ensure that there is good access to further education in the Rother Valley.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I am interested to know how much more money the Minister has to throw at T-levels before she accepts that they have created a qualification that is undeliverable in rural areas and in areas dominated by small and medium-sized enterprises, that has been rejected by colleges—including Scarborough Sixth Form College, which the Secretary of State attended—and, worst of all, that fails to offer equality of opportunity for our young people and fails to deliver the skills upgrade that our country needs.
Gillian Keegan
T-levels represent a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to put our technical education system on a par with the best in the world through a scheme that is equal to traditional academic routes. We are just at the start of the T-level journey, and I urge the hon. Lady to support this important change in our technical education provision.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister spoke earlier about the importance of investment in the FE workforce, but many lecturers in FE are working part time on insecure contracts. When will the Government make sure the funding stream is secure enough for FE colleges to recruit people who will actually be able to spend time investing in their career and in their pupils?
Gillian Keegan
Of course, the workforce in FE colleges are a vital part of delivering the high-quality turnaround we want in our technical education. We are increasing the funding in FE colleges, and we have also increased funding specifically for workforce development. These are independent organisations, of course, so we do not set the pay and salary scales.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Apprenticeships are down 46% since the introduction of the levy. What will the Minister do in National Careers Week to turn that around?
Gillian Keegan
Apprenticeships are at the heart of our vision for a world-class technical education system, and we have specifically focused on quality in the past year or so. High-quality starts have increased to 63% from 44% the previous year. Quality is the most important thing, and we are pleased to say that the number of starts is increasing this year.[Official Report, 16 March 2020, Vol. 673, c. 5MC.]
Ben Bradley (Mansfield) (Con)
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend to her place, and I know she is passionate about this issue. Will she join me in welcoming the collaboration in my Mansfield constituency between West Notts College and Nottingham Trent University, which is bringing degree-level nursing qualifications to an area where the NHS is the biggest employer? Does she agree that collaboration between local education providers and business is exactly what we need if we are to fill the skills gap in communities like Mansfield?
Gillian Keegan
One of the key pillars of delivering the new reforms in technical education and further education is the fact that employers are working closely with existing colleges and FE institutions. It is vital that we bridge the gap between what education provides and what businesses need. In our NHS, providing new routes through nursing apprenticeships and nursing degrees that are local to providers is vital.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
The Government back headteachers to create calm and safe schools by giving teachers the powers they need to enforce discipline and good behaviour. We are taking forward an ambitious programme of action on behaviour, exclusion and alternative provision, which will back headteachers to use exclusion, enable schools to support children at risk of exclusion and ensure that excluded children continue to receive a good education.
Sarah Jones
The Minister knows that school exclusions have increased by 70% since 2012, and he knows that children have not become 70% naughtier in that time. Something is going wrong with the system, and the consequence for society and individuals is extreme. We had a debate in Westminster Hall last week that he was kind enough to attend, but we did not have enough time to discuss all the issues. Will he be kind enough to meet me and members of the all-party parliamentary group on knife crime, which has done a report on the link between crime and school exclusions? Perhaps the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson), who has done an excellent review of why some of these issues have occurred and what we can do about it, will also want to come.
Nick Gibb
I am very happy to host a meeting, and I would enjoy discussing these issues in greater detail. The hon. Lady will know, of course, that permanent exclusion, at 0.1%, is extremely low, and is actually lower than it was in 2006-07. The research on the link between exclusion and knife crime shows it is more complicated than simply a correlation because, for example, 83% of 16-year-old knife-possession offenders in 2013 had been persistently absent from education at some point during their school career. It is absence from school that is the key factor, which is why this Government so emphasise the importance of children attending school.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Minister mentions 0.1%, but the Education Policy Institute found that there were 69,000 unexplained exits from school in 2017 alone. Does the Minister really believe that our schools are getting better when there is a crisis of more and more pupils leaving the system? The Minister has yet to commit to implementing the report from the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson). Will he now commit to implementing all the recommendations of the Timpson review?
Nick Gibb
As I said in answer to the question from the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), the rate of exclusions today is lower than under the last Labour Government in 2006-07. We take the issues referred to in the Timpson report, such as off-rolling, very seriously. Off-rolling is unacceptable in any form, which is why we continue to work with Ofsted to define and tackle it. Ofsted already looks at the records of children taken off roll. Its new inspection framework, which came into force this September, has a strength and focus on off-rolling that we support.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
When they are used effectively, fixed-period exclusions can help to address the underlying causes of poor behaviour, but when they are not, they are not able to. For some children, that means up to 45 days in an academic year when they are on a succession of repeated exclusions, which is far too long to be out of school. Will my right hon. Friend agree to look at the recommendation in my review—along with the other 29—on how we can reduce that limit of 45 days at the same time as improving practice in this important area?
Nick Gibb
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his review of school exclusions. Both he and I support our headteachers in the use of exclusion, where appropriate, to ensure that they have good discipline in their schools. My hon. Friend is correct that it is possible for children to be excluded from school for 45 days in an academic year, though it is actually rare for children to reach that limit. In 2017-18, just 94 pupils were excluded from schools in England for 45 days in a single year. The Government are considering these arrangements and we will make a further announcement about our plans in due course.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Whether or not the numbers have decreased since the last Government were in office, we still have around 40 children excluded from our schools every day, at a cost of some £370,000 per child. We know that 58% of young prisoners were permanently excluded from school. These excluded children are being left behind—only around 1% get five or more GCSEs, if they get any at all. What is my right hon. Friend doing? Has he seen the report from the Education Committee in the last Parliament on transparency regarding numbers of exclusions and on schools being partially accountable for the pupils whom they exclude?
Nick Gibb
My right hon. Friend is right. We know that we have to give headteachers the tools to ensure that we have safe, calm environments in our schools. No headteacher excludes without giving the matter very careful consideration, with permanent exclusions used only as a very last resort. What is key is that exclusion from school must not mean exclusion from education, so timely access to high-quality alternative provision plays a critical role in improving excluded children’s outcomes. Our objective is to improve the quality and capacity of alternative provision.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
The Secretary of State for Education, who is in fact an esteemed alumnus of Bradford University, has not discussed the potential merits of the university establishing a medical school with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. The Government provide grant funding for eligible higher education providers to contribute towards the cost of delivering medical degrees.
Naz Shah
The truth is that the last Conservative Government did not engage with any university in the whole of Yorkshire when they were planning their medical schools. Perhaps now, given that the Tory buzzword is “levelling up”, the Minister might level up Bradford University and Yorkshire, and work with and agree to meet the university, which is very ready to train up medics, given that post-Brexit Britain will have a skills shortage.
Michelle Donelan
The University of Bradford did contribute a bid in 2017. That process subsequently produced five brand new medical schools, which have increased our capacity by 1,500 medical places. Unfortunately, the University of Bradford’s application was unsuccessful, but it is not true to say that the Department did not engage with the university, and I am more than happy to visit it.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
It is wonderful to hear about the plans at the University of Bradford. In addition, the University of Worcester is developing plans for a three counties medical school, which would cover Worcestershire, Gloucestershire and Herefordshire. May I urge my hon. Friend also to look into working with the Department of Health and Social Care to support that bid?
Michelle Donelan
Thank you, Mr Speaker. We are excited about all the opportunities that are developing around the country. The NHS people plan, which has considered options for growing the medical workforce, will be published later this year.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
This lunchtime, 1.3 million children sat down for a healthy, nutritious free school meal. Last summer, about 50,000 children took part in our holiday activities and food programme. Furthermore, our manifesto commits £1 billion for more wraparound and holiday childcare places from 2021, and we have already started working on the details.
Nadia Whittome
The funding for the Government’s holiday activities and food programme is a drop in the ocean, given that in Nottingham alone, nearly 11,000 children used food banks for emergency supplies in the past year. Does the Minister acknowledge the sheer scale of child poverty and hunger, which has boomed on this Government’s watch? Will she outline how this Government scheme is at least targeting the areas of the country that are most in need?
Vicky Ford
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. All the evidence shows that work offers families the best opportunity to move out of poverty and towards self-reliance, which is why it is such good news that there are 730,000 fewer children in workless households now than a decade ago—that is a record low. Our programme of holiday food and activities is already helping about 50,000 children, and the successful bidders for next summer will be announced shortly.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
May I welcome the new Ministers to their places?
It is a damning indictment of this Government that the United Nations found children in our country regularly turning up to school with empty stomachs, with more than 2 million suffering from food poverty. Hungry children struggle to learn, so it is shocking to see reports that the Chancellor is considering scrapping free school meals in the upcoming Budget. I know that the Secretary of State stated earlier that he would make representations to the Chancellor, but will he state categorically today that he would resign rather than implement such cuts? While he is at it, should he not also adopt our proposals for free school breakfasts, which I know he once supported?
Vicky Ford
The hon. Lady is right to raise the issue of a healthy breakfast, because we know that a healthy breakfast helps children to concentrate, learn and reach their potential in life. That is why we are already investing up to £35 million in our breakfast clubs programme; 1,800 schools in more disadvantaged areas have already signed up. The programme can be extended to nearly 2,500 schools, and Family Action has estimated that about 280,000 children are already receiving a free breakfast through the programme every day.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
For more than a decade, I have worked with the charity Magic Breakfast to open school breakfast clubs across the country in order to improve the life chances of our young people. What support can my hon. Friend give to expand that breakfast club programme so that it reaches even more young people?
Vicky Ford
Many schools have already opened successful breakfast clubs, and we are investing up to £35 million to improve that provision in disadvantaged areas. Schools are free to use their budgets to fund breakfast clubs. May I also remind my hon. Friend of our manifesto commitment of £1 billion for more wraparound and holiday childcare places from next year?
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the measure of the Government’s commitment is in their record? We have already extended eligibility for free school meals on no fewer than three occasions. Hundreds more schools are set to benefit from the national breakfast programme and thousands more children are set to benefit from holiday activities this coming summer.
Vicky Ford
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our programme is already operating in a number of areas and he is right that it has been extended. We can use the programme to help to find out how we can best support children and families during the holidays. A full evaluation of the 2019 programme will be published shortly.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
I stress that the UK remains open to participation in elements of Erasmus+ on a time-limited basis, provided that the terms are in the UK’s interests. The UK will consider a relationship in line with non-EU member state participation in certain EU programmes, including Horizon Europe.
Dr Whitford
As the Minister says herself, the proposal for the future EU relationship suggests that the Government will take part in only certain elements of Erasmus+ and only for a time-limited period. Will she explain what it is about the Erasmus+ scheme that the Secretary of State thinks is not beneficial? Why on earth would participation be on just a temporary basis?
Michelle Donelan
I am sure that we can all agree that the Erasmus scheme offers a wonderful opportunity for international mobility for students. However, it is vital that we utilise our exit from the European Union to ensure that such programmes deliver for everybody in our country, which is why we will make sure that we proceed in our best interests and why we will sign up only if it is on the terms of the UK’s interests.
John Mc Nally
The Scottish Government and partners have invested around £85 million in a state-of-the-art college campus in my constituency of Falkirk. Students from all over Europe attend the Forth Valley College. EU students bring a huge economic benefit to the college, Falkirk, Scotland and the UK, and they enrich our institutions, both culturally and academically. What steps has the Department taken to ensure that the UK remains open, attractive and competitive for EU students in the years ahead? I would like the Minister to develop her answer a wee bit more about what steps are being put in place.
Michelle Donelan
We are committed to remaining open to participating in elements of the Erasmus scheme, as I have pointed out. The Government are very positive about the benefits of students coming to this country, which was exactly why the Prime Minister announced that there will be a graduate option from 2021 so that graduates will be able to work in this country for the two years following their degree.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
I welcome the Minister to her place—and, indeed, all the new Ministers to their places.
Any participation in EU funding programmes will no doubt depend on the UK’s position regarding EU students. As universities are currently recruiting for the academic year starting in 2021, they need clear answers, so will the Minister confirm whether EU students will be treated as international students from 2021 in respect of their fee and immigration status?
Michelle Donelan
I am sure that the hon. Member can appreciate that the details are currently being negotiated. We will update the House as soon as possible.
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
It should be clear to the House that our universities have an enviable reputation around the world. Indeed, research and education are two of our greatest exports. In the light of that, what steps is the Minister taking to ensure that that success not only continues but increases?
Michelle Donelan
This is essential. We have a target for 2030 of 600,000 international students coming to this country. We do value their importance as an international facilitator in our education system.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
A total of 32% of 15 to 30-year-olds from the UK can read and write in a foreign language, compared with 79% in France, 91% in Germany and an incredible 99% in Denmark. Does the Minister believe that cutting off access to programmes such as Erasmus will boost or further worsen those dismal figures?
Michelle Donelan
I am sorry that the hon. Member does not seem to have listened because we are going to try to participate in Erasmus, and nobody has talked today about cutting off our ability to do so.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
We are working to make sure that more local authorities are rated as outstanding, with fewer failing, and we are also strengthening the social work profession. As was set out in our manifesto, we will undertake a bold, independent review of our children’s social care system so that we can go even further to provide children with the support that they need.
Greg Smith
In Buckinghamshire, our hard-working social workers travel around 1 million miles a year to undertake statutory visits and court attendances. That is considerably more than occurs in urban environments, especially as the family court is now out of area. What further steps can my right hon. Friend take to ensure that children’s social services are fully supported in rural communities?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend raises an important point. That is why we have committed to putting an extra £1 billion into children and adults’ social care. I would be happy to speak to him about what more we can do to support rural counties and the delivery of these vital services.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
If the Secretary of State really is serious about improving children’s social care, can he explain why a letter sent to him in January, which was signed by 631 experts and myself, to request an independent, whole-system review has been completely ignored?
Gavin Williamson
I will certainly take up the issue of why that correspondence was not responded to immediately. I am sure that the hon. Lady recognises that it was within our manifesto—we have already announced it—that there will be an independent review looking at the care system for our children, and that is something that she will perhaps welcome.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
Children’s social care in Northamptonshire had been failing for some time such that the Government set up a children’s commissioner to guide the service into an independent children’s trust. This is an extremely serious issue for Northamptonshire. Will the Secretary of State ensure that the children’s trust has the resources it needs to sort the system out?
Gavin Williamson
We will certainly undertake to make that commitment. The challenges in Northamptonshire were grave, and it was right that the Government decided to take the action that they did to ensure that we have the very highest quality of services for all children in the county.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
Every child should receive a world-class education, no matter what their needs. That is why we are investing £7.2 billion this coming year to support those with the most complex needs—an increase of £780 million. Local performance varies across the country, so we are reviewing the entire SEND system and working closely with stakeholders and parents.
Fleur Anderson
I am glad to hear that the system is being reviewed. Cuts to council funding for special educational needs and disability services mean that children in Wandsworth are waiting too long for a diagnosis and for an education, health and care plan. Then, too many do not receive the support they need that is outlined in that plan. This common experience of parents and children was backed up by a recent Ofsted report that said that Wandsworth’s EHC plans were of poor quality and that there were significant concerns. There is a cost to cuts. Will the Secretary of State ensure that there is significant additional funding for councils in the Budget for special educational needs and disability services?
Vicky Ford
The London Borough of Wandsworth will receive £47.8 million in high-needs funding in the next year, which is an increase of 8.6%. The performance of local areas in producing education, health and care plans is variable, but some 30 areas do get more than 90% of plans done within the 20-week period which, I note, is a reduction from the 26-week period under the previous Labour Government. Performance does vary across the country. Where it is not good enough, we support and challenge local areas to improve.
Steve Reed (Croydon North) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Minister apologise for her Government’s imposition of such irresponsibly severe cuts that the Care Quality Commission has now found that one third of all services for special needs children have significant failings? After 10 years of this kind of failure, what is her plan to sort this national crisis out?
Vicky Ford
As I have just said, there has been an increase of £780 million in additional high-needs funding next year, which is a 12% increase. Performance does vary, but we know that only because of the joint Oftsted-CQC inspections that this Government introduced. The reports do not give a pass-fail judgment, and many of them show strength. Furthermore, when they have been re-inspected following the work of the Government, six of the 17 councils have made sufficient progress in every area.
Mr Speaker
Order. The Opposition are getting upset because Government Front Benchers are taking too long. They should speed up in future.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
This week, I announced a new set of behaviour hubs that are being introduced right across the country to make sure that there are the very highest standards of behaviour in every single one of our schools.
As with all Government Departments right across the country, we are making sure that there are regular communications about the coronavirus. We are communicating to all educational settings to make sure that they have a clear understanding of some of the challenges in dealing with the virus. We are advising that schools should stay open unless advised otherwise by Public Health England, and we are planning for a reasonable worst-case scenario, working closely with other Departments and, of course, Public Health England.
Kate Osborne
In my constituency of Jarrow, headteachers have told me that they are struggling to make ends meet. Cuts to funding for their schools have resulted in overcrowded classrooms, and teaching and non-teaching staff being cut. Buildings are crumbling. Does the Minister believe, like me, that our teachers and children deserve better?
Gavin Williamson
What we are seeing in the hon. Lady’s constituency is a 6.1% cash increase in what is going to be going to schools and a 4.8% per-pupil increase. That is a positive step forward in making sure that every school benefits from the increases in funding that we announced last year.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend raises an important point about how we make sure that we get the highest level of training to every business—not just to large businesses but to the small and medium-sized enterprise sector as well. The apprenticeship levy has revolutionised how people think about apprenticeships, and we need to continue to build on that. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend to make sure that SMEs get the benefit.
Angela Rayner (Ashton-under-Lyne) (Lab)
Across the country, hard-working staff in universities and colleges have been forced to strike against effective cuts to their pay and attacks on education that hurt students and staff alike. So far, the Education Secretary’s response to the crisis is much like the Health Secretary’s response to the coronavirus: wash your hands of it and hope it goes away. Will Ministers finally step in, respond to the urgent letter they received from the University and College Union, urge universities to make a fair offer, and ensure that next week’s Budget gives teachers in colleges the pay that they deserve?
Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I want to see a resolution to this matter as swiftly as possible, and I urge both parties to come to a resolution. The people suffering most of all are the students whose studies are being impacted. We need a resolution as swiftly as possible, and I urge both the unions and the universities to get an agreement within the next few weeks.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
As my hon. Friend knows, the Government have announced increased funding for 16 to 19-year-olds of £400 million in 2020-21. That is the biggest injection of new money in a single year for a decade. As our manifesto made clear, there will be further investment in T-levels and further education college estates, and we will of course be looking again at further education funding as part of future spending reviews.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Vicky Ford
The free school meals factor in the national funding formula will be increased in line with inflation, which is forecast at 1.84%. I will look into the issue further.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend has been campaigning on this issue on behalf of her constituents for a long time. An extra £60 million has been provided for the coming financial year. I know that we are going to be meeting shortly to discuss the particular circumstances that arise in Barnet, and look forward to working with her to find a solution for the maintained nursery schools in her constituency.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
The Minister for School Standards (Nick Gibb)
I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady and her team. The Government regard music education as hugely important. We are allocating £75 million a year to music hubs up and down the country, and hundreds of thousands of children are being introduced to musical instruments through that programme. I would be delighted to have further discussions on this subject.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Gavin Williamson
I thank my hon. Friend for all the work that he did when he was at the Department for Education. I know that this topic is something that he feels very passionately about. The roll-out of T-levels, the expansion of technical and vocational qualifications, and the extra money that we are putting into colleges all make a vital difference. What makes Derwentside College successful is collaboration with local employers—ensuring that it is training people with the right skills really to contribute to the local labour market.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
Last week, one of my local schools in Ilford South had to strike against forced academisation. Will the Minister consider writing to the Catholic diocese of Brentwood and asking it to consider this unwarranted intervention, which does not have the support of the parents or the teachers at that school? Already this year there has been a mass exodus of staff from the teaching profession because of the threat of forced academisation—not just in Ilford, but across the country.
Nick Gibb
Academisation takes place when a school is put into special measures by Ofsted. We want high standards throughout our school system. The academies programme has resulted in standards improving in schools. When we came into office in 2010, 68% of schools were graded good or outstanding. Today that figure is 86%—in part, due to the very successful academisation programme.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
Nick Gibb
I know that my hon. Friend feels very strongly about this issue. The curriculum gives teachers and schools the freedom to use specific examples from history to teach pupils about the history of Britain and the wider world, and this does mean that there are opportunities to teach pupils about the Commonwealth and Britain’s overseas territories.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
When will the Department start mapping the provision of essential services for children with special needs? How else will the Minister recognise that the average spend per child for speech and language therapy is 90p in the west midlands as opposed to £7.29 in London?
Gavin Williamson
We are very happy to look at any suggestions that the hon. Gentleman can put forward, because as part of our special educational needs review we are trying to see how we can best deliver these services for the benefit of every child. If he has some suggestions, I ask him to send them to me.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
Vicky Ford
I thank my hon. Friend for his concern for children with autism and social, emotional and mental health needs. We do understand that there can be challenges for these children in achieving their potential in education, although the vast majority of them go to mainstream schools. Specialist bases within the schools can be a help. We have invested £365 million through the special provision capital fund. I am very happy to meet him to discuss the situation in Bury.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
What are the Government doing to ensure that there are enough educational psychologists to assess the needs of children with special educational needs and disabilities?
Vicky Ford
I remind the hon. Lady that we are investing a further £780 million in the special educational needs area, and we do work in this area to improve the quality of these skills.
Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)
Achieving net zero emissions and the green jobs of the future means having enough skilled workers in electric vehicle maintenance and zero-energy-bill homes construction, so what are the Government doing to make sure that the supply of these vital workers meets the growing demand?
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend is a powerful voice for the environment, and it is no surprise to find that in this area he is right. The UK is leading a new green industrial revolution, and we need a workforce with the technical skills for the future. That is why we have introduced T-levels. We are also investing £290 million in 20 institutes of technology, which will be the pinnacle of technical training.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
The Scottish Government have undertaken a review to consider the experiences and outcomes for young people in care in Scotland. Will the UK Government carry out a similar exercise in England?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady will be delighted to hear that we are carrying out an independent care review. Picking up on the comment made by her colleague, the hon. Member for Dundee West (Chris Law), it is really important that all four nations of the United Kingdom work together and share best practice, and that we look at how we can provide better outcomes for all those children in care.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for coming to my constituency last week, where he saw MIRA Technology Institute and North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire College working together. I raised with him and his team another educational establishment in my constituency, Hinckley Academy and John Cleveland Sixth Form Centre, where the roof leaks significantly when it rains, causing half of its lessons to be cancelled. Will he meet me to discuss how we could do something about this?
Gavin Williamson
Of course I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. It was great to be able to join him at North Warwickshire and South Leicestershire College and see the amazing work that is being done. I know that he is an incredible champion for all the schools in his constituency, and I look forward to working to find a solution to the problems that he has outlined.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Like many parents up and down the country, I am looking at my phone every five minutes to see whether my daughter has got the place at her first-choice secondary school that we are hoping for. Will the Secretary of State send his best wishes to all the children in Croydon who are waiting to hear and let us know what he is doing in areas of high demand to ensure that people get their first choices?
Gavin Williamson
The hon. Lady highlights a concern at a worrying time for many parents, as they wait in eager anticipation. While I cannot guarantee her child the place that she wishes for, as that would be improper, I very much hope that she gets it. It is vital that we expand the range of educational establishments. That is why the free school programme has been so important not only in areas of London but right across the country, ensuring that we level up in terms of the quality of educational provision.
Several hon. Members rose—
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
In the UK, we have an ample supply of creative and talented people working for our video and online gaming companies. Those companies have mastered the art of creating addictive games such as “Grand Theft Auto”, where young people are driven to the next level. Would it not be great if, in education, our children were refusing to leave their games consoles because they were driven to the next grade for their GCSEs? What is the Department doing to incentivise the industry to create addictive educational games that will help our children improve their scores?
Nick Gibb
Our tech strategy seeks to support teachers to make the right choices about technology that meet the needs of their school and the challenges they face. It was this Government who replaced the ICT curriculum with a computer science curriculum, so that we can lead the world in creating the next generation of computer programmers.
Ministerial Code
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the recent apparent breaches of the ministerial code and whether he intends to refer the matter to the Cabinet Office for further investigation.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
On Saturday 29 February, the Cabinet Secretary and head of the civil service received and accepted the resignation of Sir Philip Rutnam as permanent secretary at the Home Office. On the same day, the Cabinet Secretary announced that Shona Dunn—then the second permanent secretary at the Home Office, responsible for borders, immigration and citizenship—would become acting permanent secretary with immediate effect.
Allegations have been made that the Home Secretary has breached the ministerial code. The Home Secretary absolutely rejects those allegations. The Prime Minister has expressed his full confidence in her, and having worked closely with the Home Secretary over a number of years, I have the highest regard for her. She is a superb Minister doing a great job.
This Government always take any complaints relating to the ministerial code seriously, and in line with the process set out in the ministerial code, the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Office to establish the facts. As is usual, the independent adviser on Ministers’ interests, Sir Alex Allan, is available to provide advice to the Prime Minister.
It is long-standing Government policy not to comment on individual personnel matters, in order to protect the rights of all involved. What I can and will say is that I know that the dedicated ministerial team at the Home Office and their superb civil servants will continue their critical work on the public’s behalf, keeping our country protected from the terror threat, bearing down on criminals who seek to do our communities and our country harm, and delivering a fair, firm immigration system that works in the interests of the British people. The Home Office works tirelessly to keep our citizens safe and our country secure, and we all stand behind the team leading that vital work.
Jeremy Corbyn
Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you for granting this urgent question. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his reply, but my question was to the Prime Minister. Could we have an answer as to where the Prime Minister is this afternoon? When an urgent question to the Prime Minister is granted, one would expect the Prime Minister to come to this House to answer the question that has been put to him.
It is the Prime Minister’s job to oversee the ministerial code. If the serious allegations raised by the permanent secretary at the Home Office, Sir Philip Rutnam, about the Home Secretary’s conduct are true—including
“shouting and swearing, belittling people, making unreasonable and repeated demands”—
that would clearly constitute a breach of the ministerial code.
The Prime Minister himself, in his foreword to the code, said there must be
“no bullying and no harassment”.
Those are his words in his foreword to the ministerial code, so why, without a proper investigation, has the Prime Minister defended the Home Secretary, calling her “fantastic” and saying he “absolutely” has confidence in her?
It is not enough just to refer this to the Cabinet Office. The Government must now call in an external lawyer, as has quite rightly been suggested by the union of senior civil servants, the First Division Association. A Minister in breach of the ministerial code cannot remain in office and should be dismissed.
These are just the latest in a series of allegations that suggest an unacceptable pattern of behaviour. According to reports in our media, a number of the Home Office clashes have involved demands from the Home Secretary some of which were considered illegal by officials—illegal by officials. Most disturbingly, the Home Secretary reportedly asked officials to reverse a court ruling halting the deportation of 25 individuals to Jamaica last month. If that is the case, was the Home Secretary not trying to push officials into breaching a ruling by the Court of Appeal?
Is it now this Government’s policy to bully officials into flouting court rulings? Is it not the truth that this is a Government led by bullies, presided over by a part-time Prime Minister, who not only cannot be bothered to turn up, but simply will not take the vital action required when the very integrity and credibility of the Government are on the line?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for his questions. The Prime Minister is of course in Downing Street, leading our response to the coronavirus, implementing the people’s priorities and making sure that the manifesto promises at the general election are delivered. He is governing in the national interest, delivering for the British people. As the Minister responsible for the civil service, I am pleased to be here in order to be able to uphold the ministerial code and to underline our thanks to our superb civil service for the work it does every day, implementing the manifesto commitments on which we were elected.
The Leader of the Opposition asks if this investigation is robust and fit for purpose. Of course it is. The ministerial code is absolutely clear, and the Cabinet Secretary, who polices it alongside the Prime Minister, also has access to Sir Alex Allan to ensure that every part of the ministerial code is adhered to. One of the things that is clear about this Government is that we believe that Ministers, special advisers and civil servants need to work together with confidence, with clarity and in a co-ordinated fashion to ensure that our priorities are delivered.
The Leader of the Opposition referred to media reports. I would have thought that he of all people would be wary of believing what he reads in the newspaper. We make no apology for having strong Ministers in place to ensure the effective delivery of public priorities. There is a stark contrast between the actions that the Home Secretary and her colleagues are taking to keep this country safe, and the danger in which our country would have been placed if he had won the general election and his approach towards national security had been followed.
The final thing that many will reflect on is that it is vitally important that all of us in this House uphold the highest standards of civility and respect for others. However, many people will look at the Opposition Front Bench and reflect on the fact that Labour MPs required armed police protection at their own party conference, and that the shadow Chancellor spoke of lynching Members of this House, and they will draw the conclusion that all of us need to reflect on the importance of restoring civility to public life before we throw around allegations like that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am expecting to run this urgent question for about 45 minutes.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am someone who strongly supports the work that the Home Secretary is doing to make sure we are secure and to have a new borders policy. Can the Government guarantee that this will be a quick process, so that we can get to an early answer and she can get on with the job?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend speaks for many in the country. The Home Secretary is doing a superb job. The new points-based immigration system is in line with what this country wants, and we want to make sure that this process is expedited in a fair way.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The circumstances surrounding the resignation at the weekend were unprecedented, although the Government seem to thrive on unprecedented circumstances. It seems that the Home Secretary may be trying to create a hostile environment inside the Home Office, as well as outside it. We in the House are all managers of staff, and every Member understands the rewards and challenges that brings. There is a world of difference between robust management and bullying, however, and only an independent investigation can establish which of the two has gone on. That is what the FDA union has called for, so why will the Government not agree to an independent investigation? What are they afraid of?
On the whereabouts of the Prime Minister, we know that in the past he was so afraid of the scrutiny of the House that he tried—unlawfully—to shut it down. Is he still afraid of the scrutiny of the House of Commons, or is he in hiding because we are about to lose another Cabinet Minister from one of the great offices of state?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for her question, and she knows that I have enormous respect and affection for the work she does. She is right to say that, as we are all managers of staff and public servants, we must be properly robust and exacting in ensuring that we do everything we can to deliver for those who put us here. All my ministerial colleagues know that their first responsibility is to the British people, and to delivering the manifesto on which we were elected.
The hon and learned Lady rightly said that it is important that any investigation is thorough, rapid, independent, and authoritative. The Cabinet Secretary will be leading the work in accordance with the ministerial code, and with access to the independent adviser, Sir Alex Allan, and that will ensure a proper and fair inquiry. On the presence of the Prime Minister, as I said earlier, the Prime Minister is determined to ensure that across Government we fulfil our manifesto pledges, and it is right for him to lead that work. As the Minister responsible for the civil service, it is appropriate that I am here answering these questions.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
How does my right hon. Friend think that Margaret Thatcher would have got on if she had been subjected to the same smears and sexism as have been used against the current iron lady in the Home Office?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We are all aware that progress in the past has depended on strong Ministers, and indeed strong Prime Ministers, setting exacting terms, but it has also depended on having a brilliant and able civil service that can act with confidence and provide candid advice. Those two important pillars of our constitution are at the heart of this Government’s operation.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Sir Philip Rutnam’s statement said that he received allegations about the Home Secretary’s behaviour from other civil servants. Will the Minister say how many allegations there have been, from both within and without the Home Office, and will every one be investigated as part of this inquiry?
Michael Gove
As the right hon. Lady will appreciate, it would be improper for me to go into individual personnel cases, but every legitimately raised complaint will, of course, be investigated.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
Anyone who has watched “Yes Minister” will know that profoundly felt differences of opinion can exist between civil servants on the one hand, and Ministers on the other. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, when a Minister or Secretary of State is implementing Government policy, that must prevail? Civil servants are crown servants and, as I am sure they would agree, they really do have to carry out the will of the people.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is right, and as I and my ministerial colleagues know, when implementing our manifesto commitments it is important that we are robust and clear about what is required, to ensure that we deliver for the British people. It is also true that the effective delivery of Government policy depends on candid advice from civil servants, and that relationship must therefore be one in which both sides respect each other’s particular responsibilities, as I know is the case across Government.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
The right hon. Gentleman will know that it has now been almost two years since the Windrush scandal. Do the allegations made in relation to the Home Secretary relate to the publication of that long-overdue report? Will this debacle, and the loss of the permanent secretary, mean that that report will now be delayed even longer?
Michael Gove
I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman has been a formidable and effective advocate on behalf of the Windrush generation, but it is important for me to state that I have no evidence that any of the allegations that may or may not have been made relate to the report. The report is being conducted entirely independently. I understand his anxiety, and the anxiety of many across the House, to see that report published as soon as possible. I know that that is the Government’s wish as well.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend take a small piece of advice from me and my family, who have given over 150 years’ work to the civil service of our great country? Civil servants give advice, and Ministers and Secretaries of State enact Government policy. The two should not get mixed up, so will he please give our support to our present Home Secretary?
Michael Gove
I am very, very grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been a superb Minister. Of course, she is absolutely right. The ethos of public service that she characterises is at the heart of our effective constitution.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
In all my many years in this House, eight of them as a Minister in the Government, I do not think I have ever seen such a resignation announcement from a permanent secretary: actively calling his Secretary of State a liar, accusing her of bullying in the most gross terms, and feeling he had no option but to do so publicly. Clearly, something here has gone extremely wrong and it surely threatens the independence of the civil service if this rot is allowed to continue. What is the Minister, who has responsibility for the civil service, going to do to protect the integrity of the civil service from these kinds of ad hominem political attacks?
Michael Gove
The hon. Lady was herself a distinguished Minister and I know how high was the regard in which she was held by her civil servants. I completely agree with her that it is vital that all of us seek to uphold the independence of the civil service. It is absolutely vital that the civil service is able to offer candid advice to Ministers. I know myself, having worked with the Home Secretary and others, that we have benefited from that candid advice in seeking to implement Government policy. However, I think it is also important to acknowledge that Sir Philip, a distinguished public servant, has indicated that he may initiate legal proceedings against the Government, so it would be inappropriate for me to say more about the particular statements he made on Saturday.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
I believe we have an excellent and dynamic Home Secretary who deserves our unwavering support. Does the Chancellor recall, just a few months ago, Labour MP after Labour MP going on the record publicly telling us about vicious bullying and antisemitism in the Labour party? Should not the Leader of the Opposition therefore remove the plank from his own eye?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. First, the Home Secretary is doing an outstanding job. Secondly, while the Labour party remains under investigation from the Equality and Human Rights Commission for some of the practices that have occurred under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), it is important that there is an appropriate sense of proportion and humility in his comments.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
If what the Minister has told us today is correct, then Philip Rutnam is being either severely misleading or widely mistaken. Which of those two is it?
Michael Gove
The first point I would make is that because Sir Philip has made a particular statement as a prequel to potential legal proceedings, it would be wrong for me to provide a commentary on his words. What I will say is that he is a distinguished public servant and I thank him for his service. It is also important for me to place on record my knowledge that the Home Secretary is an outstanding Home Secretary who deserves our support.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
What plans does my right hon. Friend have to reform the civil service to promote greater accountability?
Michael Gove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. It is vital that we first acknowledge that the civil service does an outstanding job. If one looks over recent months at, for example, how the Department for Transport dealt with the collapse of Thomas Cook or the response of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency to recent flooding, we see people going above and beyond to serve the public. But all of us can do better in every area. I look forward to working with the Cabinet Secretary and other leaders of the civil service to ensure that we can support the civil service to do even better in the future.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
The allegations of bullying on the part of a Cabinet Minister are incredibly serious. We all saw the breakdown of that relationship at the weekend and that requires an immediate investigation. However, the ministerial code also states that Ministers have
“a duty to give fair consideration and due weight to informed and impartial advice from civil servants”.
There are now reports of an alleged hitlist of senior civil servants whom No. 10 is seeking to replace for political reasons—a list that reportedly included Sir Philip Rutnam. That is clearly incompatible with that duty. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether such a list exists?
Michael Gove
No such list exists. It is the case that having worked with a variety of permanent secretaries and other senior civil servants across Departments, I have personally benefited from their robust—sometimes very robust—advice, and I have always been happy to come to this House to acknowledge when I have been wrong and others have been right.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)
Is it not the case that this all started with briefings from unknown sources against the Home Secretary, not the other way around? My constituents want fair immigration and fairness for the taxpayer. They want 20,000 more police on our streets. Does this not have the nasty whiff of an establishment who are trying to stop these policies?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a very important point. I suspect that many people watching our debates and knowing that we are discussing home affairs and the Home Office will be asking, “Why are MPs not concentrating on improving our migration system? Why are MPs not doing more to ensure that our police are supported in the fight against organised crime? Why are MPs not making sure that we take an even stronger stance against terrorism?” It is vitally important, of course, that the ministerial code is upheld and defended, but it is also vitally important, as he points out, that the Government deliver for the people on their manifesto promises.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I gently caution the Minister against his two central arguments: first, that a strong and exacting Minister can pretty much get away with anything, and secondly, that the Home Secretary is charming, so that is all fine. The truth of the matter and the experience in this House—and my personal experience when I was a Minister—is that the way bullying normally happens is that somebody one minute is extremely charming, praises you to high heaven, and then the next day humiliates you in front of staff and colleagues or behind your back. That is the nature of bullying and I urge the Minister not to dismiss all this talk of bullying, because too many people out in the country still get bullied.
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We do not dismiss any allegations or concerns about bullying. It is vitally important that Ministers, special advisers and civil servants all work together in an atmosphere of mutual respect. He is right that bullying can occur in any workplace and we must be vigilant about bullying behaviour, but I also say that simply because allegations have been raised or complaints have been made, it should not automatically be the case that people then, whether through trial by media or other means, attempt to besmirch the reputation of someone who is an outstanding public servant.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
The Home Secretary has been doing a fantastic job on child sexual exploitation and grooming gangs. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that Ministers will not find directions given to civil servants blocked or diverted?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend has done outstanding work in drawing attention to those issues, and it is the case that the work of the Home Office, its ministerial team and its superb civil servants goes on uninterrupted. One of the most important things that the Home Office can do is safeguard the most vulnerable in our society from the type of exploitation that she has so vigorously campaigned against.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
Of course there is a world of difference between having a difference of opinion with somebody and being shouted down or humiliated by that person. We have a situation where impartial civil servants may feel that they cannot operate in an impartial way. How will the Minister guarantee that they can continue to do the job that they are supposed to do when they are concerned that their advice may result in bullying or abuse?
Michael Gove
It is my experience, and the experience of my ministerial colleagues, that the civil service is clear that it can offer robust, impartial advice and provide counters from time to time to propositions that are put forward by Ministers, confident in the knowledge that we as Ministers respect the civil service for its independence and integrity. It is vitally important that anyone within public service who feels that the atmosphere in which they work is not conducive to that has the opportunity, which this Government provide, to make sure that their concerns are properly expressed and, if necessary, properly investigated.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned some press reports, but he never touched on the fact that the policies pursued by the Home Secretary were voted for overwhelmingly in December and are extremely popular. People voted for 20,000 extra police and a managed immigration system. Her real offence is that she has upset the Opposition and the establishment. Can my right hon. Friend guarantee, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) touched on, that this inquiry will have the necessary resources to be finished quickly so that our greatly respected Home Secretary can crack on and deliver the job we were voted in to do?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend, who was an outstanding Cabinet Minister, makes an important point. The comments from some—some—on the Opposition Benches suggest they are very happy when attention is shifted away from our focus on delivering our manifesto commitments, but we will not be diverted from delivering on those manifesto commitments, and the Home Secretary is committed to ensuring we do just that.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Is this not the honeymoon period for a new Government? In less than three months, the Government have lost a Chancellor and now the head of the Home Office. How does the Minister think things are going for the Government?
Michael Gove
It is probably fair to say that different people enjoy different types of honeymoon.
Michael Gove
A candidate for the deputy leadership of the Labour party, the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), invites me to go further than I would want to at this moment, but I shall not.
Michael Gove
On a more serious note, the vital thing that we all recognise is that all Governments face entirely understandable and legitimate media scrutiny, but the real test of any Government is not what may preoccupy commentary at any given moment, but the delivery of the people’s priorities, the keeping of manifesto pledges and making life better for the people of this country, and that is our relentless focus.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
I was a civil servant at three Departments. On the day of the Brexit referendum result, I was told at the Foreign Office by multiple senior civil servants that it was the wrong decision and that the people had got it wrong. Is it not right that sometimes, sadly, Ministers do need to be robust with civil servants to make sure the people’s priorities are always delivered?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is right. Of course, we will all have different opinions about the wisdom of particular policies as individual citizens, but as a Government we are united in delivering the manifesto on which we were elected. One of the strengths of our system of government is that the civil service works energetically and determinedly to ensure that the Government of day’s agenda is fulfilled. I am grateful to the civil servants with whom I and other Ministers work for being so dedicated to ensuring that the public’s wishes are followed.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Home Secretary herself has admitted that her
“actions fell below the high standards that are expected of a secretary of state”
and
“below the standards of transparency and openness that I have promoted and advocated.”
Of course, that was the last time she had to resign from the Cabinet—as International Development Secretary. What has changed since then? Given the Minister’s interest in the work of the Home Office, can he say who has replaced Shona Dunn as the second permanent secretary, given that person’s important role in dealing with the immigration system?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman refers to events in the past, but it is also fair to say that since then we have had a general election at which the public endorsed our clear manifesto commitments to an additional 20,000 police officers, a points-based immigration system and a tougher line on organised crime. We need tough and determined Ministers pushing that agenda, but we also need great civil servants, which is why I am so glad that Shona Dunn, with whom I have had the pleasure of working in the past, is now leading in the Home Office.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
As a general point, recruitment for several permanent secretary posts is either ongoing or imminent. What role do the Government envisage Secretaries of State playing in that recruitment process, and would that role necessitate any changes to the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010?
Michael Gove
There are well-laid-out procedures for the role of Secretaries of State in the appointment of permanent secretaries. We have a superb cadre of permanent secretaries and senior civil servants, who I know will maintain the very high standards that characterise the work of our civil service.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Is it Government policy to comply with the rulings of the courts?
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that what has traditionally been referred to as robust and forceful exchanges is too often routinely referred to as bullying nowadays, and that while there is no place for bullying within Government, effective government does need robust exchanges?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us consider Ministers who were successful in the past. No one would accuse Denis Healey, for example, of having been a shrinking violet when it came to ensuring that effect was given to the policies of the Labour Government of the day. However, it is also vital to acknowledge that in every workplace we must show respect to every individual and ensure that the people who work in the civil service are confident that their views are respected and their wellbeing safeguarded, and that is at the heart of everything that we do.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
May I ask the Minister what financial settlement was offered to Sir Philip Rutnam? What was the figure?
Michael Gove
It would be wrong for me to go into those details, given that Sir Philip—who was, as I mentioned earlier, a distinguished public servant—has indicated that he may initiate legal proceedings. I would not want to say, and I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want me to say, anything that would prejudice the appropriate conduct of those proceedings.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not the place of civil servants to choose their Secretaries of State, and that any attempt to do so is wrong?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The key—[Interruption.] I see no reason why, in a debate in which we are considering the importance of civility, people should attempt to criticise my hon. Friend for asking a fair and robust question. She has made a critically important point. It is Ministers who are publicly and electorally accountable. Ministers hold office as a result of a general election, and it is important that we respect the popular will and the popular mandate of any Government in making sure that the people’s priorities are delivered.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
Were any complaints received by Downing Street in respect of the conduct of the current Home Secretary when she was Secretary of State for International Development or when she was a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, and if so, were they investigated?
Michael Gove
The inquiry that is proceeding will look at all complaints that may have been made. I cannot say more than that.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
A huge number of people in North Cornwall and around the country want the Government to deliver on the people’s priorities. Is it not therefore right for Ministers to be tough and robust with their talented civil servants and officers to ensure that they can deliver on those priorities?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is vital for Ministers to be energetic and determined in pursuit of the manifesto commitments on which the Government were elected.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
As a former senior civil servant who served under various Ministers in both Labour and Conservative regimes, I find it hard to express how unprecedented the actions of Sir Philip Rutnam are. This is completely unheard of. Although the Minister will not comment on the specifics, will he at least accept that this is completely unprecedented? Does he also agree that there is a pattern of behaviour here, and that whether we are talking about the civil service, the BBC or the judiciary, this Government are more interested in picking fights than in doing the right thing for the country?
Michael Gove
With respect to the hon. Lady, who was a very distinguished civil servant, I disagree. The first thing to say is that because Sir Philip Rutnam has made it clear that he wishes to pursue a particular legal route, it would be wholly inappropriate for me to provide a commentary on his remarks. As for the hon. Lady’s broader point, absolutely not: far from being pugilistic, the Government are concentrating on delivering on their manifesto commitments.
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should not be distracted by fielding stones thrown from the glass house of the Opposition Front Bench, but should concentrate on delivering the points-based immigration system? Will he assure me that that will still happen, notwithstanding the issue that is before us today?
Michael Gove
It absolutely will. The Minister for Security has been working with other ministerial colleagues in the Home Office to ensure that that vital reform to our immigration system proceeds apace.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Despite all the bluster from his Back Benchers, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that all the talk of manifesto pledges and implementation of policies is no excuse for a Secretary of State or Minister to behave how they want or to bully and intimidate people? Also, can he confirm that the Government are not beholden to Dominic Cummings’ plans to disrupt and dismantle the entire civil service?
Michael Gove
I am not aware of any such plans. It is not bluster; it is an absolutely key democratic commitment to fulfil our manifesto pledges, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that everyone deserves to be treated with courtesy and civility in public life, and Ministers across Government are committed to just that.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
It is predictable, sadly, that the Leader of the Opposition should accuse those on this side of the House of bullying when he himself is in charge of a party that is rife with it, and I find it shaming that he has made that allegation. I am a friend and colleague of the Home Secretary, and I find this leaking, innuendo and smear unacceptable, as I am sure we all do in this House. Surely there must be an internal procedure to ensure that this is done behind closed doors. If there is evidence of bullying, fine. If there is not, the matter will have been dealt with. Can we please ensure that this is done quickly?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is vital that this investigation is concluded as quickly as possible in the interests of everyone involved, so that we can concentrate on ensuring that no justice is delayed, and no justice is denied.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Has the Home Secretary ever asked officials in her Department to act in breach of court rulings?
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that there seems to be a pattern involving the appointment of female Home Secretaries and vicious briefings against them in the media? Is it possible that some of these unelected men have a problem with taking instructions from powerful women?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. We are fortunate in this country to have had a succession of strong female Home Secretaries. Jacqui Smith, the former Member for Redditch; my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May); Amber Rudd, the former Member for Hastings and Rye; and now my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) have all been distinguished public servants. They all demonstrate the evidence that the job of Home Secretary is exacting, and we are lucky to have had four powerful and effective women performing that role.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that everyone has a duty to treat colleagues with respect, but that we ought not to take lectures from the Labour leadership on how to deal with bullying and harassment?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The experiences of Luciana Berger and Louise Ellman remind us all that the Labour party has a job to do to ensure that bullying is removed from its own ranks in order to improve the health of our democratic life.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
My right hon. Friend has acquitted himself well on the Front Bench in explaining the circumstances of this investigation. The Home Secretary has our full support in implementing our policies, but will my right hon. Friend remind the House whether there is an ongoing investigation into the leaks from the civil service about the Home Secretary?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is important that everyone in public life behaves with the maximum degree of civility, courtesy and consideration to others. It is also important, however, that confidentiality is respected during the robust discussions that take place between Ministers, special advisers and officials, and leaks are therefore to be deprecated.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
We on this side of the House are certainly not frit of strong women. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the demanding work between Ministers and officials is vital and that we could not begin to accomplish things and deliver people’s priorities without the fantastic minds of those in the civil service?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend gets the balance absolutely right. Effective government, whether by Conservative or Labour Prime Ministers, has been driven by having strong Ministers who are exacting and demanding, and by having robust and professional civil servants who provide impartial advice with full integrity.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that allegations, when made, are just allegations—allegations that must be carefully investigated—and that, at all costs, we must avoid any sense of a trial by media?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When there are briefings and counter-briefings, the most important thing is to ensure that the facts are established and that we, as a Government, uphold the highest standards in public life and ensure that the public whom we serve have the manifesto pledges they want to see implemented, implemented energetically and in full.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend rightly says that civil servants have the right to give good advice without fear or favour but, similarly, Ministers have the right to expect at least a modicum of competence from their civil servants in delivering on their policies. Too often, the reward for serial incompetence is an interdepartmental cha-cha to another role in another Department. If not in the ministerial code, will he assure me there are robust measures in place to hold civil servants to account more accountably?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Ministers are rightly accountable here at the Dispatch Box and, at general elections, at the ballot box. Our civil servants ensure that the policies on which we stand, and for which we stand, are delivered effectively but, as Ministers, we also need to do everything to ensure that civil servants are supported to provide the most efficient service possible. That work is ongoing, and the Cabinet Secretary and others are ensuring we do everything we can to make sure that civil servants have the support and the capacity required to be as efficient as possible.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
It may be a bit of my northern bias, but I know that what the media report on here in London does not necessarily reflect what people are talking about in my constituency of Bishop Auckland and, I am sure, in many constituencies represented by my hon. and right hon. Friends.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this issue should not become a distraction from delivering on our manifesto, which was overwhelmingly supported by our communities, and delivering a points-based immigration system and more police?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course it is important that, in Whitehall and Westminster, high standards are upheld by everyone involved in delivering for the public, but our most important duty is to make sure that the people of Bishop Auckland have the policies for which they voted implemented effectively.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend recall the stories of alleged phone throwing and shouting at officials by a former Prime Minister? Does he remember which party that former Prime Minister represented?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend invites me to go down memory lane, and the point he makes is a fair one. People who are dedicated to doing their best for the public have, in the past, occasionally shown a degree of exasperation. As we look back, we can learn from them and say that their commitment to public service was admirable but that we all need to make sure that we treat those with whom we work with appropriate respect.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend for the steps he is taking in tackling this head-on, but what does he intend to do, as part of his reforms to the civil service, to make sure that civil servants are accountable and are seen to be accountable?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Obviously, Ministers are directly accountable for the actions of their Department—that is the appropriate constitutional principle—but it is also right that we should work with the civil service to ensure that individuals of talent have an opportunity to contribute in every way. I am confident that the approach being taken by the Cabinet Secretary and others in the Cabinet Office to ensure we provide civil servants with all the support they need will ensure that the civil service is even better equipped in future to help us and, indeed, all future Governments to deliver.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Does my right hon Friend, like me, find it extraordinary that, at a time when uppermost in our constituents’ minds are an international virus that will cause chaos, our many homes that are under water and the important trade negotiations that are about to start, the priority of the Opposition is to raise the resignation of a public servant of whom most of our constituents have never heard? Having sat here for several years watching industrial-scale bullying from the Chair, through which they remained silent, they go into overdrive the minute the allegations involve a strong woman who does not curry favour with their stereotype.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend is clear sighted and robust in expressing his point of view, and I know that there will be many people who will thank him for being so candid.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
With the general election being so recent, the clear demand from the general public is to deliver on immigration and law and order. We on the Government Benches have got it. Is my right hon. Friend certain that the civil service—they are an excellent civil service—have also listened to the general public and will deliver on their priorities?
Michael Gove
One thing that I should say is that part of my role before the general election was to make sure that this country was prepared if we had to leave the European Union without a deal. Of course, we have secured a good deal and we have got Brexit done, but during that process I was consistently impressed by the energy and determination of civil servants in making sure that we were ready for any eventuality. Many of those same civil servants who worked tirelessly in the civil contingency secretariat at that time are also now engaged, having dealt with flooding, in work to make sure that we deal effectively with the threat of the coronavirus. We simply could not keep this country safe and its people healthy and secure without their work, and it is really important that we all remember how dedicated those individuals and their colleagues are.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
We are enormously blessed to have an independent and diligent civil service, but would my right hon. Friend join me in speculating that if the Home Secretary had asked her Department to release more criminals from prison early or check fewer entrants at our border, we might not be having this conversation today?
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend reminds us that the Home Secretary and, indeed, this whole Government were elected on the basis that we would take a tough line on law and order with a firm but fair migration policy, and making sure that that we implement those policies is absolutely critical.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
Whatever the Government do in relation to this matter, may I please have some reassurances that we will not take any lessons from the Labour party? When they were faced with allegations from their staff in relation to misconduct and antisemitism, they did nothing but fill the airwaves, undermining them, questioning their credibility and doing what some might call bullying them.
Michael Gove
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. It is absolutely vital that we all do everything we can to ensure that we treat other people with civility. I know that in the debate over the future of the Labour party, the regrets that have been expressed about how antisemitism had been dealt with will, I am sure, be addressed by the future leadership of the Labour party to ensure that that stain is wiped away.
Airport Expansion
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement on airport expansion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Kelly Tolhurst)
The Secretary of State is very sorry that he is unable to be in the Chamber today, but he is visiting the north, as part of a long-standing commitment, for discussions with northern leaders following the Government’s takeover of the Northern franchise. It is a pleasure to respond on his behalf as Minister for aviation.
Airport expansion is a core part of boosting our global connectivity and levelling up the UK. It is crucial that vital infrastructure projects, including airport expansion, drive the whole UK economy. This is a Government who support airport expansion, but we will only permit it within our environmental obligations. This Government have been clear that Heathrow expansion is a private sector project that must meet strict criteria on air quality, noise and climate change, as well as being privately financed, affordable, and delivered in the best interest of consumers.
Last week, the Court of Appeal ruled that the designation of the airports national policy statement did not take account of the Paris agreement, of non-CO2 emissions or of emissions post 2050, and therefore has no legal effect unless and until this Government carry out a review. This Government have taken the decision not to appeal the Court’s judgment. We take seriously our commitments on the environment and reducing carbon emissions. It is a complex and important judgment that the Government need time to consider carefully. At this stage the Government will not be able to make any further comment beyond what was set out in the written statement on 27 February from the Secretary of State for Transport. Following the judgment, scheme promoters have applied for permission to the Supreme Court to appeal this decision. The Government will not comment on an ongoing legal case.
Aviation will play a key role in leading our economic growth and driving forward the UK’s status as an outward-facing trading nation, attracting investment and growing our trade links with new overseas markets. Today, our airports support connections to more than 370 destinations, in more than 100 countries. Aviation drives trade, investment and tourism, contributing £14 billion to our economy and half a million jobs. The next decade will mark an unprecedented moment of opportunity for the UK. That is why we are investing in transport and infrastructure across the country: investing in our strategic road network; proceeding with HS2; and committing £5 billion of funding to improve bus and cycle services outside London.
Airport expansion is a core part of our commitment to global connectivity, but we are also a Government who are committed to a greener future, as the first major economy in the world to legislate for net zero emissions by 2050. This Government are therefore committed to working with the aviation sector to make sure we deliver on the opportunities available to us, while meeting our environmental commitments, be it on modernisation of our airspace, innovation in sustainable fuels, or research and technology. This will ensure a prosperous and sustainable future for the whole country, and the House will be updated on next steps as soon as possible.
Andy McDonald
I welcome the Minister to her place. Last week, the Court of Appeal ruled that the Government’s Heathrow expansion plan was unlawful as it failed to consider their Paris climate agreement commitments. I would like to thank those who fought the case, not the least of whom was the London Mayor, Sadiq Khan. That we must rely on environmental campaigners and the courts to protect us from illegal and environmentally destructive policies is clear evidence of the Government’s lack of real concern about the climate crisis.
The Court’s ruling was the right one. At the time of the Airports National Policy Statement, Labour warned that the plans would cause the UK to miss its climate targets. We said that the Government were failing to take account of their commitments and that this would result in legal challenges—we were dismissed, but we were right. Why did the then Transport Secretary fail to consider the Paris climate agreement in his plans for airport expansion? What legal advice did he receive? Was the advice flawed or simply ignored? The Government said that they will not appeal the decision but will focus on “overall airport expansion”. What does that mean?
If the Government accept the ruling, they should rule out airport expansion. It would be unacceptable to amend the national policy statement to include a reference to climate commitments while simultaneously paving the way for policies that will cause them to be missed. The Government should not hide behind the courts or industry; they must say what their policy now is. It is their NPS, not Heathrow airport’s. Will the Government indemnify Heathrow Airport Limited and its backers for their wasted investment if runway three does not go ahead? What are the implications for the Government’s planned almost £30 billion road building programme, which also fails to consider the UK’s climate commitments? Those plans will significantly worsen emissions, at a time when there is a legal requirement for them to fall. What legal advice has the Minister had as to whether those astronomically expensive and environmentally destructive plans are not similarly unlawful?
It is already clear that the Government’s transport policy of road building, cutting aviation tax and airport expansions, will put the UK even further off track to meet its climate targets. This is morally indefensible, and last week’s ruling means it is likely to be legally indefensible too. Will the Minister take this as a wake-up call, by ruling out climate-busting airport expansion; introducing a frequent flyer levy; and investing in public transport, electric vehicles and active travel? The future of the planet is at stake.
Kelly Tolhurst
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments about last week’s judgment, but I should point out that the Government were clear in our manifesto that the Heathrow expansion project was a private sector project and needed to meet the strict criteria on air quality, noise and climate change and to be privately financed in the best interests of consumers. Airport expansion is a core part of the Government’s commitment to global connectivity and investing in our infrastructure. We welcome the efforts of airports throughout the UK to come forward with ambitious proposals to invest in their infrastructure, under our wider policy of encouraging them to make the best use of their assets.
We want the UK to be the best place in the world and we are forming new trading relationships with the European Union and negotiating free trade deals around the world. Last week’s judgment is an important step in the process. Heathrow Ltd is obviously able to apply to the courts to appeal, but we take our environmental commitments seriously and they are important to how we reach our objective of net zero by 2050.
I highlight for the hon. Gentleman the fact that we are committed to the decarbonisation of aviation, as that is an important part of our efforts on climate change. That is why we are maintaining momentum by investing in aviation research and technology. We are investing £1.95 billion in aviation research and development between 2013 and 2026. In August last year we announced a joint £300 million fund, with industry involvement, for the Future Flight Challenge. We will introduce a Bill that will modernise the country’s airspace, reduce noise around airports and combat CO2 omissions.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the advice given to the Secretary of State. I understand that that advice may form part of one of the grounds of appeal of another party in the Supreme Court, so I am unable to comment while the proceedings are ongoing, but I will not take lectures from the Labour party when even Labour-supporting unions such as the GMB have called Labour’s plans “utterly unachievable”. As I have already outlined, airport expansion is a core part of the Government’s commitment to global connectivity and levelling up.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
There are many who take the view that big-ticket infrastructure projects such as Heathrow expansion will provide both the funding and the challenge to allow our scientists, engineers and innovators to deliver not only that project but similar infrastructure projects and market them around the world in places where they really do leave a big carbon footprint. The Minister has rightly said that this issue is a legal matter for the determination of the courts and a commercial matter for Heathrow; will she confirm that, if Heathrow is successful at the Supreme Court, the Government will not intervene to stop expansion occurring?
Kelly Tolhurst
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we do lead the way in technology and innovation in this country, which is why we are investing in aviation research and development. I assure him that the outcome of any Supreme Court ruling will be respected.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
In his letter to all MPs on Friday, the Secretary of State for Transport said that the Government lost in the Court “on only one aspect” and that that was climate change. That “only” suggests that he is kind of missing the point. The Government cannot argue that the development is private and that whether to appeal is therefore up to Heathrow, while at the same time saying that airport expansion is important to the Government. A key aspect of the ruling was that expansion did not comply with the Paris agreement, which is a Government responsibility. We know that there are splits in the Government over Heathrow; is it the Government’s plan to sit back, do nothing and let events take control of themselves, rather than actually having to make a decision?
Heathrow has its own net zero plans; have the Government reviewed those plans to see how realistic they are and how they comply with the Government’s net zero plans? The Government talk about decarbonising transport, but carbon-based aviation fuels are still duty free; how will that incentivise the use of biofuels and other carbon-reduction measures? If expansion goes ahead, what plans do the Government have to protect the extra slots for Scottish airports? Finally, when are we going to get a net zero plan that encompasses all of transport, including international aviation and international shipping?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that we lost the judgment on the one aspect of climate change, which was brought forward by Friends of the Earth and Plan B. It is true that the joint action by the Mayor of London, the five London boroughs that surround Heathrow and Greenpeace on the strategic environmental assessment and the impact on habitats was dismissed, as was the rival scheme from Heathrow Hub Limited. I have outlined to the House the Government’s commitment to decarbonise transport. We will issue our plans for decarbonisation across all modes of transport. As I have outlined, the global aviation emissions offsetting scheme, sustainable aviation fuels, greenhouse gas removal and, eventually, electric flights—the first such flight is expected later in the year—all show that this Government are committed to growing the UK economy and also to meeting our commitments as the first major economy to introduce the target of net zero by 2050.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. We have another half an hour to go on this urgent question, so I plead for short questions and brief answers.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend to her new position. It is a difficult job, and she is doing it very well at the Dispatch Box. A total of 40% of all exports outside the EU are dealt with at Heathrow airport. Any future trade deals depend on Heathrow expanding. Given that the UK Civil Aviation Authority already has a net-zero policy, does my hon. Friend agree that it is compatible for Heathrow airport to expand and for us to meet our net-zero targets?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for the support she has given me in this role in the Department for Transport. I also want to thank her for the work that she did during her two years as maritime Minister. She is absolutely right: airports are important not only for our economy, but for how we trade with the rest of the world. It is right to say that, obviously, the judgment took into account our concern over the Paris agreement, but it did not judge that airport expansion was incompatible with climate change.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Paragraph 285 of the judgment rightly stated:
“We have not decided…that there will be no third runway at Heathrow.”
As a Member whose constituency is dependent on jobs from Heathrow, I voted, on balance, to support expansion at Heathrow. Paragraph 285 goes on to state that
“the consequence of a decision is that the Government will now have the opportunity to reconsider the ANPS in accordance with the clear statutory requirements that Parliament has imposed.”
It seems to me that that should be the responsibility of Government. Therefore, aside from the appeal being progressed by the scheme’s promoters, what precisely is the reason that the Government are choosing not to do so?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Lady is quite right that the court’s judgment was not to determine whether a third runway should take place, so she is right on that point. The court’s judgment was based on the consideration of climate change in the Paris agreement. As she knows, and as I have already outlined at the Dispatch Box, the judgment ran to more than 100 pages. It is a complex judgment, which we are looking at and considering, and we will come forward with our next steps as soon as possible.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to her place. I support the expansion of Heathrow with the extra runway for the economic benefits that it brings, particularly to the north of England. I also strongly support the actions being taken in respect of our pledge on net zero by 2050, and I do not see the two as incompatible. Does my hon. Friend join me in welcoming the aviation industry’s plan for net zero by 2050 and does she commend Heathrow’s plan to play its part in that progress?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting that point and raising the profile of what the industry and sector wish to do. As I have said this afternoon, we are committed to achieving the net zero target, and aviation—indeed, all modes of transport—has an important part to play. As I have outlined, we will bring forward the transport decarbonisation plans and work with industry to make sure that we are able to achieve that.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
One of the reasons why I supported Heathrow expansion was the increased connectivity it would bring to regional airports such as Liverpool John Lennon and Manchester, and the associated jobs and business opportunities it would provide in places such as St Helens. Does the Minister understand the uncertainty and concern that these developments have caused in the north-west? Will she undertake to update political and business leaders there as well as in the rest of the country?
Kelly Tolhurst
I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are absolutely committed to increasing connectivity throughout the UK and levelling up and investing in infrastructure; that has been seen through our proposal for investment in roads and our rail network. As I mentioned, we are doing important work with our network of regional airports around the country. They are really rising to the challenge of their ambition: making the best use of the assets that they already have. I very much support that as the aviation Minister.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Businesses in the north of England—in places such as Scarborough and, indeed, Middlesbrough—are keen to play their part in delivering a global trading Britain. However, they are frustrated by the absence of slots into our main hub airport and have to use Schiphol, Paris or other airports. How does it help achieve our greenhouse gas emissions targets or get the best result for UK plc if they have to use foreign flights to Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle or Frankfurt?
Kelly Tolhurst
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to make sure that the whole UK benefits from economic prosperity, particularly in the north; that, hopefully, is what I will be working on in the coming months in this role. It is absolutely true: as I have said, will repeat and will keep repeating, airport expansion is a core part of our increasing UK connectivity —not just in the UK, but abroad.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
As a result of the judgment by the Court of Appeal, we now know that a third runway at Heathrow flies in the face of the Government’s climate change commitments. We know that a third runway at Heathrow and the associated emissions and noise will have a significant detrimental impact on the health and wellbeing of my long-suffering constituents in Twickenham, and many well beyond. We know from a New Economics Foundation report last week that expansion at Heathrow will actually take money and jobs out of the regions, which flies in the face of the Government’s levelling-up agenda. Is it not now high time that the Government revisited their national policy statement and ruled out not only a third runway at Heathrow once and for all but all other runways at other airports in the UK, given the impact on climate change?
Kelly Tolhurst
I am sorry that the hon. Lady is against our desire and ambition to make sure that prosperity and connectivity reach all parts of the UK, particularly given the importance of the south-east to the economy and being able to introduce the investments that we need in the north. As she outlined, we—this Government—are committed, under this Prime Minister, to make sure that we adhere to our environmental obligations. We have been clear that any expansion of Heathrow airport would need to meet the strict criteria around noise, climate change and pollution.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that regional connectivity, such as the connectivity from Teesside International, which was duly saved by Tees Valley Mayor Ben Houchen, is important? It is critical to levelling up and providing one nation government—a pledge that this Government were elected on. What steps is the Minister taking to achieve that?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the great work of our Teesside Mayor. The work that is being done to improve the economy up there is quite exciting; I look forward to visiting soon. In my new role as aviation Minister, I feel particularly passionate about connectivity around the country and levelling up. I am completely in line with the Prime Minister, and will be spending my time over the next months ensuring that we are able to push the boundaries and deliver on the ambitious target that we have set ourselves.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
This is embarrassing. The Government have to come off the fence on this issue. We know which side the Prime Minister would like to fall on; perhaps the Minister should follow his example. She just said that the ANPS is of no legal effect until the Government conduct their review. She must at least give us a timetable for that review, and tell us when we will get the decision so that we can put Heathrow out of its misery.
Kelly Tolhurst
As I have said, the judgment is over 100 pages long and is extremely complex. It is right that the Government take time to consider that and come back to the House with the next steps. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would not want a Government to make a quick decision on such an important topic.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that this decision does not reopen the prospect of a Thames estuary airport which, as she well knows, was very much opposed by colleagues and constituents in north Kent and south Essex?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour for raising this matter. She knows very well my position on the Thames estuary airport proposal—prior to being appointed Minister for aviation.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I am disappointed at the new hands-off approach to Heathrow expansion that the Minister has outlined today. It is vital for regional connectivity from airports such as Newcastle. As the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) said , stopping the expansion of Heathrow will not stop the expansion of Düsseldorf, Brussels or Amsterdam—exporting jobs and prosperity abroad, rather than actually affecting our own economy. When will the Minister publish the new airport strategy because, without Heathrow, the Government will be driving a cart and horses through the present strategy?
Kelly Tolhurst
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the decision was taken by the courts last week. We are analysing the complex judgment and will bring forward the next steps. I have been quite clear that airport expansion is a key part of levelling up and increasing the national economy. We are determined to deliver on investing in our infrastructure and aviation, and airport expansion is a part of that.
Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)
May I welcome the aviation Minister to her new role and wish her more luck in the job than I clearly had in it? Can she name a global metropolis city that has successfully operated a twin hub airport?
Kelly Tolhurst
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, with whom I have worked closely in other roles. I thank him for the work that he has done on this portfolio, and will look to him for advice and support. He is quite right that airport connectivity and hub capacity are important in the UK and beyond, and I will be taking a close look at that. I will also be looking to report back to the House on the next steps in relation to last week’s judgment.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
Many people will be bewildered and disappointed by the Government’s attitude towards the judges’ decision on this nationally important project, which is also important to places like Northern Ireland in terms of a hub for international connectivity. Given its importance, why are the Government not challenging this judicial interference in investment policy? Does the Minister not realise that by not doing so she is giving a green light to the environmental Luddites who will use the insidious Climate Change Act 2008 as a means to smash every major investment project in this country?
Kelly Tolhurst
The right hon. Gentleman will know that we have been very clear: the Heathrow expansion project was a private sector project financed privately and not at a cost to the taxpayer, but it had to be done in the best interests of consumers. We were clear within the ANPS that any proposal that was brought forward would need to meet the strict criteria with regard to noise, pollution and climate change. We understand that Heathrow Ltd will potentially appeal this decision. That is something for it to do, bearing in mind that this is a private sector project.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
May I congratulate the Minister on the way in which she is responding to the questions that have been asked? Does she recognise that it is innovation and technological advances that will help us to meet our climate change challenge? Does she further recognise that the expansion of Heathrow is a key plank of economic development opportunities on the western side of the UK?
Kelly Tolhurst
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct that the way in which we are able to reach our target of net zero is with technology and research, investing in that technology and research, and really backing industry leaders and the talented people we have within the aviation sector to develop these technologies that will help not only the UK but other countries to reach their emission reductions. Absolutely one of the things that I am most excited about is the potential of the first electric flight this year.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Last week, the New Economics Foundation released its report, “Baggage claim”, in which it found, using DFT aviation forecasts, that if runway 3 at Heathrow goes ahead, there will be 17 million fewer passengers departing from non-London airports and 27,000 jobs locating to London as a result of that expansion? Does the Minister agree that not expanding Heathrow is an opportunity to rebalance the north-south divide and to continue economic and transport support for non-London regions?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Lady will know that we are committed to delivering economic development and levelling up the whole of the UK. That is why we are already investing in our rail and our roads, particularly in the north, which is why the Secretary of State is unable to be here today to answer this urgent question. We are committed to airport expansion, as we believe that it is a core part of our plan. I will make sure that we are hopefully able to continue to deliver on that.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
The Minister will recognise that because of the court judgment there are huge amounts of uncertainty in places across the whole country in relation to their own airports and potential options for expansion. As somebody campaigning against the expansion of Luton airport, can I ask her to be very clear that any expansion of any regional airport in Luton or anywhere else must meet stringent environmental criteria on climate change, pollution and the rest? Will she make that point firmly at the Dispatch Box?
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
The Minister has talked about the Government’s ambitions, shall we say, to reach net zero, but they are way off meeting their targets, and we do not need communities that live near airports such as Heathrow to tell us about the environmental impact that it can have on their lives. Will she join me in paying tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who has campaigned on this issue on behalf of his constituents for a long time? Will she make an assessment of what implications the Court judgment on Heathrow might have for major road building projects?
Kelly Tolhurst
As I have outlined, we will look carefully at the complex judgment and bring forward next steps. I would like to highlight the fact that we will shortly introduce a Bill on the modernisation of the country’s airspace, with the objective of not only reducing noise around airports but combating CO2 emissions.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
This judgment will potentially simply export carbon emissions to our competitors, together with UK jobs and prosperity, and it is particularly bad news for the south-west. What analysis has the Minister done to determine whether regional airports—particularly Bristol airport—can now take up some of the potential that airport expansion offers?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He is right: regional airports and connectivity around the country are key to many parts of the UK, not just the north. I am from Kent, and we are blessed with many airports locally. I have a small airport in my constituency—Rochester airport—and I see how much such airports contribute to the local economy, enabling business growth and enabling people to get around the country and go abroad. In this role, I would like to assess regional capacity, to ensure that all parts of the UK benefit.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
However much Government Members might wish it were otherwise, there is no quick technological fix that will solve this problem. The Committee on Climate Change is really clear that zero-carbon aviation is “highly unlikely” to be feasible by 2050, which means that demand management and, indeed, demand reduction will be essential. Can the Minister set out what steps the Government will take to reduce aviation emissions by reducing the demand for flying—for example, by introducing a frequent flyer levy, which is a fair way of distributing the ability to fly?
Kelly Tolhurst
The hon. Lady will probably not be a stranger to the fact that this Government are investing in roads and rail, to increase connectivity. This Government have now pledged their commitment to HS2, which is why the Secretary of State is in the north. We have, of course, been carefully considering the advice of the Committee on Climate Change, but transport and the use of airlines by our consumers—our constituents—who want to travel around the country and globally is something that I am not prepared to put a curb on today.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
What is the Government’s policy on Gatwick airport?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I refer him to our policy statement. We will continue to look at airport expansion and connectivity throughout the UK.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
The Minister mentioned air quality and noise, which is a serious issue and health concern for residents in my constituency who happen to live under the flightpath of both London City airport and Heathrow. When will the Government introduce regulations to prohibit soundwaves from exceeding acceptable World Health Organisation limits?
Kelly Tolhurst
As the hon. Lady will have heard me say, we are committed to publishing a Bill on modernising our airspace, which we hope will tackle some of residents’ concerns about noise.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
This further delay will be a great disappointment to businesses in Cornwall, particularly as we are about to lose our current Heathrow slot. Does the Minister share my view that the expansion of Heathrow is essential to us achieving our global Britain ambitions, but that this is not the end for Heathrow, and it is right to appeal against this decision? Will she join me in wishing it well in that appeal and confirm that Government policy on Heathrow has not changed?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend for his absolute defence and representation of the south-west. He always talks about connectivity and about people in the south-west being able to move around the country. I have said a number of times at the Dispatch Box today that this Government are committed to airport expansion and levelling up. It is a core part of the Government’s commitment to delivering on our global connectivity and investing in our infrastructure, and also—and this is key—making sure that it can be delivered within our environmental obligations.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
May I wish the Minister well in her new position? I support a third runway at Heathrow, which can benefit the whole of the United Kingdom, and particularly Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister promised connectivity for all parts of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The tried and proven flight connections between Heathrow and Belfast City airport could do even better, boosting the economy and creating more jobs, and it is vital that they are built on. Can the Minister confirm that airports in Northern Ireland will not be disadvantaged because of this decision?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and he will know that my predecessor was able to make a number of visits to the airports in Northern Ireland. He will also know that, in my role in Government, I will always take into consideration Northern Ireland, and the concerns and wants of businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland, in how we develop the strategy.
Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)
I know that hand washing is now de rigueur, but that should hardly extend to the Government’s approach to their own NPS, approved by a large majority in this House, when the judgment addressed the narrow point that the NPS had not been assessed against commitments made by the Government in Paris. The Government’s desertion of Heathrow at this point is very bad news for early delivery of global Britain in reality, and it is very bad news for confidence in the whole of the Government’s commitment to their own national infrastructure plan.
Kelly Tolhurst
I understand my hon. Friend’s concern. I just want to reiterate that we are committed to airport expansion. We took the decision not to appeal, because it was a private sector delivery scheme, being privately financed. Of course, the instigators will be issuing an appeal. I understand his frustration, but it is right that any airport expansion or infrastructure project of this nature meets the key criteria for environmental protections. As I have already said, we are analysing the judgment and we will come forward with the next steps as soon as possible.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I very much welcome the Government’s commitment to levelling up our transport infrastructure across the country. Having given HS2 the green light, does the Minister agree with me that we now need to crack on with Northern Powerhouse Rail and the TransPennine rail upgrade going through my local town of Huddersfield? Does she agree that regional airports such as Manchester and Leeds Bradford airports also have important roles to play in global connectivity?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend, and he is absolutely right. He will note that the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who is the Minister responsible for Northern Powerhouse Rail and HS2, is sitting on the Front Bench and has heard his comments. Our recent announcements have been on our ambition for Northern Powerhouse Rail, High Speed 2, the A66 northern trans-Pennine link and the £5 billion of funding to improve bus and cycle services outside London. We are really proud and motivated to make sure that all of the UK benefits from the investment of this Government and that we do achieve such levelling up.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
The Minister has confirmed that the Government will give support to regional development and the expansion of regional airports, which I assume will include Carlisle Lake District airport. If the airport is to succeed—it has only been open for a year—it is going to need Government support and a degree of subsidy until it is fully established. Will the Minister give that support?
Kelly Tolhurst
I thank my hon. Friend, and I am very happy to meet him to discuss his newly formed airport. I very much look forward to watching that and working together to make sure that that regional airport is a success.
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) (Con)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. India and China have 320 new airports planned for the next 10 years, yet here we are once again with a continuing national debate about the expansion of just one. Is my hon. Friend aware of the potential of Manston airport on the border between the constituencies of North Thanet and South Thanet? It is spade-ready to deliver important aviation infrastructure for a new global Britain in the shortest possible time.
Kelly Tolhurst
As my hon. Friend is aware, I know Manston airport, and I know his passion for it, and that of his neighbours, regarding the ability of that small regional airport to come back on stream. He is right: regional airports, connectivity—everything that I have mentioned and spoken about today—are key to levelling up and to economic growth throughout the UK. This Government are determined to deliver and invest, and I am extremely excited to be part of how we deliver that in the future.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I welcome my hon. Friend to her place and wish her well in her new role. The last time that judges interfered with decisions made in this place, there was outrage. There is a strange muteness from the Government about this latest decision, despite a decision being made in this place, after many years, with four to one in favour of the extension going ahead. Can I persuade the Government to get on with this? We are leaving the EU, and we need this expansion for the economy and future prosperity of this country.
Kelly Tolhurst
My hon. Friend is correct. For us to be outfacing and truly global, we must ensure that our connectivity, transport and infrastructure is able to deliver not only on levelling up, but on playing a big part in our economic growth and trade with the rest of the world. This is an exciting time for the UK, with lots of ideas and ambitions. I assure my hon. Friend that we are determined to deliver on that, and ensure that airports are part of that solution.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) to ask her urgent question, it may be helpful to say that Mr Speaker has been advised that there will be a statement in the House tomorrow on coronavirus. This urgent question is very narrow, and relates only to the matter of prisoners held abroad.
British Citizens Imprisoned Overseas and Coronavirus
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British citizens who are imprisoned abroad in countries where coronavirus is spreading rapidly.
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will respond to this urgent question on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, who is travelling in the middle east.
Protecting British citizens at home and abroad is a top priority for the Government, and amid the outbreak of coronavirus, known as covid-19, the UK is leading the response. First, we are providing support to British citizens abroad, which includes travellers and their families in countries around the world. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is closely monitoring coronavirus throughout the world, through its diplomatic network. We are providing travel advice to British nationals, so that they can be sure of the facts before deciding whether to travel, and sure about what to do if they are affected by an outbreak of covid-19 while travelling.
The UK has introduced measures to ensure that travellers returning from abroad do not spread the virus further. We have put in place enhanced monitoring measures at UK airports, and health information is available at all international airports, ports, and train stations. We have established a supported isolation facility at Heathrow to cater for international passengers who are tested, and to maximise infection control and free-up NHS resources.
For British nationals caught up in the initial outbreaks of the virus, we have co-ordinated repatriation for those impacted in Wuhan, and passengers of the Diamond Princess cruise ship. We are working with the Spanish authorities and tour operators to support the return of British nationals affected by the situation in Tenerife.
We also continue to assist our British nationals who are detained in countries such as Iran, which has seen reports of a high number of cases of coronavirus. France, Germany and the United Kingdom have expressed their full solidarity with those impacted by covid-19 in Iran. We are offering Iran a comprehensive package of both material and financial support to stem the rapid spread of the disease. Today, a plane departed the UK with vital materials, such as equipment for laboratory tests, as well as other equipment including protective body suits and gloves.[Official Report, 4 March 2020, Vol. 672, c. 8MC.] The E3, namely the UK, France and Germany, has also committed to providing urgent additional financial support close to €5 million to fight the covid-19 epidemic affecting Iran. This will be through the World Health Organisation or other UN agencies.
We will continue to support global efforts to combat the outbreak of covid-19. Our support is directed to help the most vulnerable across the globe and to strengthen the global health system to protect our own nationals. We have provided £40 million investment into vaccine and virus research, and £5 million to the World Health Organisation. We will continue to do all we can to help to keep British nationals safe and healthy around the world.
Tulip Siddiq
I have raised the concerns about the health of my constituent Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe several times in the Chamber, but today the situation is potentially fatal. The prison in which Nazanin is being held hostage has reported cases of coronavirus. She is seriously ill and is displaying symptoms associated with the virus. Her family are desperately worried about her and, Madam Deputy Speaker, I do not blame them.
Coronavirus is spreading through Iran at an alarming rate, as the Minister has just said, and Iran has actually pulled some of its own prisoners out of jails. Britain is pulling its non-essential staff out of the Tehran embassy in Iran. Yet the Iranian authorities are point-blank refusing to test Nazanin for coronavirus or any other British citizens in their jails. The United Nations Human Rights Council has made it clear that, under both Iranian and international law, Iran must provide medical treatment to Nazanin and British citizens like Nazanin.
What representations has the Minister made to Iran to test Nazanin specifically for coronavirus and to provide the full results? What assurances can he give that any results given by the Iranians will be reliable? The key point is that if we leave British citizens in harm’s way for long enough, they will come to harm. The Government face important choices over Nazanin’s case in the coming months. They must do everything possible to secure her permanent release and bring her back home.
Bearing that in mind, what instructions has the Prime Minister given to departmental and Government lawyers to resolve the debt that Britain owes to Iran? I read with interest the Iranian ambassador’s comments this afternoon about co-ordinating with British authorities to purchase urgent medical items—the Minister referred to that in his answer. Will he set out what humanitarian supplies the UK is providing to Iran to help it to tackle its growing public health crisis? Was my constituent’s potentially fatal medical condition mentioned in negotiations?
Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s life hangs in the balance. I urge the Government to act and to act now.
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady is right to raise this case. Things may have moved on a little bit today in terms of the testing with Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. The hon. Lady will appreciate that we are unable to comment on any medical assessments without the permission of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe. We are in touch, and have been in touch today, with her husband. I can assure the hon. Lady that we are in close contact with the Iranian authorities to urge them to secure a temporary release for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe on medical grounds. We clearly do not think she should be in prison in Iran in the first place.
The hon. Lady referred to the debt. We do not share the view that the IMS—International Military Services—debt, or any other bilateral issue, is the reason for Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s detention. We expect Iran to live up to its responsibilities under international human rights law and the Vienna convention on consular relations, and to release Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and all other dual nationals that are in Iran.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I know that the whole House will be thinking about the British diplomatic staff in Tehran. What they are doing now is a reminder that it is not just the military, but our diplomats, who put themselves in harm’s way in the national interest, and we are all very grateful to them for that.
Does not what is happening now highlight the moral bankruptcy of Iran’s position? It has taken a British citizen hostage and put her in jail completely wrongly, where she is then subject to catching, potentially, a very dangerous disease. My simple question is, has the Prime Minister called the President of Iran to make representations that Nazanin should be tested alongside the other dual nationals in Evin prison, or has the Foreign Secretary called his counterpart in Iran to insist on that happening? If they have not, it is absolutely essential that they do.
Nigel Adams
My right hon. Friend makes a fair point, which I agree with. On the point about our consular staff, we reduced the number of staff at the embassy in Tehran on 1 March. Some staff were temporarily withdrawn due to the ongoing outbreak, but essential staff needed to continue this critical work will remain. I assure him that we have been engaging—today, in fact—with the deputy Foreign Minister and that our ambassador is working on behalf of all our dual nationals in that country.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Thank you for granting this urgent question, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for applying for it.
In the short time that I have, I want to make a heartfelt plea to the Government of Iran. We all have long memories in this House, and if I was to mention certain Iranian place names, such as Manjil, Rudbar or Bam, they would conjure up images of people diligently digging through rubble, searching for surviving earthquake victims. Among them were British firefighters, doctors and aid workers, supported by donations from the British people. They were all desperate to do their bit and were moved by nothing but mercy and love for their Iranian brothers and sisters. They never stopped to think about politics, sanctions or diplomacy; they just saw a humanitarian need and acted—acted on the common bonds of kindness and compassion that unite our two peoples.
When we address Tehran today, we can only ask it to do the same. For once, do not see Nazanin as a political football. Do not see Nazanin as a bargaining chip. Instead, see Nazanin the way the rest of the world does, particularly facing this new and terrifying threat to her health. See Nazanin as the loving mother desperate to get back to Gabriella. See Nazanin as the devoted wife in need of Richard’s care. See Nazanin as we saw those innocent people lying helpless in the rubble of a humanitarian crisis. You today have it in your gift to save her. Nazanin does not deserve this fresh suffering. She deserves only to come home today.
I hope that the Minister will join me in that plea and make a solemn commitment that if Tehran acts with compassion and generosity today, we will not forget our obligations to act with fairness and justice in resolving the other issues of dispute between our two countries.
Nigel Adams
The right hon. Lady makes a very heartfelt plea, which Government Members will find it difficult to disagree with. It is important that we continue the dialogue. That is incredibly difficult because the Iranian authorities do not recognise Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s dual nationality, so we do not get full consular access, but I assure the right hon. Lady that we continue to lobby on behalf of Nazanin and all other dual nationals. In a spirit of cordiality, I agree with everything that the right hon. Lady said.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I, too, welcome the words of the shadow Foreign Secretary, who is right to talk about Nazanin being a mother and wife, not a political football, but could we not extend that to the Iranian people, who for too long have been the victims of this tyranny and in many instances incarcerated by these theocratic despots, much like Nazanin? Would this not be a good moment for Her Majesty’s Government to reach out and offer assistance and care to the ordinary people of Iran? We have seen the deputy Health Minister in Iran fall ill with coronavirus and the Ayatollah’s chief medical adviser allegedly die of it. Surely this is the moment for the UK to reach out and say, “We are with the Iranian people, and always have been, and they will always be our friends.”
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee makes a very good point in the best of terms. He will no doubt have been encouraged by what I said in my answer to the urgent question about how, alongside France and Germany—the E3—we are providing almost €5 million of support directly to the people of Iran. From the UK, that means up to £2 million of financial aid and funding for technical expertise to UN agencies. I am very glad he would support that.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I commend the Minister on the statement outlining the international efforts the United Kingdom is taking part in to combat this outbreak —now is the time for us all to work across party boundaries and international borders—but can I reiterate the question about Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe? Will he respond to the question about the Prime Minister’s involvement? Will he reassure the House that he will urge the Prime Minister, if he has not done so already, to intervene in her case directly to make up for his earlier interventions?
Nigel Adams
As I just explained, it is very difficult when the Iranian authorities do not recognise dual nationality. The Prime Minister has met Nazanin’s family, as the hon. Gentleman will know, but we do not have full consular access; we use our people on the ground instead. The ambassador and the staff there are doing a fantastic job in trying circumstances. We are intervening: not only have we spoken to Mr Ratcliffe today—the Foreign Office is in regular contact with the family—but we have made very strong representations today on behalf of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe stating that she should get the right treatment and indeed be released from that prison.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) is right to raise the plight of her constituent and other dual nationals wrongfully detained in Evin prison. Can the Minister say how the welcome €5 million pledged by the E3 will be spent and indicate whether the authorities in Tehran are prepared to accept it?
Nigel Adams
I can. I know that my right hon. Friend and former holder of my post takes a keen interest in this area. We are offering Iran a comprehensive package of material and financial support to halt and combat the rapid spread of this disease, and this support is being delivered through the World Health Organisation and the UN. I am pleased to report that I understand that the Iranian ambassador to the UK has tweeted his support for our support.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for asking this urgent question and for the great support she has shown to the family. Is the Minister aware of how many dual UK-Iran nationals there are in Iran and in Iranian jails, and whether any of them have compromised immune systems? I know that is very technical, but it does matter. Could he also give any advice to dual nationals or UK citizens in Iran about how they should go about contacting consular staff if they are concerned?
Nigel Adams
I am not in a position to the give the hon. Lady those full details, as she will appreciate; it is certainly not right for any Minister to comment on anybody’s medical situation. I can say, however, that our consulate in Iran is there and able to telephone and email. I hope people have access to the internet. We have a team there and they are very much prepared to help. We are also offering help to dual nationals in the UK and advising Iranian-British dual nationals not to travel to Iran. That is a bit of advice we have updated in recent days.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I underline the positive suggestion made by the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat)? We have a very large overseas aid budget. Surely the foreign affairs ministerial team should see this as an opportunity to offer practical medical assistance to the country, and, in so doing, improve the relationship, with beneficial consequences for the prisoners who are being held, justifiably or, more probably, not.
Nigel Adams
My right hon. Friend has made a fair point. We are doing an awful lot in terms of support. As I said in my statement, we have provided £45 million in aid thus far, on top of the €5 million through the E3. We are taking our responsibilities very seriously. The sheer fact that the ambassador has reached out in the way that he has is very encouraging.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Even allowing for probable under-reporting, the rate of death from coronavirus in Iran is probably the worst in the world, currently running at about 7%. Of course, our concerns are primarily with Nazanin and her family, but they must surely reach all the people of Iran as well. In expressing those concerns and in seeking to find a way to bring those people some relief, will the Minister undertake to work not just through the normal channels of diplomacy, directly and bilaterally, but with our many other friends in the Gulf region who are well suited and well placed to assist?
Nigel Adams
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I am sure that, as the Foreign Secretary continues his travels in the Gulf this week, the question of how Iran’s neighbours, along with us, can provide that support will be very much on the agenda.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
Can my hon. Friend confirm that, while dealing with Nazanin’s case, Her Majesty’s Government will continue to advocate the release of all our dual nationals detained by Iran? Will he also update the House on the welfare and security of Her Majesty’s ambassador, and of all Crown servants and other British embassy staff and their dependants who are in Tehran?
Nigel Adams
As I mentioned in my statement, we have reduced the number of staff in our embassy in Tehran. That was a precautionary but very much a temporary measure. Our essential staff will continue to do their critical work, and they will remain in post.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I am sure the Minister will agree that this coronavirus is a dreadful thing. It will probably come here much more than it is doing at present, but the people of Iran are suffering greatly, and we should do everything that we can for them during this crisis because that is the right thing to do—not as a quid pro quo, but in building a better relationship with Iran. Will he please push this as hard as he can? We want to be generous to the Iranian people, and to rebuild trust with that nation.
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman is spot on. That is exactly what we want to do, and it is why we have reached out with assistance today, alongside France and Germany. At a time of global crisis such as this, it is incredibly important for countries to come together to support the most vulnerable. Given the number of cases and the number of deaths experienced by Iran, we will of course take that into consideration, and that is why we are offering our support.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
May I associate myself with the comments of the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry)? Using mothers as political footballs is rarely a good look, but she finds herself in a difficult position, in part because of the failure of some of the medical staff and the overview that the Iranian Government have. Does the Minister agree that Professor Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer, and his team have done the most wonderful job since before Christmas, and we should be very grateful that we have them as part of the British association?
Nigel Adams
Indeed so. This is the most challenging health issue that this country—and in fact the world—has faced for as long as I have been in this House, and the pressure on our chief medical officers and all our professionals must be immense. But, having attended the Cobra meeting this morning, I can say that we are very well served by some absolutely professional, superb civil servants.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
What reassurance can the Minister give me that my constituent, an employee of the British Council, which is part of the Foreign Office, will have care that is just as good as that of anyone else in Evin prison? I commend the fact that the Government have given extra money to the international effort to tackle coronavirus.
Nigel Adams
I can absolutely give the hon. Lady that assurance. We are aware of the additional number of dual-national prisoners, including the constituent to whom she refers, who was an employee of the British Council.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
I am sure the Minister will agree that a huge part of containing the virus internationally is quick decision making at the Foreign Office, so what organisational changes has he made at the Foreign Office to monitor and protect British nationals overseas who are at risk of getting coronavirus, and to act quickly once they are identified?
Nigel Adams
The Foreign Office has not been slow to respond to this threat. I can assure my hon. Friend that the crisis response team, which is headquartered in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has been working round the clock with our teams and embassies throughout the world. We are providing consular assistance to British nationals affected in areas that have the virus and, crucially, we are working with our partners across the world to co-ordinate those responses.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
May I first commend my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for securing this urgent question today and for her persistence on behalf of her constituent? I also want to ask the Minister what direct briefings he has had from the Department of Health and Social Care about the advice that it has been able to give to British citizens who are imprisoned abroad on how to protect themselves from contracting coronavirus.
Nigel Adams
When prisoners abroad fall under the jurisdictions of the countries where they are, our embassies and our consular network stand ready to give support to those who are imprisoned. It is important that we keep up that dialogue. It is irrelevant whether the people in prison are British nationals or otherwise; they are still entitled to support, should they request it, and in some cases they have been requesting it.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
There have been great concerns about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s health over the years. Could the Minister just tell us: when was the last time the Government specifically asked for her release on humanitarian grounds?
Nigel Adams
Those requests happen on a regular basis, I can assure the hon. Gentleman. Given the concern over the potential health of Nazanin, we have been asking for her to be released on medical grounds, but the point remains that we do not believe she should be there in the first place, and she should be released forthwith.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
What assessment has the Minister made of the sanitary conditions inside Iranian prisons, including Evin prison, where Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is being held at the moment?
Nigel Adams
As the hon. Lady will appreciate, it is impossible for consular staff to gain access to the prison. We are in contact with Nazanin’s family and the families of other detainees at Evin prison, so we get reports back from the families and they provide incredibly useful intelligence when we are making our representations to Foreign Ministers from Iran.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Considering the serious nature of the outbreak of coronavirus and the deterioration of the health of my constituent, Mr Ashoori, who will soon turn 66, what will the Government’s response be, should there be a serious risk to his health because of coronavirus and to the health of other British nationals because of this outbreak?
Nigel Adams
I am not sure that I picked up where the hon. Lady’s constituent is imprisoned.
Nigel Adams
As I mentioned previously, we continue to have dialogue with the Iranian authorities. We have been speaking with them today. Under any international rules system, prisoners should be afforded the best possible treatment. We are in constant contact with the Iranian authorities and I can assure the hon. Lady that her constituent will be getting equal attention in terms of our consular efforts.
UK-US Trade Deal
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
Today, we are publishing a suite of documents that mark a crucial step in beginning the formal negotiations for a free-trade agreement with our largest bilateral trading partner, the United States. These documents comprise the Government’s negotiating objectives, our response to the public consultation and an economic scoping assessment. They are available online and in the House of Commons Library.
The UK stands at an historic moment, building its independent trade policy for the first time in almost half a century. This Government will seize the opportunity to be an independent free trading nation with a simple message: that free trade is good for all nations and will deliver benefits for businesses, households and consumers across the UK. We aim to have 80% of UK trade covered by free trade agreements within three years, starting with the EU, the US, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Seeking these agreements is key to our efforts to level up, deliver opportunity and unleash the potential of every part of the United Kingdom.
The US is one of our largest friends, the world’s largest economy, our closest security and defence partner and one of our oldest allies. We are the biggest investors in each other’s economies. An FTA represents a fantastic opportunity to strengthen and deepen our strong trade, investment and economic relationship, bringing us closer to the world’s economic powerhouse. In 2017, 1.7 million people worked for US companies in the UK, and 1.3 million people worked for UK companies in the US. UK-US total trade was valued at £221 billion last year, representing 19.8 % of all our exports. An ambitious free-trade agreement with the US could deliver a £15.3 billion increase in bilateral trade and a £3.4 billion lift to the economy.
The negotiating objectives we are publishing today are underpinned by one of the largest consultations ever undertaken. We received the views of more than 150,000 respondents, all of which have informed our approach and negotiating objectives. We have scaled up our trade negotiator expertise, with a similar size of team to the US Trade Representative, including a wealth of experience from the private sector, trade law, Commonwealth nations and World Trade Organisation experts ready to deliver for the UK.
My Department’s analysis shows that every single part of the UK could benefit from the US deal, delivering improved access for businesses, more investment, better jobs and higher wages. For Scotland, it could lock in the salmon and whisky trade and support new market access for beef and lamb. Wales stands to gain access for its lamb, and reduced tariffs in red tape for steel and ceramics. Northern Ireland can benefit from improved access to agriculture and furniture tariffs. Every region in England stands to benefit, particularly the midlands and the north-east with their strong manufacturing base in cars and machinery. We also expect significant gains in the tech sector across the country, with a bespoke digital and data agreement.
North, east, south and west, from agriculture to the creative industries, we find that a US trade deal can deliver for all parts of the UK economy. It means more choice for consumers at lower prices, new opportunities for businesses and more high-skilled jobs. It has the potential to slash trade barriers and tariffs of some £451 million, and it could boost British workers’ wages by £1.8 billion.
Small and medium-sized businesses are increasingly international traders in their own right. In 2018, 97% of goods exporters were SMEs, and 30,000 SMEs across the UK already trade with the US. We are going to make it a priority in these trade negotiations to support UK SMEs. We will do that with a dedicated chapter for SMEs. We will ensure that SMEs have easy access to information, and we will make sure that there are SME-friendly provisions, cutting red tape on customs and tariffs in services and goods.
We are also looking to rewrite the game on digital trade, to create a world-leading ecosystem that supports businesses of all sizes across the UK. This could include provisions that facilitate the free flow of data and prevent unjustified data localisation requirements, while maintaining our ability to protect users against online harm. We can ensure that customs duties are not imposed on electronic transmissions, and create great opportunities in areas such as blockchain, driverless cars and quantum technology.
In these trade talks, as in all future trade talks, this Government will drive a hard bargain on behalf of the British people. The NHS, the price it pays for drugs and its services are not for sale. There will be no compromise on high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. Throughout these negotiations, this Government will continue to engage collaboratively with Parliament, the devolved Administrations and the public. I can also assure the House that now that the UK is free to negotiate outside the EU, we will be aiming to begin negotiations with the US as quickly as possible. The appetite is clear on both sides. We welcomed the US Government’s negotiating objectives, particularly on developing “state-of-the-art” provisions in financial services and digital trade. We also welcome the enthusiasm, both in the US Congress and in the US Administration, as was made clear during my discussions with the US Trade Representative, Robert Lighthizer, last week. We see this as not just an opportunity to deepen our bilateral trade and investment relationship; it is also about setting an example to the world, about how two leading, open, free-market democracies can trade with each other.
As an independent trading nation, the UK will champion free trade and lower trade barriers at every opportunity. Striking free trade agreements will give our businesses the opportunities, certainty and security they need to prosper. The greatest opportunity to do that is with our closest ally and largest single trading partner, the United States. We have a mandate and we have the team. With these documents we are publishing today, we have the tools. And with hard work, I believe we can get it done. I commend this statement to the House.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
May I thank the Secretary of State for early sight of her statement? We on this side of the House support ambitious trade agreements that unlock economic growth, create new jobs, and elevate rights and standards, so I congratulate her and her officials on the publication of today’s negotiating mandate for the Government’s flagship post-Brexit trade agreement. A year after the US equivalent, it has been greatly anticipated.
Some 20% of our current trade is with the US. It is our second biggest market, and we have enjoyed decades of two-way trade without an underlying trade agreement. The Government predict GDP growth of 0.07% to 0.16%, or £1.6 billion to £3.4 billion, as a result of this agreement. To put that in context, the Government’s own figures suggest a fall in GDP of about £150 billion as a result of the type of trade deal being proposed with the EU. Would it not be sensible to prioritise minimising losses of £150 billion, rather than chasing much smaller gains of £2 billion to £3 billion? How much will be added to GDP by the trade agreements with Japan, Australia and New Zealand, to which the Secretary of State referred? Will she confirm that countries on the other side of the Atlantic or further afield simply cannot come close to replacing what will be lost in the type of trade deal being proposed with the EU?
The negotiating objectives contain references to a level playing field with the US and a commitment to prevent either side from enjoying an artificial advantage—a commitment not being offered to the EU. Does the Secretary of State believe that the EU has not noticed? Or does she think the EU does not have access to translators? Dispute mechanisms are used by the US in international trade agreements to enforce its standards as a matter of course. It is noticeable that the EU negotiating objectives specifically exclude environmental protections and workers’ rights from the proposed dispute mechanism, but no such exclusions have been set out in the objectives published today, so will the UK end up having to back down, or are the rights and protections really the red lines that the Secretary of State would have us believe? Will she insist that the US signs up to International Labour Organisation conventions? How will the agreement reinforce the UK’s commitment to net zero by 2050?
The Chancellor’s adviser said yesterday that we do not need a farming industry or a fishing industry; who should we believe—the Chancellor’s adviser or the Secretary of State? The Government say that they will not allow chlorine or acid-washed chicken—processes used only because of insanitary conditions in the United States—but they also say that such produce is safe; which of those is the Government’s position? Will they make the necessary commitments in law to protect our consumers by adding them to the Agriculture Bill?
The US trade representative says that the US will demand greater market access for US pharmaceutical businesses, which could drive up the cost of medicines. Meanwhile, the provisions of trade agreements can apply inadvertently to public services and lock in privatisation measures, against public concerns and the public interest. Will the Secretary of State confirm that she will ensure that explicit wording rules out liberalisation measures from applying to our NHS and to all public services?
The mandate published today appears mainly to be about tariffs; mucking about with tariffs does not constitute an international trade agreement. The current round of trade tariffs has damaged leading British exports, including Scotch whisky, and caused great concerns in our ceramics and steel sectors. The Government have already spelled out their plans to drop tariffs to zero; where is the incentive for the United States to do the same? What is to stop them walking away from a deal because we have given them everything that they want without the need for an agreement?
The Secretary of State mentioned Congress, so on the subject of scrutiny she must recognise that her statement does not constitute adequate parliamentary engagement on this process. Will she tell NHS patients, farmers, manufacturers, consumers and workers just how she intends to enable scrutiny of this and all other international trade agreements?
Elizabeth Truss
I am pleased that the Opposition have acknowledged that there is value in trade deals and, indeed, in a trade deal with the US, because previously many of them have voted against trade deals with Canada and Japan. It is hard to understand who they actually want to do any business with.
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about the trade arrangements with the EU; the simple answer is that we want a good trade deal with the EU and a good trade deal with the US. That is absolutely possible. Canada has an excellent trade deal with the EU and we want similar terms to it, and it also has a very good trade deal with the US, with an advanced digital chapter. It should be perfectly possible for us to seek such an arrangement that enables us to unlock the economic benefits of a deal with the US.
It takes a party with the economic literacy of the current Labour party to think that £15.3 billion of additional trade is not worth having. Why does the hon. Gentleman not tell that to the people of Stoke-on-Trent and the ceramics factories that could benefit? Why does he not say that to the midlands car manufacturers who want easier testing procedures? Why does he not say that to the people of Scotland, which is one of the regions that would benefit most from a free trade deal with the United States? The hon. Gentleman asked me about the other deals that we are seeking—[Interruption.] Does he want to hear the answer to the next bit? He asked me about the other deals that we are working on at the moment. I will, in due course, be laying out our proposals for a deal with Japan, Australia and New Zealand. I can assure him that we will be publishing the full economic scoping studies, as we have for the United States, and we will be publishing objectives for those arrangements as well, in line with the commitments that we have made to Parliament. I am fully committed to working with Parliament on these arrangements. Of course, a treaty is an Executive prerogative, but, at the same time I will be working with the International Trade Committee and making sure that we have proper scrutiny. We have been working with the devolved Administrations. My right hon. Friend the Minister for trade policy has had regular meetings with his colleagues in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales.
The hon. Gentleman does not seem to have heard what I said about food standards and animal welfare. We will not be diminishing or lowering our standards as part of a US trade deal, and we will not be paying more for drugs prices in the NHS. That is clearly laid out in our objectives for everyone to read. Were the US to demand that—I do not believe that that will be the case—we will simply walk away. As he pointed out, we are already trading well with the US. If we do not get what we want from this agreement, we will walk away.
Finally, I want to make a point about British agriculture. As a former Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I am a great believer in the fantastic products that we produce in this country. I believe that they should be available in more countries around the world. I want UK beef and lamb to be on US shelves. I want the tariffs on dairy products, which can be as high as 18%—[Interruption.] Indeed, on cheese products as well. I want those tariffs to be lowered so that we can get more of our fantastic products into the US market. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads today’s scoping assessment, which shows that UK agriculture will benefit economically from a trade deal with the US.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her statement. Will she confirm not only that UK exports to the United States currently attract half a billion pounds-worth of tariffs, the removal of which will be an immediate boost to the UK economy, but that the opportunities are even greater? We are currently involved in retaliatory tariffs as a result of the EU-US steel dispute and we are subject to tariffs that the US never wanted to apply to the UK. As we separate ourselves from the European Union, we can remove ourselves from the ensnarement of that, which will enable us to remove many other tariffs, which would be beneficial to both consumers and businesses on both sides of the Atlantic.
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. May I thank him for the work that he put in as Trade Secretary, which has got us to this point where we are able to launch these negotiating objectives, and for doing all the fantastic work that he did with our colleagues in the United States? I know the Labour party does not seem to think that tariffs are important, but that is not so for a pottery manufacturer in Stoke-on-Trent who is facing 28% tariffs on their dinnerware going into the US. If we get those tariffs removed, that will mean that that factory is able to employ more people, grow its business and invest. Yet again, that is the Labour party refusing to understand how enterprise works and where wealth comes from in this country.
My right hon. Friend is right about the steel industry. It is currently facing £300 million-worth of tariffs a year. If we can get those tariffs removed, that provides a brilliant opportunity for our steel industry to sell more products in the United States.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I thank the Minister for her statement and early sight of it. It is true that the analysis published today, which forms part of these documents, does provide some very useful information. It tells us that the maximum tariff reduction will be less than half a billion pounds, that the maximum increase in UK GDP would be 0.16%, that the maximum increase in gross value added for Scotland would be less than half a per cent—0.4%—and that, in the long-run, financial services GVA might actually go down. Yet in order to achieve these decidedly underwhelming targets, the UK will have to leave the European Union, surrender around 5% of GDP growth, and risk around 20% of UK global trade.
More worryingly, a pattern is emerging in the UK’s approach to trade negotiations. In the document on the future relationship with the EU, the UK seeks to exclude subsidies, competition policy, and environmental, tax and labour provisions from any dispute resolution mechanism. In today’s UK-US public negotiating objectives —only four pages of the total published today—there is limited reference to competition, labour and environment provision, nothing on subsidy or tax, and a single vague bullet point on dispute resolution that would enforce the level playing field and avoid the race to the bottom.
Apart from the environment, the Secretary of State mentioned none of those things in her statement. Let me ask her this: why are the UK Government giving the impression of abandoning level playing field provisions across so many aspects of modern trade deals? Why are they giving the impression that they are in favour of a wild west free-for-all in trade rather than a comprehensive rules-based system with a comprehensive dispute resolution mechanism? Why are they prepared to sacrifice so much in terms of global UK trade and GDP growth to secure what, by their own admission, are very, very modest gains indeed?
Elizabeth Truss
I have news for the hon. Gentleman: we have already left the European Union, although the news might not have reached him.
Scotland is one of the largest potential beneficiaries of a US-UK free trade agreement. The hon. Gentleman sniffs at the half a billion pound extra value added to the Scottish economy that is analysed, but a number of Scottish businesses are supportive, including the Scottish chamber of commerce. I suggest that he listens, as we have been doing, to businesses in Scotland about how they can see their businesses grow.
The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned standards. In free trade agreements, including in the comprehensive and economic trade agreement, or CETA, there are often clauses saying that the parties will not deliberately lower standards for competitive advantage. That is what we are referring to in our US negotiating objectives and it is a perfectly proper and regular part of free trade agreements that we are happy to sign up to.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I intend to run this statement until about quarter past 6. I urge short questions and short replies. Anybody who was not here at the beginning should not be standing. I will prioritise people who did not get called during the previous urgent questions.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Is the Secretary of State able to promise that the Government will not remove current restrictions or tariffs on food imports unless those imports are produced to standards of animal welfare as tough as the ones that we expect our own farmers to meet?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my right hon. Friend for her question. As we make very clear in the negotiating objectives, we will not lower our standards. We will maintain our food safety and animal welfare standards and will not lower them as part of this free trade agreement. We decide which standards we abide by here in the UK. We have exceptionally high standards of animal welfare, and my right hon. Friend herself is a champion of that. We are not going to be told by the US what our standards should be; for that matter, we are not going to be told what our standards should be by the EU either.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Along with a majority of Labour MPs, I voted for the Canadian trade deal. The debate on that treaty was beset by disinformation campaigns by many non-governmental organisations, as was the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership deal. Frankly, the Government did precious little to rebut them.
Currently, one of the concerns is whether drug prices will rise in the UK; the Secretary of State touched on that. Is there not a great desire across the United States, in fact, to achieve the same excellent deal as the NHS has secured? I doubt whether, in election year, even Donald Trump will die in a ditch for big pharma. Will the Secretary of State see this as a political campaign and not just a narrow, dry trade negotiation?
Elizabeth Truss
The right hon. Gentleman is a great champion of free trade on the Labour Benches, and I hope that his views prevail and become more mainstream in Labour party opinion. He makes a good point. Of course, there are strong economics behind this trade deal as we have outlined today. But there are those who seek to undermine the proposals and the benefits for British businesses with various smears and scare stories about the NHS, animal welfare standards or other issues. Those people damage the potential for British businesses and our economy. We are determined to rebut the false stories that they are putting out and to make sure that we put across the positive case for the whole UK.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I do not share the Scottish National party’s miserable analysis of the trade deal; I see great opportunities for Scotland from a deal. But there is a cloud on the horizon: the 25% duty currently applied to malt whisky. What confidence can the Secretary of State give us that at the end of this process there will be no duties on Scotch whisky of any kind in the United States and no duty on bourbon in the United Kingdom?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend is right that this is a major issue for our excellent Scotch whisky producers and other companies such as Walkers shortbread and cashmere producers. I raised the issue again with Ambassador Lighthizer when I saw him last week. I want there to be an urgent settlement of the Airbus-Boeing dispute so that retaliatory tariffs on things such as bourbon, Harley-Davidsons and Florida orange juice as well as on our excellent products here in the UK can be removed. I am urging, as an early part of these trade negotiations, the removal of existing tariffs to show good will towards the negotiations.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
Any increase in trade is clearly to be welcomed, but in private the Secretary of State will be honest, I am sure, about recognising that the benefits of the deal to the UK economy will be relatively small: just a 0.16% increase in GDP, and then only after 15 years. Why does she not do two other things? She could try to persuade her Cabinet colleagues to seek a deal with the European Union more ambitious than the Canada-light deal currently being advocated and, for goodness’ sake, to get behind a third runway at Heathrow.
Elizabeth Truss
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s agreement with me that removing barriers to trade is good for everybody—it is good internationally and good here in the UK. One thing he fails to point out, though, is that there are huge benefits in regulatory freedom and flexibility. As the UK is able to decide its own rules and regulations, we can be more nimble and agile in the modern world—a key benefit of our leaving the European Union and having a Canada-style deal with the EU.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I agree with my right hon. Friend’s comment that the US is very excited about this trade deal—not just Washington politics, but across the whole United States.
I want to press the food standards point. The US is the biggest exporter of agricultural products in the world. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it achieves that through selling products that the world wants and not through forcing unwanted products on unwilling consumers?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that good export champions are companies that suit the markets that they serve. We will maintain our standards about what we believe to be right for UK consumers in line with the values of the farmers and people of the UK. It will be up to those that supply us—the US, the EU or anybody else—to fit with those standards. That is the nature of trade agreements.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
In 2018, at the World Health Assembly, the US tried to modify a resolution on breastfeeding, allegedly threatening Ecuador, which was sponsoring the measure, with punitive trade and aid measures. What assurance can the Secretary of State give the House that the UK will protect, promote and support breastfeeding ahead of the commercial interests of global formula companies—particularly those in the US, which produce formula to lower standards of composition and nutrition than we have here in the UK and in the EU?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Member is right to highlight this issue. However, a free trade agreement is specifically about the rules around trade. There are other organisations that set global standards in other issues. The World Health Organisation will, of course, be taking a lead on the environment in terms of COP26. There is always a bit of a danger in trying to pile too many issues into free trade agreements. This free trade agreement is all about ensuring that British consumers and businesses benefit from increased trade with the UK.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
I very much welcome this statement, particularly the opportunity for all four corners of the UK to benefit. May I ask my right hon. Friend to outline how a free trade deal with the United States will benefit mid Wales, and my constituents in Brecon and Radnorshire in particular?
Elizabeth Truss
I am still to take up my hon. Friend’s invitation to visit one of the sheep markets in her constituency, but I am looking forward to it because I believe that Welsh lamb is a prime product, and we want to get it into the US market. We also want to remove tariffs on Welsh dairy products going into the US. Our projection shows that agriculture overall—and specifically in Wales—will benefit from a US trade deal.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
The section 232 tariffs imposed by President Trump have had a deeply damaging impact on our steel industry, leading to a 30% drop in UK steel exports to the US. Does the Secretary of State agree that all trade talks with the US should be suspended until such time as our steel industry has been exempted from these completely unacceptable and protectionist tariffs?
Elizabeth Truss
I want to get the trade talks started so that I can get those tariffs removed.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con)
In welcoming this statement, I note that the very substantial and comprehensive Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership negotiations seemed to be distorted, by the media and many lobbying interests, into little more than one or two contentious policy areas. Are we going to learn the TTIP lessons, and in particular ensure that when deal information is released for review by the US Congress, Parliament consents to that at the same time—to minimise room for unhelpful or one-sided comment or speculation?
Elizabeth Truss
I agree that we need to make a clear case, and to ensure that Parliament is engaged.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I am interested to hear the Minister say that she wants to ensure that Parliament is engaged because, unlike our counterparts in the US Congress and the EU Parliament, Members of this House do not get a vote on trade deals. Is she prepared to consider reversing that policy? If not, can she tell us in what way having no debate on the trade deal constitutes taking back control?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. and learned Member will be aware that the UK has a parliamentary system that is similar to those in Australia and New Zealand, and we are following a similar process to those Parliaments. It is a different structure from the separation of powers in the United States.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
It is worth noting that the UK would have concluded a better trade deal with the US if it had been a member of the EU—part of that stronger negotiating power. Can I ask the Secretary of State how this is going to work with regards to Northern Ireland? As a by-product of the protocol, Northern Ireland will be carved out of certain aspects of UK trade deals, while at the same time EU trade deals will not be rolled over for Northern Ireland. How are we going to benefit? Are we actually in danger of being marginalised in both respects?
Elizabeth Truss
We are very clear that we are negotiating on behalf of the entire UK, including Northern Ireland. The Minister of State, Department for International Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), has been working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
The Agriculture Bill and the Environment Bill are going through Parliament at the moment, and require our food producers to meet the very highest environmental and food standards. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment that no compromise will be made regarding environmental protections, and animal welfare and food standards, but what reassurance can she give to food producers in my constituency who do not believe that they will be faced with a level playing field once the trade deal is done?
Elizabeth Truss
I can assure my hon. Friend that it is written very clearly in our document that we will not be compromising on our food standards. I highlight to him the opportunities for agriculture in the west country of lowering barriers into the US and being able to export more of its fantastic products.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
There is a lot of disquiet being expressed about digital services and tech companies, and their use of personal data. I note from the larger document that was published today that a lot of the public consultation also expressed concerns about personal data being used by US firms. What guarantees can the Secretary of State give to the House that the personal data of UK consumers will not be subject to any fewer protections than they currently enjoy under the general data protection regulation?
Elizabeth Truss
We are committed to protecting personal data. There are huge opportunities in striking an advanced digital and data chapter on the flows of data between the UK and the US—ensuring that those flows are properly underwritten and giving software companies opportunities. There are huge advantages, but we will always ensure that we are protecting people online and personal data.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Free trade is the greatest driver of global prosperity that the world has ever seen. Would the Secretary of State agree that in addition to the prospect of lowering prices for UK consumers, the high-tech businesses of west Oxfordshire can look forward to this massive global market being open to them—a market that also happens to be one of our closest friends?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend is right. Some 79% of all the services we provide are supplied remotely—many of them into the United States. Having this underwriting on digital and data will really help companies in areas such as robotics, artificial intelligence and computer gaming, and will provide a massive strategic advantage for the UK against our competitors.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
As we have heard, according to the Government’s figures, the very best deal that they can do with the US will result in GDP growth of 0.16%—leaving aside the concerns over reduced standards, especially in food. With the Secretary of State’s Government once again raising the spectre of no deal with the EU, which Government figures show would see growth of around minus 8%, put simply, wouldn’t no deal with the EU and this deal with the US be at best like losing £8 and finding a 20p piece?
Elizabeth Truss
It is very interesting that half a billion pounds in extra economic value does not mean anything to the hon. Member.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the prospects for more engagement with the dynamic US economy. The Conservatives are the party of free trade. Whenever protectionism has been touted, such as in the elections of 1906 and 1923, it has not ended well for us. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is big scope for more marketing support for our high-quality produce, such as Somerset cheddar and brie, and that fear of imports does not take account of the ability to deal in zero-tariff quota opening, rather than complete tariff reduction up to any amount?
Elizabeth Truss
My hon. Friend has outlined a number of options; I will be interested to hear more as we go through the negotiations. He is right that we have great products that are currently facing tariffs of up to 18%, and that we could eliminate those and see more exports into the US market. We will be looking at our export strategy—the exports Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), is with me on the Front Bench—and ensuring that we turbocharge our exports as we go into this important year of being an independent trading nation.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. The Secretary of State talks about removing barriers to trade and mentions the creative industries, which I welcome. Musicians and others currently tour the EU without any barriers whatever, or a need for visas or forms for their equipment and instruments; their experience with the US is completely the opposite. What reassurance can she give us that she will prioritise visa-free travel in the US for creatives, with form-free transportation of musical instruments and equipment?
Elizabeth Truss
The hon. Member will notice that we are very clear in our negotiating objectives about the protection of intellectual property for the creative industries, and about the opportunities for better visas and travel. We will be working on that throughout the process.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
US public procurement potentially offers exciting opportunities for British companies to access an enormous market. However, as my right hon. Friend will know, much public procurement in the United States is conducted at state and municipality level. How does she propose to reflect that state of affairs in any future free trade agreement?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend is right. There are issues that are dealt with at a federal level and a state level. We will be seeking an agreement that secures access to US Government procurement at a federal level. We will also be looking, in the first instance, at the major states as well to gain more access for British companies.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State said that if an agreement could not be reached to exclude the NHS from any trade deal, then we would walk away, but will she be clear on whether, if any trade deal was done, she would expect there to be explicit wording in it to exempt public services from any liberalisation measures?
Elizabeth Truss
I can assure the hon. Lady that we will put in the wording necessary to deliver the commitments that I have laid out in the objectives—that is, no increases to drugs prices, no services put at risk, and also the NHS itself not being on the table. That will be clear.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden) (Con)
The fact of the matter is that our exports to the US are growing at a faster rate than they are to the EU. The west midlands has consistently had a trade surplus with the USA. Does the Secretary of State agree that a US trade deal would open up new markets for small and medium-sized businesses and herald many new opportunities for business and industry in the west midlands?
Elizabeth Truss
There are huge opportunities in the midlands for further trade with the US. The midlands is already a very strong exporter to the US. I believe that one in five goods from there goes to the US market, but we can do more to remove tariffs and also to get rid of some of the testing procedures and non-tariff barriers that are stopping our car industry exporters so much.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)
I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State state her commitment to protecting UK citizens from online harms. She will know that the US-Mexico-Canada trade agreement required the insertion of the section 230 provisions of the United States’ Communications Decency Act, which give immunity from liability to the big social media companies. If an approach like that were incorporated in a UK-US deal, would be impossible for us to bring forward the online harms regime and take action against social media companies for failing to act against harmful content. Will she confirm that the British Government would not accept a move in this country equivalent to section 230 in the US-Mexico-Canada agreement?
Elizabeth Truss
I can confirm that we stand by our online harms commitment, and nothing in the US trade deal will affect that.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I particularly thank the Secretary of State for mentioning the ceramics industry in Stoke-on-Trent. Does she agree that this has huge potential to give access to markets in the US for a number of ceramics firms, but also for a number of other industries right across Stoke-on-Trent, and to help to level up the opportunities for the people I represent in Stoke-on-Trent South?
Elizabeth Truss
I thank my hon. Friend. I enjoyed visiting his constituency and meeting some of the fantastic companies there, including Walker’s Nonsuch Toffee, for which I also want to secure a tariff reduction.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
I am sure that the Secretary of State is just as chuffed as I am to learn that Milton Keynes has been voted the best place outside London to do business, not least because of our thriving digital and data sector. What more will this US trade deal do for our digital and data sector?
Elizabeth Truss
We want to achieve a world-leading data and digital agreement, underwriting data flows but also dealing with issues like blockchain and artificial intelligence, thereby making sure that we and the US are leading the world and able to share these economic opportunities.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I very much welcome this statement, but I know that the Secretary of State is aware of the very negative impact that US tariffs are having, particularly in my constituency, on textiles and cashmere. I am pleased to hear what she is doing to address that, but can she reassure me that there will be some sort of restriction in the trade deal on the US imposing these arbitrary tariffs in future on whisky and other sectors within the Scottish economy?
Elizabeth Truss
As has been pointed out, Scotch whisky has been hit by retaliatory tariffs between the US and the EU. Of course we want to see that settled. We also want to see resolution on the Airbus-Boeing dispute. In future, I would be seeking to avoid such tit-for-tat tariffs, making sure that we have agreement on both sides.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The truth is that these negotiations and those with the EU are vital for business, growth and jobs across the UK. Does my right hon. Friend believe that the timing of the US presidential elections may give a fair wind to the urgency of resolution of her negotiations?
Elizabeth Truss
We are pushing our full complement of resources into these negotiations, and so is the United States. I am not going to set a deadline on the negotiations but I certainly hope that the prevailing political wind will help us to conclude as early as we can.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I really welcome the visits by my right hon. Friend and by the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns) to Stoke-on-Trent. I think that my right hon. Friend is very well aware of the particular issues facing the ceramics industry. Within this ambitious trade deal, we certainly want punitive tariffs removed from the ceramics industry, and I hope that that will be part of any negotiations.
Elizabeth Truss
That certainly will be part of our trade negotiations. There are many industries across the UK that face high tariffs and high barriers. We want those removed so that we can see every part of the UK thrive.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
May I heartily congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing this statement forward on the same day that the talks begin with the EU? She followed me at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and she knows perfectly well the tremendous opportunities in the States for UK food, agricultural and drink products, particularly Scotch whisky. Does she agree also, going the other way, that this gives a massive advantage to every family and every business in this country, who will now have access to goods produced to world standards at world prices, forcing European producers hitherto protected by the tariff wall to sell here at world prices?
Elizabeth Truss
My right hon. Friend makes a typically Ricardian case for lower tariffs and lower barriers. He is right. It will help our British citizens to lower their cost of living, which is good for us all.
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
Ever since King George III accepted John Adams’s credentials as ambassador to the United States, both states respectively have regarded each other as sovereign equals and worked ceaselessly towards fostering ever closer diplomatic, military, cultural and commercial ties. Does the Secretary of State agree that a future free trade agreement should be seen as part of this story? I am a proud Yorkshireman, and like many of those who come from God’s own country, we love the USA. Any agreement that makes it easier for my American friends to more easily and affordably buy Harrogate’s world-famous Yorkshire Tea is to be welcomed.
Elizabeth Truss
I do agree. I know the Americans have an affinity both for Yorkshire tea and Yorkshire beer.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that the removal of the tariff of 19.8 cents on every litre of English sparkling wine represents a great opportunity?
Elizabeth Truss
My friend is absolutely right. We have seen the growth of sparkling wine exports, which now, I think, total more than £100 million a year. I see huge opportunities in removing those tariffs and getting more of our excellent sparkling wine into the United States.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
North-east Lincolnshire is a major centre for the renewable energy sector, and a number of US delegations have already visited to look at opportunities. Would the Secretary of State give an assurance that her Department will support the small and medium-sized companies that want to get into the supply chain in this sector?
Elizabeth Truss
One of our key asks from the US trade deal is a dedicated chapter to make it easier for small and medium-sized enterprises by removing some of the customs red tape, being able to do more things online, and being able to get better information. I will certainly look at my hon. Friend’s specific businesses in Cleethorpes in that regard.
Point of Order
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. On Thursday last week, the UK Government held a drugs summit at the Scottish Event Campus in my constituency. The Minister for Crime and Policing, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care—the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who is responsible for prevention, public health and primary care—and the Secretary of State for State for Scotland were all in attendance at this event, and none of them had the courtesy to tell me formally that they were going to be in my constituency. Indeed, the latter two, I have discovered, were there because of social media. This comes on the back of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince), who is responsible for welfare delivery, attending events in Glasgow and again not notifying a number of local elected Members.
What might I do, Madam Deputy Speaker, to ensure that the Government give notifications in future? Particularly with regard to the drugs summit, this is an issue of huge importance to me and to my constituents in Glasgow Central, and I was not even afforded an invite to go there and make representations on behalf of my constituents. Can you advise me on what I might be able to do to address this situation?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I thank the hon. Lady for her point of order. Obviously I am not responsible for whom Ministers might invite to events, but it is absolutely essential that hon. and right hon. Members are informed if a Minister is to be in their constituency. I hope that those on the Treasury Bench will take away the point that she has made and perhaps ensure that she gets a bit of an explanation or apology as to why she was not informed.
Medicines and Medical Devices Bill
Monday 2nd March 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 View all Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
While the world grapples with the challenge of coronavirus, it is vital that we do not lose sight of the important long-term reforms that we must make. Medicines and medical devices are evolving faster than ever. Not long ago, we could only record an ECG with hospital-grade equipment; now we can do it at home with a cheap device linked to our phone. Already, artificial intelligence is being used to discover new drug compounds. Now that we have left the European Union, we need a regulatory system that is nimble enough to keep up with those developments while maintaining and enhancing patient safety. That is what this Bill will achieve.
The aims of the Bill are fourfold. First, it gives us the means to depart from EU rules and regulations in future, moving at a faster pace, if that is what we choose to do as an independent, self-governing nation. Secondly, it ensures that we can easily amend regulation through secondary legislation without having to bring a new Bill before the House every time we need to revise the rules. That means our system of regulation will be flexible and responsive, quick to adapt to innovation and quick to respond when a safety issue emerges. Thirdly, the Bill will strengthen patient safety by strengthening the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, our world-class medicines and medical devices regulator. That includes giving it powers that were not available under the EU, including over registration of devices and disclosure. Fourthly, the Bill will ensure that we strike the right balance between capturing the benefits of innovation without compromising patient safety.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
All those objectives of the Bill require a level of investment to bring about the innovations that we seek. The Prime Minister made a commitment of £200 million in September. How much private sector money does the Secretary of State expect that to leverage? What is our ambition?
Matt Hancock
We do not have a figure for medicines and medical devices specifically. As a nation, we have a goal that we should reach 2.4% of GDP spent on research. We are increasing the medical research budget; for instance, we are doubling the budget for research into dementia. As my right hon. Friend rightly points out, the public budget for research is only one part of it. There is huge private sector and charitable sector investment —for instance, from the Wellcome Trust. The Bill will allow research money—whether it comes from the public sector, private sector or third sector—to go further and get medicines and medical devices to NHS patients faster, as well as supporting our life sciences sector.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I recognise the Secretary of State’s support for innovative medical technology. I am interested in the registers to which he referred, covered in section 13 of the Bill, and in particular the need to ensure that we get the maximum benefit without their being too onerous. Will he give an assurance that there will be some kind of consolidation where there are multiple registers in the same field and that we will only collect information that is specific to the subject stated for the registers?
Matt Hancock
It is almost as though the hon. Gentleman has read my speech. That is the broad intent of that part of the Bill. I will come to it in more detail in a moment, and I am glad about the constructive tone that has been adopted across the House when discussing the Bill.
As I said, the fourth purpose of the Bill is to get innovation while not compromising patient safety—indeed, I would argue that we will enhance patient safety by being able to use modern techniques. It will do that by requiring the Secretary of State to have regard to the safety of medicines and medical devices; to the availability of medicines and devices, because sometimes getting availability as fast as possible is crucial for both innovation and patient safety; and to the attractiveness of the UK as a place to conduct clinical trials and bring medicines and medical devices to market. I will come on to clinical trials in more detail.
Let me turn to the main parts of the Bill. The first part, covering clauses 1 to 7, gives us the ability to update the law relating to human medicines—for example, to reflect changes in manufacturing methods or new types of product. We need that ability because coming down the track are cutting-edge personalised medicines that a hospital might literally have to assemble at the patient’s bedside. Those include gene therapies, medical gases and 3D-printed tablets—bespoke treatments so tailored to the individual that they will only be produced once, with a shelf life that might be measured in minutes. It is just not appropriate to regulate those kinds of treatment in the same way as a mass-produced factory drug, with mandatory batch numbers and packaging information. The Bill gives us the flexibility to respond to those developments. It also allows us to make changes to the regulation of clinical trials, ensuring that we are a globally attractive market to test new drugs and treatments.
But the Bill is not just about the latest science and innovation. It also means that we can update the rules on things such as labelling requirements—for instance, whether the leaflet in a pill packet should have a digital equivalent; rules on how online pharmacies ensure that medicines reach their intended customer; and rules on how the medicine brokerage market works.
We have said that we want to do more to boost the role of our brilliant community pharmacists, and the Bill helps us to do exactly that. It will allow us to remove the barriers to hub-and-spoke dispensing once EU rules no longer apply. Large companies such as Boots already do that, but the law as it stands prevents small, independent pharmacies from joining this kind of arrangement if the hub is not part of the same retail business as the spokes. That is an unnecessary barrier for smaller businesses in the pharmacy sector, and the Bill means that we can remove those barriers.
It also allows us to continue to add to the range of healthcare professionals who can prescribe medicines, which will relieve pressure on the frontline NHS, and it gives us the ability to make rapid changes to regulations to ensure the availability of and access to medicines in an emergency; I am sure we can all understand right now why that is important. Nothing in the Bill changes all the regulations immediately. Instead, it is about getting ahead of the game and giving us the power to make these changes as and when we need to, suitably scrutinised by Parliament.
The next part of the Bill concerns veterinary medicines. It broadly replicates the first part, giving us the ability to amend or supplement the Veterinary Medicines Regulations 2013. Changes could include, for instance, how veterinary medicines are supplied and the information that must be supplied with them. It sets out that, in making new regulations, we have an obligation to consider the safety of the medicines in relation to animals, humans and the environment. These are important matters, not least for me as the Newmarket MP. The Bill will ensure that we have a veterinary medicine system that is fit for purpose.
The third part of the Bill deals with the medical devices regulatory framework, covering everything from MRI scanners to embolisation coils and pacemakers to prophylactics. Like the first part, it allows us to fast-track a new diagnostic test in response to an emerging disease.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Is this not an example of how, having left the EU, we can now move at a much faster pace on a lot of regulatory things that are really important to our constituents?
Matt Hancock
Yes, that is right. This Bill empowers us to be able to move faster. Essentially, it empowers the UK to build a life sciences regulatory framework that is the best in the world—of course, working with EU partners, but also with partners from right around the world—and all with the intention of getting the most innovative products, as quickly as possible and as cost-effectively as possible, into the NHS. That is the goal of the entire Bill. It is a benefit of Brexit, but it is also worth doing in its own right.
The measures to strengthen innovation with respect to diagnostic tests again strengthen patient safety, because they strengthen the role of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. This includes, for instance, allowing us to legislate to create a comprehensive statutory register of medical devices in the UK. Such a register could be held by the MHRA, and we would make it compulsory to register a device along with information such as who manufactures and supplies it. This would mean that the MHRA could conduct post-market surveillance of devices in the UK, making it easier to trigger device recalls where a safety concern arises.
Indeed, we will enhance patient safety by giving the MHRA a new power to disclose to members of the public any safety concerns about a device. This was not possible while we were part of the EU. Previously, if an NHS trust raised a concern about a device and asked if similar reports had been received elsewhere, too often the MHRA was restricted in sharing that information; nor could it always routinely share information with the Care Quality Commission or other NHS national bodies. This Bill gives us the ability to share vital information about reporting patterns with the NHS family, and where necessary with the public, with enforcement powers that will be proportionate, transparent and suitably safeguarded.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
I do not recognise the Secretary of State’s description that it was not possible to inform NHS bodies of concerns about machinery or devices. In my 33 years on the frontline, we received daily information about anything that was considered a danger or a failing, so I do not recognise that.
Matt Hancock
In some cases it was possible to share that information but not in all cases, and it will be possible now. I have no doubt that the hon. Member, like others on the frontline, will have received some information, but the MHRA is currently limited in the information that it can share with other NHS bodies. We are removing the limits on that information sharing, which of course needs to be done appropriately, but should not be set in primary legislation.
Our goal is this: we want the UK to be the best place in the world to design and trial the latest medical innovations. This Bill gives us the powers we need to make that happen. It will mean that the NHS has access to the most cutting-edge medicines and medical devices, with enhanced patient safety; it will help our life sciences seize the enormous opportunities of the 2020s, supported by a world-leading regulator; and it will help us pave our way as a self-governing independent nation. I commend the Bill to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
We do not intend to divide the House on the Bill this evening. We understand the need for the Bill because its purpose is for the UK Government to take the powers they need as a result of Brexit. In that respect, we broadly support the principles of the Bill, and we offer to work constructively with the Government on strengthening and improving aspects of it. I have a couple of remarks to make that are related to this, but not to the exact contents of the Bill.
May I start by saying that we all know, not least because of the coronavirus outbreak, that disease knows no borders and defeating disease cannot be done in isolation? International co-operation and research and development are vital and must be accelerated, not hindered. Will the Secretary of State—or indeed the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), in her winding-up speech—explain or comment on the press reports today suggesting that the UK is not seeking to participate in the EU pandemic preparedness measures, which may obviously help in relation to coronavirus and other future outbreaks?
I am of course talking about the early warning and response system. It was suggested in The Daily Telegraph today that No. 10 had overruled the Secretary of State. Since then, a former Minister, Baroness Blackwood, has told Sky News:
“My advice while I was in there was that I thought it was absolutely appropriate that we should stay engaged with that system… I think this is something that the EU would want to maintain and we as Britain should seek to maintain.”
I agree with her. I believe it would be foolhardy to pull out of something like this at the best of times, but to do so at the time of an outbreak such as this is surely putting narrow dogma before the public health of the country. I would be grateful if the Minister responded on that.
Secondly, we also learned at the weekend that the UK will not participate in the unified patent court, which will make developing medicines here in the UK more expensive, not cheaper and easier, and it may make doing clinical trials here less attractive. The Government have done lots of briefing on this Bill, but over the weekend they slipped it out while briefing trade magazines that the UK will not be seeking involvement in the unitary patent system. Again, that is disappointing, and I would welcome some remarks from the Minister on that front when she sums up.
However, this Bill is important, and we do not want to see anything that undermines what has been built up over many years in the United Kingdom. We do have much to be proud of in the field of medical innovation. We have long history of taking a leading role in scientific advance and novel trial design. Indeed, the recent deal to give NHS patients early access to a new cholesterol treatment demonstrates that the UK is already a world-leading destination in which to develop cutting-edge treatments. We want to build on that, not undermine it.
Members across the House will be aware that our pharmaceutical industry is the single largest private sector investor in UK R&D and provides many jobs across the country for many of our constituents. We should be proud of that sector and of the contribution that life sciences make in providing access to the most cutting-edge treatments. We should be proud that they are vital to economic growth, enhance UK productivity and ensure prosperity for the future.
Yet while the opportunities before us to develop medicines and medical devices are transformative—both saving lives and radically improving the quality of life for those with the most debilitating of conditions—we also know that things can go wrong. There must never be any compromise on patient safety. Patients put their trust in practitioners, literally trusting them with their lives, and they rightly expect medicine and medical devices to be safe, yet too often in recent years the system has failed patients.
For many years, long before I acquired the health brief in my party, I worked closely with a constituent, Emma Friedmann, who has campaigned for justice for women whose children were impacted by sodium valproate. Members from across this House have spoken with passion and eloquence on behalf of women affected by Primodos. Equally, we have heard heartbreaking stories in this House about the surgical mesh scandal. My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson), the shadow Minister, has been one the leading campaigners on this issue, along with colleagues across the House. We eagerly anticipate the Cumberlege independent medicines and medical devices review, but there have been other scandals too—breast implants, hip replacements—that are not necessarily covered. We would welcome an update from the Minister about that review and some remarks on whether the Government expect to implement its findings.
My point is that a robust regulatory framework for medical devices to protect patients and users is paramount. We will be testing this Bill to ensure that it provides the safety standards that our constituents deserve, while at the same time ensuring it is forward looking enough to be the correct framework to capture the fast pace of innovation in this field, which the Secretary of State mentioned. However, I believe that the existing regulatory framework has become complex and, arguably, unwieldy.
The House will be aware that much of the regulatory landscape derives from EU directives that have been implemented in domestic legislation. At the end of the transition period, these frameworks will be preserved as retained EU law, but as I understand the Bill, the Secretary of State is proposing to take delegated powers to allow these existing regulatory frameworks to be updated without the need for primary legislation. The Bill requires the Secretary of State, as he said, to have regard to the safety and availability of medicines and medical devices, as well as to the attractiveness of the relevant part of the UK with respect to the life sciences sector. We argue that that attractiveness clause could benefit from some definition, and it would allay concerns if the Government accepted an amendment in Committee to indicate that the Secretary of State, or some other appropriate authority, would always prioritise safety.
The overall effect of the provisions is to confer on the Secretary of State an extensive range of delegated powers to make regulations that span the manufacture of medicines, marketing and supply, falsified medicines, clinical trials, fees, information and offences, and emergencies. That extensive range of powers risks inadequate scrutiny of what will become major policy decisions, and in Committee Labour will press Ministers to support time-limiting those delegated powers.
Matt Hancock
I am sure that this debate will continue in Committee, but for clarity, those delegated powers existed under the European Communities Act 1972. The Bill proposes to replace existing delegated powers from the 1972 Act with new powers to make such regulations under the new Act. This is not a new set of delegated powers; it replaces one set with another—indeed, the Bill replaces those powers with clearer safeguards on those matters to which the Secretary of State must have regard.
Jonathan Ashworth
That is a welcome clarification, but I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that it is important that decisions made in this field are properly scrutinised through the usual procedures. We are keen to ensure that by tabling an appropriate amendment in Committee.
We are leaving the EU, but Labour Members consider it essential that we stay closely aligned with it on medicine regulation. With that in mind, the Government should clarify their attitude to new EU regulations such as the in vitro diagnostic medical devices regulation, which is due to be implemented in 2022. As I understand it, that regulation will not automatically apply to the UK. Is it the Government’s intention to align with it? The EU tissue and cells directive is being reviewed. Do the Government intend us to align with it? To ensure that the UK remains a world leader in scientific research and discovery, it is vital that we align with guidelines on clinical trials. Otherwise, patients could miss out on participating in trials and the UK could find it harder to access funding.
Effective joint working with our European partners has been vital for the NHS over recent years on everything from infectious disease control to the licensing, sale and regulation of medicines. Patients in the UK can access EU-wide trials for new treatments and the UK has the highest number of phase 1 clinical trials across the EU, as well as the highest number of trials for rare and childhood diseases. It is vital for improving health outcomes in the UK and EU that the UK continues to access those networks. Otherwise, we run the high risk of patients with rare diseases being adversely impacted.
The Bill contains provisions to extend the range of professions that can prescribe medicines, thereby allowing additional health care practitioners such as paramedics and midwives to be given restricted prescribing rights. We welcome those provisions and, assuming that their competencies have been assessed in the same way as those of other prescribers and that equal safeguards are in place, we support that sensible and timely reform. Will there also be plans for a consultation on the future prescribing rights of physician associates and surgical care practitioners?
I will not say too much about part 2 of the Bill, other than to confirm that any measures that help in the battle against anti-microbial resistance have Labour’s support. Part 3 is about medical devices. I have already commented on the use of delegated powers, and as I said at the outset, patient safety must be the priority and we will look to strengthen regulation in that area. Unlike medicines and drugs, many surgical innovations can be introduced without clinical trial data or centrally held evidence. That is a clear risk to patient safety, and it undermines public confidence. Manufacturers are often in charge of testing their own products after faults have developed and they can shop around for approval to market their products without declaring any refusals.
Two years ago, freedom of information requests to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency revealed 62,000 adverse incident reports that were linked to medical devices between 2015 and 2018, and more than 1,000 had resulted in death. Most devices are cleared through a pathway that allows new products to inherit the approval status of “substantially equivalent” products already on the market. In some cases, after lengthy chains of equivalence-based approvals, the new devices scarcely resemble the original version. Indeed, a study in The BMJ in 2017 found that the family tree of 61 surgical mesh products related to two original devices that were approved in 1985 and 1996. Unless we fix that and put patient safety at the heart of the regulatory framework, patients will suffer and lack confidence.
We know the Secretary of State is a great champion of and has promoted many health-based apps. We need a robust and sophisticated mechanism to evaluate app-based healthcare for use in the NHS, and in Committee we will look to strengthen the regulation of that. We welcome what appear to be plans for a devices register, and I took note of what the Secretary of State said in his interaction with my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). We believe, however, that such a register must provide comprehensive data on who, where, how and why devices were implanted, and by whom, so that any recall could be quickly enacted.
To achieve that, we encourage Ministers to strengthen the Bill by reflecting provisions in existing EU regulation and to ensure there are unique device identifiers, such as serial numbers on medical devices that are labelled with tracking information, as well as the power to track the use of those devices, so that the NHS can find and notify affected patients if and when problems arise. By the same token, the Government must reassure us that with such a register it is practically possible to cover all devices, including everything from implants to bone screws, software, apps, mesh, medical cannulas, pacemakers and so on. That is an extensive list of different devices, and I would be keen to hear how such a register could be implemented practically.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman’s point about “why?” is important. As a doctor, I know that things move on, and when someone leaves medical school 50% of what they have learned is out of date. With devices that are likely to exist for 10, 20, 30 or 40 years, looking back it can be difficult to work out exactly why something was implanted. I would like the Bill to request an explanation from the clinician at the time to say what the thinking was. In the future, that would inform people who needed to deal with someone who had something implanted in their heart 20 years ago, for example, by which time the history might be exactly that—history.
Jonathan Ashworth
It has taken me some time, but let me welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place, particularly as a fellow Leicestershire MP. His contribution is well made, and I look forward to working constructively with him on health matters, as well as on various Leicestershire matters. I hope the Minister will reflect on his contribution and answer it when responding to the debate.
The Opposition will not seek to divide the House. We want the Bill to proceed to Committee, and we will work constructively with the Government to improve and strengthen it. It is up to Ministers to allay concerns about patient safety and about the UK’s ability to develop medicines rapidly for NHS patients in the future, and we look forward to a constructive debate on the Bill.
Chris Green (Bolton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) and to speak in this important debate. This is an immensely important subject of great national interest. In the context of leaving the European Union, the Bill will allow existing European Union regulations on medicines and medical devices to be transposed into UK law. The Bill is closely linked to the timings of the transition period as we leave the EU—and perhaps to any extension, which we hope to avoid.
I welcome the Bill’s principal thrust, which is to remove unnecessary bureaucracy for the lowest risk clinical trials, to encourage the rapid introduction of new medicines, to ensure patient safety by combating counterfeit medicines, and to extend the UK’s global lead in personalised medicines and artificial intelligence in health. Ultimately, all those concerns link up to what ought to be our principal focus in this debate: better patient outcomes and creating a healthier society.
Many people would be surprised to hear just what a contribution the life sciences sector makes to the UK economy. It encompasses pharmaceuticals, medical devices and medical technology, and it is worth over £74 billion per annum. The sector also employs close to 250,000 people in the UK. Many of those jobs are often secure, and are highly skilled and highly qualified. We will shortly introduce an immigration Bill. It is right that we focus on the skills and the contribution people can make to the UK. Bringing more people to the UK with PhDs and STEM—science, technology, engineering and maths—qualifications ought to complement and enhance the support of our life sciences sector. The more we hear about technicians, engineers and scientists who want to come to the UK, the more it will be a really positive thing not only for the sector but for immigration to the UK as a whole, and how people perceive it.
Dr Whitford
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that young graduates with a degree or a PhD, technologists and researchers often do not earn more than the threshold the Government have set for a visa?
Chris Green
That is a significant concern. The Government have reduced the starting point in the immigration Bill from £30,000 to about £25,000 and I believe the points-based system will have the flexibility we require, but those areas should be judged and reviewed as time goes on. Certainly in these sectors we want highly qualified, highly skilled and highly experienced people to come to the UK.
One big concern in medicine is data. A lot of what we do in medicine falls into the category of big data: the acquisition, transmission, storage and application of that data. This is a really interesting time for technology. The devices themselves are able to generate good quality data. As has been highlighted, it is now so much easier for personal devices to be worn not just for a few hours or a couple of days, but for a long period of time. People are now able to go about their daily lives in a normal way, whether they are exercising or doing something as basic as having a shower. Some devices could not previously cope with people taking exercise or having a shower, but increasingly, devices are able to cope. They can amass a vast amount of data. It is pretty much impossible for a clinician or a GP to judge such a huge wealth of data, so we are increasingly looking at how GPs and hospital consultants can use artificial intelligence and other methods to give them a helping hand in carrying out the assessments. They might end up with tens of thousands of pages of data and a consultant just will not have time to consider it all. Using artificial intelligence could help them to do the assessments and come to conclusions.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all Members, on both sides of the House, still have a big job of work to do with the public to inspire confidence in how their data is used in an appropriate and anonymised way? What he is saying is really important. Data saves lives and can improve outcomes, but there is, understandably given previous experiences, a great deal of suspicion among the public about how their medical data might be used.
Chris Green
That is an incredibly important point. We need confidence that when data is taken, it is secure, protected and anonymised in the appropriate way, and that only the right organisations have access to it. I believe that data is a key area for the NHS and what it ought to be able to deliver. The NHS should be a huge repository of data, and universities, charities and businesses, with the appropriate controls, ought to be able to use it. As we move on—perhaps a particular aspect relates to rare conditions—the size of population needed in order to gather and analyse that data will increase. I hope my hon. Friend Minister will take note of this point and perhaps elaborate on it at the end of the debate. We need to ensure that our relationship with the EU will enable us to continue to collaborate on clinical trials and that data transmission across the European Union, and across Europe more widely, is efficient and effective.
Dr Luke Evans
My hon. Friend talks wisely about big data. Big data can be used to empower patients as individuals. Providing them with more data to understand and interpret, if it is provided in the right way, can empower them to make better choices. After all, the biggest under-utilised resource we have in healthcare is our patients. Healthcare is very doctor-heavy and nurse-heavy. Empowering patients helps them to make better choices. For example, patients with diabetes can monitor their own blood sugar. That has revolutionised the way in which people care for themselves. I would like my hon. Friend’s thoughts on whether he thinks we should explore this area further.
Chris Green
That is a vital and well-made point. Data can empower the individual. They can have more detailed access to their own records and their own data. The data generated by someone wearing a device day in, day out, week in, week out can be transmitted to a consultant, who can call a patient more promptly if there is anything a little worrying. If there is a heart murmur or someone feels a bit dizzy, the person can register that concern at that moment. That is useful information for the clinician, who will be able to recognise when someone’s lifestyle has aggravated a condition. There are many ways that the data can be used. I think we are in relatively early days. I am not sure I would include Fitbits and that kind of technology—there is far more interesting and advanced technology—but it is important that people are increasingly engaged.
There is a concern about the embrace of technology, devices and data, and the streamlining of processes in hospitals. The contribution of individuals, GPs and consultants provides an opportunity to consider a more engaged approach to hospital and GP services in a way that could reduce the number of appointments that are necessary. Some hospital trusts have a chief innovation officer on their board. I think there are about 20 across the country, which is a relatively small proportion. It may be worth considering what the Minister can do to promote that. Ideally, we need the early adoption of approved medicines in the system. This is where the register ought to help. If we can have people in hospital trusts leading and championing the adoption of new technologies, providing information and insight, perhaps we can give more confidence to chairmen and boards as a whole. We could then have more trusts adopting technologies. We could therefore support the industry and patients, and get them the medical treatment they need earlier.
Dr Whitford
That might well be the case with gadgets, devices or new digital apps, but with new drugs, it is usually the clinicians who are desperate to get their hands on them. Most new drugs, particularly for challenging conditions such as cancer, are expensive and it will be several years before they are passed by NICE in England or the Scottish Medicine Consortium. The delay is not the clinicians not wanting access; it is the cost of introducing them.
Chris Green
I agree—the hon. Lady makes a good point. What I was saying relates more to devices than drugs. Devices and drugs each have their own challenges and we will hopefully make some progress in resolving those concerns.
One of the concerns about the current system relates to the legal framework, which has been criticised for being complex and lacking in consistency and transparency, and it is somewhat difficult for it to respond quickly to problems, especially when patient safety is at risk. The Bill provides us with the perfect opportunity to streamline our approach to giving access to new and innovative treatments to patients, particularly those with rare diseases and conditions, while ensuring that we are fully committed to a system of regulation for medicines and medical devices that can respond to changes in technology and patient safety concerns as soon as possible. This is more relevant now than ever, given the dramatic expansion of digital health and artificial intelligence, and other rapid advances.
I have some questions about the Bill. Will the Minister provide clarification about the exact role that the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency will play in constructing and maintaining a register of devices that have been approved for industry use? Industry has generally welcomed the idea of registries and their usage, but how will registry data be used in the future? Should the Bill not consider changing the way in which NICE prioritises data? NICE currently prioritises level one data—data gained through randomised clinical trials—ahead of real-world registry data. For medical devices, it is often impossible to conduct a blind, randomised clinical trial, so this level of data is unavailable, making it more difficult to get positive NICE guidance. Can we perhaps consider placing a higher weighting on registry data in decision-making processes and use it to inform outcome measures to assess the success of treatments? Registries could support the collection of data on longer-term outcomes—perhaps five to 10 years, for example, rather than the standard 12 months. There is a very significant concern relating to the contrast between drugs and devices. A drug will perhaps be more likely to have in-year savings or result in an in-year delivery, whereas it might take two, three, four, five or even 10 years to see the improvements, delivery or financial return from a device, or medical technology that has been purchased. It is not certain that the current financial landscape lends itself to longer-term planning.
Will the Minister clarify whether the Bill will include provisions on how countries and notified bodies might be considered competent to make an assessment on behalf of the United Kingdom? This would help to avoid duplication and having to seek approval for new devices and treatments from bodies in different countries that share very similar standards.
Much of industry has expressed the need for further clarification on how closely we will remain aligned with European Union regulations after the end of the transition period. That is particularly relevant to how we conduct clinical trials, particularly for rare diseases, where there are not a significant number of patients to test new ideas on. Maintaining easy access to patients and co-operation around data sharing has been cited as a top priority, so will the Minister clarify whether she intends for us to remain closely aligned with the EU regulations where there is a mutual interest in doing so? The transition from the clinical trials directive to the clinical trials regulation is of particular interest. It has not yet been adopted across the EU and there has been a succession of delays. I understand that it should have been adopted in 2016, but it has been delayed and delayed, and there are plans for it to be adopted later this year if conditions work in its favour.
In conclusion, I welcome the Bill and the framework that it seeks to create by ensuring that the UK remains a global player in the world of R&D. The powers in the Bill provide us with the perfect opportunity to significantly build on and improve aspects of medicine development processes in the UK—notably, by speeding up the approval process. The Bill has been generally welcomed by industry, but I would be grateful if the Minister, time permitting, took note of the questions I have asked and offered as much clarification as possible.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The Bill is necessary because of Brexit, as the UK is losing the European Medicines Agency—one of the great advantages was working together to have a single licensing system that licensed new drugs right across Europe. As the hon. Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) described, it is about working with other countries to avoid duplication and to speed up getting new drugs from the laboratory to patients who need them.
The problem is that manufacturers will have to apply separately to the UK, which means extra processes and additional costs. It is important, therefore, that whatever system is adopted is as similar to the EU as possible and does not ask for a whole different set of work-up, investigation and paperwork, or that will put manufacturers off launching their drugs in the UK. The same issues apply to veterinary medicines, hence they are in the Bill.
The simple fact is that the EU is a market of 500 million people—a quarter of the world pharmaceutical market. The UK on its own is only 3%, which is why drugs tend to be launched in the US and Europe at the same time. In all my 33 years on the frontline, I saw an acceleration of drugs getting from the bench top to the patient, because of the EU and the European Medicines Agency. This means that there are likely to be delays for patients. Canada and Australia wait another six to 12 months before drugs are launched there, so how will the Government avoid a delay in patient access, particularly for new drugs from outside the UK and for conditions such as cancer, where patients are literally waiting for the drug?
Chris Green
I realise that this is a distinct area, but does the hon. Lady share my concern that sometimes the EU as a whole is quite slow at reform—for example, with the clinical trials directive and the clinical trials regulation? The CTD was first devised in 2001. We are now in 2020 and we have not yet updated it. Industry and wider sectors would like the update to happen, but it is taking a very long time.
Dr Whitford
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. When we are trying to collaborate and get a group of 28 countries—indeed, 31 countries, because the European economic area is involved—to all agree to such enormous changes, with legal ramifications for their drug and device producers, and so on, it takes time, but in the end, I think it will be worth it. Of course, I would have liked it earlier. Having been involved in breast cancer trials, I know that the clinical trials directive was clunky and bureaucratic, but it is being changed.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend for answering the extremely important points that have been raised. Does she agree that it is also extremely important that those with rare diseases still have access to the clinical trials that can perhaps only take place in the EU, because they need to have so many participants? The UK on its own might struggle to have those clinical trials for rare diseases.
Dr Whitford
That is an excellent point, which I will come on to shortly, and I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
The Bill puts attractiveness as a place to do trials and supply medicines almost on a par with safety and drug availability. What exactly does that mean? The shadow Health Secretary was right to seek a definition of that phrase. Is it about cutting red tape? If so, I would point out that one man’s red tape is another man’s life and limb. The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry says that the industry does not want divergence or lower standards, or standards that change all the time. Alignment with the EMA and the FDA in America keeps costs down, reduces delays and keeps bureaucracy down. The industry here will have to match EU standards for the bulk of its production and will not be keen on doing small-batch production for the UK only if that has a totally different set of standards.
It is important that the new measures on falsified and counterfeit medicines be taken. The unique identifier number, including barcode scanning, is important, as are tamper-proof containers. There is a whole market out there in counterfeit drugs and it endangers patient safety, which is vital in all of this. As part of that, we will have to negotiate data sharing with the EU and the EMA to enable pharmacovigilance on a bigger scale and make it possible to recognise much earlier patterns of side effects and complications.
How will the Government provide the extra funding and support to the MHRA, which is to take on an extensive area of extra work? How will it combine that with delivering quicker assessments and licensing so as to encourage companies to launch their devices or other drugs in the UK? As has been referred to, there is a need to replace the clinical trials directive, which in the original version was indeed very bureaucratic. As a clinical trialist within breast cancer, I found it to be often quite off-putting. The new clinical trials regulations create an EU-wide portal—a single point of digital registration of trials and collaboration on design, recruitment, data, entry and analysis. Unfortunately, UK-only regulations will not replace that when it finally goes live in 2022.
International collaboration is critical to research, and the European research network is the biggest in the world—bigger than China and bigger than the US. As mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron) and the hon. Member for Bolton West, that collaboration is vital for rare diseases, where the number of patients in any one country is low. That is why we have made so much progress in rare diseases, childhood diseases and childhood cancers in the past decade or so—because of funding from the EMA and collaboration on an extensive Europe-wide basis. As regards cancer, my own specialty, half of all UK cancer trials are international, and 28% of Cancer Research UK trials involve at least one other EU state. The BEACON trial for recurrent neuroblastoma involves 10 countries. It was designed in the UK, but the principal investigator is in Spain. Some of the original funding came from the UK, but the drug comes from Switzerland. Ten countries are contributing to trying to find hope for children and families suffering from this horrible disease, for which we are struggling to find a cure. There were 4,800 UK-EU trials between 2014 and 2016. How will the Government maintain that sort of collaboration and involvement?
Part 3 of the Bill relates to medical devices, and I totally agree it is not before time. The EU has also moved to bring in regulations regarding medical devices. It is important to apply similar rules to devices as are applied to drugs. Until now, it has been far too lax. As was mentioned, manufacturers pay for assessments, and I would suggest the same apply to digital health apps. At the moment, the companies that design them assess them themselves. We need instead a neutral and independent system of ensuring that they are safe. Just because something is AI or digital does not mean it will give patients good advice.
Registered clinical trials of devices should report all findings. It is far too common, where there are negative findings or findings of no advantage, that they are not published and that therefore in essence the information is hidden. As we have heard, there should be no tabletop licensing of devices whereby a device is simply migrated from one form to another without being retrialled. This was exactly the problem with vaginal mesh, where in essence the end operation, compared to the original operation in the trials, was unrecognisable. The Cumberlege review should give us food for thought and help us focus on safety and not market expediency. It is also important that there is a system to report complications to the MHRA, like the yellow card system with drugs, so that problems are spotted sooner. Again, across a bigger population that is likely to be quicker.
Implants should also have a unique identifier number that can be scanned as a barcode to the patient’s electronic records, to the hospital episode system and to any registers. A register will be data that is just sitting there and which can be interrogated if someone needs to recall patients with certain implants because of a problem. Following the scandal around PIP implants, which did not have medical grade silicon in them, I remember having to wade through the case sheets of patients who had had breast reconstruction. It was not an implant we had ever used in our hospital, but we had to be 100% certain that no patient treated in the plastics unit in Glasgow had had the implants either. It is critical that we avoid such chaos in the future, and if a register has an expert steering committee, it can become a registry, a dynamic beast that can monitor practice and bring knowledge back to medical practitioners, researchers and so on. One of the earliest and biggest examples is the national joint registry.
The Bill includes provisions to extend low-risk drug prescribing to other healthcare professionals. We all recognise the changes in the workforce that have already happened and which are coming in the future. There are processes for assessing competency and certifying that someone—an advanced nurse practitioner, for example—can prescribe in their own right. The Royal College of Surgeons and the Royal College of Physicians have raised the issue of physician associates and surgical care practitioners. They feel that if prescription powers are to be given to such individuals it is critical that they are registered and regulated, but while these new professions are developing they are not registered or regulated. If this is the future of the NHS workforce across the UK, it has to be dealt with—they need to be registered practitioners.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Member refers to physicians and others and to the shortage of doctors, but is there not also a role for pharmacies to play in diagnosing people early on? Is that not something that should be done as well?
Dr Whitford
In Scotland, we have had the community pharmacy system since 2005, which includes that, and the range of protocols for a pharmacist to prescribe against has been increased, but I agree it has further potential. One advantage is that pharmacies are usually open all day Saturday and often have longer hours. For people who are working who have a relatively minor condition, being able to get both advice and treatment from a pharmacist makes a big difference.
Jim Shannon
I forgot to mention that I also believe pharmacies could play a role in diagnosing sight loss, glaucoma and other things—small things that can be done in pharmacy. Is that something else that could be addressed?
Dr Whitford
In Scotland, we put a lot of effort into sweating the assets, if you like, within the community, so optometrists can carry out that job. They no longer refer through a GP. If they diagnose cataracts, for example, they refer directly, and they provide a lot of out-of-hours care for people with acute eye problems, foreign body inflammation, infection and so on, to the point that very few patients now go to A&E with an acute eye problem. We have all sorts of expertise in our communities, and we should use it, so I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
I welcome the Bill’s reference to internet pharmacy provision, but I think that there should be a step up—a whole step change—in the form of stronger action to control internet pharmacy providers, especially in the context of what are described as prescription-only medicines. The son of a constituent who came to see me was able to obtain large quantities of dihydrocodeine, a fairly addictive painkiller, over the internet simply by filling in an online form, having not seen a GP and without producing a prescription. I asked the constituent to find out what the website was so that I could report the organisation, but the website had gone. That is the problem with the internet: it is ephemeral. Unfortunately, that young man has now become addicted to dihydrocodeine, and is trying to be weaned off it. As in the case of other versions of online harm, we need to deal with people who are hiding in the internet: we cannot allow the supply of counterfeit or addictive medicines to patients without any form of control.
I have some concerns about the Bill. For instance, I agree with the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) about the extensive delegated powers. The Secretary of State said that the same powers had been in place when the United Kingdom was in the European Union, but their purpose in the past was to enact EU directives which had been debated and consulted on in the European Council and the European Parliament. They had been worked out before agreement was reached, and were therefore purely about enacting something that had been hammered out and agreed within Europe. That is not the case here. Almost every clause in the Bill simply hands over a delegated power, but I think some of the major changes that are being introduced in the Bill are significant and should be in primary legislation. Of course regulations will flow from that and will be covered by delegated powers, but for radical changes to made purely in relation to such powers represents a missed opportunity, and they should be limited.
Part 3 provides for the maximum sentences for offences against the Bill to be set at six months. In Scotland, the maximum sentence in a summary case is 12 months. Removing that sentencing power in Scotland with no consultation does not seem right, and a presumption against sentences below 12 months there would make custodial sentences less likely. What kind of prevention and what kind of warning will there be if it is clear to people that imprisonment is never going to happen? The civil penalties presided over by the Secretary of State prevent criminal prosecution if either the maximum or a lower sum is paid in advance. That fetters the operation of the Scottish criminal justice system, because those involved in it would lose the right to prosecute if they felt that the issue was serious enough. The Lord Advocate in Scotland should have been consulted on both issues, and I suggest that that should be corrected as the Bill proceeds.
Part 4 does indeed call for consultation prior to any new regulations, but there is no formal mention of Ministers in the devolved Government, despite their responsibility for healthcare. In other Bills with which I have been involved, it has been normal for the Ministers of the devolved nations to be listed specifically. When legislation is to impinge on such a major devolved competency, it is important for them to take part in discussions. I also think it important to have a structure enabling medical bodies, experts and industry to contribute to the consultations, to ensure that all aspects have been considered.
There is no choice but for the Bill to go ahead because of the legislative gap that will result from our leaving Europe and the European Medicines Agency, particularly at the end of the transition period. We will therefore not force a vote, although I hope that we will be able to strengthen some aspects in Committee. Having to leave the EMA is just one example of what we are losing because of Brexit. Far from cutting red tape, Brexit will increase bureaucracy and costs for the pharmaceutical industry, the NHS and patients—and that is even before the possible impact of a United States trade deal on drug costs.
I am concerned by the threat to walk away from negotiations in June and move towards a no-deal outcome yet again. That would increase the risk to patients. Simply calling it an Australian deal does not cut it, because the Australians do not have a trade deal with the EU. I should like to know whether the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State has somehow solved the problem of supplies of insulin and medical radioisotopes, not just for a couple of months around the transition point but in the long term. The UK does not produce insulin or medical radioisotopes, and any friction at the border—which at present looks inevitable—will increase costs and delay access.
I also find it concerning that despite covid-19, which initiated a Cobra meeting this morning, the UK apparently does not even want to remain in the PANDA—Protocol for the Assessment of Nonviolent Direct Action—early warning and response system of the EU post-transition. Such isolationist policies are dangerous for everyone: for our constituents, and for our patients. We cannot get away from it: Brexit is a loss to healthcare and research, and the Bill cannot stop that. The principle of collaboration is central to the EMA, the European research network and, indeed, the EU itself, and it will be hard to replace that if we are throwing up barriers.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who has made me feel rather nostalgic. Listening to her speech gave me a flashback to when I used to go to Grand Ronde and hear someone speak so eminently plausibly in many a debate of which I had very little understanding.
Let me make this declaration now: I am a simple GP. When I entered the House, I always said that I would speak about the coalface and what really affected me at that point, and that is why I felt that I needed to speak about the Bill today. I welcome it because I approve of the emphasis on the creation of a world-leading research-driven, standards-based clinical care framework that can drive the UK forward, but two aspects have struck me in particular. The first is prescribing, and the second is trials and tests.
Members on both sides of the House have broadly welcomed the provision for new prescribers, and the flexibility for that within the framework. As the workforce and the demand grow and as the roles change, that new prescription will be necessary. I agree about the importance of ensuring that those prescribers have the necessary due diligence, training and registration, which, after all, will provide the safeguards and the accountability that are needed when it comes to writing a prescription. However, I think that the Bill has missed the issue of prescription waste, or waste medication. On numerous home visits doctors see piles of unused medication, and that does not apply only to their patients: there is a crossover in hospitals and, of course, in care homes. Some of it is purely coincidental as people are taken into hospital or from hospital into a care home, but there is a huge amount of it, and, anecdotally, doctors see it all the time. I have seen patients hand in up to 100 boxes of, say, warfarin, and that cannot be right.
When I consulted the House of Commons Library, it came up with a figure of £300 million a year in losses from 2011 on the basis of only one study. That suggests to me that, over a decade, it is hard to find sufficient information. Last week I spoke in the debate on the Environment Bill, one of whose first principles is that any other legislation should consider environmental impacts. I think that this Bill would do well to take account of prescription waste, which it could do that in a couple of ways.
Pharmacies and, indeed, any dispensers could be asked to legally collect the statistics on returns. That would allow us to see how big the problem actually is, and allow us to create solutions. It might sound strange for someone who has worked in the workforce and had lots of paperwork to be suggesting more paperwork, but at least if we open up the statistics, I am confident that my medical colleagues would look at them and see a way to resolve this.
I would also argue that we should review the charitable donation of medications. I freely admit that there are issues over their storage and over how to check the safety of this practice. However, the problem is not insurmountable if the medications are returned in their original state. If the Government do not address the matter in this Bill, I suggest that they might want to consider it going forward. We could, however, consider a more severe statutory obligation on pharmacies, care homes and dispensers to be far more vigorous in the way in which they dispense their medications and follow up, particularly for repeat prescriptions. Things such as emollients, moisturisers and day-to-day painkillers often pile up and end up on repeat prescriptions, and it is quite hard to monitor them. As someone who has written hundreds of prescriptions in a day, I know that it is very easy to sign them off rather than check them, and if there is no obligation for me to check whether the patient actually needs the medication, who does that responsibility fall to? It is arguably the patient, but if that is not happening, and if there is as much waste as we think there is, I suggest that the Government might want to consider that issue.
Jim Shannon
I recognise the fact that the hon. Gentleman is a GP. I declare an interest, in that I am a type 2 diabetic. At my surgery, my doctors and those who are in charge check my prescription every time to make sure that I am not over-ordering or getting more than I should be getting. Some GPs are doing that already and thereby controlling what medications people get.
Dr Evans
Absolutely, and I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is exactly what a GP should be doing. However, when a GP is dealing with hundreds of requests for repeat prescriptions, it is unlikely that they will have time to phone every single one of those patients to say, “Is this what you need? Have you already got it?” That has been the role of clinical pharmacists, particularly in relation to people who have multiple prescriptions for four, five or six medications, at the time of their medication review, which I entirely agree with. A GP will indeed look at a medication review, but when someone asks for a repeat prescription, they usually do it either electronically or by making a simple mark or cross on a piece of paper that they take to the GP surgery. It is unlikely, if the prescription has already been set for six or 12 months, that there would be a review of the prescription each month. That is the whole idea of having an annual review. In the old days, people could be on medications for months, if not years, without ever being checked. The reason for doing that was convenience. If a patient had to come in to see their GP every month to justify why they wanted their medication when their condition, say diabetes, was stable, that system would not be sustainable, given the current pressures on the NHS.
My second point relates to trials and tests. For me, another element that is missing from the Bill is a duty of care. I would like to give an example of a patient who came to see me who had had her genome sequenced. She came in with a report, and she said, “Dr Evans, I have been told I have a 50% chance of having cardiovascular issues and an 80% chance of having Parkinson’s disease. Please can you help me out?” That was very difficult to deal with. First, there is as yet very little we can do to influence Parkinson’s. Secondly, at that point I had had no training on counselling someone who had had genomic testing. The cardiovascular side was easier: we know some remits, and we can make a difference with cholesterol, exercise and lifestyle advice. But this is just the tip of the iceberg, and as the tests become more advanced and more people have them, I would like to see emphasis being put on ensuring that those doing the tests have a duty of care to ensure that there is follow-up and comeback for the person who has the test.
Dr Whitford
Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that it was completely wrong last year when the NHS in England tried to offer genomic testing for £500 or £600, provided that people were willing to allow the data from their genomic testing to be used in research, without any thought of the outcome that that would generate for general practices right across the country?
Dr Whitford
If the hon. Gentleman thinks that genomic testing for completely asymptomatic people without any family history is a benefit, does he then support the idea that it would only be the better-off people who could afford £500 or £600 who would have the test? Would that not widen health inequalities, which we will be debating on Wednesday?
Dr Evans
I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s point, but I would simply say that the NHS is going that way and will be providing those tests. My simple point is that whoever goes through such a test must have counselling afterwards to tell them what to do with the information. We could put that in law. It does not matter if the testing is done by the NHS or by a private testing facility. If an individual makes the choice to have the test, it must be incumbent on the person doing the test to inform them completely and counsel them throughout the test and of course afterwards when they are given the result. That duty should fall on the NHS, if the NHS has done the test, and on the private provider if the private provider has done it.
Ben Everitt
This is a brave new world for medical science and for the NHS, and we should not let ideology get in the way of getting the data that we need or of trialling things and accepting good ideas when they come our way, while of course taking on board what my hon. Friend is saying about getting it right at the GP end and ensuring that we look after the people who are involved in this pioneering work.
Dr Evans
Absolutely, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out. As I said at the start of my speech, this is about creating a framework that can be built on, and that framework should have standards and safety, but I would argue that a third strand that is needed is communication. That is the angle that is missing at this point.
That leads me on to my final point. When it comes to some medical devices, I use the term “device” in a slightly quizzical manner. For example, is lip filler a medical device? I would argue that it is probably not, but in the context of this Bill it might well fall into that category, and it probably should. Many people have cosmetic surgery. They have lip fillers, and all too often, I as a GP have had to pick up the pieces when something has gone wrong. My hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) is not here today, but she is bringing forward a private Member’s Bill to try to address some of these issues. This illustrates the point that now is the time to enshrine in legislation a duty of care to talk to people and to inform them, categorically, before, during and after any test or medical intervention. After all, that is the duty of a good health professional.
I support the Bill. I believe that it is about responsible research, medical provision and future-proofing medicines and medical devices, and I hope that in considering my points on prescribing, tests and trials, the Government will provide a framework that helps to strengthen our world-leading position on health.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Members for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) and for Bosworth (Dr Evans). I agree with everything they said.
I welcome this Bill and the steps that will be taken to improve patient safety and the availability of medicines and medical devices. I will keep my comments short today, as I hope to be further involved in the Bill’s later stages. There are some key points to make on Second Reading, however, as the Bill has the potential to affect so many people’s lives, both domestically and abroad.
As we all know, patient safety is vital and should not be compromised. Sadly, we have seen patient safety standards disregarded in the cases of valproate, Primodos and surgical mesh, which shows a clear need for the legislation in this area to be tightened. The experience of those patients shows the life-changing effect that medicines and medical devices can have on people if they are not thoroughly tested—a medical intervention designed to drastically improve a patient’s quality of life can, instead, leave them in a more dire situation.
We not only need to be aware of, and have concern for, patients in our own nation when we look at the medicines entering our national health service; we must also ensure that due care is given to the patients involved in the development of those medicines. We cannot sacrifice the health, rights and dignity of other human beings just to gain medicines for people in our country.
When we look to China, for example, we see that the evidence supplied by the independent China tribunal, which was released in full yesterday, overwhelmingly shows that organs have been harvested from unwilling political prisoners and prisoners of conscience such as members of Falun Gong and the Uyghur Muslims.
Jim Shannon
It is important that is put on the record. There was a question in the other place today on this very issue of organ harvesting. The hon. Lady and I, like others in this House, recognise that commercial organ harvesting is happening in China. Is it not important for our Government, and for all responsible Ministers, to contact the Chinese authorities directly to ensure that organ harvesting does not take place? It is not just the Uyghur Muslims but Christians and those of other ethnic minorities, too. They are all being discriminated against for being alive.
Ms Rimmer
The China tribunal report was issued yesterday, and it clearly states that organ harvesting is being done in a commercial, business-like manner. It is absolutely horrendous. People are being taken into prison for nothing, and their DNA is taken. A doctor who now drives an Uber taxi in London was forced to remove the liver and kidneys of a Uyghur Muslim while he was still living, which is horrendous. I and a number of others intend to get this resolved. We must ensure that medicines entering the United Kingdom have not been tested on or developed using those organs or any other human rights abuses, and I am sure the Government are aligned with me on this issue.
If appointed to the Public Bill Committee, I hope to move an amendment on this issue, on which there is cross-party support in both Houses. In the light of this week’s stories in The Guardian and The Daily Telegraph about major companies profiting from Uyghur slave labour, it seems there is no indignity, no suffering, that those poor people are not forced to endure. The trade in their organs must surely be one of the most wicked crimes against humanity of the 21st century. This Bill will provide the House with one small opportunity to strike a blow on their behalf.
Domestically, we must ensure that regulators are properly equipped with the resources and financial support to take on the new responsibilities outlined in this Bill so that we do not place more stress on an already overstretched NHS system. We must also better understand how the Government intend to monitor the effectiveness of those regulations and regulatory bodies, as well as the nature of their role in doing so.
The NHS is one of our nation’s greatest achievements, and any attempt to make it stronger is always to be welcomed. We must make sure that the United Kingdom’s health industry and the NHS help to make the lives of our citizens and those abroad safer, healthier and more dignified.
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)
I welcome this Bill. It is crucial that we have an effective regulatory system in this country, so we should enable the Government to amend existing regulations post Brexit. We could be a little more ambitious, however. Government time is precious, and I doubt we will have many occasions to discuss medicines and medical devices, which I suspect is why many of my colleagues have raised things that are not covered in the current legislation.
In a world in which medicines and medical devices are changing fast, the Government need to take greater powers to meet those changes and take advantage of them post Brexit. They need to be able not just to amend but to create regulations. My real concern is that the parameters of these new powers are drafted in such a way that they give power to the Government only to amend existing regulations—four sets of them. The Bill does not give the Government the power to do more, which is a missed opportunity.
Although I am conscious of the need to consider this at a European level, medicines and medical devices are, for most of us, a global issue. This Bill should not just be about ensuring we can cope after leaving Europe; it should be about the opportunity that can be created in the new global world we are entering.
A lot has been said, and rightly so, about the challenge of medical devices, which is a fast-growing area in which Britain is a leader, but it involves a huge variety of small and medium-sized enterprises, and innovation within devices is happening at a faster rate than within medicines. That is what we need to address, and I do not feel we achieve it with this Bill.
This legislation will not help with the challenges of breast implants, vaginal mesh and spinal implants that crumble, because the registry that is to be created is within the constraints and confines of existing registries that, by and large, collect information about devices. They do not collect information about the journey of those devices through the patient experience, from implant through to removal and replacement, including where the device may be defective. That information, properly recorded, would enable us not only to recall devices that we knew were faulty, but to go to patients in whom we knew a device had been implanted to expedite dealing with a medical emergency.
More importantly, medicine is about innovation and creativity. Unless we have a mechanism to evaluate the progress of medical devices implanted in individuals, how can we know which ones work and which ones do not? If a patient does not re-present, and if there is nothing added to the record, we will never know. Such a registry is mission critical.
The Government should be brave and consider a new clause to create such a registry, and they need to consider how we can consolidate the existing registries. There are many national, European and international registries for particular disease areas, and a lot of thought has been given to what best practice and the ideal registry look like. The International Medical Device Regulators Forum set out in 2016 exactly what it thought that should look like, and it seems to me that the Government would be well advised to consider that. It suggests collecting information not just about the device but about the journey through and in the patient. It seems to me that only through a change to the Bill will we achieve what we want to achieve.
Things probably go beyond that. Indeed, some of my hon. Friends have explained the complexity of understanding what a “device” is—does it include lip fillers, artificial intelligence and so on? The list of new innovations grows and will, to be honest, grow beyond current human imagination and we need a regulatory system that enables us to take advantage of that and regulate appropriately and quickly. We therefore need the capacity to change the definition of a device, and right now we do not have that because we are effectively adopting the definitions in the rules we adopted from Europe. We are giving ourselves the ability to fiddle, but not to change them fundamentally, and that is actually quite important.
We need to create an international search database so that we can deliver on some of the challenges of urgent harm, which we can prevent and deal with once a defective device is identified, and so that we can create something that gives us the opportunity to be world leaders in not only medical devices but medicines. It seems to me that that is the opportunity. Why do we constrain ourselves to being a follower? Why do we always talk about keeping up with Europe? Why not be the leaders? The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence was always set out as the global standard that everybody looked to—as absolutely what we wanted in every country. Why not have exactly the right system, whatever the NICE or the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency of the future looks like? Why not set the standard that others then follow?
In the earlier part of the Bill, where it covers the regulation of medicine as opposed to medical devices, there are some changes that look to the future—that is certainly the case for the changes regarding medical trials. However, it seems to me that that is a missed opportunity not only to consider the sort of regulatory system we might want in the future, but—even though we have NICE, the MHRA and notified bodies for the lower levels of medical devices, which provide CE marks— to look at this all over again. As has been said, some things that seem to be harmless and very simple, and seem simply to merit a CE mark, can become very dangerous in how they are ultimately used by a practitioner. We might need to look at all this again, but the power to do that simply is not in the Bill.
There is also nothing in the medicines section, as far as I can see, about increasing the speed of access to new developments and new medicines. That has always been a mantra of this Government, but I cannot see any provision for it. If we had control to look at the MHRA and NICE, we could do that, but as the Minister well knows the reality is that she has no power. The power to deal with the regulatory system and the regulations set by the MHRA and NICE is in the gift of NHS England. Following the Lansley reforms, that power is not now in the gift of the Government and it seems to me that the Government, who have this proactive agenda, should be taking the initiative so that they can be more direct in ensuring that we have the regulatory system we need. At the moment, all we have is the ability to limit the money that is available.
For example, the Government have talked about an innovative medicines fund, but I see nothing in the Bill to provide for that. I understand that the idea is that it can be just an extension of the cancer drugs fund, but, I ask the Minister, is that actually right? There should be different criteria—there will be different tests and different needs. Simply extending the cancer drugs fund will muddy the water and not deliver what we are really looking for, which is something that looks specifically at innovative medicines, which need clearly defining and properly clarifying. If we are to cover both groups, we need to increase the pot, but there is no suggestion of doing so.
There is a lot still to be done. Earlier, one of my colleagues made the good point that if we are to be a global leader rather than just a follower, we ought perhaps to look at how our marketing authorisations could be adopted and accepted in other countries, effectively saving costs and getting medicines to market faster. The UK would therefore be seen as the place to come for one’s marketing authorisation, rather than Europe, despite the size differential, because we would be the market leader in the mechanism to develop that.
For me, the Government have made a good start, but there is much to do. I look forward very much to the Minister’s closing remarks and, more importantly, to her confirmation that the Government have an ambitious vision and will be working hard during the following stages of the Bill’s consideration, of which I would very much like to be part, to consider changes that will deliver opportunities that the as drafted Bill does not offer. That said, it is a good start and something we can build on.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
The Bill is, of course, necessary to ensure that, in the absence of the European regulations under which we operate until the end of the implementation period, there are effective ways to regulate medicines and medical devices. Even under the current regulatory arrangements we have seen some patients face real difficulties, so it is vital that we get this right, as others have said.
The Minister will be aware that I and many hon. Members across the House have been working with the National Society for Phenylketonuria, or PKU, through the all-party group, to ensure that people with PKU have access to Kuvan, a drug widely available in many other countries. It feels like that has been a pretty hard slog at times, and we have not got there yet. I pay tribute to the NSPKU and, in particular, to Kate Learoyd and Caroline Graham, who have done such a lot of work to get the all-party group established and keep it very lively.
How much more difficult must it be for those people living with PKU—children and adults—to know that there is a drug that would help many of them, but to find that it is not available, than it is for us to see that situation for our constituents? In introducing the debate, the Secretary of State made a great deal of our new powers to act under these arrangements, and I hope very much that that means that Kuvan will become available very quickly. More broadly, I ask the Minister what this Bill will mean for patients with PKU who are hoping to have that drug made available, and how it will affect new therapies and drugs that are in development to treat PKU. How will they be licensed and made available?
Many rare diseases require a large pool of patients to have effective clinical trials of new treatments, and again I ask the Minister if she can say how she will ensure that UK patients can take part in those trials and benefit from innovative treatments. This will be important to the community of patients with rare diseases, not only those with PKU, and I know that there will be great anxiety about the issue of translating EU regulation into UK law and making sure that issues of access, safety and clinical trials are fully covered and regulated. UK patients with rare diseases must not be disadvantaged by separate licensing and trial arrangements, and I ask the Minister to comment on that.
Secondly, this legislation clearly impacts on the role of the MHRA. At this point, I want to mention the great work of Emma Murphy and Janet Williams, who have worked so hard on the issue of fetal valproate spectrum disorder, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) referred. They have found that, despite the devastating impact arising from women with epilepsy being prescribed the drug valproate during pregnancy and despite these problems being known about among the medical profession for many years, that drug is still being prescribed, sometimes in unmarked boxes, and is still causing damage to babies whose mothers have taken the drug. I hope that this new system will ensure that the regulations are strengthened to ensure that that cannot happen in any case in the future—the will is there to do it. This is happening even after advice to doctors and pharmacists had already been given as a result of the fetal valproate syndrome campaign, so we need action to resolve that straightaway.
Dr Whitford
I totally agree with the hon. Lady about the concerns and, we hope, the opportunity to ensure that any pack of sodium valproate that is dispensed carries the information. Does she share my concerns at the talk of having digital information, as many people are digitally excluded? Having actively to seek information about a drug is perhaps an additional barrier. We should be making this easier, simplifying the leaflets that are in with drugs, perhaps by having more infographics, to allow people with poor English or limited understanding to recognise what they should be doing around their medication.
Liz Twist
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and I agree that there is a concern about that. All forms of communication are great, and digital, as an extra, is good, but it must not exclude people who do not have access to computers or the internet. It certainly must not replace those paper warnings on boxes of tablets—we need to strengthen that bit as well.
I would like to see a strengthening of this legislation to make sure that what I have described could never happen again. I would also like to see effective data sharing, so that issues such as this were identified and acted upon quickly. Data sharing with the EU will continue to be important, so I ask the Minister, how will such data be shared with EU countries to ensure that we share those experiences and warnings?
Finally, I am concerned at the use of Henry VIII powers to create pharmacy hubs. There is already a concern that some community pharmacies face challenges from prescription-by-post services, at the same time as we are encouraging people to seek advice from their local pharmacist first. It is really important that local pharmacies are not pushed out of communities as a result of these measures, because they are really valued by the people who use them. Will the Minister tell me how she will ensure that that does not happen as a result of the powers to create pharmacy hubs?
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I must start by declaring an interest: before arriving in this place, I spent some nine years working in the pharmaceutical industry for two European companies, and I continue to hold a small number of shares granted to me by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Although I and my party support this legislation, clearly it is important that the UK should have the ability to regulate human medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices following the end of the transition period. It will not surprise Members to hear me say that we believe it is extremely regrettable that we are even in this position in the first place. Clearly, in terms of ensuring that British patients have safe and swift access to medicines and medical devices, and ensuring our life sciences industry continues to remain competitive, our interests would have been best served by staying in the EU. That is why we will continue to fight tooth and nail against a hard Tory Brexit, despite the reckless and threatening approach to negotiations being taken by this Government. A hard, no-deal Brexit at the end of this year could spell catastrophe for British patients and the life sciences industry.
My main concern is that the provisions of this Bill could allow for significant regulatory divergence for medicines and medical devices from the rest of the EU. The medical research community and manufacturers are united in their call for the UK to remain as close as possible to the EU, preferably through negotiating associate membership of the European Medicines Agency. Any divergence from European regulation should take account of three principles: patient safety; early access for British patients to the latest innovations; and the competitiveness of the UK life sciences sector. In using the powers of this Bill to seek any divergence from the European regulatory framework, the No. 1 consideration should always be protecting patient safety. Any bid to make a UK stand-alone regulatory system more competitive than Europe must not seek to undercut the EU in safety standards, be that in terms of clinical trial regulation or the hurdles a new medicine, vaccine or device must clear to secure marketing authorisation or accreditation in the UK.
I would also take this opportunity to urge Ministers to consider, as they enter into negotiations with the EU, the critical and indeed life-saving importance of remaining part of the EMA’s pharmacovigilance network. By collecting and sharing real-time data on approved medicines, the EMA is able to identify trends and quickly take actions to inform patients and health professionals about safety concerns. By remaining part of a network across 28 countries rather than just the UK on its own, our network would have far wider coverage, with a far greater number of patients using a drug, thus increasing the likelihood of the data collected being more accurate, and concerns being picked up at an earlier stage. Related to that point, I wish to highlight the shocking and wanton disregard for public health and safety that we have heard from the Government about wanting to withdraw from the EU’s early warning system on pandemics, given the serious global challenge we face on coronavirus. Even the Government’s former Minister Baroness Blackwood has been saying in the media today that that is not the way forward to ensure that we protect patient safety. We all know that disease knows no borders, so it is ridiculous and isolationist, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) has said, to withdraw from that system.
The second principle to consider when using the powers within this Bill to diverge from European regulation is ensuring that British patients continue to have swift and early access to the latest innovations. I welcome the Government’s intention to use these provisions to ensure that NHS hospitals are able to manufacture and trial the most innovative new personalised and short-life medicines. The UK should be at the cutting edge of supporting those pioneering new treatments to be made available to British patients. However, we must not forget that the vast majority of medicines, and indeed devices, coming through the pipeline are not in that category. Any significant divergence from the EU regulatory framework will inevitably lead to delays in new technologies being made available to British patients.
As has been mentioned, the maths is obvious: the EMA covers 25% of global medicines sales, whereas the UK on its own makes up only 3%. Companies are likely to submit applications for new drugs to the EMA before the MHRA, meaning that UK patients risk having slower access to the latest medicines—we see this with Switzerland, Canada and Australia already. How will the Government ensure that the MHRA’s processes remain among the fastest in the world, while maintaining patient safety? The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) implores us to be a leader in that regard, not a follower, but it makes no commercial sense for us to be outside the European regulatory framework. I know that from my personal experience of working on the dreaded Brexit taskforce when I was in industry. My European regulatory colleagues were not in the slightest bit interested in helping me and British colleagues define, and then represent to Government, what a competitive new divergent system might look like. Understandably, commercially their priority was and remains the 445 million inhabitants of the other EU27, as opposed to the 66 million or so in the lone ranger that is the UK. That point is not lost on Cancer Research UK, which has specifically called for clause 2(1) in part 1 of the Bill to be used to facilitate UK recognition of and participation in the EMA’s medicines licensing processes.
One of the earliest ways that patients gain access to the latest innovations is through clinical trials. The Bill could be used to amend the regulations that govern clinical trials in the UK. It is worth noting that the number of trials conducted in the UK has fallen since 2016, with the UK falling behind the USA, Germany, Canada and Spain for phase 3 commercial clinical trials. Although there is an opportunity to make the UK more attractive for clinical trials, any such opportunity must not come at the cost of patient safety, and high standards should be maintained. Any stimulation of the clinical trial environment must include continued UK-EU collaboration on trials, which is critical for trials involving medicines for rare diseases or children, in respect of which the population in any one country is not sufficiently large for a trial. Furthermore, the EU’s clinical trials regulation, which is due to be implemented in 2022, should accelerate trial setup times, improve safety reporting and facilitate collaborative research, because of the digital infrastructure that underpins it. The UK played a pivotal role in developing the CTR and our patients would benefit greatly from it being implemented here.
My third point is closely connected to my previous point: any divergence from European regulation should take account of the competitiveness of the life sciences sector, which successive Governments have often described as a “jewel in the crown” of UK plc. Our remaining an early launch market by keeping in step with EMA is key to our continuing to attract high levels of foreign direct investment into the UK from pharmaceutical companies. Any additional burden on applying for marketing authorisation for medicines, or a separate system for the accreditation of medical devices in the UK, away from the CE marking scheme, will make the industries less competitive. Also key to competitiveness is the securing of frictionless and tariff-free trade as part of the negotiations with the EU. That is critical given the integrated and complex cross-border supply chains in the manufacture of medicines and medical devices.
To summarise, the Bill is necessary in view of the UK’s unfortunate decision to leave the EU. However, I urge caution on Ministers in respect of how the powers in the Bill are used. British patients must be kept safe, they must be able to access the latest medicines and technologies at the earliest opportunity, and we must not undermine the thriving life sciences industry in the UK. The Government’s quest to make the UK a Singapore-style regulation-light country must not see us undercutting safety standards in a bid to improve our competitiveness. As the Government seek to negotiate a trade deal with the EU, the way to safely ensure that British patients can access the medicines and technologies that they need, and the way to keep attracting industry investment into the UK, is by remaining as close as possible to the European regulatory regime.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
This has been an excellent debate—and we seem to have plenty of time left for winding up. I thank all Members from all parties who have taken part, and particularly my hon. Friends for their excellent speeches: my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) made the case for Kuvan for sufferers of PKU, which I shall mention again in a moment, and my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) made a powerful speech about organ harvesting that I am sure we will discuss in more detail in Committee.
The hon. Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) raised an issue that is not currently on the face of the Bill but perhaps should be. It is something that I have discussed with Health Secretaries for well over a decade now—probably around 12 years—starting with the then Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle when Labour was in government, and I raised it with the Minister only last week. The issue is the waste of prescription medication. The hon. Gentleman mentioned a possible figure of £300 million a year from the House of Commons Library, and that did not surprise me. I can well believe that that could be the figure and agree that there has to be a way to reduce that waste. As the hon. Gentleman said, we should start by measuring it, and perhaps consider the active, safe charitable donation of such medicines, because £300 million-worth of perfectly good medicines being put into an incinerator every year cannot be the best outcome. There has to be a better way. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, which the Minister will remember we discussed just last week.
I thank the Minister and her officials, who have taken the time last week and since to brief me and my team on the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) said in his opening remarks, the Opposition support the principle of the Bill, but we have some concerns that I shall briefly outline and to which I hope the Minister will respond, if not now then perhaps at a later stage in the Bill’s progress through the House. The Bill deals with both human and animal health, and I shall start with human health.
Patient safety is of the utmost importance and I recognise that with the Bill the Government are taking steps to improve both patient safety and the availability of medicines and medical devices to patients in the UK after the transition period is over on 31 December this year. However, as the Minister knows, in the cases of valproate, Primodos and surgical mesh, which we have heard about already in the debate, patient safety and patients’ experiences in the past—sometimes even now, in respect of mesh—have sometimes been disregarded when they have reported issues to their GP. The independent medicines and medical devices safety review has been looking into that, and I very much look forward to seeing Baroness Cumberlege’s recommendations later this month.
I should also mention that there are questions of patient safety in respect of other devices, such as breast implants and metal-on-metal hip implants. There are a host of examples of patient safety having been compromised. We must ensure that that does not happen again.
Medical devices are not subject to the same strict regulations as medicines. Faulty washing machines are treated with far more caution than a medical device that goes wrong. A case in point is that we will all have been written to recently by Whirlpool. Regulations must be tightened for both medicines and medical devices. I am sure that the Government will consider seriously the forthcoming recommendations from Baroness Cumberlege in the review.
One mechanism in the Bill to increase patient safety is the provision to establish a database for medical devices and provide the Secretary of State with new powers to share information about medical devices in limited circumstances. However, there are approximately 80,000 different medical devices on the UK market. Will every device be entered into the database? What steps have been taken to establish such a database? Will the Minister please provide some more information about the point at which the Secretary of State will be mandated to share the information held on a medical device with the public? I wholeheartedly agree that there should be a database of this nature, but it must be fit for purpose and healthcare professionals must be able to access an updated database to make sure that they can provide the best treatment and care for their patients that is safe. I hope that the database would go further and become a register or even a registry, as the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) suggested. A barcode could be included on each device that is scanned into a patient’s records so that a register or registry is created.
As I have mentioned, the Bill makes provisions for access to medicines and medical devices after 31 December. However, it is causing concern for some patients who are currently participating in EU-wide clinical trials and for patients who fear that they may miss out on future trials. Can the Minister provide any assurances today about access to EU-wide clinical trials, especially for those patients who are already on them? Access to such clinical trials would especially benefit patients with rare diseases, who have a small patient group here in the UK. Will the Minister please set out what provisions will be made for patients with rare diseases who could benefit from participating in a clinical trial?
As this Bill comes into force on 1 January 2021, will the Minister reassure the House that the supply of medicines and medical devices will be maintained in the run-up to the end of the transition period? This Bill could enhance access to medicines, but what does that mean for patients with rare diseases? For example, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon, who spoke so passionately about PKU, patients have been waiting for more than 10 years for the drug, Kuvan, to be made available on the NHS. We know that Kuvan works for patients with PKU, because some have raised funds for it and been paying for it privately. Although it is expensive, the cost is not outwith the reach of some patients, but patients in the UK should not have to go without effective drugs. I am sure that we have all had constituents who have brought these cases to us. I therefore hope that provisions will be made to improve access to medicines, particularly for those people with rare diseases.
I welcome the Government’s announcement today about faster access to cannabis-based medicines, and I would be very grateful if the Minister could please expand on that announcement and how that relates to this Bill in particular. I also welcome the provisions in the Bill that allow for prescription powers to be granted to some bodies within the healthcare system—for example, to physiotherapists. Will the Minister set out what she envisages this system will look like, who will be able to prescribe, and what they will be able to prescribe and under what circumstances? Will these new prescribers be trained sufficiently to fulfil this role? Where will they get their information from about medicines and medical devices that they are prescribing, especially if there are new warnings on them, as we have seen, for instance, with Valproate.
The Bill also allows for pharmacy hubs to be established under a Henry VIII power, so will the Minister give the House a timescale for this power to be used? I would also be grateful if she outlined how these pharmacy hubs will work in practice, as I am concerned that this could open up an Amazon-style prescription service.
Let me move on to animal health and veterinary medicine. Although this subject is more likely to come under a DEFRA brief, I know that there is a link between human health and animal health, not least when it comes to antimicrobial resistance. Keeping our animals fit and healthy and ensuring that vets have the medicines that they need to provide treatment and care for animals is, of course, crucially important to many of us. Will the Minister please assure the House that the supply of veterinary medicines in the UK will be maintained in the run-up to the end of the transition period and that standards for veterinary medicines will be upheld to ensure that animals are given the best possible treatment after the transition period.
The Bill gives powers to relevant bodies to amend regulations as necessary, so will the Minister assure the House that the regulators are equipped with the right finance and resources to take on these new responsibilities? I am pleased that, in non-urgent cases, there will be consultations held before any regulations are changed, but can the Minister outline how long these consultations will run for and how soon after the consultation closes the new regulation will be implemented? What formal processes will be put in place to ensure that industry is involved in these consultations and, finally, how will the Government monitor the effectiveness of the regulations? What bodies will be able to scrutinise the performance and delivery of the regulators?
As I mentioned at the beginning of my speech, we do not want to find ourselves in several years’ time with news that a medical device or medicine is causing serious harm to patients—more than we have already, given what Baroness Cumberlege is looking into. Regulators must be held to account on this as much as the manufacturing industry and healthcare system.
In closing, human and animal safety is of the utmost importance, which is why we on the Labour Benches welcome this Bill, but I would be grateful if the Minister could answer these questions. If that is not possible in the time available tonight, especially given the rate at which I have put these questions to her, then perhaps in writing or indeed, during the passage of the Bill in Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
First, let me thank all hon. Members for their support in discussing this enabling legislation. It is a pleasure to close this debate on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill. The Bill is both a piece of legislation to future-proof our regulatory regime going forward and an opportunity to clarify and improve the one that we have now.
I am gratified that hon. Members have approached this debate with thoughtful consideration. Obviously, there is a lot more to discuss in Committee, because several themes came up during the course of this afternoon’s debate on which I can only touch now. I will take up the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and write to her. I have not had the chance thus far to have a specific briefing with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), so perhaps we could do so to enable us all to understand our direction of travel.
Patient safety is not a partisan issue; it is paramount. It is what drives us to do what we do. It does not matter which side of the House we sit on, the patient is at the centre of our concern. We hope that, in going forward, we can enhance and strengthen that view and show ourselves as an exemplar to the world in the way that we conduct trials and in the way that the life science and pharmaceutical industries work. We hope to assist the whole industry in making sure that we never compromise on patient safety.
This will be the first opportunity in 40 years for the UK to make choices regarding how we regulate medicines, veterinary medicines and medical devices in the best interests of the UK now that we have left the EU. This is all part of our making sure that we transition smoothly on 1 January next year. Members from all parts of the House feel passionately about the outcome of negotiations on the future relationship. I would like to assure hon. Members that the Bill allows us, in the future, to set rules that are best for the UK, whatever the outcome of those negotiations. The Bill is important, as it makes clear the Government’s commitment to the life science sector, which is worth over £75 billion to our economy and which contributes almost 250,000 jobs to the UK. We are rightly proud of that sector, but innovations and advancement must be matched by rigorous standards to protect patients. I very much take on board the comments of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), which were particularly pertinent to the experience that she brings to this House. I hope to enjoy more of that debate when we are in Committee.
The Bill sets out clear principles: ensuring patient safety; ensuring their continued access to medicines and devices; and maintaining the attractiveness of the UK as a market and a place for clinical trials. There is a delicate balance there that we must continue to strike, and the debate today demonstrates the paramount importance of all those principles. On that point, I will move on to the comments of hon. Members.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The provisions on veterinary medicines are essentially a straight lift from the human medicines part of the Bill. There is one significant difference, of course: animals that have been prescribed and administered medicines are put into the food chain. With regard to withdrawal periods, that, in turn, can have a significant impact on the access to markets of exported meats. Will the Minister consider later an amendment to clause 8(2), to provide at least some regard to the commercial position of the end meat products?
Jo Churchill
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am always happy to have a discussion to see whether any accommodation can be made. As far as veterinary medicines go, I should say that, unlike with human medicines, we pay attention to the environmental impact as they go through.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I should declare an interest as a veterinary surgeon. I want to bang the drum for part 2 of the Bill and the importance of the way in which it addresses veterinary medicines. The Bill will go some way towards providing assurances to the UK veterinary profession that there will be continuity in its ability to prescribe for and treat a group of patients that have not been discussed much tonight: animal patients in our country.
Jo Churchill
I am happy to give my hon. Friend the assurance that there will be that continuity. That is precisely the aim of the Bill.
The shadow Secretary of State asked me to comment on reports that he had read in the papers today about health security. The UK is open to exploring co-operation between the EU and other specific narrowly defined areas when it is in the interests of both sides—and on matters of health security, it would be foolish not to.
Several Members discussed clinical trials, with a particular eye to the rare diseases cohort, which is obviously, by its nature, small. It is only sensible to ensure that we have the ability to collaborate across Europe to determine that we have the best environment for the development of drugs. I would caution people to breathe before we go forward. We are committed to ensuring that we remain the best place for those on rare disease trials.
The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency has taken steps to ensure that there is absolutely no disruption to clinical trials and that they can continue seamlessly. It is important that we are tempered in tone to ensure that people’s clinical trials carry on. We want a world-leading regulatory system for clinical trials that allows us to collaborate effectively—not only across Europe, but globally. We have one of the best life sciences industries in the world, for which effective collaboration is important.
Now that we have left the European Union, it is important to make it clear that UK sponsors will still be able to run multi-state trials across the world. We want a regulatory system that maintains and enhances the attractiveness of the UK as a site for global co-operation in research.
I move on. We will extend prescribing rights to physician associates through other means. We are discussing the extension of physician associates’ rights for prescribing in the context of the increase in clinical professionals who will be working in the health service. The broader ability of the Bill to ensure prescribing rights will be carried through only in collaboration with the appropriate regulatory oversight, whether from the General Medical Council or the Health & Care Professions Council, depending on whether allied health professionals or physician associates are involved.
The hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) asked whether clinical trials data would include those forced to participate. I assure her that clinical data used to support regulatory activity in the UK needs to comply with international good clinical practice standards, including ethical considerations such as the critical principle of informed consent. That means that the appalling cases to which she alluded could not be involved in clinical trials.
Ms Rimmer
There are signs up in Chinese airports saying “Organ transplants this way” in English; there is a clear path through. I am not saying that it is the English who are going, but the system is international. People are going out. France is already taking steps to stop organ tourism.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention.
Let me point out to the shadow Secretary of State that it is possible that the use of artificial intelligence—to determine what treatment to give a patient, for example—would fall within the scope of the regulation-making powers in the future. It is right that we have the tools to respond to this kind of technology in the years ahead. I was most interested by the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Chris Green) about better patient outcomes. I could not agree with him more about the importance of the life sciences sector, and about using data to inform as we go forward. The MHRA will be able to conduct inspections for manufacturing, distributions, clinical trials, laboratories and pharmacovigilance, and it is important that that continues to ensure that we uphold standards.
There were numerous other comments, particularly about the medicines and medical devices lists and register. I look forward to ensuring that we have a robust debate in Committee about what is best for the patient and the clinician. My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Dr Evans) made an important point about clinicians perhaps annotating patients’ notes with information about why they used a particular medicine or device.
We have spoken about medical devices perhaps being manufactured at a patient’s bedside. The shadow Minister mentioned having a barcode on each device. It would be quite hard to barcode a device when it was manufactured in order to put it on to a register. I hope that having this discussion in later stages will inform us all how best to do this.
I hope that the spirit of this debate—one in which we are all in support of a common purpose—carries through to the examination of the Bill. This legislation offers an opportunity for the UK to protect patients, support the development of an exciting and important sector, and do what is best in the UK for the UK’s interests. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Medicines and Medical Devices Bill (Programme)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 23 April 2020.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(James Morris.)
Question agreed to.
Medicines and Medical Devices Bill (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of:
(1) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown, a government department, a person holding office under Her Majesty or any other public authority by virtue of the Act; and
(2) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided.—(James Morris.)
Question agreed to.
Medicines and Medical Devices Bill (Ways and Means)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill, it is expedient to authorise the charging of fees, or other charges, arising by virtue of the Act.—(James Morris.)
High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill: Revival
Monday 2nd March 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 15 July 2019 - (15 Jul 2019)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the Minister to move the motion, I should inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected any amendments.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
I beg to move,
That if a Bill is presented to this House in this session in the same terms as those in which the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill stood at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the 2019 session—
(a) the Bill so presented shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House, and
(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the 2019 session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in this session.
That the above Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
I am delighted to be here this evening to undertake my first piece of parliamentary business as the new Minister for high-speed rail. I have been given specific oversight of this hugely significant project.
The High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill, also known as the phase 2a Bill, concerns a section of HS2 that will extend the railway from the end of phase 1, just north of Birmingham, to Crewe. Hybrid Bills are unusual and relatively rare. A hybrid Bill is both a public Bill and a private Bill in one—hence, hybrid. The Bill could be characterised as an alternative planning consent process.
The Bill was introduced into this House in July 2017. It passed its Second Reading in January 2018 and moved into its Select Committee stage. Over 300 petitions were received. In response, two additional provisions were promoted that made changes to the Bill to resolve those petitions. That process took over a year. Hearings finished in the spring of 2019, and the amendments were agreed. The Bill then completed its stages in this place and moved to the House of Lords, where it had its Second Reading last September.
It is normal for a Bill like this to carry over from one parliamentary Session to another. The previous Parliament did not make time available to secure carry-over motions, so I am bringing the Bill back today with this revival motion. Private Bills that are not carried over are often revived. Revival has been used before for a hybrid Bill. For those who may be geeky and interested, the process is set out in “Erskine May”, in paragraph 37 of chapter 45 on page 1,162.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
This is indeed very geeky and technical, and all very interesting, but can I urge the Minister, particularly when he responds to the debate, to talk about the benefits of HS2 and how we can bring those benefits online now? May I particularly commend to him the new Siemens rail factory that is coming to Goole, with £250 million of investment, and our excellent steelworks at Scunthorpe, which already supplies Network Rail with all of its railways, thereby demonstrating the benefit to the whole of the country of this Bill?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Gentleman asks the Minister whether he can make certain commendations. He can try, but I am afraid he cannot, really, because this is a very, very narrow motion on procedure; it is not a debate on the merits or otherwise of the Government’s railway policy.
Andrew Stephenson
Thank you for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can, however, assure my hon. Friend, who is a doughty champion of the Brigg and Goole constituency, that 98% of businesses involved in HS2 are British, and approximately 70% of the contracts already awarded are going to small and medium-sized enterprises. I am sure he will continue to champion the businesses in his constituency to ensure that they get the maximum benefit from this scheme.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a procedural point, my hon. Friend will be aware that there are some experienced politicians who could use various tactics to delay this measure. I would not like to join those people. Can I just mention, though, that if we are spending £100 billion on this, my constituents are very keen on the Government giving £1 million only to London North Eastern Railway for our through train to Grimsby and Cleethorpes via Market Rasen? I would very much hope that the Minister, in terms of procedure and ensuring a smooth passage and support for this measure, could perhaps give a gentle green light to my through train for just £1 million.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. No, the right hon. Gentleman cannot talk about Grimsby. I call the Minister.
Andrew Stephenson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Once again, I am tempted to talk about a very laudable proposal from my right hon. Friend. I know that the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), who is sitting next to me, sees significant merit in that proposal and will hopefully be looking at it in due course.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
As my hon. Friend may know, the amendment that I proposed, which has not been selected—I do not complain about that, or rather I complain about the principle but not about the action—says that these Standing Orders would contradict fundamental constitutional principles. Bills come to an end in the Session in which they were introduced unless a carry-over motion is passed before Prorogation or Dissolution. It is extremely rare, and almost unique, for the process that we are now witnessing to take place. I just put that on the record; I have further points that I am sure the Minister is expecting me to make later.
Andrew Stephenson
I note my hon. Friend’s concern. My direct reference to “Erskine May” would, I hope, have put his mind to rest as to why we are using this procedure in this rather unique circumstance.
Since the Government have decided that HS2 should go ahead and that phase 2a should be built, we now need to take the next step, which is to revive the Bill. This motion has the same effect as a carry-over motion, and if Members agree it today, the Bill will resume in the same place that it stopped. That means it will pass to the House of Lords, where it would resume its Select Committee stage. Passing this motion therefore allows the progress already made to be kept. It allows those directly affected to continue with the legal processes they still have to complete, safe in the knowledge that the changes they requested to the Bill and previously received will be kept.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his place. The Labour party is supportive of the motion—as can be seen from the massed ranks of the Opposition behind me right now!—because we see HS2 as key to boosting regional economies and reducing climate emissions. It is essential for increasing rail capacity and freeing up other lines for freight use. I rather think that some of the troubles we have had with High Speed 2 might have been avoided had we come up with another name for it, but that is by the by.
Successive Conservative Transport Ministers have shown themselves lacking in competence and unable to oversee the finances and governance of HS2, among other infrastructure projects. In recent years, the Government have presented inaccurate information to both Parliament and the public about the cost of HS2. The public need to have confidence in the project, but sadly the Government have undermined that with their failure to exercise any control over not only costs but redundancy payments. There is real concern that the true costs of the project were known to be much higher than the figures that the Government continually promoted. As the project progresses, it is essential that there is much greater transparency.
In addition, when the contracts for phase 1 were being granted, despite hedge fund managers making a packet out of the inevitable demise of Carillion, this Tory Government crashed on regardless, awarding the doomed organisation a valuable HS2 contract.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I am curious. The hon. Gentleman says that he does not believe the figures for the cost of HS2 reflect reality. He may well be right. What does he think HS2 will cost?
Andy McDonald
We are told that the cost has risen from £57 billion to £80 billion, and rumour has it that it is now more than £100 billion. I am not in a position to make an informed judgment because I am not in possession of the information that Ministers have, but people are understandably concerned about costs increasing at such a rate.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
In fact, the Carillion collapse meant that all the Carillion liabilities for the contract were transferred to the two other contractors. Where was the harm in that? Was that not a rather skilfully let triple contract?
Andy McDonald
On the contrary, it was one of the most cataclysmic episodes of the HS2 story. When everybody and his dog knew that Carillion was in difficulties, and hedge fund managers were making millions on the demise of Carillion, this Government ploughed on with it, regardless of the information that was in the public domain. It was clear evidence of utter incompetence.
The Oakervee review was correct to say that HS2 must be a fully integrated part of the modern railway system and must extend to the great cities of the north, linking up with Crossrail for the north and on to Scotland, to curtail the demand for domestic flying in this country at the earliest opportunity.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
One issue that many people like me on the south coast have, which I hope Ministers will look at, is that the average speed from London to Portsmouth and Southampton has not changed since the 1920s. At the moment, we are seeing vast amounts of money going into a project of mixed popularity, to put it mildly, while people in Southampton, Portsmouth and my constituency of the Isle of Wight will be struggling with speeds—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. We are not talking about the Isle of Wight. We are talking about a procedural motion.
Andy McDonald
I take that admonishment, Madam Deputy Speaker, and simply satisfy the hon. Gentleman by saying that the Labour party entered the last general election with a fully costed regional plan that would have served his area adequately.
The dividends in reduced emissions are immense, and I encourage the Government to articulate that argument better at every opportunity. We are concerned that the links to Manchester and Leeds are now under review and could even be downgraded. The Government have repeatedly broken their promises of investment in the north, with the region set to receive just a fraction of the investment to be made in London, and a northern powerhouse simply has to be much more than a slogan.
HS2 must be developed with more sensitivity to local communities and much more sensitivity to the environmental impact, particularly on modern and ancient woodlands across the country.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Andy McDonald
I will give way, save that I may incur your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker.
David Simmonds
I have a very specific point on this issue. One of the lessons from my constituency about the first phase of HS2 is that commitments given to this House on earlier phases have simply not been honoured by HS2 Ltd. I would encourage us, and ask the Minister, to consider how we can hold it robustly to account on this second phase to ensure that, when commitments and promises are made to this House about how local communities and individual families will be treated and supported sensitively and they are not honoured, there must be consequences.
Andy McDonald
I think the hon. Gentleman makes a very valid point. The issues of governance and communication have to be improved, and I think everybody in the House would agree with that.
On modern and ancient woodlands, I just make the point that the commitment to the speed of this project may have to be reviewed. I think the commitment to going in straight lines at 250 mph has to be taken into consideration. If we look at the TGV in France, the average speed of that high-speed link is 187 mph, and that does not impact on its efficiency.
If the project is to have full public support, the fares on HS2 must be affordable and comparable with the rest of the fare system on the rail network. It has previously been intimated that for HS2 to gain the confidence of the public, it cannot be a premium service. If HS2 is successfully to replace so many long-distance journeys, it has to be an integral part of an affordable and accessible railway.
The Transport Secretary should ensure that the procurement of HS2’s rolling stock is conducted in a way that makes sure the trains will be manufactured in the UK and will benefit the UK supply chain. Could the Minister inform the House of what steps the Secretary of State is going to take to ensure that the delivery of HS2 is closely co-ordinated with Network Rail’s ongoing work programme and the development of Northern Powerhouse Rail?
Given the amount of public money that is to be spent on delivering HS2, it is essential that the Government ensure that HS2 services are run under public ownership, so that British taxpayers can see a return on their investment in supporting the UK economy, rather than in enriching private companies or foreign state-owned companies. Her Majesty’s Opposition are indeed supportive, and we look forward to the progress of the project.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
In a nutshell, I am seeking an assurance from the Minister, which I hope I will be able to get before the end of these proceedings, that phase 2a should be reviewed by Sir John Armitt at the same time as phase 2b, for which he has already been given terms of reference. Basically, it boils down to this: it is being suggested that the construction of phase 2a should follow quickly after phase 1—this view has been reinforced by the Oakervee review, which concluded that the Government should consider merging the construction of phase 2a with phase 1—but this is not only an unnecessary but an undesirable idea, and furthermore it is unrealistic.
I refer now to the actual motion before the House, which says that the Bill
“if…presented to this House in this session in the same terms as those in which the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill stood at the last stage of its proceedings…the Bill…shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this House, and…the Standing Orders”
adjusted accordingly. Given this motion and the arguments I am presenting, that means that we are bound to have regard to what the Bill says, and the extent to which it will be dealt with under the procedures that follow these novel and unique changes to the Standing Orders.
As we heard from the Minister, phase 1 of HS2 received Royal Assent in February 2017. It has not progressed because the main works civil contractors have been unable to come up with a design that can be delivered for the budget available. Phase 2a has not yet received Royal Assent, so we are at least a couple of years away from all this happening. Given the proposed changes to the Standing Orders, and the manner in which it is deemed that the Bill is being carried forward, is important to note that phase 2a is required only if phase 2b west is constructed according to current proposals. Crucially, those proposals could be changed by the Armitt review, and all that phase 2a would effectively achieve would be to connect HS2 to the west coast main line approximately 58 km further north—at Blakenhall, south of Crewe—rather than at the Handsacre link. With the estimated cost of phase 2a now rising to £6.6 billion, it is not wise—this is the crucial point—to commit to phase 2a without knowing what Sir John Armitt might conclude regarding phase 2b.
This project will cause immense damage to my constituents, although I will not expand on that at this juncture as that point is related to ground conditions and matters that I could go into in more detail only if I had more time. In a nutshell it comes to this: HS2 Ltd produced a report in 2019, and it is clear that it faces a shortfall of fill along the entire length of phase 2a. Such fundamental questions can be taken into account under the proposed changes to the Standing Orders now being discussed only if realism prevails.
Will the Minister use this opportunity to give an assurance on the Floor of the House that phase 2a will be treated, in some shape or form, in the context of what Sir John Armitt will consider with regard to phase 2b? The two things are interlinked, and as this is a railway that goes from north to south, it is essential that it all fits together. If phase 2b is to be reviewed by Sir John Armitt, for the reasons I have already given it is essential that phase 2a is also considered in the review by Sir John Armitt. Otherwise—I say this with a great generosity of heart—the Minister may find that if he does not do what I am suggesting, they will get to phase 2b and find that phase 2a does not work. If that does not work, we will end up with a railway that is not be capable of being constructed.
In light of the changes to the Standing Orders, I am offering a realistic appraisal that will make possible a proper review not only of phase 2b, but of phase 2a, which is what the Bill is about. I do not need to expand on that any more. I am concerned about compensation for my constituents, and about a range of other matters that lie outside the motion before us. In a nutshell, it is essential that phase 2a and phase 2b are somehow brought within the framework of the terms of reference issued by the Government for Sir John Armitt to consider. If we get that, we will at least be able to have a proper consultation, and on that I rest my case.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
The most interesting speeches in this place are always given when one does not expect to make them. I am sure that what I am about to say will not find favour with a lot of my colleagues, but sometimes one has to stand up in this place for what is right. I spent over a year on the phase 1 hybrid Bill Committee. We delved into that railway in enormous detail. I am sure that my colleagues who served on the phase 2a Committee, which also took nearly a year, delved into that in huge detail as well. I commend the motion to the House. This resurrection motion is the correct thing to do.
I started my service on that Committee opposed to the railway on the grounds that it was high-speed rail. However, it is nothing to do with high-speed rail; it is all about capacity. Unless we take passengers and freight off the east coast and west coast main lines, our roads will clog up, journey times will become completely untenable and we will fail to meet our carbon targets in 2050. The revival motion is therefore right and we need to build this railway. We need to build not only phase 1, but phase 2 and phase 2b.
As deputy Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, I want absolute value for money. I have already seen, in the phase 1 Committee, some of the horrors that took place. The evidence before us was, in many cases, disingenuous. The costs of the things we were doing were not fully costed. Nor was it fully understood how they could be delivered. I would be very concerned if the motion led to the same things on phase 2a.
Let me, with a little bit of latitude, give the Chamber some examples of what we found. The chief finance officer for HS2 Ltd asked permission in writing to pay enhanced redundancy payments. He was told not to, but he went ahead and did it anyway. That cost the taxpayer nearly £2 million. On Wednesday, the Public Accounts Committee will examine the costs. We will consider why £2 billion of savings—most of this is expected to come from phase 1 and phase 2a, which is what we are negotiating tonight—are probably undeliverable. Whatever the costs at the moment, they will be higher than whatever anybody says.
We need to build this railway. We need to increase capacity on our railways. We need to get cars and freight off our roads, otherwise they will clog up. That is why I support the motion.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, because this matter is hugely important to my constituency. I welcome the revival of the Bill, and hopefully its imminent passage, as evidence of the Government backing Crewe and backing the north. If you will allow me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I want to explain why I support the revival of the Bill.
I was glad to have had the opportunity to host the Minister at Crewe station just last week, where he got to hear first-hand about what is already happening locally: businesses opening up in Crewe and the plans Cheshire East Council has to create a new economic hub around the station. The revival of the Bill will accelerate the positive changes we see locally.
Sir William Cash
Does my hon. Friend accept that originally the railhead was going to be in Crewe? It was only frustrated by decisions on housing grounds taken by the district council. In fact, it was dumped on Stone in my constituency without any notice.
Dr Mullan
I cannot pretend, as a new Member, to have my hon. Friend’s knowledge of the intricate detail and the history of the development of the railway line. However, whether we support or oppose it, we all have a duty, when decisions on individual stations are looked at in detail, always to be open-minded to change if things are undergoing scrutiny. Ultimately, as I will come on to say, if we are building a major new railway it is inevitable that some people will face a negative environmental impact and some will have some part of the railway deposited on their patch, which they are not happy with. If we allowed that to, in effect, put a moratorium on the development of major infrastructure, that would not be the right decision for this country, even if individual Members were unhappy with it.
On what does work for my constituents, they are not very interested in getting to London 30 minutes quicker; they really are not very interested in that. What they are interested in, and what we must remind them of in terms of what we get from HS2, is that it opens up capacity as we shift inter-city traffic on to HS2 so there are more routes and journeys available to them. Faster routes tend to push the local services off the track. They welcome HS2 because it means we can transport more freight by rail. Local businesses in my area cannot get freight on to rail. When they can do that, they will be more competitive and we will move congestion off the roads. If you drive around the A roads in Crewe at night, you will see lorry after lorry after lorry parked up. That is how things are moved around and we need to switch back to the railway.
Michael Fabricant
Does my hon. Friend not realise that there is a danger that for constituencies such as mine that are not directly served by HS2—of which there are many along the west coast main line—moving freight on to the west coast main line could result in a diminution of passenger services to cities such as Lichfield?
Dr Mullan
I go back to my original point: at the moment, those more local services are hampered by the use of the west coast main line for freight and inter-city services. We will see an opening up of local routes if we move ahead with HS2, not a diminution of them.
On passengers and peak-time travel, at the moment price control is used to control peak-time travel. People cannot come down to London at 8 o’clock because the tickets are extortionate, primarily because that is the only way that we can manage the over-capacity at peak times. If we move the inter-city journeys at peak times on to HS2, there will be more, cheaper, accessible peak-time travel on the west coast main line and it will still get people to London in an hour and a half.
Another thing that my constituents will welcome is the link to the northern regions through Northern Powerhouse Rail.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
Many people have framed this argument as being between having only HS2 or Northern Powerhouse Rail. Does my hon. Friend agree that we can have both, and both can work together?
Dr Mullan
Absolutely. It is not either/or; it is about working together. High Speed North is a rebranding and a new way of organising this—we should firmly hammer that point home—and it is about making this project one that is led in the northern regions by the northern regions, for the northern regions. I welcome that change in the governance.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
Further to what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Christian Wakeford) pointed out, people in London were not forced to choose between Crossrail and Crossrail 2. It is completely wrong to try to force people in the north to choose between HS2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and other key infrastructure projects.
Dr Mullan
Absolutely. Inevitably, projects overrun. That is unfortunate and not something that we welcome, but they do, and the fact that this has overrun should not mean that we therefore cancel it, because other people have not had to make the same choice in the south.
HS2 is a fantastic opportunity for Crewe. We have an amazing heritage and enormous local expertise in the rail industry. Crewe is and has always been a fantastic railway town. Passing the Bill and the delivery of the railway will create thousands of skilled jobs in Crewe for people helping to build the railway line.
I understand the concerns about the natural environment and I commend colleagues from constituencies where the impact will be greatest for speaking up on behalf of their residents. That is absolutely the right thing for them to do, but as I mentioned, any new major railway line connecting our cities and towns will have some degree of environmental impact. That is inevitable. We must be realistic about whether some of the strongest critics—they are not all in this House; some are outside this place—will ever really be satisfied. If we listen too closely to the voices of opposition in terms of trees and the environment, we will put a moratorium on creating major new rail and road infrastructure in this country, and that cannot be the right decision.
It is simply not feasible to suggest that we can deliver significant new capacity on our railway networks through a piecemeal approach. Network Rail estimates that it would take almost 30 years of weekend closures for even less of a result in terms of increased capacity. When this was last done on the west coast main line, the budget exploded. It might be harder to track and there might be fewer newspaper-worthy headline figures, but hundreds of smaller projects are at just as big a risk of overrunning and overspending. We need to get better at controlling costs when building infrastructure, full stop. The answer is not to halt the big-ticket items where the failings are most easily seen, because they are there on small projects, too. It is just not so easy for a journalist to add up the figures over 100 different projects and put that in a newspaper. We should not listen to that kind of criticism; it is not valid.
I recognise the significant costs involved, but this is being spent across two decades. It will work out as approximately £4.4 billion a year. The context of the timescales is too often lost when we use the headline figure. Network Rail spends around £6 billion a year on maintaining and making much smaller upgrades to our rail network, and we are planning to spend £40 billion over the next five years on other projects outside HS2. The idea that we could build a brand-new major railway line for much less than the £6 billion a year already being spent is fantasy. Let’s be ambitious for our nation. Let’s look forward, not down at our feet, get on with delivering this project and send the message to the world that the UK is open for business.
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
I note with interest that the motion talks about revival. To me, it is the revival of a corpse; it’s like a Hammer movie. We talk about connectivity. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) talked about the need for additional capacity, and I agree, but let us at least do it properly. The aim was to get people off aircraft—people who want to fly to Paris from Manchester, for example—but that isn’t going to happen, is it? Instead of going to St Pancras, connecting with HS1 and going straight through to Paris, people will have to change in London. It will not replace air travel. Yes, it will provide extra connectivity, as far as Crewe and London are concerned, but it will not meet the guidelines of what was originally intended for HS2.
Why is it going in straight lines? It is going in straight lines because it was intended to go at 220 mph, but the Oakervee review says it will not go at that speed; to save money, it will go at about 150 or 160 mph instead, in which case it could have gone alongside the M40 or the M1, as Arup originally proposed, which would have saved at least £20 billion of taxpayers’ money and been less environmentally damaging.
When it comes to a vote, if it does come to a vote this evening, I will vote against revival, but not because I am against extra capacity. Of course I want extra capacity and of course I recognise that the west coast main line is working at near-100% capacity, but I totally disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who completely misunderstands the situation. It is fine for Crewe, but not for all those towns, such as Stone and others, along the west coast main line; extra freight on that line will mean less passenger traffic. Anyone with an ounce of mathematical or engineering skill can see that.
I am very angry about this. When I see a project that could have been done so well destroyed by people such as Lord Adonis and then rather stupidly adopted by a Conservative Government, when we could have had an HS2 based on the Arup plan, which would have been cheaper, connected better and been environmentally less damaging, I ask: has the House lost its mind? When I see the Labour party supporting the Government, I know the House has lost its mind, because whenever there is agreement between both sides of the House we know something is wrong.
Some might call this a revival, but for me it is a dead, rotten corpse that we are trying to bring to life. Despite the Government’s support—and despite the fact that the former Mayor of London said that Euston was not capable of moving traffic away from it now, let alone with HS2, because there is not enough capacity on tube trains or for buses for all the people coming down now—I am afraid I have to oppose it, not just for the sake of the people of Lichfield, but in the hope that maybe some day someone in this House will say, “Enough is enough. If we are going to do something, let’s at least do it properly”.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I am pleased that the Government have finally made a decision on HS2, and I welcome the fact that the uncertainty over the project is now at an end. Many of my constituents who are directly affected disagree with the project but have told me over the last few weeks that the overwhelming feeling now is that if we are going to do it, we should get on with it but do it properly. However, throughout my constituency, compensation claims remain unresolved, house purchases have entered another year of limbo, and farms and local businesses have been left wondering whether they can prevent themselves from becoming insolvent before HS2 will agree to a settlement.
Let me give some specific examples. Mr and Mrs Tabernor have told me that their farmhouse may be demolished, and they have been told by HS2 Ltd that they cannot retire and move to their farm cottage, allowing their son to live in the farmhouse, because that would invalidate their blight notice. They have already been waiting for years for a resolution, and that, in my view, is simply unacceptable. After five years or more of negotiation, Ingestre Park Golf Club is also still waiting for HS2 to come to the table and finally thrash out a reasonable agreement, and that too is not acceptable.
Residents of Hopton, Marston and Yarlet, whose house sales remain in limbo, have told me that they cannot make an offer for a new home because some Stafford estate agents now refuse to deal with anyone selling to HS2. It concerns me that they view HS2 as either too unresponsive or too difficult to deal with: that hardly gives confidence to me or my constituents.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
May I tactfully suggest to my hon. Friend—my friend, indeed, whom I congratulate on winning her seat—that this may be the moment of maximum leverage for her to secure a settlement on behalf of her constituents, and that she should send all the details to the Minister and ask him to look at them carefully?
Theo Clarke
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I shall be doing that.
On a general note, when it comes to negotiating, let me make something clear. When people from HS2 visit the homes of my constituents, say that they are there to listen to their concerns, sit there having a cup of and a biscuit, and then tell them that they are being over-optimistic to expect to be paid the price at which their house or business has been valued and give them the silent treatment when they do not agree, that is not a negotiation; it is a bullying tactic. I was pleased when the Prime Minister, responding to my recent question to him in the Chamber, acknowledged that compensation needed to be paid, and I agree with him that we need an overhaul of HS2 Ltd, which, in my opinion, has managed the project poorly.
I was devastated to learn from so many of my constituents that they had agreed to sell their homes—in some cases, their long-standing family homes, where they had raised their children—for less than the market value, and that their mental health could not cope with the pressure that they felt they were being put under by HS2. If I sound angry, it is because I am. Let me provide some context for that
My very first piece of constituency casework on HS2 involved a member of my team who was counselling, and helping to secure mental health support for, one of my constituents who had told me that he could no longer cope with the pressure he was under. He said that everything was going to the wall because HS2 had refused to finalise negotiations. After lengthy and protracted work in an attempt to reach an agreement to move his family business, he was told by HS2 that it would prefer to “extinguish” the business. If a private company were operating in that way, it would be featured on the BBC’s “Watchdog” programme. HS2 must be held to account for its actions.
Let me be very clear. If my constituents are forced to take the strain of this project, they should also reap the rewards. I am pleased that the Government have finally committed themselves to the Handsacre link, which is vital now that the project is going ahead in Staffordshire.
Michael Fabricant
I fully understand my hon. Friend’s stance on the Handsacre link, but, given that it is in my constituency, does she understand the distress that it is causing people in Armitage with Handsacre?
Theo Clarke
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
When people in my constituency say that they are opposed to HS2, it is not because they are nimbys—as some have accused them of being—and I have not met a single resident who has not told me that that they want more investment in the north, and specifically in the west midlands. However, those residents are opposed to being treated as an inconvenience because their homes happen to be in the way of a railway that the Government want to build. They shudder when they hear that savings need to be found, because if past experience is anything to go by, it will not be HS2 salaries that go down; it will be the purchase prices and compensation paid to my constituents. However, I hope I am proved wrong.
Let me be clear: HS2 is going to happen, and if there is a vote tonight, I will reluctantly support the Government, but if HS2 is going to hang over the heads of my constituents, we must get on with it as soon as we can. Our first priority must be to finalise all the negotiations that are taking place and let my constituents get on with their lives. The advert once said “Let the train take the strain”, and I hope it does, because at present the strain that it is putting on my constituents is unacceptable. I support the Government in building national infrastructure, but the lack of adequate compensation for my constituents and the delays by HS2 are simply unacceptable. I am grateful to the Prime Minister for his assurances on compensation, but I would like to ask my hon. Friend the Minister for clarity on when it will be delivered. I also want to ask the Minister and his departmental officials to sit down with me to go through every single outstanding case in Stafford to ensure that my constituents are no longer left in HS2 limbo. They deserve that from the Government.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con)
I will be brief, because I am sure that others want to speak. I remember hearing the news about this when I was in the Cabinet. In 2010, we were told that the project was going to cost a little over £30 billion, that it would give a direct link from the north straight to HS1, opening up all the opportunities of the continent, that it was going to go directly to Heathrow, with all the advantages that that would bring, and that it would cut out short flights from Manchester and Liverpool down to Heathrow. That is not going to happen. Instead, we are going to go to somewhere called Old Oak Common. This might be a very charming place. It might have many attractions, but my constituents do not want to go to Old Oak Common. They want a direct link to HS1 and the continent, or they want to go to Heathrow.
And what has happened to the money? The money is absolutely out of control. It was £30 billion. Then we were told it was £80 billion. The latest estimate is £100 billion. The very worst figure I saw in a Sunday paper was £230 billion. Put brutally, this is Victorian technology: rolling around the country in steel boxes on steel wheels on steel track is Victorian technology. It was revolutionary at the time, but now we have broadband. The chief executive of Openreach has said that for £30 billion, the original cost of HS2, we could provide superfast fibre to every single one of the 30 million properties in the country. That would deliver far greater social, educational and economic benefits than spending this titanic sum.
It is with some regret that I have seen this project slip and slip. I have seen it with my own eyes, locally, in the village of Woore. It is effectively a salient of Shropshire sticking out into Cheshire and Staffordshire—a village of 1,200 people, a large primary school and an already busy main road, quite a lot of which has no pavements. This means that small people go to school without a pavement to walk on. HS2 announced suddenly—notices were put up in Woore, and we were told this at a meeting—that there would be 600 vehicles a day passing through the village during the construction phase. At 24 vehicles a day, a project has to get permission under section 17 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, but we are talking about 600. We have had numerous meetings with HS2. I give all credit to HS2: it has always come along, but it has not budged an inch. All that we have done is double the time of the construction phase, so that instead of 600 vehicles a day, there will be 300 a day—
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Paterson
I will not, because we are getting very short of time.
So on that local issue, I have got absolutely not an inch out of HS2. It has been completely inflexible. It is insisting on taking traffic round three sides of a rectangle, with a journey of about 14 miles, although it could have used a direct route of 6 miles. I am completely disillusioned with this project at national level, and I cannot see how we can justify this titanic sum of money. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) said, the original plan was for the track to go up the M40. We were going to have very fast trains that would deliver a substitute for flight times, which is not going to happen.
Sir William Cash
Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that Lord Berkeley has sent a letter to the Chancellor of Exchequer giving full details of the £231 billion to which he has referred?
Mr Paterson
I am aware of that, and what is so worrying about the review is that it was totally split. Someone who is hopefully very respected by the Labour party, Lord Berkeley, is obviously strongly opposed to this.
Looking at the clock, I will finish quickly. At local level, I am totally opposed to this, and I have not had a single bit of flexibility out of HS2. This is a real threat to my constituents in Woore and, on their behalf alone, I will vote against it. At national level, I cannot possibly vote for this titanic expenditure on what is now a very flawed project, so I will vote against it tonight.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
As someone who worked in the railway industry for 20 years, I come to this debate from the opposite direction to my hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown). I was a firm supporter of HS2 and believed it was the right thing to do, but I am afraid I have become much more sceptical of the project.
That said, the Government’s decision has been made, and so has the strategy for HS2. West Dorset has one of the worst rail frequencies in the country—the line between Yeovil, Dorchester and Weymouth has one of the worst frequencies—and, for those of us in the wider south-west, it is important that the Government Front Bench understands we have great concerns that HS2, and particularly phase 2a, should not deflect the Government’s attention and their requirement to deliver the infrastructure projects we require in the south-west.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Warm words for the south-west are welcome, but cold, hard cash is what is needed. The south-west voted for this Government en masse, and it is time we also saw the chequebook.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. There is very little time left, and I made it clear at the beginning that this is not about other constituencies. The hon. Gentleman can refer to his constituency, but this is about a very specific matter.
Chris Loder
I equally want to make sure that we are as supportive of the Government as possible. Those of us who are moving in this debate need to be absolutely assured so, in his summing up, I would like to hear the Minister give us the confirmation and assurance that HS2, particularly phase 2a, will not affect the Government’s previous commitments to deliver schemes such as the A303 and Great Western diversion resilience for the people who supported them.
Adam Afriyie (Windsor) (Con)
My brief contribution will not be about the merits or disbenefits of HS2 but about the novel motion before us. I have not seen anything like it in my 15 years in this House, and I therefore seek two points of clarification from the Minister in his summing up.
First, will passing this motion today, irrespective of the effect on the Standing Orders of the House, pass the budget for HS2, or will there be a further opportunity to vote for or against and to contribute to a debate on the budget and the cost of HS2?
Secondly, have contracts been signed at the figures we have seen thus far? If they have not been signed, does this measure enable the signing of contracts? Will this House have an opportunity to examine those contracts and the amount of money assigned to them before this goes any further?
This is a novel motion, and it is important that the House understands the implications of proceeding via this route rather than the more traditional route for bringing legislation back to the House.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
I should like to reply to as many of the issues raised today as I can while discussing the motion. First, I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate this evening. In his speech, the Prime Minister made it clear that things at HS2 need to change, and decisive action is being taken to restore discipline to the programme. I have been appointed to oversee High Speed 2, Northern Powerhouse Rail and the trans-Pennine route upgrade, ensuring that there is one Minister dedicated to focusing on this project, allowing many of the other issues that have been raised in the debate, such as the issues in the south-west, to be focused on by my ministerial colleagues in the Department.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
In his remarks, the Prime Minister also alluded to the fact that the Beeching line fund would be £1.5 billion. Can the Minister confirm that, and, if so, will he be able to suggest that more money can be levelled up across the entire United Kingdom, not just in relation to the HS2 line?
Andrew Stephenson
I thank my hon. Friend for that point. He will be aware that we have officially launched our £500 million Beeching reversal fund and details about additional funding will of course be made available in due course, but the Prime Minister has been crystal clear about our intention to invest heavily in bringing back rail routes and stations and to level up all parts of our country.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Does not the short debate this evening show that the project is very different from the one that the previous Parliament approved, and that the Opposition have invented a magical railway that is very different from the one that the Bill actually captures? That shows that we need to debate this again properly, rather than rushing the thing through and regarding it as settled. It is clearly not settled and is a highly contentious project.
Andrew Stephenson
I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has been a long-term opponent of the scheme, but I would say that the motion before the House tonight is very limited. There will be many future occasions to debate the issue, I am sure.
There are about six minutes left, so, Mr Speaker, if you will allow me, I must make some progress in responding to some of the comments made by right hon. and hon. Members. The Prime Minister has made a firm commitment that we will get hold of this project and have a firm grip on it. It goes alongside a programme of wider transport investment. The Prime Minister outlined a vision for a revolution in local transport to ensure that our towns and cities in every region have the modern joined-up network needed to fire up economic growth.
Let me turn to the points raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) has been a vocal opponent of HS2 for many years, speaking frequently and eloquently on behalf of his constituents, and I understand the concerns he has expressed tonight. He asks whether I would consider not providing phase 2a until the phase 2b review has been completed, so that phase 2a can be looked at again in the light of the integrated rail plan. What I would say to him is that in giving his go-ahead to HS2 in this House on 11 February, the Prime Minister committed the Government to getting on with building phase 2a immediately and this has been reflected in the terms of reference set out for the integrated rail plan. However, I appreciate my hon. Friend’s concerns, and although I cannot change the terms of that review I am keen to work with him to ensure that the views of his constituents are heard throughout this process. I am therefore happy to commit to working with him and facilitating meetings with HS2 Ltd to address the deep concerns that I know he still holds as the Bill completes its passage.
Andrew Stephenson
I am sorry, but we are perilously close to running out of time. My hon. Friend the Member for The Cotswolds (Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) spoke eloquently in support of the motion. He is right on capacity and he is right in what he said on carbon. I want to reassure him that the Government are taking decisive action to restore discipline to the programme and I welcome the oversight that will be brought by the Public Accounts Committee to that project.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown
I thank my hon. Friend. The Public Accounts Committee has had two inquiries and we are about to have another. There is universal agreement on this side of the House tonight that we need to get control of the governance of the thing and we need to get control of the cost. Will my hon. Friend give an absolute assurance to the House tonight that he will redouble his efforts to get control of the costs?
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Andrew Stephenson
No.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) talked eloquently about the benefits to his constituency, and it was great to visit his patch last week. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) has been consistent in his opposition to High Speed 2, but I am afraid that I agree with his good friend Andy Street; this scheme has huge benefits for every part of the west midlands and we need to move forward. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Theo Clarke), despite being elected only in December, has already raised with me the concerns of her constituents by phone, text, WhatsApp and letter, in face-to-face meetings and again in the Chamber today. I have been left in no doubt about the strength of feeling in her constituency and about the fact that she will work tirelessly to represent all those directly affected by this section of the line. I share her concern about the way some people and communities have been treated by HS2 Ltd, and it must improve, as the Prime Minister said on 11 February. She asked about a timeline for compensation. As she will know, HS2 Ltd is required to pay landowners 90% of HS2 Ltd’s valuation within three months of receiving a claim or the date of possession, whichever is the later. The time taken to agree a settlement will often depend on the time parties take to negotiate and agree a property’s valuation and other statutory compensation. However, this is an area where I want to see real improvement, and I will be happy to meet her to discuss specific constituency cases and what more can be done to end the uncertainty that has hung over people for far too long. I thank her for the tone of her remarks tonight.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) raised his concerns about cost. We have made it clear that we are committed to drawing a line under the past problems of cost control, and the Government recognise that things must change going forward. The latest cost estimate, as outlined in the Oakervee review, indicates that the full network cost will be between £72 billion and £98 billion, in 2019 prices. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Chris Loder) raised issues relating to the south-west. I can reassure him that we will not take our focus off other issues, particularly those he raises. That is why the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) is here with me tonight, and it is why the Government are spending £48 billion between 2019 and 2024 on the conventional rail network. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie) asked a few questions, on which I may come back to him, but this measure does not pass the budget—there will be many more debates.
Finally, I wish to remind the House of the reasons for bringing forward this motion to revive the Bill. By reviving the Bill, we allow those who are directly and specifically affected by the building of this section of HS2 to get the earliest possible resolution to their petitions. We prevent the need to restart this Bill, saving time and money for those who have already petitioned and protecting the investment already made by the taxpayer. This Government want to get on and provide certainty to those affected by phase 2a, the west midlands to Crewe section of the line. By reviving this Bill tonight, we provide that certainty to people as quickly as possible. I commend the motion to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That if a Bill is presented to this House in this session in the same terms as those in which the High Speed Rail (West Midlands - Crewe) Bill stood at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the 2019 session—
(a) the Bill so presented shall be deemed to have passed through all its stages in this
House, and
(b) the Standing Orders and practice of the House applicable to the Bill, so far as complied with or dispensed with in the 2019 session, shall be deemed to have been complied with or (as the case may be) dispensed with in this session.
That the above Orders be Standing Orders of the House.
Business without Debate
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 6, 7 and 8 together.
Estimates 2020-21 (Navy) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2021, a number not exceeding 37,700 all ranks be maintained for Naval and Marine Service and that numbers in the Reserve Naval and Marines Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4, and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2020-21, HC 33.—(Leo Docherty.)
Estimates 2020-21 (Army) Vote A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2021, a number not exceeding 107,850 all ranks be maintained for Army Service and that numbers in the Reserve Land Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2020-21, HC 33.—(Leo Docherty.)
ESTIMATES 2020-21 (AIR) VOTE A
Resolved,
That, during the year ending with 31 March 2021, a number not exceeding 35,400 all ranks be maintained for Air Force Service and that numbers in the Reserve Air Forces be authorised for the purposes of Parts 1, 3, 4 and 5 of the Reserve Forces Act 1996 up to the maximum numbers set out in Votes A 2020-21, HC 33.—(Leo Docherty.)
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, I shall put motions 9 and 10 together.
Supplementary Estimates 2019-20
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2020:
(1) further resources, not exceeding £113,468,618,000, be authorised for use for current purposes as set out in HC 64, HC 71, and HC 82,
(2) further resources, not exceeding £3,480,249,000, be authorised for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
(3) a further sum, not exceeding £13,648,628,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Leo Docherty.)
Estimates, Vote on Account 2020-21
Resolved,
That, for the year ending with 31 March 2021:
(1) resources, not exceeding £255,878,997,000, be authorised, on account, for use for current purposes as set out in HC 62, HC 65, HC 72, HC 74, HC 76, HC 78, and HC 92,
(2) resources, not exceeding £42,149,073,000, be authorised, on account, for use for capital purposes as so set out, and
(3) a sum, not exceeding £249,103,066,000, be granted to Her Majesty to be issued by the Treasury out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, and applied for expenditure on the use of resources authorised by Parliament.—(Leo Docherty.)
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am sorry that I did not have a chance to give you forewarning; I did speak to the Chairman of Ways and Means.
We have just passed the estimates—up to motion 10 on the Order Paper—which represent the approval of several billion pounds of public expenditure. I wonder how we can get on the record, Mr Speaker, our disappointment that the motions were not subject to any kind of debate. I recognise that in some respects it is nobody’s fault—the Backbench Business Committee and the Liaison Committee were not appointed in time to allow topics to be decided for the debates—but the effect is that there has been absolutely no scrutiny of the estimates whatsoever.
When the English votes for English laws procedures were introduced, we on the SNP Benches were told that our opportunity for scrutiny of spending that had consequentials as a result of EVEL legislation would be in the estimates process. Through you, Mr Speaker, may we communicate to the new Chair and the new Procedure Committee, who are about to be appointed, that they might want to make this a matter of priority in their ongoing inquiries?
Mr Speaker
The hon. Gentleman wanted to make his point and has got it on the record. He has absolutely done that, as he well knows, and the record will show tomorrow that he has made his objection known.
Ordered, That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions;
That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Steve Barclay, Jesse Norman, John Glen and Kemi Badenoch bring in the Bill.
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill
Presentation and First Reading
Jesse Norman accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resources for the years ending with 31 March 2020 and 31 March 2021; to authorise the issue of sums out of the Consolidated Fund for those years; and to appropriate the supply authorised by this Act for the year ending with 31 March 2020.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 95).
Standing Orders etc. (Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union)
Ordered,
That the following Orders shall have effect:
(1) the Order of the House of 16 January (Standing Orders etc. (Committee on Exiting the European Union)) is amended as follows:
(a) leave out “Committee on Exiting the European Union” in each place it occurs and insert “Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union”;
(b) in paragraph (1), leave out “the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for Exiting the European Union and related matters falling within the responsibilities of associated public bodies” and insert “matters relating to the negotiations on the future relationship with the European Union”;
(c) leave out subparagraph (11)(b); and
(d) leave out the heading “E: Public Bodies: Draft Orders” and the subsequent paragraph (13);
(2) the Order of the House of 16 January 2020 (Select Committees (Allocation of Chairs)) is amended, in the Table, by leaving out “Committee on Exiting the European Union” and inserting “Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union”; and
(3) the proceedings of the House in this Parliament relating to the election of the chair of the Committee on Exiting the European Union are to be read and have effect as if they related to the election of the chair of the Committee on the Future Relationship with the European Union.—(Leo Docherty.)
Commitee on Standards
Ordered,
That Andy Carter, Alberto Costa, Mark Fletcher, Sir Bernard Jenkin, Anne McLaughlin and Bridget Phillipson be members of the Committee on Standards.—(Leo Docherty.)
Commitee on Privileges
Ordered,
That Andy Carter, Alberto Costa, Mark Fletcher, Kate Green, Sir Bernard Jenkin, Anne McLaughlin and Bridget Phillipson be members of the Committee of Privileges.—(Leo Docherty.)
Committees
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 14 and 15 together.
Ordered,
European Statutory Instruments Committee
That Amanda Solloway be discharged from the European Statutory Instruments Committee and Mr Richard Holden be added.
Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments
That Eddie Hughes be discharged from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and Paul Holmes be added.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Selection Committee.)
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 16 to 41 together.
Ordered,
Administration Committee
That John Cryer, Marion Fellows, Michael Fabricant, Colleen Fletcher, Sir Greg Knight, Mrs Pauline Latham, Mrs Maria Miller, Jessica Morden, Mark Tami, Sir Charles Walker and Giles Watling be members of the Administration Committee.
Backbench Business Committee
That Nickie Aiken, Bob Blackman, Fiona Bruce, Patricia Gibson, Nigel Mills, Lia Nici and Claudia Webbe be members of the Backbench Business Committee.
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee
That Alan Brown, Richard Fuller, Ms Nusrat Ghani, John Howell, Mark Jenkinson, Peter Kyle, Pat McFadden, Anna McMorrin, Mark Pawsey and Alexander Stafford be members of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee.
Defence Committee
That Stuart Anderson, Sarah Atherton, Wayne David, Richard Drax, Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi, Mr Mark Francois, Martin Docherty-Hughes, Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Gavin Robinson and John Spellar be members of the Defence Committee.
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee
That Kevin Brennan, Steve Brine, Philip Davies, Clive Efford, Julie Elliott, Damian Green, Damian Hinds, John Nicolson, Jo Stevens and Giles Watling be members of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Education Committee
That Fleur Anderson, Apsana Begum, Jonathan Gullis, Tom Hunt, Dr Caroline Johnson, David Johnston, Ian Mearns, Lucy Powell, David Simmonds and Christian Wakeford be members of the Education Committee.
Environmental Audit Committee
That Duncan Baker, Feryal Clark, Sir Christopher Chope, Mr Robert Goodwill, Ian Levy, Marco Longhi, Caroline Lucas, Jerome Mayhew, Kerry McCarthy, John McNally, Dr Matthew Offord, Alex Sobel, Mr Shailesh Vara, Claudia Webbe and Nadia Whittome be members of the Environmental Audit Committee.
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee
That Geraint Davies, Dave Doogan, Rosie Duffield, Mary Glindon, Dr Neil Hudson, Robbie Moore, Mrs Sheryll Murray, Toby Perkins, Julian Sturdy and Derek Thomas be members of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
European Scrutiny Committee
That Tahir Ali, Sir William Cash, Jon Cruddas, Allan Dorans, Richard Drax, Mr Marcus Fysh, Stephen Kinnock, Mrs Andrea Jenkyns, Mr David Jones, Mr David Lammy, Marco Longhi, Craig Mackinlay, Anne Marie Morris, Charlotte Nichols and Greg Smith be members of the European Scrutiny Committee.
future relationship with the European Union Committee
That Mr Peter Bone, Joanna Cherry, Sir Christopher Chope, Mark Eastwood, Florence Eshalomi, Mark Fletcher, Sally-Ann Hart, Anthony Higginbotham, Stephen Kinnock, Dr Rupa Huq, Seema Malhotra, Nigel Mills, Matthew Pennycook, Nicola Richards, Gary Sambrook, Wes Streeting, Jane Stevenson, Matt Vickers, Dr Jamie Wallis and Dr Philippa Whitford be members of the Exiting the European Union Committee.
Finance Committee
That Harriett Baldwin, Mr Clive Betts, Felicity Buchan, Gareth Davies, Lilian Greenwood, Nigel Mills, David Simmonds, Sir Robert Syms, Mark Tami and Dame Rosie Winterton be members of the Finance Committee.
Foreign Affairs Committee
That Chris Bryant, Chris Elmore, Alicia Kearns, Stewart Malcolm McDonald, Ian Murray, Andrew Rosindell, Bob Seely, Henry Smith, Royston Smith and Graham Stringer be members of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
Health and Social Care Committee
That Paul Bristow, Amy Callaghan, Rosie Cooper, Dr James Davies, Dr Luke Evans, James Murray, Taiwo Owatemi, Sarah Owen, Dean Russell and Laura Trott be members of the Health and Social Care Committee.
Home Affairs Committee
That Janet Daby, Dehenna Davidson, Stephen Doughty, Ruth Edwards, Laura Farris, Simon Fell, Adam Holloway, Tim Loughton, Holly Lynch and Stuart C McDonald be members of the Home Affairs Committee.
Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee
That Bob Blackman, Ian Byrne, Brendan Clarke-Smith, Ben Everitt, Paul Holmes, Rachel Hopkins, Daniel Kawczynski, Abena Oppong-Asare, Mary Robinson and Mohammad Yasin be members of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Joint Committee on Human Rights
That Fiona Bruce, Ms Karen Buck, Joanna Cherry, Ms Harriet Harman, Mrs Pauline Latham and Dean Russell be members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
International Development Committee
That Mr Richard Bacon, Brendan Clarke-Smith, Theo Clarke, Mrs Pauline Latham, Chris Law, Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger, Navendu Mishra, Kate Osamor, Dr Dan Poulter and Mr Virendra Sharma be members of the International Development Committee.
International Trade Committee
That Robert Courts, Mark Garnier, Paul Girvan, Sir Mark Hendrick, Mark Menzies, Gareth Thomas, Martin Vickers, Matt Western, Mick Whitley and Craig Williams be members of the International Trade Committee.
Justice Committee
That Robert Butler, James Daly, Miss Sarah Dines, Maria Eagle, John Howell, Kenny MacAskill, Dr Kieran Mullan, Ellie Reeves, Ms Marie Rimmer and Andy Slaughter be members of the Justice Committee.
Northern Ireland Affairs Committee
That Caroline Ansell, Scott Benton, Mr Robert Goodwill, Stephen Farry, Claire Hanna, Conor McGinn, Karin Smyth, Bob Stewart, Mr Gregory Campbell and Ian Paisley be members of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee.
Petitions Committee
That Elliot Colburn, Martyn Day, Steve Double, Chris Evans, Katherine Fletcher, Nick Fletcher, Mike Hill, Tom Hunt, Kerry McCarthy and Theresa Villiers be members of the Petitions Committee.
Procedure Committee
That Kirsty Blackman, Jack Brereton, Bambos Charalambous, Sir Christopher Chope, Chris Elmore, Andrew Griffith, Kate Hollern, Nigel Mills, Dr Kieran Mullan, Alex Norris, Rob Roberts, Gary Sambrook, James Sunderland, Owen Thompson, Liz Twist and Suzanne Webb be members of the Procedure Committee.
Public Accounts Committee
That Gareth Bacon, Kemi Badenoch, Olivia Blake, Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown, Dame Cheryl Gillan, Peter Grant, Mr Richard Holden, Sir Bernard Jenkin, Craig Mackinlay, Shabana Mahmood, Gagan Mohindra, Sarah Olney, Bridget Phillipson, Nick Smith and James Wild be members of the Public Accounts Committee.
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee
That Ronnie Cowan, Jackie Doyle-Price, Chris Evans, Rachel Hopkins, Mr David Jones, David Mundell, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, Tom Randall, Karin Smyth and John Stevenson be members of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
Regulatory Reform Committee
That Chris Clarkson, Jackie Doyle-Price, Mark Eastwood, Julie Elliott, Mark Garnier, Sir Oliver Heald, Mr Kevan Jones, Conor McGinn, Stephen McPartland, Anthony Mangnall, Gary Sambrook and Karl Turner be members of the Regulatory Reform Committee.
Science and Technology Committee
That Aaron Bell, Chris Clarkson, Katherine Fletcher, Andrew Griffith, Darren Jones, Mark Logan, Carol Monaghan, Chi Onwurah, Graham Stringer and Zarah Sultana be members of the Science and Technology Committee.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Selection Committee.)
Scottish Affairs Committee
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
May I start by thanking the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin) for moving the motion and congratulate him on his reappointment to the Selection Committee? I had the privilege of serving with him for a couple of years, but that has now fallen to my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson). I wish them all the very best.
There is a little time for a short debate on the appointment of the Scottish Affairs Committee, and we could not let this opportunity pass by without noting the concern and disappointment that many of us on the Opposition Benches share about its proposed composition. Given that the voice of the north has just been heard in such great style in the debate on the revival of the High Speed 2 motion, I would have thought that the Government would want to make northern parts more visible and audible in the House, but that does not seem to be the way of it.
Since 2015, the membership of the Scottish Affairs Committee—like that of its counterparts for Wales and Northern Ireland—has been drawn entirely from Members representing constituents in that relevant nation. Over the years, it has consistently reflected, broadly, the outcome of the general election and political balance in Scotland. But that is not the case with the composition being proposed this evening.
In 2015, there were four SNP Members on the Committee, including the Chair, my hon. Friend—he should be my right hon. Friend—the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), four from the Government Benches and three from the Labour party. The SNP, as we all know, held 56 of 59 Scottish constituencies.
In 2017, there were once again four Members from the Conservative Benches, three from the Labour party, one from the Liberal Democrats, and three from the SNP—again including the Chair. That was fair enough. In the 2017 election, the SNP representation fell, although we were still by far the largest party in Scotland and, indeed, the third largest party in this House, but some of the other parties made up some ground, so fair enough—their representation on the Committee increased.
For the record, in 2010 when the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats were in coalition, the SNP, then with six seats in the House—a number that might now be familiar to Conservative Members from seats in Scotland—had one seat on the Committee, the Liberal Democrats also had one seat, and the Labour party, which had 41 seats in Scotland, had five seats on the Committee, including the Chair. Just for completeness, in 2005 the figures were Labour six, Conservatives three, SNP one and the Liberal Democrats one.
Tonight we are being asked to approve two Labour Members, one Liberal Democrat Member, three SNP Members, again including the Chair, and five Conservative Members. That is five Conservative Members on a Committee for a party that only has six members in the country in which the Committee is interested—[Interruption.] No, they are not all from Scotland. That is an increase in the number of places from four to five, even though the Conservatives lost more than half of their Members of Parliament in December’s election. It will be the largest number of seats held by a single party on this Committee since the 2010 Parliament, and the largest number of seats that a governing party has had since the 2005 Parliament. That seems an awful lot like rewarding the failure of the Conservative party in Scotland at the last election.
Meanwhile, the Scottish National party, which has increased our share of the votes and our number of seats—we now have more seats in Scotland than Labour did in 2010—is left with two places on the Committee in addition to the Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire.
I take this opportunity to gently ask the Government to think again. We have for a long time had a very constructive relationship through the usual channels. That means that it is a bit disappointing when these matters end up on the Floor of the House. The Government need to think very seriously about the message they are sending to voters in Scotland. How does the make-up of this Committee reflect the precious Union and the respect agenda? Where is the partnership of equals when the Government are taking more places on the Committee than they have had for the past 10 years?
I want to take the opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire for the role that he has played in the Chair over the past five years, because he has worked to try to find consensus and areas of concern for the Committee to work on.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I thank him for that tribute. I do not think it is to do with the way that the Committee is chaired. Why the Committee has been so effective—it is probably the most effective of all the parliamentary Committees, whether in the Scottish Parliament or the Westminster Parliament—is that we are the most reported Committee anywhere in Scotland, and we are the best attended Committee. That is because it sort of reflects the Scotland that we all represent. To do this job effectively, we have to try to look like the nation that we represent, and feel like the representation in this House so that we can do our important job. I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees with this, and I am sure that he is already making representations to the Government through the usual channels to try to have this matter addressed so that we, as a Committee, can do our job properly.
Patrick Grady
Yes, it is important that the Committee has that opportunity. The composition of the Committee being proposed tonight is completely out of balance with political reality in Scotland—the political geography and the views of the population as a whole. We are not asking for an SNP majority on the Committee, although that is the kind of thing we would experience under the d’Hondt system used in the Scottish Parliament. The Committee will still have a Unionist majority; it will not, alas, produce a report supporting independence for Scotland, unless with his charisma, alacrity, charm and wit my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire is able to persuade it to do so.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
I have had the privilege of serving on the Scottish Affairs Committee for the past couple of years. I agree with my hon. Friend’s kind words about our hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) and how good he is at bringing our Committee together. Does it not say something about the Government’s nervousness about his ability that they are preparing to stuff the Committee in this way?
Patrick Grady
What is surprising is that things have not been like that. We have reached arrangements and worked well together. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire has been the acting Chief Whip on a number of occasions for the Scottish National party since 2015, and we were able to come to these arrangements, so it is disappointing that this has ended up coming to the Floor of the House.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Deidre Brock) says, it has been a very effective Committee—so effective that my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire has already been on the front page of The National about this precise issue. If Government Front Benchers had read that publication at the weekend, they would have seen this coming and could have avoided this debate on the Floor of the House and the issue of whether we will get to the moment of interruption without a Division.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The SNP won more than 80% of seats in Scotland in the recent general election. The make-up proposed for the Committee does not go even halfway to realising that representation and giving the people of Scotland the voice they should have as a result of that outstanding win.
Patrick Grady
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Scottish National party increased our number of seats in the House—our representation here—by more than a third, yet our representation on the Committee is going to remain static. Meanwhile, the Conservative party’s number of seats in Scotland has gone down by more than 50% and its representation is going to increase. That simply denies and defies democracy and absolutely gives the lie to the notion that Scotland has a valuable role and that its voice is going to be heard.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that on the Government Benches there appears to be almost a wilful denial about what happened during the election in December? The Conservative and Unionist party is trying to airbrush away the tremendous gains made by the SNP at its direct cost. Nowhere is that more the case than in the appointments being made to the Committee. Is it respectful to the electorate in Scotland to do such a thing? As I have picked up during more than one debate here, Government Members have a tendency to talk about the SNP as though we are something that happens to Scotland, rather than being people elected by Scotland.
Patrick Grady
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, the Conservative and Unionist parties are over-represented. That is the thing: we are not trying to deny the Unionist parties a majority on the Committee. For the time being at least, this remains a Parliament of the Union. But we have to question what the purpose behind all this is.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Perhaps the non-Scottish members proposed for the Committee have a particular interest in the affairs of Scotland. Is he aware of any particular interest that they have expressed over the past few years of Parliament?
Patrick Grady
Perhaps they have. Looking back at the history of the Committee’s membership, it is not completely unusual for the Conservative party in particular to have to populate its spaces on the Committee with Members from outwith Scotland, and we mean absolutely no disrespect to any of those Members from outwith Scotland who have chosen to put their names forward. We are not objecting in any way to any of the individual Members who are being appointed. We are objecting to the proportions—the way in which the numbers have been divvied up—and the fact that the Conservative Government are helping themselves, in a sense.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I was very pleased to have been able to serve on the Committee in the last Parliament, and I am pleased to be nominated to be a Member in the Committee in this Parliament. The hon. Member has made much of the SNP’s electoral success and cited the proportion of Members you have as a case for why you should have more Members on the Scottish Affairs Committee. Do you apply the same argument for Committees on devolved policy areas—that is, do you think we should be reducing the number of SNP Members on those Committees on the basis that you do not represent those policy areas here at Westminster?
Mr Speaker
Order. We are in danger of this turning into a private debate. All comments should be directed through the Chair.
Patrick Grady
If the hon. Member looks very carefully, he will see that there are no Scottish National party Members nominated to either the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee or the Education Committee. But there are other Committees, as we have seen through the EVEL process—and as he would have seen if he was present for the grand meeting of the English Parliament within these four hallowed walls just a couple of weeks ago, as we all were, when we were cut out of being able to express our views in the Lobby—which discuss issues that transcend borders; I thought that was part of the point of Union anyway. I do not think it unreasonable for one Member of the third largest party in this House and the third largest party by membership in the United Kingdom to have a say on Select Committees across the House.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making an interesting point about participation in the Committees of the House. I served on the Communities and Local Government Committee between 2015 and 2017, and that was useful because of the contribution that Scotland’s experience could bring to policy in England. The hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont) is putting forward a strange kind of Unionism if he would deny Scottish MPs of all types, and Members of the third largest party, a place on these Committees.
Pete Wishart
I just want to reinforce a point. This has nothing to do with or to say about English Members of Parliament being on the Scottish Affairs Committee; I am looking around the Chamber, and I recognise a couple of English Members who served very diligently on the Committee. The point is that we know that Members of Parliament have pressing concerns locally, and in the course of the past few years the Scottish Affairs Committee has tried to ensure that it meets as much as possible in Scotland to make it accessible, and to ensure that people can come along to experience and listen to its hearings. That is difficult if you represent a constituency based in England where there are other constraints and pressures. I am sure my hon. Friend recognises that.
Mr Speaker
I remind Members that comments should be directed through the Chair, and that they should not be having a personal debate.
Patrick Grady
Mr Speaker, I would never dream of doing anything other than speaking through the Chair. One of the advantages of sitting in this position in the Chamber is that there is always direct eye contact as well.
My hon. Friend’s comments were exactly right. I pay tribute to him for taking the Scottish Affairs Committee out on the road, and for discussing issues and producing largely consensual reports on important topics of the day—for example, on the post-study work visa, on the oil and gas industry, on agriculture and on digital provision. That is the kind of thing the Scottish Affairs Committee has done over the past five years, since 2015. Compare that to the Scottish Affairs Committee in the 2010-15 Parliament, whose work I have had a look at. I think my favourite report is from 2012 and is entitled, without even a hint of irony, “The Referendum on Separation for Scotland: Do you agree this is a biased question?” That is House of Commons paper No. 1942, published on 8 May 2012. That was what the Scottish Affairs Committee was doing at that time—absolutely demonstrable partisan bashing, politicising the issues of the day and trying to narrow down a proposition that, at the end of the day, 45% of people in Scotland voted for: independence. The Committee could not even bring itself to use that word. What we have had since then is consistent, grown-up, sensible politics under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire.
The Government really do have to consider what they are doing tonight. There are 59 Members from Scotland and 11 members of this Committee. It ought to be possible to compose it in such a way that respects the election result in Scotland and takes into account the make-up of this House, which is what the other Committees for the devolved areas of Wales and Northern Ireland do. Otherwise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire has said previously, the Government will continue to give the impression of doing the SNP’s job for us. They cut out Members from Scotland through their farcical EVEL procedures, they refuse to listen to the Scottish Parliament on matters of legislative consent, and now they seek to hijack the Committee in the House that is supposed to consider matters—
Mr Speaker
With the leave of the House, we will take motions 43 to 47 together.
Transport Committee
Ordered,
That Ruth Cadbury, Lilian Greenwood, Simon Jupp, Robert Largan, Chris Loder, Karl MᶜCartney, Grahame Morris, Gavin Newlands, Greg Smith and Sam Tarry be members of the Transport Committee.
Treasury Committee
Ordered,
That Rushanara Ali, Mr Steve Baker, Harriett Baldwin, Anthony Browne, Felicity Buchan, Ms Angela Eagle, Liz Kendall, Julie Marson, Alison McGovern and Alison Thewliss be members of the Treasury Committee.
Welsh Affairs Committee
Ordered,
That Tonia Antoniazzi, Simon Baynes, Virginia Crosbie, Geraint Davies, Ben Lake, Anna McMorrin, Robin Millar, Rob Roberts, Dr Jamie Wallis and Beth Winter be members of the Welsh Affairs Committee.
Women and Equalities Committee
Ordered,
That Nickie Aiken, Sara Britcliffe, Angela Crawley, Virginia Crosbie, Alex Davies-Jones, Rosie Duffield, Peter Gibson, Kim Johnson, Kate Osborne and Nicola Richards be members of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Work and Pensions Committee
Ordered,
That Debbie Abrahams, Shaun Bailey, Siobhan Baillie, Neil Coyle, Steve McCabe, Nigel Mills, Selaine Saxby, Dr Ben Spencer, Chris Stephens and Sir Desmond Swayne be members of the Work and Pensions Committee.—(Bill Wiggin, on behalf of the Selection Committee.)
Elgin Marbles
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (SNP)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to debate a subject that has long been of historical interest but has taken on new significance in the current political climate.
The Elgin, or Parthenon, marbles are one of the British Museum’s most notorious artefacts. In the early 1800s, Thomas Bruce, the seventh Earl of Elgin, gained access to the temple of the Parthenon and other buildings that comprise the Acropolis in Athens. With a team of assistants, Thomas Bruce removed many items of significant cultural interest, including 57 slabs from the frieze of the Parthenon. The excavation was completed in 1812, and the marbles were eventually sold to the British Government in 1816 and placed in the British Museum.
The legality of the excavations that Elgin performed remains fraught with controversy to this day. At the time of the excavations, Greece was ruled by the Ottoman empire, and the Parthenon itself was used as a military fort by the Ottomans. The vulnerable position that that imperial occupation placed on Greece, coupled with Elgin’s privileged position, made it easier for him take the action that he took in removing the figures, metopes and frieze panels from the Parthenon. Elgin claim to have obtained a firman, or written permit, from the sultan to access the Acropolis in carrying out the removal of sections of the Parthenon frieze, as well as other parts of the Acropolis. Some allege that Elgin bribed the Turkish authorities to obtain permission to enter the Acropolis, while others suggest that the exchange of gifts between Elgin and the sultan was customary at the time, given Elgin’s position as British ambassador to Constantinople.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; I asked before the debate for her permission to intervene. Does she not agree that the significance of having the Elgin marbles in situ in the British Museum is that that gives a taste of, and indeed encourages people to make the journey to, historically and culturally rich Greece, particularly Athens, to see more, and that this must be part of any discussions regarding any return of the Elgin marbles to the people there?
Margaret Ferrier
I agree that many visitors will have enjoyed a visit to the British Museum and marvelled at these fantastic sculptures, but the hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to discover that I believe they should actually be repatriated to Athens where they could be appreciated in full in their original context. However, I thank him for his intervention.
The only record of the firman that we have is an Italian translation of the document, and the veracity of the document remains heavily disputed. Although a Select Committee of the House of Commons eventually voted to purchase the marbles from Elgin in 1816, the stand-out feature of the Committee’s questioning of Elgin was the vagueness of his responses regarding the permission given to take the Parthenon sculptures. According to Geoffrey Robertson QC’s excellent book, “Who Owns History?”, Elgin was unable to produce the firman during the Committee’s consideration of the purchase of the marbles and, astonishingly, told the Committee that he never kept his own personal copy of the permissions he was given.
Those admissions by Elgin himself led many people to denounce his actions in taking the marbles, even among those who supported their purchase by the British Government. Lord Byron was one of the most vociferous critics of Elgin, denouncing his actions in the strongest terms:
“Dull is the eye that will not weep to see
Thy walls defaced, thy mouldering shrines removed
By British hands, which it had best behoved
To guard those relics ne’er to be restored”.
Elgin’s actions were not the only source of controversy at the time of the sale of the marbles to the British Government. The public’s reaction to Elgin receiving £35,000 from the Government—around £3.5 million in today’s money—was understandably angry. In the same year that the British Government purchased the marbles, a cartoon by George Cruikshank depicted a satirical figure of John Bull purchasing the marbles while his children cried out for bread. That is not the first time that the House of Commons has made decisions that benefit the privileged few at the expense of the many.
Whether or not the firman is authentic and the means used to obtain it were dubious or illegal, the legal position on the marbles has, to date, favoured their retention in the UK. The British Museum Act 1963 is the primary piece of legislation here, and it makes it clear that the objects and collections of the British Museum are held by its trustees. Disposal or selling of objects in the British Museum collection is forbidden except in limited circumstances, which include printed materials where duplicates exist or objects that were illegally looted by the Nazis.
The general principle of that legislation and subsequent amendments to it is designed to protect cultural assets and provide the proper independence between Government and museum trustees. Because the legislation is drawn up in that manner, the Greek Government have been disinclined to put the legal position to the test in international courts. However, there is scope for the British Museum Act to be amended to cover the specific circumstances of the repatriation of the Parthenon marbles. I believe that potential amendments to legislation should form part of a process of mediation and dialogue between the Greek Government and the UK Government regarding the future of the Parthenon sculptures.
I turn to some of the other arguments that are often used to justify the Elgin marbles staying in Britain. Those who argue for retention of the marbles use cultural preservation as a key support. Their argument, encapsulated in the universal museum declaration, effectively places immediate cultural preservation above considerations of the circumstances in which treasures and other artefacts of major cultural significance were acquired. Some go as far as to suggest that Elgin’s actions were heroic and that the marbles would have been destroyed had he not acted in the way that he did by bringing them to Britain.
I have some sympathy with the idea that, had they not been acquired by museums outwith their countries of origin, many of the world’s cultural treasures would have been lost. Sadly, we have seen some despicable acts of cultural vandalism in recent years. In Syria, we have seen Daesh’s wanton destruction of parts of Palmyra, the great mosque of Aleppo and the old city of Damascus, which are just a few of the culturally significant sites that have suffered in that brutal conflict. But to compare what has happened in Syria with the proposed repatriation of the Elgin marbles would be to compare apples and oranges. The parts of the Parthenon frieze that have been retained in Greece have survived two world wars, a civil war, a military dictatorship and bankruptcy of the Greek state.
Regardless of views on whether the marbles should be returned to Greece or remain in Britain, it is reasonable to suggest that they would be preserved and secured for many years to come. Both Greece and the UK can offer outstanding museum facilities to showcase the marbles, and the new Acropolis Museum has already demonstrated how that would work in practice. The argument on cultural preservation comes down to one question: artistically, does it make sense for the Parthenon marbles to be reunited, placing them in one location where they could be appreciated and admired the world over? That is not only the right thing to do; it would enable the marbles to be appreciated in the original context in which they were sculpted.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I am enjoying the history lesson, 204 years after the Select Committee of this House thoroughly investigated the acquisition and found it to be totally legal. However, the hon. Lady says the marbles could be better appreciated in Athens. Why does she think they could be better appreciated in Athens? Last year, the British Museum had over 6 million visitors, viewing 50,000 items, including the Elgin marbles, out of a total collection of 8 million objects, for free, while the Parthenon Museum in Athens, which destroyed many layers of archaeology in its construction, attracted 1.8 million visitors at a cost. Those marbles are seen in an international, classical, archaic Hellenistic context in the British Museum that is just not available in Greece. They are possessions of the world, and the British Museum, as a world museum, is the best place for everyone to appreciate them, rather than this petty nationalism about sending them back to a city state that does not exist any more.
Mr Speaker
Order. That is taking complete advantage, Mr Loughton, and you should know better, given how many years you have been here.
Margaret Ferrier
I think the only answer to that is, how arrogant! How arrogant to feel that we are the only ones who can house the Parthenon sculptures. I am sure many Greeks will be listening to that this evening.
Margaret Ferrier
I am sorry, but I need to make some progress.
As I said, this would enable the marbles to be appreciated in the original context in which they were sculpted. That is perhaps best summed up in the poetry of Constantine Cavafy:
“It is not dignified in a great nation to reap profit from half-truths and half-rights;
Honesty is the best policy, and honesty in the case of the Elgin Marbles means restitution.”
Campaigns to return the Elgin marbles to Greece have been a feature of the cultural landscape for many years, with many celebrities backing the campaign. Most memorably, the original host of “Fifteen to One”, the late William G. Stewart, delivered a speech in favour of their return in a 2001 episode, after all the contestants were eliminated in the first round of the competition. Although a popular teatime quiz show might not have been the best place to air his views, William G. Stewart’s actions highlighted people’s strength of feeling towards the acquisition of these incredible sculptures.
When public opinion on the return of the marbles has been tested, there has been consistent support for returning them to Greece. The most recent opinion poll by YouGov showed that more people in Britain favoured the return of the marbles than opposed it—by a margin of 37% to 23%. Proponents of the reunification of the marbles have rightly pointed out that there is a moral case for their return. In an Intelligence Squared television debate, which is available on YouTube for any hon. Members interested in the subject, both sides of the debate acknowledged that the circumstances in which the Elgin marbles were returned to Greece would be emblematic of Britain’s status in the world.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
This is ever so slightly tangential, but my hon. Friend mentioned Intelligence Squared, and it famously hosted a debate between Professor Mary Beard and the man who is now Prime Minister. Is she as perturbed as I am, given the important role that the British Museum has in this debate, by reports at the weekend that the Government are trying to keep Professor Beard off the board of the British Museum, perhaps because of her remain views? Does she agree that the Minister might want to respond to that in her closing remarks?
Margaret Ferrier
It is very disappointing to hear of the treatment of Professor Mary Beard. It reveals a crucial flaw in the argument against the return of the marbles, but it would be entirely within the UK Government’s power to appoint trustees who supported repatriation. However, I understand that the British Museum is going to take matters into its own hands and appoint her anyway.
Those in favour of repatriation of the marbles suggested that returning the marbles to Greece would portray Britain as a benign influence in the world, keen to do right by others. Those in favour of retention said that their return would mark the decline of Britain’s status as a global power. Either way, repatriating them would mark a sea change in how Britain was viewed in the world, but handled correctly, it could demonstrate that Britain was willing to ditch the colonial mindset for good. For me, the most prescient comment in the debate came from the former Liberal Democrat Member for St Ives, Andrew George, who remarked:
“We can persist in clinging on to the Greek marbles, as excuses wear thin, until we’re forced in some kind of cringe-making and rather shameful climbdown to hand them over in some decades to come.”
That brings us to the twin questions, why hold this debate and why raise this issue now? Last week, the UK Government published their much-awaited mandate for trade negotiations with the EU. Like many of my colleagues on the SNP Benches, I fear the economic impact on my constituents of a future trade deal with the EU.
Brexit also reveals this Tory Government’s delusions of grandeur, as it will expose the power imbalance that we face in negotiations with the EU27. The EU’s negotiating mandate contains an additional clause that calls on both parties in the negotiations to
“address issues relating to the return or restitution of unlawfully removed cultural objects to their country of origin”.
It is utterly apparent to me that Brexit will fuel demands for Britain to return the Elgin marbles to Greece. Greece’s Culture Minister has left us in no doubt about their position on the marbles, saying that the
“right conditions have been created for their permanent return”.
Next year marks 200 years since the Greek uprising against Ottoman rule, so it should be of no surprise to Ministers that Athens will be stepping up its demands for the return of the marbles. No doubt the Minister will boast of the strength of the UK’s negotiating position in the talks to come with the EU. I also expect her to repeat the same intransigent rhetoric that has been a hallmark of the Government’s position on the status of the Parthenon sculptures. As we have seen from this Tory Government throughout the Brexit process, however, that novel imperialist mindset is akin to the emperor’s new clothes.
I fear that the UK Government are in for a nasty surprise when we get down to the nitty-gritty of trade talks, and calls for the Elgin marbles to return to Greece may prove irresistible as negotiations drag on throughout this year. Whether by intention or by accident, the UK Government might well lose their marbles much sooner than any of us anticipated.
The Minister for Digital and Culture (Caroline Dinenage)
I thank the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Margaret Ferrier) for securing this debate on an important topic. She has made a passionate case—I never anticipated for a second that the story of the Parthenon sculptures would take us as far as “Fifteen to One” and YouTube, and I congratulate her on the scope of her argument. The underlying question about where cultural objects belong is not only important but a highly complex issue.
In the UK, museums have a legal responsibility to care for their collections, and they operate independently from Government. It is therefore up to individual museums and their trustees how they respond to restitution claims. Legislation prevents our national museums from removing objects from the national collection, although as the hon. Lady articulated, there are two exceptions to that legal position. One such exemption is Nazi-looted art. In 2000, the Government established the Spoliation Advisory Panel to consider claims for the return of cultural objects lost during the Nazi era, and since then, 13 cultural objects have been returned to families. In 2009, legislation was introduced to allow national museums to return items in that way.
We also have legal measures in place so that human remains under 1,000 years old can be returned to their ancestors around the world. Since the introduction of that measure, there have been a number of successful repatriations of human remains from our national museums, notably from the Natural History Museum, which is in the process of returning the remains of 442 individuals to Australia, New Zealand and Hawaii. Recently, museums have explored other circumstances in which it may be necessary to return objects in their care. For example, at the end of last year, Manchester Museum, which is not subject to primary legislation on its collection, chose to return 43 sacred aboriginal objects to Australia.
I stress, however, that in all those cases, the long-standing principle and legal position in the UK, which has been supported by successive Governments, is that politicians do not interfere in the management of museum collections. That means that in the UK, all decisions related to the collection and the deaccessioning or restitution of artefacts are for each museum and its trustees, within their legal obligations.
We are none the less committed to supporting our museums across the sector in delivering their duties. For example, to further support museums on this particular matter, our national development agency for museums and cultural property, Arts Council England—it is sponsored by my Department—is working to refresh sector guidelines on the restitution of cultural property. It will create a comprehensive and practical recourse for museums to support them in dealing confidently and proactively with all aspects of restitution. It will also provide a signpost for support where necessary.
In the particular case of the Parthenon sculptures, which the hon. Lady raises today, I recognise the very strong desire of some, including the Greek Government, to see the sculptures reunified in the Acropolis Museum in Athens. There are extremely passionate views on both sides of the debate—we have seen examples of that in the Chamber this evening—and that demonstrates the cultural importance of these sculptures. They are currently on display in the British Museum. They were legally acquired under the laws pertaining at the time. As per the situation I have just set out, the trustees of the museum are legally responsible for managing the collections in their care. The Government have great faith in their ability to do so.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Does the Minister not agree that, notwithstanding the helpful context about how these decisions are taken and, crucially, without the interference of Government, that it was a black mark and a dark day when the British Museum refused to engage with UNESCO over a possible mediation on a location for these artefacts? Would it not be better, if such an opportunity arose again, for the museum to take a much more proactive and co-operative approach to any discussion?
Caroline Dinenage
As I have set out, it is very much the responsibility of the museum to manage its collections as it sees fit. We have faith in its ability to do so and the trustees believe very strongly that the museum is the very best place for the sculptures to be seen. That is based on the context of their rich contribution to the history of humanity. The Government fully support the position they have taken.
The hon. Lady raised the speculation that the future of the Parthenon sculptures is implicated in our discussion with the EU on our future trade agreement. The UK’s position remains unchanged: the Parthenon sculptures are the legal responsibility of the British Museum. That is not up for discussion as part of our trade negotiations.
We are very proud of the achievements of our world-class national museums. They do a fantastic job of caring for their collections on behalf of the nation, and they ensure that they are seen by a wide and diverse audience for free. Four of our national museums are in the top 10 most visited in the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) mentioned, the British Museum alone welcomes over 6 million visitors a year. Those 6 million people see the Parthenon sculptures in an unparalleled world history context.
The public also benefit from the national collections beyond the walls of these historic institutions. In 2017-18, the UK’s national museums lent over 69,000 objects to over 2,000 venues around the world for exhibitions and displays. Those loans were seen by over 32 million people. Technology has also revolutionised the way in which the museum sector engages with the public. Through digitisation projects, much of our national collection is now available online, making it more widely accessible to communities everywhere. Our museums are dedicated to making their collections accessible, so that as many people as possible can experience and engage with them.
These collections are also the focus of scholarship and research, and the national museums are internationally recognised as leaders in their academic fields. They partner with experts from universities, museums and other organisations to advance our knowledge of history and science. In 2017-18, the national museums collaborated with over 1,000 UK and international academic and research institutions. It is not an exaggeration to say that this work can change the world, from significant scientific breakthroughs to conferences and exhibitions that share new knowledge. Much of that research is rightly focused on the provenance of museum collections. Some individual items have incredibly complicated histories and it is important that we do everything we can to understand that. Museums have rightly committed a lot of time to this type of research, and they take their due diligence in regard to their collections seriously.
The question of provenance, as the hon. Lady says, can be very complicated, but the Government take it very seriously and work with the police and relevant authorities to ensure that stolen or looted cultural objects do not enter the country in the first place. We are committed to combating the illicit trade of cultural property and to ensuring that objects of dubious provenance do not find their way into our museum collections. This is demonstrated through our international efforts to protect cultural heritage as a signatory of several international conventions.
The UK is a world leader in the fields of culture and heritage. Our museums co-operate extensively with partner institutions around the world on the promotion, protection and circulation of their collections. This sharing of knowledge and collections has enabled them to be proactive in international engagement and lead programmes that promote collaborative training, research and dialogue.
In the case of the British Museum and its wider relationship with its Greek counterparts, it continues a long tradition of fruitful collaboration. A curator from the Thessaloniki museum will join the museum’s annual global training programme this summer, and the Byzantine and Christian Museum in Athens will borrow a 15th-century print for an exhibition next year to mark the bicentenary of the Greek war of independence in 2021. Prior to that, the museum has lent several objects to an exhibition in the Acropolis Museum and presented a newly commissioned replica of a lion-head water spout from the Parthenon to the Acropolis Restoration Service. The museum has worked with Greek colleagues to research the Parthenon frieze, including through the use of 3D image scanning.
Visually impaired visitors to the British Museum can now enjoy a new touch-tour using casts of the Parthenon sculptures, and from March 2021, the museum will hold a free exhibition of historic drawings from its collection that illustrate the long and complex history of the Parthenon as a church, temple and mosque. The trustees have never been asked for a loan of the Parthenon sculptures by the Greek Government, only for their permanent transfer to Athens. As the museum has stated publicly, the trustees would of course consider any request for any part of the collection to be borrowed and then returned, provided that the borrowing institution acknowledges the British Museum’s ownership and that the normal loan conditions are satisfied.
The Government support the position that the Parthenon sculptures should remain in the British Museum, where they are accessible to millions of people for free in the context of world history.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Employment Allowance (Excluded Persons) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Allowance (Excluded Persons) Regulations 2020.
It is a delight to see you in the Chair, Ms Buck. This draft legislation allows the Government to target the national insurance employment allowance to businesses that need it most. Employers pay class 1 national insurance contributions on employee earnings above the secondary threshold, which is set at £8,632 this year. Those contributions are charged at 13.8% and constitute the largest business tax by revenue in the UK.
The employment allowance was introduced in 2014 to help businesses with the cost of employment and to encourage them to grow and to hire more staff. More than 1 million employers claim the employment allowance to reduce their employer NICs bill by up to £3,000 and, since its introduction, it has taken 590,000 businesses out of paying national insurance contributions altogether.
The employment rate is at an all-time high of 76.2%. Since 2010, youth unemployment has been halved and 3.7 million more people are in employment. That is a nationwide phenomenon; in the last year, three quarters of employment growth was outside London and the south-east.
All businesses—from greengrocers to Goldman Sachs; from butchers to Barclays; from pubs to Primark—are currently eligible for Government relief of up to £3,000 of their total employer NICs bill. Big businesses get the same benefit as small ones, but for larger businesses, that £3,000 is a small—perhaps tiny—amount relative to their total employment costs, so it is unlikely to encourage them to take on more staff, contrary to the purpose of the policy. It is right therefore to target the support at smaller businesses, for which the £3,000 relief makes a real difference to the cost of doing business.
That is why the Government decided to restrict the employment allowance to smaller businesses in the 2018 Budget. As a result, from April 2020, only businesses with an employer national insurance contributions bill below £100,000 will be eligible for the employment allowance. More than 99% of microbusinesses with fewer than 10 employees and 93% of small businesses with fewer than 50 employees will remain eligible for the employment allowance. Of the businesses that currently receive the employment allowance, around 8%—all of which will have a pay bill above £700,000 per year—will lose the allowance.
Targeting the employment allowance at smaller businesses means that it falls under EU de minimis state aid regulations. De minimis state aid refers to small amounts of aid that can be given without notifying the European Commission. Most businesses can receive up to €200,000 of de minimis state aid cumulatively in a three-year period. Under the de minimis regime, to claim the employment allowance, businesses need to notify Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs annually as part of the existing claims process and confirm that they can receive the employment allowance without exceeding their cap. After consulting widely, the Government have removed the requirement to specify exactly how much state aid businesses have received, to make it easier for them to claim the reformed employment allowance.
As the Prime Minister announced, the Government will develop a separate independent UK policy on subsidies, for use when the transition period has ended. That will be a modern system designed to support businesses in a way that fulfils British interests. Although the employment allowance supports small businesses, I hope that the Committee agrees that giving every large business with a wage bill of £700,000 or more £3,000 off its national insurance contribution bill is not good value for money. The Government are committed to furthering their support for small businesses as we look to level up opportunity and growth across the country.
Over the course of this Parliament, this reform is projected to raise more than £1 billion that can be used to fund important public services and to target support for small and medium-sized businesses.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
It is always a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Buck, and I thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Minister.
I thank the Minister for his explanation of this measure. I am aware that it has been in the pipeline for some time and I can understand the Government’s desire to focus the allowance on smaller businesses. However, I would like to ask the Minister several questions to aid the Committee’s understanding of its likely impact.
First, the Minister said that he believed that this would raise £1 billion a year. Will he share with us some of the Government’s analysis as to how many businesses, which were previously able to claim this allowance above the £100,000 threshold, will be affected from 6 April 2020? I ask that, with reference to the revenue, because this seems to be a significant undertaking in terms of the administration being asked of the recipients. Will the Minister explain who is affected and how those savings justify the change that is being proposed? As we often discuss in debates on Finance Bills, constant tinkering with allowances can be unhelpful, as it creates confusion among businesses as to what they are entitled to and when.
Secondly, I would like to ask about the reclassification of this payment as state aid under EU rules. Given that we have left the European Union—although we are still in the transition period—why is this reclassification necessary and what relevance does the Minister anticipate this will have in the future under UK law?
Finally, I am aware that an administrative change is associated with this amendment to the allowance, in that companies will no longer have an ongoing rolling entitlement, but will instead fill out a new claim each year. I want to ask the Minister to address the unnecessary bureaucracy and paperwork that might, therefore, be put on to all business owners, on top of the implementation of Making Tax Digital and the likely increase in bureaucracy as a result of Brexit. How will this change be communicated to all those it will affect? How are the Government communicating this to small business owners, so that they understand that they will not be affected, in a timely manner and with adequate support?
I hope the Minister can respond now to those points, but if not, he can respond in writing.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP)
Thank you, Ms Buck, for the opportunity to ask the Minister questions on this matter. The Scottish National party supports a reduction in employers’ national insurance to boost jobs. That was clearly outlined in our manifesto, on which won 80% of seats in Scotland.
Although Scotland has a strong labour market, crippling Brexit uncertainty is putting jobs at risk. How can these savings be justified? Does the Minister understand the adverse effect that they could have on businesses in Scotland, given the uncertainty already occurring in this sector due to Brexit?
Jesse Norman
I am delighted to answer the questions put to me. In response to the hon. Member for East Dunbartonshire, I think I am right in saying that SNP policy was to double the employment allowance, rather than to restrict it. I think that would have had the effect of continuing the mis-targeting, which we have identified, on the largest companies. Therefore, we do not think that would be a good policy and we think it is much better to have the support targeted where it will have an effect on increasing the marginal appetite to retain or hire employees.
In relation to the questions from the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, I mentioned in my speech that some 8% of current businesses—about 80,000 businesses —would not be eligible for the employment allowance, as it is now proposed to be targeted. He will appreciate that it is designed in such a way that there should be a reduction in paperwork, because we have managed to avoid the situation that would have been mandated otherwise under EU rules, in which the specific amount of state aid received would have to be indicated. There was feedback in the consultation on the question of paperwork. The decision was taken that the application would be put through payroll software and should be as light touch and straightforward as possible.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about state aid. The trouble is that by restricting the scope of the allowance and by targeting a group, it automatically engages in EU state aid rules, and looks like preferential treatment. The Government have no option if they wish to introduce it. I do not detect any difference in the policy goal between us and the Opposition. It is a necessary part of doing that. I hope he can take some comfort from the fact that at the end of the transition period we expect to at least assess the scope for redesign of the policy if there is serious evidence of any adverse impact on those it is meant to support.
I have indicated that the allowance will be paid through payroll and will be communicated through the usual channels online, through public media support, and with the active collaboration of stakeholders, small business groups and other relevant organisations to make sure that it has the widest possible take-up. Since this is a universally understood allowance already, I expect take-up to be high from the beginning.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No. 14) Order 2019
(4 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Commencement No. 14) Order 2019.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, as always, Sir David.
The purpose of the draft instrument is to enable the Secretary of State to make alcohol abstinence and monitoring requirements available across England and Wales. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 required that pilots be run before these measures were introduced across England and Wales. Those pilots have now been run in London and Humberside, so this statutory instrument provides for the roll-out across the country by bringing into force section 76 of the LASPO Act, which itself inserts section 212A into the Criminal Justice Act 2003.
This legislation will give courts a new tool to directly address alcohol-related offending. As part of a community sentence, judges and magistrates will be able to impose a ban on drinking alcohol for up to 120 days, using continuous electronic monitoring.
Alcohol-related crime places a huge strain on our society. The most recent figures published in the crime survey for England and Wales of 2018 estimated that 39% of violent incidents were connected with the influence of alcohol, so it is a serious issue. Through enforcing abstinence, AAMRs are designed to mitigate the offending behaviour driven by alcohol and to interrupt the consumption of alcohol that has caused a particular offender to behave as they have done.
As I mentioned, there have been two pilots, as required by the 2012 Act. The first was in London, initiated by the Prime Minister when he was Mayor of London, and the second took place in Humberside, Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire. Those pilots have been subject to five separate evaluations. It is worth saying that AAMRs are imposed on offenders who do not have treatment requirements imposed on them. Where someone has an alcohol problem that requires medical treatment, we do not use an AAMR—it is one or the other.
During the course of the pilot, about 1,500 AAMRs were—[Interruption.] We welcome support from all corners of the House. The hon. Member is extremely welcome; we are a very broad church these days. During the pilots, compliance with those 1,500 AAMRs was extremely high. There was a 94% compliance rate in terms of the process being completed, and the compliance rate with alcohol abstinence was 98% in the Mayor’s Office for Policing and Crime area—the London area—and 97% in Humberside and North Yorkshire. The evidence suggests that AAMRs are extremely effective at persuading the offender to abstain from drinking alcohol.
On the kinds of offences for which AAMRs were imposed, in London 45% of the orders were used for violent offenders, and in the Humberside pilot 31% were for offenders where there was a domestic abuse offence.
Sentencers have welcomed the use of these measures. It so happens that one of my parliamentary caseworkers is a magistrate at Croydon magistrates court in London, and anecdotally she has reported that she feels the orders work well. That has been reflected in the more formal feedback via the five studies.
The police also welcome these measures. The Humberside police and crime commissioner, Keith Hunter, said:
“The period in which the offender is tagged will give rehabilitation agencies a real opportunity to work with the individual and get them to recognise and change their behaviour, hopefully for good. I would like to see these orders available nationally as a standard feature of the Criminal Justice System.”
That is precisely what we are doing this afternoon. Moreover, Julia Mulligan, the North Yorkshire police, fire and crime commissioner, said:
“This has proved to be a successful pilot, with many lessons learned along the way. We know alcohol can play a key part in offending for some people, and this appears to have been a positive intervention—reducing offending markedly among those wearing tags.”
It is clear, Sir David, that this has been a successful pilot, and it is right that we activate section 76 of the LASPO Act and get on with making this provision available to magistrates and Crown courts across the entire jurisdiction. In the roll-out, we intend to follow a similar process to that used during the pilot, in that we will do it region by region, starting this year. We expect the full national roll-out to take about 12 months. Once fully rolled out nationally, we estimate that about 2,300 offenders per year will be subject to the orders, although that is a matter for judges, magistrates and the Crown court to decide when passing sentence.
We intend to publish a White Paper on sentencing later this year, which will look at toughening community sentences more generally. I am keen, as is the Lord Chancellor, to make sure that where someone has a substance or alcohol addiction problem, or a mental health problem, we do more to treat the underlying health causes rather than giving a short custodial sentence, which can be ineffective. We are not proposing to abolish short custodial sentences, but where treatment is appropriate we would like to make sure that people receive it to address the underlying causes of their behaviour. That is consistent with our general direction of travel.
In conclusion, the pilots have been successful, and judges and the police welcome the measure. I commend the statutory instrument to the House.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David.
We recognise that alcohol is a serious driver for offending in cases of violent assault and domestic abuse. We further recognise that alcohol monitoring tags provide clear benefits and have a prominent role to play in reducing reoffending that is linked to alcohol. We therefore support giving those who impose sentences the power to use sobriety tags and AAMR orders, where they are appropriate.
We are clear that our support for the tags and AAMR orders is based on the evidence that has been provided by the Government, which the Minister set out eloquently. It shows that there is a high level of compliance and that AAMR orders are an effective way of reducing reoffending driven by alcohol. However, that does not mean that there are no questions that the Government must answer over the national roll-out of AAMR orders.
While the Government have carried out two pilots of AAMR orders in London and across the Humber, Lincoln and North Yorkshire region, we are concerned about the significant length of time that they were in place before the national roll-out. The Government must clarify why the pilots were in place for a number of years—much longer than would have been presumed necessary—and why, after having hopefully learned so much over such a length of time, AAMR orders are now being rolled out nationally only in an incremental way.
The Government must set out whether the two pilots will be independently evaluated, and whether their findings will be publicly available and widely circulated to demonstrate that the evidence base for a national roll-out is built not just on enthusiastic backing from certain stakeholders, but on credible data that demonstrates beneficial impact. Pilots of new technology and procedures will almost always be welcomed to get things right and iron out any issues, but they must also always be open and transparent to ensure that the right lessons are learned.
We are concerned about the Government’s track record on electronic monitoring contracts, with the fiasco over 24/7 GPS location tagging fresh in our minds. Originally announced in 2011 for a national roll-out in 2013, those location monitoring tags ended up being delayed for five years at a cost of millions of pounds to the taxpayer, with the supposed cost-saving benefits not now expected to be fulfilled. That alone is serious enough, and should disqualify those involved from participating in the programme of rolling out and administering the use of sobriety tags, but the issues with the tagging contracts go much deeper.
In 2013, the Serious Fraud Office was forced to investigate the irregularities in Serco and G4S’s handling of the GPS location tagging contract. A criminal investigation found that Serco had charged the Ministry of Justice for tagging people who were dead, in prison or abroad. With such a record, G4S and Serco must not be allowed anywhere near another tagging contract if the public are to have confidence in the system. The Minister must guarantee today that the delays and costs of the GPS location tags will not be repeated in the case of sobriety tags, so that security and value for money are delivered for the taxpayer.
The Minister must make it clear that, unlike what has been done with the probation service, he will not further reward the failure of private companies in the criminal justice system. Under the Ministry of Justice’s public procurement regulations, there is a clear basis for disqualifying Serco, G4S and any others involved in fraud from bidding for and participating in the sobriety tagging programme on the grounds of a significant deficiency, so he must categorically rule it out.
With the prison system stretched to breaking point and internal MOJ figures reporting that our prisons will be full by the end of the year, the Government must set out what provisions are in place to ensure that offenders who breach AAMR orders do not put further undue pressure on our prisons. The Government must ensure that existing alcohol and substance misuse treatment services in our prisons, which are in a dire state, are strengthened to ensure that offenders do not have problems with alcohol and drugs, but have the support that they need.
The London pilot reported that the use of AAMR orders did not place a significant additional burden on stakeholders and responsible officers. The Government must guarantee, however, that that will also be prevented in the national roll-out, particularly considering the substantial understaffing and overworking of people in the National Probation Service that was recently reported by Her Majesty’s chief inspector of probation.
With alcohol abuse a significant factor in many domestic abuse cases, I hope that the Minister will heed the advice of stakeholders in the MOPAC pilot, who stated that AAMR orders should be imposed alongside specialist programmes, such as the building better relationships programme, to address the thinking and behavioural causes of domestic abuse reoffending and the ongoing risk of further abuse and harm. I hope that the Government will commit to naming a date by which the domestic abuse Bill will finally be reintroduced to Parliament after being dropped twice. I have learned that it may receive its First Reading tomorrow, but I wait to hear if the Minister is aware of that.
I hope that the Minister will commit to ensuring that the national roll-out of sobriety tags will not end up like previous MOJ contracts, give a guarantee that the contracts will neither overrun nor overspend, and make a firm pledge that G4S and Serco will be disqualified from the process, based on their previous conduct, so that the public and sentencers can have the confidence they need in the programme.
Chris Philp
I will respond briefly to some of the points raised by the shadow Minister. I thank him for his intention not to divide the Committee and for the constructive and thoughtful tone of his remarks.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the domestic abuse Bill. It is not my policy area, but I believe that it is the intention to introduce it in the House in the extremely near future, so it will be taken forward. We have clearly had a somewhat disrupted 12 months or so, with various things impeding the passage of legislation, but the Bill is important, as he rightly says, and we are moving on with it at pace now that we have a more stable political environment.
The hon. Gentleman asked why the pilots took so long. When we are piloting a new criminal justice intervention, it is right that we do it thoughtfully, rather than in a hurry. There are examples of interventions that were rushed and not properly thought through. It is reasonable that, before we change the law, as we are doing today, we pilot a measure in a considered and thorough way. As I said, five evaluations have been conducted. He asked about the roll-out programme and, again, we do not want to rush it. We want to make sure that it is done properly in each region in turn. Getting it done in the space of 12 months or so is not an unreasonably long time.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the release of the evaluations. The evaluations are independent, and we believe that those done on behalf of MOPAC and on behalf of Humberside, Lincolnshire and North Yorkshire will be published publicly. He will be able to read them in due course.
There have in the past been serious problems with the tagging contracts, which the hon. Gentleman referred to. Of course, any private sector contract, particularly in the area in question, will be monitored carefully for all the reasons he mentioned.
The hon. Gentleman asked about breach. Clearly, if someone who is given an AAMR breaches the requirement by taking the tag off or drinking when they are not supposed to, that will in the first instance be a matter for the probation service. It could escalate the matter to, for example, a magistrate who would be able to take appropriate follow-up action. The magistrate’s range of options would include another community order, a fine or, in extreme cases, imprisonment.
I completely agree, on the question of treatment, that it is critical that if someone has a serious health problem—whether that is drug or alcohol addiction or a mental health problem—we seek to treat it. AAMRs are not about treating people with serious addiction. Alcohol treatment requirements are designed to do that. However, AAMRs have a role to play with people whose drinking is problematic but falls short of addiction meeting the medical threshold requiring treatment, for which separate ATRs are in place.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
The Minister makes a distinction between the AAMR and medical treatment. Is he happy that that is a robust distinction that can be upheld in practice?
Chris Philp
Of course, it is always for the magistrate or Crown court to decide on which side of the line a particular patient falls, but, as I have said, we shall be returning to this area in the sentencing White Paper to be published later in the year. A critical part of that will look at ways to deepen and widen treatment for people who have addiction and mental health problems. The question that my hon. Friend raised will be addressed in the White Paper and I strongly encourage him, and others with expertise of the kind he has, to contribute to the thinking about that. It is exactly the sort of question that we shall address.
I hope that I have been able to respond, briefly, to some of the questions that were raised. I once again commend the instrument to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Douglas Ross)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I am grateful for the opportunity to debate the draft order, which was laid before the House on 31 October 2019.
The draft order is part of the Government’s ongoing commitment to devolution. The Scottish Government have committed to introduce a grant called the job start payment for young people aged between 16 and 24 years who have been out of paid employment for six months or more and who submit an application for such a payment, but Scottish Ministers do not have executive competence to provide assistance to that cohort of young people for the purpose of helping them to retain employment. Section 31 of the Scotland Act 2016 gives the Scottish Parliament powers in that area by creating some exemptions to the reservation of the subject matter of the Employment and Training Act 1973, but those exemptions do not extend to providing such assistance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has therefore agreed to share with the Scottish Government the existing powers in the 1973 Act, which allow for the making of arrangements to provide that assistance. Under section 63 of the Scotland Act 1998, the draft order will achieve that by amending the 1973 Act to make those powers exercisable concurrently by the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers.
To be clear, the order will only give Scottish Ministers the necessary powers; it does not set the policy itself, which is a matter for the Scottish Government under the scrutiny of the Scottish Parliament. Furthermore, the powers of the UK Government will not be reduced as a result of the order, as the functions are simply being shared with the Scottish Government.
I will explain briefly what the Scottish Government intend to do with the powers transferred under the draft order. As I said, the Scottish Government will introduce a grant to be known as the job start payment. The proposal is for a one-off cash payment of £250 for young people who do not have children, and £400 for those who do, to help with the initial costs associated with entering and remaining in work. It can be used for food, travel or clothing, thus removing some of the initial pressure of starting a new job. Eligible young people will be able to apply until their 25th birthday. Care leavers will be able to apply until their 26th birthday, and will only have to be out of paid work on the date of their job offer, rather than for the previous six months, in order to be eligible.
The job start payment is expected to be introduced in spring 2020; it depends on this order being made. The payment will be administered by Social Security Scotland, the Scottish Government’s benefits delivery agency. Any costs associated with delivering the payment will fall solely on the Scottish Government. It is for the Scottish Parliament to scrutinise the spending decisions of Scottish Ministers. In the Scottish Budget for 2020-21, announced on 6 February, £2 million was allocated to fund the benefit expenditure for the job start payment.
The UK Government view the draft order as an addition to the support already provided across Great Britain to people searching for work within the reserved competence. It demonstrates that the UK Government remain committed to strengthening the devolution settlement and shows Scotland’s two Governments working together. On that note, I commend the order to the Committee.
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. Neither I nor the Minister anticipate any dissent, but I have a number of technical questions about the draft order. I will be grateful for a response.
Extra provision for those who have left care is obviously welcome. It is important to recognise the extra burden faced when obtaining employment by those who come through the care system anywhere in this United Kingdom. Will the Minister state for the record what I think is the case, which is that residence in Scotland will be a necessary condition of being able to apply for the grants, but anyone who has come through the care system in any part of the United Kingdom—England, Wales or Northern Ireland—will be eligible to apply for, and to be granted, the same facilities as those who have come through the care system in Scotland?
My second question is slightly more difficult. Probably something in the order of 700,000 people in Scotland are on a zero-hours contract. Such new and unusual forms of employment contract lead to very different work-life balances from those we would have assumed in the past. Clearly, there may be complications for those on low or zero hours in having their employment status recognised for the purposes of the grants. Can the grants be extended to people in that situation? Obviously, these unusual contracts exist in problematic work all over the UK, and it would be difficult—indeed, unfair—for those who are making their best effort to get into the world of employment to find themselves shut out of the scheme because of technicalities.
My final point is arguably much more political. We know that one issue we still face is low pay in work. The grants—£400 for those with children, £250 for those without—are a powerful incentive and go some way to recognising the real costs of moving into the world of work for those who do not have previous experience. Had the Government accepted the minimum wage of £10 an hour proposed by the Labour party during the last election, the uplift would have been considerably bigger, putting £2 billion into the Scottish economy and in effect floating a considerable number of those seeking work way above the level of the grants.
I do not want to be churlish and pretend that this scheme is not welcome, but I hope the Minister accepts that the politics of low pay and of bringing the whole of these four nations of ours up to an acceptable working wage is real. For younger people aged between 18 and 20, the living wage will be little more than £6.45 an hour. That is a low wage by any standard. Clearly, the capacity to lift those people beyond that would make a real difference. Nevertheless, we give our wholehearted support to the order.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sharma. I do not think anybody will be surprised to hear that Scottish National party Members support the measure. It is the right thing to do. Of course, Scottish Ministers should already have the power to make this change themselves, without recourse to this place. The transfer to the Scottish Government of power over areas covered by the Employment and Training Act 1973 will enable the Scottish Government to assist young people between the ages of 16 and 24. As the hon. Member for Rochdale said, this payment will be a powerful incentive, so I make no apology for repeating the details of this great initiative.
The Scottish Government are introducing a new job start cash payment of £250, and £400 for a young person with children, available to those between the ages of 16 and 24 who have been out of work and receiving a low-income benefit for six months prior to finding employment. As mentioned, care leavers will not have to meet this qualification and will be supported until their 26th birthday. This change has the potential to have a transformational effect for a lot of young people seeking to make their way in the world. The payment can help with travel costs, clothing, lunches and other expenses that need to be met before someone receives their first salary. If all goes well in this place, it will be launched this spring.
The Scottish Government are doing all they can within the constitutional and financial restraints placed upon them to build a social security system for Scotland based on dignity, fairness and respect. Clearly, we are pleased that the UK Government have agreed to share this function of making arrangements so that the Scottish Government can deliver the new payment, but I feel compelled to say that it is ridiculous that Scottish Ministers are forced to get permission from the UK Government, instead of having the powers themselves. We want the Scottish Parliament to have full power over social security, so that we can introduce inclusive and progressive policies, without being at the whim and favour of the Westminster Government.
Douglas Ross
I thank those who contributed to the debate, which was generally consensual, with some exceptions towards the end of the remarks by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey.
Let me start with the remarks by the hon. Member for Rochdale. A shiver went up my spine as soon as he said he had some technical questions, given his questioning of the Secretary of State at Scotland questions a couple of weeks ago. The hon. Gentleman asked about people resident in Scotland who left care in other parts of the UK. An individual will be eligible for the policy when they are resident in Scotland on the day of the job offer; they could, therefore, have left the care sector in England or Wales and moved up to Scotland. Where they are based on the day they apply under the policy and they have a job offer will determine their eligibility.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about zero-hours contracts. The Committee has not yet discussed the consultation the Scottish Government held on the policy. There were 96 responses to that consultation. As a result of suggestions in those responses, applications can now be made in respect of employment expected to average 12 hours per week over a four-week period, rather than the original 16 hours per week. That addresses some of the concerns the hon. Gentleman raised. That point was raised by a number of people who responded to the consultation, and the reduction from 16 hours to 12 hours was made as a result.
Finally, although the hon. Gentleman said he did not want to be churlish or too political, he said there would have been greater benefits for Scotland if the Labour party’s proposals for a minimum wage had been adopted. I try not to be too churlish or political when I say that the Scottish Labour party went from seven MPs to one at the last election, and that Labour was returned as an Opposition party and we were returned as the Government, with the biggest majority since Margaret Thatcher’s. We broke down the red wall because we had policies that people across the United Kingdom related to. They believed this Government and this Prime Minister would improve their lives, and I think that is why we were returned with such a large majority. I will come back to the point, Mr Sharma; I was trying to address the issues that were raised, which strayed slightly from the proposals in the draft order.
Although the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey was a bit critical and asked why the Scottish Government should have had to ask for the draft order—that is the devolution settlement we have—he welcomed it, which shows that we can work well together. The policy shows that we have the shared interest of ensuring that young people can remain in employment when they get a job offer. We want to work together as a UK Government and a Scottish Government to deliver for the people of Scotland, and this policy does exactly that. The SNP Government held a consultation in Scotland, we introduced the draft order, and we have held discussions in this place and the other place. Surely, the fact that the UK Government and the Scottish Government can agree on such policies to improve the lives of young people through work is something we can all celebrate.
This Government are committed to working collaboratively with the Scottish Government to ensure a functioning settlement for Scotland. The draft order facilitates the introduction of the job start payment for young people in Scotland, which shows the UK Government’s commitment to working with the Scottish Government to deliver that.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents (Approval and Designation of Schemes) (Amendment) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents (Approval and Designation of Schemes) (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. The draft regulations were laid before the House on Monday 3 February 2020. Client money protection gives landlords and tenants confidence that their money is safe when being handled by an agent. The Government made it mandatory for all property agents in England holding private rented sector-related client money to obtain membership of the approved client money protection scheme on 1 April 2019.
The client money held by agents primarily includes rent paid directly to the agent and funds provided by landlords to the agent for the purposes of making property repairs. The Government have approved six client money protection schemes, protecting £3.4 billion of client money across the schemes. Nearly 10,000 letting agents are now members of a scheme.
Increasing the financial protections for landlords and tenants through mandatory client money protection is a positive step towards driving up standards in the private rented sector. Furthermore, that brings the letting agents sector into line with other sectors where client money is held, such as the legal profession and travel operators.
Before setting out the detail of the draft regulations, Mr Davies, I wish to establish the legislative context, so I hope that you and the Committee will bear with me. The Housing and Planning Act 2016 provides powers for the introduction of mandatory client money protection. Following the passage of that Act, the Government invited Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill to chair a client money protection working group, which reported in March 2017. Its recommendation to make client money protection mandatory was accepted by the Government. In November 2017 the Government consulted on implementing mandatory client money protection. There was broad support for our proposal.
In June 2018 the Government introduced two sets of regulations: first, the Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents (Approval and Designation of Schemes) Regulations 2018, or the approval regulations, established the procedure for the Government to approve privately run client money protection schemes; and secondly, the Client Money Protection Schemes for Property Agents (Requirement to Belong to a Scheme etc.) Regulations 2019, or the requirement regulations, required agents in the private rented sector to belong to one of the approved schemes if they handled client money. The two sets of regulations together provide the framework for client money protection.
In late 2018 we reviewed the regulations, considering new concerns that had come to our attention. Those included difficulties that agents in Scotland were facing in obtaining pooled client accounts following the introduction of client money protection there in January 2018. Addressing those concerns, the Government used the Tenant Fees Act 2019 to amend the client money protection regulations. To address the issues highlighted in Scotland, we permitted client money protection schemes to accept as members agents who are making all reasonable efforts to obtain a client account but are unable to do so for reasons beyond their control. We applied that grace period for 12 months, to 31 March this year.
The amendments to the approval regulations were made and commenced on 14 February 2019, which allowed schemes and letting agents to comply with our regulations ahead of 1 April 2019, when the requirement for agents to be members of a client money protection scheme came into force.
I will now introduce the draft regulations, which simply extend the initial grace period for letting agents struggling to obtain a pooled client account for a further 12 months, to 1 April 2021. I note that an error was made in the explanatory note when this statutory instrument was laid before Parliament on 3 February. The note referred to a “full impact assessment” but, as the measure falls within the de minimis exemption, we have not produced an impact assessment. With the agreement of the statutory instrument registrar, we have issued a correction to the explanatory note, stating that “no, or no significant” impact is foreseen.
Now that mandatory client money protection has been in place for several months, there is some evidence that UK banks are reluctant to offer pooled client accounts to agents. That requires attention because one of the key requirements of the 2019 regulations is for letting agents to hold their clients’ money in a client account. For the majority of letting agents, the only workable model is to hold the money in a pooled client account, avoiding the need for thousands of individual client accounts. That presents money laundering risks, however, because funds from multiple sources can be co-mingled and moved rapidly through a pooled client account, which presents challenges in identifying the true owners of the funds.
To address those risks, money laundering regulations place specific requirements on non-regulated firms, including the large majority of letting agents. Those requirements include banks conducting due diligence on both the customer that holds the pooled account—the letting agent—and that customer’s clients. That enhanced consumer due diligence has made it difficult for some letting agents to obtain a pooled client account because banks, driven by a concern to ensure compliance with anti-money laundering regulations as well as other commercial factors, may be reluctant to offer them.
We continue to monitor quarterly the number of agents affected. I am happy to report to the Committee that the number of agents reporting such difficulties to client money protection schemes remains low. In the period between October and December 2019, which is the last quarter for which we have data, 251 letting agents reported difficulties in obtaining a client account—that amounts to around 2.5% of agents that currently belong to a client money protection scheme.
The joint money laundering steering group’s forthcoming guidance for banks on their obligations under money laundering regulations will help to address the need for proportionality when assessing the risk of non-regulated firms such as letting agents. We had expected that final guidance to be published before the end of the grace period—before 31 March—but its unexpected complexity means that a draft for consultation is not expected until spring.
We have considered the case for ending or extending the grace period, in consultation with client money protection schemes, and concluded that there is a strong case for offering a further 12-month extension. That extension will guard against the risk that some agents will be unable to comply with the regulations through no fault of their own, with attendant sanctions of up to £30,000 for non-compliance. The extension allows the time needed for the joint money laundering steering group’s guidance to be published and to inform the commercial decisions that the banks then make.
We will also encourage client money protection schemes to urge agents who struggle to secure a client money account to make exhaustive efforts to do so. The fact remains that most agents do hold such accounts with banks. Agents should not assume that the grace period will be extended again beyond 2021.
Mandatory client money protection is an important part of the Government’s suite of existing and proposed policies to enhance standards in the private rented sector and give to landlords and tenants the confidence that they need when using an agent. I am grateful to you and the Committee for your forbearance, Mr Davies, and commend the regulations to the Committee.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. You will be pleased to learn that I do not intend to detain the Committee for long. The Labour party does not intend to vote against the measures, but the Minister has some questions to answer.
We are told by the Government that a private trade body, the joint money laundering steering group, is updating its guidance to help banks understand better the low risk that letting agents actually present. The Department told us, as the Minister said, that it had expected the final guidance to be published before 1 April 2020, but, due to unforeseen complexity, it will not be, so the Government are having to extend the grace period for another year, to 2021. Why is it taking so long? How on earth can people handing over thousands of pounds, if not hundreds of thousands of pounds, have confidence that their money is safe while the Government allow agents a grace period when they can, in effect, do what they like with their tenants’ cash?
According to data given to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, as of 31 December 2019 some 9,978 letting agents holding just under £3.4 billion in funds had obtained membership of an approved client money protection scheme, of which all had an appropriate client account or were making every reasonable attempt to obtain one. Does the Minister know how many such memberships there are and how many letting agents are still making a supposedly reasonable attempt to get one?
Some 251 letting agents reported difficulties in obtaining an account during the period of October to December 2019. If nearly 10,000 letting agents have managed to obtain the necessary account, why have those others failed? Are they simply not getting their finger out because no one is cracking the whip? Is it not their responsibility in any shape or form? If everyone else managed to do it, why did they not? What estimate has the Minister made of the total number of letting agents who handle client money but do not have a separate client account, including those not part of a client money protection scheme? What estimate has his Department made of the amount of landlords’ and tenants’ money held by letting agents not in a separate client account? Does he have the answers to those questions? If not, will he find out and publish that information?
Let us not forget that mandatory client money protection is crucial to give landlords and tenants confidence that their money is safe when it is being handled by an agent, and they do not currently have that. A failure by Ministers at the Department to get a grip of the process means that there will be a further delay in many landlords and tenants getting that protection and reassurance. What chance do Ministers have of fixing the broken market for private renters if they cannot get even a simple money protection scheme in place?
Why did Ministers outsource the job of providing reassurance to banks that providing client money accounts would not fall foul of money laundering regulations to the private joint money laundering steering group? What is the unforeseen complexity we are told has been experienced in producing the guidance, according to the Department’s guidance to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee? How long has the group had to produce the guidance? What deadline has the Minister set for that guidance to be provided? That failure lets down tenants and landlords. I hope that the Minister may be able to publish some guidance for the protection of landlords and tenants who end up having to hand over their hard-earned cash to agents who have yet to provide the protection that their money needs. Will he do that?
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I do not object to the regulations, but are we setting up here a system for wholesale fraud and money laundering by unscrupulous individuals? I do not suggest for a minute that most letting agents are unscrupulous; most are legitimate businesses providing a service, and anything that protects clients’ money is important. However, I am concerned about these pooled accounts. As the Minister said, they are not like ordinary bank accounts, because they contain not the business’s money but someone else’s money. Some large letting agents could hold money from several hundred thousand people in one account. Who is going to ensure that these pooled accounts will not be used as a way of money laundering?
Surely an easy way around it would be to have fictitious tenancies. Say for example that I invented you as an individual, Mr Davies, and said that you had rented a property and given me £2,000, and I put it into an account, and several months later I say that the tenancy has finished and I have to pay you the money back. Are we not possibly creating a problem for the banks in how they monitor these accounts?
Likewise, if we have individuals who legitimately give a letting agent £100, but what is put into the account is another £900, or £1,000 altogether, there is no way of linking individuals. Will the bank have any oversight of how many individuals the money covers? Otherwise, it does not take a genius to work out how someone could quite clearly manipulate these accounts to launder quite large sums of money, especially if we are talking about large numbers of individuals.
I do not object to the regulation, but I wonder about the way it has been set up, who will be looking at these accounts and whether there will be a random audit, for example, of individual pooled accounts. Otherwise, it could be open to a lot of fraud. I am not suggesting for one minute that the majority of letting agents would do this, but it is interesting to note that whenever the Government or the state invent a new tax or a new system, there are always people looking for ways to exploit it. This would be an obvious one for them to be able to do so.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the spokesman for the official Opposition for agreeing to support this statutory instrument, and to the right hon. Member for North Durham for his questions.
The hon. Member for Stockton North asked a number of questions. He began by asking how letting agents and their clients can have confidence that their money is not being in any way misappropriated or misused. I point him to the statistics, which show that since 1 April 2019, there have been only 37 valid client money protection schemes, totalling less than £14,000, against the scheme, which manages £3.4 billion of client money. Therefore, the confidence levels of those people, whether they be landlords or tenants, should be high. That also goes some way to addressing the questions asked by the right hon. Member for North Durham.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am talking about how bank accounts will be operated in practice and who will look at them. I should think that the majority are perfectly fine, but who will be looking at whether those pooled accounts are proper pooled accounts or are being used for fraudulent activity? Who will actually do it?
Christopher Pincher
The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly entitled and right to ask those questions. We have robust anti-money laundering legislation, as he knows—he has probably debated it in the Chamber of the House of Commons. We believe that the counter-terrorist financing supervisory regime is comprehensive. The banks have to look at the money passing through their accounts, and that is one reason we are here today, because they are taking care, as they properly should, to ensure that the money passing through the accounts they manage is clean. That is placing a burden on a small number of letting agents, who we do not believe are engaged in any money laundering and whose funds we do not believe are significant, but who none the less want to conclude their business.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Perhaps I can aid the Minister on the line of inquiry of the right hon. Member for North Durham. Is it not the case that there are already quite stringent requirements on letting agents and other property agents to ensure that the money that goes through their hands is clean, in terms of the legitimacy of a tenant to be in this country and rent a property? An agent found guilty of letting to somebody who is not legitimately in this country can be fired. There are also unexplained wealth orders, which put legal requirements on agents to ensure that the sources of funds are legitimate. In answer to the right hon. Member, the requirement is on those agents working for landlords to ensure that the moneys that they accept to go into such deposit and other protection schemes are legitimate.
Christopher Pincher
My hon. Friend makes the point even more eloquently than I can. Fundamentally, we have robust systems in place to protect against money laundering. I do not think that the extension of the statutory instrument will undermine them in any way.
Mr Kevan Jones
I am not suggesting that; all I am saying is that we are opening up a potential route for money laundering. There is clear evidence, in my constituency and others, where property prices are very low, that a good way of laundering illicit gains is to buy a property and, in some cases, to rent them out through individuals whom the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham might want to say are legitimate. In some cases they are not. All I am trying to get to is the money laundering mechanism, and what we will do to ensure that banks, or anybody administering those pooled accounts, are scrutinised. I ask the question to put it on the record.
Christopher Pincher
The right hon. Gentleman makes his point. Pooled accounts exist already, and are managed by regulated organisations and groups. We are trying to ensure that the unregulated bodies—the smaller organisations that we do not believe present a significant risk—can do their business as well. That is why the joint committee is doing its work.
The hon. Member for Stockton North asked why the joint committee is doing that work, rather than some other body. It is because the joint committee combines the United Kingdom trade organisations and representatives of the financial services industry. We believe that it is best placed to ensure that the right level of regulation can be put in place—the right method of ensuring that banks can feel that the systems that they operate are sensible, compliant and deliver safeguards against money laundering.
Alex Cunningham
I am interested to understand—I have lost my point. I beg the Minister’s pardon. I will come back to it.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful. In the course of his remarks, the hon. Gentleman asked how many agents are in difficulty. The figures that I have suggest that the number of agents who reported difficulties in obtaining a client account as of 30 June 2019 were 488. More recently, as of 31 December 2019, that number had fallen to 251—about 2.5% of the total membership.
The hon. Gentleman also asked why that small number of agents are unable to get an account, and why they are not, as he put it, “pulling their finger out”. The regulation states that letting agents must make all reasonable efforts to secure a client money account. We would therefore expect them to demonstrate that they have gone to a bank to open a relevant account, but were refused and have the documentation to demonstrate it. We would then expect them to work with the approved scheme of which they are a part to find an alternative bank offering pooled client accounts to letting agents, and open an account with them. Mechanisms are in place to ensure that those people who are as yet unable to open an account are doing the right thing and “pulling their finger out”.
Alex Cunningham
The shadow Minister has now managed to get his finger out as well. I asked how long the relevant body has had to produce the guidance so far, and whether he had placed any deadline on it—or could we be back here in 12 months’ time because of further complexities?
Christopher Pincher
We expect the committee to conclude its work this spring—so in short order. As I have made clear to the hon. Gentleman and to you, Mr Davies—and as our words are recorded in Hansard the industry will hear this too—we shall not be extending the statutory instrument beyond April 2021. We expect it to report shortly, but clearly it has to do so, and conclude its business, within the year.
I think that I have answered most of the questions. If I have not, I am happy to write to Members with further particulars. However, I hope we can now give this fairly straightforward SI a smooth and quick passage.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendments to Designations) Order 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (James Brokenshire)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Extradition Act 2003 (Amendments to Designations) Order 2020.
Thank you, Mr Davies, and a happy St David’s day for yesterday to you too. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship and to move the draft order. The order is required for the UK to fulfil its obligations under bilateral extradition treaties with Kuwait and Morocco and an extradition agreement between the European Union, Norway and Iceland, to which the UK is party during the transition period. I shall explain in a little more detail why the changes are being brought in at this time and the effect that they will have on our extradition arrangements.
First, the Extradition Act 2003 (Designation of Part 1 Territories) Order 2003 will replace the current designation of Norway and Iceland as part 2 territories based on the European convention on extradition. It will make clear that Norway and Iceland will become territories designated under part 1 of the Extradition Act 2003, based on the surrender agreement between the EU, Norway and Iceland, which entered into force on 1 November 2019. The agreement facilitates the exchange of warrants between judicial authorities, which are executed through a simplified system based on judicial decisions. Norway and Iceland will therefore be treated in a similar way to EU countries for the purposes of extradition. However, there are some differences—notably, parties can refuse to extradite their own nationals and can refuse extradition on the basis that the offence concerned is political. The agreement also allows parties to require that the relevant offence is an offence in both the requesting and the requested country—a rule known as dual criminality.
As the Committee is aware, during the transition period, the EU justice and home affairs tools that the UK has opted into, including this agreement, will continue to apply. The legislation will ensure that there is no disparity between our international obligations and domestic law, which could result in legal uncertainty and impunity for wanted fugitives.
The second part of the order will implement the extradition treaties concluded between the UK and Morocco in 2013 and the UK and Kuwait in 2016. The designation of these countries under part 2 of the 2003 Act will allow the UK to process extradition requests from Kuwait and Morocco in line with the obligations in the treaties. Both treaties set out a timeframe in which a full extradition request must be provided to the UK by Kuwait and Morocco when an individual has been arrested on a provisional arrest warrant.
The order therefore ensures that that is reflected in our legislation, by setting out that, in the case of Kuwait and Morocco, the judge must receive the papers within 65 days of the person’s provisional arrest, in line with standard practice. That will allow for the countries to provide the request to the Secretary of State within 60 days, as the treaty provides for, and for the Secretary of State to have five days to certify the request and send it to the appropriate judge. Once the designations have been made, the Kuwait and Morocco treaties will be ratified. Morocco and Kuwait are both important partners for the UK, and the treaties will enhance our ability to work in close co-operation with both on important issues.
The introduction of the formal bilateral basis for extradition for conduct covered by the treaties will lead to a more efficient and effective process for extradition between the UK and respective countries. I urge the Committee to consider favourably the amendments made by the statutory instrument, to ensure that the United Kingdom can comply with its obligations under the relevant international extradition arrangements.
When considering any request for extradition, our arrangements are balanced by provisions in the 2003 Act, which serve to protect an individual’s rights where extradition is not compatible with our law. We must remember that extradition is a valuable tool in combating cross-border crime. Offenders should not be able to escape justice simply by crossing international borders; no one should be beyond the reach of the law. Having efficient extradition arrangements that are clear and effective is vital for safeguarding our security and preventing fugitives from escaping justice. I commend the order to the Committee.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Mr Davies. I also add my belated good wishes for St David’s day, as a fellow Welsh Member of Parliament.
The Opposition do not oppose the statutory instrument. It is in the public interest to have appropriate extradition arrangements in place with as many countries as possible. It reduces the number of safe spaces there are in the world where those who harm us can hide, escape to and get beyond the reach of our law enforcement.
However, I have a number of points about these proposals, which I hope the Minister will be able to deal with in replying at the end of this short debate. I will begin with the addition of Norway and Iceland. As the Minister set out, Norway and Iceland already have an extradition agreement with the European Union, as set out in the surrender agreement, which came into force in early November last year. The aim of the agreement was to speed up the transfer of suspected and convicted persons and to ensure sufficient controls on the execution of arrest warrants. The aim, if I may say so, is very similar to the current structure of the European arrest warrant.
Now that the United Kingdom has left the European Union and is in the transition period, it is right that Norway and Iceland should be incorporated into our current extradition process, and the Opposition of course support that principle. I would, however, be grateful if the Minister could give further clarity on the future security relationship in this regard with the European Union.
On Thursday, the Government published their negotiating mandate with the European Union, and today both parties sit down to start negotiations. I was alarmed by point 51:
“The UK is not seeking to participate in the European Arrest Warrant as part of the future relationship. The agreement should instead provide for fast-track extradition arrangements, based on the EU’s Surrender Agreement with Norway and Iceland which came into force in 2019, but with appropriate further safeguards for individuals beyond those in the European Arrest Warrant.”
Over the past few years in this role, I have argued for the Government to take the future security partnership extremely seriously. The European arrest warrant has proven to be an incredibly useful tool for fighting and preventing crime. In 2017-18, the last year for which there are statistics, 17,256 requests were made by UK law enforcement or EU counterparts, and the EU made 296 requests to UK law enforcement.
As we pass this arrangement today—if the Committee is minded to do so—can the Minister set out how the Government will create a structure similar to the European arrest warrant by the end of December this year? If they fail to have a future trade agreement in place, how will he assure UK law enforcement and UK citizens that the law in relation to some of the most serious criminals will not simply lapse? Stronger action is required, and I hope the Minister will give an assurance that he will be lobbying ministerial colleagues on how important this issue is.
I now turn to the addition of Kuwait and Morocco in part 2 of this statutory instrument. Both these countries are listed as category 2 countries; in other words, they still carry the death penalty. According to Human Rights Watch, in 2017, Kuwait carried out seven executions, the first since 2013, including of two Kuwaiti nationals, a member of the royal family, a woman from the Philippines, two Egyptian men and a Bangladeshi man. Similarly, three men were sentenced to death in Morocco in July 2019, although it is not clear whether the penalties have been carried out. The Labour party stands totally against the use of the death penalty. I understand the Government’s position is the same. However, it is important that there are reassurances today in that regard.
The treaty with Kuwait sets out that an extradition could be blocked
“if the Requested Party has serious grounds for believing that the request for extradition has been made for the purpose of prosecuting or punishing a person on account of that person’s race, religion, nationality, sex or status, or political opinions, or that that person’s position may be prejudiced or his or her liberty restricted for any of those reasons”.
I am sure the Minister will share the view that there are worrying aspects of the Kuwaiti penal code—for example, article 193, which outlaws same-sex relations and carries a maximum prison sentence of up to seven years, and which also criminalises forms of gender expression.
I note that the Kuwaiti extradition treaty gives a carve-out if extradition would breach the human rights of the person sought, and of course there are safeguards that already exist in the extradition process. However, there remain concerns about the judicial system in Kuwait. In 2018, Lord Collins of Highbury took part in a debate about that extradition treaty with Kuwait, and the then Government Minister, Baroness Goldie, stated:
“This Government are committed to upholding human rights and oppose the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle. The safeguards available in the Extradition Act are strong and reliable in that respect. Extradition from the UK is not possible if it would be incompatible with a person’s human rights. The Home Secretary must not, in law, order an individual’s extradition if they have been, will be or could be sentenced to death.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 October 2018; Vol. 793, c. 1286.]
I would be grateful if the Minister could repeat that assurance today.
There are also some wider issues about not just the criminal penalties that exist in Kuwait but the very nature of the system. Human Rights Watch has raised concerns that it is difficult for defendants to get a fair trial. With our proud tradition of an independent judiciary and the rule of law, I hope the Minister will be able to reassure me that, when considering cases under this treaty, there will be an emphasis on those who are extradited receiving due process and a fair trial, irrespective of what the penalty for that particular offence is.
Although the Opposition support the statutory instrument and the principle of having extradition treaties in place, I would at the same time be grateful for the Minister’s response to the observations I have made.
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. I, too, wish you a belated happy St David’s day. I will be very brief as well.
The only conclusion I can make about the UK withdrawal from the European arrest warrant is that it will only bring benefits to criminals. The Government are making the current system, which is fairly straightforward, complicated. That will lead to an inevitable impact on public safety, stretching the use of public services, money and resources. That will be increased by increasing the delays in extraditions. This is actually a time for closer co-operation between neighbouring countries, rather than turning inwards and attempting to go it alone, which I think is a huge step in the wrong direction.
To finish, the system that we had was pretty fairly and honestly fixed, and all that the Government’s proposal today does is succeed in breaking that system up.
James Brokenshire
I will respond briefly to the points that have been made. Equally, I welcome the support for the order.
The hon. Member for Torfaen raised the issue of our future relations in discussions regarding the position post-transition. Equally, he made reference to the negotiating mandate that has recently been published. I stress to the Committee that the safety and security of our citizens is the Government’s top priority, and we stand ready to discuss an agreement on law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation in criminal matters. That agreement should equip our operational partners—the police and other law enforcement agencies—on both sides with the capabilities that help to protect citizens and bring criminals to justice, promoting the security of all our citizens. The hon. Member made reference to the negotiating mandate. That does underline that, although we do not intend to participate in the European arrest warrant, the agreement should provide for fast-track extradition arrangements with appropriate further safeguards for individuals.
The hon. Member asked what precedents we can point to. The order indicates that it is possible to create fast-track arrangements in the way that Norway and Iceland have. We go into these discussions in an even-minded fashion, as a shared endeavour and with a shared desire to have a system that works well, but, clearly, with the issues that we have set out in the negotiating mandate.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
What does the Minister believe is defective about the European arrest warrant arrangement?
James Brokenshire
It is important to understand that we will be in a fundamentally different relationship with the European Union, and that is the approach to the negotiations that we rightly take. We are seeking to enshrine further important safeguards in our extradition arrangements, including the ability for a judge in the UK to dismiss a warrant from an EU member state on the basis of proportionality, for example, or if there has not yet been a decision to charge and try the wanted person.
Judges will also be required to establish that the offence is also an offence in the UK—that is, the dual criminality issue. The order refers to Norway and Iceland having negotiated those arrangements with the EU, which underlines that doing so is entirely possible and practical. Indeed, on the issue of the EU court, Norway and Iceland have sought to manage that and to find a resolution in terms of dealing with disputes that does not take that into account. Therefore, the order practically underlines the way in which we should be positive about what can be secured through these negotiations.
The hon. Member has rightly highlighted concerns about human rights—an issue that he raised specifically in relation to Kuwait. I can categorically confirm the opposition of the UK to the death penalty in all circumstances as a matter of principle. The death penalty undermines human dignity, and any miscarriages of justice are, by their nature, irreparable. The Extradition Act is clear: an individual cannot be extradited if
“he could be, will be or has been sentenced to death”.
It is important to underline that. The hon. Member may know that, under the category 2 process, which Kuwait and Morocco would fall within, there has to be satisfaction in relation to that point. If the individual
“could be, will be or has been sentenced to death”,
that bar clearly exists, unless there is an “adequate” assurance that
“a sentence of death—(a) will not be imposed, or (b) will not be carried out”.
That is understood in how this issue is approached.
To highlight some broader human rights issues, I reassure the Committee that, although this is not linked explicitly to the treaty, we have a regular dialogue with Kuwait, including about fair, open and transparent systems and the rule of law. Those are things that we in this country hold dear, and we will continue to underline their significance to our friends, allies and partners. Our ambassador and our Ministers regularly raise the issue of human rights with their Kuwaiti counterparts.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
On the subject of the Government’s commitment to human rights, can the Minister confirm that it is the Government’s policy to remain signatories to the European convention on human rights?
James Brokenshire
It is beyond a certainty that we are members of the European convention on human rights, which is a separate legal jurisdiction. Sometimes people conflate what is EU law and what is ECHR law, but, obviously, while we leave the European Union, we firmly remain subject to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights.
With those assurances, I will draw my comments to a close and seek the Committee’s approval for the order.
Question put and agreed to.
Ministerial Correction
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Health and Social Care
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Victoria Prentis
All too often when a baby dies, the shutters come down in a trust and we cannot get the answers that we need. Will the Minister—who is providing great leadership in this area—meet members of the all-party group on baby loss to discuss how best we can use MBRRACE-UK, HSIB and other investigators to get to the bottom of what happens? Will she also think about making maternal deaths a never event?
Ms Dorries
I fear that you will shout at me again, Mr Speaker, if I try to answer my hon. Friend’s question fully, because I agree with everything that she has said. Maternal deaths absolutely must become a never event, and we must focus on making pre-eclampsia and post-partum haemorrhage, which lead to such deaths, never events. I went to the first meeting of the APPG on baby loss and, as my hon. Friend knows, I am always happy to go and hear anything that anyone has to say about this issue that will help our work in trying to improve maternity standards.
[Official Report, 13 February 2020, Vol. 671, c. 988.]
Letter of correction from the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Ms Dorries):
An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis).
The correct response should have been:
Ms Dorries
I fear that you will shout at me again, Mr Speaker, if I try to answer my hon. Friend’s question fully, because I agree with everything that she has said. I will look into whether maternal deaths can become a never event, and, if possible, we must focus on making pre-eclampsia and post-partum haemorrhage, which lead to such deaths, never events. I went to the first meeting of the APPG on baby loss and, as my hon. Friend knows, I am always happy to go and hear anything that anyone has to say about this issue that will help our work in trying to improve maternity standards.
Chineham Post Office
Written Statements
Contracts for Difference
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Minister for COP26 (Alok Sharma)
I am today confirming details of the next round of the contracts for difference scheme, which opens in 2021. The latest round will be open to renewable technologies including onshore wind and solar, with proposals to introduce floating offshore wind. This could see millions more homes powered by clean energy by the end of the decade, and a boost for the supply chain, adding to the 20,600 jobs and the £628 million of exports each year already supported by the renewables industry.
Today my Department is publishing a consultation on proposed changes to the contracts for difference scheme. We have made huge strides to decarbonise our energy system, moving the power sector away from its reliance on fossil fuels towards a cleaner, greener future. In 2018 the collective share of UK electricity generation from renewable sources was 33%. Our target of reaching net zero emissions by 2050 requires the UK to bring all greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050.
Delivering net zero will require change across the whole of society, and I am therefore more mindful than ever of the importance of meaningful engagement with local communities on the measures in this transition that affect them the most. Local communities will have a more effective voice on developments that impact them, through proposals for tough new guidance on community engagement for developers of onshore wind across Great Britain, also announced today. They will have a definitive say on whether projects are allowed to proceed. It will remain the case that no English onshore wind project can proceed without the consent of the local community.
This challenge means we will need to make the most of multiple technologies available. 2020 is the year of climate action and this decision is a crucial part of the Government plans to go further and faster in tackling climate change. In the same manner I will be encouraging other countries to increase their own ambition ahead of COP26 later this year.
Today’s consultation outlines proposals to ensure the contracts for difference scheme can support the increased ambition required, including proposals to build on our world-leading position on offshore wind by introducing floating offshore wind into the scheme as well as proposals to support our renewable supply chain to enhance productivity and increase competitiveness.
I will place in the Libraries of both Houses, copies of the “Contracts for Difference for Low Carbon Electricity Generation - Consultation on Proposed Amendments to the Scheme” which sets out further information on proposals for engaging communities.
[HCWS139]
Van Benefit and Car and Van Fuel Benefit Order 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
The van benefit charge and fuel benefit charges for cars and vans will be uprated by the consumer prices index from 6 April 2020. The uprate will take effect as follows:
Van benefit charge will uprate from £3,430 to £3,490.
Car fuel benefit charge multiplier will uprate from £24,100 to £24,500.
Van fuel benefit charge will uprate from £655 to £666.
This measure is being announced outside of the normal fiscal process to ensure employers and HMRC are given enough time to prepare for the uprate, ahead of the 2020-21 tax year.
The Government will lay the statutory instrument to uprate these charges before the House today. A tax information and impact note (TIIN) will be published at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/tax-information- and-impact-notes-tiins.
[HCWS137]
Health and Disability Assessment Services
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
I would like to update the House on the Department’s plans, under the health transformation programme, to reform assessment services for employment and support allowance, universal credit (UC) and personal independence payment (PIP). In March 2019, we announced that we would transition towards an integrated assessment service, with a single digital platform developed by DWP. Today I am pleased to announce the next steps in these plans, which are a key part of this Government’s commitment to transform how we support disabled people.
Our claimants include some of the most vulnerable in society and so our approach is based on delivering this complex and important transformation safely and carefully. To that end, we will initially develop the new service on a small scale in a defined part of the country, a transformation area.
For claimants in this transformation area, assessments will be conducted by the DWP, rather than outsourced to providers. This will give us the flexibility to explore new ideas including:
trialling better ways of carrying out face-to-face assessments;
how to triage more effectively so that only those people who need a face-to-face assessment will have to undergo one;
how to make it easier for claimants to understand the evidence they need to provide and why;
how to remove the need for claimants to give the same information twice;
how to ensure that claimants are aware of the whole range of support available to them both from DWP and more widely.
Our ambition in developing the new service is that it captures the experience and insights of those who use the service or who represent users of the service. We have already acted on this and will continue to drive forward engagement on the future of the health and disability agenda through our upcoming Green Paper.
I can also inform the House that today we will be issuing two prior information notices to advise the market that the Department is seeking to procure contracts to deliver PIP and WCA assessments from 1 August 2021 to ensure continuity of service when the current contracts end on 31 July. The transformation area will start in autumn 2021 and operate alongside these contracts. We will work with the successful providers to ensure continuous improvement in their service, including how developments in the transformation area can benefit delivery by contracted providers.
[HCWS138]
Grand Committee
Pension Schemes Bill [HL]
Monday 2nd March 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Pension Schemes Act 2021 View all Pension Schemes Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 4-IV Fourth marshalled list for Grand Committee - (2 Mar 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, the Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Clause 118: Qualifying pensions dashboard service
Amendment 38
Lord Young of Cookham
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 38 in my name endeavours to fulfil the objectives of the pensions dashboard by ensuring people have access to all their pension entitlements. At the moment, they will be able to access entitlements under schemes only in their own name; they will not be able to access information about entitlements they may have because their husband, wife or partner has named them as a beneficiary under another scheme. More and more couples are both at work, and most pension schemes enable a beneficiary to provide for a surviving spouse. My amendment would enable a named beneficiary to access a dashboard where they had an interest. Without that information, that beneficiary will not know whether they have made adequate provision for their old age, which is a primary objective of the dashboard.
There may be other ways of achieving this objective. When a policy is taken out, beneficiaries could be sent a copy; I do not think this happens at the moment. They could be sent an annual statement, as the main policyholder is, or the main policyholder could be given the option of ticking a box so that beneficiaries can access the relevant dashboard with their consent. The point made in the amendment is a simple one: if the dashboard is to give people a complete picture so they can make informed judgments, they need to have access to this relevant information.
Amendment 43, supported by my noble friend Lord Flight, and Amendment 44 have a similar objective in enabling someone to see whether they have made enough provision for their old age by including relevant assets that can provide a pension income on the dashboard. The helpful policy brief says on page 45:
“Putting individuals in control of their data, dashboards should support engagement in pensions and planning for retirement.”
Planning for retirement involves more than pensions. Each Sunday, the Money section of the Sunday Times has a “Fame and Fortune” feature, in which there is a standard question:
“What’s better for retirement—property or pension?”
Yesterday, the Olympic medallist Sharron Davies said “Property.” The question makes the point that, for many people, there is a choice of how to provide for retirement. This amendment is a permissive one, which would enable a pension provider with a dashboard to include information on the equity locked up in someone’s home.
For millions of people, the equity in their home is worth more than their pension pot. Increasingly, that equity can be and is unlocked to provide an income stream in retirement. According to the ONS, we have £14.6 trillion in wealth—perhaps a little less following the slump on the stock exchanges last week—within which private pension wealth makes up 42% of national wealth, while net property wealth is not far behind at 35%. Arguably, equity release should play a higher role in proactive financial planning. Potentially, it is a valuable source of supplementary retirement income, particularly for pensioners on low incomes in homes that they own.
Many pension providers also provide equity release: for example, Aviva, Liverpool Victoria, Scottish Widows and Legal & General. It would make sense for them to be able to include illustrations about equity release alongside the pensions dashboard. Equity release is regulated by the FCA and can be sold only through a financial adviser. It is now one of the most highly regulated financial service products in the UK. In many ways, the decision whether, when and how to access equity release is not unlike the decision to access a pension pot. Independent advice is necessary, taking all considerations into account. I repeat what I said at Second Reading: I do not want to do anything to slow down the introduction of the dashboard, but I want to ensure that, when it is up and running, it can be used by those providing it to give customers a comprehensive view of assets and options, rather than a partial one.
I turn finally to Amendment 45, which deals with the verification process before one is allowed to access the dashboard. This is the weakest link in the chain. The ABI website—incidentally, it still proclaims that the Government’s objective
“is for the service to be available to consumers by 2019”—
says this about verification:
“The process to confirm the identity of users is based on the gov.uk/verify system which has already proved to be a secure portal for people accessing personal information.”
That could be an understatement. So secure is the portal that, as I will come on to in a moment, 56% of those who try to verify that they are who they are fail to do so and hence would be unable to use the dashboard.
There are risks in building the dashboard on the shaky foundations of Verify—one of the Government’s least successful IT initiatives—from which it is hastily disengaging, leaving its future in doubt. The NAO described Verify in March last year as
“intended to be a flagship digital programme to provide identity verification services for the whole of government ... In its 2016 business case, GDS identified the following key targets and expectations for the platform: 25 million people would use Verify by 2020, and 46 government services would be accessible through Verify by March 2018.”
As of 13 February, 22 government services use Verify—fewer than half the number expected by March 2018—and only 5.8 million people have signed up. There is a verification success rate of 44%, against an initial target of 90%. I failed twice to verify who I was.
In July 2018, the Infrastructure and Projects Authority recommended that Verify be closed as quickly as practicable. In a recent report, the NAO concluded:
“Even in the context of GDS’s redefined objectives for the programme, it is difficult to conclude that successive decisions to continue with Verify have been sufficiently justified.”
The Institute for Government’s Whitehall Monitor recently commented that the scheme continued to be “mired in issues”, had fallen short of targets and had
“failed to build its intended user base and it is not delivering the efficiencies that the government sought.”
In October 2018, the Cabinet Office announced that the Government would stop funding the scheme in March 2020. Against the background of the unpromising progress of the scheme, the then Minister for Implementation stated, in words that could have been crafted by the scriptwriter of “Yes Minister”, that it was
“now sufficiently mature to move to the next phase of its development.”—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/18; col. 3WS.]
The intention is that the private sector will take over responsibility for the scheme, despite the NAO finding that the Government have failed to make the scheme self-funding and the Government failing to convince their own departments to use the scheme. What will the private sector do with the scheme? With no government support, the providers of the service may have to increase the charges to government departments, which the NAO warns may make it unaffordable for them to use. Of the 22 that use it, half have alternative means of accessing the services provided.
This is what the whole dashboard depends on. Will the private sector continue with it? If so, will it be free for consumers, as at the moment? What happens if there is no Verify process? On charges, the policy brief says on page 51:
“Government is clear that accessing basic information via pensions dashboards must be free at the point of use for consumers.”
I ask this in passing: where in the Bill is that commitment legislated for, and what is the point of making it free to access the dashboard if the verification process has a charge? I appreciate that my noble friend the Minister is dependent on the Cabinet Office for support on this issue, as that is where responsibility for Verify rests, but she has an obligation to satisfy the pension industry and pensioners that the system proposed in the Bill is fit for purpose.
Finally, at the moment, many pension providers have websites that customers can access and where they can get information about their individual pension pot. They can not only access that information but top up their pot, withdraw sums and switch investments. But under the Government’s proposals, if that pension provider then provides a dashboard, existing customers will not be able to access it using their usual log-on procedure; they will have to go down the Verify route first. Perhaps the Minister can confirm that that is indeed the case.
So, we have the odd situation where a purely passive site such as the dashboard, which can provide only information and is not interactive—Amendment 39 secures that—has a different and higher standard of security than the pension provider’s site, which is interactive. I do not understand why a pension provider that has satisfied itself about the bona fides of a customer to the extent that it will respond and pay drawdown cannot allow access to a dashboard on its site, which is purely passive, without obliging the customer to go through a cumbersome verification process. Perhaps that could be looked at as well. I beg to move.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendments 43 and 44 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young. He made the point that equity release is a growing source of income for people later in life. I would say it more strongly than that: I can imagine it being the biggest source of income for such people in 20 years’ time. I understand that the financial advisers who advise otherwise on pension fund matters are not qualified to advise generally on equity release. That has been substantially cleaned up, as it were, over the past 10 years so it is not a problem, but if the dashboard cannot include equity release, it does not meet its objective of setting out what people have to live on in older age. We do not want to delay wider progress but if equity release is not included quite speedily in the dashboard, it will not do its job.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, the purpose of Amendment 39 is to contain the delegated powers in the Bill so that they do not provide the power to authorise commercial dashboards to engage in transactional activities. Any authorisation regime to permit transactions should be addressed in a future Bill.
In a previous contribution, I sought to set out the policy still to be settled when the dashboard is focused on enabling individuals to view their pensions information in one place. When functionality is extended to the ability to transact on a commercial dashboard, the challenges and potential risks are even greater; there are multiple ways in which detriment to savers can occur. We should again remind ourselves that the dashboard project can extend to the whole of the UK pension system—public and private—embracing many millions of people. Allowing transactions over dashboards needs separate and clear consideration. It cannot be implicitly tucked into the delegated powers in this Bill.
Issues of private and public good will be impacted by whether the dashboard is fit for purpose when it comes to transactions: private good at the individual level and public good at the whole pension system level. I have yet to see the behavioural outcomes strategy associated with the dashboard. I assume the Government are not agnostic on the matter, given that the state supports the long-term saving system with some £45 billion of tax relief, so they will have a direct interest in knowing that the outcomes are good.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I will make a few observations about this suite of amendments. It strikes me that the demands to add even more to the current proposal for the dashboard are fraught with danger from the customer perspective. I agree that, from a strategic, overall macro perspective, if one is looking to plan one’s retirement income, it will be most helpful to have as many sources reflected in any dashboard that will contribute to that income. However, the problem we face in getting this dashboard up and running is that there are so many different types of pension and of scheme that we already face a monumental task in just trying to list people’s pensions and make sure that the dashboard reflects all the elements attached to them over the many decades: the different tax regimes they have been under; whether they have a guaranteed annuity or protected tax-free cash; a guaranteed return of some kind; whether benefits have to be taken at specified ages, otherwise certain things are lost; whether there is any extra insurance in there that might be attached to the pension from old-style schemes; protected rights, and so on. And that is just for defined contribution, before we even get on to the defined benefit records.
Equity release has significant dangers for any consumer who is considering it. My worry is that, if consumers look at this information on a dashboard, they will not understand those dangers and will think that the money is available. Recently I have seen very many cases where individuals or their families have taken out an equity release loan for something like 25% of the value of the equity of their home, with an interest rate rolling up at 6% per annum for 20 or 30 years, meaning not only that, if they were to pass away, no value would be left in the home but, more worryingly, if they needed to sell the home and move to a smaller one—if they took out equity release in their 50s or 60s and, in their 80s, needed to downsize for reasons of care or convenience—they would be unable to do so because there would be no equity left for them to use.
Therefore, I caution significantly against trying to go more broadly. I think that we have enough of a challenge in trying to get pensions alone on to a dashboard. I completely agree that it is important to have the state pension on there and, in that regard and in speaking to amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Flight to which I have added my name, we want people to be able to see what their projected state pension will be. However, we will need an electronic system so that people can go online to check their state pension. If Verify is not the gateway to that, we will need to develop an alternative secure gateway. We need to make sure that the dashboard has a standardised protocol and standardised systems so that every pension provider has to use the same IT structure that can then be securely fed to a dashboard.
Lord Flight
With the state pension, you already get from social services advice on what your pension will be about a year before you draw it, so it strikes me that the state pension information is just sitting there waiting to be used by the dashboard.
Baroness Altmann
I thank my noble friend. Of course, he is absolutely right but the point of the dashboard is that much younger people can plan their future pension income. The current procedure is to encourage people to log on to the state pension checker, where they can verify their future predicted state pension income so that, as they get into their 50s and closer to retirement, they will be able to make more meaningful financial planning. However, as my noble friend Lord Young pointed out, there are significant security concerns with the current gateway system that allows you to find out what your state pension is. Therefore, if we want the state pension to be on the dashboard, we will need a certain level of security.
The aims of the amendments are correct. We want to be able to see the state pension and a comprehensive list of pensions, but I caution against trying to go more broadly. I also caution against commercial dashboards which might use their own IT systems that lock people out of checking their pensions on other providers’ systems and which try to encourage people to merge their pensions. Indeed, we have seen that the systems of some pension providers do not always flag up the guarantees that can be very valuable for individuals. If people are being not advised but merely guided, or if it is merely information and they are not aware of the guarantees, they could lose out and have no comeback.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak to these amendments, but it has been quite an interesting debate to listen to. In some ways, I have changed my mind during the course of the debate. I found the notion of having everything all in one place, as put forward by the noble Lords, Lord Young and Lord Flight, an interesting idea. Of course, it can already be done, but for historic reasons—because I have been self-employed for most of my life, as has my husband, and we have quite a lot of pension schemes around—I am well versed on various different platforms. Yes, I do a lot of mystery shopping, as I call it, on these things. I have loaded up information and practised telling lies as well—putting in overvaluations of my house or saying what other things I have—to see how a platform projects what my income will be, so it is difficult to get right. I wonder about the house valuations that people might be tempted to put in, because there is a tendency to be optimistic when it comes to that.
In this last week, I was looking at one platform, thinking, “Where is the sell-all button for absolutely everything?” I could not do it; I had to go through several times, so I very much take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, that you will take the path of least resistance when there is something that you think is urgent. If I can fall for that kind of wanting something to be there, others will too, but when I went through everything and had to think, “Do I really want to sell that or don’t I?”, I made different decisions from those I might have made if I had had a sell-all, transfer-all button. Given that I like to think that I know a thing or two about these things, I would rather err on the side of caution, as the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, pointed out. I do not want to interfere with people’s freedoms, but it has to be good to have a certain number of hurdles to give people a pause to think.
I tend to agree that equity release will have to be a big part of the future, and I wonder whether some of the people already taking out lump sums are thinking that way as well. Perhaps that is safer left until we can more broadly investigate what is going on there and make a rather safer and better environment, though I acknowledge that that there have been improvements that I have not tested yet.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to the three amendments in my name in this group and respond to the others. Amendment 39 in my name, and that of my noble friend Lady Drake, would, as she indicated, prevent the powers granted under the relevant sections of this Bill from being used to extend dashboards into becoming transactional. My first question, therefore, is whether that is necessary: will transactions be permitted? The noble Earl, Lord Howe, said last Wednesday:
“We also intend all dashboards to start with a limited functionality until we better understand how individuals interact with their information. ”—[Official Report, 26/2/20; col. GC 183.]
Does that rule out transaction? I think not specifically. The excellent policy brief from the DWP says this:
“Dashboards will present simple information, without the ability to carry out transactions.”
That seems really clear: no transactions. A bit later on, however, it says:
“In future we expect that dashboards should be able to provide a greater level of functionality and information.”
So here is the rub: does functionality include transactions? Will the Minister tell the Committee plainly: is it the Government’s intention ever to allow transactions at any point on the dashboards? If not, then let us make that clear on the face of the Bill. If they do, then, as my noble friend Lady Drake said, they should have to come back to Parliament and seek further authorisation before going down that road. The reason is simple: we are being asked to authorise the establishment of a service that will be based on the compulsory release of data about the assets of some 22 million people, with no clarity about what is being created.
In the debate on the last group of amendments last week, my noble friend Lady Drake offered the Committee a short list of some of the matters not yet resolved. The Minister—the noble Earl, Lord Howe—said:
“It is not that the policy is not settled but that the implementation of the policy is not settled.”—[Official Report, 26/2/20; col. GC 190.]
Obviously, it depends where one thinks policy stops and implementation begins. If the policy is, “Have at least one dashboard with some pension information on it”, I acknowledge that the policy is settled. If it is much beyond that, we are into murkier water.
Let me add my shortlist of a few things we do not yet know. We do not know how many dashboards there will be. We do not know who will run them. We do not know what information will be provided on them or in what form. We do not know what uses of the information will be permitted. We do not know how the whole system will be governed and regulated. We do not know where liability will lie for each of the links in the chain. Without that, we do not know how complaints about failure and compensation for detriment arising at each point will be handled. We do not even know who will get to make rules for the dashboards, because the regulations provide for that to be literally anyone.
There are so many points in the information and action chain where something could go wrong: data loss or leakage; errors in data being supplied to the dashboard, by either the state, TPR-regulated schemes or FCA-regulated firms; compliance failures in displaying it inappropriately; transactions on or off screen, regulated or unregulated, where the consumer ends up with a poorer outcome than should have been the case.
Last week, the Minister defended the proposed delegated powers, saying to my friend Lady Drake that they were needed to provide momentum to the process of co-operation that would be required to develop the dashboard infrastructure. But the Constitution Committee addresses that specifically in its comments on Part 4 and the use of broad regulation-making powers. It said:
“There is a need for some of these powers in order to commence the work on pensions dashboards and facilitate the sharing of data to make them function. However, the rest of the powers could have been omitted until the policy had been prepared and sample regulations produced for consideration as part of a future bill. We have observed previously that ‘Skeleton bills inhibit parliamentary scrutiny and we find it difficult to envisage any circumstances in which their use is acceptable. The Government must provide an exceptional justification for them’”.
Can the Minister tell us what the exceptional justification is?
The case for not allowing regulations to be made under the Bill to allow transactions is overwhelming. Having thought about it over the weekend, I now think it is even stronger than when we tabled the amendments, because the debate in Committee last week surfaced more information about the Government’s plans for dashboards. We have learned that they are committed to MaPS providing a dashboard service, but we also learned that they are open to anyone who can meet the criteria running a qualifying dashboard and that they have no idea how many people that will be.
We learned that the Government think that having multiple dashboards running right from the launch would actively be a good idea because they think it would increase reach, and we learned that they are relaxed about commercial dashboards being there first and MaPS coming in, if necessary, some time later. If MaPS took a long time to get a dashboard up and running, which is not impossible, there could be years in which the only way the consumer could view the data on her own pension, the release of which the Government had mandated, would be on a commercial dashboard. I asked the Minister last week if the Government think that it is a good thing to have a public dashboard, and if so why. I ask him that again now. If he thinks it is a good thing, why are the Government relaxed about there potentially being a period of years when there is no public dashboard yet the mandated data has been released? I should be interested to hear the answer to that.
Also last week, the Minister said that accessing the information on dashboards will remain free. That is good news, but it means that, as my noble friend Lady Drake said, we need to understand the charging model of commercial dashboards. If they cannot charge you to look at it, why would they do it unless they can make money at it some other way? We need to understand what those other ways are. I do not know; I can only speculate. Are they hoping to find a way to monetise the access to data that the dashboard gives? Would that be allowed? Will they want to use the dashboard to show a consumer her various assets and encourage her to consider a more efficient way of organising them? For example, “Look, it is all spread over here. Would it not be tidier if you brought it all over in this fund over here, which—oh look?—my firm happens to run?” That way, the firm might stand to make money either from transactions or from the scheme itself. What about through advertising? Perhaps when a user logs on to her dashboard, up pops an advert that either encourages her to engage with a firm or asks, “Have you thought about equity release? Would not that be a better way of going about what you do?” Or even, as my noble friend said, there could be careful presentation of the data that seems to privilege some kinds of assets over others, depending on who is running the scheme. This is potentially a really powerful tool and we need to place some firm limits on its use until the market is much clearer.
Amendments 49 and 50, in my name, specify that regulations may require the provision of information on likely retirement income and administrative charges. I put these out as probing amendments to find out what information will be on the dashboard. What will consumers see? Without an estimate of their likely income on retirement, many consumers who do not have the skills and knowledge of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, may have no idea of what the size of a fund will mean in terms of an income on retirement, and without some guide they may struggle to understand that. Often, it should be possible to provide that, because for occupational DC schemes that are used for auto-enrolment, trustees must produce a chair’s statement with value-for-money assessments which include illustrations on the likely retirement income. Presumably, if schemes are doing this properly, that data can be uploaded to the dashboard.
There should also be transparency on charges, but the presentation of charges to members often does not distinguish between the many kinds of charges that can be levelled on a fund. This amendment would require the disaggregation of investment and administration charges, so individuals could readily see the administrative charges that they face on the scheme in which their savings are held. Schemes can differ a lot in their administrative efficiency, and consumers should be able to see at a glance which schemes are levying high administrative charges.
Can the Minister confirm that this information—indeed, the requirement to be on the dashboard at all—will not apply to any legacy private schemes or new private pensions not covered by auto-enrolment? That leaves out quite a chunk of the market where transparency would be particularly important because a lot of those old schemes are very inefficient, with very high charges. Do the regulations permit the Government at some point to force those schemes to come on board? If so, do the Government intend to use that power?
I understand that any dashboard developed by MaPS would have a liability model developed alongside it. I asked about the liability model and the Minister said that he would come back to it this week; I cannot remember if he is coming back to it now or later, but I look forward to hearing about it at some point today. That would be marvellous. I would also like him to answer this question: if it is to be developed alongside the MaPS dashboard, and that is delayed, will there none the less be a liability model in place before any dashboard goes live, so that we are not waiting for the public dashboard?
Amendment 57, from the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, requires that the projected state pension on retirement be available on the dashboard. It is important that people can readily access information on the state pension, which for many of them will be a core part of their retirement income. The challenge is that it will change at different points in their life depending on choices made, working patterns, et cetera, but it seems quite hard for the DWP to mandate everyone else to provide their data, and not do it themselves. It will have to go into that space.
After the comments between the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, I am interested to hear the Minister’s response on questions of identity verification. I found his comments on the challenges of some of the services very interesting. I take her point that, if one is to get personal data, some verification process will be needed. His points about beneficiaries are important as well.
I am a little more nervous on the point about equity release. The FCA has just started to look into this market. The noble Lord, Lord Flight, said that it has cleaned itself up, and certainly some practices which were standard 10 years ago, such as negative equity, are no longer standard. However, there are still a lot of questions about this, and a number of people are concerned that we are seeing patterns of commission-driven decisions; these have raised concerns in other markets in the past. Certainly, if any noble Lord has the misfortune to find themselves self-isolating for coronavirus and watching daytime television, they may at some point see advertisements for equity release, because a lot of advertising on this is going out in different forms.
One of the main arguments for having all the bits of pension on the dashboard is that you know where they are. Most people, even if they do not have the expertise of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, know where their house is, are reasonably confident that it is there, have some idea of its value and could find out readily if not. I take the point about people wanting to look at the whole of their assets, but, given some of the nervousness around this market, before we dive too firmly into that area I would be interested in the Minister’s view on this—as I am in in his view on all the amendments.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments. Perhaps I can start by addressing the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, in the context of the issues posed by the Constitution Committee. I appreciate the points she and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, made on this. The Constitution Committee raised the skeletal nature of the provisions in this part of the Bill and sought clarification on how, and by whom, some of the powers might be exercised. Notwithstanding that, as I have pointed out previously, the committee accepts the need for some of the powers, even if in skeletal form. The noble Baroness was kind enough to concede that.
The noble Baroness picked me up on the distinction I made last week between policy and policy implementation. The policy in this area is developed: we are clear about what we want to achieve and what needs to occur for that to happen. There was a full and thorough government consultation. Following that, a government response was published and our policy aims were set out. As we have made clear throughout this process, further work on the technical development must be carried out and in due course, we will bring forward the affirmative regulations that provide much of the detail that noble Lords seek.
I would like to explain why it was necessary to bring the Bill forward at this point. The noble Baroness asked me why we think dashboards are a good thing. In our government consultation, there was overwhelming support across consumer groups, individuals and industry for our proposal to introduce a legislative framework in order to,
“deliver dashboards within a reasonable timeframe”.
Our experience over the past five years of trying to make progress on this matter—a long time, as noted by my noble friend Lord Young—is that without the clarity of our commitment brought by legislation, it would prove impossible to bring together the industry in a way to develop the service that consumers require and have said they want.
We have asked the industry delivery group, under the guidance of the Money and Pensions Service, to develop the infrastructure required to provide dashboards by working with a range of stakeholders, including pension scheme providers. This process will inform the content of the delegated powers. The alternative approach would be to table a Bill once all the technical work has been completed but, as I have just outlined, we would struggle to get industry to engage with us to enable this technical work to complete. We took the view that that course of action would be impractical and simply further increase the time that consumers need to wait for a dashboard service.
I am the first to recognise the Constitution Committee’s reservations about the use of delegated powers but, in this instance, we consider their use to be entirely appropriate and in keeping with the committee’s suggestion that they meet “an exceptional justification”. As to that justification, the reasons for the nature of the delegated powers are fully set out in the delegated powers memorandum. This recognises the need for a degree of flexibility while creating a digital service solution in order to ensure that the service provided remains up-to-date, secure and accurate. Technical requirements and user needs change and the legislative framework needs to be able to adapt at pace to meet those requirements.
The committee also referred to Clause 118 and asked the Government to explain who might be prescribed by the Secretary of State as someone who can publish standards, specifications or technical requirements for a qualifying pensions dashboard service. Pensions dashboards fit with wider government aims to give consumers access to and control over their own data, particularly across financial services. The Government’s approach is therefore to ensure that dashboards are fit for purpose over the long term, which includes recognising that ownership of the dashboard infrastructure and responsibility for the setting of standards may need to change over time, as explained in paragraph 1.364 of the delegated powers memorandum. It is not possible to set out now who might be asked to take on this responsibility in future, nor to state now the mechanisms of accountability to Parliament. That would need to be determined according to the circumstances but, as we have already set out, such changes will occur within the wider legislative framework, which offers multiple layers of consumer protection.
Viscount Eccles (Con)
Perhaps I should already know this, but will it be possible, in the additional technical work, for an individual to decline to have the information about his or her pension position put on to a dashboard? If past history is any guide, some people will always prefer not to join such a system. They might feel that they do not need it. Therefore, I express the hope that it will be possible to opt out.
Baroness Drake
At one level it is entirely up to the consumer, but if somebody hacks into the system or steals their identity, that is not under the control of the consumer.
Earl Howe
I will come on to the question of identity in a second when I address the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Young. Clearly, we want to do our utmost to ensure that the system is secure and that data can be accessed only by those entitled to access it.
I share the aim of noble Lords to make dashboards as useful as possible to individuals planning for their retirement. To that end, we are considering many of the aspects in these amendments as potential features of pensions dashboards in the future. Having said that, I need to come back to a point that I made earlier. The development of a pensions dashboard service that gives consumers a single point of access to their pensions information is a complex undertaking.
I remind the Committee that there are over 40,000 schemes, around 25 million people with private pensions wealth and a huge amount of state pension information. My noble friend Lady Altmann was absolutely right to stress that. It is why we have asked the industry delivery group to work with representatives from the pensions industry and consumer groups to ensure that the service is accurate, secure and consumer focused. Once again, I underline the word “secure”. I have to sound a cautionary note to noble Lords who want to broaden out the service in short order. Again, my noble friend Lady Altmann is quite right: adding any further complexity at this stage, however well intentioned, risks delaying the delivery of pension dashboard services to individuals.
I am sure we can agree that it is important that the design of this service is consumer focused. It must consider potential risks to the consumer and provide benefits to individuals planning for their retirement. The industry delivery group will undertake further user research and testing to ensure that that is the case. Any additional functionality should be made available only if three conditions are met: a clear consumer need should have been identified; safeguards and protections must be in place; and any functionality must be controlled and tested.
With those thoughts and aims in mind, I turn, first, to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Young. In Amendment 45, he raises the important point of identity verification. This is crucial in giving consumers and pension providers confidence in the security of their data. In order to ensure a consistent consumer experience, the dashboard infrastructure should have one digital identity standard agreed across the industry. The level of identity verification used must be consistent with the internationally recognised standard published by government—the good practice guidance on identity proofing and verification. The good practice guidance is designed to be as inclusive as possible, so that as many people as possible are able to securely access the online services.
The creation of a digitally secure identity is complex. Last year, the Government introduced the digital identity unit, which is now leading work to develop a digital identity solution that can be used across the public and private sectors. The industry delivery group will work with the digital identity unit to enable the delivery of a secure, effective and inclusive identity service for users of the pensions dashboard. I understood what my noble friend said about Verify, and I assure him that the industry delivery group has this issue squarely on its radar. It is being informed by industry experts and consumer groups, and it will carefully consider available options and make recommendations on the best identity solution for pensions dashboards. The solution may not be Verify.
ID verification will have to meet the standards for all parties, including state pension, and that requires a high level above that for an individual scheme. Whatever happens, I can assure my noble friend that dashboards will be free at the point of use for consumers; that includes identity verification. Digital identity remains a priority for government and we are considering ways in which to continue this work with departments across government. We hope to make announcements on that in due course.
On Amendment 38, the Government fully support beneficiaries with entitlements having access to their pension information via dashboards. I can tell my noble friend Lord Young that this clause, as already drafted, enables this to happen. The delivery of this facility will be considered by the industry delivery group. However, his amendment does not distinguish between beneficiaries with entitlements and potential beneficiaries, without current entitlements to the scheme. Creating provision for a person with a potential entitlement introduces considerable legal and technical challenges about data protection and confidentiality in relation to the principal scheme member. The members themselves should have control of the access to such information, and this should happen only with consent. We should be wary of undermining confidence that an individual’s own pensions data will be kept safe, confidential and secure.
On Amendments 43 and 44, the Government recognise that some people will have a range of assets, including their homes, which could be used to form part of an individual’s retirement income. I understand all that my noble friend said in favour of adding to the dashboard in this way. However, I question whether such amendments are either wise or necessary. Many income projection tools are available through independent financial advisers to support individuals with this. The amendments open up the possibility of financial advisers being able to add information and make calculations directly on to a dashboard. This would significantly extend the scope of pensions dashboards, adding more complexity and risk to delivery.
That cautionary note is quite a good segue into Amendment 39 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, on financial transactions. The document Pensions Dashboards: Government Response to the Consultation sets out that qualifying pensions dashboard services will not initially have the capability to facilitate transactions. They will start with a “find and view” function, allowing only individuals to see their information. Further functionality will be carefully considered, taking into account the potential risks to consumers alongside the potential benefits.
It may reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, that although the Government have been clear that we want to enable consumer-focused innovation in the long term, this does not necessarily lead to transactions on dashboards. I also respectfully remind her of the mantra that we have uttered many times: that the consumers’ interests must come first. We set out in our consultation document three overarching design principles, which underpin the pensions dashboard ecosystem. These are: first, to put the consumer at the heart of the process by giving people access to clear information online; secondly, to ensure that consumers’ data are secure, accurate and simple to understand; and, thirdly, to ensure that the consumer is always in control over who has access to their data.
Baroness Drake
Perhaps I may put three questions to the Minister in response to his comments. First, he opened by pointing out the overwhelming support for the dashboard that was evident in the consultation; I have no argument with that. Does he accept that the consumer focus groups, taken in the broadest sense, actually lined up behind the Government’s starting with a public-owned dashboard and had quite strong views about proceeding without one? Does he accept that when one disaggregates the responses to the consultation, that is a correct summary? I am quite happy to name the organisations on which I base that view.
Secondly, the Minister actually gave a very good explanation of why one should not run into transactions on the dashboard: not just because of the technical and IT requirements to building a safe dashboard, but because of the whole behavioural market- weakness issues that come into play. However, I do not think I heard him say that, as a result of recognising that, the issue would come back to the Houses of Parliament through another Bill before proceeding to transactions. That was the assurance. I do not think that simply a discussion on regulations would meet Parliament’s need to scrutinise such a big transition. To push again, will he confirm that the Government would need to come back to Parliament before proceeding to transactional activity?
Thirdly, the Minister mentioned delegated access, about which I am deeply concerned. I have no issue with MaPS having delegated access, because it was set up on a certain basis where it was implicit that the dashboard would improve the efficiency of the guidance service. Financial advisers are an issue of some substance. The FCA’s report and actions on the market in financial advice to pensioners is not good reading. Just by September 2018—and the up-to-date figure will be greater—the transfer advice in DB covered assets worth £82.8 billion. In terms of the recommended product, the regulator found 35% were suitable, 24% were unsuitable and 40% were unclear. They produced other reports to express their deep concern. I put a simple question: in the case of Port Talbot, if advisers did not advise those steel-workers well and delegated access to all their pension-pot assets, how great would the detriment have been to those steel-workers? It is not a principle that delegated access may be given to advisers at some point when there is a high level of confidence down stream, but evidence provided by the regulator—not anecdotal evidence from me—says that this market is not working well, which fills it with deep concern.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I want to ask a couple of questions so that the Minister does not need to come back to us twice.
My noble friend Lady Drake powerfully picked up the points on transactions that I wanted to make. I heard the Minister say that the Government’s intention is to proceed to transactions at some point—I would be grateful if he could correct that if I misunderstood—but I did not hear him say why they feel that this is a good idea. I heard him say carefully that they would want assurances to protect consumers, but I did not hear anything about the positive driver for doing so that outweighs the risks that manifestly come with it, which my noble friend just articulated.
I apologise; I have two more questions. I should say that I am hugely grateful for the Minister’s thorough response; I appreciate him taking the time to give us that. It may be that, in all that, I missed the answers to a couple of my questions; I apologise if he gave them and I did not pick them up.
First, am I right in understanding that the dashboard will not cover legacy private pensions and new private pensions not covered by auto-enrolment? If so, do the regulations, as they stand, allow those to be included subsequently, and do the Government have any views on whether they were going to do so?
The Minister touched on my second question but did not answer it. On Wednesday, he said that
“we entirely understand the importance of having a dashboard run by a public body without any commercial interest.”—[Official Report, 26/2/20; col. GC 182.]
Why do the Government think that that is a good idea? Why are they not worried that there could be a long period when there are only commercial dashboards and no public dashboard?
Earl Howe
My Lords, on the final point made by the noble Baroness, it is fair to say that our debate last Wednesday gave my colleagues and me considerable food for thought as to the scheduling of all this. The strong wish expressed by noble Lords to prioritise a publicly funded and owned dashboard was duly noted. I hope to provide her with further thought on this as we go forward. I will come back to her in writing on her specific question on the inclusion of auto-enrolment schemes and so on.
The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, asked whether the consumer groups expressed a particular preference for the MaPS dashboard coming before any others. I bow to her on that. I will have to check whether that is a fair reading; I do not doubt that it is if she says so. I do not have the specific information to hand. The majority of respondents suggested and supported multiple dashboards, not just one. I can only repeat that the rollout of dashboards will be considered as part of a carefully controlled implementation plan.
I do not believe that I expressed a categorical government intention to include transactions on the dashboard. I said that we would make that incremental step only after the most careful consideration and public consultation, and assessment of all the risks. I freely acknowledge that risks exist in that quarter. If we venture into that sphere relating to dashboards, we must be absolutely certain that the risk of abuse, scams, misleading nudges and so forth is as minimal as it can be. Each incremental step will require further parliamentary scrutiny. The noble Baroness, Lady Drake, believes that this should be through primary legislation. I have to differ with her on that. We have made provision for secondary legislation by affirmative procedure, which provides a good measure of parliamentary scrutiny, preceded by public consultation which will inform parliamentary scrutiny. She and I have to part company in this area.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, talked about the business model of these dashboards. The noble Earl has just talked about multiple commercial dashboards. There must be a reason why people will wish to create these things, and therefore there must be a business model behind them. What is the Government’s vision for that?
Earl Howe
The Government’s vision is for consumers to have access to their own information if they wish, and a multiplicity of ways to achieve that. We believe that more is better in this context. That is not to make comparisons between one provider and another, but multiple dashboards will give consumers more choice in where they access their pensions information, and will drive innovation to meet what are bound to be the varied needs of those 25 million people with private pension wealth who are not yet in receipt of their pension.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden
My apologies: my question was not clear. I was asking specifically about the business model behind this. What is the incentive for commercial providers to create these things? Is it advertising? We have talked about transactions, et cetera. If we are going to have this multiplicity of them, there must be a multiplicity of reasons. Do the Government have a view on the best model and controls around that, whether it might be advertising, transactions or charges to funds?
Earl Howe
Scheme providers have been absolutely clear that they are keen for this to happen, mainly because the more exposure that the information has to the particular consumer, the more opportunities there may be for a dialogue between the consumer and the scheme provider—“Are you saving enough? Can we do more for you?”, that sort of thing. They see marketing opportunities in this, but that is very distinct from allowing the dashboard to enable them to enter into transactions. I hope that I have already covered that point satisfactorily.
Lord Flight
My Lords, is there not the point that, with people having on average 11 different jobs during their career and potentially 11 different pension pots, particularly those they were part of when they were younger, many of them have no information at all about it. They do not even know who the manager or the provider is. Already, the amount of unclaimed financial assets in this country is colossal. Without what is happening under this legislation, the problem will get worse, and we urgently need to sort out the ownership of lesser pension schemes, going back a long time.
Lord Young of Cookham
My Lords, this has been a long debate, and I do not propose to lengthen it much more. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part, in particular my noble friend Lord Howe, who gave a very full response to the many issues raised. I was particularly encouraged by what he said a few moments ago—that the debate we had last Wednesday, and the view of the Committee that it would be best if the MaPS scheme was up and running before the other ones, had made some impact. I noted that he said that he hoped to come back to us with more news on that in the future.
I will say just a word on Amendment 39, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. I read page 56 of the policy brief, which says:
“Dashboards will present simple information, without the ability to carry out transactions.”
As I understand it from what my noble friend said, that has been qualified and, subject to all the reservations and safeguards that he mentioned, it may be that under this existing legislation, transactions could be provided—I think that is where we ended up. In that case, the wording in the policy brief, if it is by any chance ever reprinted, might be qualified. At the moment it is quite stark:
“Dashboards will present simple information, without the ability to carry out transactions.”
I am being given a look; I am not quite clear what it means, but I will move on.
I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Flight for the support he gave to my amendment on equity release. However, I take the overall view that, while it makes sense at some point to have the opportunity to take a picture of all the assets available that can form a pension income stream, perhaps using the pensions board to do it up front is not the right place. I was reassured by what my noble friend Lord Howe said—that in future, we could consider some embellishments to the scheme, but the top priority was to move ahead as currently planned.
I am afraid that my concerns have not been satisfied at all on Verify. I was grateful to my noble friend for the assurances, first, that there would be no charge for accessing any pensions dashboard; and, secondly, that there would not be a charge for accessing the verification process. The Government have spent hundreds of millions of pounds and many years developing Verify, so I was slightly surprised when he said that the identification process for the pensions dashboard may not be Verify. If it will not be Verify, what will it be? There is no other game in town at the moment. As of yesterday, the Government lost all leverage over Verify by stopping any funding, so its development is now entirely in the hands of the providers. Given that the providers have now heard that Verify may not be the scheme for the pensions dashboard, that may weaken even further their incentive to develop it. What is the business model for Verify if you cannot charge the people who are having themselves verified?
There is therefore still a huge question mark over how we will get access to the pensions dashboard if there is some doubt, as I explained a few moments ago, about Verify, and no clarity at all about what this alternative system might be, which is not Verify and which will unlock the key to the dashboard. Having said that, I do not want to sound at all mealy-mouthed to my noble friend, who did a heroic job dealing with all the other amendments, but I still have some lingering doubts on that one. However, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 38.
Baroness Altmann
“( ) Requirements prescribed under subsection (2) must require that the provision of pensions dashboard services is an activity regulated by the FCA.”
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, the amendments in this group stand in my name and those of my noble friend Lord Flight, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lords, Lord McKenzie and Lord Hutton. A number of us have tabled amendments in this group on similar themes. I will leave other noble Lords to talk specifically to their amendments but the main concern that we are trying to address is that there should be proper protection for consumers when using these dashboards. What is proposed in different formats is that the Financial Conduct Authority should oversee any dashboards—particularly the commercial ones—as a regulated activity. We have not seen that specified in the Bill and feel that clear regulatory protection for any consumers using a pensions dashboard needs to be on the face of the Bill.
Obviously there are different ways in which the FCA may impose regulatory protection. However, if this is meant to be an activity that benefits consumers, then, given all the experience that we have had in pensions and the issues that have arisen for consumers from time to time when there is an asymmetry of information and pension providers, and providers of different products are able to take advantage of the fact that consumers are not always totally au fait with the information on their pensions that they are presented with, it is really important, for example, that the FCA makes sure that the information is clear and that there is a recognised standard for a dashboard so that it cannot be misleading for consumers in some way, as might sometimes be the case. Sometimes providers do not intentionally try to mislead consumers but the language that they use every day is natural vernacular for them, although it does not mean a thing to a consumer. A provider might think that they have explained something very clearly for anyone who knows all about pensions but, on reading it, the customer might get totally the wrong idea or not understand what is being presented and perhaps take an incorrect conclusion from it.
Amendment 68 suggests that the provider of a pensions dashboard should have a fiduciary duty to the user of the dashboard. There is merit in our considering that as an extra layer of protection so that, once again, the provider of the dashboard is required to consider what the consumer might understand and need, and the provider therefore has a duty to help them rather than take advantage of them in some way, whether intentionally or not.
I am not sure that I need to take up the time of the Committee any further. That is the thrust of the intent behind these amendments, and I look forward to hearing from other noble Lords on this issue.
Lord Flight
My Lords, the point that I want to make is that there are four cases where the FCA is the regulator but no reference is made to where the Pensions Regulator will provide the regulatory task. It might be readily understood by the industry why regulation is divided but there is a question mark over whether citizens will automatically know to go to the FCA for certain things and to go to the Pensions Regulator for others. I am sure that there are sound reasons for it but I would be interested to hear the Government’s view on what the regulatory model should be.
Lord Hutton of Furness (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendment 68. I put my name to it and raised the issue at Second Reading in the Chamber. We have had a long debate this afternoon, and I think most of us are pretty clear that pension dashboard services are going to provide a significant service to pension scheme members. We might be able to track down £20 billion-worth of lost pension scheme assets, and we might be able to encourage more people to save for their retirement if it becomes clear to them through accessing a pensions dashboard that they may not be in possession of all the means they might wish to have in their retirement. However, we must not lose sight of one very important risk, which is that although I hope that pension dashboard services will bring significant advantages, they could also be the route through which potential harm is done to pension scheme members by bad or sharp commercial practice or whatever else. It is particularly important that we consider ensuring that a safety-first approach is adopted when it comes to the establishment of these new services.
I cannot think of anything more fundamental—this is what I think Amendment 68 is trying to flush out—or more important than to place on the shoulders of those responsible for running these schemes a duty to act in the best interest of pension scheme members. I am sure that through these regulations and other provisions a welter of regulation will bear down on to the shoulders of those services, but the idea is that they have a direct legal responsibility to pension scheme members to act in their interests when they are accessing data on the pensions dashboard. A very clear line of legal responsibility will go a very long way in establishing the right overall governance and attitude of mind that should be at work when these schemes come into operation. Those who are running pension schemes have similar fiduciary duties and therefore it is entirely appropriate. If this amendment is not accepted, there may be some other more effective approach. I hope the Government will give some consideration to how this further level of accountability and aid to the good governance of these new services is best advanced.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, the six amendments in this group in my name and that of my noble friend Lord McKenzie of Luton are probing amendments designed to get Ministers to reassure the Committee that there is a robust system of regulation and supervision for those involved in the dashboards. Rather than go through them one at a time, as there are overlapping amendments from other noble Lords, it might be easier if I simply ask the Minister to clarify some of the key aspects of the supervision and regulatory regimes which the Government have in mind.
I was delighted last week when the Minister indicated that the Government have acceded to the request from my noble friend Lady Drake and many others around the Committee:
“we shall be introducing a new regulated activity under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 to reflect the provision of dashboard services.”
Hurrah, say I. That is marvellous. The Minister continued with only very slightly less certainty:
“Clause 118 provides the power to set out detailed requirements ‘for qualifying pensions dashboards’. It is also likely that this will be linked to the new regulated activity outlined by the Financial Conduct Authority.”—[Official Report, 26/02/20; col. GC 183.]
I think we are being told that this means providing a dashboard service will be added to the regulated activity order. I am assuming that is what that means.
Those requirements in Clause 118 may include
“what … information is to be provided”
and
“how the ... dashboard service is to be … operated.”
They may also,
“require a dashboard service to comply with standards, specifications or technical requirements published … by ... the Secretary of State ... The Money and Pensions Service”
or another specified person. Crucially they may,
“require the provider of the pensions dashboard service to be a person approved … by … the Secretary of State … the Money and Pensions Service”
or another specified person. The last of those is crucial.
If running a dashboard service is to be an FCA-regulated activity, should that not mean that those running it have to be approved by the FCA—in which case, ought that not to be made clear? It could be another body, but the bodies named do not include the FCA. If the activity is on the ROA, does that mean that the FCA will then be able to use its full range of FiSMA powers of supervision and regulation on anyone providing dashboard services? Can the Minister further confirm that that would mean that complaints about anything to do with the dashboard could be made to the Financial Ombudsman Service?
This is the train I am trying to establish. It is great that the activities are regulated by the FCA. Will the people running it have to be FCA approved and therefore subject to the full range of FiSMA powers? It seems that that is where the real firepower is located. Alternatively, are the Government envisaging that a dashboard service might be run by an organisation that was not FCA approved, supervised or regulated? Would there be a real risk of consumer detriment if the FCA cannot use its full range of powers on anyone using a commercial dashboard?
Provision of information to a dashboard also needs to be subject to a scheme of regulation and compliance. Information will come from various sources. Will the provision of information from trust-based schemes to a dashboard be regulated by the TPR? What about the information provided from contract schemes? Will that come from via the FCA? Will it be directly under FCA supervision or by the fact that they regulate the firms providing the information? Who will oversee the provision of information from the state and make sure it is accurate? Where does the consumer go to complain about their data? At the moment, if a bank misuses your data, the ICO will deal with the bank, but the consumer will go to the Financial Ombudsman Service to deal with detriment. What will happen here?
My biggest concern is what will be done with data provided on dashboards and the potential for mis-selling. Amendment 68 would require that those providing dashboard services would have to act in the fiduciary interest of savers. My noble friend Lord Hutton just made a compelling case for that. Our argument is that this is a special situation where the state has mandated that consumers’ data should all be gathered together in one place. That is helpful, but it is a little like saying, “Rather than having them wandering freely across the hillside, all the lambs have been gathered into one pen”. In that case, you want to be pretty sure that there is a good lock on the gate and that anyone coming along pretending to be a shepherd can be spotted early and—“Stop. Enough of this analogy. Ed.” I think the point is made.
Because of this higher challenge, there should be a higher duty of care to the consumer. If an organisation running a dashboard service is regulated by the FCA, it will be subject to the “treating customers fairly” FCA standard, but this goes higher. It becomes even more important if it is possible that any of those people will not be subject to the full range of FCA supervision and regulation powers. There should be a duty of care to the consumer. We can see the benefit of gathering information/lambs in one place, but it of course makes the information/lambs much easier to access. Can the Minister give us some reassurance on those points?
Earl Howe
My Lords, the amendments in this group are designed to ensure that consumers are placed at the heart of dashboards and that the Financial Conduct Authority is given responsibility for certain aspects of that. I say straightaway that I wholeheartedly agree with this aim. What I cannot agree with is the way of achieving it proposed in the amendments.
The Government are persuaded that a strong regulatory regime is key to maintaining public confidence in dashboards. There are existing powers which we will use to introduce a new regulated activity for dashboard providers. We can do this by amending the regulated activities order set out in Section 22 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. This will bring the provision of a qualifying dashboard service within the regulatory and supervisory the remit of the FCA. There is no need for the new dashboard-specific regulated activity to be in the Bill.
We are working with Her Majesty’s Treasury and the FCA to agree the nature and scope of the changes. Legislation amending the order will be brought forward in due course. I can also confirm that the Financial Services and Markets Act covers Northern Ireland, meaning that any new regulated activity would also extend to Northern Ireland. It is important to note that the new regulated activity will apply only to dashboard providers. Pension scheme trustees and operators are already within the regulatory remit of either the Pensions Regulator or the FCA. The requirement on pension schemes relating to the provision of information via dashboards will be set out in regulations and FCA rules pursuant to this Bill.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, asked whether the FCA will be able to use its full range of powers; yes, it will. All the FCA’s existing powers will be available where a dashboard provider must be FCA-authorised. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, the Financial Conduct Authority has an existing framework to ensure that authorised firms take the interests of customers into account. The Government will again set out in regulations the conditions that a dashboard will have to meet. This will be supported by new, dashboard-specific regulated activity, as I have just explained.
Strong consumer representation on the industry delivery group, alongside new regulations and a new, dashboard-specific regulated activity, will ensure that the design is in the interests of consumers and that they are protected. The regulatory framework for the new regulated activity will be proposed in the FCA’s consultation on the corresponding handbook rules and guidance.
Lord Hutton of Furness
I hear what the Minister is saying and am very grateful for the thoroughness with which he is responding to these issues, but will pension scheme members have any direct legal redress against a dashboard services operator should things go wrong? As I am hearing him, most of the remedies seem to lie in the hands of regulators or others, but if my data is misused or I feel that some problem has occurred as the result of the inappropriate organisation of a pensions dashboard service, where do I stand?
Earl Howe
Consumers will have various modes of redress available to them if they are not served legally or properly by their scheme provider or the dashboard provider. Our response to the consultation on dashboards highlighted the need for a clear liability model for the whole dashboard system. The objective is to enable users to identify easily where to raise a complaint or a dispute if a dashboard fails to work, or if they fail to receive their pension information. We have asked the Money and Pensions Service, through the industry delivery group, to consider how this might operate and to make recommendations. The Pensions Regulator and the FCA will regulate compliance by pension schemes and the Information Commissioner will have a role in ensuring that the disclosure of pension information takes place in accordance with data protection legislation. Only FCA-approved bodies can provide a qualifying dashboard. Only qualifying dashboards can connect to the infrastructure, and they will fall under the full regulatory regime.
New Section 238G, introduced by Clause 119, ensures that the regulator will be able to monitor and enforce compliance with the new requirements, in keeping with the existing regulatory regime. The FCA also has the power to enforce rules that it will make under this legislation. Part 14 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 allows the FCA to enforce any requirement on authorised persons, including those setting up or operating a personal stakeholder pension.
Baroness Altmann
I thank my noble friend for his very thorough response to this group of amendments. Is it not possible that without a comprehensive, overarching regulatory framework for all dashboard activities, consumers could fall between different cracks, and the provider of the dashboard that has provided them with misleading or incorrect information could then say, “Well, it was the person who gave us the data who was misleading: it wasn’t us. We are just providing information.”? Or could this activity in some way be related to unregulated lead generation, which is part of the pensions landscape and has been so damaging to consumers? Therefore, what I hoped we might achieve with my amendment was an overarching regulated activity for anybody participating in or providing data to the dashboard and for the dashboard provider providing the data to a customer.
Earl Howe
We come back to the question of a liability model. I might as well deal with that now. We set out in the consultation response that we expect the industry delivery group to make recommendations on a robust liability model that ensures that there are clear roles and responsibilities and a clear process for dealing with complaints. The point made by my noble friend that there is a risk that something might fall through the cracks is a very good one. The best that I can do at the moment is to say that, as the service is developed, the detail of where liability exists will emerge. She will agree with me that we are not dealing with new data or with new financial transactions, but yes, potential service risks might emerge. The IDG will, as I have said, recommend robust liability models, and the framework of any new liability arrangements will be set out in regulations. That is one of the reasons why we need delegated powers in this area.
I think that the industry delivery group is the best forum to build a liability model to which all parties are signed up and that takes into account good practice and lessons learned from open banking. While I realise that there are many differences, there are certainly lessons that we can draw from that sphere.
Lord Flight
My Lords, is not the big issue in this territory that when people have discovered that they have four, five, six or seven different pension funds, they will want advice as to what to do with them? There is the whole problem of who can give advice, guidance or help in that area, but unless arrangements are determined about how to deal with this question, I can see all sorts of regulatory issues arising.
Baroness Drake
The liability model has not been settled. That is perfectly understandable; I do not rush to criticise it because there is a lot to do. All I would say, because I cannot resist doing so, is that it goes to the argument that one should start with a public dashboard. My question follows on from that asked by my noble friend Lord Hutton. On reading Clause 118, clearly powers are given to certain parties to set requirements—with the exclusion of the Secretary of State, who is in a totally different position. Can the Minister confirm that no such powers under Clause 118 can override the FCA’s existing powers? He may not be able to answer that yet but it would give clarity.
Baroness Sherlock
On a related point, I tried hard to listen to what the Minister said because I am particularly interested in whether somebody can run a dashboard service if they are not FCA-authorised. I heard him say that the full range of FiSMA powers could be used, so a dashboard must be FCA-authorised, but I think I heard him say also that only FCA-approved bodies can run dashboard services. Is that right?
Baroness Sherlock
Excellent. In that case, I am trying to relate that to New Section 238A(5)(c), to be introduced by Clause 118(2), on page 105 of the Bill. It states that requirements prescribed under subsection (2) may, in particular,
“require the provider of the pensions dashboard service to be a person approved from time to time by—
(i) the Secretary of State,
(ii) the Money and Pensions Service, or
(iii) a person specified or of a description specified in the regulations”.
If, as the Minister just said, the FCA must authorise someone to run a dashboard, does it not make more sense for a government amendment to come forward to make that clear in the regulations, rather than naming two bodies—neither of which is the FCA—and having a catch-all for the third?
While I am on my feet—hey, why waste an opportunity?—and the Minister reflects a little more on that point, I want to ask about the duty of care and the fiduciary duty. I take the Minister’s point about the wording there, but are the Government resistant to the underlying point made by my noble friend Lord Hutton and me: that, in these particular circumstances, there should be a higher duty of care to the consumer on the part of the organisation running the dashboard services than would be the case in the general mêlée of the FCA? Treating customers fairly and related things may suit that generic environment but this is a very particular circumstance; the Government have initiated this and put all this information in one place and mandated its release. If it were more felicitously worded, would the Government resist the notion of a higher duty of care in this circumstance than the one that prevails generally in FCA supervision?
Earl Howe
I will certainly go away and consider that point, even if “fiduciary” is not the appropriate word, and look in conjunction with my officials at whether there is a mechanism that would achieve that aim without inventing some new legal status. I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Hutton, for their points.
The question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, boils down to this: if MaPS or another specified person sets the data standards, how will they be accountable to Parliament? As I said, the regulations enable parliamentary scrutiny and debate on any specific future proposal as they come forward.
We need to ensure that dashboards are fit for purpose over the longer term. That cannot happen in a summary way. Delegating the ability to set and update standards and technical specifications support through secondary legislation will, in our view, ensure that dashboards remain beneficial and relevant to consumers.
Our approach recognises that ownership of the dashboard infrastructure and the responsibilities for the setting of standards may need to change over time, but I reiterate that, taking into account the good practice that exists, the industry delivery group will develop and make recommendations on a robust liability model to ensure that there are clear roles and responsibilities in the event of a breach. That includes a clear consumer redress mechanism. In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, the policy intent is that the FCA should authorise dashboard providers and that this should be achieved by order.
The FCA takes seriously the need to consult the public. It has a general duty to consult the public by publishing draft rules. This duty will apply equally in this case. The FCA will also consult the Secretary of State and Her Majesty’s Treasury prior to public consultation on draft rules. That will ensure that the rules have regard to the regulations that place obligations on trust-based schemes, which will provide a consistent and coherent approach.
We have covered quite a lot of ground, but I hope that I have effectively explained the role of the FCA in protecting consumers and provided the assurance that noble Lords are seeking that we will bring dashboard services within the FCA’s scope. If I have not covered all the ground, I hope that I can rely on meetings with noble Lords following Committee so that, by Report stage, I am able to come up with any further and better particulars that they seek. With that, I hope that for the time being the noble Baroness will feel comfortable in withdrawing the amendment.
Baroness Altmann
I thank my noble friend for his detailed response and the broadness of his willingness to consider the points that we have made on this important issue. I am delighted that he agrees that we all seem to have the same aim, which is to protect the consumer. However, I would be grateful if he went back to the department and perhaps wrote to me and other interested noble Lords about this. We all aim to have consumer protection but, if that is to be put in via a series of regulations with a liability model that we do not yet quite have, would there be any specific harm in putting in the Bill the regulatory framework and the requirement for FCA authorisation and protection for consumers, so that there is a comprehensive, overarching framework?
My concern is that, although this is portrayed as an information dashboard, we know that the provision of guidance and information has no consumer protection whatever—it is a matter of caveat emptor. If, for example, those dashboards carry advertisements that may be perceived as enticing people to buy products but they do not fall under such a regulation in FCA terms, we might be well advised at this stage to place an overriding emphasis from the consumer perspective on regulatory protection and authorisation for the entire framework, rather than relying on liability being proven later and redress being provided to the customer after a problem has occurred. For the moment, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) Any regulations made under section 238A or this section which make provision for privately owned or commercial providers of pensions dashboard services to enter service must include provision about—(a) designation of the responsible regulators for—(i) operators of the pensions dashboards,(ii) displayed dashboard information,(iii) conduct relating to the use of data,(iv) advertising, and(v) revenue generation from the pensions dashboard service for the provider, including revenue from advertising;(b) redress mechanisms and designation of the responsible body for claims arising from harm to users of a pensions dashboard service including for loss or improper use of data;(c) mechanisms to mitigate the risk of fraud;(d) rules about type of content, presentation of information, assumptions regarding predicted pension income, valuation, projections, risks and comparisons;(e) rules about advertising on the pensions dashboard service and any revenue generated from the pensions dashboard service for the provider of the pensions dashboard service or any third party;(f) display of charges or any commission received by the dashboard provider for any services, transfer of funds or purchases available through the pensions dashboard service, and(g) display of the projected cash effect on expected pension income or lump sum outcomes of any services, transfer of funds or purchases available through the pensions dashboard service.”
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
My Lords, I am conscious that, in the two groups we have already discussed, we have touched quite thoroughly on the background that inspired my amendment. The Minister has explained several times that it is the intention that this legislation is flexible, that because of the ability to make regulations it can develop over time and that many of the things that noble Lords have already been pressing for are potentially in the mind of government. There was a similar discussion at an all-Peers meeting a couple of weeks ago, which several noble Lords—in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock—were at and which inspired this probing omnibus amendment that puts together all the things we discussed in that meeting and a few more. I do not see that it in any way competes with the amendments about the content of regulations or the SCA being the dashboard regulator.
The purpose of this amendment is to discuss how to make certain that there will be joined-up, end-to-end coverage by the regulator and the regulations—or in supervision, as the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, expressed it. Again, I am sure that it is the intention for a lot of this to happen—there are certainly enough powers in the Bill to do it—but there is nothing yet in the Bill to make it certain. I acknowledge that things have been said but that is not the same as having something in the Bill.
It has been said that a lot of these things might develop as a result of consultations with industry groups. If industry groups decide that they do not want some of this, what happens? There needs to be a basic obligation that these things will be covered—in particular, as my amendment envisages, if we are getting to the point where we have commercial dashboards. If these things are not resolved by the time we get them—it looks as if we might be getting them anyway, not after a delay—I do not think that it is satisfactory to have nothing in the Bill.
To ensure end-to-end regulatory coverage for the process of loading information on to dashboards to the dashboard itself and for any consequential actions arising from the dashboard, my wish list, or probing list, covers: dashboard operation; information; data; advertising and revenue generation; redress mechanisms; fraud mitigation, which the Minister has already mentioned; content; presentation; assumptions; valuations; projections; risk; comparison; third-party revenue charges; and commissions and their effect on projections.
Noble Lords said on the previous group that it is difficult to have information about charges because they are done in different ways and are the be-all and end-all. That in particular is why I have said that the effect of the charges should be given because that is where you can assess them. If there are lots of different mechanisms and they can make things weaselly wordy or look wrong, they should not be able to disguise the cash effect of the charges that can be extracted. That is probably more important than saying what the charges are. I do not think that this is in conflict with anything else that has been said today.
However, what happens if there is a data breach? That might be a matter for the Information Commissioner. It might be automatic or a matter for redress by the financial ombudsman. These mechanisms are all out there. How will they join up? We want to know for certain that they will. Nothing in my amendment suggests how this must be done; it just says that it must be done.
While mentioning the FCA, we need to be clear that unless it is told categorically in legislation or regulations that something is regulated, it will not consider it as within the regulatory perimeter. As I have said previously, it regards that as a matter for government and Parliament to authorise. An example is that although the FCA covers conduct in banks—which, as we well know, are also heavily regulated by the Prudential Regulation Authority—banks can do quite a lot that, although they have that heavy regulation, falls outside the regulatory perimeter for conduct. Commercial lending is one example. People tend to trust regulated entities but then do not realise that things that do not have that supervisory and conduct backing can be done. It is necessary to dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s here.
For example, it might be that the phrase “Click here to transfer your pension” would be covered, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, hinted in her previous suggestions, would it be against the regulations to say, “Click here and buy a Maserati”? It was once suggested that that might happen with pensions freedoms. What about equity release for double glazing and conservatories, which feature heavily in the advertising about equity release? If we do not cover advertising and the FCA does not, who does? It must be covered. It cannot be left open. My amendment aims to draw attention to these matters through my list. I will obviously be interested to hear the reply.
However, when it comes to drafting regulations—again, this has relevance because the Minister has already mentioned it—there should not be too much left to the regulatory rules. They can create holes, especially after the regulator has consulted the people it is attempting to regulate. I touched on that in a debate last week, when I explained how regulators’ rules—FCA rules, to be precise—had watered down the generality of “fit and proper” as a test for behaviour. It is by no means the all-encompassing test that was originally intended; it was narrowed down by the rules of the regulator.
When it comes to pensions, I therefore want a belt-and -braces approach. As I said, I have attempted to draft something that sweeps together all the concerns in a probing, omnibus-type way; I will not go through the list because quite a lot of it has already featured in our debate today on previous amendments. I do not aim to say how it is to be done but I suggest that when there is to be a commercial dashboard, the regulations must be done for all these things. I believe that that is what the Government say they will do, but it is better to have it on a piece of paper inside the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend’s amendment, among other things, speaks about advertising. The underlying question about advertising, however, is surely why allow it at all? That was touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. You can see the benefit, obviously, to commercial dashboard providers: another revenue stream and/or the cross-selling of their products. However, it is hard to see why the customer would want yet another advertising channel while there are already thousands—perhaps tens of thousands—of advertising channels. What really is the benefit to the consumer; or perhaps more accurately, what really is the risk-benefit balance for the consumer created by the existence of advertising on commercial dashboards? What assessment have the Government made of this risk-benefit balance? If the answer is none, perhaps they should consider doing exactly that. I am curious about whether the Government have, in fact, indicated to potential commercial dashboard providers that they will be able to run ads on their dashboards. Is there some implicit quid pro quo going on here?
Baroness Drake
My Lords, I have some sympathy with the noble Baroness’s amendment in wanting to set out in regulation, rather than rely on regulatory rules, some of the things that will be required to make the dashboard function well. I suspect that there are three drivers behind that sentiment. One is that, in this market, the providers are particularly dominant: there is not an equality of arms when it comes to seeking people’s opinion or influencing government policy. Secondly, the FCA itself recognises that it is very difficult to get a functioning market and that it needs to think more and more about intruding in controlling providers’ supply-side behaviour. Thirdly, although the Government understandably want to rely on consultation, those consultations can be dominated by the providers in this market.
Very often, some of the raw consumer issues somehow do not come to the surface and the consumer groups often do not have sufficient resources to do the kind of detailed analysis that a submission requires to pull out some of the fault lines when these things are looked at through a consumer perspective. Members of the public are not going to participate because they simply do not understand what the issues are in relation to their interests until they experience them. I therefore have a lot of sympathy, leaving aside the precise wording of this amendment. The Government need to understand that sense of those three sentiments that often drive many of these amendments: the providers are over-dominant; even the FCA recognises the need for greater intrusion on providers in the supply-side; and consultation is often not an effective remedy for sufficiently capturing the consumers’ interests. Therefore, the more that is put in regulation, the better.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for having opened up this territory. She is a creative inventor of amendments: she has drawn out here a good selection of the kind of things that regulations would need to cover. Will the Minister tell the Committee—whether or not he wants to accept this amendment—whether it is the Government’s intention to cover those matters within regulation? Are any of these items on the list matters that the Government think are inappropriate for regulations to cover them?
The noble Baroness also made a strong case in general for end-to-end regulation. The Minister has described the process that the Government are going through to develop a liability map. I presume that in this, there will also be a similar kind of regulatory map. There also needs to be a redress map to ensure that there are no gaps down the middle of all of those things. It is also particularly important that there is not a regulatory gap. In terms of redress, it is important that there are no gaps; if things overlap, that does not matter so much. For example, there are times when a pension complaint could go either to the Pensions Ombudsman or the Financial Ombudsman service. They judge things by slightly different criteria and in different ways: fair or reasonable versus the legal position. However, it does matter that nothing falls down the cracks. If a complaint is submitted to an organisation such as the Financial Ombudsman Service and there is any possibility that it is out of scope, firms will, and do, regularly take them to court to try to stop the complaint being heard, and exactly the same thing will happen with the regulators.
Therefore, it is really important that somebody has gone through the regulatory map incredibly carefully and made sure that either the regulator already has all the powers and the full scope necessary to cover all these matters or that it will be granted them. I am sure that that is already happening but it would be helpful if the Minister could reassure us about it.
My noble friend Lady Drake made a very strong point about both the drivers of the need for this change and the inequality of arms. The latter is also very strong on the advocacy side. Many times I have seen that there has been a lot of money behind those advocating on behalf of the firms but very little resource behind those advocating on behalf of the consumer. Therefore, it will be very important to make sure that one amplifies the voices that speak up for the consumer interest as well as those that speak for the provider interest.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I fully appreciate that the noble Baroness is trying to ensure that consumers are properly protected and have confidence in the dashboard infrastructure. Indeed, an aspect of this is the need for robust supervision, and I share her belief that it is important to make clear who will be responsible for oversight of the different aspects of the infrastructure. I do not think that much divides the noble Baroness and me on the objective to be achieved.
I recognise the need for a strong supervisory and regulatory regime for dashboard providers. I also agree with the thoughts expressed by many noble Lords at Second Reading about a new regulated activity being key to maintaining public confidence in dashboards. As I explained earlier, we intend to do this by amending the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Regulated Activities) Order 2001.This will bring the provision of a qualifying dashboard service within the regulatory remit of the Financial Conduct Authority. Unauthorised firms will neither be able to connect to the supporting infrastructure nor be able to provide a dashboard service.
Once the amendment to the order has been made, the regulatory framework for the activity will be proposed in the FCA’s public consultation on the corresponding handbook rules and guidance. This will allow the public and the industry a chance to comment. The FCA must have regard to any representations made to it during the consultation period. This framework can be used to set out any expectations regarding the behaviour of dashboard providers and, in this way, will supplement any conditions imposed on dashboard providers set out in regulations. I would argue that this is where we dot the “i”s and cross the “t”s, as the noble Baroness put it.
I note that the amendment also refers to revenue generated by both dashboard providers and third parties. It might not be necessary for me to do so but I want to reassure the Committee that all qualifying dashboard services, like the dashboard provided by the Money and Pension Service, will not be allowed to charge simply for consumers to see their own information. The provision of financial services and products by firms that are dashboard providers will remain subject to FCA regulation. Fundamentally, our aim in allowing multiple dashboards is only to give customers more options in accessing their information, not different information.
The mention of information should remind us that pension information is the lifeblood of a sustainable dashboard. Dashboards will work within the existing framework established by the general data protection regulation and the Data Protection Act 2018. Dashboard providers will be subject to penalties under these laws should they fail to meet required standards of consumer and data protection. One of the key principles in the design of the dashboard is that the individual will always be in control over who has access to their data. Qualifying dashboard service providers will not be able to see information about the individual’s pension rights.
The responsibility for the provision of accurate data falls on pension schemes. The Pensions Regulator will be responsible for ensuring occupational pension schemes’ compliance with requirements. The FCA will regulate personal and stakeholder pension schemes. Enforcement options, including fines, will be among the tools available to the regulators if requirements are not met.
The role of these regulators will be complemented by the Money and Pensions Service, which will establish and maintain the dashboard infrastructure. While it will not act as a regulator, it will work with the regulators to enable their compliance activity. It is also obliged, as part of its consumer protection function under the Financial Guidance and Claims Act, to report to the FCA where regulated persons are behaving in a manner detrimental to customers.
That leads me to the issue of redress. If an individual wishes to seek redress, any queries around possible incorrect information should be directed to the scheme in the first instance. Schemes are already required to have dispute resolution processes. To come back to a question asked earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, if people are not satisfied with the outcome of the internal dispute resolution procedure, they can take their case to the relevant ombudsman.
The amendment covers the need for regulations around assumptions, projections and comparison of costs and charges. I reiterate that we expect that the initial information provided on dashboards will be simple in the first phase. Adding further information, such as projected pension income and costs and charges, requires consideration on the delivery and consumer protection aspects of these proposals, as we have discussed. I am not ruling out the possibility of including such information, but the industry delivery group should be allowed to consider the implications fully and make its recommendations. To commit to regulations around possible assumptions and comparisons before then would be premature.
Of course, as the noble Baroness will be aware, individuals can already access information on costs and charges. The DWP has consulted on simpler annual benefits statements; the noble Baroness may like to know that it will publish a response on that subject in the spring. The consultation looks at the presentation of costs and charges and how projections are calculated. It acknowledged the crucial need for simpler statements to be consistent with the work on dashboards. We will consider how insights from the consultation can be incorporated into dashboards.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Sherlock, emphasised the need for adequate consumer representation. The Money and Pensions Service has brought together an industry delivery group whose job it is to ensure that the design of pensions dashboards is informed by industry experts and consumer groups. Membership of its steering group was announced in September last year. It includes a strong representation of consumer groups, including representation from Which? and an independent representative with significant experience in consumer protection. There will also be opportunities for other consumer representatives to take part in working groups, which will help to ensure that the final design is on what information and features consumers value.
The noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, asked specifically about the need to include advertising on a dashboard. I can do no other than refer back to my earlier points. Rules on advertising are as those around any other incremental addition to the dashboard, and rules on the parameters around the use of data will be looked at very carefully. They will be developed by the Government in conjunction with the FCA, which will work with industry and consumer representatives on the delivery group to make sure that if we go down that path, it is with our eyes open and with the risks minimised. We will of course consult on any rules surrounding that issue.
I hope that I have given sufficient reassurance around consumer protection to show that the dashboard infrastructure will build on existing regulatory frameworks. That, with the need to keep dashboards simple, means that while I understand the rationale of the amendment, I consider it unnecessary. I hope that, on reflection, the noble Baroness will feel that she is comfortable in withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. As I said, this is a probing amendment but also an attempt to indicate a framework that could be constructive, perhaps in particular around some of those issues on which all noble Lords have spoken. It covers things such as advertising; it may be that the regulation that one would want around advertising is that there cannot be any of it, but that would still be a regulation to prohibit. I feel that there is a need for an explanation of this vision, somehow all in one place. Yes, a lot of it could be extracted from today’s debate and the reassurances that have been given. However, it would be much better at the very least if it was all put together, perhaps in an Explanatory Memorandum. I still tend to think that there should be something in the Bill, even if more dilute than what I have proposed.
I very much thank the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. This inequality of arms is extremely important. When it comes to FCA consultations, how many members of the public respond? I am not sure whether I am a member of the public, but I have done it from time to time, and I can tell your Lordships that, even for somebody like myself who is well used to this kind of thing, the way it is composed and constructive can be jolly difficult to get your head around. It can be difficult to get yourself organised to put it in, unless you happen to be an industry specialist who does these kinds of things all the time. I therefore very much doubt that you get members of the public responding; you may get some of the consumer organisations, but again, I doubt that they have the familiarity that is necessary always to be able to nail the point.
As was also suggested, there is a tendency with consultations to weigh the responses: X% says this, and Y% says that, and the ones who struggle and have difficulty, which is always on the consumer side, are outweighed. An awful lot of people with a financial interest from the industry side will respond. There needs to be a better mechanism for communicating with, if you like, the public and their representatives. One thing that could be done is for the FCA to obligingly inform Parliament when it is coming out with its consultations. I do not camp on the FCA’s website, looking for its consultations, and if I do not, I do not know how many members of the public will. This is a work in progress. I have to come back again on the costs.
Baroness Altmann
“238FA Accuracy of occupational pension scheme informationRegulations must impose requirements on the trustees or managers or administrators of a relevant occupational pension scheme to ensure that information held in respect of each member which may be submitted to a pensions dashboard service is regularly checked for accuracy and any errors are corrected within six months.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment aims to ensure that those running pension schemes must check data for accuracy and any errors are corrected regularly to prevent incorrect and misleading information appearing on a user's pensions dashboard.
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 54 and 65, both of which are on the same topic. I beg the Committee’s indulgence. This is such an important issue that I want to expand on some of the areas involved and my reasons for tabling these amendments.
Accurate and complete member data is surely an essential prerequisite for the success of any pensions dashboard. I was struck by the Minister remarking that pension information is the lifeblood of the dashboard, which is absolutely right. These are probing amendments; I do not claim that they are the perfect answer to the issues that I am raising, but I have tried to insert into the Bill specific requirements that must be imposed on trustees, managers and administrators of occupational pension schemes to ensure that the information submitted to the dashboard has been checked regularly for accuracy. I have suggested that errors must be corrected within six months. That may not be a reasonable timeframe, but it is a start. That is Amendment 54.
Amendment 65 seeks to do the same kind of thing for personal and stakeholder pensions which Amendment 54 is seeking to do for occupational schemes. I am not sure whether I need to mention this each time I speak in Committee, but I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests as set out in the register. Auto-enrolment has been a great success as all UK employers have set up pension schemes for their staff. Workers will be building towards a better retirement, which is a force for good, but it cannot be right that there are currently no formalised requirements that data records are verified as accurate regularly.
In the past, pensions have been plagued by data problems. Recently a number of pensioners have had to repay some of their pensions and face future pension cuts as they have been told that past errors in their pension entitlement have been discovered, many decades later in some cases. Records were not regularly updated or corrected. In the past there was manual record-keeping, which was prone to human error, and failure to ensure robust data reconciliation had been regularly carried out meant that errors were not discovered promptly, and they persisted over time without people knowing.
For any dashboard initiative to work, consumers have to be able to trust that their pension contribution records are accurate. This is a particular problem because the complexity of pension rules makes it almost impossible for individuals, especially workers enrolled in auto-enrolment schemes, to know whether the amounts being paid in on their behalf are correct. The complex calculations must calculate the employee contribution, the employer contribution, the tax relief, and potentially the national insurance relief as well. The member would naturally assume that their employer or their pension provider was ensuring that the amounts being recorded on their behalf were accurate, but unfortunately this has not been the case in the past and it is still not the case for new pension schemes. For example, a study I was involved in last year which analysed data representing more than 1 million contributions from more than 100,000 schemes—these were small employers —showed that the data had a 50% initial error rate. Some 50% of some aspects of the information was incorrect and had to be sent back for correction. Those error rates did not persist, but the data was not necessarily checked as thoroughly as it could have been.
Pension administration is the Cinderella of pensions. It is the low-margin end. It is not the sexy end. It is under cost pressure, and administrators seem to have been expected to absorb often very complex changes. Sometimes pension providers change their data requirements and their payroll software is not updated to reflect the latest version, so administrators then manually adjust spreadsheets to try to make sure that they have some data recorded. Data includes incorrect contribution amounts, contributions made for workers who did not belong to the scheme or who had already opted out, wrong identifiers for the pension scheme, inaccurate postcodes, incorrect pay period dates and so on and, for example, incorrectly believing that a pension scheme operates on a relief at source basis when it is net pay or the other way around so the amounts are simply not right.
Unfortunately there are no regulatory checks to ensure that data is verified for accuracy. What we have seen in legacy schemes is the detriment that this can cause to pensioner members, and if we have a pensions dashboard that people are relying upon to make their retirement plans, it is not good enough that administrators will just to try to make sure that by the time people reach retirement and get their pension all the errors are corrected because people will need that all along. For example, the auto-enrolment declaration of compliance does not have accuracy checks built in. Employers are asked to confirm that they have paid the right amount but nobody ensures that that is the case.
If they want to check, many pension providers currently do not collect the information that they need to verify because they are not getting the pensionable pay data sent over to them; they just get an amount of money and are told that it is correct, and that is that. We are in the middle of pensions master trust authorisation. Again, there is a risk of records being incorrect but the authorisation does not entail robust checks on data accuracy or proof that proper processes are in place to discover and correct errors.
I was trying to put into the Bill a mechanism whereby we can draw a line at a point in time and make sure that the pensions dashboard data has been through a process of cleansing and verification as a requirement for submitting the data. I am not saying that this will be simple or easy, but as more schemes emerge it will be more difficult to go back and try to reconcile past records. We have an opportunity now to put that sort of requirement into the Bill.
I quote from the Pensions Administration Standards Association, a body that oversees pensions administration and has been directly involved in some of these areas:
“Data cleansing is costly, so in low margin operations there is little appetite to invest in either clean data or in digitisation which depends on the quality of data. There is no incentive to do better than your competitor, as you are all in the same boat. Customers do not demand improvements and where they do trustees choose to ignore the calls either because of cost, resource constraints or other priorities for the scheme.”
It goes on:
“There is an expectation that introducing mandatory data provision as part of the dashboard project will act as an incentive to schemes and providers to clean up data that has been in a poor state for decades … The uncomfortable truth is that while compulsion will encourage some clean up, it will only be to the minimum level needed to show some data in a field, which essentially means that the presence of a data item will take precedence over the accuracy of it. Schemes already report 90% compliance with common data standards set by the Pensions Regulator. This should mean 90% of schemes will be able to present data that identifies an individual, but of course we know this is not reality, because it has been self-reported and not robustly checked.”
We have an opportunity to recognise the poor quality of data. This is not a blame game; it is about trying to put into the legislation a mechanism through which providers and everyone involved in the dashboard know that they can no longer rely on other people not correcting their data and no longer not attend to this themselves.
Of course, it will never be possible to ensure 100% accuracy, but having processes in place that constantly check and which allow errors to be corrected promptly is urgently required. Random regulatory checks, mystery shopping and systematic accuracy verification by an independent body would be of value and is surely a vital ingredient of any dashboard on which consumers are expected to rely.
As I said, I am not suggesting that the wording of the amendments is appropriate, in the right place or expressed correctly, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give us some information on and consideration of whether this could be built into a dashboard requirement. I beg to move.
Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)
The noble Baroness paints a bleak picture; I do not doubt that she is absolutely right.
Is there not a role in all this for the auditors, and a body whose feet can be held to the flames for not doing its job and not checking the systems, for example? It would not be a solution, but presumably it would contribute to an improvement.
Baroness Altmann
The noble Lord raises an important point which highlights that I have not necessarily covered all the areas to be dealt with on this. Including auditors and having a requirement for them to verify the accuracy of data is indeed another way of approaching the issue. I went to trustees and scheme managers widely, but auditors are another area which might be considered.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I do not want to say very much, but I have a couple of questions on the back of what the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, has said.
Can the Minister tell the Committee a little about what the regulators and the Government are doing to ensure that companies are ready to clean up data ready for transferring to the dashboard? Is there any intention for providers to check that members recognise the accuracy of the data at any point? Regarding what the noble Baroness described, if data had been wrong for decades, perhaps the member would not have known the details, but they might have known if they were not in a scheme, were in a different one, or if the basics were different.
The Cheviot Trust said that it was concerned that deferred members’ data would be less accurate. Is this on the DWP’s horizon? If so, what is being done about it?
Earl Howe
My Lords, I completely appreciate my noble friend’s desire to ensure that the information on the dashboard is accurate and secure. I absolutely agree that accurate information is essential to the effectiveness of a pensions dashboard. The answer ultimately must lie with appropriate regulations and sanctions. The Government believe that these protections are in existing regulations, and that the relevant regulators have the powers to intervene if compliance is not maintained. Having said that, I shall explain in a minute what work is going on in relation to this set of proposals.
In relation to personal and stakeholder pensions, rule 9.1.1 in the FCA’s senior management arrangements systems and controls sourcebook requires pension providers to
“arrange for orderly records to be kept of its business and internal organisation, including all services and transactions undertaken by it, which must be sufficient to enable the FCA … to monitor the firm’s compliance”.
If a scheme fails to meet these requirements, the FCA will select the most appropriate regulatory tool in the circumstances. Responses are proportionate and could include supervisory intervention.
Where enforcement action is deemed appropriate, the FCA aims to ensure that the sanction is sufficient to deter the firm or individual from reoffending and deter others from offending. Where it takes disciplinary action against a firm or an individual, it will consider all its available sanctions, redress and restitution powers, including public censure, financial penalty, prohibition, suspension or restriction orders; it has quite an armoury.
Regarding occupational pension schemes, trustees and managers are also required under existing legislation to put processes in place to ensure that the data they hold is accurate. Section 249A of the Pensions Act 2004 and the internal controls regulations 2005 require occupational pension scheme trustees to establish and operate internal controls that are adequate to ensure that the scheme is administered and managed in accordance with scheme rules and the law.
If a pension scheme fails to administer the scheme to a sufficient standard, or to comply with any other aspect of pensions legislation, the Pensions Regulator is able to issue an improvement notice. Where trustees fail to comply with an improvement notice, the regulator can issue a fine of up to £5,000 in the case of an individual or £50,000 in other cases.
My noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, stressed the importance of promoting data quality on dashboards to scheme providers. Pension trustees and providers have been aware of our intention to introduce dashboards for some time now. We have been clear that they should start preparing their data now. The Pensions Regulator has increased its scrutiny of scheme records in recent years, and launched a specific targeted initiative in October 2019. It will take time to resolve data issues, which have in some cases been ongoing for decades, but the regulator is seeing good results from its engagement. There is still work to do, as my noble friend will be the first to agree.
An in-depth understanding of the challenges that pension schemes and providers will face in complying with compulsion is essential. The industry delivery group has therefore commissioned specialist independent and qualitative research. This will be conducted on a completely anonymous basis and will explore the challenges of meeting the requirements on data through deep-dive interviews with sample pension providers and schemes. This builds on the Pension Regulator’s insight. It will inform the delivery group’s recommendations for data requirements, taking into account the needs of different scheme types. It may be helpful to my noble friend if I note that, as part of the delivery group’s activity, a priority is to consider these specific items of people’s pensions data, which pension providers and schemes should supply for dashboard displays.
Experiences from other countries with dashboards indicate the importance of agreeing data standards with all industry stakeholders and the benefits of using the widest possible consumer research. The industry delivery group, working with its steering group, is developing a data-scope paper, which will highlight its latest thinking on dashboards’ data across the whole pensions industry. The IDG plans to publish this paper in due course, asking industry for feedback and, in particular, its provision of additional evidence where it exists.
The first iteration of the industry working group on data will effectively involve the whole industry before a small, focused working group will then refine this data thinking as we move on through the spring. I therefore hope that my noble friend can be reassured that the process that we have in mind has several stages to it, that they are logical stages, and that they should tease out the issues that she has very rightly drawn attention to in her remarks.
I hope that I have illustrated that the current obligations placed on schemes by the FCA and TPR, together with the enforcement powers which both regulators have, combined with the work that I have just described, are sufficient to ensure that the schemes will provide accurate data to the dashboard. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment at this stage.
Baroness Altmann
I thank my noble friend very much for his response. I said that this was a probing amendment, and I recognise that, in theory, such powers appear to exist. In practice, they do not seem to be used and there seems to be rather a reliance on self-reporting, which clearly has not produced the accuracy that one might wish. I am delighted that our honourable friend the Pensions Minister has been raising the issue of the need for accurate contributions. We need to encourage pension schemes to get going on cleansing the data. They do not need to wait for any regulations or legislation. If they already have the duty, perhaps they should just get going.
I also accept, and am delighted to hear, that the industry delivery group is working on some qualitative research and data standards. I have to express my concern that in 2015, there was an agreed data standard practice; unfortunately, the industry decided not to adopt it. I hope that there will be a different attitude this time to the importance of pension scheme data.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment but I hope that this debate has at least raised the issue. Perhaps it may encourage some schemes to get on with data cleansing and have the regulators looking more closely at it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Pension dashboards: impact assessment
Within six months of the passing of this Act the Secretary of State must lay an impact assessment before each House of Parliament setting out the expected costs of the provisions of this Part for businesses, and governmental and non-profit organisations.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 72 would require the Secretary of State to lay an impact assessment before Parliament, once the Bill becomes an Act, setting out the expected costs of our pension dashboard proposals for businesses, government and not-for-profit organisations. I envisage the assessment covering business pensions, civil service pensions—of which I am lucky enough to be a beneficiary—and other government unfunded schemes such as the old-age pension, which we were discussing, along with funded government schemes, such as the universities pension scheme, and the pensions of non-governmental bodies: charities such as Oxfam or small not-for-profits such as Red Tractor, which I chair.
I start by thanking the Minister for the helpful briefing that she arranged with the Bill manager and the DWP team on the Pension Schemes Bill 2020 impact assessment. They have tried hard to respect the spirit of impact assessment, which allows Ministers and Parliament to address costs alongside the case for new legislation. The page numbering is confusing, but I found the document, particularly the section on dashboards, which is more than half way through, timely and informative. That is not always the case with the legislation that we scrutinise, so well done.
My concern today is that not enough attention is being given in our discussions to the costs of the new dashboards and that all the debates so far in this Committee—everything stretching from the climate change provisions debated last week to the long list in Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles—are likely to increase them further.
Baroness Drake
I certainly agree with the spirit behind the amendment—that transparency is a good thing and that the costs should be known—but I just hesitate over how the costs are looked at. One would think from some of the debates that I have participated in that I am reluctant to harness financial technology, but that is absolutely not the case. I am very pro it; I just want it done well.
I spoke at an industry event the other day. I will not name the person but it was the first time I had heard the CEO of a major financial organisation say, absolutely correctly, that a single piece of public policy—auto-enrolment—brought billions of pounds into the financial services industry which providers themselves did not achieve. I am conscious that the industry is very aware of its costs but it benefited hugely from a simple piece of public policy, and I found it quite rewarding that there was recognition of that. I have often said that all this money is coming in because the state took the decision to use the private sector to deliver a second-tier pension and therefore it has a wider responsibility for delivering a big piece of public policy.
I am not saying how one should do it, but it would be wrong not to attribute to the cost of the pension dashboard costs that should be incurred anyway. Where you start in looking at costs influences what they aggregate to. Getting the data accurate in order for the dashboard to work has to be done anyway. You cannot make a profit on inaccurate data. I know that that has been the model for a long time but it is not the correct model; it is a dysfunction in the market. On the trust-based side, the Pensions Regulator is driving, and is required to drive that occupational trust-based schemes and master trusts increase the accuracy of their data. If you are auto-enrolling somebody into a product, the least you should do is provide them with accurate data about what they have accrued. I would not want to attribute to the costs of the dashboard something that the industry and pension schemes should be doing anyway, which is getting their data accurate. It is indefensible to say, “It’s an unacceptable cost to require us to get our data accurate.” If they were told, “You’ve got to get it 100% as opposed to 99.9% accurate,” that might be unreasonable within the timescale, but that should be at the heart of providing pensions, whether contractually, by trust or whatever.
Also, the sector has a duty to harness what is available in financial technology so that people can access more easily what is available. I agree that there should be this visibility, but I make a plea. Some of these things required by the dashboard should be done anyway, and some are being driven to be done by regulators. We must not overstate the costs attributable to the dashboard when they would be incurred anyway to meet other government priorities or the efficient operating of pension schemes or market providers. That is my only hesitation.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
I am a big supporter of auto-enrolment, which has been transformative and helps with this long-term problem of providing for old age. The cleaning of data is not a big aspect of the impact assessment I read, although I am sure that we will be advised on that by the department. A lot of it is setting the things up. It is good that data is gradually being tidied up. We must ensure that the system is clean for the future.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden
I am staggered by the numbers on the cost of doing this that are bandied around. As far as I can see, the main work here is formatting data into a consistent format so that it can be uploaded to whichever platform it needs to be uploaded to. Frankly, the creation of a platform is pretty trivial stuff. It is not dramatically different to what happened with open banking in that respect; that was a question of formatting data and ensuring that it was in a consistent format. Do we have any idea of the open banking process costs so that we can compare them—and, if they are dramatically different, ask why?
Baroness Altmann
I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Drake. A number of elements of the expense shown in the impact assessment are elements that one would have hoped that the industry would take upon itself in any case. I sometimes need to remind providers that automatic enrolment has been an absolute gift to them. It has brought them 10 million new customers on a plate, with all the associated tax relief money. Surely they need to take an obligation upon themselves to modernise their processes and bring their IT into the 21st century. The standard answer is: “It’ll cost too much”, or, “We’ve got our own system, we don’t want to change to a new one”, but in Australia, the Government mandated a particular system that everybody had to adopt so that there was a common standard. It worked very well. My noble friend suggested that the industry delivery group is working on such a potential procedure, which would be excellent. It would incur costs but it would set the industry up for much more business in future on a long-term, sustainable basis.
Earl Howe
I am grateful to my noble friend for raising this important issue.
The Government published impact assessments for each measure in the Bill at its introduction. As is usual practice, we will publish updated impact assessments when the Bill is enacted, setting out the impacts of any material amendments to the Bill. I assure my noble friend that for measures where regulations that are subject to consultation are required, we will publish impact assessments when those regulations are brought forward. This must be the most beneficial time to revisit the impacts, when further policy detail is set out and we are able to apply that element of further insight to our estimates of costs and benefits. I suggest that adding another impact assessment between Royal Assent and the laying of the regulations would not provide any further transparency.
Turning to dashboards specifically, the Government are well aware of the additional costs necessary to support the set-up and maintenance of pensions dashboards. As my noble friend knows, when we published an impact assessment that accompanied the Bill, we set out initial estimates of the possible costs. However, we should recognise that many schemes already provide similar levels of information directly to their consumer through annual benefit statements or digital platforms, so not all schemes will necessarily incur significant additional costs.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
As I said right at the beginning, I value the work that the department has already done on this matter and the thought that it has given to it. I very much agree about the value of the single pension finder which reduces multiple costs. On climate change, I was not really commenting on the Government’s amendment as much as on the additional amendments that have been suggested and on many amendments on different areas. The point I am making is that often things seem a very good idea, but when they are added together, they bring cost and complexity. I feel that the spirit of this discussion is that we should avoid that to the extent that we can and bring in a simple system in a staged way. As noble Lords know, I always worry about small businesses, small operators and small charities because they find these things very difficult. I am delighted to hear that the Government have brought in outside advice from PwC. We will be looking at that in terms of what might be done and how it might be sequenced. If the Minister would like any assistance, I have a lot of experience of difficult tales from small businesses. I thank my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
“Climate change risk
(1) The Pensions Act 1995 is amended as follows.(2) After section 41 insert—“41A Climate change risk(1) Regulations may impose requirements on the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme of a prescribed description with a view to securing that there is effective governance of the scheme with respect to the effects of climate change.(2) The effects of climate change in relation to which provision may be made under subsection (1) include, in particular—(a) risks arising from steps taken because of climate change (whether by governments or otherwise), and(b) opportunities relating to climate change.(3) The requirements which may be imposed by the regulations include, in particular, requirements about—(a) reviewing the exposure of the scheme to risks of a prescribed description;(b) assessing the assets of the scheme in a prescribed manner;(c) determining, reviewing and (if necessary) revising a strategy for managing the scheme’s exposure to risks of a prescribed description; (d) determining, reviewing and (if necessary) revising targets relating to the scheme’s exposure to risks of a prescribed description;(e) measuring performance against such targets;(f) preparing documents containing information of a prescribed description.(4) Regulations under subsection (3)(b) may, in particular, require assets to be assessed by reference to their exposure to risks of a prescribed description and may, for the purposes of such an assessment, require the contribution of such assets to climate change to be determined.(5) In complying with requirements imposed by the regulations, a trustee or manager must have regard to guidance prepared from time to time by the Secretary of State.41B Climate change risk: publication of information(1) Regulations may require the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme of a prescribed description to publish information of a prescribed description relating to the effects of climate change on the scheme. (2) Regulations under subsection (1) may, among other things—(a) require the trustees or managers to publish a document of a prescribed description;(b) require information or a document to be made available free of charge;(c) require information or a document to be provided in a form that is or by means that are prescribed or of a prescribed description.(3) In complying with requirements imposed by the regulations, a trustee or manager must have regard to guidance prepared from time to time by the Secretary of State.41C Sections 41A and 41B: compliance(1) Regulations may make provision with a view to ensuring compliance with a provision of regulations under section 41A or 41B.(2) The regulations may in particular—(a) provide for the Authority to issue a notice (a “compliance notice”) to a person with a view to ensuring the person’s compliance with a provision of regulations under section 41A or 41B;(b) provide for the Authority to issue a notice (a “third party compliance notice”) to a person with a view to ensuring another person’s compliance with a provision of regulations under section 41A or 41B;(c) provide for the Authority to issue a notice (a “penalty notice”) imposing a penalty on a person where the Authority are of the opinion that the person—(i) has failed to comply with a compliance notice or third party compliance notice, or(ii) has contravened a provision of regulations under section 41A or 41B;(d) provide for the making of a reference to the First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal in respect of the issue of a penalty notice or the amount of a penalty;(e) confer other functions on the Authority.(3) The regulations may make provision for determining the amount, or the maximum amount, of a penalty in respect of a failure or contravention.(4) But the amount of a penalty imposed under the regulations in respect of a failure or contravention must not exceed— (a) £5,000, in the case of an individual, and(b) £50,000, in any other case.”(3) In section 116 (breach of regulations), in subsection (3)(b), after “10” insert “or under provision contained in regulations made by virtue of section 41C ”.(4) In section 175 (Parliamentary control of orders and regulations)—(a) in subsection (1), after “(2)” insert “, (2A)”;(b) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) A statutory instrument which contains the first regulations made by virtue of section 41A or 41C must not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment imposes requirements on trustees and managers of certain occupational pension schemes as regards taking into account the effects of climate change and publishing information relating to those effects.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends to unfunded public service defined benefits schemes the requirement that prescribed conditions are satisfied before trustees or managers may use a cash equivalent to buy into other pension arrangements.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott)
My Lords, Amendment 77 seeks to extend the scope of Clause 124 to include transfers from unfunded public sector schemes: those where the pension promised is underwritten by the Exchequer. This amendment ensures parity of protection for those members of unfunded public service schemes.
Clause 124 relates to cash equivalent transfer rights and amends Section 95 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993. It provides the Secretary of State with a power to make regulations that can place new conditions on a member’s statutory right to transfer their pension rights to another scheme. This amendment seeks to ensure that members of unfunded public sector schemes can exercise their statutory right to transfer only once the conditions to be specified in the regulations made under this clause are satisfied. The intention is to apply the same conditions to transfers from unfunded pension schemes as will be applied to transfers from other pension schemes. These conditions can include the member providing evidence or information about their employment link with a pension scheme or their residency overseas.
Pension transfers from unfunded public sector schemes are rare. No concerns in relation to scams were raised during the 2016 government consultation, so transfers from unfunded pension schemes were not included in the original draft clause. The Department for Work and Pensions has since been made aware of criminals trying to set up a scheme that can receive unfunded pension transfers, so we believe this amendment is necessary to safeguard members of unfunded schemes from fraud. Amendment 99 mirrors the provision for Northern Ireland in paragraph 12 of Schedule 11. It is essential to provide the same protection when transferring savings to members of unfunded public sector schemes as those saving in other pension arrangements. For these reasons, I beg to move Amendment 77 standing in my name.
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s amendment and will speak to my Amendment 78, which is grouped here. I fully agree with her that it is important to protect members’ pensions on transfer, whether they come from one type of scheme or another. I am delighted to see the government amendment and its intent.
My amendment would do something that I have sought for a time, and I wondered whether we might be able to get it into the Bill. It relates to partners of pension scheme members who transfer their pension from one scheme to another. One hears so often of a divorced couple where the wife has no pension of her own and has sometimes even had a pension-sharing order. However, when the member’s pension is transferred as a cash-equivalent transfer value, there is currently no mechanism to ensure that the spouse, who clearly has an interest in potentially half that amount, is made aware that that is happening. Of course, once the money has been transferred, should the previous partner have ill intent, it is possible that the spouse—usually the wife—will be left pensionless when in fact she had expected to share the partner’s pension.
This is a probing amendment. I support my noble friend’s amendments and would be grateful to hear whether any other Members of the Committee are interested in this type of protection, which we might be able to request be inserted in the Bill, so that if somebody calls up to transfer their pension, some procedure is in place before that is done to ensure that anyone else with an interest in the pension has given their consent or has at least been informed, which does not always happen.
Baroness Janke (LD)
I have some amendments which we will come to later concerning similar issues. I very much support this amendment. The briefing that we had from the ABI gave us quite an insight into the way that women suffer as a result of not having a proper pension settlement. I very much welcome Amendment 78, which seeks to get the spouse’s permission for the transfer of a pension.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, there are three amendments in this group. Amendment 78, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, focuses on the evidence of a member’s spouse’s consent when a transfer is to be made. We believe that this amendment has considerable merit and are supportive of it. Quite what the technicalities that come to confront us might be remain to be seen, but certainly we should seek to make progress on it.
Regarding the other two amendments in this group, Amendment 99 is simply the Northern Ireland equivalent of Amendment 77, which, as we have heard, deals with unfunded public service DB schemes. I am alarmed to hear that without this amendment they would be attacked by some source. That is rather worrying. Regarding the prescribed conditions that must be satisfied for the purposes of the provision, can the Minister outline what those might contain?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I thank my noble friend Lady Altmann for tabling her Amendment 78, which introduces further conditions to the right to transfer. It would require the consent of a current or ex-spouse or civil partner of the member before a trustee or scheme manager could transfer a member’s savings. This condition would apply where the member was getting divorced or dissolving their civil partnership or might do so in the future. It would therefore apply to all members who might seek to transfer and are married or in a civil partnership.
The amendment would introduce unnecessary and onerous conditions into new legislation. Options already exist for those who seek a financial settlement on divorce or the dissolution of a civil partnership. The law identifies when pensions should be taken into account as part of a financial settlement on divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership, and the courts will make the final decision if there is no agreed settlement.
Where a couple are negotiating a financial settlement on divorce or dissolution of a civil partnership, they are obliged to disclose all assets, including pensions. The process includes provisions to compel disclosure where the court is concerned that the financial disclosure might not be honest or complete. The amendment introduces a radical precedent where someone other than the member will determine the final use of their financial asset without a court order or notice being in place. It is not a requirement for individuals to seek their spouse or civil partner’s consent in respect of other financial assets, such as sole name bank accounts. Why then would we include such a requirement in pension legislation?
In addition, the amendment would place additional burdens on trustees to verify that the spouse or civil partner consents to the transfer. In doing so, it risks causing a conflict with the trustee or manager’s fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of members.
The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked about types of pension and the name of the scheme, and said that people might lose out in a divorce settlement. Both persons in a couple are obliged to declare assets when coming to a financial settlement in the context of the dissolution of their relationship.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My question related to Amendment 77 and unfunded public service DB schemes where there is a requirement for prescribed conditions to be satisfied before trustees or managers can use the cash equivalent. I sought to determine what those prescribed conditions might be.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
In the circumstances, I will write to the noble Lord if he will allow me.
In conclusion, for the reasons I have outlined, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Drake
This has become more problematic because of pension freedom. Before that, you could not quickly rush to play Gauguin in Tahiti and disappear, taking all your money with you, because you could not get it out in that way. At the age of 55, you can now do that if the taxman can chase you for the marginal rate of tax. There were partners, particularly women, who had certain protections in DB. In DC, at least the requirement to annuitise left some mechanism to temper this problem, although it did not deal exclusively with it. Pension freedom has transformed that.
I know that we will come later to the issue of gender and pensions—where I suspect that we will come back to this issue, among others—but there is a real issue here for partners, particularly women. If the person with the pension chooses simply to take the cash and go, once that has happened, it is very difficult for the partner to protect themselves or do anything about it. That is the underlying tension.
Baroness Sherlock
My Lords, I want to ask a question before the Minister comes back on this. In her reply, she gave a rather forceful defence of the current situation and directed the Committee’s attention to the courts as a means of settling this. However, she made the point that an agreement on pension sharing may already be in place. The problem is that this allows an agreement that had previously been reached to be frustrated by someone taking advantage of the pension freedoms. If the Minister does not like the way that this is being is sold, will she go back to the department and ask for some advice on whether there is a problem here? Then, when we come back on Wednesday, we can at least have a conversation about whether we agree that there is a problem here, and then we can think about the best way to address it.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
The suggestion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, is very helpful. I would be happy to do that before we come back to this on Wednesday.
Baroness Altmann
I thank my noble friend for her reply, which does not come as a surprise to me. I also thank noble Lords for their useful contributions.
I believe that there may be an issue here. I hope that the department will consider it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, specifically said, things are different now with pension freedoms, whether for DB or DC. If there is a pension-sharing order and a member transfers out of their DB scheme and takes a cash equivalent transfer value when their spouse had relied on a guaranteed pension income from half of that defined benefit pension, now that we have the freedoms, that pension could be dissipated. Certainly, a cash-equivalent transfer value, in terms of buying an annuity with an inflation protection to replace the income that could be lost, is not likely to be financially feasible. I accept that this would be an extra burden and that it would need careful consideration. I echo the request from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that the department considers this and sees whether there is a way of protecting these women. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Sharkey
“Consumer protection on pension drawdown or transfer
(1) Pension scheme providers must not comply with an application of a member of a scheme to transfer their funds out of the scheme into another pension or to exercise the right to take a cash equivalent transfer (under section 94 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993) unless –(a) the member demonstrates that he or she has received independent financial advice from an authorised or regulated independent adviser pertaining to the proposed transfer out of the scheme or exercising the right to cash equivalent, or (b) 60 days have elapsed since the application was made in writing, or(c) the member has provided responses to approved questions laid down in regulations to ascertain whether the member has detailed knowledge of the scheme to which rights are being transferred and whether the provenance of the transfer request originated from an unsolicited phone call or other unsolicited communication.(2) The condition in subsection (1)(a) may be satisfied by written confirmation from Pension Wise that they have given guidance to the member either orally or by other means relating to this transfer or cash equivalent transfer request.”
Lord Sharkey
My Lords, many of the problems faced by our pensions system are to do with drawdown and transfer, some of which we have just discussed. This amendment would introduce a cooling-off period to help to reduce these problems and increase the frequency of taking independent financial advice and Pension Wise guidance.
The FCA recently surveyed our pensions landscape in its excellent Sector Views, published two weeks ago. The introduction noted:
“Key issues causing consumer harm include unsuitable advice, the sale of unsuitable products, poor value across the value chain and pension scams.”
The gravity of these things led the regulator to conclude:
“From a wider perspective, the prospect that consumers may not get a retirement income that meets their needs or expectations remains the central challenge.”
This is entirely appropriate, given the scale of consumer harm.
The review estimates that unsuitable transfers out of DB schemes could collectively result in losses of up to £20 billion-worth of guarantees over five years, that consumers making unsuitable product choices in retirement could also collectively lose £20 billion from unsuitable investment strategies over five years, and that more than 15 million consumers of NWP pensions and retirement income products could be affected by poor value pension products. The compound effect of high charges could lead to consumer benefits being reduced by more than £40 billion over five years.
All this is worrying enough, but on top of this, there are the scams. Consumers who are scammed lose, on average, 22 years’ worth of pension savings. That is around £82,000 each. There are also warnings for the future from Australia’s more mature DC market. There we see that economies of scale are not being passed on to consumers and that poorly governed investments in alternative asset classes are leading to lower returns. There are also higher costs associated with the proliferation of small pots, created each time a worker moves jobs.
All these factors are at play now in the UK, and we have special factors of our own to contend with. For example, the FCA has found that 29% of pension transfer advice was unsuitable and that 23% was unclear— or, to put that another way, more than 50% of transfer advice was unsatisfactory. The FCA planned to write to 1,841 financial advisers about potential harm in their DB transfer advice. That is 76% of all advising firms—a truly alarming development and an unacceptably large number.
The problem with bad advice is a present and clear danger; so is the problem with unadvised and unguided drawdowns and transfers. Since we last addressed this problem in the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill, FCA data suggests that more than 645,000 people have accessed their pensions. Of these, only a tiny 15% are believed to have had a Pension Wise appointment before accessing their benefits. More than half of the pensions accessed by savers for the first time between April 2018 and March 2019 saw the saver withdraw the maximum amount. Perhaps even more worryingly, the FCA’s latest data shows that for retirees taking a regular income from their pensions, 40% were taking out cash at an unsustainably high withdrawal rate of 8%-plus. This 40% rises to 63% for those with funds of less than £50,000. That is the road to destitution.
Baroness Altmann
My Lords, I have added my name to this amendment, which is a very important amendment in the context of consumer protection. As the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, has so excellently explained, the amendment is an attempt to ensure protection, particularly against scams. What we tried and succeeded in doing during the passage of the Financial Guidance and Claims Act was to pass an amendment that would automatically see people before they transfer money out of a pension—or withdraw money from a pension—receiving at least the independent, impartial guidance that was originally intended to accompany the pension freedoms. When they were introduced, the aim was for everybody to be able to have this impartial guidance so they did not do the wrong thing and understood the risks of taking money out too quickly. This is another line of defence for the consumer given that that amendment, which was passed in the Lords, did not make it into the Bill. It was taken out in the Commons.
One line of defence would obviously be if someone has an authorised adviser or can demonstrate that they have received independent advice. A second line of defence would be the providers themselves asking a few very basic, approved questions: “Are you asking to transfer out because of an unsolicited communication of some kind?”, and, “Do you know anything about the scheme you are transferring into?”. The provider could ask two or three basic questions; should those questions raise red flags, there would be an opportunity to protect the member before they transferred out. Other than that, there is a 60-day limit because, again, scams normally require you to transfer your money very quickly.
I hope that there may be some consideration of the importance of this protection and the use of Pension Wise in the way that it was originally intended. As we look to introduce a new Pension Schemes Act, we might find ways in which we can enhance the consumer protection that I know my noble friend understands is so important.
Lord McKenzie of Luton
My Lords, this amendment goes to the heart of protecting people’s pensions. We have touched upon a number of issues surrounding the same sort of concepts during debate on the Bill and in other legislation, such as financial guidance provisions. We should see whether we cannot get together a comprehensive note of how these things are covered. I am bound to say I am unclear as to what is and is not covered in all circumstances, so it seems that would be beneficial.
Concerning the specifics of the amendment, we clearly give it broad support. It raises practical issues, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, would identify, particularly on responding to approved questions. I am not sure who is on hand when the questions are being asked. We have seen what happened with taxi licences and such things in the past. The provision could give rise to challenges but the thrust is right: it is another attempt to make sure that people are aware of the consequences of what they do, to the fullest extent possible. As I say, I am not sure whether we have a comprehensive arrangement yet across all pensions and circumstances. It seems that it would be worth some effort to try to get that into place. With those words, I am happy to it give broad support. When the Minister replies, I am sure there will be some stumbling blocks in it but if we do not keep pushing and shoving, we are not going to make progress on this.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and my noble friend Lady Altmann for tabling this amendment because it provides me with an opportunity to update the Committee on the progress that the Department for Work and Pensions, the Financial Conduct Authority and the Money and Pensions Service have made on delivering the stronger nudge to pensions guidance. As noble Lords are aware, this is a requirement of Sections 18 and 19 of the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018.
Before that, however, I would like to talk briefly about the take-up of Pension Wise guidance, which is a very positive story. The service is on target to exceed 200,000 guidance sessions this financial year, more than tripling those in its first year of operation. Recent Financial Conduct Authority data suggests that 52% of personal and stakeholder pensions accessed for the first time in 2018-19 received either regulated advice or Pension Wise guidance. That clearly demonstrates that the work the Money and Pensions Service, Government and the industry are already doing to promote both Pension Wise guidance and regulated financial advice is working.
I would like to talk about the measures in the Financial Guidance and Claims Act 2018 which were designed to further increase the take-up of Pension Wise guidance. Sections 18 and 19 require the Government to deliver a stronger nudge to pensions guidance. As the Committee is aware, MaPS is testing options for the best way to do that, in a way that complements the suggestions made by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, during the passage of the Act that his amendment was
“designed to be a nudge, rather than any kind of probably unenforceable or counterproductive compulsion.”—[Official Report, 31/10/17; col. 1294.]
As noble Lords are also aware, the drafting of Sections 18 and 19 was influenced by the Work and Pensions Select Committee. Following trials, those sections will deliver a final nudge to consumers to consider taking guidance prior to accessing their pension.
The Government firmly believe that, to effectively prompt more people to take guidance before accessing their pension where it is appropriate, we need to understand the impact of the nudge, and ensure that we avoid creating perverse incentives. We do not disagree with the principles of the amendment—work is already under way to establish how best to ensure that people thinking about accessing their pensions are encouraged to take guidance. We believe it is essential to use the evidence base that the trials on a stronger nudge will provide, and to consult before implementing the primary legislation in the Act. We would welcome the thoughts of the noble Lord and my noble friend on the proposals in the consultation.
The trials to test the most effective way to deliver on Sections 18 and 19 are due to conclude shortly, and an evaluation report is expected to be published by MaPS this summer. We are working to deliver on the requirements of the Act as quickly as possible, and as such we are already preparing for a public consultation this year. The Financial Conduct Authority will also consult on rules that have regard to these regulations, to make sure that there is consistency between occupational pensions and personal and stakeholder pensions.
The noble Lord seeks to require a member to provide responses to questions before a transfer can proceed. The effect of the amendment is that trustees would have the power to refuse a transfer should members’ responses not meet the conditions which the amendment proposes should be set in regulations. I assure him that the Government are already introducing conditions that seek to safeguard members against the risk of being defrauded. That change will strengthen trustees’ discretion in respect of transfers. Transfers were discussed in the earlier debate on Clause 124. The Government are amending members’ statutory right to transfer, to allow conditions to be imposed for transfers between schemes. That is aimed at ensuring that transfers are made to safe destinations. Non-statutory transfers can still take place, if the scheme rules allow. However, the amendment puts responsibility on members, not trustees, to assess the appropriateness of the receiving scheme. If the questions to be asked of members are specified in regulations, as proposed new subsection (1)(c) requires, an unintended consequence could be that fraudsters will be enabled to game the system. Members could be coached to provide answers that lead to transfers that should have been refused.
As noble Lords will recall, we have banned cold calling on pensions in legislation and established Project Bloom: a joint task force between government, regulators and law enforcement to share intelligence, raise awareness of scams through communications campaigns, and take enforcement action when appropriate. The FCA and the Pensions Regulator launched the latest ScamSmart advertising campaign on 1 July 2019, which has targeted those approaching retirement, as they were identified as being most at risk from scammers. There is also an FCA warning list, an online tool that helps investors check if a firm is operating with the right authorisation and find out more about risks associated with investment.
The noble Lord raised a specific concern about transferring out of DB schemes. Since January 2018, following its work on the British Steel pension scheme, the FCA has been working closely with both the Pensions Regulator and the Money and Pensions Service to ensure that it monitors pension transfer activity in DB pension schemes that might be subject to increased transfer activity. Also since January 2018, the FCA has issued tripartite letters to over 50 defined benefit pension scheme trustees. The tripartite letter reminds scheme trustees of their responsibilities when issuing transfer values to members and requests them to provide data that allows it to monitor scheme activity. On 21 January 2019, the FCA published a new protocol for how the three organisations—the FCA, TPR and MaPS—will work together to share information and work with pension scheme trustees, and that protocol addresses many of the recommendations made in the Rookes report.
I want to touch on one other point raised briefly by the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. He suggested that the new pension freedoms might be encouraging people to draw down savings too fast, putting them at risk of scams. In fact, the Financial Conduct Authority’s Retirement Outcomes Review did not find significant evidence of consumers drawing down their savings too fast. The study’s findings, published in June 2018, found that most of those withdrawing had some other form of retirement income or wealth.
Clearly, it is of the utmost importance that information and guidance are available to people and that they are aware of it. That is why there are now more opportunities for people to access guidance earlier in the pensions journey. Alongside the stronger final nudge trials, Pension Wise continues to run successful advertising campaigns across multiple channels, as well as working with employers nationally and locally to encourage them to engage with their employees at their place of work. The Financial Conduct Authority’s “wake-up” packs also encourage people to think about their pension options and include signposting to Pension Wise.
I reassure noble Lords that we are very aware of the importance of the need to make progress with implementing the requirements placed on government, the Money and Pensions Service and the Financial Conduct Authority, as set out in the Act. Our aim is to find an effective and proportionate way to do this.
To conclude, I accept that this work might not have progressed as quickly as perhaps noble Lords would like, but that is for a good reason. I believe it is very important to get this right and ensure that the policy is developed based on evidence. We always talk about evidence-based policy and this is a classic example of that. The trials will conclude very shortly and will be followed by an evaluation report. We will consult this year and will seek to lay regulations as soon as possible after that, alongside the rules that will be made by the Financial Conduct Authority.
For the reasons I have explained, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharkey
I am very grateful to the Minister for that very comprehensive answer. There are one or two observations that I would like to make about components of the answer. We seem to disagree about quite what the reach of Pension Wise is. The Minister quoted a composite figure of, I think, about 52% in Pension Wise and other advice. The figure that I had was, as I said earlier, about 15% using Pension Wise.
I was also interested in the comment about whether the current drawdown rate was sustainable. The Minister might recall that in the original discussions on the pension freedoms Bill, the foreseen sustainable drawdown rate was 3%. Now, it is running at 6% and 8% for pots under £50,000. Although I admit that I might be mistaken about this, I think that the FCA may in fact have said that 6% was not sustainable in the longer term either. Therefore, I think that there are warning signs about the rate of drawdown.
I had one other question about the nudge programme. I know that two schemes are being tested against each other, in an absolute sense as well, but when this programme was designed, did it incorporate a level of success at which a rollout would be justified? I would be interested to know if that were the case—I think it should be—and what the number was for these schemes. What would trigger a rollout nationally of these two small tests? I mentioned the FCA and the investment pathways initiative. Can the Minister write to me with more detail of what is happening with investment pathways; that sounded a very promising way of coming at the problem.
Finally, there is the question of timing. Timing is behind a lot of what I was saying. It is a long time since we started on the Financial Guidance and Claims Bill and debated all this thoroughly here and in the other place. We are still not in a position to do as much as we wanted about providing guidance or advice at drawdown. A very long time has elapsed, and I have demonstrated the harms being done to consumers in the meantime by ill-judged drawdowns or transfers. I continue to worry that these timetables will slip and the harms will continue. I am reassured by the Minister expecting a result from the nudges in summer—which I take to be ending in September—and then to move as quickly as we can to implement it, if it is a success. Perhaps he and I can have a conversation later; I would be interested to know what plan B is, because it is possible that neither of those nudge trials produces what is needed. Having said all that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Oaths and Affirmations
Artistic Content: Copyright Protection
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that United Kingdom creators of artistic content have the same level of copyright protection as those working in the European Union.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, UK copyright works, such as books, films and music, will continue to be protected in both the EU and the UK because of the UK’s participation in the international treaties on copyright.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, in contrast to the Government’s present intention not to implement the copyright directive, the Culture Minister, Nigel Adams, said in January:
“It is imperative that we do everything possible to protect our brilliant creators”.—[Official Report, Commons, 21/1/20; col. 56WH.]
Does the Minister recognise that creative workers are crucial to the success of the UK’s creative industries; that many rely on payments related to copyright to sustain their careers; and that the new rights in the copyright directive, for which they fought hard to be included, are absolutely essential? These include transparency, contract adjustment and, of course, fair remuneration. Should these not now be introduced in UK law?
Lord Callanan
As the noble Lord will be aware, the UK has now left the EU and the transition period will end on 31 December. This means that the UK is not required to implement the copyright directive, but the UK has one of the strongest copyright protection frameworks in the world. Many of these are subject to international treaties, which we will continue to be members of. We will continue to value the creative sector; of course its work should be recognised.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, the creative industries will face major problems when we finally leave Europe. Is the Minister working with the industry to do something about visas, which are a particular problem for travelling artists?
Lord Callanan
The visa system will be the subject of negotiation. The UK is about to implement a new immigration system, but we will, of course, want to continue to co-operate closely with our friends in the EU on these matters. Artists will continue to want to transfer backwards and forwards for their work.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, with respect to the Question, will culture, media and arts services be included in future trade deals with the US, with which we already have a close cultural relationship in the performing arts?
Lord Callanan
As the noble Earl will be aware, most trade deals contain a number of paragraphs on cultural exchanges and creative industries. I am sure that that will be the case with the EU agreement and with the US agreement.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, with the onward march of the digital revolution and our pre-eminence in artistic areas such as music and arts, copyright is becoming ever more important. Can the Minister give us an assurance that intellectual property has a high priority in policy-making for this Government? However we attack that in any particular trade deal, the overall point is to protect our artistic success and endeavour everywhere.
Lord Callanan
Of course, my noble friend makes a very important point. As I said earlier, we have one of the strongest copyright protection frameworks in the world. Many of these are subject to international agreements, such as the TRIPS agreement. We will continue to engage in international fora and make sure that artists and creators have protection for their works.
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, a number of different ministries have commented on this, as my noble friend pointed out, including BEIS and DCMS. Am I to conclude from the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, is speaking to this that BEIS will be accountable for this and will be the ministry that makes sure that people—including, I should say, people in my family—who work in this industry get paid? If they do not, they need to know who is accountable.
Lord Callanan
Yes, BEIS is responsible for intellectual property and copyright, but of course there is considerable input from DCMS concerning the creative industries. DCMS is taking forward a creative industries forum and various round tables with content providers and social media platforms, et cetera. So it lies across the two departments.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that unless Article 17 or an equivalent measure is introduced, creative personnel in this country are going to be disadvantaged relative to how they would have been had we stayed in the EU, and certainly in comparison with their counterparts in the EU, which was the basis of the Question? Is this not a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face? Why would we not want to make sure that those who are earning benefits from the cultural industries for this country and for themselves are able to earn, and that their copyrights are not being ripped off by the tech giants, as is currently happening?
Lord Callanan
We will continue to advocate for the rights of the creative industries. We shall see how the copyright directive is implemented and how the various enforcement regimes within it will work, but of course it is not possible for us to remain part of it, because we will not accept the jurisdiction of the CJEU in these matters. We will see how it works and will continue to keep the matter under review. It is of course a matter for this Parliament to determine how our copyright protection framework goes forward.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, at a time when royalties are being cut at almost every level—I include the BBC in this—it is more essential than ever that the creators of intellectual property are able to reap some sort of reward. What alarmed me slightly about the Minister’s replies was that he kept using words such as “hope” and “expect”. That is not so good for those of us who have to know that we can pay our bills.
Lord Callanan
We should be proud in this country: we have one of the strongest copyright protection frameworks in the world, as I said earlier. Many of these matters, as the noble Lord will be aware, are the subject of international agreements and we will continue to engage in those fora to make sure that creators get the value of their works.
Organ Trafficking: Sanctions
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the response by Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon on 23 January (HL Deb, col 1148), whether the proposed United Kingdom autonomous global human rights Magnitsky-style sanctions regime will apply to persons engaged in (1) illegal organ trafficking, or (2) obtaining organs for transplant without consent.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, we will soon lay secondary legislation for the UK’s first autonomous sanctions regime under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. The work is complex, and it is important to take the time to get this right. This sanctions regime will allow us to impose sanctions in response to serious human rights violations or abuses around the world. As it is not yet in force, it would be inappropriate to comment on the specific aspects of the scope.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome what the Minister has said and the action that is being taken to introduce the sanctions regime he has referred to, but he will know that I have recently been sent a report from the World Organization to Investigate the Persecution of Falun Gong which shows that over 7,000 doctors in China are involved in the systematic killing of prisoners through the horrific enforced body harvesting trade in that country. Could he assure me that, notwithstanding what he has just said, the Government will none the less look sympathetically at taking action under these new provisions in order that these doctors are brought to book?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I note and pay tribute to the noble Lord’s work on this. I assure all noble Lords that the whole purpose of the scope of the sanctions regime is to ensure that we hold individuals who abuse human rights to account for their actions, whatever the basis of those human rights—indeed, I remember many a debate in your Lordships’ House on this legislation—and whatever the abuse.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, the China Tribunal has concluded that China’s forced organ harvesting constitutes a crime against humanity. I know the noble Lord takes his responsibilities as Minister for Human Rights seriously. Has he read the China Tribunal’s report? A draft was out about six months ago, and it has now been finalised. If he has, does he agree with it? I note that he did not raise this issue at the Human Rights Council the other day.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, on that final point, as the noble Baroness will know from her own experience as a Minister, when you are at international fora you are very much time-limited on all the issues, and the exclusion of a particular issue does not mean that there is not a focus or priority attached to it. She will know that the final report was issued yesterday; it is 562 pages long. I have not yet read it, but we are considering it and I will respond to her in detail once we have done so more fully.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in his reply to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the Minister said that he would not make a preliminary decision, yet in a letter to me on 25 February the Government said that, having consulted the World Health Organization and Beijing, their view is that China is implementing
“an ethical, voluntary organ transplant system”.
How does that square with the China Tribunal’s findings that organised butchery of living people compares to
“the worst atrocities committed in conflicts of the 20th century”,
including the gassing of Jews by the Nazis and the Khmer Rouge massacres in Cambodia? Will he revisit the full report referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, published this weekend, a copy of which I sent to him, and look at the inquiries and investigations carried out by one of the Sunday newspapers published yesterday, which I have also sent him and which detail these horrendous crimes committed against both Falun Gong practitioners and Uighur Muslims?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, my Sunday afternoons would not be the same without emails from the noble Lord. I assure him that I have underlined my commitment and the commitment of Her Majesty’s Government to the important issues raised in relation to the Falun Gong. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, we will respond once we have fully considered the details of the report. The noble Lord rightly raises those details and the details of other reports, one of which was issued today on human rights issues and the plight, particularly, of Uighurs in China. We raise this in multilateral fora and the Uighurs issue was mentioned in my contribution at the Human Rights Council last Tuesday.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have had powers to make Magnitsky-style regulations—visa bans and asset freezes—since the passage of the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and Sanctions and the Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. Why the delay? It cannot be EU membership, as other EU members such as Lithuania and Latvia have Magnitsky-style regulations.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, there is no sense of a lack of priority. I assure the noble Lord that we are very committed to this sanctions regime. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has made it a personal priority. The noble Lord points to issues and the use of other restrictions. We have had those levers at our disposal. Only last week, when answering a Question on another country—the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia—I reassured noble Lords that we have used levers at our disposal, including visa restrictions.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, last July I had the opportunity to ask the Minister a question precisely on the WHO and its definition of whether what is going on in China is ethical. He replied that the Chinese are saying that. Last July, he undertook to raise with the WHO our concern about the farming of organs and this continuing atrocity. What has happened since July? Have we continued to put pressure on the WHO?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The short answer to the noble Lord is yes; we have taken up direct conversations and consultations with the World Health Organization. I put on record again that the allegations that have been raised in various reports, including the final report conducted by Sir Geoffrey Nice, raise questions that need to be answered in the context of that report. I know the noble Lord is aware that the view of the World Health Organization remains that China is implementing an ethical, voluntary organ transplant system, in accordance with international standards, although it has now raised concerns about transparency. I assure the noble Lord that we will continue to prioritise this issue and that of human rights within the context of China.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his commitment to consider the report, as his department develops the regime. While he does, will he have in mind the standards that we implement through the Human Tissue Act 2004? It puts consent as the fundamental principle underpinning lawful storage and use of body parts—organ and tissue? This is the level of consent we expect of international standards for an organ transplant system.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
It is always a challenge when a former Health Minister asks you a pointed and specific question, but the answer to my noble friend is yes. Across the piece, the United Kingdom prides itself on the standards it sets. Those standards also determine how we prioritise particular issues and human rights concerns on the world stage.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, there have been some confused reports on human rights in the media over the weekend. They seem to have confused the European Court of Justice with the European Court of Human Rights. Will the Minister confirm that it is still the intention of the Government to play a full, constructive and positive role in the European Court of Human Rights, to continue to adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights and to participate fully in the work of the Council of Europe?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
In all those respects, the Government’s position is clear. We continue to uphold the issue of human rights, not just in a European context, but globally. On the final question, we remain very much committed to the Council of Europe, and I was pleased recently to see the Prime Minister approving the new nominations to it.
Holyhead
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Roberts of Llandudno
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have for the Port of Holyhead.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno and with his permission, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, the UK and Welsh Governments have committed £240 million of joint funding to the north Wales growth deal. The UK Government are working to bring greater investment growth and job opportunities to communities across Wales. The north Wales growth deal represents real progress in achieving those aims.
Baroness Humphreys
I thank the Minister for that reply. The Northern Ireland protocol signed by the Prime Minister in October establishes a border in the Irish Sea. According to the boss of Stena Line,
“there’s a border, and the border requires checks”.
The assumption is that these checks would be carried out in British ports, including Holyhead. If the Government do not intend to renege on the agreement, what plans do they have to provide new infrastructure at ports and how will this be financed?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, the Government are engaging with the Welsh Government and local partners to understand not only their plans, constraints and opportunities, but how best to support the planning for operational readiness. The ports that are best prepared on 31 December will have a competitive advantage.
Baroness Redfern (Con)
My Lords, post Brexit, we are told that the Government will create 10 superports. The Humber ports are not merely an alternative to Dover but a driver for the northern powerhouse. They can provide a quicker, cheaper and greener solution to trading logistics. When will a decision be made on those ports?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank my noble friend for asking me about the free ports because they could be a great way of boosting trade, attracting inward investment and driving productivity. The Government have published a consultation document. We will be looking for up to 10 national hubs to work as trade, innovation and commerce centres. A consultation process is under way and we look forward to being able to announce the results soon.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, is the Minister aware of the recent decision by Stena Line to re-register its new boat, the “Stena Estrid”, which was originally registered in Cardiff, in Limassol, with significant implications for those working in the Port of Holyhead? If she does not have the answer to this at hand, will she write to me with any details she can find?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank the noble Lord for his question. I was very prepared to respond to questions about ports but not on ships today, so I will have to write to him.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, referred to the creation of a border in the Irish Sea, and there has been a great deal of speculation about this. Will the Government permit such a border or not?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, that is a long and complex question with a long and complex answer. As noble Lords will know, arrangements for borders in the Irish Sea or elsewhere are currently under discussion.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, the infrastructure in Holyhead, like the infrastructure in many ports around the UK, does not include the ability for ships, particularly ferries in the case of Holyhead, to plug in and go on to shore power. Consequently, when they are berthed alongside, they have to run their diesel generators all the time, which has a huge impact on the environment. Is there is any intention to make sure that the ports around our nation have shoreside electrical supplies so that we can cut this huge spike in diesel emissions?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I agree with the noble Lord that that has to be a concern. As I mentioned in my opening Answer, the Government and the Welsh Government have committed £240 million to the north Wales growth deal. One of the projects within that deal will involve enormous changes for the better at Holyhead. I will endeavour to find out whether facilities to plug into shore supplies will be available.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Minister suggested that it is up to ports to be prepared but, while it is of course for the Government to give a signal on borders and potential borders in the Irish Sea, the uncertainty of the situation in respect of Holyhead is having very serious implications. At what point in the negotiations with the EU over the coming months do the Government expect to discuss and finalise the border arrangements between Northern Ireland and Great Britain?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
As the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, will know, I cannot possibly answer that question at this time because those sorts of things are still being finalised. However, we have been talking about this for a very long time now. An enormous amount of planning has already gone on, particularly around the previous exit date of 31 October. The Border Delivery Group has been up and running for a long time and we are working with local partners to understand what needs to be done. We have already looked at any potential disruption and what could be done to mitigate it—work is well under way.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, is the noble Baroness confident that the new infrastructure at Holyhead will be completed by the end of this year?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
In terms of border checks, I hope so because as I said in a previous answer, the best-prepared ports will have a competitive advantage. I very much hope that Holyhead will be at the forefront.
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, Holyhead relies on seamless trade both across the Irish border and through UK ports. Does the Minister share my concern that border checks could lead to Wales being bypassed completely in favour of alternative routes that facilitate seamless trade across the EU, with devastating consequences for trade and the economy?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, we want trade to be as frictionless as possible, and are therefore in discussions with ports to understand exactly what they will be doing to make the checks that will be needed. There will be new checks, but for traders that are ready there will be little or no delay in getting through the port.
Lord Geddes (Con)
My Lords, the question from the noble Lord, Lord West, prompts me to ask my noble friend about the paucity of charging points for the much-vaunted electric cars.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I so thank my noble friend for that question. I believe there will be a debate fairly soon about charging points for electric vehicles. It is obviously a huge priority for the Government. We are making great investments through the plug-in car grant for people who want to buy electric vehicles, and are matching that investment for charging points.
Universal Credit
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McDonagh
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the debt levels, (2) the mental health, and (3) the ability to work, of people in receipt of Universal Credit.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
The noble Baroness’s Question recognises issues experienced by many people in our society. The department has made no official assessment of universal credit’s effect in these three specific areas. We often find that people experience debt and mental health issues that existed prior to claiming universal credit. We think that attempting to make an accurate assessment could be difficult—but not impossible.
Baroness McDonagh (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her Answer. She is very straightforward, and I know she will want to get this right. I know too that the majority of people in this House agree that individuals are better in work—better for themselves, their families and the broader society—and benefits need to be simplified. However, we are spending billions of pounds of public money here. Theory is one thing, but practice is another. I ask the Minister to attempt again to persuade the Government to conduct an assessment, so that we can see whether there are any unintended consequences for mental health well-being, work mobility and indebtedness, and that we can properly debate this issue and recommend any changes and improvements where needed.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I am so glad that we agree on the principle that people should be, and in the majority of cases are, better off in work. I like the noble Baroness’s idea, and I am touched that she thinks my powers of persuasion are so good. In order that I can deploy them to the maximum, let us meet prior to me going back to work the magic. I would like to go with the best case possible to see if we can do this, to get the information that helps us help people more.
Lord Bird (CB)
Are the Government aware that a number of the people sleeping rough on our streets at the moment have fallen through the universal credit net? Would the Minister like to comment on that?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
Like all noble Lords in the House, I am only too well aware of the size of the problem of homelessness and people sleeping on the streets. I normally agree with the noble Lord, and I do agree that universal credit may have added to some people’s anxiety and their issues. Many of them have had issues for a long time that we have not done what we should have done to deal with—but I do not think they are 100% attributable to universal credit.
Baroness Janke (LD)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that a large body of evidence supports the case that benefits sanctions have a devastating effect on claimants’ mental health and could even result in suicides? In the light of last week’s report in the Lancet, when will the Government conduct a comprehensive assessment of the impact of benefits sanctions on claimants, as the DWP pledged to do in 2013?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I have read the report in the Lancet, and the Government’s response is that we have no concerns surrounding the general thrust of the methodology. However, it is difficult, in that it says it would not have caused the issue but would have contributed to it—a point I tried to make in answering the prior question. I am not aware of the commitment the Government made then, but that will be down to me, not them. However, if the noble Baroness agrees, I will go back to the department, get an answer to that question and write to her.
Baroness Couttie (Con)
My Lords, could the Minister update the House on what the Government are doing to support those with mental health issues in accessing universal credit seamlessly, so that those issues are not exacerbated, and to help them get into work, which, as we all know, can sometimes help with mental health and well-being?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I thank my noble friend for that question. Mental health is a major issue for people on universal credit, and in other walks of life. At present, we are introducing health model offices in 11 jobcentres. These focus on claimants with health conditions. Blackburn jobcentre has agreed a new initiative, “advance to ausome”, for people with autism. Another jobcentre, in north London, is running quiet sessions for people who cannot cope with coming in.
This is what I would like noble Lords to go away with today. A young man came to the jobcentre who was working full-time, had mental health issues and did not know how he was going to keep his job. He was in a bad way. Our work coaches worked with him and, through the Access to Work mental health support programme, he is now back at work and working towards a promotion. None of that would have been possible without that support. We are doing everything we can—and there is more to be done—to help people with these issues.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, may I ask the Minister something quite specific? What plans does DWP have to deal with the outbreak of coronavirus? For example, can people on zero-hours contracts who cannot go to work get universal credit to support them if they have to isolate themselves at home and are unable to work? In a similar vein, can she guarantee that those on universal credit will not be sanctioned if they cannot go to a job interview, to the jobcentre or fulfil their commitments because they are isolating themselves at home? Will the Government suspend sanctions and advertise universal credit for those affected by isolation patterns?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I was not prepared for that one, that is for sure. I know that the Permanent Secretary has a plan to make sure that people get paid and get the help they need. However, I will be really upset if people are sanctioned because of this. I will go back to the department and write to the noble Baroness, to make sure that the issue is understood.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
Does the Minister understand the correlation between new attendants at food banks and universal credit sanctions? What are the Government going to do about that? Almost all new sign-ups to food banks are caused by delays. Not only is that bad for your health, it is bad for your mental health.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
The issue of food bank usage and the reasons for it came up during a Question I took recently. I have no doubt that, as I have agreed before, universal credit has contributed to the increased use of food banks, but that is not everything. However, claimants will only ever be sanctioned where, without good reason, they fail to meet the reasonable requirements agreed in their claimant commitment.
European Arrest Warrant, Europol and Eurojust
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Paddick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the impact of the UK withdrawing from participation in the European Arrest Warrant, membership of Europol and membership of Eurojust.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the UK stands ready to discuss an agreement on law enforcement and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. An agreement in this area should support data exchange for law enforcement, operational co-operation between law enforcement authorities and judicial co-operation in criminal matters. This agreement should equip operational partners on both sides with capabilities that help protect citizens and bring criminals to justice, promoting the security of all our citizens.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Minister has not even attempted to answer the Question. Not being a member of Europol or Eurojust relegates the UK to observer status, rather than driving and directing pan-European law enforcement operations and intelligence sharing. The Government say that they want a similar agreement to that reached by Norway and Iceland to replace the European arrest warrant, but that agreement took 13 years to negotiate and implement and does not allow extradition of an EU member state’s own nationals. Is it not inevitable that the UK will be less safe and less secure if we withdraw from these arrangements?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The first thing to say is that the Norway-Iceland agreement might have taken 13 years but the initial agreement took very little time at all; it was the commencement that seemed to take so long. It did not take very long to get agreement on this. The agreement we are negotiating should provide for co-operation between the UK and Europol and Eurojust to facilitate multilateral law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation. The agreement with Europol should go beyond existing precedent, given the scale and nature of co-operation between the UK and Europol. For example, the UK was the highest contributor of data to Europol for strategic, thematic and operational analysis in 2018.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, will the Minister set out for the House who she believes are the beneficiaries of this decision other than criminals seeking to evade justice? How will she ensure that fugitives in Europe will not just laugh at us for failing to bring them to justice?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the beneficiaries of this should be the people of the UK. It seeks to replicate many of the operational capabilities in the European arrest warrant, while containing safeguards.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, is it not the case that not all European arrest warrants are the same? A European arrest warrant from France or Germany, with whom we share the same respect for the rule of law, is one thing, but a European arrest warrant from one or two other countries—here I particularly mention Romania—is not the same because often political interference has taken place in the judicial system.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend makes a very good point about political interference. In fact, that is one of the safeguards within what we are seeking. He is right to make the point that not all EU states are the same.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, will the situation after withdrawal be as effective as it is at present?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this seems the most bizarre decision. Perhaps the Minister can tell me whether it is that the Prime Minister’s hard-right colleagues in the Cabinet do not like anything with the word “Euro” in it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Not that I have heard. The agreement we are negotiating should provide for co-operation. But we will have left the EU.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My noble friend talks about political interference. This, to many of us, smacks of political interference: fixing something that is not broken. Time and again in the last two or three years, Ministers on the Front Bench have indicated the value of these arrangements. Why are we walking away from them?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, there are areas in which we will attempt to have very similar arrangements to those we have now with the EU. As I said, this will be very similar operationally to the EAW, but with enhanced safeguards.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, further to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, how is it that we have come to this pass when, time and again, before our departure from the EU, we were promised from those on the Front Bench that we would work towards replicating the arrangements for the European arrest warrant, Europol and Eurojust? We now appear to be negotiating something inferior and different.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I would not say it is inferior, but I agree that it is different. The Norway-Iceland arrangements seem to work perfectly well with those enhanced safeguards.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)
My Lords, back when we were discussing the European withdrawal agreement six months ago, it was frequently said that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed. Can the noble Baroness confirm that the same rules apply as we go forward towards the new agreement that we are now negotiating? If we do not manage to agree everything, what position will we be left in with respect to these aspects of criminal justice?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
We obviously want an agreement across all areas of law enforcement co-operation—I cannot hypothecate what the noble Baroness says—because we want to keep our citizens safe.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, how will the Government extradite criminals from Germany given that, constitutionally, they are not allowed to do so unless it is within the European Union?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, arrangements will have to be in place that allow the system or the arrangements to take part in that country.
Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister remembers what the head of the Police Service of Northern Ireland said about the loss of the European arrest warrant. It was one of his highest concerns about Brexit. How much was he consulted in this decision and how much has the relationship between the north of Ireland and Ireland been considered in this decision?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
As the noble Baroness will know, and as I have said on several occasions, we have engaged with the devolved authorities on all things, particularly in the area of law enforcement.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that the European arrest warrant has one enormous advantage among many in that countries that do not normally extradite their people, do so under the EAW? What assurance have we that, in future, this will hold good? Many signals have come from European countries saying that they will not do so in the future. Does that not make us as a country weaker and more vulnerable to criminality?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I think it would mean that those states will try in their own countries—I have talked about the enhanced safeguards—but I do not think that will make this country less safe.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, is this one of the areas in which the Permanent Secretary advised the Secretary of State of the dangers of going ahead, and which the Secretary of State paid no attention to and shouted?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, one thing I cannot comment on is private conversations between Secretaries of State and their officials—
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
Given the continued controversy with regard to the treaty on extradition between the United Kingdom and the United States, and that the bars in each country are different—“reasonable suspicion” in Britain and “probable cause” in the United States—which of these standards will Her Majesty’s Government insist upon when they enter any new extradition treaties?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord asks a question which I do not think I can answer in terms of the level, but I can get back to him. I would be making it up if I were to give an answer.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, one of the problems of the European arrest warrant was that, if there was a crime in the country that was trying to extradite but not in the country that the person was being demanded from, we used to have difficulty. I seem to remember there being an issue over xenophobia in one of the European countries and there was also a problem with plane spotters who took photographs of airplanes. Presumably, these issues will disappear under the new negotiations.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
This will come under what we call “dual criminality”. If the issue at hand was not a crime in this country, it would not be applicable. We would add some of those more difficult cases where the crime was not a crime in our country.
Fisheries Bill [HL]
Monday 2nd March 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (2 Mar 2020)
Lord Teverson
“Fisheries principles
(1) Marine stocks within the UK Exclusive Economic Zone are a resource that belongs to the nation as a whole.(2) Any quotas or other rights to harvest marine stocks whether allocated to vessels, public bodies, or persons natural or corporate remain the property of the nation.(3) No vessel, public body, or person natural or corporate shall have a permanent claim over quota or other rights granted to them by a public authority or authorities.”Member’s explanatory statement
The amendment makes clear that UK fish stocks belong to the nation and not to private organisations.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, it seems that whenever we start a fisheries discussion there is rather a lack of sustainability among our Members. One of the useful things between Second Reading and Committee is that we can reflect on the arguments and the Bill until we get into the discussion of amendments. One thing that struck me very strongly after Second Reading, on looking through the Bill again, is that it has hardly any ambition whatever. The withdrawal Act effectively makes us an independent coastal state, which we will be after the transition period, but, apart from that, all the Bill does is provide an administrative framework to keep the status quo.
I do not think that the status quo is good enough for the fishing industry. For instance, there is no provision for new entrants into the industry, which is important. There is no improvement in sustainability methods for fisheries. In fact, the Bill fudges sustainability even more than when we were in the common fisheries policy. There is no particular help for the small under-10 fleet. Because of that, there is no specific help for coastal communities either.
That is why I tabled this amendment, which goes to the fundamental matter of who fish stocks belong to, because the Bill does nothing to change that. At the moment, we have a situation where half of English stocks are owned by companies that are effectively owned by Iceland, Holland or Spain. In Scotland, a vast majority of the industry is owned by a very small number of people. It is a very efficient operation and I certainly have nothing against that, but we have an industry that has become quite fossilised and significantly foreign owned, with no apparent appetite to change that.
We will come on to a number of those issues as we go through the Bill and the amendments, but we are trying to state the completely obvious: if fish stocks belong to anyone while they are in the UK EEZ, they should belong to the nation. That is simply what the amendment says: they are not the everlasting property of a vessel, an individual, a company or even a public body such as the one we have in Cornwall that buys up quota for the local fishing industry. They do not belong to them for eternity; they belong to the nation.
I do not understand how anybody could argue against this concept, but it is really important, since it is fully in line with the ideals of Brexit, becoming an independent coastal state, and Parliament and the nation having control, that we notice and mark that these fish stocks belong to the nation. That does not mean that there should not be, through the Secretary of State or the devolved authorities, a way that those fish stocks—
Lord Grocott (Lab)
I wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord about the fish stocks in the zone belonging to the nation. Presumably that could never have occurred had we remained a member of the European Union. Will he confirm that?
Lord Teverson
Absolutely. I agree with that. That is what I am saying. Given the new opportunity that we have, we should take advantage of being an independent coastal state. The Bill does nothing to change the status quo in any way. This is one thing we can do—lay down a marker on the ownership of those stocks. As to how those stocks are distributed, the amendment does not prevent them being leased for a period, rented or allocated without charge. We are trying to make the point that, at the end of the day, these stocks belong to the nation and not to any individual.
Coming back to the point made by the noble Lord, 17 million people voted for Brexit and for taking control of our own resources. They did not vote for—in relation to fishing—a profitable industry keeping all the advantages that it has at the moment. They were thinking more of the smaller fleets and the fact that those fishing stocks should belong to us rather than to individuals and perhaps, if you would like to call them that, to the elite of the fishing industry at the moment. I beg to move.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment. At the beginning of last year, in Committee in the Commons on the earlier incarnation of the Bill, the Minister—who is now Secretary of State—George Eustice MP, said:
“I do not believe we need a statement that fisheries resources are a national asset or public property, because that is self-evidently the case and our common law has always held as much.”—[Official Report, Commons, Fisheries Bill Committee, 13/12/18; col. 285.]
At the time I took that as gospel. I admire his legal confidence—I say that in a “Yes Minister” context—because I am not certain that the legal confidence is supported by all involved in the industry. There is a famous case where Justice Cranston suggested that there was a type of property right attributed to a fixed quota allocation and that owners would probably need to be given in the region of seven years’ notice of the intention to move away from those FQA units as a type of property right. Such a legal hitch—this is important—might hamper the Government’s intention to move away from relative stability to zonal allocation.
The point I am making is that if the Government believe that quota and marine stocks belong to the nation as a whole, it cannot possibly do any harm to make that clear in the Bill right at the start, so there is absolutely no doubt throughout the industry; and, more importantly, that in any future court case, trying to prove the opposite will founder on the rock of this legislation, set out in 2020, at the start of a new fishing era by the express will of Parliament.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest at this stage as a director of a company that is in a partnership with another agency among whose clients is UK Fisheries. I put that on record. I will not repeat it every time I intervene in Committee, but I hope noble Lords will be aware of that interest.
This amendment is not grouped with anything else, because if we were to include it in the Bill it would not change any other part of it; it would simply be a statement at the outset. As the noble Lord suggested, it is a statement of the obvious and of fact. In my view it is not the purpose of legislation to state pre-existing facts. It is not necessary in legislation always to state the obvious for the facts to be true. Were this amendment to be included in the Bill, people would say that it had to be included in the Bill, otherwise it would not be true. I am trying to work out in what sense it could not be true that would give rise to it being included in the Bill, which would then give a court a reason to try to interpret it.
I then got into trouble because I am looking at it saying, “the nation”. If the amendment were to be included in the Bill in the form in which it exists, it would drive a coach and horses through the devolution settlement. The Bill very carefully establishes the rights of, for example, the Scottish Fisheries Administration to determine the allocation of quota in relation to Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke about moving away from relative stability. Indeed, we could, if we wished to, under this legislation change the fixed quota allocations, although it is not the Government’s present intention to do so, as I understand it. To that extent, it is evident that the Government could change the allocation of and access to fish stocks. They can do so because they effectively own the fish stocks. The Bill has, as we will discover, a sophisticated mechanism for planning how this will be done, how it will be consulted on and how it will be managed between the devolved Administrations. This amendment, in my view, would frustrate all of that at the outset, and for that reason I do not support it.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support what my noble friend Lord Lansley has said. I recall the words well that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said at Second Reading: the more you know about fisheries, the less you actually know. It is much more complicated than one originally thinks. This amendment is an example of something that is practically simple, but would be very difficult if it ever got on to the face of the Bill, because—my noble friend is absolutely right—it does infringe on the Scottish Government’s right to allocate quotas, and it is one of many amendments before us that cannot be accepted because it infringes on the Scottish Government’s devolution ability. It would be quite wrong for us in this Chamber—or indeed the other Chamber—to legislate on it.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I added my name to this amendment, and fully support the contribution made by my noble friend Lord Teverson. There are a number of amendments to the Bill which refer to the fact that fish are not static. They move with the seas, towards their spawning grounds, and according to the temperature of the water and other conditions. The fish are not owned by any individual person, organisation or fishing fleet. They know nothing of quotas or public authorities. It is therefore right that marine stocks should belong to the nation as a whole.
As has been referred to, no doubt the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation and the Scottish Government might have a different view, being very keen on fish being a devolved matter. I do not subscribe to that view. As the amendment makes very clear, we believe that marine stocks within the UK exclusive economic zone are a national resource, whether they are swimming around Scotland, Ireland, Wales, the coast of Northumberland or Cornwall. This should be declared on the face of the Bill. My colleague has laid out the arguments cogently, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Worthington (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak in general support of the principles behind this amendment. We must consider in this debate how we establish—without any shadow of a doubt—that in the handing over of quota for fisheries activities, we are transferring something that should be held as public property, in trust for the people of the nation. That should be established in law, without doubt. I worry that, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, this is far too similar to the current system that we experience under the European Union, where there is an explicit conference of rights to fishermen based on the principle of relative stability. This had led to a race to claw back the rights that have already been given out. We will see, as the debate on the Bill progresses, that a lot of what this centres on is how we take control of those rights, so that they are granted with the appropriate level of scrutiny, transparency and consideration of the multiple benefits that accrue to us as a nation from the maritime resources within our waters.
I am not sure that this is the right approach, but I completely support the principles behind it. As we go forward, we must consider, as we are now doing with our agricultural policy, that, freed of the common policies of Europe, we must have the courage and the ambition to do something that is truly transformative. We will certainly come back to this principle that the rights to fish are, essentially, a public property held in trust for the nation.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for allowing us to debate these important principles about the ownership of our marine stocks. He is right to say that the Bill currently lacks ambition and relies far too much on sustaining the status quo, with all the inequalities and inadequacies that we have identified, which have belied our fishing negotiations over the years.
During the course of the Bill, we will have some difficult discussions about the allocation of existing and future fishing rights, and I suspect that they will not be so easily resolved by this simple declaration. I accept the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, about the issues of devolution. We have to be careful about our language, but it is important to say at the outset that no claim on rights should be permanent and all should be subject to our overriding commitments on sustainability.
This is also a welcome opportunity to register the important role that the fishing industry plays in many coastal communities across the UK. This Bill must be a vehicle for supporting and strengthening those communities while at the same time protecting our marine stocks, rather than being the means through which we exploit a natural resource for purely business and economic benefit. At the same time, a flourishing fishing industry is good for the nation as it provides healthy, locally accessed food, as well as trading opportunities with our neighbours.
In this regard, would the Minister like to comment on the words of the Treasury advisor, Tim Leunig, who has been quoted as saying that the
“Food sector isn’t critically important”
to the economy, and that
“ag[riculture] and fish production certainly isn’t”?
I know the Minister will say that this is not government policy, but what message do comments like this send to a sector already nervous about its future? From our side, we want a vibrant UK agriculture and fisheries industry and to encourage UK consumers to buy British and have faith in locally accessed food. I hope that the Minister will disassociate himself from these comments and send a message back to the Treasury that it should not be employing or listening to advisers who are so out of kilter with the views of most politicians and the vast majority of the British public.
On the subject of trade deals, although the Bill is intended to be negotiation neutral, does the Minister agree that there is a responsibility on the Government to secure a deal with the EU and EEA which allows us, first, to catch more of what we eat and, secondly, to easily sell the catch that we will not eat into those markets? We understand the intentions behind tabling this amendment today. It is of course important to restate that the resource belongs to the nation, but I suspect that we will be debating these issues for many days to come, no doubt giving us the opportunity to explore and spell out in more detail what that really means during consideration of the Bill. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, for bringing forward this amendment and, indeed, to all noble Lords who have spoken. While I fully understand the aim of this amendment, to make it clear that UK fish stocks belong to the nation, I take this opportunity to explain why I cannot support it and, indeed, why the Government cannot do so. I am mindful of what my noble friends Lord Lansley and Lord Caithness have said, particularly when it comes to devolution.
We were clear in our fisheries White Paper that we consider that
“The fish in our seas, like our wider marine assets, are a public resource and therefore the rights to catch them are a public asset.”
I should also say at this juncture, in declaring my farming interests, that the sustainable harvest that we get from our seas, our lakes and, indeed, from our farming sector are absolutely crucial to this nation. I emphasis particularly—as, I am sure, would the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch—that, as far as I am concerned, it is in the national interest that we have a vibrant farming and fisheries sector. We want that not only because it is a public good but because, in order to feed the nation as well as in terms of our exports, with climate change and all the pressures from that, we are going to have to find innovative ways of feeding ourselves and the wider communities of the world. So I say absolutely that in my department, and indeed across the nation, we look to our farmers and our fishers.
I put on record that there are dangers in both sectors and there are too many fatalities; I think safety is of primary importance. I take this opportunity to say to the noble Baroness and all your Lordships that this—after all, Defra covers environment, food and rural affairs—is a very important part of our food supply and a very healthy one.
On a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, during the passage of the previous Fisheries Bill the then Fisheries Minister—now the Secretary of State—made it very clear in the other place that
“it is a statement of fact that”
fish
“are a public asset, and our common law tradition enshrines that.”—[Official Report, Commons, Fisheries Bill Committee, 11/12/18; col. 141.]
The need to view fisheries as a public good is reflected in the measures that we take to promote sustainable fishing. It is, for example, reflected in our approach in Clause 27, “Sale of English fishing opportunities”. Any scheme set up under this power, having been through consultation, would recognise the value of fisheries and raise revenue for the public good. That revenue could be used to support fisheries science, particularly the stock surveys that underpin annual negotiations on the total allowable catch and in-year fisheries management.
I assure the noble Lord that this principle is further covered by the objectives in the Fisheries Bill. The key objectives in this instance are the national benefit and sustainability objectives, which state that
“fishing activities of UK fishing boats bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom”
and that fishing activities are
“environmentally sustainable in the long term”.
That is a point that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to: we want our fishing and coastal communities to have a vibrant future.
We believe that the effect of this amendment would have a profound implication for the existing quota system. I know there are critics of the current regime, but it is also not without its supporters. Indeed, there has been considerable investment in the regime, and it has allowed our quotas to be well-utilised. For example, the flexibility to sell or lease quota has proven helpful to fishers as it enables them to continue to fish for certain stocks when there has been more of an abundance, or if a fishing stock for which they have a quota is not proving to be profitable. It can also be a solution to fishers not being able to fish all their quota for one species because their quota for another species in a mixed fishery has been exhausted.
This is another point that I would like to make to the noble Lord. While under 10-metre vessels may receive only a small percentage of the total UK quota, they receive a greater share of the stocks that are important to them. For example, in 2018 around 77% of the weight and 78% of the value of UK under 10-metre landings were from non-quota species such as crabs and lobsters. The UK Government recognise the need for balance between continuity in the existing system and opportunities for change in future. That is why the fisheries White Paper noted that existing quotas would continue to be allocated using the existing methodology but that additional quotas negotiated will be allocated using a different methodology. This approach has been broadly welcomed across the industry, which agrees that this is a sensible way to proceed—learning, piloting and ensuring that the industry is not destabilised. That really is an important feature of this matter. We do not wish the industry to be destabilised; in fact, quite the reverse.
I say to the noble Lord that I think the amendment rocks the delicate balance between the certainty of the existing system and the new opportunities that new quota would bring. I also have to say at the beginning of this Committee stage that what resonates with me is that not only has the Bill been through an earlier phase in the other place but it has been worked out really strongly and collaboratively with the devolved Administrations. I say to your Lordships, as we embark upon this particular voyage, that it is important to recognise that this is a piece of work that we are also legislating for the devolved Administrations, and the points that my noble friends have made are extremely pertinent. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The noble Lord, Lord Lansley, made an interesting and important point. He assumed that this was already the case, but the British courts do not see it that way. The Minister, now Secretary of State, tried to reallocate quotas towards the under 10-metre fleet, but that was disputed within the legal system. There is an underlying assumption here that this is a privatised resource, not a resource of the nation. That is why, to deliver what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, wants, it is important to have an amendment like this in the Bill.
As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, pointed out, this makes no difference to the quota allocation in Scotland: the devolved management authorities can make what decisions they want in allocating harvesting rights in those territorial areas. We are saying here that, ultimately, fundamental ownership of those rights is not for keeps, whereas at the moment they can be interpreted that way. I am not suggesting that, as part of this amendment, we should not allow a degree of certainty and ability to invest, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, put it very well, these rights are in trust to the nation.
As to how one interprets “the nation”, I see our fishing stocks as a national resource, not as devolved. Clearly, however, how they are shared out and used is an issue for the devolved authorities. I look forward to the later amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, which come back to this subject, but I believe that this is fundamental to the way in which we should view this national resource and how that affects policy decisions as we go through this Bill and make fisheries policy. But, for the moment, I am content to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Teverson
“( ) the socio-economic objective,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that socio-economic issues are included in the fisheries objectives.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, as the Minister said, we have here a list of objectives of great importance. I would not disagree with most, but one or two I have an issue with. There is always a danger in having too many objectives: which is the important one that guides regulatory authorities and which guides legislators in drafting subsequent secondary legislation? That is difficult, because it is almost impossible to meet all objectives at the same time. This amendment, and the others in my name—Amendments 6, 10 and 27—are based on my belief that sustainability is the most important objective. I take “sustainability” as here meaning the aquatic biosphere and the health of our fish stocks.
I do not accuse the Government of putting it this way, but the Bill reads to me as having a muddled sustainability objective, because it is prejudiced by the addition of what is almost a socioeconomic objective. A socioeconomic objective is very valid. In fact, one of my amendments in this group states that there should be a socioeconomic objective. The sustainability objective should, however, relate to the marine ecology, fish stocks and the wider marine inhabitants. I therefore suggest that we leave out subsection (2)(b), which states
“the fishing capacity of fleets is such that fleets are economically viable but do not overexploit marine stocks.”
That is a socioeconomic objective and should go under that heading. The sustainability objective has to be the lead objective. There are various ways of sorting out the socioeconomic objectives, including financially, and that is how we should do it.
We need clarity; we need the sustainability objective to be the prime objective, and we need it to be well policed. That is why my Amendment 27 would bring in the office for environmental protection. I would be interested to hear what the Minister says. He may tell me that this is unnecessary, and I could well be persuaded that it is, but it is vital that that office, once founded and operational, has full oversight of the fisheries industry and the protection of our marine environment. I beg to move.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, Amendment 7 is in my name. I support many of the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson. My amendment would change Clause 1(2)(b) simply to state
“the fishing effort does not overexploit marine stocks.”
The Bill states
“the fishing capacity of fleets is such that fleets are economically viable but do not overexploit marine stocks.”
The purpose behind trying to simplify the provision is to make it clear that we cannot have a sustainable long-term fishing effort if we overexploit stocks. That should not need to be said, but we have seen routine overexploitation of stocks as a consequence of how the common fisheries policy is interpreted, with member states then allocating quota to private fishing enterprises.
To state first that fleets should be economically viable and then to qualify it by saying that they should not overexploit marine stocks gives entirely the wrong impression. It implies that we are to continue with the belief, commonly held in Europe, that fishing rights and the economic viability of the fishing industry are the first and foremost concerns. That speaks to short-term political considerations because these are entities that employ people and pay taxes. My amendment tries to correct for that short-termism endemic to political thinking by stating that it is the sustainability of the stock that we should regulate for, not the commercial viability of the entities that exploit it. The latter is entirely what has been wrong with the common fisheries policy since we have been in it. There is an assumption that the exploiters’ rights should come first, with the environment an afterthought. We must turn that around. It is short-termism not just politically but in the context of the changing climate. Nothing from now on is business as usual; everything is shifting. We must put the resilience of our marine resources at the heart of everything we legislate on and at the heart of everything we do today in considering the Bill.
My amendment would simply take away the qualifier; there is no need to qualify this. It is simply logical that we legislate so that we do not overexploit fishing stocks. That is the only purpose of this legislation. Therefore, it must be stated unequivocally in the Bill.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. I regret that we have to say it, but it is important to point out that there will be no socioeconomic benefits if there are no fish left. The cod fishermen of Newfoundland would understand this clearly. Apart from that, the noble Baroness said exactly what I needed to say.
Lord Lansley
My Lords, I have just one thing to say about this group. Amendment 6 addresses an issue we discussed at Second Reading: managing so many objectives. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, drew the attention of the House, forcefully and compellingly, to the way in which the sustainability objective in the Bill, as drafted, includes socioeconomic objectives. They ought to be identified and listed separately. To that extent, I support Amendment 6. Noble Lords will be aware that it includes the sentence:
“The sustainability objective shall be the prime objective”.
Not everybody is in favour of that, but I think we need to say it. My noble friend Lord Randall was talking about Amendment 7, but the same thought applies here. He is quite right that if we do not sustain our fish stocks all the other objectives will be vitiated. It has to be clear that there is a first objective, even though it would be beyond this Committee to list, sequence or rank the others. However, the joint fisheries statement will probably have to do something of that kind, at least, to show how they are being interpreted and balanced. I do not envy it that difficult task. The Committee should look carefully at Amendment 6 and see whether it is possible to incorporate its principles into the Bill before it leaves this place.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 2 and would have done so to Amendment 6, had I been allowed, but there were too many subscribers. I support Amendment 2 because, as many noble Lords know, the existence of intergenerational poverty and deprivation in rural areas has long been of concern to me. While the numerous villages and market towns throughout rural England all have their problems in this respect, there is no doubt that coastal communities suffer more than most. The main reason for this is that an ordinary market town can survive, and sometimes thrive, on services maintained by its surrounding farmers, businesses and maybe even wealthy retirees. However, a coastal community, by its very geography—I realise that I am straying into the realms of the bleeding obvious here—only ever has 50% of the catchment of an inland market town. Coastal communities therefore struggle. The sea provides very little except fish and tourism, with, perhaps in the future, some form of energy added to that mix. It is therefore important that a firm part of our fisheries objectives should include the socioeconomic objective.
I totally agree with Amendment 6 that the sustainability objective should always be the prime one. I support that, maybe even to exclusion of Amendment 2, as the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said. As the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, said, we need these coastal communities, and their harvest, to survive in the long term. In the past, I always said that one of the problems with the common fisheries policy is that the children and grandchildren of today’s fishing communities never get a vote. We now have the chance. When we repatriate our fisheries policy, we must always think of the socioeconomic prosperity of these grandchildren.
I also support Amendment 27, which puts the monitoring of the sustainability objectives firmly in the hands of the OEP in future. That makes very good sense.
Returning to Amendment 2, a key part of the socioeconomic objective should include recreational sea angling. There is not much about recreational angling in the Bill, which is fine because there is not much to say. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has tabled an amendment on this point; I came across that quite late in the day. The socioeconomic benefit of recreational angling to coastal communities is huge. Even in 2012, the latest year for which I could get hold of statistics, the sea angler spend was £2.1 billion locally, supporting more than 20,000 local jobs. They say that a fish caught with rod and line is worth at least six times more than one caught in a net. Recreational fishermen use local boats and local crews, and they use local pubs, hotels, shops, garages, car hire et cetera. All of this is vital to the socioeconomic objectives in this amendment and needs nurturing.
Lord Grocott
My Lords, it is with considerable diffidence, and I do mean that, that I make any contribution to this discussion, and I do not intend to make any more, partly because it is impossible to live quite as far as I do from the coast. Perhaps we inlanders should remain largely silent in these discussions, but I found it almost exhilarating, I think that is the word, to hear specialists—I am not one, which is why I will not contribute any further—making points all related to the principle that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, has just enunciated, which is that we are talking about the consequences of the repatriation of our fishing policies.
For me, as a Brexiteer, it is exhilarating, and I am not exaggerating, that these discussions can take place in the context of knowing that our coastal waters will be like those of Iceland—although I know that fishing is a lot more important to the overall economy of Iceland than it is to that of the United Kingdom. In all the discussions of the details of the various amendments, that is surely the basis on which this debate is taking place. Let us not miss the wood for the trees: the wood is precisely that in a democracy a Chamber of Parliament is discussing how best our nation should use its resources in a way that is accountable; which of course it never was when it was entirely a European responsibility. The Council of Ministers is nothing like a responsible body in the way that this is.
I will not go any further down this route, the Committee will be relieved to know, but I just wanted to point out how happy I feel about this debate.
The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, the Committee will note that I am in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Grocott. It does not happen all the time and will not happen in future, I know, but today we are very much in agreement. What he says hinges very much on the agreement we get with the EU, because however sustainable we are, if the fish decide to move and the EU has different sustainability goals, the fish we have so carefully sustained will be harvested by the ever-hungry Spanish fleet and others that will be poised outside our waters—some of them will even be allowed in—and will be taking what they can.
I hope my noble friend the Minister will confirm that all the objectives that are so well set out in the Bill have the aim of sustainable development, because sustainability really matters. If all our objectives adhere in that way, there is hope for the grandchildren that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, mentioned. He also made the very important point about coastal communities. It is not just the fishing fleets but the whole coastal communities and the people who feed off them who are important in the socioeconomic goal. We need to take a wider look at this between now and the next stage.
What has not been mentioned so far with regard to sustainability is human health. Can my noble friend say how many of the fish caught are used for fishmeal? The latest statistic I can find, which I looked up on the internet, dates from 2008 and claims that a third of the world’s fish is used for fishmeal. What is the point of fishing—some may even ask what is the point of agriculture—if not to provide a healthy, sustainable diet for human beings? That ought to take priority over producing fish for fishmeal. I hope that that will be taken into account in the sustainability goals my noble friend is aiming for, because health and diet have deteriorated badly in the western world and fishing is one area which can help us on that.
I hope my noble friend will also bear in mind trade—another area which could undermine our sustainable goals. If we have a strong, sustainable policy but by trade allow fish to be caught in an unsustainable way, that would undercut our market and be to the detriment of the Government’s whole policy.
I come now to the tricky question of the batting order of our goals. There is a good argument for putting the environmental sustainability objective first, but I wonder whether that is right and whether it would not be better to leave it as it is, agreed with the devolved Administrations. It is currently top of the list and, to me, probably the most important, but I am not yet convinced about singling it out.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting discussion—a counterpart to the discussion on the first group, where we failed to agree. This had a lot more agreement, though there are drafting issues that need to be addressed in the Bill if we are fully to realise the sorts of changes that are in everybody’s minds as we approach this opportunity, as my noble friend Lord Grocott described it, to improve what we do in relation to our fishing and fishing resources, as we have been trying to do for some time. I point out to him that, although it is nice that he is happy and feels joyful about this debate, the real test will be whether we end up with something different from a simple rehash of the existing common fisheries policy. That test is now ahead of us as we begin to drill down into the particularities of the Bill.
I will speak to Amendment 8 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester, who we did not think would be here in time to speak but luckily has appeared—almost in time; he will take over from me as we go through the Bill—and Amendment 9, tabled by my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch. Amendment 8 is a probing amendment to ask the Government to specify more clearly what “economically viable” means in practice under the Bill and how it might be applied, and to gain a clearer understanding of the relative importance of viability compared with sustainability, which has been the theme of most of the contributions so far.
Amendment 9 targets the same sustainability objective and seeks to bring the term “maximum sustainable yield” into the Bill. At present the Government favour a phrase which we do not think has quite caught the essence of what we are trying to do about overexploitation of marine stocks and which seems to offer less clarity than the forward-looking point made by just about all noble Lords: there will be no fishing unless we have a sustainable stock on which to operate.
All noble Lords agree there has to be a vibrant fishing industry. It is part of our heritage as an island nation and, as we will discuss during the Bill’s passage, our catch both helps feed people here and is sold abroad to others who want to buy these products. As the Minister said in his opening statement, we are talking about a highly organised industry. Hard-working fishers being fairly rewarded for their work at sea is important. It is a very physically demanding and often dangerous job, and they have to endure long periods of separation from their loved ones. They should be remunerated accordingly. The economics of the industry must be geared to ensure that there is something there for everybody, not just the fishers; the ports and processing plants need to make their fair share. This is important if we are to encourage them to contribute to the climate change objective—something that will be the focus of subsequent debates but has already been raised.
While we want a viable fishing fleet for many years to come, we have been in meetings with outside groups that feel that the current wording of the Bill may allow the economic to trump the environmental, particularly, as I have already said, as it refers to overexploitation rather than maximum sustainable yield. If that were to be the case, ironically, we would find ourselves in no better position than we are under the common fisheries policy. It would make this Bill a missed opportunity to put sustainability front and centre of the new approach. There is enough support around the Committee to suggest that the Minister might want to look at this carefully when he responds.
I am aware that the Minister has met many Members of your Lordships’ House and has made time to discuss amendments. I understand that these discussions have been valuable, and I hope that he will be able to offer the same reassurance to others who wish to join the debate now and in the future. I hope that when the Minister responds, he will confirm what he envisages happening if the second part of the sustainability objective cannot, despite the best endeavours of the fisheries authorities, be met. Would boats be allowed to overexploit stocks to ensure their viability? If not, what options would the Government or the devolved Administrations have available if they wanted to step in? This is a tricky balancing act. It is certainly not easy, and I know the Minister appreciates that and takes it seriously. I look forward to him providing further detail on the Government’s approach.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, at Second Reading I made it clear that sustainability is at the heart of the Bill, so I am pleased that one of the first discussions we are having in Committee relates to this area of utmost importance. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, said, this work involves balance. Balance is necessary in these matters and is why our work with the devolved Administrations has been so valuable but intricate.
The Government’s view and that from our discussions with the devolved Administrations is that sustainability is often considered a three-legged stool, consisting of environmental, social and economic factors. To achieve the true sustainability of a healthy environment, thriving communities and a vibrant industry, it is important that a balance exists between them. That is a point that, in the wrestling of this, was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson. They are also not mutually exclusive. For instance, if fish stocks are managed at sustainable levels, the stocks are protected into the future, while allowing the fishing industry to remain profitable and able to provide benefits to coastal communities and beyond. That point was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, and my noble friend Lord Caithness.
The fisheries objectives in the Bill work together to set out the core principles to achieve a successful and sustainable fisheries management regime, with the joint fisheries statement setting out the policies that will contribute to achieving our objectives. While I therefore fully support the aim—and I emphasise aim—of Amendment 2, which seeks to ensure that socio- economics are included within the fisheries objectives, I believe it is unnecessary and will explain why.
The sustainability objective currently sets out a requirement in the Bill that fish and aquaculture activities are
“managed so as to achieve economic, social and employment benefits”.
The Bill includes a number of objectives relating to environmental sustainability, while also recognising the need to take into account socioeconomic issues. Given that, in response to Amendment 6, I should like to set out in more detail what we aim to achieve by seeking a balanced approach to the objectives set out in Clause 1. I also understand that Amendment 10 in this group further seeks to change the Bill in the context of Amendment 6.
Baroness Worthington
Before the Minister sits down, may I enquire in good faith whether we are saying that we have taken back control from Brussels, only to cede it to Scotland? It would be a waste of time if every answer is “We cannot do anything, because we have had a really delicate discussion with our devolved Administrations”.
We are still the UK Parliament; this is an important issue that has been repatriated to us first, and then we will repatriate it through devolution. Should we need to change the devolution arrangements, we will. Perhaps I am speaking out of turn, but surely we are not taking back control from Brussels only to give it to Holyrood.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
We have had very successful and collaborative discussions and arrangements with all the devolved Administrations. They have taken this matter very seriously, and we are legislating on behalf of the devolved Administrations as well. I do not think many noble Lords are seeking to change the devolution arrangements through the Fisheries Bill. That would be unwise and not sensible.
We are seeking to have sustainability at the heart of the Bill, but sustainability—as the UN describes it—is not just environmental; it is a balance. Clearly, we want fisheries stocks which enable communities to prosper. That is the whole thrust of this, and why it is a package. I say to the noble Baroness: I do not see it in those terms. We are collaboratively working with our friends and partners across the United Kingdom, on something which requires balance. Sustainability is at the heart of the Bill, and that is why I have made the remarks I have.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
To follow up on what the noble Baroness has said, we understand the delicacy of the situation and that considerable discussion has preceded the Bill we are debating today. I wonder whether she has a point: if it is already all sewn up and too difficult to change, what is the point? Will the Minister reassure us that this amendment is not just being turned down because it would be too difficult? The mood of the House seems to be that this is worthy of further consideration, if not necessarily being voted through.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
No, my Lords. Obviously, I recognise that the noble Lords who have spoken feel particularly strongly about environmental sustainability. I have argued, what the Government feel is a compelling case, that sustainability is a balance. Therefore, the package we are bringing forward has been worked on not with one devolved Administration, but with all of them.
It has always been the point that noble Lords need to make a compelling case in all matters. The Government and the devolved Administrations have worked on this, mindful of observations made during the period of, let us say, the Fisheries Bills. That is how I would describe it; it is important we have these considerations. I have been clear—as when I referred to the UN—that sustainability has a range of points to it, and that is what I have been seeking to describe.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I apologise that I did not speak earlier in the debate, but I will read Hansard very carefully tomorrow. From what I gather, my noble friend has indicated that, for some stocks, we do not have data available, and some of the data we do have is 12 years old. I agree with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott: I am excited by the Bill because it gives us an opportunity to move forward in a sustainable way. However, we need information on which we can base our assumptions. Will the Minister indicate where there are gaps in that information and what is being done about it? Referring to my noble friend Lord Caithness’s comments on the whole question of trade and standards, it is essential that we have information on which we can base the decisions we have taken. I have listened carefully to my noble friend and know that an enormous amount of work has gone on with the devolved Administrations—I am perhaps happier about that than some other Members of the House are—but we need as much information as we can get at this stage.
For me, sustainability has to be key: at the end of the day, you cannot fish if there are no fish. If we do not have the data and information that we need, how can we make the assumptions that we will be dealing with in the Bill? There is an amendment to come shortly on the question of discards, and we will return to this issue in that debate. I have one or two queries, but if the Minister cannot answer them at the moment, perhaps he will look into it—or somebody will—so that we have a better overall picture of the sustainability side before we come back on Report. That would be immensely helpful.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I made it clear that the precautionary objective already includes the clear objective to restore all marine stocks to sustainable levels. We are very clear that we need to work through all stocks—that is what the fisheries management plans are intended to do—so that for those stocks for which we do not have sufficient information, there is this precise precautionary objective. As my noble friend Lord Lansley referred to, there is a difficulty in trying to put these objectives in some order of priority. As I say, we are seeking to improve all stocks because the truth is that, at the moment, we do not have an assessment of all stocks. That is precisely why, picking up the point raised earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, it is an enormous opportunity for us to look now across the whole of the marine environment at all our stocks.
This will not be sorted out overnight; I do not think any noble Lord expects there to be a magic switch and, suddenly, we are now responsible and it can be turned around immediately. But the whole purpose of the structure that we have put in place is precisely to address the sustainability of all stocks.
The Earl of Caithness
My noble friend gave a comprehensive answer, but can I make one suggestion that might help in driving forward our sustainability objectives? He has made it very clear to the farming community that there will be public money for public goods. Surely exactly the same argument is true for the fishing and coastal communities: if they follow the sustainability line, there will be public money for public goods. Perhaps that would help to sell the argument.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
During this Committee, I think we will probably go on to talk about some of the further arrangements for financial assistance. Clearly, the Government see this as a vital interest, a source of food and an opportunity for the whole of the coastal community. I agree with the thrust of what I think my noble friend Lord Caithness is saying: this is an area contained in the Bill. As has been mentioned, there will be a need for a replacement of the European funding, which we will discuss again. I am sure there will be ways in which financial assistance to support coastal communities will be considered and will come forward.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I believe the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was going beyond grant funding and referring to the allocation of fishing rights. That confers a financial benefit to the recipient of those rights, so it is much broader than just grants.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara
I would like one more chance to narrow down the point on which we were exchanging before the other two very good contributions came in.
The noble Lord has a reputation in this House for being very easy to talk to and very willing to engage in debate. I am slightly trading on that because, in my experience, on any Bill there is a worry that the Minister will get it drummed into him by those sitting in the Box that he must never concede anything. Sometimes, however, we can be in quite a difficult mode, when good points are made but the willingness to concede is not there from the Minister concerned. I know that the noble Lord is not like that. It may not happen on the point that we have been discussing, although it is a very good one from the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, but issues will come up in future amendments to do with the workforce health and safety, on which the Committee may feel that a change in wording is possible. Will he just confirm, for the sake of allowing us to go forward, that he is not against the possibility of that happening and that, if it were the case, he would undertake the necessary consultations that might be required to bring the devolved Assemblies, and others who signed up to the previous version of the Bill, up to the new standard that will be set by this House?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I will conclude on this, otherwise the “Ah, buts” will lose the force of the sustainability point of this debate. It is clear, I believe—as I always have—that the House and your Lordships need to make a compelling case, which a government Minister will always want to listen to. If a compelling case is made, as I have said previously, my answer will be, “Gosh, I wish we’d thought of that.” I emphasise that the Bill has been considered over a very long time. We have one go at this Bill and there have been a lot of representations. It has gone through a mincer in a way that most other Bills do not. Given our very close connections and our responsibilities, and given that fishing is devolved, we have worked collaboratively and positively with the devolved Administrations. I emphasise to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, that I do not use that as an excuse. It is a statement of fact that we are legislating on behalf of all parts of the kingdom. That is really what I wish to say at this point.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for probably one of the most important debates during this Committee and for all the points made. They were made pretty much in the same direction, even if they did not totally agree on the detail.
I was very grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Grocott—I thought it was fantastic. The sad thing to someone like me is that, apart from relative stability and technical regulations, which are not dealt with in the Bill, we could have done everything else over the last 40 years, but we did not because we just went along and did what was easiest. We did not need to let our quotas go to foreign owners, we could have changed the balance between the large and small fleets completely, and we could have put far more European money into our coastal communities when they did not have enough quotas. We could have done all those things, but we did not. However, the noble Lord was absolutely right: we have here an opportunity to really open our minds. The Minister says, “We’ve gone through all of this before, it’s been looked at before and we’ve talked to all the other sides”, but we have had a break, we are now out of the European Union, we have opened our minds and we have had some really good suggestions on the Bill. We should not be railroaded by past negotiations. Clearly, devolution is key—we do not want to change that settlement in any way—but that cannot prevent our making some changes.
One fundamental thing, on which I disagree completely with the Minister, is that referring to “balance” between socioeconomic issues and sustainability was exactly the argument that Ministers used on the common fisheries policy from the 1980s to about five years ago, when the whole regime changed. Because of that so-called balance, stocks disappeared from the North Sea and the Baltic Sea and were depleted from western waters. If we do not decide to make sustainability a prime objective, that is what we will end up with. The history shows that the politics takes over from the science.
I was very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Randall, mentioned Newfoundland. I went out to Newfoundland in 1996 at the height of the conflict with the Portuguese and the Spanish. I went out on an aeroplane with the Canadian fisheries department to look at the line of big Atlantic fishing vessels fishing right along the EEZ line. I saw the communities of St John’s in Newfoundland that were unable to fish their own waters because there was nothing left. That was due to the short-term socioeconomic objective taking the place of the sustainability objective. That is exactly what you get and exactly what we must not have in this country, whether in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland or England. We cannot afford that.
If I was chief executive of a company and somebody gave me eight different objectives and did not rank them, the first thing I would do is ask the chairman to fire the non-executive directors, because it is absolutely impossible to have eight equal objectives in any subject. That is for running a company; if you are running the marine environment of a nation, surely it is far more important.
To come back to the point from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, we absolutely need a socioeconomic objective. The noble Earl, Lord Caithness, is absolutely right as well—we will come to the financing part of the Bill. There are amendments to that part to say that we will need to intervene when there is a socioeconomic problem and that we should not be afraid to do so. We should protect those communities in that way. We should not pretend that we are protecting them by letting people go out for fish stocks that are not there and are not sustainable.
I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. She made her argument very strongly. The same goes for the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on the points he made. Although my amendments may not be perfect, I have tried to stick within the Government’s framework by changing around some of the words but using the Government’s own settlement with the devolved authorities. I am absolutely sure that we will come back to this on Report, but at this point I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“( ) the discards objective,”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the meeting that I had prior to today with my noble friend the Minister. I assure him that this is indeed a probing amendment. It enables me to press him on why the original objective in the initial Bill, which clearly stated that discards were an objective under Clause 1, has been dropped and replaced with a bycatch objective. The House had the chance to debate the difficulties involved in the landing objective on reports adopted by the EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee before I was a member of it, but I will press my noble friend very specifically on the narrow point of discards to ask him what the Government’s policy is in connection with the Fisheries Bill, and why they have removed the discards objective in Clause 1 and replaced it with one for bycatch. There is clearly a difference between those policies of reducing discard as a result of the use of bycatch.
I was grateful for the conversation I had with my noble friend but, separately and elsewhere, I would like to raise the possibility of using some of the bycatch of inshore fishermen in ways currently not allowed. Can he take the opportunity to explain how the Government intend to reduce discard and bycatch and what measure of enforcement is envisaged? As far as I can see, the Bill in its present form is silent on what the enforcement and implementation measures for discards will be. I give notice that I have tabled two more amendments on discards.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I take the amendment very seriously. I will point the Minister in the direction of Clause 1(6)(c) refers to,
“bycatch that is fish is landed”,
and then goes on to say,
“but only where this is appropriate”.
I would be glad of some clarification of that. It continues that it,
“does not create an incentive to catch fish that are below minimum conservation reference size”,
and perhaps that is exactly what is meant by it. Certainly, we have had discussions over the weeks about discards, about which I think many of us are concerned. My question is on the phrase that they have used here. Is the Government worried that moving from the discard to the new bycatch will help to disincentivise people from catching fish that are below a minimum standard? Why was the decision made to change it from discarding to the particular wording of the Bill? When we come at a later stage to discuss how we can look at the way we record and know what is being discarded and what is being landed at ports, it will be immensely important. I am just a little bit unhappy with the wording that we have in subsection (6)(c), and would be glad of some clarification.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to speak to my Amendment 16, specifically on subsection (6) on page 2 of the Bill; it is grouped with this Amendment 3 on page 1, on the issue of discards, or “bycatch” as referred to in the Bill. It complements the tabling of Amendment 3 by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which alludes to the inclusion of a dedicated objective on fish discards among the list of objectives. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for her probing on this.
For a variety of reasons, and as I am sure we will hear from the Minister, it is virtually impossible to avoid catching some of the wrong species—or, indeed, the wrong sized members of the right species—when fishing. There have been some great advances in techniques and technologies, but some degree of bycatch remains an inevitability.
The Bill's bycatch objective, which is lifted from the common fisheries policy, rightly seeks to reduce the catching of fish that are below minimum conservation size and to ensure a proper audit trail for those caught. The latter also raises issues around monitoring and recording; this will in turn contribute to better data that can be used to inform future quota decisions.
Paragraph (c) of subsection (6), which my probing amendment proposes leaving out, refers to allowing bycatches to be landed
“only where this is appropriate”
and an incentive to catch undersize fish is not created as a result of the landing. As we sought to make clear in our explanatory statement, we wish to understand the circumstances in which Ministers believe the landing of bycatch will be “appropriate”. Presumably this is meant in the context of the landing obligation, in order to prevent fish simply being discarded back into the sea—a practice which we have fought for many years to bring to an end.
If this is the case, would it not be better for the Bill to be explicit in this regard, and for the references to the prevention of incentivising the landing of bycatch to make clear that such fish cannot be sold for human consumption, thereby producing an economic benefit? Or, if the phraseology does not relate purely to the landing obligation, perhaps the Minister could outline which other circumstances are deemed as being appropriate for landing bycatch at ports?
We are very much probing at this stage of proceedings, but I think I speak on behalf of many across your Lordships' House when I say that we need confidence that, whether we use the terms “discards” or “bycatch”, the Government and devolved Administrations will be properly equipped to build on recent progress and answer the wider probing made by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, the Government remain fully committed to ending the wasteful discarding of fish, acknowledging the impact this can have on fisheries management and the marine environment. I fully support that the issue of illegal discarding should be addressed within the fisheries objectives. In doing so, we will ensure that policies in the joint fisheries statement will focus on this important area.
The prevention of illegal discarding is addressed in the fisheries objectives through the “bycatch objective”, which sets out a series of “sub-objectives” to address the issue of illegal discarding. These include avoiding or reducing bycatch, ensuring that catches are recorded and accounted for, and ensuring that fish stocks are landed. It is overfishing and the catching of unwanted bycatch that result in illegal discarding, and the objective has been named the “bycatch objective” to address the root cause of the issue. For example, unreported catches, whether landed or discarded, contribute significant uncertainty to the scientific assessment process. Such uncertainty enhances the risk that stocks are fished at levels beyond MSY.
One limb of the bycatch objective is that catches are recorded and accounted for. We will improve the accuracy of the data available on fishing mortality and enable sustainable quota setting that avoids overfishing. I therefore believe that my noble friend’s aims are already met through the existing bycatch objective. An additional discards objective—which the amendment does not seek to define—risks adding complexity and confusion when read in conjunction with the existing objective, which already serves the purpose of setting a clear framework for tackling discards.
In future, we will have the opportunity to be creative and adopt new measures and flexibilities outside the current common fisheries policy toolkit, to implement a workable discards ban. The Fisheries Bill—we will no doubt come on to this—sets out provisions to introduce one such flexibility: a discard prevention charging scheme to provide a mechanism that allows fishers to pay for additional quota to cover any excess catch that would otherwise push them into illegal fishing. Alongside the MMO and industry, Defra is exploring the use of remote electronic monitoring—REM—as a cost-effective and efficient way of monitoring fishing activities, including the effectiveness of selected gear types, and ensuring compliance.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for saying that his amendment is a probing amendment. I am aware that he seeks to understand the circumstances in which the Government believe that landing bycatch will be “appropriate”. I believe that this is something to which my noble friend Lady Byford also referred. Under the common fisheries policy—CFP—the landing obligation, which was fully implemented last year, requires all species subject to catch limits to be landed and counted against quota rather than discarded at sea, subject to certain exceptions. Now that we have left the EU, the UK will develop a discards policy that is tailored to our industry. It will have an emphasis on reducing the level of unintentional and unwanted bycatch through sustainable and selective fishing. However, even when our fishing practices are highly selective—this is a point that the noble Lord absolutely recognised—there will be instances when this unwanted bycatch cannot be avoided entirely, given the high number of mixed fisheries in UK waters. The sub-objective that the noble Lord seeks to remove with his amendment specifies that bycatch is landed only if appropriate. This is because, for example, if catch is scientifically proven to have high survivability, it could be beneficial to the long-term sustainability of the stock for it to be returned alive to the sea, rather than landed dead. I use that as an example that we need to think through.
However, the crux of the amendment is that the Government would not have to describe how and when bycatch would be landed in the joint fisheries statement. I have already set out the critical importance of understanding what is taken from the sea; removing this sub-objective could undermine our future discards policy and our ability to advance our scientific understanding of the state of our fisheries.
I should add an embellishment for my noble friend Lady Byford. Where we refer to a good chance of survivability—which I have already raised—there could, for instance, be high-survivability exemptions. Where it is accepted that unwanted catches of certain species in certain fisheries are unavoidable and costly to handle, a small percentage of the catch is permitted to be discarded through the de minimis exemptions.
I say in particular to my noble friend Lady McIntosh, with whom I was pleased to discuss this matter, that in further consideration of the Bill the word “bycatch” is not intended to denigrate the absolutely clear requirement that discard is addressed; rather, “bycatch” is a better description of dealing with the issue and its root causes. My noble friend knows that there are, as I said, references to “discards” in the draft legislation. The point about bycatch as an objective is precisely that we think this wording covers and addresses the matter in a wider sense. However, I think we all want the same objective, and I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I am grateful to those who have contributed. The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, is entirely consistent with my amendment, in the sense of probing. I am a little disappointed that I have no greater understanding of why the discards objective was dropped between the initial Bill that was published and this version. While I am sure that it is of interest that remote electronic monitoring equipment is being proposed, my noble friend did not explain whether or not that would be on a voluntary basis. Other amendments that I have tabled at later stages will provide him with the opportunity to do so. Also, will foreign fishing boats be policed? Will they also be required to have such monitoring systems in place?
In summing up, my noble friend did not actually respond to whether or not the monitoring equipment would include cameras but, as a subsequent amendment that I have tabled relates specifically to cameras, I would be grateful if he could reply on that specific point at that stage.
I emphasise that even if we use “discards” or “bycatch” interchangeably in the way that we seem to now, for the policy to work effectively, and for more fish to be landed so that we have a better idea of the state of the current stock, it must be effectively policed or it will fall flat on its face. I will return to this issue in later amendments, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Worthington
“( ) the marine planning objective.”
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, in moving Amendment 4 in my name I shall speak also to Amendment 25, which is grouped with it. I also seek permission to speak to Amendments 47 and 56, which will come up later in Committee but are related to this point, so I hope I can speak to all four in this speech.
The purpose of Amendment 4 is to add a new fisheries objective to the Bill stating that there is a “marine planning objective” in relation to fisheries management. The reason is that there is a real need to integrate fisheries into our wider marine planning processes. The phrase “fisheries exceptionalism” has been used. In essence, what is being got at there is that the way we plan for our use of the marine environment for fisheries is very separate from our wider spatial planning that we use for other activities that occur in the marine environment. Sometimes we forget that, although fishing is a hugely important part of our marine environment, it is certainly not the only economically productive activity that occurs within our seas. It is important that we integrate fisheries into marine planning and that marine planning integrates fisheries into its processes.
Therefore, there is a very clear objective missing from the Bill, which is to accomplish that wider integration in public policy. Many users of the marine environment interact with fisheries, not least the growing and highly profitable energy sector. We are shifting towards greater use of our marine environment for the production of sustainable energy. That has an interesting intersection with fisheries: the offshore wind farms that we are putting into the marine environment can act as no-take zones for vessels over a certain size, and as hatcheries and protected areas that allow fish stocks to return to an area that would otherwise be decimated through overexploitation by large vessels with large gear. There is a real benefit to be gained from integrating fisheries with our spatial planning.
It is not just about reducing fishing effort, although another key part of planning—now in UK law—is the protection of areas of high biodiversity interest or sites of scientific interest in the marine environment. We have a marine planning process that designates marine planning areas, some of which are working well while others need to be better thought-through and planned. It would be much more effective if, when setting these new fishing policies, we think of them as an integral part of our marine planning for conservation.
There are other uses of the marine environment that require planning, including dredging the shipping channels. It is an environment that requires careful management and balance—I agree with that—but not to mention the existing marine plans that are required to be made, and not to integrate them with the fishing objectives, feels like a missed opportunity. I tabled this amendment in the hope that we can have a wider debate about spatial planning and how it relates to fisheries management. It is not a negative proposal: it could bring greater benefits as we think about how we manage our seas. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I hope that we have a good debate. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I very much welcome marine planning. I should perhaps declare a past interest as a board member of the Marine Management Organisation, which is responsible for marine planning in England. Last week I talked to Gillian Martin, the convenor of the environment committee of the Scottish Parliament, about marine planning. It is happening in Scotland, too.
I am certainly not advocating this as yet another objective—we have too many already—but it is important that the Bill takes account of marine planning and all the work going on in that field. Today our seas are, to put it mildly, used in multiple ways—for trade, renewable energy, undersea carbon capture and storage, and lots of other areas. I am not sure that the Bill even mentions things such as marine conservation zones, which are part of marine plans and, inevitably, part of the management of the fishing regimes. I would like to think that there was a way to refer to marine plans in the Bill, although not quite in this way.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for tabling these amendments. As she said, they relate to the importance of marine planning and the conservation obligations of the fishing sector.
The Marine and Coastal Access Act is an important piece of legislation, passed in the final years of the Labour Government, of which we are very proud. It already requires the UK and devolved Administrations to prepare marine plans. The point made by the noble Baroness was important: new legislation should incorporate the marine plans where they overlap and apply. With this Bill it is sensible to incorporate them into the joint fisheries statements and the fisheries management plans. We should not risk one piece of legislation overriding the obligations of another: the case for integration is well made.
As marine plans have been with us for some time, there is an argument that they should provide the bedrock on which other policies are built and developed. There is little sense in having marine conservation measures in place if certain protections are at risk of being disrupted by fishing activities authorised under the Bill, so the case for integration is strong.
We have raised previously with the Minister the wider challenge of how all Defra Bills integrate; for example, how this Bill will integrate with the Environment Bill. They all need to interlink and create a bigger whole. I am sure that we will be told that a number of the issues that we raise here will be dealt with in the Environment Bill. We need to make sure that everything is in its place and is interlinked. Everything should be developed as a package. The points made by the noble Baroness about the links between this Bill and marine conservation are well made. As with all these things, it is about finding the right wording and the right place in the legislation, but the principle is one that we should adopt.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I should have made another declaration: I am co-chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. Obviously, being surrounded by sea apart from the Tamar—which is an even more important boundary with our brothers in Devon—Cornwall has a marine interest.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for her amendments. Together, they would require policies made to achieve the fisheries objectives to be consistent with the objectives and policies in relevant marine plans.
I want to take this opportunity to make it clear that the UK Government recognise the importance of marine plans, which enable the increasing and, at times, competing demands for use of the marine area to be balanced and managed in an integrated way—a way that protects the marine environment while supporting sustainable development. Using our marine resources effectively and sustainably has the potential to provide significant benefits for the UK economy and for coastal communities. The economic contribution of marine-related industries to the UK’s GDP in 2015 was estimated at £27 billion, with scope for further growth.
In England, the East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans were published in April 2014 and the South Inshore and South Offshore Marine Plan was published in July 2018. The remaining marine plans for England are out for consultation by the Marine Management Organisation and will be in place by 31 March 2021, delivering the Government’s commitment in the 25-year environment plan.
Marine plans support economic growth in a way that benefits society while respecting the needs of local communities and protecting the marine environment. That is why I understand the importance of the points that the noble Baroness has raised. We believe that what her amendment requires is already provided for. As was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Section 58 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 requires public authorities to have regard to
“the appropriate marine policy documents”—
which could be a marine policy statement or a marine plan—when taking decisions affecting the marine environment. The amendments would therefore duplicate this requirement. I am advised that the requirement is already sufficient to meet what I know are the noble Baroness’s positive intentions.
With that explanation and the assurance that I have been advised that Section 58 covers this point and that the amendment would merely duplicate what is already a legal requirement, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Worthington
I thank the Minister for his response and explanation. Perhaps there will be an opportunity to discuss this further after Committee, as I am minded to withdraw the amendment. Even if that piece of legislation predates the Bill and states that the planners must take into account certain factors, the amendment creates an objective relating to marine planning, ensuring that the fisheries plans drawn up under the Bill take into account the marine planning aspects. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said, it is to make sure that the Bill is fully up to date with our marine planning requirements, not the other way around. However, on the basis that we can discuss this further, I beg leave to withdraw.
Ministerial Code: Breaches
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will repeat, in the form of a Statement, the Answer given to an Urgent Question in the other place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, on Saturday 29 February the Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service received and accepted the resignation of Sir Philip Rutnam as Permanent Secretary at the Home Office. On the same day, the Cabinet Secretary announced that Shona Dunn, then the Second Permanent Secretary at the Home Office responsible for borders, immigration and citizenship, would become Acting Permanent Secretary with immediate effect. Allegations have been made that the Home Secretary has breached the Ministerial Code. The Home Secretary absolutely rejects these allegations. The Prime Minister has expressed his full confidence in her. Having worked closely with the Home Secretary over a number of years, I also have the highest regard for her. She is a superb Minister doing a great job.
This Government always take any complaints relating to the Ministerial Code seriously. In line with the process set out in the Ministerial Code, the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Office to establish the facts. As is usual, the independent adviser on ministerial interests, Sir Alex Allan, is available to provide advice to the Prime Minister. It is long-standing government policy not to comment on individual personnel matters, in order to protect the rights of all involved. What I can, and will, say is that I know that the dedicated ministerial team at the Home Office, and its superb civil servants, will continue their critical work on the public’s behalf—keeping our country protected from the terror threat; bearing down on the criminals who seek to do our communities and our country harm; and delivering a fair, firm immigration system that works in the interests of the British people. The Home Office works tirelessly to keep our citizens safe and our country secure. We all stand behind the team leading that vital work.”
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement, and for his measured delivery which has given me time to catch my breath after racing to the Chamber.
The events leading to this Statement are extraordinary and unprecedented. Sir Philip Rutnam’s resignation statement, that he had been the victim of a
“vicious and orchestrated briefing campaign”
by allies of the Home Secretary, followed by reports that he was offered, but refused, a substantial pay-off—presumably to leave quietly—illustrates alarming levels of dysfunction at the very heart of government. On Thursday, the noble Lord, Lord True, told the House:
“The current Prime Minister expects the highest standards of performance and behaviour from all his colleagues.”—[Official Report, 27/2/20; col. 278.]
That is quite right. I am sure that I am not alone in thinking it quite strange that, having initiated a Cabinet Office investigation into the facts regarding the Home Secretary’s behaviour, before it even gets going the Prime Minister states his full confidence in her, even describing her as “fantastic” and
“a superb Minister doing a great job.”
Can the Minister answer just two questions? First, can he confirm that the Cabinet Office investigation is into whether the Home Secretary has breached the Ministerial Code in this department or in any other? I appreciate that he cannot give details of investigations, but straightforward confirmation that it is into breaches of the Ministerial Code would be helpful. Secondly, if that code is proven to have been broken, what sanctions are available?
Lord True
My Lords, in answer to the second question, any Minister holds office at the wish of the Prime Minister and if he considers, in the case of any Minister on any subject, that that Minister is not performing, that Minister will be subject to the appropriate sanctions. As for the noble Baroness’s first question, my right honourable friend answered this in the other House. Allegations have been made that the Home Secretary breached the Ministerial Code and the Cabinet Office has been asked to look at the facts, as reported.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I fear that this affair may have some further way to go. There are, for example, various reports in the newspapers that there was a hitlist of other Permanent Secretaries that the Government would like to get rid of. None of us, I think, wants to go down the road of Washington, where relations between members of the American Cabinet and its staff are clearly toxic in a number of ways. Do we not now need some sort of investigation that will be published to re-establish the necessary confidence between Ministers and civil servants, without which effective government is very difficult to carry on?
Lord True
No, my Lords, the allegation of a hitlist is false and has been denied. All in this House would agree that good government depends on all the elements of a ministry and a Government working well together. I had the privilege of working in the Civil Service as a special adviser in the past and I know that to be the case. This Government wholly respect the role of the Civil Service; they need the Civil Service to be free to give robust advice and there needs to be proper respect between all arms of government decision-making.
Lord Butler of Brockwell (CB)
My Lords, will the noble Lord clear up one point that was a little ambiguous in his answer to the Leader of the Opposition? I welcome the fact that, in line with the Ministerial Code, the Prime Minister has asked the Cabinet Office to establish the facts—that is clearly very important—but in answering the Leader of the Opposition, the noble Lord said that the Cabinet Office has been asked to inquire whether the Home Secretary has breached the code. However, there are also allegations that the code was breached when Ms Patel was in the Department for Employment and in DfID. Can he assure us that the inquiry will be wide-ranging and will cover that full range of complaints?
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, the undignified whinge in front of television cameras by the former Permanent Secretary at the Home Office certainly shows that he is no Sir Humphrey Appleby. What matters is that the Home Office is arguably the most constipated department in Whitehall, but one of the most important. There is much still to be done to follow up what the noble Lord, Lord Reid, said in May 2006 about the department being “not fit for purpose”. What really matters is that we get on with the reforms and we must welcome the fact that my right honourable friend Priti Patel is a vigorous Home Secretary who is determined, among other things, to root out the deep corruption, demonstrated in Parliamentary Questions I have asked and had answered, in the immigration department of the Home Office.
Lord True
My Lords, I will not follow my noble friend on all his comments. All I will say is that the Home Office has been charged with a vital job, from creating a points-based immigration system to strengthening the police and so on. I have no reason to believe that the Home Office, led by an outstanding ministerial team, will not perform to the highest levels expected of Her Majesty’s Civil Service.
Lord Kerslake (CB)
My Lords, I read the statement and heard of the resignation of Sir Philip with extreme sadness and shock. Will the inquiry talk to Sir Philip about his allegations and include the First Division Association chief executive Dave Penman to establish the reality of what happened? I welcome the inquiry, and the Statement says that it is not the Government’s practice to comment on personal matters. All I can say is that an awful lot of other people seem to have commented on Sir Philip. Will the Minister distance himself from the shameful comments that have been made in the newspapers over the weekend?
Lord True
My Lords, I make no comment about any individual. My job is to see that the conduct of government is carried on appropriately. The noble Lord will know from his distinguished service in the Civil Service that how the matter is conducted is not a matter for me but for the Cabinet Secretary, taking advice appropriately, as I am sure he will do. Sir Philip said in his statement that he intends to begin legal action; I am sure the House will understand that I cannot make any further comment on that matter.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, is a timetable attached to the inquiry by the Cabinet Office? My understanding is that it is the Prime Minister who decides in the end whether the ministerial code has been broken or not. Is that the case, or will he also rely on advice and input from independent sources?
Lord True
My Lords, I will not speculate on how long the work, which has only just begun, will last. It is in everybody’s interest that it be performed as swiftly but also as thoroughly and fairly as possible. The findings will be presented to the Prime Minister and then it will be a matter for his judgment what might or might not follow.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, will the Minister reflect that it would be deeply unfortunate if, as with the BBC or the courts, the people’s Government versus the Civil Service overrode the duty of people to be encouraged to work sensibly on behalf of the people we seek to represent? As a former special adviser, will he reflect that, after seven months, it would have been perfectly reasonable for the Home Secretary to have approached the Prime Minister and Cabinet Secretary to arrange a sensible departure for the Permanent Secretary if she could not get on with him? Is it not a worry that she might not be able to get on with anybody?
Lord True
My Lords, again I will not be tempted to follow a personal line, except to say that the noble Lord, when he was an outstanding Home Secretary, was never backward in coming forward with his views. It is in everyone’s interest that the heat is taken down a bit and the facts are established; once the facts are established your Lordships and the rest of the world can address their consequences.
Airport Expansion
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question asked in another place on airport expansion. The Statement is as follows:
“Madam Deputy Speaker, the Secretary of State is very sorry that he is unable to be here today. He is visiting the north as a long-standing commitment for discussions with northern leaders following the Government’s takeover of the Northern franchise. It is a pleasure to respond on his behalf as Minister for Aviation.
Airport expansion is a core part of boosting our global connectivity and levelling up the UK. It is crucial that vital infrastructure projects, including airport expansion, drive the whole UK economy. This Government support airport expansion, but we will permit it only within our environmental obligations. This Government have been clear that the Heathrow expansion is a private sector project which must meet strict criteria on air quality, noise and climate change, as well as being privately financed, affordable and delivered in the best interests of consumers.
Last week, the Court of Appeal ruled that the designation of the Airports National Policy Statement did not take account of the Paris Agreement, of non-carbon-dioxide emissions or of emissions post 2050, and therefore, has no legal effect unless and until this Government carry out a review. This Government have taken the decision not to appeal the court’s judgment. We take seriously our commitment on the environment and reducing carbon emissions.
It is a complex and important judgment, which the Government need time to consider carefully. At this stage, the Government will not be able to make any further comment beyond what was set out in the Written Statement of 27 February from the Secretary of State for Transport. Following the judgment, scheme promoters have applied for permission to the Supreme Court to appeal this decision. The Government will not comment on an ongoing legal case.
Aviation will play a key role in leading our economic growth and driving forward the UK’s status as an outward-facing trading nation, attracting investment and growing our trade links with new overseas markets. Today, our airports support connections to more than 370 destinations in more than 100 countries. Aviation drives trade, investment and tourism, contributing £14 billion to our economy and 500,000 jobs. The next decade will mark an unprecedented moment of opportunity for the UK. That is why we are investing in transport and infrastructure across the country—investing in our strategic roads network, proceeding with HS2 and committing £5 billion of funding to improve bus and cycle services outside London.
Airport expansion is a core part of our commitment to global connectivity, but we are also a Government who are committed to a greener future, as the first major economy in the world to legislate for net zero emissions by 2050. This Government are therefore committed to working with the aviation sector to make sure we deliver on the opportunities available to us, while meeting our environmental commitments, whether that is on modernisation of our airspace, innovation in sustainable fuels or research and technology. This will ensure a prosperous and sustainable future for the whole country, and the House will be updated on next steps as soon as possible.”
Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am becoming sympathetic to the Minister. She seems destined to repeat Statements from the House of Commons that have little or no substance. It is no surprise that the Heathrow expansion plan failed to reflect the UK’s commitment to tackling the climate crisis, given that the former Transport Secretary said that the Paris agreement was “not relevant” to expansion. Who provided legal advice to the Government saying that they did not have to take the Paris agreement into account when approving Heathrow expansion? Will the Government rule out amending the Airports National Policy Statement to allow expansion to go ahead, and do the Government now accept that the Paris agreement must be taken into account in all their domestic decisions?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, I will not go into the detail of who received what legal advice and when, but the court ruled in the way it did. It is worth looking at one thing: the court did not conclude that airport expansion was incompatible with climate change targets. It remains the Government’s position that we have our climate change targets, it is possible to expand airports within them and where possible we will do so.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the Liberal Democrats have always opposed Heathrow’s expansion, believing that it could not be done without serious environmental damage. I have always argued here that there has been far too much concentration on air services in the south-east, when there are airports in the north with spare capacity. Any expansion at Heathrow would be bound to skew investment towards the south-east, at the expense of the Midlands and north. So the Government now need to develop alternative policies. I understand there is an appeal process, but does the Minister agree that the Government need to use existing airports more efficiently and ensure, with speed, that all airports adopt zero emissions as an approach to their ground services, which can be provided at this time? Does the Minister also accept that all airports, and the Government, have to work on improving public transport links? Can the Minister guarantee that the Government will up their game environmentally?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I feel that the last comment in particular from the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, was a little harsh. We are the first major economy to have legislated for net zero by 2050. We have already reduced the amount of emissions by a quarter since the Conservatives came into office. I am sure that the noble Baroness will have heard on the grapevine that a transport decarbonisation plan will be published soon. That will cover how we are going to decarbonise our transport system. But the noble Baroness is right that transport between the different regions is incredibly important. That is why this Government are committed to investing in infrastructure, with the biggest rail modernisation since Victorian times, green-lighting HS2, £500 million for Beeching reversals and £29 billion on upgrading or maintaining our strategic roads network. A making best use policy is already in place for airports, which says that all airports can invest in their infrastructure, provided they meet environmental constraints.
Lord Haselhurst (Con)
My Lords, not even Heathrow Airport Ltd believes that a third runway at Heathrow could be available before 2029. Would it not be a safe insurance policy for the Government to upgrade the railway to Stansted Airport, which has legal spare capacity?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank my noble friend for raising one of the other London airports. It is true that we are incredibly lucky in this country, in that we have a number of options when we fly from the south-east or from London. The Government are focused on connections to airports, because we want to make sure that there are as many different options as possible to get to airports, so that people do not necessarily have to use their car. Train is often the best bet.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I do not know how the Minister’s department manages the mental gymnastics to think it possible to have airport expansion and fulfil our climate change targets. Could the Minister explain that? When Heathrow Airport said it would go net zero, it did not include any of its flights—so it will be rather difficult to square that circle.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
This Government are anti-aviation emissions, not anti-flying. That is the entire point. The Government are working incredibly hard to make sure that we get emissions down by 2050. I have already mentioned the transport decarbonisation plan, but we are also spending £2 billion on aviation research and technology. I ask the noble Baroness whether, if all planes were netzero, she would still be against flying.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the decision of the courts is very interesting and the Paris agreement is extremely important. We have to go much further than the Paris agreement if we are to make a proper impact on global emissions, through assistance to countries that are increasing their emissions very fast. Surely the decision of this country on how our infrastructure, planning and development should accord with our climate aims and zero emissions is a matter for Government policy and not for the courts. If the courts are to decide this, we will have very little chance of having any success at all.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My noble friend raises an important point. I go back to what I said earlier: the courts did not conclude that airport expansion was incompatible with climate change, simply that the ANPS did not take into account the items that I mentioned earlier. The noble Lord is right that it is government policy to decarbonise our transport system, which is what we are doing.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, the effect of the Court of Appeal’s ruling is that the Airports National Policy Statement is defective and has no legal effect, unless and until the Government carry out a review. Are the Government planning to carry out a review? If they are not, do we have an Airports National Policy Statement? If we do not, how can the Minister say that expansion of other airports will go ahead without an overall policy?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
This is an important point, but it is a complex and important judgment running to several hundreds of pages. The Government are taking their time to consider the judgment, and we will set out the next steps for the Airports National Policy Statement and other matters in due course.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on not appealing this judgment. That is a very wise decision. Is my noble friend confident that other plans the Government have, such as HS2, will also be in line with the Paris commitment?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
This is of course incredibly important, because there are potential read-acrosses to various other infrastructure builds. However, we are confident that they fall within our climate obligations.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, is it not a fact that this decision has had the effect of letting the Prime Minister off the hook? He does not have to lie down in front of the bulldozers—so there is a clear advantage in judicial review. Why are the Government seeking to restrict it?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I do not think that I am willing to go down that track.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, this is a bizarre judgment, given that the previous court ruled that the Paris judgment was not legally binding, but is not the real root of the problem the fact that we have made these targets legally binding? When the climate Bill went through Parliament, I voted against it and pointed out that the sole effect of enshrining targets in statute would be that the Government’s policies would be open to judicial review. It is bizarre that judges should decide on policies costing billions of pounds without being accountable to the electorate for the costs that will be incurred. That fills with me foreboding, and that foreboding has proved to be justified by this strange ruling. Should we not cease to have legally binding commitments and make these decisions politically by the Government and Parliament of the day?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank my noble friend. The Government stand by their decision to legislate that this country will be net zero by 2050, and what we have been able to achieve in terms of the decarbonisation of our energy system has been very significant. It is now time to turn to transport, and I believe that we can do it.
Coronavirus: British Citizens Imprisoned Abroad
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the response given by my honourable friend the Minister for Asia and the Pacific to an Urgent Question in the other place. The Statement is as follows:
“Protecting British citizens at home and abroad is a top priority for this Government and amid the outbreak of Covid-19, known as coronavirus, the UK is leading the response. First, we are providing support to British citizens abroad. This includes, of course, travellers and their families in countries around the world. The FCO is closely monitoring coronavirus throughout the world through its diplomatic network. We are providing travel advice to British nationals so that they can be sure of the facts before deciding whether to travel and sure of what they should do if they are affected by an outbreak of Covid-19 when travelling.
The UK has also put in place measures to ensure that travellers returning from abroad do not spread the virus further. We have enhanced monitoring measures at UK airports. Health information is available at all international airports, ports and international train stations. We have established a supported isolation facility at Heathrow Airport to cater for international passengers who are tested, and to maximise infection control and free up NHS resources.
For British nationals caught up in the initial outbreaks of the virus, HMG have co-ordinated repatriation for those impacted in Wuhan and the passengers on board the “Diamond Princess” cruise ship, and we are working with the Spanish authorities and tour operators to support the return of British nationals affected by the situation in Tenerife.
We also continue to insist that British nationals who are being detained in countries such as Iran, which has seen reports of a high number of cases of coronavirus, are temporarily released. France, Germany and the United Kingdom have expressed their full solidarity with those who are impacted by Covid-19 in Iran, so we are offering Iran a comprehensive package of both material and financial support to stem the rapid spread of the disease. Today, a plane departed the UK with vital materials such as equipment for laboratory tests as well as other equipment, including protective body suits and gloves. The E3 has also committed to providing urgent additional financial support of close to €5 million to fight the Covid-19 epidemic affecting Iran through the WHO or other UN agencies.
We will continue to support global efforts to combat the outbreak of Covid-19. Our support is directed at helping the most vulnerable across the globe and strengthening the global health system to protect our own nationals. We have provided £40 million of investment into vaccine and virus research and £5 million for the World Health Organization. We will continue to do all we can to keep British nationals safe and healthy around the world.”
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the response to that Urgent Question. In the other place this afternoon, my right honourable friend Emily Thornberry recalled British aid efforts to help the people of Iran during a humanitarian crisis. She asked the Minister to join her in making a plea to the Iranian Government to see Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe as one of those innocent people in a humanitarian crisis whom they have it in their gift to save. She also hoped that the Minister would make a solemn commitment that if Iran acts with compassion, we would not forget our obligations to act with fairness and justice in resolving the other issues of dispute between our countries.
Unfortunately, it is not only Nazanin who is suffering in Iranian prisons today. There is Aras Amiri, who in 2018 was sentenced to 10 years, or Anoosheh Ashoori, sentenced to 12 years in 2019—and there are many others. Can the Minister offer an update on any of these cases? In particular, can she confirm whether concerns about Covid-19 have been raised by the families of other dual nationals imprisoned in Iran?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we have been in close touch with the Iranian authorities to urge them to secure a temporary release on medical grounds for Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe, while her release remains a top priority for the Government. Of course, the welfare of all British nationals imprisoned in Iran is a top priority and we will continue to lobby for the temporary release of all detainees in Evin Prison.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness for that answer. I am glad that we are working with France and Germany in recognising the dire situation that Iran is in—it is clearly in the middle of a major epidemic—and that we are doing our best to help Iran and its people in any way we can. However, this crisis clearly shows why action needed to be taken a long time ago to get Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe and the other dual nationals released. Do the Government not have a special responsibility as far as she is concerned? Her health has clearly been compromised, while we hear that new prisoners are not being admitted to her prison because of the virus. There are apparently no medicines or disinfectants. Surely the Government have to do their very best to secure her release, get her into quarantine and bring her home to the United Kingdom.
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we are calling on the Iranian Government to immediately give detained British-Iranian dual nationals access to appropriate medical treatment and our colleagues in Tehran will continue to lobby for the temporary release of all our detainees in Evin Prison. Of course, it is important that we support Iran as best we can. We have seen an alarming increase in the number of cases there, with 523 confirmed in the previous 24 hours. That is why it is so important that the E3 supports Iran in the way that it is.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, I am sure everyone in the House has huge sympathy with the appalling predicament of Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her, frankly, unreasonable imprisonment. On the broader issue of coronavirus—I look forward to listening to the Chief Medical Officer when he comes to us on Wednesday—while this is of course a very serious outbreak, it seems that there is a danger of overreacting. I am in the danger zone, as are most of your Lordships because all old men aged over 60 are in it. But, on average, some 17,000 people die of flu every winter, yet so far we have had no deaths at all from coronavirus in this country and the numbers around the world are slim. Can the Minister reassure me that we are not overreacting?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I agree that it is absolutely right that we should get the balance of our reaction correct. Of course, public safety is our top priority and I thank all those already working around the clock so that we are ready at home and can ensure the safety of UK nationals abroad. Our approach in this country is being guided by the Chief Medical Officer, Professor Chris Whitty, and independent experts. We will continue to work closely with the World Health Organization and the international community to ensure that we get our response to this outbreak right.
Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)
My Lords, is it true that the prisoners who are ill abroad are not being tested? Surely all of them should be tested and treated.
Baroness Sugg
If the noble Baroness is referring directly to the prisoners in Iran, as I say, we are working closely with the Iranian authorities to ensure that we have access to them and that they get the testing and the medical attention they need.
UK-US Trade Deal Negotiating Objectives
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My Lords, with permission, I will now repeat a Statement made in the other place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Trade. The Statement is as follows:
“Today my department is publishing a suite of documents that mark a crucial step in the process of beginning formal negotiations for a free trade agreement with our largest bilateral trading partner, the United States. These documents comprise the Government’s negotiating objectives, our response to the public consultation, and a scoping assessment to provide the House and the British people with analysis of the potential long-run economic impact of an FTA. These are available online and will be placed in the Libraries.
The UK stands at an historic moment, building its independent trade policy for the first time in almost half a century. This Government will seize this opportunity to be an independent, global champion with a simple message: free trade is good for all nations and will deliver benefits for businesses, households and consumers across the UK. We aim to have 80% of UK trade with countries covered by free trade agreements within three years, starting with the US, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. Seeking these agreements is part of our efforts to level up, deliver opportunity and unleash the potential of every part of our United Kingdom.
The USA is the world’s largest economy, our closest security and defence partner, and one of our oldest friends. We are the biggest investors in each other’s economies. An FTA represents a fantastic opportunity to strengthen and deepen our strong trade, investment and economic relationships, bringing us closer to the world’s economic powerhouse. In 2017, according to US statistics, 1.7 million people worked for US majority-owned companies operating in the UK, and 1.3 million for UK majority-owned companies based in the US. UK-US total trade was valued at £220.9 billion in the last year, representing 19.8% of all our exports. An ambitious FTA with the US could deliver a significant long-term boost for the economy. Compared with 2018, it could mean a £15.3 billion increase in bilateral trade and a £3.4 billion lift to the economy.
The negotiating objectives we are publishing today are underpinned by one of the biggest consultations ever undertaken with the UK public, businesses and wider society. It received the views of 158,720 respondents, all of which have fed into the Government’s broad approach to FTAs and specific negotiating objectives. We have scaled up our trade negotiator expertise and have a similar size of team to the US trade representative, including a wealth of experience from the private sector, trade law, Commonwealth nations and WTO experts, ready to deliver for the UK.
My department’s analysis shows that the US deal we are seeking benefits every region and nation of the UK, delivering improved access for businesses, more investment, better jobs and higher wages. For the Midlands, a UK-US FTA could reduce tariffs on cars and ceramics. For Scotland, it could lock in salmon and whisky trade and support new market access for beef. The north of England could see more exports of manufactured goods and new data agreements for its tech firms. The south-west can gain from eased customs procedures for beverages, luxury sports and marine equipment. The south-east could see benefits for its globally competitive professional business firms. London could see benefits through agreements on digital trade that will boost our world-leading tech firms. The east of England will see a boost to its food and life science industries. Wales stands to gain market access for its fantastic lamb, and reduced tariffs and red tape for its steel and ceramic sectors. Northern Ireland can benefit through liberalisation of tariffs in furniture and pharmaceuticals.
North, east, south and west, from agriculture to the creative industries, my department’s analysis finds that a US trade deal has the potential to deliver benefits throughout the UK economy, with more choice for consumers at lower prices and new opportunities for businesses, and to grow high-skills jobs. It has the potential to slash trade barriers and tariffs totalling some £493 million per year and could boost British workers’ wages by £1.8 billion.
Small and medium-sized businesses provide around three-fifths of jobs in the UK. They are increasingly international traders in their own right. In 2018, 97% of businesses exporting goods were SMEs, representing 28% of our total exports. Some 30,000 SMEs across the UK trade with the US already. So we will make it a priority in these negotiations to support UK SMEs to seize the opportunities of UK-US trade. We will do this by aiming to agree a dedicated SME chapter to facilitate co-operation on SME issues; to ensure that SMEs have easy access to information to take advantage of the new opportunities; to build on the successful UK-US SME dialogue to strengthen co-operation; and to ensure that throughout the agreement there are SME-friendly provisions covering both services and goods.
We are also looking to rewrite the rules of the game on digital trade to create a world-leading ecosystem that supports businesses of all sizes across the UK. This could include provisions that facilitate the free flow of data and prevent unjustified data localisation requirements, while ensuring that the UK’s high standards of personal data protection are maintained and that government continues to maintain its ability to protect users against online harm. We can ensure that customs duties are not imposed on electronic transmissions and create fantastic opportunities in areas such as blockchain, driverless cars and quantum technology.
In these trade talks, as in all our future trade talks, this Government will drive a hard bargain for the British people. The NHS, the price it pays for drugs and its services are not for sale. There will be no compromise on high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. Throughout these negotiations, the Government will continue to engage collaboratively with Parliament, the devolved Administrations and the public.
I can also assure the House that now the UK is free to negotiate outside the EU, we will be aiming to begin negotiations with the US as quickly as possible. The appetite is clear on both sides. We welcomed the US Government’s negotiating objectives, particularly on developing state-of-the-art provisions in financial services and digital trade. We welcome the enthusiasm in both the US Congress and the US Administration, as was made clear during my discussions last week with US Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer. We see in this not just an opportunity to deepen our bilateral trade and investment relationship, important though that is; it is about setting an example to the world of how two leading, open and mature economies can trade with one another.
As an independent trading nation, the UK will champion free trade and lower trade barriers at every opportunity. Striking free trade agreements will give our businesses the opportunities, certainty and security they need to prosper. The greatest opportunity to do this is with our closest ally and largest single trading partner, the United States. We have the mandate. We have the team. With the documents we are publishing today, we have the tools. With hard work, I believe we can get it done—so I commend this Statement to the House.”
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, I first apologise for not being present at the very start of proceedings on this Statement. Unfortunately, my printer got stuck and I had to wait until I was able to clear it with technical help. I therefore missed the opening sentence, but I had been given a copy of the Statement and had read it before.
We support an ambitious trade agreement that unlocks economic growth, creates new jobs and elevates rights and standards. I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement following the publication of today’s negotiating mandate for the Government’s flagship trade agreement with the USA. Of course, some 20% of our current trade is already with the USA. It is our second-biggest market and we have enjoyed decades of two-way trade with no underlying trade agreement. So, while I welcome the publication today, I wonder whether it was quite necessary to do it in the way it has been done and to carry the tone it does.
The Statement says that an “ambitious” free trade agreement with the US could result in
“a £15.3 billion increase in bilateral trade and a £3.4 billion lift to the economy.”
These are substantial figures. However, can the Minister confirm that this is over a 15-year period? These results will be slow to come and indeed, given the length of time, are not very substantial on their own. Can he also confirm that, at the end of that time, the British economy would be only 0.16% larger by 2035? This hardly compares well with the loss in trade of some 5% of GDP—some argue it could be worse—if we fail to complete an ambitious free trade agreement with the EU.
Secondly, the Secretary of State has said positive things about the NHS and the price of medicines, and that there will be no compromise on environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. However, the Government have so far failed to enshrine this in primary legislation. There is an amendment to the Trade Bill that left your Lordships’ House in a previous Session that would do it. Why do they continue to prevaricate on this point?
There is a lot in the Statement about tariffs and quotas, which are important, but there are already very low tariffs between the UK and the US. The main problem is regulation. To take food as an example, the US position is generally that its food is just as good as European food and our standards are just protectionism. The problem is that American food is not the same, by any standards. Farming in the US is mostly on a large, industrial scale, and the animals are kept in conditions so poor that they get ill or do not thrive unless they are also fed a lot of antibiotics and steroids, not to mention hormones that maximise growth. We, on the other hand, through the EU have a farm-to-fork policy that regulates conditions throughout the life cycle. So what you dunk a chicken in before it is presented for sale is really shorthand for a wider question of how that animal has lived. How are the Government going to square that circle?
In the same field, will the Government reaffirm their commitment to international labour standards and rights and require the US to sign up to the ILO conventions, which it has so far failed to do.
Thirdly, what is most striking about the document is that it seems to ignore the US negotiating position, although there was a mention of that in the Statement. The language of the US document is highly aggressive, demanding concessions but offering little in return. For example, it says:
“The United States seeks to support higher-paying jobs in the United States and to grow the U.S. economy by improving U.S. opportunities for trade and investment with the UK.”
That does not sound like a very open-ended commitment to work with the UK. The framework for negotiating the UK-US trade deal is centred around reducing tariffs and non-tariff barriers but only in ways that benefit the US. For example, we read that one of the negotiating objectives of the US is to
“Secure comprehensive duty-free market access for U.S. industrial goods and strengthen disciplines to address non-tariff barriers that constrain U.S. exports.”
I am a bit perplexed why the document published today does not confirm that the UK has properly analysed the US position and will have the necessary tools to negotiate round these difficult operations that are in print.
Finally, we accept that there has been wide public consultation, but this Statement does not constitute adequate parliamentary engagement on this process. We await the return of the Trade Bill, which left this House with a proposed structure for engagement with Parliament and its committees. Can the Minister tell us how the Government intend to enable effective scrutiny of this and future trade agreements?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for repeating the Statement given in the other place. As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, we are building on substantial trade with the United States, which receives some 20% of our exports and is our largest international market after the European Union. To be clear, business achieved those substantial numbers while the United Kingdom was still in the European Union. Leaving the European Union is not a prerequisite for doing business with other countries and regimes.
That said, the process of negotiation is now under way, so what light does the Statement throw up? First, could the Minister acknowledge that, with respect to services, our largest sector, it is often the states rather than the federal Government which hold sway? So there are severe limitations on any FTA going forward, because it is difficult to cover the services sector, which is very important for the United Kingdom.
Data appears a number of times in the Statement and plays a big role in the supporting documents. The Government say they are going to
“rewrite the rules of the game on digital trade”.
First, can the Minister confirm that this will mean the UK moving away from GDPR, as clearly that is important? In the Statement, the Minister also talks about including provisions to
“facilitate the free flow of data and prevent unjustified data localisation requirements”.
It would be interesting to know, either today or in a Written Statement, what “unjustified data localisation requirements” this refers to? This is a real issue. For example, is the Minister happy that UK users of Google are having their data moved from the EU domain into the United States’ domain, where there is no accountability from the EU, which until very recently provided democratic accountability for UK users. Does the Minister think that, in moving the data, Google is expecting to make more money from people’s lives or less?
On democratic accountability, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, pointed out, there is considerable uncertainty. Congress, on the other hand, will get the job of approving this deal in the United States, as will the European Parliament in the event of an EU deal being struck. The Statement says that
“the Government will continue to engage collaboratively”,
but following the decision to shelve, or otherwise, the Trade Bill, Parliament has no formal role. Can the Minister explain what collaborative engagement actually means? There is a strong danger that every MP will be held accountable as time goes forward for the effects of trade deals, without having had any say over what the deal was. Perhaps MPs on all Benches will be considering that.
Furthermore, during negotiations—and I have heard this said in this House by those who have participated in negotiations—it is very handy for the US negotiators to have the get-out clause, “Well, I would agree with you on this, but Congress will not let me do it. My hands are tied.” UK negotiators will have no such constraints.
The absence of regulatory alignment, which is clearly something that the EU negotiations will continue go forward with, will ensure that no meaningful deal can be struck with the European Union. In reports, the Secretary of State and others have made it clear that Her Majesty’s Government are prepared to walk away from negotiations with the European Union in 2021. Does the Minister agree that, in this context, given the conflicting nature of regulatory alignment, an FTA deal with the EU is mutually exclusive with one with the United States? We could have a deal with the United States but at the expense of a meaningful FTA with the EU, or perhaps vice versa. I am interested to know the Government’s view on Boris Johnson’s “Cake and eat it” strategy. Can the Minister explain how that works in terms of regulatory alignment?
And what is this for? As the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, in about 15 years we will have advanced our GDP by less than 0.2%—a quantum that pales into insignificance with the benefits that we were receiving due to our relationship with the European Union. This Statement fails: it fails to prioritise the livelihoods of people and their businesses over an ideological approach to trade and trade policy.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I thank both noble Lords for their points. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, for his broad support for this Statement; perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Fox, did not quite fall into that category.
The first point the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, raised was about the point I made concerning the total value of trade between the UK and the US, which will soar—as I had said—by £15.3 billion, adding £1.8 billion to wages across the country. It is true that is over a 15-year period, as he asked me.
The noble Lord spoke about environmental protection. I know this is an issue which is important for many of your Lordships in this House and has come up in previous debates. In all our trade agreements, we will not compromise on our high standards of food safety and animal welfare. The Government will stand firm in trade negotiations to ensure that any future trade deals live up to the values of farmers and consumers across the UK. The UK is proud of its world-leading food, health and animal welfare standards. I say again: we will not lower our standards as we negotiate new trade deals.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, mentioned the ILO and the link to labour standards, and alluded to the conventions as part of the negotiations. He will know that we have very high labour standards in this country, and we want to uphold those. That will be a red line in our approach to these discussions, as it is with the EU.
The noble Lord also alluded to the US position and said that some of the information coming out was—to use his word—on the “aggressive” side. It is entirely to be expected that the US would lay out its stall. We have known its position, which is a very good thing, and will be taking what it has to say very seriously.
On scrutiny, primarily parliamentary scrutiny, this falls in line with what the Government wish to do to keep the nation in touch. The noble Lords, Lord Fox and Lord Stevenson, will know of the strategic trade advisory group, or STAG, and the expert trade advisory groups, or ETAGs. We are consulting these groups on a regular basis. The STAG’s principal purpose is for the Government to engage with stakeholders on trade policy matters. On parliamentary engagement, we have pledged to keep Parliament—both the Commons and this place—up to date as we see fit on the timing and how we are approaching the negotiations.
I should also mention, very importantly, the devolved Administrations. In the Moses Room the other day, I mentioned the forums. We have had our first forum engaging with the devolved Administrations. That is another important facet.
The noble Lord, Lord Fox, raised the issue of services, which is indeed a very important sector for the UK; it is our largest sector. The point was made that negotiations were, on occasion, perhaps more applicable with the states rather than at a federal level. Negotiations are primarily with the US Fed—if I may put it that way. As negotiations continue, there will be more of a focus on the states. I reassure the noble Lord that these negotiations are at a high level, with the federal Government.
I cannot comment on data and moving away from the GDPR. I stick by what I said earlier: data protection is incredibly important in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Fox, mentioned unjustified data requirements. It should be part of the negotiations between the UK and the US to make absolutely sure that our standards and protections are not lowered; that includes Google, which the noble Lord mentioned.
On our approach to negotiations, we have said, and continue to say, that we are prepared to walk away from negotiations if we feel that that is right. However, we approach them in a good spirit. That has been the case in the working groups, which have been operating for quite some time—at least two years.
The noble Lord raised regulatory alignment. That will come up as part of our negotiations with the EU and our negotiations with the US. I hope that that covers most of the questions.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s Statement and hope that these negotiations are successful, but is it not important to put the importance of trade agreements into perspective? What actually drives trade is the production of goods and services that other people want to buy. Trade agreements are of secondary importance, as illustrated by the relative growth in our trade with countries with whom we trade solely on WTO terms and have no free trade agreement with. The WTO and the single market were set up at the same time, when I was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Our exports of goods to WTO-only countries has grown by 87%, faster than those economies themselves have grown and six times faster than our exports to the EU, which have grown by barely 0.5% a year, which is slower than the growth of the economies of the EU.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
My noble friend makes an excellent point. The opportunities for the UK are substantial. I say again that this is a landmark deal that will set the standard for world-leading trade agreements. Starting off with the US is a very good start. For example, it is very exciting that tariffs will likely be reduced for Bentleys from Crewe, Aston Martins from Warwickshire and Wales, UK cheese, which currently has a 17% tariff, and ceramics from Warwickshire, which have a 28% tariff. We hope that these tariffs will be reduced, as they should be, in the negotiations. Noble Lords might ask me, as the Minister, what we are going to get in return from America. That includes raisins and wine from California, and, as the Prime Minister said, Stetsons replacing salmon. There is a lot to be hopeful about in the negotiations.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I have not had an opportunity to read this long document, but I congratulate the Minister in one respect: at least in this document, the Government have tried to produce a proper economic assessment of the potential of a free trade agreement with the United States. Is it not odd that, on the much more important free trade agreement with the EU—despite what the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, said, it still accounts for two and a half times more of our trade than the United States—no economic assessment was produced at all? How can he explain that?
Secondly, will the Minister acknowledge that, while any growth as a result of a UK-US deal would be welcome and important, it is trivial by comparison with the numbers at stake in our EU relationship?
Finally, will he acknowledge that, in the special case of President Trump, trade deals are extremely difficult to negotiate? He does not believe, like Britain and the European Union, in the concept of a rules-based multilateral order governing trade. He has been trying to weaken the WTO by not appointing judges to its highest arbitration panels. He believes that might is more important than right, and he judges trade by how much powerful America can grab—it is what academics would call “managed trade”, not free trade. We are putting far too much importance—we need realism—about getting anything substantial out of these negotiations.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I am much more optimistic than the noble Lord. I can perhaps reassure him that we are aware that some reforms are required for the WTO. We very much want to play our part in ensuring that those reforms are carried through.
The second thing to say is that the US deal is the first of several. The noble Lord will know that we have Japan, New Zealand and Australia to come, and of course the EU. There was a chance in the past few days, and yesterday, to question my noble friend Lord True on the EU deal. I do not want to be drawn in on that except to say that, in the US deal, we start from a very good platform because we are one nation negotiating with one other nation; with the EU, it is of course a bit more complicated, in that we are dealing with 27 countries —and the House will understand when I say that there are a few more complications than that. However, we are very confident that we will be able to negotiate both a US deal and an EU deal in parallel. I hope that helps to answer the noble Lord’s questions, but I doubt it.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con)
My Lords, the Department for International Trade has obviously done an enormous amount of work on this issue, a large amount of it under my right honourable friend Dr Liam Fox, the former Secretary of State who was doing a very good job on all fronts. It is absolutely right, as your Lordships have observed, that the USA is far the largest single country market force at 20%; about half is services and is growing, and the other half is goods, which is shrinking. But most consumer market growth in the next 10 years will not be in America, or indeed in Europe—it will be in Asia, by far. That is the huge new area where we have to succeed. Asia will shortly make up half of the world’s GDP, if not more. That happens to be where we are weakest, so I urge my noble friend to remind his colleagues in the Department for International Trade that we should think carefully about our priorities and not spend too much time trying to perfect our excellent trade with America—that may now get more difficult, not easier—when we should really be concentrating all our resources on finding our way into the giant Asian markets, which will really determine our future and prosperity.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I agree with my noble friend that the Asian market is very important. I mentioned Japan earlier, which he will know is very much on the agenda. There is, of course, more to do in Asia, but I go back to the statistic that I gave earlier: we intend, over the next three years, to cover 80% of our trade deals. That, I would argue, is a very good start. It is right that we are starting not just with the EU but also with the US. It is on the basis that the US, clearly, is on our side: it wants to secure a deal as well.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I must comment on the comparative tone of the two Statements we have had on the negotiations with the European Union and the United States. The announcement on the relations with the EU insisted several times that we expected the European Union to treat us as a sovereign equal. Can the Minister assure us that we will similarly expect the United States to treat us as a sovereign equal? The phrasing was, instead, that the United States is our closest ally, which I think is code for saying, “We expect them to be nice to us because they like us.” Is it not more likely that, in trade issues, the United States will be as transactional as the European Union is likely to be? I remember during a conference on transatlantic trade some years ago a Democratic Congressman saying to me, “People of my district are entirely in favour of free trade provided they do not have to accept any more imports”. That is the problem right there.
One of the biggest consultations on future trade relations for Britain was the balance of competences exercise during the coalition on the relations between the UK and the EU. The overwhelming sense from the returns, including those from the Scotch Whisky Association, whose director at that point was David Frost, was that the balance of competences between the EU and the UK suited our industry and our services very well. The Conservative part of the coalition, by and large, wished to ignore that consultation and carry on.
I also note that on digital regulation, we now
“have the opportunity to help shape global rules through ambitious digital trade provisions.”
That means we clearly expect to share in shaping US regulations in the way that we do not think we can in the EU. Can the noble Lord explain that contradiction?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
There were several questions from the noble Lord, so I will not be able to answer all of them, but I say at the outset: the respect is there between the two countries—it always has been. We have very strong and close relations with the US for a whole range of reasons and there is no reason why that will not continue in terms of our negotiations. In fact, as I said earlier, talks in the working groups have been extremely constructive, and we very much hope they will continue in the same vein. Having said that, I have no doubt that the US will talk tough. We are prepared to talk tough and have said that we are prepared, if necessary, to walk away from negotiations if we feel that any of the issues that we are negotiating on do not fall in with the national interest.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I think we risk being a little churlish. What we have here is what I recognise as a White Paper. We have a serious document with some serious economic analysis resulting in some serious consultation with a serious attempt to quantify the effects of the policy the Government chose to follow, broken down sectorially, geographically and in different categories of citizen, and there has been consultation with the devolved Administrations. In all these respects, this is admirable and in striking contrast with what we got last week about the negotiation with the European Union, which started today.
I think that one should give the Government credit for being honest about how small the likely scale of increase in trade would be if one managed the scenario that is sketched out here. If, optimistically, one achieved what is here, one would be gaining, after 15 years, a fraction of 1% of GDP, whereas, with the European Union, the Government’s own economic analysis shows that they would be some 5%, 7 % or 8% down in GDP. So this is small stuff.
I also agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, that what matters is what the traders do. More than two-thirds of transatlantic trade in goods is intra-company trade, so it is issues such as taxation that matter as much as any of this here. I also find the optimism of this quite striking. I was always struck, when in America, that the land of the free is not the land of free trade: it is the land where might is right. Remember that the Jones Act is still on the statute book in the United States, that we are the small party—the demandeur—and that the United States is out to, “Make America Great Again”. It is out to bring home jobs; it is not out to support jobs in this country, even though we are a close ally.
It is an admirable document; I see no harm at all in the attempt the Government are making, but let us be realistic. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, is right: it is in Asia, not America, that there are the real prospects for expanding trade. In America, we will come up against fierce protectionism: America is the most protectionist economy of all our trading partners.
Viscount Younger of Leckie
It is praise indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has said that the document is admirable and I am pleased to have been able to listen to that very carefully. I take note of what the noble Lord says about the US and our prospects, but I do not agree. If we take, for instance, SMEs as one particular issue, there are 5.9 million small businesses, but relatively few export to the US. This new deal will provide a tremendous opportunity for SMEs to do business in the US. From the analysis we have done—the noble Lord will have probably read the document—we believe we have more to gain in the UK in terms of business with the US than the US has in return. I think it is exciting and I am not at all dismissing the point made by my noble friend Lord Howell and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about the importance of the Far East. The point is that, as we have left the EU, and as we go through this transition period, the opportunities are absolutely tremendous in terms of what we can do in global deals generally, but it makes sense for us to start with the US.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend remind me: was is not the United States that imposed a tariff of 25% on exports of Scotch whisky to the United States from Great Britain? Will my noble friend ensure that the Government make it a commitment of these negotiations that that tariff will be removed? Can I pin him down on the wording used in both Houses? He said that the Government will not lower our standards of environmental and animal welfare. Will he commit to prohibiting imports of any product of animal origin from the United States that does not meet the same standards of production in this country?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I will first take up my noble friend’s question about Scotch whisky. Yes, it is true that there is this 25% tariff on Scotch whisky, but my understanding is that that is linked to an unfortunate state aid issue linked to Airbus. This is unfortunate and disappointing. My noble friend will know that we are looking to work through those issues. We very much hope, wish and expect that the tariffs on Scotch whisky will come down. My noble friend makes a very good point—I know that she has raised the issue of environmental standards on several occasions. Once again, we will not lower our standards as we negotiate new trade deals.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, should the EU be minded at some stage in the negotiations with us to allow new trade barriers, tariffs and quotas to be erected that affect trade between the EU and the UK, will it not be all the more important that we get on with some urgency to negotiate for the reduction of tariffs, quotas and trade barriers between ourselves and the US? If we do so, will that not encourage our exporters and consumers to believe that the damage caused by the unsatisfactory progress of negotiations with the EU will be offset? Will it not also encourage exporters and consumers in the EU to put pressure on their negotiators to think better of it and not allow new trade barriers to be erected between the EU and the UK?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I am sure the whole House will agree when I say that trade barriers and tariffs are a disincentive to business and that we do not want them. We realise that some are now trading under WTO terms, but the whole point of negotiating with the US, and in particular with the EU, is to get to a point where we lower those barriers. That will obviously be good for businesses and jobs. On the point that I think the noble Lord was making, as I said earlier, we have for some time been prepared to negotiate with the EU at the same time as negotiating with the US. We have the people, the working groups and preparations in place. I see the two working very well in tandem. The linkages that will be made between my department—the Department for International Trade—No. 10 and other departments will be made for both negotiations.
Viscount Waverley (CB)
My Lords, more generally, could the Minister indicate what timetable the Government are working towards with these trade negotiating rounds, which, together with the EU round, will require face-to-face deliberations? Given Covid-19, are the Government in any way anticipating delay to the transition period to achieve the results they wish?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I am not entirely sure whether the noble Viscount was referring to the EU; obviously this subject is the US. However, I reassure him that, on the US negotiations, I am laying out the last process in informing the House, as my right honourable friend in the other place Liz Truss has informed the Commons, which is to set out this document, which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, alluded to as being pretty good—“admirable”, I think. I answer the noble Viscount’s question by saying that we therefore fully expect to go pretty quickly into actual negotiations. I was told earlier today that we fully expect to do that by the end of March.
Fisheries Bill [HL]
Monday 2nd March 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (2 Mar 2020)
Baroness Byford
“( ) the collaborative objective.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that collaboration with external authorities is included in the fisheries objectives.
Baroness Byford (Con)
My Lords, I have the great pleasure of speaking to the amendments standing in my name and that of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. Unfortunately, he is delayed. He had hoped to arrive in time, but I have the pleasure of moving the amendment anyway. Together, the two amendments call for collaborative working on the Bill. While in our earlier discussions we asked whether 10 objectives were plenty, here we are calling for one extra. To a certain extent we will understand if, standing alone, it is not accepted. However, the point behind collaborative working is very important.
Amendment 5 speaks for itself, so I turn to Amendment 26, which itemises the intentions behind this whole idea. The “collaborative objective” is to ensure that
“the fisheries policy authorities receive guidance on fisheries management from the fishing industry, scientists and other relevant stakeholders.”
That engagement has not been as close as it could have been over the years. The amendment would provide the opportunity to establish a proper common base on which these decisions can be made. Proposed new subsection (9B) says that guidance under proposed new subsection (9A)
“must be formally established and shared by a consultative group”—
in other words, there will be a direct link to make sure that it is established and that working together happens. Proposed new subsection (9C) states:
“Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must issue a consultation on the establishment of a consultative group under subsection (9B) or an alternative vehicle for producing guidance under subsection (9A).”
I am very grateful to the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations for its help in putting this amendment together. If my noble friend the Minister cannot accept it, I hope he will look carefully at what is being suggested, which is the need to make sure that we bring together all those who work in the fishing industry to come up with positive suggestions for future sustainability. The consultative group would guide and advise on policy; promote collaboration between central government and the devolved Administrations; allow ongoing dialogue on the viability of the industry; and channel the fishing industry’s knowledge and experience, about which I spoke earlier, into the design and implementation of management measures. This would be hugely helpful.
The consultative group would play a leading role in the use of secondary legislation—as we all know, the Bill will set up systems, but a lot of the detail will come in the secondary legislation—to ensure that we have an agile and responsive approach to future fisheries management. The inclusion of the consultative group of fishery experts would guarantee that sustainability issues are fully considered. It would also play a valuable role in the development and operation of the management plans proposed later in the Bill.
As I said, we might be adding an 11th objective—I still think number one, sustainability, is the most important overall—but it is important that those who work on the sea, those who plan for what is happening, the scientists and the data collected should work together. I have great pleasure in moving the amendment.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I agree that there needs to be far more collaboration. It is the big missing thing in the Bill in many ways. We have a Bill that covers the whole of the United Kingdom. We have devolution in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales but I am concerned that we have no devolution in England despite the fact that the English fishery is diverse—as are those of the other nations—and I have amendments later in the Bill that seek to tackle that in a sensible and not too radical way.
I welcome the spirit of the amendments. They are the basement of what we need but I hope the Minister will take strongly the message that there needs to be consultation and working with not only the industry but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said, the larger stakeholders to make this sector work. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to this proposal.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for tabling these amendments, and I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said.
The noble Baroness raised an important point about consultation, although, as we discussed in the earlier amendments, I am not sure—I think she acknowledged this—that adding it to the list of objectives is the right way to go about it. But the sense of what she is trying to achieve certainly has merit.
A number of the delegated powers in the Bill contain consultation requirements with devolved Ministers and/or representatives of the fishing industry. However, in that respect, the need for consultation is reserved for specific purposes and is envisaged as a one-off, whereas this amendment proposes a more regular and longer-term consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said he thought it was at the basement of the types of consultation we should have but, nevertheless, we agree that there should be more comprehensive regular engagement with relevant stakeholders.
Moving further than the noble Baroness’s amendment, we need to make sure that the different sections of the UK’s fleet—the trawlers and the 10s and so on—are all effectively represented in the process. We need to make sure that the spread of stakeholders is right.
We are not doing very well with this Bill because we keep having to revisit and go back and forth to parts that we have already discussed. We have amendments later in the Bill which deal with the issue of consultation, and the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, has said that he has more detailed proposals with regard to the establishment of advisory boards and so on.
In the mix of all that there is the fundamental issue of consultation, and all these proposals have merit. We will listen carefully to what the Minister has to say on this issue and, when we have dealt with all the amendments we have tabled, we will try to pull together a considered view about the best wording and the best way forward. We would like to get this element of the Bill right and we may well have to come back to it on Report. As I say, we will listen to what the Minister has to say but we may need to pool our ideas to take this issue forward, and we should do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and my noble and learned friend—I am sorry he is not able to be present—and wholeheartedly agree with the principle that fisheries management should be informed by the best available evidence and that there should be close working between the UK Government, the devolved Administrations, industry, scientists and interested parties. All noble Lords who have spoken in this shortish debate have referred to that.
It is a long-established approach for the Government to engage widely on the implementation of policy. We have an expert advisory group considering issues relating to fisheries policy and, because the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, raised one or two points, I would like to indicate which organisations are part of that to show the spread: the National Federation of Fishermen’s Organisations, the Scottish Fishermen’s Federation, the United Kingdom Association of Fish Producer Organisations, the Scottish Association of Fish Producer Organisations, the New Under Ten Fishermen’s Association, Greener UK, the British Retail Consortium, the Association of IFCAs and the UK Seafood Industry Alliance/Provision Trade Federation.
Additionally, we have a Marine Science Co-ordination Committee, bringing together bodies across government, together with senior scientific advisers. I mention in particular Professor Mike Elliott, director of the Institute of Estuarine and Coastal Studies and professor of estuarine and coastal sciences at the University of Hull, and Professor Michael J Kaiser, professor of marine conservation ecology at the School of Ocean Sciences, Bangor University. I mention this because it is important that your Lordships understand the range of the expert advice we are receiving.
The UK Government are also supporting initiatives from the industry—
Lord Teverson
I promise the Minister that I will not go through a list of even more organisations that should be consulted but Natural England is a key government and Defra body for looking at everything, including take-free zones and so on. Is it involved at all or is that done by the Secretary of State?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
All the organisations that I have referred to are organisations rather than statutory bodies. Clearly, bodies such as Natural England have statutory functions and interests, and obviously are part of the work. The Environment Agency, Natural England and other such bodies would all have an interest in marine areas and so on. As to the part they will play in the expert advisory group—I will try not to mislead your Lordships—clearly all such statutory organisations and bodies would have a locus in this.
As to the initiatives from the industry itself that the UK Government are supporting to manage fisheries, these include, for example, the work of the Scallop Industry Consultation Group and the newly created shellfish industry group. We have also held a call for evidence on how we allocate additional English quota.
In addition—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to this and we shall have discussions about it—the Bill includes statutory provisions requiring consultation and parliamentary scrutiny of proposals in the joint fisheries statement, any Secretary of State fisheries statement and fisheries management plans. The provision for consultation in these three areas—particularly when we get down to the fisheries management plans, which are about each and every stock—shows the level of ability and the importance of consultation. Its purpose is to get these matters right and to have sustainable fishing.
Given the complexities of fisheries management, the different interests and the different levels at which advice and engagement need to take place—be it at national, administration or local level—a one-size-fits-all body is unlikely to work. Consultation and collaboration will need to flex and adapt as we improve our fisheries management.
In addition, I am advised that, as drafted, the amendment would present some challenges given the devolution settlements. Officials in the UK Government have worked very closely with their counterparts in the devolved Administrations to develop and draft this new set of fisheries objectives. We appreciate the level of engagement that the devolved Administrations have shown in this work. The objectives are truly shared ambitions for our future fisheries management. I am pleased to report that the devolved Administrations already collaborate and consult widely in developing their own future fisheries management policies.
As I say, we will come to discussions on consultation at a later stage but I hope it has been helpful to my noble friend that I have set out in slightly more detail than I might have intended the organisations that are part of the expert advisory group. As we all know, we need to base what we do on scientific advice—and we are seeking the best scientific advice we can.
With those extra words, I hope my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Byford
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, and the two other noble Lords for supporting—in principle, I think—the ideas behind this amendment. Obviously, we look forward to looking at theirs in greater detail as well.
The one thing that slightly concerns me, as the Minister rightly said, is that there is no one size that fits all. I understand that but, on the other hand, if we have lots of little bits doing different things, surely you need something overall, like an umbrella, which brings it together. This is the thought behind the amendment. It is an ongoing consultation: it is not that you go out to consult on one issue, but that it would be something that goes on into the future. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay could not be here tonight, I say at this stage that I will obviously read Hansard very carefully, as I know he will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment strengthens the “ecosystem objective” in relation to the reversal of the negative impacts of fish and aquaculture activities on marine ecosystems.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, in moving Amendment 11, I shall speak also to Amendment 13; both are in my name. These amendments tighten up the definition of the ecosystem objective, by removing the get-out phrase of “where possible”. They raise the issue of how we are going to measure what is possible and achievable.
We welcome that the Bill seeks to emphasise the need for an ecosystem-based approach to fishing and aquaculture activities, and to minimise and eliminate incidental catches of sensitive species. This is really important: we have a long way to go in firmly embedding the ecosystem objectives so that we can start to restore the damage that human overexploitation has caused over many years.
For too long fisheries management has been carried out in isolation from other marine management activities, with little consideration of its wider ecological impact. We debated this issue earlier with the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, which raised marine planning and the need to integrate these policies.
The recent marine strategy review found that the UK is failing to achieve good environmental status in 11 out of 15 indicators. The review went on to state that good environmental status
“may not be achieved for many years, unless there are further improvements to fisheries management measures.”
We need to drive that change as a matter of urgency. This leads us to the question: what are the legal implications of specifying that these measures should occur only “where possible”? I realise that this might be a legal nicety, and it might be necessary to put some of these checks and balances into a Bill, but I am also concerned that this is a loophole through which all sorts of bad practice will slip. We are probing the extent to which the Government are committed to securing the reversal of negative impacts and the elimination of incidental catches, rather than simply minimising them. Of course, we accept that these amendments are not perfectly worded, but we believe that the Government can go further than the current position in the Bill. I hope the Minister will acknowledge our concerns about the extent to which the existing wording waters down what would otherwise be a strong objective.
Amendment 14 takes a slightly different route to defining the ecosystem objective, by specifying the protection of endangered aquatic species and undersized fish. Again, we welcome this amendment as a helpful way of improving the current wording.
Amendment 12, on the catching of incidental species, seeks to impose a deadline on the Government’s delivery. We agree with the spirit behind this, and would be interested in exploring ways of achieving it; for example, having a reporting requirement rather than a hard deadline.
Amendments 126 and 127 deal with the specific definition of sensitive species with regard to cetaceans, or aquatic mammals. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for raising this concern. I am sure she will speak on this in a moment. It is clear that our conservation policies need to be at least as good as those provided by EU law.
I am glad to have the opportunity to raise this issue. Again, it goes back how firm the Government are in following through on some of the objectives they have set out, and not having too many loopholes that will enable Ministers or future fisheries management groups to disregard what was intended to be a firm policy. I am grateful for the opportunity to explore that further; I therefore beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 11 and the amendments in my name. I note that the Minister did not ask me to meet him before today, and so I am hazarding a guess that he is happy with all my amendments, which is a thrill for me. I almost think I do not need to argue for them here.
However, the Conservative Party manifesto, from which this Government obtained their democratic mandate less than three months ago, made a very specific promise about fisheries. In the section entitled “A Post-Brexit Deal for Fisheries”, big bold letters promised:
“There will be a legal commitment to fish sustainably.”
At the moment, that is a broken promise. There is nothing in the Bill about a legal commitment to fish sustainably. There are ambitions, powers, objectives, statements and a whole load of other bits and pieces, but no legal commitment. I would like the Minister to explain when that legal commitment will be put into the Bill. If it is because I have tabled my amendment, that is absolutely fantastic. The Government promised this to the people in exchange for their votes, so I do not think there is any way that the Government can say that it is not the will of the people and not put it into the Bill.
My Amendment 12 will eliminate the catching of sensitive species within five years of the Bill becoming law. That is important because the current drafting is very weak. Sensitive species should be protected whether incidentally caught or not, and this should not just be minimised but eliminated altogether. Five years gives industry plenty of time to adapt its methods and equipment to achieve this aim. So this is not a probing amendment; it is obviously going to be picked up.
Amendment 14, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and others in this group have similar intentions. Any legal commitment to fish sustainably would contain these provisions, so the Government really need to listen to the Committee on these issues.
My Amendments 126 and 127 refer to the definitions set out in Clause 48. The definition of sensitive species is very curiously drafted, as it refers to
“any species of animal or plant listed in Annex II or IV of Directive 92/43/EEC of the Council of the European Communities on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna (as amended from time to time)”.
I read that out in full because it raises another very important point. Unless I am mistaken, and I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, this is not referring to retained EU law but to ongoing, actual EU law. Can the Minister please clarify that for me? It seems that a decision has been made to impose this little snippet of EU law onto our fisheries policy, which seems slightly strange. I would like to know more about that.
Amendments 126 and 127 seek to improve this definition of sensitive species so that it is not so heavily dependent on EU law, which is amended from time to time. This is particularly important for cetacean species: our dolphins, whales, porpoises and other similar highly advanced marine creatures, which, as we all admit, suffer extremely under the treatment they currently get. It is important to have cetaceans named in the Bill in case the Government later decide to remove reference to the EU directive, perhaps because they do not like it any more. I am in no way suggesting that this is the only way to deal with this issue, but the current decision to base the definition on EU law needs explaining and I think it needs to be improved.
Coming back to the will of the people, I want the Minister to reassure me that the Conservative Party’s manifesto will be delivered on this issue. I hope he can commit to working with noble Lords from across the Chamber, who care deeply about this and bring a great deal of knowledge and expertise. On his earlier point on the meanings of sustainability, the fact is that if you do not have environmental sustainability, neither do you have social and economic sustainability. If you deplete fish stocks, fishers will go out of business.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 14 in my name and that of—if I may say so—my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I was grateful for the opportunity to discuss this with my noble friend the Minister when we met. Currently, Clause 1(4) relates to the ecosystem objective. I agree with much of what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, and lend my support to her comments. But there is currently no mention at all of endangered species in Clause 1(4). Even a cursory glance at the list of endangered species shows how deeply worrying this is, and that list is growing by the minute. I would also like to see some mention of sensitive habitats, which I think could loosely be encompassed within the ecosystem objective; perhaps the Minister, when he replies, will tell me that it is.
Certainly I would look for some form of recognition that we need measures to protect endangered species where they are being caught. In particular, I am conscious that dolphins and porpoises are being caught inadvertently in nets. I noticed that the Minister referred to mesh sizes and gear. When we met, I spoke about the work that I had seen when I visited Denmark and Sweden with Defra’s Select Committee. In the narrow stretches of water that they share, they are doing a lot of work to pool and collaborate on mesh sizes and gear. I would like to think that, particularly where endangered species are concerned, we could work towards this with our international partners.
The reason behind Amendment 14, as I raised with the Minister, is that there are species such as sharks and rays which seem to have been overlooked, and which I believe need statutory protection for the simple reason that they reproduce more slowly. I understand—and have heard evidence to the effect—that most commercial fish species reproduce more quickly. I believe it can be two years before sharks reproduce. Is this something that the Minister is aware of, and that the Government may see fit to add to the Bill, or is it encompassed in their thinking elsewhere?
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 126 and 127, as tabled by the noble Baroness opposite, in so far as I want to hear the wise words of my noble friend the Minister. I am concerned that cetaceans should be included; I am sure he will tell me that they are, in some form or another, but I want to be assured of that. On that note, I would expect sea turtles to be included somehow, as that is another species very vulnerable to bycatch.
I should probably declare that I am a longstanding member of the Whale and Dolphin Conservation charity as well as the Marine Conservation Society. One of the problems when you talk about endangered species is that, while some are endangered and remain endangered, some are endangered but, after sustained work, might come off that list while others will go on. I would say that it is a moving feast, but that would rather imply that we are going to eat them all. As we deal with the Bill, we need rigorous measures in place to ensure that those species most at risk are protected. That is far as I will go. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is perhaps a little down on this Bill. There are issues of sustainability, but it is our job in this Chamber to ensure that these are addressed. I am pretty certain that the Government’s motives are genuine in this regard; I wait to hear the words of my noble friend the Minister so that he can assure me of this.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I should like to say a brief word as I have a question for my noble friend on the Front Bench: if the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, are carried and the words “where possible” are deleted, what would happen in a situation where negative impacts cannot be reversed? Will the Government be liable for something over which they have no control? I agree with my noble friend Lord Randall, who said that he believes the Government are heading in the right direction. I just hope that perfection will not be the enemy of the good and of what we can really achieve.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I recognise that the proposed Amendment 11 is designed to enhance protection of the marine environment. It would, though, have hugely significant impacts if we took it as it is drafted. Indeed, the impact could be as radical as stopping all management of the terrestrial environment, including farming.
I will explain why we have a concern about what is obviously a very laudable range of amendments. Requiring the reversal of all negative impacts on the marine environment is, we believe, not practicable if we are also to support the UK’s fisheries and aquaculture sectors. As a maritime nation, the UK’s vision of
“clean, healthy, safe, productive and biologically diverse oceans and seas”
acknowledges that we must balance the protection of our marine environment with our objective of supporting thriving fishing and aquaculture sectors. As I responded in an earlier group of amendments, that is because this is some of our best and most healthy food. We must remember that men and women go to sea to produce food for us. This approach is already supported in the UK Marine Strategy Regulations. Requiring our fisheries and aquaculture sectors to reverse all the negative impacts of their activities on marine ecosystems, as proposed in this amendment, would in our view render many fishing activities uneconomic. We must also recognise that fishing is not the only maritime activity that can affect the marine environment. Indeed, natural events do the same.
I will turn to Amendments 12 and 13, and take the opportunity to highlight that the UK Government agree with the purpose of protecting sensitive species from incidental catches in fishing nets. I hope that I can reassure your Lordships that the existing objective already provides the utmost protection possible for these species. The Government are resolutely committed to minimising bycatch of sensitive species as much as is practically possible. To achieve this, we are developing UK plans of action for cetacean and seabird bycatch, working closely with the fishing industry and environmental groups. Our various bycatch monitoring programmes are essential to inform this work.
We will also be launching a broader programme of work on protected, endangered and threatened species bycatch, which will support a holistic, ecosystem-based approach to fisheries management and will encourage the development of sustainable fisheries with minimal impact on sensitive species. The proposed Amendment 12, however, would legally require fishers to eliminate all bycatch within five years; Amendment 13 would require this as soon as the Act is passed. Sadly, I have to say that this is not practical or realistic. I mention this because—I think the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, may have referred to this in a different set of amendments—with the mixed fisheries that we have, actually eliminating bycatch is not practical. It is desirable to do all that we can, and that is why our goal is to reduce bycatch to as close as zero as possible, but in many situations the complete elimination of bycatch is sadly not possible. Some sensitive species will inevitably be caught in nets and gear despite the implementation of effective mitigation measures.
The wording
“to minimise and, where possible, eliminate bycatch”
is accepted by environmental organisations and fishers, and is in various international agreements such as the Agreement on the Conservation of Small Cetaceans of the Baltic, North East Atlantic, Irish and North Seas, ASCOBANS, as well as existing legislation such as technical conservation measures and regulations. So we do have a concern because of what we think would be a disproportionate impact that would significantly and adversely impact the industry.
The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, also seek to extend the objective beyond incidental bycatch to include deliberate catch. Again, I am advised that this extension is not required as Article 12 of the habitats directive already prohibits the deliberate killing of sensitive species.
At Second Reading my noble friend Lady McIntosh referred in particular to the more vulnerable nature of sharks and rays, and I understand, as she has mentioned, that this is the background to her Amendment 14. I wholeheartedly agree with the purpose of protecting endangered species and minimising the catching of undersized fish. I hope I can reassure noble Lords of the UK’s commitment to their protection through both the existing fisheries objectives and the current legal protections that are in place. The Bill has a definition of “sensitive species” that encompasses endangered species and goes beyond by including all species that are due protection under Annexes II and IV of the European habitats directive, which will become part of retained EU law. In relation to sharks and rays specifically, these species are protected from incidental catches in the bycatch objective in Clause 1(6) of the Bill.
Our fisheries objectives are also enforced by current domestic legislation—for example, the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Tope (Prohibition of Fishing) Order 2008. These establish a legal framework for the protection of both threatened and endangered species. The bycatch objective in the Bill will require policies, which will be set out in the joint fisheries statement, to address the recording and accounting of bycatch.
I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that the legal commitment is met through the fisheries management plans and statement. That is where the legally binding aspect of the points that she and other noble Lords have raised comes in; obviously we are wrestling with the objectives at the moment, but their legally binding nature is through the fisheries statement and the management plans, which of course encompass all stocks.
I return to the point about the recording and accounting of bycatch. This will help us to understand the issue of shark and ray bycatch better, which in turn will support the development of effective adaptive management strategies for shark and ray fisheries. EU technical conservation measures that prohibit the fishing of certain sharks and rays as protected species will be incorporated into UK law as retained EU law. Catches of undersized fish are also included as part of the bycatch objective, which states that
“the catching of fish that are below minimum conservation reference size, and other bycatch, is avoided or reduced”.
The purpose of the amendments is therefore already achieved through the existing fisheries objective and reinforced with existing legislation.
On Amendments 126 and 127, I agree with the purpose of protecting all species of cetacean from incidental catches in fishing nets. Again, I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that the existing objective provides the utmost protection possible to species. I also say to my noble friend Lord Randall that the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species and the CITES regulations include turtles. That is an international agreement to which the UK is a signatory.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I thank the Minister for that answer. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for mentioning the wording in the Conservative manifesto about the legal commitment to fishing sustainably. This goes back to the discussion we had at the beginning of today’s debate: there seems to be a chasm between our understanding of what fishing sustainably is, and indeed what was implied by the Conservative manifesto, and what the Minister has told us it is. We use the word “sustainable” to mean environmentally sustainable but earlier the Minister was adding all sorts of other interpretations of the word. We need to thrash this out because I feel uncomfortable with “sustainable” having a much broader definition that encompasses economic and social sustainability. That is not what I mean; nor do I think it is what was intended by what is in the manifesto. The Minister said that the legal binding would be through the fisheries statements and so on, but when it comes to the legal requirement it is different if you use his interpretation of “sustainable” or ours. I do not think we have sorted that question. We need to come back to it and we will, as I am sure the Minister will be aware.
On our amendments on the ecosystem-based approach, I realise that taking out “where possible” was perhaps a stretch too far, but equally it brings up the question of how you measure what is possible. Anyone can say that something is not possible. I am not sure of the legal definition of what is and is not possible, but as long as you say that you will do something “if it is possible”, in my book that means it might not happen. Of course, I am not saying that our wording is right, but an ecosystem-based approach should be an all-encompassing approach that determines what is possible and what is not, what is measurable and which deadlines should be used to achieve all that. We should not need to have all the extra caveats that are in the Bill. As I say, I realise that I was pushing the limits of all this, but I feel as if we have left that door a little too far open and we might have to come back to it again.
I heard what the Minister said about sensitive species and I will certainly want to look very carefully at it in Hansard. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was reassured about the retained EU law. It seemed to make sense to me but she may take a different view on that. We will certainly need to check it again. We may come back to some of these issues but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“( ) the fisheries policy authorities cooperate with international parties as appropriate.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, this is another probing amendment, following on from the discussion I had with my noble friend the Minister in preparing for Committee. Its aim is to tease out from the Government which international fisheries policy authorities they intend to co-operate with.
The back narrative of this is that in paragraph 71 of the political declaration published in October, it is stated, in respect of fishing opportunities, that:
“The parties should cooperate bilaterally and internationally to ensure fishing at sustainable levels, promote resource conservation, and foster a clean, healthy and productive marine environment, noting that the United Kingdom will be an independent coastal state.”
This will be extremely important when, as we see later in the Bill, a fisheries policy authority, when publishing a fisheries management plan, has to have regard to changes in circumstances, one of which could be changes in the UK’s international obligations.
My noble friend has expressed very clearly our desire to maintain our role in UNCLOS—the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Presumably we were an independent member of UNCLOS before we joined the European Union. I would like confirmation that our status in that regard has not changed. I know that there is a verbal commitment to our continuing engagement with ICES—the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—but will we maintain the same level of spending as in the past? I am not clear, either, about which budget this will come from—the Defra budget or another departmental budget. It would be helpful to know that. We took evidence from ICES in connection with our work on the energy and environment sub-committee, and I have visited the ICES headquarters in Copenhagen twice. It is important for us to continue to rely on the excellent research work that it does.
I am not aware whether there will be any change in our status in relation to the Food and Agriculture Organization—particularly the fisheries and agricultural aspects of its work—or what our dependence on it will be, but that is also extremely important. One non-governmental organisation that I presume we have left, now that we are an independent sovereign state, is the European Environment Agency. It is of particular historic interest—I want to place this on record—that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister’s father, Stanley Johnson, is a great expert in this field and was a leading environmentalist in the European Commission for a number of years before he was elected to the European Parliament. He is still a highly regarded and internationally respected environmentalist in his own right. Will the Government commit to continuing to work very closely with, and rely on the work of, the European Environment Agency with regard to fisheries but also on other environmental work—particularly agriculture, when the Agriculture Bill comes up? I hope that we can keep the door open to the work of the European Environment Agency.
I would be interested to learn about the nature of our new relationships with international parties such as Norway, Iceland and the Faroes that the Bill sets out, particularly—dare I say—if a fisheries dispute arises. The Government have clearly stated that we will not be subject to any jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, but I argue that there is a degree of urgency about fisheries policy—and other policies—since we are now an independent coastal state. Who will arbitrate in the event of any fisheries dispute in our new relationships with Norway, Iceland and the Faroes? More importantly, what will the dispute resolution mechanisms be with regard to any dispute with the other 27 European Union countries? If, for example, France was to follow through with its threat to blockade the continental ports, despite a fisheries agreement being in place, thereby preventing our fisheries products accessing the market—a very real prospect—what would the dispute mechanism be? We need to know. I am not aware what it would be and I seek reassurance on that.
International relations are particularly important because—I place this on record—the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea requires the UK to participate in management based on an agreement on straddling stocks, which means that we would need to negotiate almost everything. With those few introductory remarks, I look forward to clarification on the issues that I have raised this afternoon. I beg to move.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for introducing at last the other people who deal with our fish stocks—other national authorities. The fundamental flaw of this Bill is that it seems to ignore the rest of the world, while our fish stocks—most of them, including their spawning grounds—are outside our exclusive economic zone. Later in the Bill we come to amendments where, I hope, we can strengthen it so that it notes and acts on the real world, where this resource is not exclusive to us.
I welcome the Bill in relation to the scientific side, which, to give the Government their due, is well advanced in terms of using ICES and stock assessments, for example, and I hope that the Minister will tell us about a lot of other things that they are doing with regard to keeping within those international areas. However, we are a member of all sorts of regional fisheries organisations, such as the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission and various tuna organisations, as well as UNCLOS, as the noble Baroness mentioned. These are basic, fundamental aspirations that we need to exceed to make sure that we have the sustainability that we need.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to support the thrust behind Amendment 15, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, which seeks to add a reference to appropriate international co-operation to the scientific evidence objective—an extension to the debate on a previous grouping. I am sure that we will return to the point about science and international co-operation throughout Committee—and, depending on the Government’s clarifications, perhaps on Report as well.
As your Lordships’ House has observed and debated on numerous occasions in recent years, fisheries management is complicated not only by the fact that fish have no knowledge of, or respect for, the boundaries of national waters, but that each species’ habitat shifts as ocean temperatures and conditions fluctuate—a phenomenon that is likely only to increase with climate change. This was the thrust of the point just made by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
The Government are committed under international law to co-operation with neighbouring states. They have indicated that they want annual negotiations with the EU on access to UK waters and quota, although on the premise that a fishing deal has been concluded by 1 July. While commitments to work with neighbouring states exist, such co-operation is important particularly for the gathering and analysis of scientific data. We are lucky to have world-class scientists and conservationists in the UK, but that does not mean that we cannot engage with and learn from others from wherever they come, and with organisations that the UK may also wish to co-operate with long into the future.
I hope therefore that the Minister will be able to offer assurances that his department will engage with international partners as appropriate, not just to agree high-level terms on access but to share science, practical knowledge and best practice, and that this will be included in the Bill.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering for her amendment in relation to international co-operation and for her indicating that it is a probing amendment. I agree with the sensible recognition that international co-operation will be important in the collection of scientific data.
The UK currently works closely with international bodies, particularly through our membership of ICES—the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea—which advises on the status of fish stocks. I am delighted to confirm that the UK is in the process of establishing a further agreement with it. This will ensure that the advice that we require is in place so that the UK can continue to meet its international and domestic commitments and obligations on sustainability. The UK’s share of funding for ICES will be a matter for the Budget and the spending review.
The UK will continue to make a strong contribution to international co-operation on data collection and related fisheries science. The scientific evidence objective stipulates that the management of fish and aquaculture activities is to be undertaken on the basis of the “best available scientific advice”. The best advice can be obtained only by co-operation. The UK also has obligations through the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea to co-operate with other coastal states in relation to shared stocks. Such co-operation includes the sharing of scientific research and data.
The UK is also a contracting party to a number of multilateral environmental agreements that have a remit within the marine environment and for marine species. These include the International Whaling Commission and the convention on migratory species and its sub-agreements. Working with a variety of parties, both domestic and international, is therefore covered within the existing objective.
To ensure that we are able to fulfil these obligations and to co-operate with international parties, including in the scientific space, the Bill gives us a power under which regulations can be made relating to specific technical matters as long as they are for a conservation purpose or a fish industry purpose.
One leg of the conservation purpose means that regulations can be made for the
“purpose of conserving, improving or developing marine stocks”.
This will allow the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, for whom equivalent powers are provided at their request, to make regulations to meet these international obligations for scientific and research purposes.
My noble friend also asked about the forums for dispute settlements. These are covered by Article 287 of UNCLOS. They are: the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, the International Court of Justice, an Annex VII arbitral tribunal and an Annex VIII special arbitral tribunal. I hope that answer her question. As for other international organisations, we have prioritised joining five regional fishing management organisations now that we have left the EU on the basis of where the UK has a direct fishing and/or conservation interest. They are: the North East Atlantic Fisheries Commission, the Northwest Atlantic Fisheries Organization, the Indian Ocean Tuna Commission and the International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas. In addition, we shall want to join the North Atlantic Salmon Conservation Organization—NASCO—where our interests are focused primarily on conservation. With this explanation, I ask my noble friend to consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
I am grateful for the opportunity to have this short debate. Alarm bells are ringing given the leaked email over the weekend about the lack of importance apparently attached by the Government to farming and potentially to fisheries, so my noble friend the Minister will understand why there is considerable concern among the fisheries community. Your Lordships will have heard what she said about the financing for ICES now being a matter for the Budget and in particular for the spending review. I hope that there will opportunities for us to contribute to that. It was helpful to learn what the dispute resolution mechanism will be, but my heart sinks a little, because if one thought that a case before the European Court of Justice took a while, I shudder to think how long an average case involving fisheries before the International Court of Justice would take to conclude.
I am sure that we will return to these issues at a later stage, so I shall not press the amendment now. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Mental Health: Unregulated Treatment
Baroness Jolly
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of treatment by unregulated and unregistered persons offering psychotherapy or counselling services upon the mental health and wellbeing of their clients.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Marks for bringing this issue to my attention and for introducing me to someone whose family had been turned upside down as a result of the “treatment” of a member of it—I have used inverted commas, as it is was not treatment recognised as such by any professional body. I am also grateful to noble Lords who will speak in this debate, bringing both professional and personal experience. I hope that the Minister or one of his colleagues will be able to meet me and the family member to understand to some extent the harms that came from unregulated counselling.
I want to touch on what it takes to be a professional counsellor; the importance of registration, regulation and protected terms; online and face-to-face counselling, and the research about harms done to individuals by unregulated counsellors. Of course, I will expect the Minister to clarify the role of the NHS in the world of counselling.
The terms “counsellor” and “therapist” are not protected. All of us could call ourselves such. While the number of unregistered therapists is low, the expectation is that clients or patients working with unregistered counsellors and psychotherapists are more vulnerable to the possibility of harm. This is because they have no assurance of the level of training or competence of the practitioner nor a redress system to access should something go wrong. A register of qualified counsellors is held by the Health and Care Professions Council, and I would not wish there to be any confusion between these perfectly legitimate individuals and others who are not. The register protects the public from the harm that could be caused by people practising in a profession when they are not qualified.
Let me be clear: it takes many years to train to be a psychiatrist. One has to qualify as a doctor, undergo the extra qualification in psychiatry and then work under supervision until ready to practise. Training as a psychotherapist takes 400 hours over several years and, in most cases, this is paid for by the individual, as are their own therapy sessions which are a prerequisite for qualification. Counsellors have a shorter timescale but, typically, they would have a relevant degree and then several years in training before they qualify. They can work in both the NHS and the private sector.
If they are not on the register, they are not qualified. If they are using one of the terms on the register to describe what they do, without qualification, they are breaking the law. Article 39(1) of the Health Professions Order 2001 makes it a criminal offence for a person, with intent to deceive—whether clearly or by implication—to say that they are on the register of the Health and Care Professions Council, or use a designated title to which they are not entitled, or say falsely that they have qualifications in a profession regulated by the HCPC. In times past, they would just have been called quacks.
To demonstrate how easy this is, a BBC journalist, Jordan Dunbar, recently obtained a counsellor qualification certificate online for the price of £12.99—the cost of a session in a 24-hour gym or a wind-proof umbrella. At present, it is up to patients to make sure that counsellors are qualified and registered with an accredited body. The onus is on the patient, not the provider. A well mocked-up certificate, accompanied by a brass plaque, offers confidence to an anxious and vulnerable member of the public looking for someone to share their confidence with. However, practitioners interact with people at some of the most distressing times in their lives, leaving them vulnerable or worse. Research has shown that fewer than two-thirds of patients are aware of whether their therapist is a member of a professional body.
Many people who use private services do so because the NHS service is hard to access and there is a waiting time. A quick look at the NHS website does not mention waits and these may be quite short if access is via your GP. The NHS website also has an online assessment tool called “Mood self-assessment” which takes a very top-line look at depression and anxiety and makes sensible recommendations based on the results. I used it this morning; it was time not terribly well spent. The NHS Long Term Plan promises to
“deliver the fastest expansion in mental health services in the NHS’s history, with thousands more adults being able to access talking therapies for common disorders and better support being off ered to children and young people.”
When he sums up, will the Minister tell the House where the progress is with this ambitious claim since the publication of the NHS Long Term Plan?
This issue is only becoming more urgent. Waiting lists for non-primary care NHS mental health services are long, and patients are turning to private healthcare solutions which are less likely to be affiliated to voluntary regulators. Also becoming more common are online treatments, where there is little accountability for any harms caused, making it easier than ever for patients to be exploited. Online counselling is a different matter altogether, as there are no boundaries. Mobile phone apps abound to increase well-being, gain confidence and sort personal problems. But there is not a lot of research on this. We know there is no regulation, no way of knowing where the site is based, or the qualifications of the counsellor, or a guarantee that you will be connected to the same person each time. The risk is real. Without protecting these terms, we leave the profession open to abuse by those who practise pseudoscientific therapies with the outcome of doing harm to their clients.
It is vital that the Government assess the impact of these harms. I have been contacted by individuals whose stories, although anecdotal, paint a picture of a real risk to their mental health and safety. The stories are extremely distressing. They tell the tale of vulnerable people putting their trust in therapists only to be exploited and isolated from their loved ones. It is no exaggeration to say that lives have been ruined. It is essential that these harms are documented so that we can find solutions. One possible solution, which I favour, is statutory regulation. This has been debated before in this House, largely driven by my noble friend Lord Alderdice. Unfortunately, the issue has been pushed off the agenda in recent years, but now is the time to revisit it. The Government have previously stated that statutory regulation may be introduced if harms to the public can be demonstrated and this risk cannot be addressed through other means. Will the Minister give some indication of what the department might do to help with the issue of assessment of harms?
Patients say that reporting harms through voluntary regulatory bodies can be an arduous process. This has been demonstrated in cases such as that of Patrick Strud. His therapist subjected him to so-called conversion therapy. Mr Strud had to wait two years for the BACP to withdraw her membership. The Government have indicated that they will outlaw conversion therapy. We all need to be comfortable with the way we are, and not feel that we are different. I hope that the Minister agrees that even one such case is too many and that our current system needs updating. When will the Government take action on those therapists who offer these services?
The most concerning issue is that, even if these regulatory bodies strike off a practitioner for misconduct, there is no legal requirement for that individual to stop practising. This includes those who are struck off for very serious allegations, including serious sexual misconduct. When I agreed to table this Question for Short Debate, I was surprised at the number of people who wrote to me with tales of family members who had been harmed through counselling, not helped or healed in the process. Although voluntary registers, such as the BACP and the UK Council for Psychotherapy, provide some safeguards, they are not enough, and they say that they would welcome regulation.
Given the experience and interest of all noble Lords, I am sure we are in for an excellent debate.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, as this is a time-limited debate with a dozen speakers, I remind the House of the three-minute speech limit.
Lord Giddens (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on introducing this debate so ably. We live in a world of dazzling change, in which the digital revolution and AI are among the major driving forces transforming our lives. This is new territory for all of us, but children and young adults are especially on the front line. The online world is almost wholly unregulated. Many traditional pathologies, such as addiction, appear in new forms. According to NHS estimates, 75% of people in England experiencing mental health problems get no treatment at all. It is not surprising, therefore, that the internet is awash with, in the words of the Question, “unregulated and unregistered persons” offering treatment for mental disorders, including in the shape of a swarm of apps offering counselling and therapy. Almost all of this is without any backup from registered healthcare professionals. Will the Minister update the House on the progress of the NHS’s Moodzone, which contains a directory of approved mental health apps? However, there is surely a need for a much more comprehensive strategy to deal with this new Wild West frontier.
The issues here for mental health are far-reaching indeed, since it is hard for any national Government to stamp their authority on the use of data that are in a large part global. Young people today spend a high proportion of their life online. Digital addiction is a huge issue in itself, with largely unknown consequences, since no previous generation has grown up in such a context. Have the Government set up any research projects on how to cope with its likely longer-term impact and its pathologies?
It is good to see that the Government are seeking at least to grapple with these issues, both in the context of the NHS and more widely. They have announced plans to upgrade the ways in which health apps and other digital technologies are reviewed and monitored by the NHS. To do so, it is said, Ministers are working with the digital corporations to try to establish proper standards of scrutiny and transparency—daunting though that is, given the speed with which the digital world Is evolving. A new digital health technology standard is being developed.
It is clear from ongoing research in this country, in the US and elsewhere that the selective use of Al could make a major contribution to diagnostics, which would mesh with the reforms that I believe are needed. As my final minute elapses, will the Minister say whether the Alan Turing Institute is at the forefront of such research?
Lord Astor of Hever (Con)
My Lords, I have seen at first hand the devastating effect on a family whose lives have been turned upside down as they see a loved one being exploited and isolated from them by a bogus therapist, so I am delighted to support the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly. She has said everything that I would wish to have said and asked the questions that I would have asked.
I will make one further point: Section 76 of the Serious Crime Act covers domestic abuse. The Government accept that individuals can be coercively controlled, and they have rightly made it illegal for a spouse, partner or parent to coercively control somebody with whom they have a relationship—that is an imprisonable offence. However, in the case of coercive control, the law does not apply equally to everyone. A person coercively controlling their daughter would be breaking the law, but the same person coercively controlling someone else’s daughter is not covered by the law. There does appear to be a gap in the law, so will the Government look into this?
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, made the point that the terms “counsellor” and “therapist” are not protected—all of us could call ourselves such. I have been sent a list setting out some of the differences between healthy therapy with a trained professional and unhealthy therapy with an untrained person. A trained professional therapist is accountable and does not hide behind fronts, whereas an untrained person is not. Their qualifications are recognised by an outside body, whereas an untrained person is often self-appointed and usually hides behind fronts. Healthy therapy rehabilitates and is for the benefit of the client; unhealthy therapy debilitates and is often for the benefit of the therapist. A healthy therapist’s objectives are agreed with the client, as opposed to being the therapist’s own goals; they promote healthy relationships with others, as opposed to fostering alienation from others. A healthy therapist will aim for the independence of the client, as opposed to their dependence, and will psychologically enable the client and not disable him or her. In healthy therapy, questioning is encouraged, whereas a bogus therapist will discourage it.
The noble Baroness has raised a really important issue. 1 look forward to hearing the Minister’s ideas on how vulnerable people can be protected from unregistered and often very dangerous quack therapists.
Lord Macpherson of Earl’s Court (CB)
My Lords, I should first declare an interest; I am married to a chartered psychologist who works for the National Health Service. I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, on securing this debate and on her very powerful speech.
The Government have rightly chosen to prioritise mental health in recent years, but, if we are going to take mental health seriously, we really must take seriously the question of who becomes a mental health practitioner. We do not allow unqualified people to carry out surgery, but we allow anybody to call themselves a therapist, a counsellor or even a psychologist. I recently did some research of my own. I came across a college offering a level 2 “Introduction to Counselling” course. The course has no specific entry requirements. It is online and to pass it requires just 80 hours of study. The advertising material states:
“The course is approved by the ACCPH”—
the Accredited Counsellors, Coaches, Psychotherapists and Hypnotherapists, and—
“at the end of this course students will be able to join and become a member of the ACCPH. The ACCPH is an independent self-regulated professional body for counsellors, psychotherapists and hypnotherapists.”
I went to that body’s website, which states that,
“joining as a professional member will prove to potential clients that you are fully qualified.”
Now, for all I know this course, which costs £379—rather more than the £12.99 course previously referred to—may be very good value for money, but I question whether 80 hours of tuition, without any practical face-to-face experience, is sufficient to become an accredited counsellor. Needless to say, the Professional Standards Authority does not recognise the ACCPH as an accredited register, but it is expecting a great deal of often vulnerable and anxious people to know that the PSA exists in the first place, to visit its website and to understand what it means when it lists a register as “in” or “out”.
The Five Year Forward View for Mental Health recommended, four years ago:
“The Department of Health should consider how to introduce the regulation of psychological therapy services.”
I was optimistic that things would change, but the department dragged its feet. The recent statement by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackwood of North Oxford, that
“The Government has no plans to extend professional regulation to psychotherapists or counsellors”
is, for me, at least, deeply disappointing. Her statement that
“We urge anyone seeking the services of a psychotherapist or counsellor to take the time to find a reputable, insured and appropriately qualified practitioner”,
sounds a little complacent. I hope the Minister, for whom I have the highest regard, will tell me that I have misunderstood that statement.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
My Lords, like other noble Lords I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Jolly for securing this debate. As a psychiatrist in psychotherapy for the whole of my professional life, I found that the question of unregulated psychotherapy came to me as a problem quite early on. It is now 20 years since I introduced a Private Member’s Bill. I did not do that simply off my own bat; I spent many months consulting all the major psychotherapy and counselling bodies in this country—and almost all, even at that time, were entirely in agreement about the need for regulation of psychotherapy.
However, it is not an easy business. Indeed, the practice of psychotherapy is difficult to regulate, so we focused on a Bill that would require the registration of psychotherapists—in other words, the protection of title, so that people would at least know the person with who they were engaging and whether that person was professionally accountable and trained. The Government, however, did not accept it. They said that they still had to be persuaded about matters of effectiveness—though, frankly, that has nothing to do with regulation and registration. They have now had a further 20 years to address that question.
During that 20 years, professions such as medicine—my own core profession—social work, clinical psychology, nursing and, indeed, the functions of the NHS itself have all had to undergo increasing amounts of regulation and supervision, and absolutely properly so. Are the Government still convinced that, while doctors, nurses, clinical psychologists and social workers all need to be regulated, psychotherapists, almost alone among all these professions, can be left to simply regulate themselves?
Let us consider that the vast majority of such therapists are operating on their own, outside the NHS, and not as part of a core profession. Those who are part of a core profession are, in that sense, already regulated. Working within the NHS, they are almost all working not on their own but as part of multi- disciplinary teams, and they are operating within a health service structure which is itself highly regulated. So it is not just a question of psychotherapists; the context in which they are working is so much more open and flexible and therefore has the potential for abuse. My three minutes are virtually up, but, 20 years after my Private Member’s Bill, I think that the Government’s time ought to be up in terms of doing something serious about the registration and regulation of psychotherapy and counselling.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)
My Lords, I join the thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for securing this debate. I absolutely support the aim of properly regulating psychotherapy and counselling. I will make two quick points. First, there should be routes into counselling for people from all walks of life. Secondly, supervision for counsellors should include casework supervision.
I had the privilege to work for over 20 years as a director of the charity Employee Counselling Service. During that time, I must have worked with 60 or 70 counsellors, all accredited and registered. I came to appreciate the importance of different routes into counselling. The clients we worked with included refuse workers, school caterers, hospital orderlies, care home workers, train drivers and office workers. Half the clients were men; they were people who probably never dreamed in a million years that they would be talking to a counsellor. It was important that the counsellors they worked with understood something of their lives and the day-to-day pressures that made it hard to step back and take time to reflect. They often needed to prioritise changes to help secure their jobs, homes and health before they could give space to other issues.
The world of counselling can sometimes seem designed for middle-class therapists working with middle-class clients. Counsellor supervision is generally focused on supporting the counsellor, which is of course essential. A common factor in the reports of BACP disciplinary hearings is that counsellors work alone and without accountability until a client makes a complaint. It should not be left to the client to have to identify problems.
In the voluntary sector, it was usual for counsellors to receive casework supervision. This, more than anything else, safeguards the client from counsellors who may lose focus or get out of their depth in their work. Casework supervision, which involves a supervisor regularly discussing the direction and progress of each case, safeguards both the client and the counsellor. I hope the Minister will take up these two issues to ensure the well-being of clients and counsellors.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for introducing this debate. At its heart, this debate is about preventing the exploitation of the vulnerable—not of the mentally ill, the elderly or children, who are protected quite widely by the law already, but of those whose vulnerability, be it emotional or psychological, permits them to be preyed on by charlatan counsellors. These charlatans suborn them through their cynical promises of peace of mind and future happiness; through lies about their families and bogus therapy they suborn them into breaking off contact with them. Frequently, since they target people with money, they charge exorbitant fees for doing so. They are purveyors of deceit, misery and distress. They need to be stopped.
I first came across this form of quackery in the late 1970s, when I was acting for the Daily Mail against a cult called the “Moonies”, who broke up families wholesale and brainwashed children. Most of them were adult children in a vulnerable and emotional state, lonely and far away from home. I was reminded of them in about 2013 or 2014 when I came across the case of a young woman who had been suborned into leaving her family, cutting herself off and paying this extraordinary woman vast sums of money for her quackery. Supported by David Cameron, the then Prime Minister, Sir Oliver Letwin, then the Government’s policy chief, and Mr Tom Sackville, a former Home Office Minister, I attempted to amend the law to prevent these quacks operating and exploiting their victims. Although we tried, we could not find an opportunity to amend the law and achieve our aim.
However, it can and has been done. It has been done in France, Luxembourg and Belgium. They have passed laws to amend the criminal law which have withstood challenges in the Strasbourg court under the European Convention on Human Rights. With care, provision can be made to protect freedom of religion, assembly and association so that, for example, adult children can if they want to, even if their parents object, join closed religious orders, give their money away or just cut themselves off from their families. But quacks should not be permitted any longer to exploit emotionally vulnerable adults.
This cruel practice must stop. We should ensure that it does. I suspect that we give more protection to cats and dogs against quack vets than to emotionally and psychologically vulnerable adults against quack counsellors. It is time we did better.
Baroness Murphy (CB)
My Lords, I have been a psychiatrist for 40 years, and it will not surprise your Lordships that I agree with every word that has been said in this welcome short debate of the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly.
I have long been astonished that we have such regulation for practically every healthcare profession under the sun except psychotherapy. Art therapists, for example, are registered and regulated; so are osteopaths and chiropractors, who both have their own regulatory councils. Yet we left the Professional Standards Authority struggling to think through how it would approach this problem. It could not regulate this massive amount of mental health care without doing something about it, and so it developed its accreditation scheme— and all credit to it for doing so—but the time really has come.
Efficacy is clearly not the issue at stake because, after all, there are many qualified physicians and psychiatrists who are not very efficacious. Nevertheless, we try to ensure that they do not cause positive harm by making sure they have appropriate training. The issue is whether a person is setting themselves up to provide care and support to somebody else. That is healthcare, and somebody doing that needs to be regulated.
I have heard it said that some of these therapists do not want to be regulated. I am sure they do not, but if you were here in 1856 and listened to the antipathy in the debates towards the notion that you might regulate doctors, you would hear the same arguments. The time has come.
There are now over a million new people coming into the health service to ask for psychotherapy every year, and we provide that to them, admittedly through accredited organisations. Nevertheless, there are a huge number of people getting it, and it is clear that the time has come to offer proper regulation and reassure the people coming to ask for help that individuals have got at least some accreditation and that we can protect the public from harms.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Jolly for the opportunity to talk a bit about conversion therapy, or the use of non-accredited counsellors offering psychotherapy or counselling to those seeking help for their unwanted same-sex attraction, which is prevalent in some churches. It is defended by some religious groups as a legitimate part of their faith, but the majority of churches, alongside the professional bodies, see it as a very harmful practice.
In December 2018, there was a small study of people who had been subjected to conversion therapy. Of those, two-thirds said that they wanted to see the practice made criminal. The remaining third did not want to see it criminalised, but they did want to see it stopped, because it had profound and harmful effects upon the people who were subjected to it.
That is the point I want to make, following that from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. We go to religious organisations in the extremes of happiness and of despair. They are rarely neutral places in which to transact matters such as counselling. Therefore, it is only right for us to ask the Government, when they bring in some form of regulation—and they will inevitably have to—not to allow, as they do in other cases, any form of exemption for religious organisations. There should be ethical standards to which all practitioners, no matter the context in which they practise, conform.
The Government’s LGBT Action Plan recognised this as a very important issue for our community. There are some particularly vulnerable young people who are perhaps locked into religious communities, from which it is difficult to find a way out or alternative point of view. It is of the utmost importance that we make sure that, when those young people live their faith, they do so in safety. Therefore, I ask the Minister to update us on what is admittedly a technically difficult area of law but one that is of the highest importance to a number of people and one that, I would suggest, is urgent.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I am also grateful to my noble friend Lady Jolly for securing this debate and her clarity in opening it. We have had an excellent and, so far, unanimous debate.
In a humane society, unqualified practitioners may not set themselves up as doctors and dentists to practise medicine or dentistry without training, supervision or regulation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, and others have eloquently argued. We now promise, and are promised, parity of esteem between mental and physical health, which the Mental Health Foundation defines as
“valuing mental health equally with physical health”,
with commitments for
“equal access to the most effective and safest care and treatment … equal efforts to improve the quality of care … equal status within healthcare education and practice”.
If those commitments are to be more than glib platitudes, we must end the scandal of untrained and unregulated self-styled therapists, counsellors, healers or life coaches peddling untested and dubious treatment to the psychologically and emotionally vulnerable and suffering.
We have heard harrowing accounts of victims, often young, brainwashed by unscrupulous and controlling individuals. These charlatans play on their clients’ suffering, deluding them into a false belief in their treatment, often conjuring up in them fake memories about their early years and inducing unhealthy long-term dependence on the therapist and rejection of families and friends. For this, they often take significant fees and frequently inflict devastating and long-term damage. This debate has pointed the way to what is needed.
First, we must insist on licensing and regulation for therapists, for which my noble friend Lord Alderdice and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, have long argued. We need an approved body that maintains a register of practitioner members, who must secure qualifications, comply with a clear statement of ethical standards and submit to supervision.
Secondly, I support the call by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, the charity Family Survival Trust chaired by Tom Sackville—a former Home Office Minister, who is here tonight—and leading academics in seeking amendment to the Serious Crime Act 2015, which outlaws controlling or coercive behaviour, but in a domestic context only, where perpetrator and victim are in an intimate personal relationship or live together as family members. The Act needs to go wider to cover so-called therapists causing psychological damage and distress to their clients and their clients’ families and friends. Such legislation would be simple and effective. Will the Government bring forward such an amendment to the Act now?
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for securing this debate and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Marks, that we will be unanimous in this discussion. What the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, has done is to illustrate the problems and dangers of a sector that is not properly regulated, and it goes from one extreme to another.
One extreme was outlined in the letter that we all received about unregulated abuse, coercive control and cultic abuse. It makes the point outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Marks, about recognition of coercive control covering domestic matters only and failing to recognise the harm that can be done by the sorts of organisations that were graphically described to us by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier. Therefore, the law is inadequate in this regard and needs to be addressed. The Minister must realise that the whole House is unanimous in thinking that that needs to happen. He needs to know that, when the first Bill comes along in which we can bring forward that amendment, we probably will. The Government would be wise to do it themselves, because they will lose otherwise, because the House is united in this.
The other extreme is the regulatory framework, with which all noble Lords are familiar. It is significant that the Professional Standards Authority felt it needed to draw attention to the inadequacies in this direction, in the letter that we received from Christine Braithwaite, the director of standards. She says:
“for a number of years we have requested changes to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 and the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 to include Accredited Registers to better strengthen the protection they are able to provide. To date, no amendments have been made.”
If the body that registers the different counselling and psychoanalytic organisations is saying that this is inadequate, as well as saying that the regulatory framework is inadequate, the Government really need to sit up and listen to what is being said right across the piece.
It is a matter for the Government to regulate this profession. Statutory regulation will offer great protection to the public. The Government also need to look at the titles of counsellors and psychotherapists to make sure that they are recognised as such and are being protected under statutory regulation. I look forward to what the Minister has to say.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I join others in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for raising this important issue. Before I make my formal comments, I should like to recognise the clear and strong feelings expressed on this issue in the House today, which one cannot help but feel moved by. On a personal note, perhaps I may share that I have myself lost a friend to manipulative individuals. It was a friendship that I valued very much, so I can feel some of the hurt that Members have expressed about that sensation of losing loved ones in such difficult circumstances.
I shall move on to the more formal comments about the Government’s approach to mental health services. I want to reassure the House that this Government absolutely put the modernisation of mental health services at the heart of our commitment to the health of the British people. The message on mental health has come up again and again in the Chamber and I have stood at this Dispatch Box many times to hear it. I want to reassure noble Lords that that message is 100% understood.
I need hardly remind some of those here that spending on NHS mental health services has already risen under this Government from £10.9 billion in 2015-16 to £12.5 billion in 2018, and that under the mental health investment standard, for the first time clinical commissioning groups are increasing the amount spent on mental health services by at least the amount of their overall budgets. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked for clarification of the role of the NHS. Let me reassure her that the NHS Long Term Plan also explains that there will be a comprehensive expansion of mental health services, giving 380,000 more adults access to psychological therapies, which represents a huge expansion in the Government’s investment in mental health.
However, I recognise that as well as expanding the size of mental health services provision, the Government need to understand the importance of ensuring the quality of the services that are delivered. We agree absolutely that service users should be able to expect high-quality psychological therapies that bring about positive impacts on mental health and recovery. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, asked specifically what progress has been made on mental health goals in the NHS Long Term Plan. I reassure her that 12 pilot sites have already received £70 million of funding for new specialist services and that that is the first step in a £975 million investment as part of the long-term plan to transform community mental health services.
The Government are committed to improving access to psychological therapies through the Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme. Each year, more than 1 million people access IAPT services and the Government are committed to expanding them massively so that by 2023, 1.9 million people will be able to access those services. I can reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, that waiting times, which she asked about, for access to IAPT services have also improved to the point that 98% of patients seeking a first referral get that referral within 16 weeks, against a target of 95%.
The IAPT service provides a gold standard, highly professional service, routinely monitored on outcomes achieved, and the professionals providing these services undergo regular outcomes-focused supervision. These principles ensure that therapies are delivered by fully trained and accredited practitioners with appropriate skills in providing individualised support to people with mental health problems. The intensity and duration of each IAPT therapy is designed to optimise patient outcomes and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, alluded to, all IAPT clinicians should have completed an IAPT-accredited training programme with nationally agreed curricula aligned to NICE guidelines. High-intensity therapists in IAPT services should be accredited by the relevant professional bodies and all IAPT clinicians should be supervised weekly by appropriately trained supervisors in the manner rightly described by the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan.
None the less, we are aware of concerns regarding the treatments that some people receive from some services outside the provision of government services. My noble friend Lord Astor spoke very movingly about healthy and unhealthy therapies, and in this matter he is entirely right. The anecdotes recounted by noble Lords, including the story from the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, about the ACCPH, are clearly disturbing. We acknowledge that some private individuals are delivering therapies that may be putting patients’ safety at risk. I have read the Unsafe Spaces blog and the contributors’ concerns. I watched the BBC documentary that noble Lords referred to. Who can read these stories without feeling a sense of sadness? I think of my own lost friend.
Let us be clear. The Government are committed to a proportionate system of safeguards for the professionals who work in the health and care system. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, in paying tribute to the Professional Standards Authority and its important letter that was circulated among noble Lords, and describing its recommendations as interesting.
Where practitioners pose a direct risk of harm to the health and well-being of patients, legal avenues will and must be explored. The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, described many of the legal remedies. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, that coercive or controlling behaviour has been an offence since 2015. The Government remain committed to supporting the police to bring offenders to justice and to ensuring that victims have the support they need to rebuild their lives.
However, more rules are not always the answer to every problem. While statutory regulation is sometimes necessary where significant risks to users of services cannot be mitigated in other ways, it is not always the most proportionate or effective means of assuring the safe and effective care of service users.
We do not take this position without careful thought. We have previously considered the introduction of statutory regulation of counsellors and psychotherapists. We have considered various Private Members’ Bills, including from the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice. None the less—in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, and others who have asked the question straight—I will give a straight answer: we currently have no plans to do this. This may come as disappointing news but, as I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate, there is a wide range of mental and physical therapies on offer in modern Britain and an important focus on personalised approaches to mental health care and treatment. What might suit one person today might be snake oil to another.
The noble Lord, Lord Giddens, asked about health apps. The NHS app library contains a number of mental health apps, which undergo a number of quality checks before they are allowed on the website. Some apps, such as Chill Panda and Cove, are currently being tested in the NHS.
The regulation of these services is complex. Issues that must be considered carefully include the impact of any regulation on delivery, quality, ensuring that we do not stifle innovation, ensuring that we do not discourage individuals from working in mental health and the principle of consumer choice. However, I assure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate that the Government remain committed to addressing the important recommendations of the—
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but I know the Minister has a few minutes left. There was mention of the Serious Crime Act. Does the Minister recognise that Act’s limitation—which the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and I mentioned—to the domestic context? Will he do something about it? Will he also confirm agreement to a meeting to discuss the future of regulation?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, I was just reaching the key segment of my speech. With kind permission, I will finish the speech, since time is of the essence.
I assure the noble Baroness and other noble Lords who have spoken in this debate that the Government remain committed to addressing the recommendation in the Five Year Forward View for Mental Health to consider the regulation of psychological therapy services, including their inspection. The department is currently considering issues around regulation of this area. I assure the Chamber that we will carefully consider the potential impact on services and the people who use them. I will endeavour to update the House on progress as it happens.
I assure in particular the noble Baronesses, Lady Barker and Lady Jolly, that the Government are committed to ending the practice of conversion therapy. The 2018 LGBT Action Plan clearly outlined that commitment. The Government Equalities Office is currently working on this.
In the meantime, I extend my thanks to the noble Baroness for securing this debate and to all noble Peers here today. It is an important debate. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said there had been no progress in the last 20 years. We now have more than 50,000 talking service professionals on the registers, accredited by the Professional Standards Authority. The department is currently considering the regulation of psychological therapy services, as per the recommendations in the Five Year Forward View for Mental Health. This is progress. The department will set out further details of its considerations on these matters later in the year and Ministers will be happy to update the House as this work develops.
Fisheries Bill [HL]
Monday 2nd March 2020
(4 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Fisheries Act 2020 View all Fisheries Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 71-II Second marshalled list for Committee - (2 Mar 2020)
Lord Teverson
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I suspect that this amendment will not take up a lot of the Committee’s time. I want to understand what the equal access objective is trying to do and what its implications are. The objective says that
“the location of the fishing boat’s home port, or … any other connection of the fishing boat, or any of its owners, to any place in the United Kingdom”
does not affect their rights. If I read that objective as a local fisher—perhaps in Mevagissey, the nearest port to me, or in a smaller fishery down further west, let alone those along the south coast—I would be concerned that any decision by government to allocate anything at all could be challenged by a larger fleet, or by someone from further round the coast, and could disrupt or exploit a well-managed local fishery. I understand entirely that the last thing we want to do is compartmentalise the United Kingdom in any way, and I think the system works fairly well as it is at the moment. This is the one area where perhaps I would like to keep the status quo, rather than introduce this objective.
My concern is that this makes local fisheries susceptible to challenge when it comes to fishing rights and their ability to look after particular stocks or to get Marine Society accreditation. This is a threat. I would be very interested to hear from the Minister why the Government want to do this and why I should not fear the consequences for the lesser fleets in the United Kingdom. There is also a slight risk that this might encourage further consolidation of the market. We already have market concentration and it concerns me that those are the fleets with the money, capacity and ability to buy or to trade fishing rights, so this is an area of susceptibility.
When I first got involved in fisheries in the 1990s, I used to talk regularly to fishing organisations down in the far south-west. Publicly, there was always a concern about the Spanish fleets. Whenever you put a microphone or camera in front of someone, they were the big threat. If you talked to them otherwise, it was the Scots who came down and took everything out of the water when they had nothing better to do north of the border. I am not for a minute saying that is the case today, but I have a real concern here and I would be very interested to hear from the Minister why I should not be so afraid. I beg to move.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I might add a question to this. To understand what the equal access objective is about, one should look at Clause 17 of the Bill. If a Scottish fisheries authority were to grant a licence to a non-UK fishing boat under the new regime, that would be a licence to fish in Scottish waters. Both this current objective and, indeed, the related amendment on the determination of fishing opportunities say that, when a ship is licensed, or when fishing opportunities are allotted, this cannot be done to British boats on the basis of where they come from. If I understand correctly—I put this simply because I am sure the Minister will put us both right when we have presented our questions—the object of the equal access objective is to make sure that, when the administrations put forward their joint fisheries statement, they must do so on the basis that a British fishing boat can go anywhere in British fishing waters. That seems a desirable objective because otherwise we could well end up with not British fishing waters but entirely separate Scottish, Welsh or English fishing waters. I do not regard that as the objective we are seeking, so to that extent, I rather like keeping the equal access objective and I would not see it removed from the Bill.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, poses some serious challenges in his amendment. Indeed, quota allocation is already a highly complex and opaque feature in fishing. The tabling of Amendments 17 and 95 affords us a brief opportunity to probe the Government over how equal access will work in practice once the constituent parts of the UK have the freedom, at least theoretically, to determine their own quota allocations and wider regulatory frameworks.
In view of the earlier discussion today, I am sure the Minister will argue that these amendments are unwise as they undermine the work that the Government have already undertaken with the devolved Administrations in drafting the Bill. I also pre-empt his commitment that the various issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, will come out in the mix once the Bill is in place and the various statements and management plans begin to appear. Be that as it may, I am sure that fishers in different parts of the UK will be interested to hear his comments on how all of this will work in practice.
For example, how will the Government and devolved Administrations work together to ensure that the regulations of each part of the UK are compatible, being both available and accessible to those who will have to rely on them? How will issues such as enforcement be managed to ensure that the devolution settlement is upheld, while also respecting the equal access objective, as it is currently drafted, when they could diverge over time? This topic arose during the Commons Committee stage on the previous Bill, so I hope that the reassurances offered tonight will meet all the Committee’s expectations. A significant amount of time has passed since those debates and we are only a short time away from potential problems ceasing to be purely hypothetical.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for this short debate. As I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is concerned that our provisions relating to equal access could lead to unintended consequences, which could include a further concentration of the fishing industry, and incentivise the purchasing of additional quota from other fisheries authorities.
The UK Government believe that the equal access objective in the Fisheries Bill is vital as it sets out a joint commitment for all four fisheries administrations to work together to ensure that boats based all over the UK enjoy the same rights of access to fish in UK waters, no matter where their home port is. This is important, since many vessels fish in the waters of multiple fisheries authorities. As with all the objectives, this objective has been carefully developed and designed with close discussion with the devolved Administrations. This is one of the key points that I would like to make to the noble Lord: the objective is limited to access to waters only and does not grant any access to quota.
Amendment 95 relates to UK quota-setting and seeks to remove the restriction on setting different maxima by reference to a UK boat’s home port or other connection. I will provide some further detail on the provisions in Clause 23. Clause 23 relates to the determination of the pot of UK fishing opportunities. It does not relate to the subsequent allocation of those opportunities to the fisheries administrations, or to their subsequent distribution to the fishing industry. Total UK fishing opportunities are defined by the criteria set out in the clause: the description of sea fish, the area of the sea and the description of the fishing vessel.
The reason for the stipulation in Clause 23(4) that fishing opportunities cannot be set based on any reference to a boat’s home port or connection to a particular part of the UK is to ensure that this power can be used to set only the overall amount of UK-wide fishing opportunities. It cannot be used to determine how quota, once divided between the fisheries administrations, is allocated to each administration’s industry. This is clearly a devolved matter.
Amendment 95 would therefore give the Secretary of State the power to set quota within devolved competence—for example, setting quota for boats fishing out of Peterhead in Scotland. This is clearly not something that would be desired by the Committee; nor do I think it is the noble Lord’s intention. He may hope that the amendment addresses the need for local boats to have access to local quota. This is a matter for each administration, but Clause 17, which my noble friend Lord Lansley referred to, maintains the current approach on this: each administration will use transparent criteria, including environmental and socioeconomic criteria, when deciding how to allocate quota. The amendment therefore does not achieve the exact effect the noble Lord may have hoped for.
I also provide further reassurance that the methodology for allocating quota to industry within England is published in the publicly available English quota management rules, alongside the allocations themselves. Each administration also has its own quota management rules. The Government are committed to supporting fishers around the country and we are engaging with them to ensure that our coastal communities see the maximum benefit from the quota that we hold.
I will provide a further piece of information. The equal access objective in Clause 1 preserves the status quo. Currently all UK boats can fish in all UK waters. Clause 17 provides for each administration to license foreign boats in its waters, since licensing is a devolved matter. In practice, each administration will delegate its licensing functions to, or allow the administration of, a single UK licensing regime through the single licensing authority.
I am very happy to have a further discussion with the noble Lord if there are any residual matters of concern. I hope that I have got across that the equal access objective is precisely on the basis to ensure—particularly with many vessels fishing in the waters of multiple fisheries authorities—that this is equal access for all rather than the way in which the noble Lord describes it. Our intention is for the four constituent parts to have the ability to fish in UK waters.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I have not finished yet. So that is where the position lies. I will now take the noble Lord’s intervention.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
I apologise to the Minister. It may be that he cannot answer this question but, when it comes to the future division, he said that the boats may have access to the waters but not necessarily to the quota, which explains many of the problems. Is the quota going to be divided into the areas that currently exist—7A, 7B, 7C, 7D and 6—or are we going to have completely new areas? How localised will these areas be? Will they be near to the Cornish ports that the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, is worried about? It may be that that has not been decided yet.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I will avail myself of receiving some information and let everyone in this debate know. Clearly, it is a devolved matter and therefore all three devolved Administrations and the UK Government will make those considerations. That is why I mentioned in particular the English quota management rules. These are matters of responsibility for the devolved Administrations and ourselves in terms of quota. On that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Teverson
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, for his question because even if we use the traditional ICES areas, those do not reflect the boundaries between the devolved nations. It is an interesting question.
I thank the Minister for his explanation. I feel reassured by that. If it does not relate to quotas and refers only to vessels steaming around in circles doing nothing at all, who can complain? However, it does not seem to be much of an objective if that is the case. On that basis, I withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Worthington
“(8) The “national benefit objective” is that the public exploitation of the fishery for commercial, recreational and environmental purposes brings benefit to the United Kingdom or any part of the United Kingdom.”
Baroness Worthington (CB)
I must confess to feeling that perhaps I am not the best person to lead off this segment of the debate, because my amendment seeks to change subsection (8) of the clause but the group as a whole will take into account a wider range of issues relating to the definition of “national benefit”. I look forward to hearing the many views that will be expressed around the amendments in this group.
My amendment simply seeks to make the point—I fear this is a return to the discussion at the start of the debate—of what it is that we are doing in the handing out of a fishing quota, which is held in public trust, for private benefit. I therefore seek to amend the description of the national benefit objective as set out in the Bill from a fairly narrow definition that
“fishing activities of UK fishing boats bring social or economic benefits to the United Kingdom”,
and suggest that it should be reworded that the national benefit objective is that
“the public exploitation of the fishery for commercial, recreational and environmental purposes brings benefit to the United Kingdom”.
So the amendment seeks to make it clear in the Bill that it is more than simply the fishing activity for which we are granting quotas that constitutes a national benefit.
I know that noble Lords will speak to other amendments around the principle of the UK benefiting from the granting of quotas, but my amendment seeks to probe why it is that we are defining national benefits so narrowly and restricting it to fishing activities and fishing boats. The phrase seems a little odd, given that, as we have discussed, the founding principle of the Bill is that we have a national asset in our fishing resource that is held in trust for the public and granted out to fishing activity. I feel that the national benefit has been too narrowly drawn and too narrowly attached to fishing activities and fishing boats.
That is the purpose of the amendment. As I say, the rest of the amendments in the group seek to consider and assess different aspects of the national benefit—but I beg to move my amendment.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, my Amendment 19 is trying to deal with the same matter, but it attempts to use the activities of fishing fleets to bring
“social, economic and employment benefits to the United Kingdom or any part”.
In other words, it is intended that the activities of fishing boats should not merely benefit the fisheries, but also the rest of the United Kingdom, and in particular produce social, economic and employment benefits. One can see that this is a bit wider than the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, but it is just a question of what precisely this “national benefit objective” is aiming at.
I think it does not aim at benefiting the fishing industry itself, but at benefiting others through the activities of the fishing industry. Paragraph (b) of my proposed new subsection, which contains a reference to fish and aqua- culture activities, manages to achieve the same sort of thing. In other words, in both cases the activities of the boats and the management of the fleets are supposed to bring these general social, economic and employment benefits to the United Kingdom and parts of it.
The issues in this amendment were brought to my attention by the national authority, or corporation, of the fishing fleets of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The Scottish people are somewhat separately represented, and it is not altogether surprising that their attitude is that the Bill is pretty good and perhaps the best thing to do is to leave it alone. It may be that they have ideas about the present situation, and the way in which the Bill is constructed is, from their point of view, very acceptable.
Lord Teverson
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 78, which is in a similar vein around national benefit. It is quite clear, certainly in the south-west, that if all the fishing vessels with British flags actually landed their catch—or a major proportion of it—in their home port, the number of landings in the UK and the viability of those ports would be hugely increased. Of course, we have here the issue of what used to be called “quota hoppers”, around which everything has gone staggeringly quiet during the Brexit negotiations and the formulation of the Bill.
As we know, a little under half of the English—not Scottish—quota is effectively owned by Dutch, Spanish or Icelandic interests. Grimsby, which I think used to be the world’s or Europe’s largest fishing port, now has a very important fish processing industry, but hardly any activity in terms of landings. Most of the quota there is effectively owned by Dutch vessels that land in Holland.
So, we have a question: how do we change that? The Bill does nothing to change this area. In a way, it suits the fishing industry establishment to keep things as they are, because those are the members. Whether vessels are English or foreign-owned, those are the members of the fishing organisations. That is why, in Amendment 78, I have used the scientifically calculated number of 75%, which came out at the end of my spreadsheet, to suggest what proportion of fish should be landed by English-flagged—or British-flagged, depending on how we want to define the devolution thing—vessels. It is a probing amendment, but only in the sense that something needs to be done in this area. Very few other EU member states have allowed the foreign ownership of quota in the way that we have. We decided to do that. We are where we are, but we need to make sure there is a national benefit; I assume that is why this objective is here.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, we have five amendments in this group: Amendments 20, 21, 77, 80 and 84. First, a number of noble Lords have sought to amend and clarify the definition of “national benefit” in different ways. The fact that different Peers have tried to do that shows that this is open to a huge range of interpretations. It is a rather vague, catch-all phrase so it is right that we should probe it; it needs further clarification. It is also important that we return to our earlier discussion. If the phrase is too vague, it could be used to override some of the other important objectives that could be subsumed under it. So it is important that we understand exactly what it means, and that it holds its place proportionately with all the other objectives; it is clearly better defined by that.
I think we are all still struggling with those objectives. We identified at the beginning of the debate that eight—or however many there are—is too many, and asked how we rank them and so on. The vaguer they are, the more difficult any of that ranking will be. The phrase “national benefit” is so vague; we need to do a bit more work on the phrase itself but also on how to interpret and define it. We need to bottom out that discussion; maybe the Minister can help us a bit more with that.
Our Amendment 20 has a simple intent: it seeks to ensure that foreign vessels fishing in our waters should have the same obligation to respect the national benefit—however we define it—as required of the UK fleet. This should be the basis on which licences are granted. We believe it is a straightforward and uncontroversial amendment; we hope that noble Lords will agree.
Amendments 21, 77, 80 and 84 raise a very different issue—some of these amendments have been grouped rather oddly, but I shall address them as they have been set out—which is the concept of a national landing obligation. We believe this is vital to ensuring the long-term health of our coastal fishing fleets and communities. This is spelled out in detail in Amendment 84, where we specify that all licensed boats should be subject to the national landing requirement to land a percentage of their boat’s catch at a port in the UK. Our proposal is that the percentage of the catch should be set at 70%, rather than the noble Lord’s 75%, unless the Secretary of State determines otherwise and sets out his reasons, but we could discuss trading that figure.
This is an important principle and we set out our argument for it at Second Reading: a requirement to land at UK ports could herald the renaissance of our coastal communities, which is long overdue. While the numbers vary according to the type of fisher, we know that for every job created at sea many more are created on land as a result of the need for landing, processing and onward transportation, for example. It is estimated that about 10 times as many jobs are created on land as at sea, and currently many of those jobs are going to other EU ports. Meanwhile coastal communities currently have higher rates of unemployment and lower wages. They have the additional challenges of a drain of young people, social isolation and poor health. A policy based on a national landing requirement would provide more local jobs for local people and would save fishers having to travel hundreds of miles in search of a fair price for their catch because then, we hope, the market would come to them rather than them having to chase the markets overseas.
If we were to introduce a minimum landing requirement for fish caught in our waters, that would provide a level of certainty for the sector that historically has been lacking. That in turn would, we hope, facilitate investment and innovation, which could help with other matters such as decarbonisation and, as I say, would bring local regeneration based on good environmental principles. I hope noble Lords will see the sense of this argument and support the amendments.
Amendment 78, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, which he has just eloquently described, also deals with the requirement to land a proportion in UK ports. He has an exception for landing in distant-water fisheries, which I think we accept; you can take the principle that we are suggesting only so far, so there is merit in that. That is also an issue that we have covered in our Amendment 90. We need more clarification on it but I think we are all fishing in the same water around those principles.
We also welcome the tabling of Amendment 18 by the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington. It would bring other forms of fishing, such as recreational fishing, into the scope of the national benefit objective. Again, this underlines the fact that the phrase is very vague and therefore you could tack all sorts of things on to it. However, we support the principle. We have other amendments that spell out in more detail the importance of recreational fishing. Perhaps it could be better sited elsewhere but it is an important principle and we are happy to find the appropriate place to put that wording for the future. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Lansley
My Lords, if my noble friend will forgive me, I want to interject for a short moment, not about the definition of the national benefit objective but on the second part of this group of amendments, relating to a landing requirement. It struck me as a useful debate to have in Committee. For a start, it allows us to expose the question of whether Ministers want to be in the position to impose any kind of landing requirement under any circumstances.
Personally, I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, say that setting a landing requirement for foreign boats in UK waters would simply lead to the imposition of the same requirement on British boats in other waters, and I am not sure that is where we want to end up. I am glad that both speakers from Labour and the Liberal Democrats have endorsed the view that this should apply only to fishing in our exclusive economic zone; it would need not to apply, or to be able to be exempted, for distant-waters fishing. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for saying that to set 70% or 75% in primary legislation would make no sense whatever. Putting that to one side—and saying that therefore the amendments do not work—it raises a very interesting question: does the Bill, under any circumstances, allow fishing authorities in the United Kingdom to set any kind of landing requirement? I do not know the answer; I cannot find it anywhere. I wonder whether it is thought potentially never to be necessary under any circumstances. It seems to me that there is a potential mischief involved in the ownership and use of quota, which could be remedied either through the allocation of quotas or through a landing requirement. I am not sure that Ministers have told us whether under any circumstances they would use the former and never the latter. That is an interesting question.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I will not detain the House for long. I am encouraged by this debate. Last year I sat on the committee on regenerating coastal and seaside towns. We looked in a lot of detail at what is happening to our seaside towns—at the poverty and great difficulty they are experiencing. I am certainly not an expert on what the quotas should or should not be, but this kind of discussion is a source of encouragement, and is putting its finger on the issues and on the opportunities that may come to these towns if we push these ideas. It feels as though there is movement on getting to grips with the positive opportunities that may now result from the time we are in. I thank the Committee for this helpful discussion.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
My Lords, I wonder whether this question of landing obligations will need to be resolved in the fisheries negotiations during the coming “passage of arms” with the EU. I believe that there is a good deal of voluntary landing in our ports by foreign fishing vessels at the moment, and one of the reasons for that is the efficiency of the transfer from these ports to the European market. They are able to get their fish stocks to the European market from some ports very quickly—in a way that, if they had to take them back to Spain or southern France, would take much longer and probably be less efficiently organised. I do not know whether it needs compulsion, but compulsion would need to be authorised as part of the future negotiations.
Lord Teverson
Perhaps I may intervene on the noble and learned Lord. We should not forget that we are talking about British boats in British waters—it is not about foreign vessels. Sorry, I will sound like Michael Gove or the Prime Minister, but this has nothing to do with the European Union or the Commission: it is purely a British decision, apart from foreign vessels and where they have to land. That is why we have raised the issue.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
I can see that, if it is restricted to British vessels, it is perfectly within the powers of this Parliament, but I am not at all clear that it would be right to impose that kind of obligation on British vessels without attempting to encourage foreign vessels to do the same. As I mentioned at Second Reading, something like this is already happening, and in pretty small ports—though they have a large amount of traffic, usually overnight, when refrigerated vehicles go straight to Europe and arrive quickly at their markets, which are pretty hungry for the result.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this debate has turned into rather an intriguing one, with lots of contributions. I am grateful to noble Lords for these amendments, which all relate to a matter emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Mawson; that is, ensuring that coastal communities which rely on fishing see a benefit from fish caught in UK waters. The UK Government agree that this is a matter of the upmost importance, but I suggest that other routes beyond this Bill should be used to secure this outcome as well.
Amendment 18 would include recreational and environmental use of fisheries in the national benefit objective. Amendment 19 seeks to ensure economic, social and employment benefits from fish and aquaculture activities. The objective as it stands in the Bill highlights that UK boats, including foreign-owned but UK-flagged boats, should provide economic, social and employment benefits to the UK when fishing against the UK’s fishing opportunities. This is currently achieved through a licence condition requiring all UK vessels to demonstrate an economic link to the UK. The Bill also extends the ability to prescribe an economic link in respect of foreign vessels licensed to fish in the UK through the foreign vessel licensing regime, if this is negotiated internationally.
Perhaps I might take a moment to set out what the economic link requirement currently stipulates of UK vessels. The requirement is delivered through the licensing regime and can be controlled and enforced by the fisheries authorities and the Marine Management Organisation. The economic link is a devolved matter, but currently this licence condition is UK-wide, as agreed in the 2012 fisheries concordat between the Administrations.
I say in reply to my noble friend Lord Lansley that we do not need legislation to amend or set an economic link; it is managed through licence conditions. The conditions of the economic link are that vessels must land at least 50% of their catch of quota species into UK ports; have at least 50% of their crew normally resident in the UK; spend at least 50% of operating expenditure in the UK; or demonstrate an economic link by other means. In practice, this last option usually involves the donation of quota to the under-10 metre quota pool.
In 2018, the majority of vessels met the economic link by landing at least 50% of their catch in UK ports. Twenty-seven vessels met the economic link through other economic link criteria. Of the 27, 22 complied by donating 714 tonnes of quota worth £2.5 million, and five employed a crew the majority of whom were resident in the UK. This quota was put into the under-10 metre pool, which is managed by the MMO, and vessel owners who have valid licences are entitled to fish for it.
Other parts of the Bill, in particular paragraph (a)(ii) of the sustainability objective in Clause 1, already state the UK Government’s aim of ensuring that fishing activities are managed so as to achieve economic, social and employment benefits, which I hope provides the reassurance that my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay seeks in his Amendment 19. This would include the management of recreational and environmental use of fisheries. As such, Amendment 18 does not need to be included because the Bill achieves the same effect as the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, seeks. I am happy to have further conversations if that presents difficulties for her, but that is the position as I understand it.
There are some further, practical issues to consider in relation to these amendments. It is not clear what any national benefit requirement for the recreational sector could be or for those exploiting the resources for environmental reasons; nor would it be easy to consider how any wider national benefit requirement could be delivered.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, seeks through Amendment 20 to extend the scope of the objective that the fishing activities of UK fishing boats should benefit the UK to include the activity of foreign vessels and, through Amendment 21, to require that a majority of fish be landed by UK boats for processing at UK ports. I shall speak to these amendments in turn.
In the future, any access by non-UK vessels to fish in UK waters will be, as all noble Lords know, a matter for negotiation. Access will be on the UK’s terms and for the benefit of UK fishermen. Our access negotiations will always seek to bring environmental, economic and social benefits to the UK. Therefore, through our negotiations, benefits to the UK from any foreign vessels fishing in our waters would be sought and secured, without such an amendment to the Bill.
There would be a number of practical challenges to delivering the change that Amendment 21 seeks to impose. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and my noble friend Lord Lansley referred to this. The imposition of this requirement on UK vessels would make many vessels’ existing business models inoperable, as they rely on non-UK markets for the sale of their catch. This is often the case where prices are higher or, in some instances, where appropriate port facilities in the UK are not available. There could be implications for safety if vessels are not able to access suitable ports at the appropriate time. Further, enforcing increased landings into the UK could result in lower prices for the catching sector.
The amendment refers specifically to fish for “processing in UK ports”. While we want to encourage greater processing in the UK, as it creates value and brings employment, there are challenges in practice. We have some world-class processing plants in the UK, but they are not necessarily found in ports. It will also take time and money to invest and build processing capacity. We must also recognise that markets for processed fish need to be developed and there can be good value to be gained from the sale of, for example, unprocessed fish or live shellfish.
Landing requirements currently exist as part of the economic link condition attached to all UK vessel licences, as I have already detailed. This proposed amendment would make it more difficult for other mechanisms which benefit UK coastal communities to operate, including quota donations made under the economic link condition, resulting in a fall in fishing opportunities for the inshore fleet. Schedule 3 to the Bill sets out vessel licensing powers, which we will continue to use to impose economic link conditions on UK registered boats. The economic link policy is being reviewed, to ensure that it remains as effective as possible as we leave the CFP. However, I believe that a licence condition remains the most flexible and effective way of achieving this objective.
Amendments 77, 78, 80, and 84 seek to introduce a new national landing requirement and apply it to vessels licensed using powers in the Bill. While the Government support the intent of these amendments, which is to ensure that the UK benefits from its valuable natural resources, we believe that their aims are addressed both in the Bill through the national benefit objective, as I have previously highlighted, and the provisions to license foreign vessels for the first time, which would allow us to impose on them requirements which are equitable with our licensing regime for UK boats.
There is already work being undertaken on this topic by the Government and by the devolved Administrations. The amendments as drafted would not be appropriate to include in the Bill as they do not respect the devolution settlements—the economic link being a devolved matter, as I have set out. As made clear in the UK Government’s fisheries White Paper, the economic link conditions will be reviewed with a view to strengthening them. The Scottish Government consulted on this issue three years ago. We wish to work with the devolved Administrations to consider whether having the same economic link conditions across the UK would simplify matters for industry.
I am sure noble Lords will agree that, in developing options for reform, we must consider the best interests of the whole fleet, including those British vessels that land abroad when it is most profitable, and ensure that vessels can continue to operate as successful businesses. As we review the economic link, we will carefully consider the impact of changing the required share of landings into UK ports. Setting a fixed percentage for required landings into UK ports by all vessels could present practical difficulties, as the infrastructure for handling large increases in landings may not be in place, and it could disrupt existing supply chains. Furthermore, it would not necessarily benefit the inshore fleet, as quota that has been donated to the under-10 metre pool in the past would, instead, be required to be landed into UK ports by foreign owned vessels. The current drafting of the Bill respects and reflects the devolution settlements, where each Administration is responsible for setting licence conditions, including the economic link. It would therefore not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to be legislating for the whole UK, as proposed.
I realise that this has been a fairly lengthy explanation, but I hope that it has been helpful in demonstrating the UK Government’s commitment to, first, seeing a real benefit from fishing for our coastal communities, and secondly, ensuring that our fishing industry is given enough flexibility to flourish. I understand the rationale behind all the amendments, but I have sought to outline some of the practical intricacies of the fishing industry.
One of the generous remarks by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, repeated today, is that the more you learn about the fishing industry, the more you realise how little you really know, because of its intricacy and complexity. I have tried to outline some of the points of difficulty that the amendment presents, although I absolutely respect the importance of supporting our coastal communities. With all that in mind, I ask the noble Baroness at this stage to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
I shall read what the Minister said in detail in Hansard. He said that this is riddled with complexity, and I am sure that that is true, but did I understand him to say that there is a working party already working on issues around the national landing requirement? Is it that he thinks this is a good idea but, as we were discussing earlier, everything has to be agreed with the devolved nations and therefore we cannot agree anything in the Bill? Is this something that is already in train but has not yet been signed off? Is that really what he is saying? I understand that there may be details underneath it.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I repeat what I said: work is already being undertaken on this by the Government and the devolved Administrations. It is work in progress, but that is the right route, particularly as these are devolved matters and that is important. The Government want to find ways: although we must and do respect the devolution settlement, there are many respects where we have been seeking to work together and why we are legislating on behalf of all four parts of the United Kingdom on this matter. It is the case that we are acting in concert with the devolved Administrations. We are very mindful that many of these areas are devolved, but we think that in the interests of simplicity and straightforwardness there are many areas where we would like to have a single focus, as it were.
Lord Teverson
Perhaps I can be helpful to the Minister, in that the whole area of foreign ownership of British-flagged vessels is an English issue, and I am sure that we can solve it in that way and help the Minister get this into the Bill. It is an English, not a Scottish, problem. That is one thing we can do. The other thing is that, on the under-10 fleet redistribution of quota, of course the big promise of the Government is that the pie is going to increase anyway, so there will be plenty for the under-10 fleet. If the Government’s promises, in terms of taking back control and getting rid of relative stability, is what we manage to achieve, then that should not be a problem.
What I particularly want to do at this stage is to go through a thought experiment with the Minister. Taking the point that it is the Government’s objective, quite rightly, post Brexit to have a much larger pie—because the fish stocks are within our EEZ and we will have this whole idea of zonal attachment—we will have much larger fishing opportunities for the fleet as a whole. So, with that bigger pie, are we going to allow the foreign-owned British companies with British-flagged vessels to take even more quota than they have now, or have the Government got a cunning plan to make sure that this expanded quota stays and resides more with real British fishing fleets? I would be very interested to hear the Government’s answer.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
For tonight, I will say that these are matters under active consideration. We take the point that there is scope for additional quota to benefit coastal communities. I am not in a position to give precise details because this is under active consideration, but the noble Lord has absolutely hit on the point that this is about additional opportunities. The Government are working on and considering how best we fulfil that in a way which benefits coastal communities. That, as with a number of other aspects, is work in hand.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister’s response to this group of amendments. I will read Hansard in detail. Touching on the point of the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, it struck me as odd that we still seem to be referring to the current system under the CFP as some sort of gold standard we should seek to continue. I think most people would agree it is the exact opposite of what we are trying to achieve.
This concept of an economic link being proofed by the charitable donation of quota back to a deserving cause seems out of kilter with what we are trying to achieve. We should not give the vast majority of quota to a small number of players and then rely on their beneficence to give it back to those located in coastal communities who are actually fishing in our waters, employing people, feeding local markets and producing sustainable food. Something is a bit awry in the way that this opportunity is being interpreted by our Government. We will probably come back to probe this further as we go through the Bill, particularly on the quota allocation clauses, but I am grateful for the response—it will tee up an interesting debate later.
On whether recreational fishing could in any way contribute to the national benefit, it is a bit dismissive to state that only commercial fishing and fish stocks have any contribution to make to the benefit of the nation. It is clear that, if we are a destination for a large number of recreational fishers, that will be of national benefit. If we can sustain a really rich and biodiverse marine environment, that will enable us to encourage any manner of recreational activities—not just fishing but whale watching, porpoise watching and birdwatching are inherently linked to the sustainability of our fish stocks. Without fish in the seas, we do not have birds.
There are lots of reasons why good management of our marine environment produces a national benefit, so I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that this is a really odd phrase and that the narrow definition of “national benefit” needs revisiting as we go through the Bill. However, at this stage I am happy to withdraw this amendment.
Lord Grantchester
(i) improve the environmental performance of fishing ports, and(ii) promote the decarbonisation of fish and aquaculture activities”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment strengthens the “climate change objective” by requiring action to improve the environmental performance of ports and decarbonise the catching process.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, in moving Amendment 22, I will speak also to Amendment 23. These amendments are tabled with slightly different intentions in mind, so while they may be grouped together, they address slightly different aspects of climate change. The addition of the climate change objective is very much to be welcomed, and must be fundamental to all policy developments, perhaps second only to the sustainability objective, as debated earlier tonight.
Amendment 22 would strengthen the climate change objective by requiring two sets of actions: one on land to improve the green credentials of ports and the other at sea to help the fisheries fleet decarbonise. Both are important and must reflect together the environmental sustainability practices on landed catches while making the industry undertake precise measures on decarbonisation. Either step or both would have a positive impact on the country’s net zero aspirations. The amendment was tabled to probe how action the Government propose to take will be specified and measured, including what support they will provide in the future to allow the industry to improve its environmental footprint. The Bill allows financial assistance to be provided for a variety of purposes, including many linked with the overarching fisheries objectives. Can it, therefore, be safely assumed that such support would be made available to fishers who wish to fit cleaner engines, and perhaps to ports and processing plants that want to upgrade equipment to run on low-carbon technologies?
Amendment 23 deals directly with achieving net zero in the industry. I was disappointed to see no link between this framework legislation and the legally binding targets for the UK to achieve net zero by 2050. Amendment 25, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, seeks to achieve a link and we support such a consultation. However, we propose that the Government are not taking action quite as seriously as we would like and need to proceed faster, with more urgency.
We have been told time and again, and will no doubt be reminded in the Minister’s response, that the UK is a world leader in the race to decarbonise, with this Government being the first to adopt a binding target to achieve net zero by 2050. However, I hope the Minister accepts and can forgive that, across your Lordships’ House, many are sceptical of the Government’s claims. Reference need be made to the court’s ruling only last week on Heathrow expansion to see that, just because an environmental target has been adopted, it does not necessarily filter through to everyday decision-making in Whitehall. There remains a gulf between stated ambition and reality. The UK, working alongside others, needs to do more to tackle the climate crisis before it is too late.
As part of that, industries such as fisheries should be encouraged to be ambitious by working to an accelerated timescale. Although it would require significant effort, we believe this could be achieved. If the Minister rejects the premise of achieving net zero in fisheries by 2030, or if he believes that decarbonisation is better dealt with in the upcoming Environment Bill, he at least needs to indicate what progress he would like to see made in the next decade.
With this in mind, what will our fishing fleet look like after nearly 10 years of the UK operating outside the CFP? What is the size of the Government’s ambitions? What gear will our fishers be using? How will the way that their catch is processed and transported be different from today? When will emissions targets be made binding on international shipping? These are but a few of the questions to which we need answers, and we ideally need them before either this or the Environment Bill reach the statute book. To include ambition in the Bill, the House must be assured that it will be key feature in the drawing up of fisheries statements and management policies. There is a climate emergency now and every sector should play its part in addressing it. I beg to move.
Baroness Worthington
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 125 in my name, also in this group. I also lend my support to the two amendments spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. This is very welcome. I start by being positive about the climate change objective being added to the list of 12—or however many we have now. It is good to see it there. As I stated earlier, there really is no business as usual anymore. Climate change impacts are upon us and we are living through an age of consequences. This will permeate all the discussions around fishing policy that we bring on the back of the Bill. Fishing quotas will change, the availability of fish stocks will change and the resilience of the natural environment will be increasingly affected and diminished, so it is incredibly important that we take this seriously.
The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, rightly goes to the heart of the definition here. It seems a little lacking in ambition and specificity, as stated in the Bill, which refers to
“the adverse effects of fishing and aquaculture minimised”.
What does “minimised” mean when, really, they should be eliminated? In fact, any economic activity now taking place specifically within the natural environment should not just seek to have zero emissions, it should be seeking to be a positive sink. We will have to use policies and the framework for managing the natural world to ensure that we are not just reducing our outputs, but seeking to enhance the ability of the natural world to absorb carbon dioxide.
That has to be an aim because we have left it so late. We are about 20 years behind where we should be in reducing emissions on a global level, so the challenge now will be that of eliminating emissions in a decade. Thereafter it will be about soaking out the greenhouse gases that have been emitted. The oceans and the marine environment are a huge component of that, so we should be ambitious. I think that the bare minimum should be to achieve net zero, not simply minimising adverse effects and adapting to climate change.
My third point is about accepting that we may have to implement the precautionary principle, which states that for the period we are in, where there is so much uncertainty, we will be allocating below scientifically determined maximum sustainable yields because of the risk of climate change that overlays everything. We might have to get used to allocating quota on a very precautionary basis because we are entering uncharted waters, if I may be excused the pun.
I turn to my Amendment 125. Amendments that seek consultation always feel a bit redundant in primary legislation, but my point is that, under the powers granted under the Climate Change Act 2008, we have the ability to introduce a policy. Before any activity that causes a net contribution to greenhouse gases, we can simply consult and then use secondary legislation to introduce that policy. If the Government were minded to get going on achieving the net zero target, simply asking for public consultation would be the trigger to introducing secondary legislation to bring in very targeted, market-based policies to encourage investment in low-carbon activities. The Government now have the opportunity to consult on how we can best make this sector carbon neutral and use the powers that already exist to bring in those policies; hence the quest for a public consultation.
It is worth stating that, at the moment, the fishing industry has an effect on climate change in a number of ways. It is not just about how vessels are propelled or the energy choices made by processing plants, it is also about how the degradation of the natural environment can release greenhouse gases. Trawling activities, for example, can disturb the sediment at the bottom of the ocean, which releases otherwise stored carbon. There are plenty of examples and reasons why one would want the sector to take this issue seriously.
This is an opportunity to do something really positive. We must think about the provision of licences to cover the activities that take place in this environment with a positive vision that will create jobs and allow activities to be carried out in the natural world that will help us as we seek to combat climate change. There is no reason why fisheries cannot be part of that process. There are particular types of fish stocks and particular ways of fishing that can lock carbon up while low-impact aquaculture can make a net-positive contribution to our carbon budgets. I hope this is not seen as an imposition; rather, it should be seen as an opportunity.
Again, to finish on a positive note, seeing this objective included is very welcome. I happen to be in the camp of thinking that sustainability is the primary objective, so this climate objective is integral to that. However, we need to see a little more action and commitment to some of the specifics of what making this a primary objective would really mean for how we manage our fisheries. I am glad to have had the opportunity to discuss these amendments.
Lord Teverson
I put my name on the amendment and am pleased to welcome it. One message from the climate change committee was that we cannot do decarbonisation and net zero sequentially; we have to do it all at the one time. That must include this industry.
My only word of caution is that fish oil is used as an energy source on some occasions, and could be described as renewable. It is used as biodiesel, like fishmeal. That should be excluded completely. We do not do that in this country, but I have a feeling the Danes have occasionally done it before.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this Government have committed to ambitious action to tackle climate change, including reaching net zero by 2050. To support this objective, it is right that we have included a climate change objective in the Bill.
The Government share the ambition of Amendment 22, which is to make sure that we take meaningful action to decarbonise fishing and aquaculture activities and the infrastructure that supports them, as we must do across our economy. Indeed, I believe we are the first major economy to include an objective of this kind in legislation in relation to fisheries.
Evidence of the links between fishing and climate change continues to grow, and our approach must adapt to follow new evidence over successive iterations of the joint fisheries statement. Therefore, while I agree that action to support decarbonisation of ports and fishing activities must form part of our policies, I am reluctant to prioritise these in primary legislation ahead of the full development of, consultation on and scrutiny of the joint fisheries statement. This is also an issue for other departments, and we will work together to ensure that our functions under this legislation and other specific climate change and environmental legislation are carried out effectively.
The amendment would also have broader unintended consequences. For example, it could lead to future fisheries funding having to prioritise subsidies for fishing port energy efficiency measures that may better be delivered through measures other than fishing policy, such as planning and energy efficiency regulation, over measures to support directly the industry-focused infrastructure such as auction halls and landing sites. It could also lead to future fisheries funding having to priorities support for energy-efficient engines over more targeted fishing gear. The Government should be able to change their priorities for a future funding scheme in consultation with stakeholders so that it best delivers the government policies needed in response to the conditions at the time. We should always take an evidence-based approach to deciding which areas to prioritise in achieving this objective. We believe that the best way to do this is through the joint fisheries statement, rather than in the Bill.
Amendment 23 enables me to highlight that the UK—as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said—is at the vanguard of global ambition to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, having last year committed to achieving economy-wide net-zero emissions by 2050 through the Climate Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019. While I fully support the noble Lord’s ambition to transition to net-zero emissions in the fisheries and aquaculture sector, we have a clear target already enshrined in primary legislation. To introduce a further acceleration of that target in the Bill would create a sectoral disparity that could unfairly disadvantage an industry already facing challenges to adapt to the impacts of climate change. This is not to say that we should not seek to be ambitious as we work towards decarbonising our fisheries and aquaculture operations, but rather that we take a measured approach that supports the sector through the transition on a timescale achievable for all—from small, single-vessel operators to large processing operations. Legally binding policies will be contained in the joint fisheries statement, which will set out in more detail the steps we will take to deliver against the objectives in the Bill.
Turning to Amendment 125, I take the opportunity to set out some of the work already going on across the UK to support the fishing industry’s progress, along with the rest of the country, towards achieving economy-wide net-zero emissions by 2050. I apologise to noble Lords who were aware of this, but I shall put this on the record.
The national adaptation programme—NAP—sets the actions that Government and others will take to adapt to the challenges of climate change in the UK. Published in 2018, it sets out key actions for the following five years across a wide range of sectors, including fisheries and aquaculture.
The UK Clean Maritime Plan, published by the Department for Transport, sets out a national action plan for the whole of the UK maritime sector. The plan includes commitments to support maritime innovation, establish a maritime emissions regulation advisory service and consult on how the renewable transport fuel obligation can be used to encourage the uptake of low-carbon fuels in maritime sectors. The aim of the plan is to achieve zero-emission shipping by 2050, as set out in the Government’s Maritime 2050 strategy. This recognises the need to take action to tackle greenhouse gas emissions in line with the Paris agreement and the UK’s 2050 net zero ambition. Together, both plans ensure the fishing industry will effectively contribute to the target for zero net emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by 2050.
The climate change objective in Clause 1 will support this ambition by requiring the fisheries administrations to consider these matters in consultation with industry and interested parties, as they develop the policies that will sit in the joint fisheries statement. I recognise, and I am pleased, that a number of noble Lords have recognised, in the hurly-burly of the exchanges, that we did insert this new climate change objective. It is absolutely right we did so, because it is at the very heart of what we have to do. For the sake of tonight, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Grantchester
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, and I take it entirely in the spirit in which he makes it. We are all committed to this objective, and we all work as fast as we may. We will study the Bill’s words very carefully, to look at where it is appropriate to put in a little more ambition, and whether it is right to leave it to the fisheries statement or whether we could devise some plan to escalate it up to being a stronger commitment. But at this stage—
Baroness Worthington
Before the noble Lord withdraws his amendment, I want to comment on the Minister’s list of activities that relate to this. It is welcome to hear about the marine plans and the alternative fuels. We also need to integrate into this that the Government are pursuing nature-based solutions and carbon stored in the natural environment. We are doing that in the Agriculture Bill, and will be talking about it a lot as we go into the Glasgow talks, but the definitions the department is thinking about in the fishing sector are quite limited; for example, just the propulsion of the vessels. We are not thinking holistically about nature-based solutions, which are very important. When we have discussions following on from today’s debate, I encourage us to think about this holistically to make this a positive thing the maritime sector can help deliver, as we think about the net zero question.
Lord Grantchester
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, for reminding me of the important issue of nature’s ability to store carbon at sea. This is part of the wider implications of what we are seeking to achieve through amendments to the Bill’s climate change provisions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.