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, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
The Prime Minister spoke to his G7 counterparts yesterday about the international effort to take a global and effective response in tackling covid-19.
Andy Carter
In the light of the rapidly developing coronavirus pandemic, will my right hon. Friend update the House on how the Government, and specifically the Foreign Office, are providing support to British nationals who are currently in other countries?
Dominic Raab
We are working with £241 million of aid funding and investing £65 million in research to support vulnerable countries’ capacity to tackle this. The Foreign Office is regularly reviewing our travel advice, and consular staff are working with British nationals right across the world to give them the support and advice that they need. I will be making a further statement after oral questions.
Dr Caroline Johnson
What discussions is my right hon. Friend having with his counterparts in countries such as the United States, Australia and Israel, which are working actively on a vaccine for covid-19, so that we can share information from our research and develop a vaccine more quickly together?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for that question —I know how expert she is in this field. We are, of course, emphasising the importance of vaccine research and encouraging the scientific community to co-ordinate. In particular, we want to prioritise collaboration on vaccine research, including with financing and co-ordination through the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations fund.
Michael Fabricant
SARS—severe acute respiratory syndrome—swine flu and now coronavirus are all thought to have emanated from unsanitary wet butcheries in east Asia and China. What can my right hon. Friend do to co-ordinate an effort—perhaps after all this is over— to prevent any such disease from ever starting in such places again?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that addressing the root causes of covid-19 and similar potential pandemics will require close co-operation with the international community, including China and other south-east-Asian partners. With that in mind, we welcome the Chinese Government’s decision on 24 February to make permanent the temporary ban on the trade and consumption of live wild animals.
Craig Whittaker
Many constituents are finding that unless Government travel advice advises against travel to a specific country or area, insurance companies do not pay out. Australia currently requires a two-week self-isolation period, but we are still not advising people not to travel there. What discussions is my right hon. Friend having with the insurance industry to make sure that constituents are covered in such situations?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The situation is moving very rapidly—to give him a sense of that, I should say that the Foreign Office made more than 200 changes to our travel advice over the last weekend alone. We have also published a checklist to help British travellers to think through the challenges of international travel and the questions they should ask about it. We are in contact with the airlines for the insurance reasons that my hon. Friend explained. As I mentioned, I will make a further statement after oral questions.
Charlotte Nichols
Over the coming weeks and months, as more and more airlines, travel operators and insurance firms go bust, more and more British nationals will find themselves stranded abroad without accommodation or flight options. Will the Secretary of State reassure us that the Foreign Office is gearing up for that challenge and will be there to provide whatever support is required?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. On the one hand, we do not want to take precipitate measures, but on the other we do want to take measures to prevent more and more UK nationals—particularly vulnerable ones—from being stranded overseas. It is a difficult risk-balancing exercise, and I will say more about that in the oral statement to follow.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
Happy St Patrick’s day, Mr Speaker.
The lack of global co-ordination in tackling the covid-19 outbreak has been truly shocking, but is that any wonder, given that last week, according to the German Government, the so-called leader of the free world offered CureVac “large sums of money” to make sure that the vaccine it is developing would be available only for those from the United States? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that Donald Trump’s response to this outbreak has been nothing but a disgrace?
Dominic Raab
I certainly agree with the right hon. Lady that we need a co-ordinated international response, and we need to get better internationally at that—the Prime Minister made that point during yesterday’s G7 conversation. I do not think that just bashing the Americans or the President of the US is a substitute for the sensible, practical measures that we need to take to bring British nationals, and also our European partners, home on the repatriation flights that we have organised, to deal with research and the vaccine mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), and to increase the resilience and capacity of those vulnerable countries that are trying to deal with an even greater challenge. We are addressing all those issues. The Foreign Office is working with the Department for International Development, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Ministry of Defence, and we are talking to all our partners right around the world.
Emily Thornberry
The truth is that Donald Trump’s lack of international leadership has been quite extraordinary. He started by calling the outbreaks a hoax, comparing coronavirus to winter flu and dismissing health advice, but he now calls it the “foreign virus”, blaming Europe for its spread and today blaming China, and says that he takes no responsibility at all. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is shameful that such behaviour is what we have come to expect from the current American President, even at this time of global crisis?
Dominic Raab
I have to say to the right hon. Lady that I think we have done quite a good job in this House of trying to adopt a bipartisan approach. Whether domestically or internationally, finger-pointing just does not help in any shape or form. We are going to work with all our partners—the US, the Europeans, those in South America and those in Asia, as I have already mentioned—to try to forge the most effective response. That is what all our constituents expect and deserve.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Aman Nasir and Laura Bartley, two of my constituents, are among 100 Brits trapped in Lima, Peru. They say that they cannot get through to our embassy in that country, so how are the Government ensuring that all Brits trapped elsewhere can access embassies and missions that are resourced to answer their queries and to get them home as soon as possible?
Dominic Raab
We understand the concern of any constituent who finds themselves in a vulnerable position and also, of course, that of MPs who are trying to do their best. We have beefed up the support we are providing. There is a parliamentary hotline for MPs, and I will make sure that Ministers give the hon. Gentleman all the details so that he can provide the most support and up-to-date advice to his constituents.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s response today, but does he remember from the Ebola crisis only a few years ago the woeful and very slow approach of the World Health Organisation? Does he not feel that we are seeing a similar response from the WHO today? Can he assure me that he is working with international partners to ensure that there is a proper, co-ordinated response despite the WHO, and that that will be the foundation for building a new international co-operative response?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. We are doing our level best as the UK to forge the strongest consensus possible. We have a total aid envelope of £241 million of funding. We are providing up to £150 million of that to the International Monetary Fund, £10 million to the WHO, £5 million to the Red Cross and £5 million to UNICEF. It is important that we work as collaboratively as possible with all our international partners—the WHO, but also those working in the voluntary sector, who often have particularly good expertise and access on the ground where it is needed most.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
We welcome the ceasefire in Idlib agreed by Turkey and Russia on 5 March, and we call on all parties to respect it and make it permanent.
Jim Shannon
First, may I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all right hon. and hon. Members a happy St Patrick’s day from everyone in Northern Ireland?
The crisis in Syria means that Lebanon is in the middle of an economic crisis, and its infrastructure was already straining to support an influx of more than 1 million Syrian refugees, who now make up 20% of the country’s population. Those refugees are also facing coronavirus. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that Syrian refugees, particularly those from more vulnerable groups, are adequately supported?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman. Let me say at the outset that I totally agree with him about the need to stem the flow of refugees. He mentions Lebanon; of course, Turkey has also taken 4 million refugees. The first thing to say is that we must hold the Syrian regime and the Russian Government to account for the brutality of the fighting, which is causing the refugee flows. We must do everything within our power to firm up the ceasefire and make it nationwide, and then also, of course, provide humanitarian support. The Department for International Development announced £89 million in new aid for Idlib this month. On 11 March, the RAF delivered 37 tonnes of UK aid. I was recently in Turkey talking with the Foreign Minister and President Erdoğan about the measures that we need to take to bring that terrible conflict to an end.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
The preventing sexual violence in conflict initiative remains a top Government priority. The UK is recognised as a global leader on the issue. We have committed over £46 million across 29 countries since 2012 and deployed the UK PSVI team of experts over 90 times. We are currently reassessing potential dates for the PSVI international conference in the light of developments on coronavirus, but we are committed to progressing conference ambitions of strengthening justice for survivors and holding the perpetrators of these horrific crimes to account.
Anthony Mangnall
I thank the Minister for his response. In 2019, 14 million women were subject to gender-based violence. We know that this figure rises during conflicts and crises. Will the ministerial team work with international groups and make representations at the UN later this year—presuming that the conference goes ahead—on preventing sexual violence in conflict and ensuring that we keep a firm eye on gender-based violence?
Nigel Adams
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I know that he takes a keen interest in this area, given his previous work for Lord Hague, the former Foreign Secretary.
This is a big year for gender equality, as it includes the 25th anniversary of the Beijing declaration and platform for action, and the 20th anniversary of UN Security Council resolution 1325 on women, peace and security. The UK is proud to be a global leader in efforts to eradicate gender-based violence, and this year we will launch a new £67.5 million multi-country programme to prevent gender-based violence. We have expressed a strong interest in leading the Generation Equality action coalition on ending gender-based violence, and we will announce plans for the proposed UN General Assembly summit in due course.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
The aforementioned Lord Hague—the architect of the preventing sexual violence initiative—recently said that if the UK was not prepared to take effective action in this area,
“it would be better to let another country take the lead”.
Does the Minister agree, or will he listen to Lord Hague and give this vital initiative the funding and political leadership it deserves?
Nigel Adams
We are wholly committed as a nation to ensuring that all efforts to tackle conflict-related sexual violence are survivor-centred, in line with UN Security Council resolution 2467, and that this policy and practice avoids the re-traumatisation of survivors.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Some appalling incidents of gender-based violence occurred during the Sri Lankan civil war. Will the Foreign Office do everything in its power to persuade the Sri Lankan Government to live up to the commitments they made in sponsoring resolution 30/1 in the UN Human Rights Council?
Nigel Adams
We certainly will. My right hon. Friend raises an important point. We are in regular contact and will ensure that, through our network and all channels, we discuss this with our Sri Lankan friends.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
I travelled to Riyadh on 4 March to 5 March and met senior Saudis, including His Majesty King Salman and the Foreign Minister, Prince Faisal. We discussed a whole range of bilateral issues, and I raised human rights, including detained women’s rights defenders.
Dame Diana Johnson
I am pleased to hear that the Foreign Secretary raised with the Saudi Arabian Government the women’s human rights defenders. Did he mention Loujain al-Hathloul, who is facing an unfair trial, arbitrary detention, and sexual abuse and mistreatment in custody for carrying out lawful and peaceful campaigning activities? If her case goes to trial, will the British Government observe that trial, and did the Foreign Secretary call for her release?
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her championing of this very important issue. I raised a whole range of cases before the Saudi courts in relation to women’s rights defenders, and also the fact that, having lifted the ban on women driving and taken other measures, that was particularly anomalous. Her concerns have been raised, and we will continue to raise those issues with the Saudi Government.
Wera Hobhouse
I appreciate that my question is not about what is currently uppermost in people’s minds, but human rights abuses continue to be committed, even while covid-19 is spreading. What active steps are the Government taking to help to secure the unconditional release of human rights activists?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I was not quite clear whether she was talking specifically about Saudi Arabia, but we raise these issues. Obviously the Government and the jurisdictions are very sensitive about their cases, but we raise these issues because that is what international law requires. We have made the points that she and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) have raised, and we will continue to do so.
There has been an incremental and modest improvement in Saudi Arabia’s human rights situation. In the World Bank’s “Women, Business and the Law 2020” report, Saudi Arabia was ranked as the most improved economy for women’s economic opportunities. We want to encourage that positivity, and also, where there are abuses of human rights—whether in relation to the Khashoggi case, Raif Badawi, which was another case I raised, or the women’s rights defenders—to make sure that that is a part of our bilateral relations. We will keep raising these important issues.
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)
This week will mark five years since the start of the war in Yemen. That war has seen the Saudi Government bomb Yemeni civilians in their thousands and starve them in their millions, with callous indifference and complete impunity. After five years, when will the Secretary of State finally bring forward a resolution demanding a full independent UN-led investigation of these appalling war crimes?
Dominic Raab
We are focused on bringing that terrible conflict—I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that—to an end. We want pressure to be put on the Houthis, and also a positive dynamic. Probably the single biggest issue that I raised with my Saudi counterparts was an end to the conflict in Yemen, which will require all the relevant actors to come together. There is a political dialogue through the UN. We want confidence-building measures that will lead to a proper political dialogue, and to get that issue and the conflict resolved. There is a window of opportunity in 2020 to achieve that, and we will be working very hard with all the relevant actors to secure it.
Fabian Hamilton
While we are trying to get somewhere on war crimes in Yemen, may I ask the Secretary of State about another imminent anniversary? It is 18 months since Jamal Khashoggi was murdered in Istanbul. At the time we were promised, from the Government Dispatch Box, a credible investigation to find out who ordered his murder, with serious consequences to follow as a result. Almost a year and a half on, can the Secretary of State explain why we are still waiting?
Dominic Raab
I think that the hon. Gentleman will know that there is a certain limit to what we can actually force Saudi Arabia to do. There has been a trial. There have been criticisms and concerns about that, but some have been held to account. We continue to raise the issue. I raised it when I was in Riyadh on 4 and 5 March. We do not shy away from it or, most importantly, from getting the reassurance—as well as the accountability that he wishes—that something like this will never happen again.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
I warmly endorse the sentiments of the question asked by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), and I do think the United Kingdom could do more to promote human rights in Saudi Arabia. I am conscious that we also need to deal with the interlocutors we are dealt. On that point, I would be grateful for the FCO’s assessment of the stability of the regime in Riyadh, given very worrying reports of arrests and incarcerations of key members of it. Was that part of the discussions when the Foreign Secretary was last in the capital?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise human rights issues. I have explained all the issues—from Raif Badawi to the women’s rights defenders and Khashoggi—which we will always raise with our Saudi interlocutors. Equally, they are an important partner with us for all sorts of reasons, but particularly in relation to forging peace and trying to secure peace in Yemen. The regime looks entirely stable to me but, of course, given everything else that is going on with coronavirus and with oil production, there is tremendous economic pressure on the whole region. We want to try to reduce that pressure and, particularly on Yemen, to work with all partners in the region to end that terrible conflict.
Alyn Smith
I am grateful for the answer, and I was struck by the Foreign Secretary’s earlier point that we can only force the Saudis to do so much. However, we could stop selling them guns, tanks and bombs, and we could actually put some ethics into our foreign policy and prioritise the rights of the people in Yemen and the children who are currently suffering so badly as a result of the conflict. I am struck that the Saudis are indeed a partner in that war in terms of promoting the peace, but they are also a partner in that war full stop. I think that the UK could be rather more muscular in our discussions regarding that point.
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman will of course know about the efforts—in particular with the UN envoy, Martin Griffiths—to bring an end to that conflict, and we have been tireless in supporting, pursuing and supplementing them. Of course a lot of the diplomacy will go on behind the scenes.
The hon. Gentleman mentions arms exports. We have one of the most robust arms export control regimes in the world. We have carefully considered the implications of the Court of Appeal’s judgment, for example, and we will make sure that we are always compliant. However, the reality is that our focus has been on, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, raising human rights issues when necessary, and also on trying to bring all the parties, including the Houthi rebels, to the table to have a proper political dialogue that can end the conflict in the interests of all the people in Yemen.
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that only through constructive dialogue with Saudi Arabia can we hasten progress on issues of human rights and the ongoing conflict in Yemen?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right, and we are listened to more because we engage and try to exert positive influence. Equally, however, we will not be shy or retiring in raising those issues. We raised them in the Human Rights Council statement in March 2019, and in other UN forums. As I said, when I was in Riyadh recently, we raised those issues bilaterally with all senior interlocutors.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
What is the Government’s latest assessment of the role of Saudi Arabia in promoting radical Islamist doctrines beyond its borders?
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s expertise in this area. We have raised that issue. There has been a step change and a reduction in the Government promoting that kind of extremism, and we want to ensure that other private sector or charitable bodies are also compliant. We have raised those issues, and I will continue to do so.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
The UK is committed to the promotion and protection of human rights worldwide. We are one of the longest standing members of the Human Rights Council, and we are committed to maintaining that record when we stand for re-election this year. The UK’s autonomous global human rights Magnitsky-style sanctions regime is due to come into force in the coming months. That will allow us to impose sanctions in response to serious human rights violations or abuses around the world.
Gerald Jones
Since June 2019, when the UK became co-chair of the Equal Rights Coalition to defend LGBT communities around the world, no additional Commonwealth countries have joined. Even now, there are no Commonwealth members from Africa, Asia or the Caribbean. What can the Minister do to improve that dire situation?
Nigel Adams
We must tackle all human rights issues through multilateral organisations wherever possible. The UK Government will continue to make that case through our networks and ministerial team, and the hon. Gentleman raises a serious point.
Lilian Greenwood
University professor Chan Kin-man said about the 2014 Umbrella protest in Hong Kong:
“The reason we had this protest is that China did not honour a promise to Hong Kong to let it have democracy.”
He now faces seven years in jail for leading that protest. Will the Government stand up for him, or was Chris Patten right to describe their policy towards China as simply “craven”?
Nigel Adams
I met the Chinese ambassador in the past 10 days, and raised the issue of Hong Kong. We remain concerned about the political situation in Hong Kong, and believe that the underlying causes of the protests have not been addressed. We welcome the peaceful manner in which so many Hong Kong people have expressed their views, and we will continue to call for a robust, credible, and independent investigation into the events in Hong Kong between June 2019 and last January.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I was interested to hear what the Minister said about multilateral institutions, because the European convention on human rights was the brainchild of Winston Churchill. It was drawn up by British lawyers, and the UK was the first country to ratify it in 1951. Instead of being proud of that achievement, why do the Government now want to stand alone with Belarus, Europe’s last remaining dictatorship, in refusing to support the convention?
Nigel Adams
We continue to work with regional organisations, including the European Union, the OSCE, the Council of Europe, and the Commonwealth, to strengthen their democracy work. Most recently we have offered support for election monitoring in North Macedonia and Serbia, and we are supportive of the work that human rights defenders do across the world by promoting and protecting democratic values as well as human rights.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Wendy Morton)
Climate change is the greatest threat facing the Arctic, and it is driving other changes there too. The reduction in summer sea ice cover in the Arctic has the potential to increase international shipping activity in the Arctic; however, hostile conditions and the lack of infrastructure will make commercial operations difficult for a considerable time. The UK cross-Government Arctic network met in January and discussed issues related to shipping and environmental protection in the Arctic ocean.
Matt Western
There are huge economic advantages, particularly for the far east, in these lanes opening up, but that will come at huge environmental cost. Will the Minister explain what discussions have been had through the United Nations about how we ensure the protection and preservation of such an important pristine natural environment?
Wendy Morton
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is vital that the world comes together to take renewed action to limit global warming to 1.5°. There are 70-plus UK institutions engaged in Arctic research. The UK’s research station at Svalbard in Norway celebrates its 30th anniversary in 2020. We are doing a huge amount of work in this area.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Wendy Morton)
As the Foreign Secretary has said on previous occasions, we will establish an autonomous UK global human rights Magnitsky sanctions regime shortly. That will reinforce our role as a global leader in the promotion and protection of human rights. We will do that through secondary legislation under the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018. That sanctions regime will allow us to impose sanctions in response to serious human rights violations or abuses anywhere in the world.
Jonathan Gullis
Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the benefits of leaving the European Union is that our new sanctions regime will allow us to go faster and further in holding the worst human rights abusers to account?
Wendy Morton
The sanctions Act allows the UK to implement our own sanctions regimes, and we intend to use those powers in line with UK interests and values to reinforce the UK’s role as a force for good. We will continue to co-operate with international partners on sanctions, including on human rights, because sanctions are most effective when delivered collectively.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary was one of the loudest in clamouring for these Magnitsky sanctions to be brought forward, yet they have been on the statute book for two years and we still do not have the statutory instruments. One Minister has said we will have them “in the coming months”; another has said we will have them “soon”. If the Foreign Secretary were sitting on the Back Benches, he would be saying, “Do them now!”
Wendy Morton
And we absolutely are. We are working really hard; the hon. Gentleman just needs to wait a little longer. [Interruption.] If the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) will allow me to speak, I will reinforce my answer. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) just needs to wait a little longer. The regime will be coming forward. We are taking the time to get it right, which is absolutely the right thing to do. Just wait a little longer.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
When we bring forward the Magnitsky regime, will we also bring forward sanctions against individuals who profit through corruption and human rights abuses?
Wendy Morton
It is important that we recognise that the sanctions regime is intended to target not individual countries but those who commit serious human rights violations. As I said, we are working really hard to ensure that what comes forward is right; just wait a little longer and we will see that come forward. It is no good speculating in advance about who may be designated, because that may reduce the impact of sanctions.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)
The UK condemns all attacks by terrorist groups in north-east Nigeria, including those against Christians, but communities of all faiths have suffered; in fact, the majority of victims are Muslims. The Prime Minister discussed our concerns and UK support with President Buhari in January. My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), the Prime Minister’s excellent special envoy for freedom of religion or belief, who is in his place, also discussed the violence recently with President Buhari’s chief of staff and has had a number of other meetings, including briefing the full ministerial team last week.
Florence Eshalomi
I thank the Minister for his response. Given that recommendation 2 of the Truro review states that the UK should:
“Articulate an aspiration to be the global leader in championing FoRB”—
freedom of religion or belief—and that the UK Government have committed to all its recommendations, what more does the Minister think the Government can do to assert pressure on the Nigerian Government? Will he also be considering the claims of asylum seekers from the Nigerian community?
James Duddridge
As the hon. Lady says, we accept in full the Truro recommendations. I am meeting the Prime Minister’s envoy again to discuss progress—I think we are about halfway through. The point I gently make is that the situation is quite complicated. Religious belief is central to the identity of many in Nigeria, but the underlying drivers of conflict go beyond to ethnic rivalries, criminal banditry, competition over land and water, and the settled community and the nomadic Fulani community. There is a lot of complexity to work through, but I will continue to do that with the Prime Minister’s envoy. I am more than happy to work with the all-party group on Nigeria, of which I was once secretary, as well as the hon. Lady and other interested parties.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I thank the Minister for that answer. On the question posed earlier about the United Kingdom being a leader and champion on freedom of religion or belief, will the Minister clarify that the UK, not just bilaterally but through other forums such as the International Religious Freedom Alliance and the International Contact Group in Geneva last week, has raised the issue of Nigeria? As the Prime Minister’s envoy, I can say that the UK is taking forward with ministerial colleagues the issue of Nigeria at every level. Recommendations 12 and 13 of the Truro review, as well as recommendation 2, cover the work we do on Nigeria with non-governmental organisations, both in the UK and with our counterparts around the world.
James Duddridge
My hon. Friend demonstrates his excellence in this area and makes the very valid point that it is about not just bilateral activity, but multilateral activity and the leadership role we have, particularly now as the chair of the Commonwealth and in handing over the baton in Kigali to the Rwandans. We will continue to raise these issues, which we do not see in isolation. These are thematic issues that we raise consistently, both bilaterally and multilaterally.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
During the recent discussions, did the Nigerian authorities hold out any hope or prospect that Christian groups and other faith-based groups can look forward to the immediate prospect of a cessation of violence, and some safety and security for the future?
James Duddridge
All parties are looking for a greater degree of safety and security, particularly in the north-east. It is a complicated situation that does keep coming back. As one suppresses some problems, others come out. We are working very closely with our Nigerian and international partners in the north-east and across the whole of Nigeria. Nigeria is one of our biggest partners on these and a number of other issues. I will raise them with our high commissioner again. I met our high commissioner last week and will continue to work on these issues, and I look forward to going back to Nigeria to visit friends and colleagues.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Wendy Morton)
Climate change is one of the most urgent and pressing international challenges we face today and no country alone can solve this problem. As COP presidents, in partnership with Italy, we are driving forward the historic agreement secured in Paris. The year 2020 is crucial for international co-operation on climate, which is why this is a cross-Government priority. The Prime Minister and other Ministers are working hard to make COP26 a success.
Wendy Morton
Absolutely. This is something the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and all my colleagues on the Front Bench take very seriously. We use every opportunity to raise this issue in bilateral meetings and in relation to business. It is vital that the world comes together and takes renewed action to limit global warming to 1.5°. We urge every country to come forward in 2020 with ambitious new nationally determined contributions that will help us to meet the commitments set out under the 2015 Paris agreement.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
Department for International Development contributions to the international climate fund between 2011 and 2017 were matched almost pound for pound by Department for International Trade funding for fossil fuel projects. Is it not the Secretary of State’s job to ensure that the UK engages consistently with international partners? What steps is he taking to make that happen?
Wendy Morton
The Government have a good record in that field. As I said, the Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and all our Ministers are taking huge steps to encourage the world to come together to take renewed action and to use COP26 to deliver the climate change agenda.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
Our consistent top-table ranking in numerous soft power indices makes the UK’s strengths clear, from our diplomatic network to cultural institutions and leading scientific research. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office enhances the UK’s soft power overseas by investing in international future leaders through the Chevening and Marshall scholarship programmes, supporting the BBC World Service in its biggest expansion in 70 years and, this year, showcasing our creativity alongside the British Council as part of the UK-Japan season of culture, as well as taking a leading role on climate ahead of COP26. Through our actions, we continue to have a positive influence in the world.
Chris Clarkson
I recently visited Union Papertech in my constituency with Britain’s high commissioner to Pakistan to see how its innovations in paper technology are leading the way in booming consumer and green economies in the subcontinent. Does the Minister agree that some of global Britain’s best advocates and ambassadors open our markets for our values as well as our products?
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is spot on. I agree that British innovation is a key soft power asset. We recognise the importance of innovation and technology for global Britain, which is why the Prime Minister has committed to the UK being a global science superpower by increasing investment in R&D. My hon. Friend’s example of the high commissioner’s visit to Heywood and Middleton shows that our diplomats are committed to supporting innovative British products, as they do throughout our global network.
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. I have had the pleasure of visiting studios in Wales. I agree that our creative industries are at the forefront of the innovation I have mentioned. They put the UK’s skills and expertise on a global stage, about which we can all be proud. People who work in those areas, including in Bridgend, are an asset to our influence around the world.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The British Council is an important institution. My constituent, who remains its employee, is still in Evin prison in Iran. What assessment has the Foreign and Commonwealth Office made of this morning’s announcement that some prisoners have been released? Is Aras Amiri, or indeed Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, among them?
Nigel Adams
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised that issue with his Iranian counterpart yesterday. We are deeply concerned about both the individuals the hon. Lady mentions. We are liaising constantly with the Iranian authorities whenever possible and keeping in touch with family members to ensure that they are let out as soon as possible.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
In what way is continuing to disregard the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and the resolution of the UN General Assembly on the future sovereignty of the Chagos Islands a diligent exercise of the UK’s soft power?
Nigel Adams
We are confident in our position on the issue the hon. Gentleman mentions. We are more than happy to talk to him following the session so we can discuss it further one to one.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
The events in Delhi in February were very concerning, and the British high commission in New Delhi is monitoring the situation closely. The death of one protester is one too many. India’s strength, like that of the UK, is in its diversity. We trust the Indian Government to address the concerns of people of all religions. Where we have concerns, we raise them directly with the Indian Government. Most recently, my colleague Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon raised concerns about the impact of recent judicial and legislative measures on minorities with a senior official from India’s Ministry of External Affairs on 25 February.
Bob Blackman
The violent riots that took place in Delhi have resulted in 1,638 arrests, 14 damaged mosques and 10 damaged Hindu temples, and more than 50 Hindus and Muslims have been killed. After 330 community meetings, however, places of worship are being repaired and business is being restored. Can my hon. Friend confirm that business is returning to normal in India, with peaceful protests allowed but not violent ones?
Nigel Adams
I know that my hon. Friend takes a keen interest in this issue. We welcome the fact that there have been no new reports of rioting since February, although we are sure that tensions remain. Now, as ever, we support Prime Minister Modi’s call for peace and harmony. India’s strength, like that of the UK, is in its diversity, and we trust that the Indian Government will address the concerns of people of all religions.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
On 25 February the Minister for South Asia and the Commonwealth, my noble Friend Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon, met the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister in Geneva to express the UK’s serious concerns about the new Sri Lankan Government’s announcement that they no longer support UNHRC resolution 31 and subsequent resolutions. Lord Ahmad urged the Foreign Minister to reconsider.
Gareth Thomas
Human Rights Watch has this month chronicled Sri Lankan security agencies stepping up surveillance, harassment and threats against human rights activists and journalists. Great as it is that Lord Ahmad is raising concerns, as his ministerial colleague has just set out, is it not about time that Britain got a little more robust with the Sri Lankan authorities?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this matter. In a statement on 27 February we raised our serious concerns about those reports of surveillance and harassment of human rights defenders. We have raised those concerns directly at senior level with the Government in Colombo, and I can assure him that we will continue to urge the Sir Lankan Government to fulfil commitments made in the resolution; to deliver truth, accountability and meaningful reconciliation; and above all, to ensure the protection of human rights for everyone in Sri Lanka.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
In February I visited Australia, Japan, Malaysia and Singapore, and this month I have visited Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Oman. Both regions are of growing importance as we deliver on our vision of global Britain. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s immediate priority, of course, is to do everything we can to ensure that our citizens are safe, at home and abroad, as part of our international response to covid-19.
Dr Wallis
My constituent Stephen Lewis has been incarcerated in France for several months without charge or trial, and the judge is citing Brexit as one of the reasons why he will not be released. Will my right hon. Friend help me and Stephen’s family in our efforts to secure his release as soon as possible?
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his efforts to represent his constituent. He will know that FCO staff in Bordeaux have been following the case closely and have spoken to his constituent’s lawyer. The examining magistrate is currently reviewing the case. We cannot provide more than consular support because, as my hon. Friend will know, we cannot intervene politically in individual judicial proceedings, but we will follow the case very carefully.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Dominic Raab
I am not sure that that sole measure would release the change in behaviour that we need in Tehran, but I accept the hon. Gentleman’s diagnosis of the problem. We have seen it in relation to the issue of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, and in relation to its destabilising activities in the middle east, from Iraq through Syria to Yemen. As other Members have mentioned, we have also seen it in relation to dual nationals. When I spoke to the Iranian Foreign Minister yesterday, I made very clear that on all these fronts we will continue to hold Iran to account, and that if it wants to improve the situation both for the Government and, most importantly, for the people of Iran, the Iranian Government must take steps to build confidence and return to compliance with international law.
Mrs Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)
Dominic Raab
As my hon. Friend will know, Iran is already subject to a wide range of sanctions. She rightly raised the issue of systemic non-compliance with the JCPOA, and I have been working on that with my French and German counterparts. We triggered the dispute resolution mechanism, we will hold Iran to account, and, above all, we will make sure that it can never acquire a nuclear weapon. I made all those points very clearly to Foreign Minister Zarif yesterday.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (James Duddridge)
I thank the hon. Lady for her interest in Gambia. We were very optimistic about it when it rejoined the Commonwealth. I have visited the country outside my ministerial roles, and I look forward to talking to our high commissioner within the week. I will raise these issues again and will update the hon. Lady, but we expect all Commonwealth members to uphold the best of standards.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
The Minister for Asia (Nigel Adams)
I know that my hon. Friend has been working very hard, because I have been in contact with him over the weekend on behalf of his constituents who have been affected by the outbreak. I can assure him that our consular staff in London and worldwide are working around the clock to ensure that British nationals affected by the epidemic, including those in hospital, quarantine or isolation, are safe and have access to healthcare whenever necessary. As Members know, in some cases that has included repatriation, although it remains a last resort.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
David Miliband and David Cameron demonstrated the importance of leadership from the top in the context of human rights in Sri Lanka. In that spirit, would the Foreign Secretary be prepared to meet me, and other members of the all-party parliamentary group for Tamils, on a cross-party basis to discuss the leadership that we now need from him in the light of the events and developments at the United Nations Human Rights Council?
Nigel Adams
We are extremely concerned about the issues in Sri Lanka, to which I referred earlier in response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Harrow West (Gareth Thomas). As the Minister responsible for that region, I should be more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss those issues further.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
James Duddridge
We are opening two new embassies in Niger and Chad. Last month I attended meetings of the G5 and the Sahel Alliance, where I was able to reassure the five countries of the Sahel and the French Foreign Minister of our support for the security and military efforts in the region, including the deployment of UK troops in Mali. I was also able to raise the issue of 12 years of quality girls’ education, which, in the long term, helps both prosperity and security.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
We all have constituents who are stranded overseas because of the lack of flights. I have five nurses who are stuck in the Philippines, and the consular advice from the embassy has been for them to get on a flight as quickly as possible. First, there are no flights back to the United Kingdom. Secondly, there is no way for them to get to the airport. What help is the Foreign Office giving UK nationals across the world who are stuck despite being advised to get home?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue that his constituents face in the Philippines. Travel advice is changing hourly—we have made over 100 changes in the past 24 hours. I would urge him to wait for the Foreign Secretary’s statement on the issue, which will come after this session.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend, who will have to wait only a short while to get an answer to that very question.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Last month saw the second anniversary of the capture of Leah Sharibu, a young Nigerian schoolgirl. Can the Government tell us, and provide an update, what representations they are making to the Nigerian Government to secure Leah’s release from captivity?
James Duddridge
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the case. I have reviewed a number of these cases as historical cases. Unfortunately, kidnapping is all too common. Various Ministers have met families and representatives, but I am more than happy to take up that specific case, discuss it with him today and take it forward in the normal way.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
Nigel Adams
My hon. Friend is right to raise this issue. The UK and Ireland are in regular contact at the highest levels to discuss our respective responses to covid-19, and we will continue to work closely together. On Saturday, at a meeting of the North South Ministerial Council in Armagh, the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and Northern Ireland’s Minister for Health met the Taoiseach, the Irish Health Minister and the Irish chief medical officer to discuss the issue. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is also in regular contact with his counterpart. Obviously, health is devolved in Northern Ireland, but my hon. Friend can rest assured that we are in regular contact with our Irish friends.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I have four constituents stuck in Vietnam after discovering that they were on flights with somebody who had coronavirus. Two of my constituents are young women who are stuck in an overcrowded hostel, which is filthy and has limited running water. They are fit and healthy, but they might not be for much longer. What support are the Government providing in terms of Government-sponsored flights home? Will the Minister meet with me to discuss these cases and how we can help those women get home, please?
Nigel Adams
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this issue. I know of the particular problem. I have spoken to other hon. Members about constituents who are probably in the same accommodation. I spoke this morning with the Vietnamese ambassador, with a request that the British nationals are moved urgently into hygienic conditions, so we are working on that and I will have an answer from the ambassador. Rest assured, we are doing our best to improve the treatment for those individuals.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Although the immediate focus of our interests in south-east Asia rightly has to be the safety of British citizens and how we can get them back home, which no doubt will emerge shortly in the statement, I know that the Secretary of State shares my huge enthusiasm for the potential in south-east Asia for greater trade, investment and, indeed, much wider partnerships. Will he say today whether the idea of having an Association of Southeast Asian Nations investment forum, which would be as good and possibly even better than the Africa investment forum, is one that he supports?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend, who is playing to all my prejudices with his question. We are absolutely committed to ratification of CPTPP, the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. We are also committed to joining ASEAN formally with dialogue partner status. In the context of that, he raises an interesting idea. It is obviously difficult to host conferences at the moment, but that is certainly something we should keep under review.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
On Saturday morning, I was advising constituents, on the basis of Foreign and Commonwealth Office advice, that they had until midnight to leave Poland. Later that day, Jet2 advised them that their flights for the following two days would be going ahead and leaving Poland. Will the Minister therefore tell me why the advice was incomplete and what they are to do if any travel insurance claim they make is now invalid?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Wendy Morton)
I am more than happy to speak to the hon. Gentleman after these questions. The travel advice remains in place, and I know that the Foreign Secretary will be updating the House more broadly.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
Two of my constituents are currently aboard the MS Marina, en route to Miami. The cruise liner was refused entry at the ports of Lima and Panama yesterday, and will reach Miami by tomorrow afternoon, but they are concerned that they may be refused entry to the USA when they reach their destination. Both have underlying health problems and are, understandably, worried. What discussions has the Department had with counterparts in the USA about the repatriation of some of our constituents who are in this position?
Wendy Morton
My hon. Friend is another example of a Member who treats constituency casework with great seriousness and she is right to raise it here, alongside others. Foreign Office staff are working flat out, as are my colleagues and I, to tackle this. We are aware of a number of cruise liners in the region, and I will ensure that she has the right information. I am more than happy to talk to her after these questions.
Covid-19
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and First Secretary of State (Dominic Raab)
As the Prime Minister has said, the coronavirus pandemic
“is the worst public health crisis for a generation”.
It is unsettling for families up and down the country, in all of our constituencies, so we need a united effort to tackle covid-19 effectively and come through this challenge, as I am confident we can and will. Following on from, and consistent with, the domestic measures announced by the Prime Minister yesterday, and based on the fast- changing international circumstances, today I am announcing changes to Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advice. UK travellers abroad now face wide- spread international border restrictions, and lockdowns in various countries. The FCO always considers the safety and security of British nationals, so, with immediate effect, I have taken the decision to advise British nationals against non-essential travel globally, for an initial period of 30 days, and, of course, subject to ongoing review.
I should emphasise that this decision has been taken based on the domestic measures introduced here in the UK, alongside the changes to border and a range of other restrictions that are now being taken by countries right around the world. The speed and range of those measures across other countries is unprecedented, and some of those decisions are being made without notice. In some cases, even in countries or particular areas where there have not yet been any reported cases of covid-19, local authorities are none the less imposing restrictions on movement, and, again, doing so with little or sometimes no notice whatsoever. In the light of those circumstances, we want to reduce the risk of leaving vulnerable British tourists and visitors stranded overseas. We will, of course, keep this advice under review and amend it as soon as the situation responsibly allows.
The Government are, of course, keenly aware that international freight services, such as shipping and haulage, are vital for ensuring the continuity of the supply of essential food, goods and material to the UK. So we regard that kind of travel as essential, and we will work with industry to issue detailed advice that maintains the flow of goods, while protecting the wellbeing of staff working on those routes. The Department for Transport will be leading that work with the freight sector, with the objective of minimising disruption to those routes as far as is possible. At the same time, FCO consular teams are working around the clock to provide the best and most up-to-date information that we can possibly provide to UK nationals. By way of context, let me say that in the past week alone we made more than 430 changes to FCO travel advice, and we will continue to keep it under close and constant review.
We are providing support to British nationals who have been impacted by coronavirus while travelling. During the initial outbreak, or containment phase, we arranged the repatriation of more than 200 vulnerable British nationals from China between 31 January and 9 February. We took that particular action to support British nationals and control the return of those possibly exposed to covid-19 at the earliest point in the crisis, when it appeared that the virus might be—might be—contained in China.
In other cases, such as that of the British nationals affected by a covid-19 infection in a hotel in Tenerife, we worked with travel companies and airlines to ensure that those concerned were safely brought home. We also changed our travel advice to advise people over 70, or with underlying health conditions, against travelling on cruises, to protect those most at risk from coronavirus. We have arranged repatriation from cruise ships, including most recently the 131 UK nationals who returned from the Grand Princess, which was docked in California. They arrived home last Wednesday.
Also on the issue of cruises, we have been working intensively with the Cuban authorities and Fred. Olsen Cruise Lines to ensure that all British nationals are able to return quickly and safely to the UK. That is of course in relation to the Braemar cruise liner. We are doing all we can to ensure that they return to the UK on flights from José Martí international airport in Havana within the next 48 hours. I spoke to the Cuban Foreign Minister twice over the weekend, and we are very grateful to the Cuban Government for swiftly enabling this operation and for their close co-operation to make sure that it could be successful.
As well as those repatriations, UK consular teams are working with those who are affected by difficult quarantine conditions; by the closure of tourist resorts in, for example, Europe and North Africa; or, indeed, when new regulations are introduced in countries where UK nationals are visiting. We will do everything in our power to get those British nationals affected the care, support and practical advice that they need.
We also need to be clear about our capacity to repatriate people from abroad, given the scale of the numbers. We have taken action where necessary, but no one should be under any illusions: it is costly and complicated to co-ordinate, so Government-supported repatriations have been undertaken only in exceptional circumstances. Ultimately, the primary responsibility for managing outbreaks of covid-19 and quarantine measures must rest with the country in which the outbreak has occurred. FCO teams around the world are working urgently to ensure that Governments have sensible plans to enable the return of British and other travellers, and, crucially, to keep borders open for a sufficient period to enable returns to take place on commercial flights, wherever that is possible.
Following today’s change in travel advice, British nationals who decide that they still need to travel abroad should do so fully aware of the increased risks of doing so. That obviously includes the risk that they may not be able to get home if travel restrictions are subsequently put in place that they had not anticipated. So, we urge anyone still considering travel to be realistic about the level of disruption they are willing and able to endure, and to make decisions in the light of the unprecedented conditions that we face.
Today’s travel guidance follows the domestic measures announced yesterday. It forms part of our national effort to meet the international challenge presented by coronavirus —a challenge that we will rise to as a Government and as a country. I commend this statement to the House.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. We hear what he says on freight, but could he give us any guidance on what is “essential travel” when it comes to people? Does it include people coming home? This is a time of immense concern for tens of thousands of British nationals stranded abroad; they are not just dealing with the stress of trying to get accurate information and make their way home, but doing so facing the ever-present fear of infection.
I was contacted yesterday by Tom, one of the 65 British nationals in Cusco, Peru, which has announced a 15-day state of emergency, with its borders closed and the army enforcing a quarantine. Tom’s flight to Britain today has been cancelled and his calls to our embassy in Lima have not been answered. Why is that? Because the embassy itself has decided to close down for 15 days, just when its services were needed most. The Secretary of State said in his statement that our
“consular teams are working around the clock to provide the best…information available to UK nationals”;
well, I am afraid that that simply is not the case in Tom’s experience. He says:
“We have received no advice or assistance…we are all extremely concerned at being stranded here.”
Across the world, there are tens of thousands of British nationals in the same position as Thomas, and all have the same message for the British Government: “Help bring us home”. As far as they are concerned, their travel is essential and it is no use telling them to rely on advice from the Governments in the countries from which they are travelling when, inevitably, they will be the least of those countries’ concerns. Nor is it any use telling them to rely on the instructions of their travel operators, which, all too often in recent weeks, have been at odds with the official FCO travel advice and are driven by the fear of insurance claims and bankruptcy, not by the needs of our citizens.
The Government cannot keep passing the buck to others, especially when it comes to repatriation. Yes, it is difficult, and yes, it is expensive, but that is the nature of the crisis that we face. In his response, can the Secretary of State directly address Tom and his compatriots in Peru and all the other British nationals around the world currently in the same position, and tell them what he is doing to help bring them home?
Will the Secretary of State reassure us today that the Foreign Office will learn the lessons from this fiasco by asking itself some very basic questions? First, why were there no clear protocols in place for evacuation and repatriation in the event of an outbreak such as this? If those protocols were in place, why were they not followed? Secondly, why has official travel advice from the FCO been so slow to match what is happening on the ground? This weekend, we had tour operators going door to door in French ski resorts, telling British families to leave immediately, while the Foreign Office website said that there were no restrictions on travel. Thirdly and most basically, as Tom’s case in Peru illustrates, will the Foreign Secretary determine why the levels of consular support have been so out of step with the levels of global demand?
When the dust settles on this crisis, as we all hope it eventually will, we will reflect on what has been a chronic failure of global leadership and co-ordination in which our own Government has sadly been a part. Instead of every country working together to agree best practice and apply common standards on testing, tracking, travel restrictions, quarantines, self-isolation and social distancing, we have instead seen a global free- for-all, with every country going it alone. Instead of the international community coming together to pool its experience and work together to develop a vaccine and a cure, we have again seen individual companies and countries working in silos. We have also seen a shameful attempt by Donald Trump to buy the German company that is in the lead when it comes to discovering a vaccine, not just to steal the glory of the vaccine for himself, but to hoard it for the Americans alone. The challenges posed by the coronavirus are fearful enough for the world without our leaders compounding them through their incompetence or their inaction. That is exactly what we have seen when it comes to this Government’s approach to repatriation, but it is part of a pattern that goes far beyond that one issue and far beyond our one country.
Will the Secretary of State undertake today that, as well as fixing the immediate issues that we face with the coronavirus, not least around repatriations, Britain will lead the way in ensuring that these outbreaks will be better managed in future?
Dominic Raab
I thank the right hon. Lady for her response, at least in relation to recognising the scale of the challenge. She asked a number of questions, and I will give her as much of a substantive response as I can. She asked what essential and non-essential travel means. Ultimately, the Foreign Office gives travel advice, but the decision on whether to travel remains an individual one. Travellers may have urgent or particularly exceptional business—family, commercial or otherwise—and circumstances may differ, but what we are doing is strongly advising against global travel. That is, in part, a reflection of the domestic measures that were announced yesterday around social distancing. We also want to limit the number of people, particularly vulnerable people, who find themselves in the plight of not being able to get home because of some of the issues that she has raised.
The right hon. Lady mentioned the team in the Philippines—
Dominic Raab
In Peru, yes. That team is working as best it can under very difficult conditions. I am very happy to take a look at the case to which she has referred. We have a whole range of practical advice for hon. Members to give to their constituents. Our FCO travel advice is available online. Hon. Members and their constituents can sign up to receive email updates, so they get it in real time. My officials also run a specific hotline for hon. Members to contact. I have also shared details with hon. Members in a “Dear colleague” letter, which will go out shortly today. We are doing everything that we can to give hon. Members on both sides of the House the practical information that they need in what is a fast-moving and fluid situation.
The right hon. Lady asked what we were doing more generally in relation to helping people to get back home. The first thing to say is to avoid travel if you might find yourself in a situation, either because of current or future measures, in which you are unable to get back home. We are liaising with the tour operators and the airlines to make sure that even when restrictions are in place there is a window of opportunity to get out with commercial flights. We do not have precise numbers, but given the volume of British nationals who are abroad—not necessarily permanently or living abroad, but travelling abroad—to expect that the Government can repatriate them all is unrealistic. What we do is make sure that we are in a position to protect the most vulnerable.
The right hon. Lady asked why our consular teams were stretched. She ought to have a look at the scale of the international challenge that this country and everyone are facing with covid-19. Teams across Government, including consular teams in the Foreign Office, are doing an exceptional job in very difficult circumstances. She is right to point to different measures that have been taken around the world. The UK approach is to follow the best scientific advice that we have, and to take measures, both domestically and internationally, in line with trying to reduce the peak of coronavirus in the UK and the number of infections, and making sure that we maximise the capacity of the NHS to deal with that. Finally, the right hon. Lady did her usual routine of sniping at the US President. That is no substitute for a serious question on the substance, let alone a serious policy answer.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
As the honorary president of the British International Freight Association, I thank the Foreign Secretary for his words about the freight forwarders and their job in keeping goods moving in and out of the country. May I raise two issues with him briefly? First, will he encourage the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and tour operators and airlines to have easily accessibly websites so that tourists who may be stuck in the Dominican Republic and elsewhere can get information on what is likely to happen to them? Finally, there are some countries where people have to apply for a business visa to go to a business meeting—it costs up to £600 for India—so if they suddenly decide they are not issuing visas, will he encourage high commissioners and Governments to make it possible to transfer that to a future arrangement, rather than just take the money and forget about it?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend, who makes a number of important points. We are liaising with tour operators, insurance companies and, of course, airlines, and we will convey the message that he proposed about making sure that their advice is as transparent as possible. That needs to be done in real time, and I shall certainly consider further the flexibility that he suggested in relation to visas.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
Now is a time in which we should be seen to work together and, indeed, work together. I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of the statement. Now is the time for us to eschew party political point scoring.
We on these Benches support the changes, and we support the statement. I should also like to record our appreciation of and solidarity with the hard-working FCO staff worldwide, who are doing a very tough job in very tough times. They themselves have families and, indeed, some of them have respiratory conditions. We give them our support.
We support the statement as far as it goes, but I urge the Foreign Secretary—perhaps this is a discussion that he needs to have with the Chancellor, and I am conscious that there is a statement later about that—to go further. His statement did not deal with the point about insurance at all. For Scots and Brits abroad who are stuck and want to get back, and are looking to find a way to do so, the biggest practical help that we can offer right now is to speak to insurance companies, because their insurance is uppermost in their mind. Colleagues will be aware of the statement this morning from Sir Charles Bean of the Office for Budget Responsibility:
“You need the state to be there as the insurer of last resort against what is effectively an act of God. The state surely has a role. Big early action is surely better than half-hearted action that is late.”
We could not agree more. The Chancellor is making a statement later, but insurance is the biggest priority for our nationals who are overseas and want to get back. I urge the Secretary of State to have a full discussion with the Chancellor on that point. The state needs to step in to get our people home.
Dominic Raab
I particularly welcome the bipartisan tone that the hon. Gentleman has taken. I thank him for welcoming the statement and particularly for recognising and paying tribute to the consular staff and wider FCO teams who, in very difficult circumstances—not least given the advice that we in Government have given—are doing a tremendous job.
The hon. Gentleman asked about insurance companies. Obviously, they take their lead, at least to some degree, from the travel advice changes. One of the important things for the FCO to do is to give clear and decisive travel advice. That is one of the benefits of the statement that we have made today.
I certainly take on board the hon. Gentleman’s comments about working with the Secretary of State for Transport and the Chancellor to make sure that we provide support to the airline sector, which is not only important for jobs—we also need it to help get UK nationals home. For the reasons I gave in my statement, we want to allow them to do that through normal commercial means.
Tom Tugendhat (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)
This crisis is causing us to tear apart many aspects of the global system that we have grown used to in the past 20 or 30 years. The threat that it could pose to future scientific co-operation and future defence against not only pandemics such as this, but the poverty that has blighted so much of the world over recent generations, is enormous.
Will the Foreign Secretary assure me that, as he is planning with his Foreign Office partners and staff to rescue and save so many people around the world, he is also looking to co-operate with others to make sure that the international community works together to build a proper future, based on a shared and prosperous globe?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He is absolutely right about the consular measures that we are taking to support UK nationals who feel vulnerable or stranded overseas. I also agree with him about the need for an international approach to pandemics such as this; we have not seen anything like this before. That is why we are providing support to build up the capacity in some of the most vulnerable countries. We are doing that with a total envelope of up to £241 million of aid funding and we are working through the World Health Organisation, the Red Cross, UNICEF and other organisations.
More generally, the Prime Minister spoke to his counterparts in the G7 yesterday. They agreed on the importance of a stronger co-ordinated international approach, and that will include everything from economic measures to research and development to make sure that there is the collaboration that will prevent further pandemics from happening.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Our consular staff are doing an amazing job and many of them around the world are volunteers—they are not paid for their work. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will pass on our gratitude on behalf of all our constituents.
May I tease out the issue of people returning home? As I understand the Foreign Secretary’s advice, it is that if somebody is thinking about travelling abroad now, they should bear in mind that they may not be able to get back. But at the same time he is saying that people should not necessarily come back now. That seems to be inconsistent.
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about consular staff; we will pass that on. It does matter that we have cross-party support for the essential work that all our public services are doing.
The hon. Gentleman asked about travel advice. Obviously, we are advising against all but essential travel globally. It is up to individuals to make the individual judgment calls, which will depend on their personal circumstances and on the availability of commercial flights. In the last resort, we have been able to provide repatriation flights, but that is getting more difficult. We will continue to provide support and advice, but ultimately some of those judgment calls will remain a decision for the individual.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I would like to follow up what the Secretary of State was saying about ferries and the Department for Transport in relation to the UK. I have two questions. Will the Government please relax competition law today to allow discussion between the three cross-Solent ferry operators to build a resilience plan? They will be in breach of the law if they do not, and lives could depend on this if our ferry services fall over.
Secondly, will the Government support today the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to allow people to sit in cars during ferry journeys in the UK, to protect at-risk groups and for social distancing purposes?
Dominic Raab
As ever, my hon. Friend raises important and excellent practical points. They are mainly for the Secretary of State for Transport, but I reassure him that the Secretary of State is talking to the ferry operators as well as the airliners and working together to make sure that we get not just the clearest but the most practical advice, so that our constituents and people travelling to or from the UK can make the decisions that they need to make.
Mr Speaker
To help the House, I should say that I am expecting to run this until around 2 o’clock.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Foreign Secretary is absolutely right: repatriation is a complex and costly business. But that is surely exactly why it should not just be left to individuals and why there must be a leading role for Government.
Like many MPs, I have had representations this morning from constituents. Some of mine are on holiday in Morocco and now find themselves stranded. The ambassador’s Twitter account is telling them just to go to the airport with their passports and tickets and see what they can fix up when they get there. We realise that the consular services are under stress, but surely at this moment they have to have every possible resource to provide the best possible information for our constituents.
Dominic Raab
I totally agree with the right hon. Gentleman. We are providing the very best support, care and advice. When it comes to repatriations, at the outset we secured 200, I think, who came back from China. We are also working to secure the return of people on the Braemar cruise ship via Havana; it has been the most intense diplomacy I have had with my Cuban opposite number—and hugely welcome, because the Cuban Government have been very co-operative. We will do everything we can.
The situation is very fluid. The decisions being made on the ground in countries such as the one that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned often happen rapidly. The challenge for airlines, the FCO and the consular advice and support that we provide is to make sure that we can respond—not just as quickly as possible, but as effectively as possible.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) (Con)
We talk about the different approach being taken by different countries, but the UK has to focus on what is right for our country at the right time. Uniquely, we are using behavioural science; many are not doing so. We need the right response for our culture and the way our people behave—not one transported from another country.
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend makes a really important point. I take the point, raised in the Chamber, that we need to try to get better and more effective international co-ordination. That is what the Prime Minister was pressing for when he spoke to his opposite numbers in the G7 by phone and what I have been pressing for at the Foreign Office. At the same time, in the last analysis we will take the right measures. Every country is a bit different depending on where it is on the curve. Crucially, we will take the right and most effective decisions at the right time. That is why we have changed our travel advice today and why the Prime Minister announced new measures yesterday.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary rightly said that the Government do not want British nationals to be stranded overseas, but has referred to the practical difficulties of getting them all home. What are the exceptional circumstances in which the Government would be prepared to act to bring British nationals home? That will help inform decisions that individuals make about any travel plans they have.
Dominic Raab
Constituents reading the FCO travel advice ought to take it on its own terms, not on the basis of any potential, last-resort contingency measures that may be taken down the line. Obviously, we are very mindful of the vulnerability of all our constituents, such as those on the Braemar cruise ship, which has struggled to find a place to dock so that we can repatriate the substantial number of UK nationals back to the UK.
The decision will have to be taken on an individual basis by all our constituents and people up and down the country. What we do is provide the clearest guidance. Unless there is a very good reason—an essential reason—to travel, we are saying, “Don’t take the risk now, because you are at a heightened risk of being stranded in the future.”
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The Iranian Foreign Minister has been issuing plaintive appeals on social media for medical supplies to assist in his sanctions-hit country. Setting aside Javad Zarif’s accompanying rant against America, what does my right hon. Friend think can be done to assist the people of Iran at this difficult time, particularly around sanctions, the joint comprehensive plan of action and the International Military Services debt?
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his excellent tenure as Minister. I thoroughly enjoyed working with him and of course he is an expert in this field. Let us be very clear about it: ultimate responsibility for the predicament that Iran faces lies with the Government in Iran and the decisions and choices they have made. We have supported Iran in relation to coronavirus with aid funding because we recognise that this is an exceptional time and an exceptional period, but, fundamentally, beyond the humanitarian assistance and other aid funding that we would provide in those circumstances, the decisions that Iran takes will be the ones that will get it out of the hole or cul-de-sac that it is in. In particular, right now, as I made clear to the Foreign Minister on the phone yesterday, we expect UK dual nationals in detention in Iran to be released as soon as possible, not least given the heightened risk from covid-19 in those prisons.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I thank the Foreign Secretary for updating the House on coronavirus and people overseas. I have constituents in Morocco as well and one family are with a four-month-old baby. Are there any plans to bring people back from Morocco? Would such exceptional circumstances contribute to any of the decisions that the Government will make?
Dominic Raab
Anyone in those circumstances will feel anxious and distressed. We will certainly see if we can provide as much support as possible, consular and otherwise, to the hon. Lady’s constituents. If she would like to contact me afterwards, or any of the ministerial team, we will take up that case directly. More generally, it will always depend on the restrictions being imposed, partly by the Governments themselves, including in Morocco, and on the availability of commercial airlines coming out.
What we want to do and what I have been working with the Transport Secretary to achieve is to give clear advice to our constituents as consumers of travel services, but also to make sure that we are leaving the window open for commercial airlines to operate, because that is the surest means of getting people back from difficult or vulnerable positions. That is the only way we are going to be able to achieve it, so we need to keep those commercial lines operating.
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)
My right hon. Friend and all the team are working so hard, as are our consular services, but unfortunately we are hearing about certain embassies being shut. The embassy in Kiev is shut and it is £1.80 a minute to phone the FCO hotline and there is a 58-minute delay. Is there anything else that my hon. Friends can do to help my constituent who is stuck in Kiev?
Dominic Raab
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work at the FCO, where she was a doughty Foreign Minister. There is a whole range of practical details about how we can support our constituents who find themselves in difficult positions. I can certainly ask the Minister covering the wider European neighbourhood to see what further can be done in her case. There is travel advice online and a specific hotline for parliamentarians. I do not know whether she has had a chance to access that yet. If any further support can be given, I am very happy to ensure that I and the ministerial team provide it.
Carolyn Harris (Swansea East) (Lab)
I add my thanks to the FCO staff, who are working under really difficult circumstances. Can the Foreign Secretary advise my constituents, Tony and Jill Low, who are currently stuck in Cyprus? Their flights are cancelled and their hotel room needs vacating. Their insurance is about to expire and the insurance company is only offering to pay retrospective costs when they return to the UK.
Dominic Raab
We will look at all of these cases and, in particular, where there is a groundswell of UK nationals and constituents being stranded. As I have already informed the House, we are trying to make sure that the reasons why those flights are not running in and out can be addressed. Domestic measures have been announced, and the EU announced measures yesterday that exempt the United Kingdom, so that is welcome. We will continue to work with those local authorities, but also with the airlines to make sure that there are as many flights as possible to relieve constituents such as those of the hon. Lady.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the calm way he is dealing with a historic situation? May I raise a point about insurance that was also raised by those on the SNP Benches? Headteachers across the land have organised trips along with parents, who put in a lot of money. A school in my constituency has spent £140,000 getting children out skiing. The insurance companies are referring them to the travel companies, and the travel companies are saying that there is no chance of getting the money back unless the FCO specifically restricts travel to that location. Could my right hon. Friend clarify to all schools across the land, not just those in my constituency, what the situation is and what chance they have of getting their money back?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he has raised his question. The insurance industry makes its decisions in a commercial way, and obviously we and the Transport Secretary are liaising very closely with it, but certainly the call has been made to the Foreign Office to give as clear advice as possible. So we are advising, not least with the Easter holidays coming up, against all but essential travel globally. We are not going to make decisions for individual people, families or schools, but it seems to me that those are the kinds of trips that would now have to be looked at, and we would expect the insurance and the airline industries to follow, based on that very clear advice that we have now given.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP)
The Foreign Secretary mentioned that the Government have been consulting with the G7, but they have not been consulting with European Governments through the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. May I ask: apart from ideological reasons, why not? It is very concerned that the focus here has been on behavioural science and not on epidemiology.
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady asks a perfectly reasonable question. May I reassure her that we are taking the best scientific advice that we have got in the UK? The circumstances in different countries will change. Part of that is about the timing and the peak within which coronavirus hits an individual country. She talked about co-operation with EU partners. I am consistently on the phone talking to all our European partners about all these issues, whether that is the multilateral drive to tackle coronavirus with support for vulnerable countries, research and development, or the particular logistical issues with getting constituents home. The diplomacy with our European friends has never been more intense.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
My constituent Jamie Harris is stranded on MS Ocean Endeavour off the coast of Argentina. She is travelling independently, so has no recourse to a tour operator and flights from Argentina to Europe have been stopped. Will my right hon. Friend consider working with flight companies such as British Airways—there are many others—to look at ways that we can bring constituents home when there simply is no other alternative for them?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend makes a good point. For those in South America more generally, there has been a range of concerns in different countries. Fundamentally, we want to encourage, as I have explained, commercial operators to keep running because that is the way of easily repatriating people at scale. But of course we will look and liaise with the airline operators—the Transport Secretary is already doing that—to make sure that, where there are gaps, we can always provide as much support as possible for vulnerable or stranded constituents.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
My constituent Sarah Goodman is stuck in Morocco. She travelled with friends just on Saturday and is now subject to a ban. I have also heard from students on years abroad who are stranded. Can the Secretary of State work on his website to update British nationals who find themselves stranded abroad? Can there be a global strategy because there must be people from abroad stuck in our own country who would like to return home?
Dominic Raab
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Another Member has raised the issue of Morocco. The Africa Minister will look at those cases and I am sure will be happy, able and willing to look at the case that the right hon. Gentleman raises. He makes a good point about communication. We are constantly looking to ensure, through the helpline and the online advice, that people can get advice in real time. Constituents and Members can sign up to receive email updates so that they get them all. They can also follow on Twitter and Facebook. There is an inherent challenge, which is the pace at which some of these changes are being made, but we are doing everything we can to ensure that we give updated FCO advice in real time.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Have there been any discussions with the oil and gas sector or individual oil and gas companies, given the huge number of British nationals and their families—many of whom come from north-east Scotland—working and living overseas?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend rightly raises the issue of employees in that sector. We are engaging closely with the big employers around the world. Those individuals are in—I say this carefully—in a relatively more comfortable position than others who are travelling for a short period or temporarily, so the priority has been the most vulnerable or those who might find themselves at risk of being stranded. That is why we have given this advice today, but my hon. Friend is right, and we are engaging with substantial employers overseas to see how we can work together to provide the best support for our constituents.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I pay tribute to FCO staff, including the one who took my call at midnight last night to deal with my constituent’s son, who is trapped in Guatemala City, where the British embassy appears to be closed and no commercial flights are operating. I urge the Foreign Secretary to change one thing that came out of that call. The FCO does not appear to be taking details of British citizens who are trapped abroad, including whether they have any special needs, medical needs or conditions. Without that information, we will not be able to triage for emergency repatriation flights, emergency assistance and so on. Will he ensure that the FCO starts taking that information, to build up a database, so that we know exactly how many British citizens are trapped and where, and what their conditions are?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm words about the FCO’s efforts and the practical advice he has given us; we will certainly take that back. One point I will mention is that we are not talking about tens of thousands—we are talking about hundreds of thousands abroad. We need to work up as granular a picture of the vulnerabilities as possible, but we also—this is a contributing factor to the change in the travel advice—need to give a clear message, given the scale of the challenge and the unprecedented nature of covid-19, that people need to be realistic about what we can do.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
Following the Foreign Secretary’s comments about Iran, does he know whether Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe is among the political prisoners whom Iran has released today? Does not the ability of a highly dangerous disease to spread through a prison highlight the immorality of detaining people who are wholly innocent?
Dominic Raab
My right hon. Friend did an incredible job as Foreign Secretary, in particular in pressing for the release of not just Nazanin, but all our dual nationals suffering in Tehran. I spoke to the Iranian Foreign Minister yesterday. I have made it clear, not least as Iran considers releasing prisoners on a pretty large scale, that there is no excuse for not releasing all the UK dual nationals on furlough. We are waiting for confirmation regarding individual cases, and I want to be careful and to wait until I have confirmation, but I assure my right hon. Friend that this is a high priority for the Government. As I said, I raised it with Foreign Minister Zarif yesterday.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
I compliment the Foreign Secretary on making it clear that essential travel includes the freight services that will keep our supermarkets stocked with food. While I recognise that the Department for Transport will be dealing with this, can he reassure those who undertake long-haul freight travel through Europe to get our food supplies to us that they will not be stranded?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for the way in which she asked her question and for complimenting the FCO consular advice. She is right—I talked about this with the Transport Secretary and the Prime Minister this morning—about the importance of not only keeping freight flowing, but ensuring that we safeguard the workers who are doing that. I want to give some reassurance in relation to the recommendations announced by the President of the European Commission yesterday, which will be considered by the European Council today, in relation to the 30-day travel ban for all but essential travel: medical staff and transporters of goods would be exempt, as well as UK nationals.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
My constituent, Kate Jackson, is currently aboard the Silversea cruise liner that has been refused entry to a number of ports. It is now headed to Darwin, Australia, where it is expected to be able to dock, but there are no available flights back to the UK. Will my right hon. Friend do all that he can to repatriate Kate Jackson and her fellow British citizens?
Dominic Raab
I am aware of that case and we are working actively on it. As with all the cruise ships, the challenge has been to find a place for them to dock and then, not least given the international component of these cruise ships, to get international commercial flights home. We are very much focused on it, and I hope to be able to say more about that particular cruise ship shortly.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
The last thing that our country and economy need on top of coronavirus is the further shock of a hard or no-deal Brexit at the end of this year. Will the Foreign Secretary and his EU colleagues urgently agree an extension to the current Brexit transition period so that the Government and business can focus 100% on the emergency in front of us?
Dominic Raab
If anything, this shows—not least in our collaboration with the Cuban Government which, at the level of intensity it has shown in recent days, does not happen very often with our close European partners—the case for intensive diplomacy to get this deal done, move on and take the relationship to the next step.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Can he give reassurances to my constituent, Tracy Wood, who contacted me last night regarding her son? He is a Manchester University placement student, currently in Panama. There are no flights in and out of Panama. He is running out of money, and the embassy has advised him to travel via another country. He simply does not know where to go, because he does not know which border will close next. Could the Foreign Secretary provide Mrs Wood with reassurance?
Dominic Raab
It is very difficult in those circumstances, particularly travelling to less accessible places. We will work closely with all the airliners and our network of embassies to provide support and advice as soon as possible. I am happy to look at that specific case, and if my right hon. Friend gives me the details, we will take that forward with the ministerial team.
Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)
Three of my constituents from Bargoed are stranded in Krakow, and because Poland has closed its international borders, they do not know how long they will be in that country. Will the Secretary of State put together a comprehensive database of all British citizens who are affected in that way and ensure that basic communication is sent to all those individuals in the not-too-distant future?
Dominic Raab
We already have a means of doing that: people can sign up for real-time updates, and hon. Members can do that. I appreciate the difficult situation in Poland. As I have said, we are working with all our European colleagues to ensure that UK nationals or other nationals who are here can get home when they need to.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I praise the Foreign Secretary for his statesmanlike approach, and I thank the SNP spokesman, the hon. Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith), for his constructive approach. It is good to see Opposition politicians rising to the occasion, just as our constituents want us to during this crisis.
I have constituents stranded in Morocco and Vietnam. Can we ensure that helplines in consulates and embassies are manned 24 hours a day to help our constituents? I also have constituents who are in a motorhome in Portugal and looking to get home. Can we ensure that provisions are made for crossing borders for those wanting to come home?
Dominic Raab
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of having, within the confines of a democratic institution such as this, a constructive approach, because that will make the process more effective. We will look carefully at all the issues that he raised. He mentioned Vietnam as one of the difficult areas. As Ministers have made clear, we are aware of a number of British nationals in quarantine—some in hotels; some in other quarantine facilities. We are in close contact with the Vietnamese authorities. We are providing assistance to all those affected, and we hope to see them moved to improved and better facilities as soon as possible. That is just one illustration, in pretty challenging conditions, of where we are working hard to ensure that his constituents and many others get the care, advice and support they need.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
After listening to contributions from Members on both sides of the House, it is very clear that citizens are stuck in many and varied countries far across the world. What plans does the Secretary of State have to work with European partners specifically to bring people in far-flung places back as part of a partnership approach?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Member makes an excellent point; we do need to work in partnership. We did that in relation to the flights from Wuhan at the outset of the crisis, if I can put it that way, and we have done it in relation to the Braemar cruise ship. In fact, my instinctive reflex, and the instinctive reaction of this Government, wherever UK nationals are stranded and we have more airline capacity to get them home, is to make sure that the nationals of our European and Five Eyes partners can get on them as well. We have good collaborative arrangements—it has been a two-way relationship—and all that will continue.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I am most grateful to the Foreign Secretary for his very comprehensive and thorough statement. I appreciate that this might be an issue for other Departments, but will he clarify the position regarding private planes—whether commercial or leisure—flying in to local airfields?
Dominic Raab
I think that that is probably one for the Department for Transport. I was not clear whether my hon. Friend was asking about the use of private planes for repatriation, or about whether the restrictions are being extended to them. In any event, I probably ought to pass that on to the experts—the Department for Transport.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The Foreign Secretary is stating quite openly that the Government will not bring everyone home, so how is he working with operators such as TUI to ensure that they act responsibly and do not leave people stranded abroad without communications, like my constituent Michelle Choi in Morocco?
Dominic Raab
It is not so much that we will not; it is just a pure question of capacity, given the potential range of hundreds of thousands of UK nationals travelling temporarily abroad. We will liaise very closely with the country—I think the hon. Gentleman was raising the issue of Morocco—and look carefully at what more can be done. The Africa Minister is nodding earnestly, and I know we will take that up. We are also, of course—the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to nail this point—trying to work with airlines to make sure, as these travel restrictions come into place, that there is a window in which the commercial airlines can come in and get as many as possible of the people who want to come out and back to the UK.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
I agree with the Foreign Secretary that we cannot repatriate everybody; it is just physically impossible. Following on from the very good question asked by the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) about exceptional circumstances, may I ask about those who are most vulnerable? Given that we have been told by our own Prime Minister that we are at war with an invisible enemy—the covid-19 virus—what discussions has the Foreign Secretary had with the Ministry of Defence about deploying the Royal Air Force and the Royal Navy, and even about using bases around the world as staging posts if need be, when the international airlines further restrict flights, to repatriate the most vulnerable—not everybody, but the most vulnerable?
Dominic Raab
Obviously I have engaged very closely with the Defence Secretary on this, but something like that would be a last resort. We do not rule anything out at this stage, but our focus—I think this is the point that the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) and others have made—has been on making sure that we are working very closely with not just the international airlines, but other countries. This is happening with some of the cruise shops we are dealing with from which we have not yet repatriated, because we can work together as an international team to try to get UK nationals back. That partnership will definitely involve Governments around the world, and also airlines around the world.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
One of my female constituents is currently stuck in Istanbul. All flights from the UK to Turkey have been cancelled till mid-April. The airline, Pegasus, is not being helpful, and she has been told that she has only a 25% chance of getting home. The Secretary of State’s hotline has advised that she keeps in touch with the airline but, as I have said, it is not being helpful—nor has the consular support in Istanbul—and she does not have any insurance. What support can the Government give her?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady. It is very distressing, and as MPs we obviously want to do everything we can. I am very happy to look at that case, and I will ask the Minister for Europe to take a close look. We will, of course, continue to liaise with the Turkish authorities and with as many as possible of the airlines that go to Istanbul, or indeed to Ankara, to try to make sure that people do not find themselves in that vulnerable position.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
A constituent of mine has been in touch about his grandparents, Alan and Beatrice. Beatrice is 86 and Alan is 89, and they are trapped on board the Silver Shadow cruise ship, which is quarantined off Recife in Brazil. May I appeal to the Foreign Secretary for his help to get Alan and Beatrice home?
Dominic Raab
We have been following the course of the Silver Shadow very carefully. I can tell my right hon. Friend that there are 300 passengers on board, of whom about 120 are British nationals—that goes to my earlier point about the need for an international team effort. Royal Caribbean, the parent company of the ship, has indicated that it will offer at least three charter flights to get passengers home—one to the UK, one to the US and one to Canada, and possibly also one to Australia. That gives my right hon. Friend a sense of not just the challenge we face, but how we are straining every sinew to deal with constituents such as her own.
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
I would like to add my voice to those thanking FCO workers, who I am sure are working around the clock. I am sure that they are wanting to get home, but they are staying to help others. I have been listening very carefully to what the Secretary of State has been saying about repatriation, and I understand his arguments about the airlines, but we have to accept that the reason why the airlines are not running flights is that they cannot afford to, and they are worried about coming out of this at the other end. Would he consider providing a subsidy for the airlines to enable them to run these flights, particularly from areas where flights have been cancelled or shut down completely?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Lady raises a really important point. On the one hand, we do want commercial airlines to fly, but they are clearly under severe financial pressure, given the domestic restrictions being placed on them, and indeed other Governments, including our own, changing their travel advice. We will work with the airlines to see what support we can provide, and our priority continues to be to make sure that commercial flights can access as many areas as possible to get people back in the kind of scale and volume that is necessary to address the challenge we face.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
It is good to know that we now have clarity on global travel over the next 30 days. To put constituents’ minds at rest, can my right hon. Friend confirm that travel agents and airlines should be issuing refunds to those cancelling travel arrangements over the next 30 days, not particularly the insurance companies?
Dominic Raab
I will not give legal advice or commercial advice to either the operators or the insurers, but I can tell my hon. Friend that the Transport Secretary has engaged very closely with all the different sectors to make sure that we protect the consumers—passengers—who find themselves at risk. Indeed, the Transport Secretary is nodding earnestly on that very point.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Quite rightly, hon. Members have mentioned the case of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe in Iran, but may I ask the Foreign Office not to lose sight of people such as Luke Symons, my constituent, who is held captive by the Houthis in Yemen at this time? Can any pressure be brought through the channel of discussions with the Iranian authorities? I welcome the new Middle East Minister to his post, and I hope that he will get into the detail of this case, as his predecessor did.
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Just to be clear, when we speak to any of our Iranian interlocutors, we raise every case of dual nationals—or, indeed, the British Council employee—who have been detained. Of course, that applies consistently across the board, and I know the Middle East Minister will be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss the specific case. I will always be willing to raise it, and to try to secure the release of all our nationals and dual nationals in such terrible conditions across the world.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
I have two separate cases of constituents stranded in Peru, one of whom is a young woman travelling on her own. I understand the stress that our consular service is under at the moment, but those people cannot get through to the embassy, nor to the emergency hotline. Will my right hon. Friend look at their cases urgently and do all that he can to get them home?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend, and of course we will look at those cases. In areas where we do not have a large or substantial consular presence, we are obviously going to have to innovate and still provide practical advice and consular support as best we can. I know that the relevant Minister will be very happy to meet her and take forward those cases, and I am very happy to raise them with my interlocutors.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
What discussions is the Foreign Secretary having with the Home Secretary about foreign nationals in this country who find themselves in a similar situation? I have a constituent who is self-isolating in line with the guidance, yet she is being told that her visa will be over-stayed and that she needs to leave the country. What thought are the Government giving to these kinds of situations, especially if, when such people get to the end of their quarantine, there are no flights home?
Dominic Raab
Of course, we have foreign nationals here who are in very similar positions to the ones that UK nationals themselves are in around the world. We will of course look at those cases as sympathetically and constructively as possible. We know what it is like, from all the cases that we have coming through to the FCO and through to our consular services. I have already raised this issue with the Home Office and the Home Secretary, but we will reaffirm it based on what the hon. Gentleman said today.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
The Foreign Secretary spoke earlier about hundreds of thousands of UK nationals abroad, many of whom are travelling home, which might be taking longer than they expected. Can the Foreign Office be clear about any reciprocal medical arrangements in place in those areas? Many of those cases are UK citizens living in EU states, with which we were formerly partnered. Given that this morning the Chief Medical Officer said that this situation might last for 18 months, will the Foreign Secretary ask former EU partners to consider an elongation of our current reciprocal arrangements?
Dominic Raab
I thank my hon. Friend for the dual way in which he asked an excellent question, and also managed subtly to leverage in the whole question of Brexit phase 2 negotiations. He will know that reciprocal arrangements are in place until the end of the transition period, and any continuation beyond that is for the negotiators to consider. We will always ensure that we provide as much support as possible for UK nationals on the continent, as well as for EU nationals here.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
Many constituents have contacted me about the differing approaches in other countries, not least to the issue of testing. I appreciate that different countries are at different stages of the outbreak, but can the Foreign Secretary reassure me that expertise and experience from all round the world will be fed into our approach on a daily basis?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is right to note that different countries are acting in different ways, and as he says, some of that is because they are at different stages of the peak and trough of dealing with coronavirus. Based on my attendance at Cobra meetings, I reassure him that not only are we following the best UK scientific evidence available, but that that in itself taps into the widest possible research base, and the widest range of experts, regarding how to effectively stop the spread of the disease.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Members of the House, and journalists outside it, are perfectly at liberty to ask what lessons we have learned from our European partners, but it is worth reminding the House that the Chief Medical Officer who is leading the response to this crisis is a professor of epidemiology. He is literally the right man in the right job at the right time. The Foreign Secretary updated the House on his conversations with our European partners, but will he also update it on his conversations with other international partners such as the US, and other global institutions?
Dominic Raab
My hon. Friend is right to pay tribute to Professor Whitty, and along with Sir Patrick Vallance we have some of the finest expert evidence in the world coming to us. On the broader point, yes, we are talking to our European partners, and UK nationals are in European countries—particularly Spain and France, but also other countries—in large numbers. I reassure my hon. Friend that I am talking to my opposite numbers around the world, from central America to Asia-Pacific and North America, both Canada and the United States, and we will continue to do that.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Those of us who represent large numbers of EU citizens are hearing concerning accounts of what is happening in their home countries. There are towns in northern Italy, of a similar size to many of our constituencies, that have seen thousands of cases of the virus, and hundreds of deaths. I assume the Foreign Secretary is getting similar responses from our embassies around the world. Are those being used to inform the UK response, even if it involves a worst-case scenario?
Dominic Raab
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must learn from and try to understand more about covid-19 and what its impact will be in the UK, based on the experience that we are seeing in real time across the world, and that is being fed in via scientists and the Department of Health and Social Care. We are ensuring that we have practical advice at the end of that pipeline, which is why we have taken the decision on travel advice today.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State please reassure the House that appropriate medical support is readily available for British Government and military personnel overseas, and that specialist medical evacuation will be available for them in extremis?
Dominic Raab
We take very seriously the security and protection of all UK personnel in the Foreign Office, the Ministry of Defence, and the Department for International Development, both in the UK and across the network. We will do everything we can to ensure that they are able do the heroic job that they are doing right now in safe and secure conditions.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
This measure is entirely commensurate with the situation we face, and I support it. However, as the Member of Parliament for Glasgow airport, and the thousands of jobs that it supports, may I ask what assessment the Government have made of the impact of covid-19 measures on the industry, by which I mean airlines, airports, baggage handlers and so on—the list could go on? What will the Government do to support that industry?
Dominic Raab
The Government are very conscious of the challenge facing the airline industry and its related sectors, and the Foreign Office must ensure that it takes what I think the hon. Gentleman described as a commensurate policy approach, given the knock-on effects that that will have. As well as speaking with the Prime Minister, I talk regularly, as I did this morning, with the Secretary of State for Transport, and he liaises directly with airports and airlines. We are ensuring that we take the most proportionate approach possible. Ultimately, we must ensure that we protect UK nationals based abroad, but also that we protect the industry that will help them get home.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I echo the compliments from across the House for UK consular staff overseas. I recognise that they have limited resources, but will my right hon. Friend consider whether there is any scope for them to offer at least a basic service at weekends?
Dominic Raab
I reassure my hon. Friend that Foreign Office staff are working round the clock and around weekends, but in some of those countries there is an issue about their own personal safety. We are giving advice here. It is important that Ministers and officials follow that advice, but we must also look after and protect their safety. Notwithstanding that, there is certainly not a nine-to-five or Monday-to-Friday approach—far from it. This is round the clock and right through the weekend, and we are straining every sinew to ensure that constituents, however far flung the place in which they find themselves, are getting the most support, the clearest guidance, and the best practical help that we can provide.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
To follow the question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw), may I press the Foreign Secretary on the talks on the future relationship with the European Union? Those incredibly complex and multi-faceted talks are absorbing a tremendous amount of Government time and attention. Rather than trying to fight a war on two fronts, and stretching Government bandwidth to breaking point, surely the time is coming to request an extension to the transition period. It is better to do that than to put ideology ahead of the health and safety of the British people.
Dominic Raab
I am sure the hon. Gentleman would never put his ideological desire to stay in the EU ahead of the practical diplomacy that we face in the months ahead. I understand why he has asked that question. As far as I am aware, negotiations can still proceed, given all the logistical arrangements we have in place. We are confident that we can get this done, and I do not think that delaying Brexit negotiations would give anyone on either side of the channel the certainty they need.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
I echo the concerns of other colleagues about the situation for British nationals in Peru, where I have a constituent with a serious underlying health condition who is stranded. As we have heard, not only is the British embassy apparently closed, but the phone number that people have been told to use to obtain information is apparently not being answered. In addition to information about how they can be assisted to leave the country, people need assistance and information while they remain there, including on access to health care. Will the Foreign Secretary take a careful look at the situation in Peru?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for the constructive and detailed way in which she raised the case of her constituent, and I am happy to look at such cases. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Wendy Morton) has already indicated that she will take up some of the other cases in Peru, and we will do everything we can to provide that support and advice, and to provide those who need to return with the means to do so.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I have written to the right hon. Gentleman about my constituent, Eddie, who is 19 and stranded in Morocco, and I hope he will intervene to bring him, and others, home. Travel is also vital for the nation’s supplies, and 45% of the food that Britain eats comes from overseas and is imported. Will the Government do two things? First, will they make a statement, very soon, to say how they will protect those supply lines to give the nation confidence in its food supplies? Secondly, will they do everything they can to back Britain’s farmers so that they can increase production to keep us all well fed?
Dominic Raab
I will of course look at the case of the hon. Gentleman’s constituent very carefully—a number of other Moroccan cases have been raised—and get back to him with as clear a steer as possible. He is right to raise all those issues about supply chains; again, that was one of the issues I discussed with the Transport Secretary. The hon. Gentleman will have heard that the changes I announced to the travel advice will not apply to freight. We are very mindful in everything we do about keeping supply chains open, and we will continue to look at that. He also makes an important point about food supply and, frankly, the opportunities for UK-based suppliers to rise to meet some of the demand as supply is curtailed as a result of covid-19.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
I have written to the Secretary of State regarding a constituent stranded in Austria. I am told that there is a lack of testing kits and there are issues with travelling back. There is already chaos with repatriation, even before the majority of countries move into emergency lockdown phases or close their tourist venues. Can the Secretary of State confirm that the Foreign Office has all the resources it needs to provide extra consular support, and that it is very likely that UK nationals will be caught up in these fast-moving situations?
Dominic Raab
We will of course look very carefully at any case. The hon. Gentleman has written to me all about constituents in Austria. There is no doubt that the Foreign Office, as with the rest of the Government—most obviously the NHS—will come under pressure. The key thing is that we have the means and the agility to prioritise, to ensure that dealing with covid-19 is the top priority as we go through this challenge. I am very clear that the Foreign Office will do everything we can to protect our constituents—UK nationals abroad—and ensure that we work with our international partners to rise to this challenge, get through it and then move on, so we can get back to some semblance of normality.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his commitment and for his and his staff’s sterling efforts on our behalf. We are encouraged by what he has said today. On the island of Ireland, both north and south, people travel to attend churches—people from Northern Ireland travel southwards, for example—in order to preach and participate in meetings. Can the Secretary of State give us some direction about what should happen? People across Northern Ireland wish to know whether they should attend their churches, or whether their churches should be suspended or closed. What should we do? I believe that the people of this great nation, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, should pray to their God for help at this time. This is a time for prayer. Will the Secretary of State join me and others in supporting that call?
Dominic Raab
I totally understand the point the hon. Gentleman makes. The obvious thing is to keep following the Government’s medical advice and, in relation to devolved matters, the advice given by the Northern Ireland Executive. I can also give him reassurance in relation to the latest announcement by the Irish Government that all persons entering Ireland from overseas will be asked to self-quarantine for 14 days. That will not apply to Northern Ireland, by virtue of the land border. The Irish believe that, as a result of the land border, they can maintain social distancing. I hope that that gives his constituents and, indeed, the people of Northern Ireland a measure of reassurance.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I appreciate that the Foreign Secretary may have to raise this issue with colleagues, but people are naturally drawing comparisons between actions in this country—the advice against going to pubs, restaurants and places of entertainment, for example—with the position in France and other countries, where such visits are banned completely. Does he appreciate that that causes confusion for people, and that businesses in this country are more likely to be at risk of failure because of the less rigorous position we are taking?
Dominic Raab
I understand the point the hon. Gentleman raises. It is a fair question, but we have taken that position, first, because we are following the scientific advice that applies to the UK, and secondly, because covid-19 is affecting different countries at different paces and some of them are at a different place on the curve in terms of the spread of coronavirus. We will make the right decisions at the right time, in the best interests of people in this country, including our businesses, and we will do so based on the scientific advice, which carefully takes into account the different approaches and the different pace at which countries are trying to deal with coronavirus in Europe and across the world.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Although I am hugely appreciative of the pressure that consular staff are under, for everybody who has a loved one—particularly a vulnerable loved one—trapped in this situation, it is the end of the world. I have a constituent on the Silver Spirit cruise ship outside Darwin who is 78 years old and in extremely poor health. We are told that there are issues with the financial viability of the cruise line and the safety of supplies. I have a constituent in Peru who has multiple problems and whose mother is desperate. I had a case in from Morocco this morning; they are coming in every few hours. Can the Minister help with those cases, and can he assure us that capacity is being reviewed so we can urgently upscale it, at least for the coming weeks?
Dominic Raab
I reassure the hon. Lady that, in both the cases she referred to, we are actively looking at the solutions we can provide for UK nationals. She is right to raise the issue of scalable support. I am making sure that all the resource available will be focused on coronavirus in the weeks ahead, so of course there is an element of scalability. We have the resilience to get through this crisis, and I am confident that we will.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Another case of people stuck in Morocco was raised with me today—that of a family with three young children. I understand they were due to fly back on 24 March, but flights have been suspended. May I have clarity on when they can come home to Glasgow? They are stockpiling food and just do not know when they will be able to get back. What advice can the Secretary of State offer?
Dominic Raab
The Africa Minister has already made it clear that he will follow up on all those cases, so we will certainly look at the case of the hon. Lady’s constituents. I am writing to all hon. Members with practical advice about how they can stay up to date by following the real-time advice. We will continue to give the hon. Lady and all other hon. Members as much advice as swiftly as possible to provide for the safety but also the return of their constituents.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
Many constituents up and down the country are doing the right and inevitable thing and cancelling Easter holidays, but far too many are doing the hokey-cokey between travel agents, the FCO advice and insurance companies. What more can the Secretary of State do to give people a nudge in the right direction?
Dominic Raab
I think the clarity of the advice we have given today will provide the nudge, to use the hon. Gentleman’s expression. The most important thing we can do for our constituents, the airline industry and, indeed, the insurers is to give clear advice. We have done that. We advise against all but essential global travel, and I am confident that the airline industry and the insurers will take the responsible approach in response.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I agree with the advice that non-essential passenger travel should be halted. The Foreign Secretary said that air freight channels should remain. The thing about air freight is that so much of it goes on passenger-carrying planes, so the empty seats have to be paid for by either the industry or the Government. What work have the Government done to identify critical routes, critical airlines and the support packages required to keep freight channels and the airlines going?
Dominic Raab
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have discussed that issue with the Transport Secretary, who is in conversation with the airlines. The hon. Gentleman is right that there is not a clear division between freight and passenger travel; they often go on the same aircraft. We are very conscious of that, and we will work with the industry to ensure that we can chart as sustainable a path ahead as possible, but we have to take—
Dominic Raab
Of course time is critical. We are in daily touch with all the relevant interlocutors, including the airlines and airports, but it is important that we take this measure now, not least given some of the comments that have been made in the House about travel arrangements over the Easter period.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Lab)
Like many of my constituents, I have a family member stuck abroad—in my case, an older aunt stuck in the US. I certainly look forward to her healthy return, along with that of the rest of my constituents’ family members, once a global strategy is in place. My right hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) was right to highlight the global leadership and global response that is required. In that regard, is not one of the lessons we must learn from covid-19 the need for a joint mechanism to guide co-ordinated global efforts on the development, testing and roll-out of potential cures and vaccines, potentially with the establishment of a dedicated body responsible for that work? Will the Foreign Secretary undertake to look into that proposal?
Dominic Raab
I thank the hon. Lady for the emphasis she puts on international co-ordination. There are multilateral efforts to make sure we deal with everything from research and development of vaccines to capacity building for the most vulnerable countries. I am certainly happy to look at the details of any proposals if she wants to write to me. The challenge has been with different approaches, driven partly by different assessments of the risk, but also the pace at which coronavirus has spread and geography.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Secretary of State mentioned the Irish Government’s announcement of a mandatory 14-day self-quarantine period. The Australian Prime Minister recently announced the same thing for passengers arriving in Australia from abroad. Is that an option the UK Government are actively considering?
Dominic Raab
That is, ultimately, the responsibility of the Home Secretary. What I can say to the hon. Lady is that, given the changes we are making to travel advice, it would not seem to be necessary and nor does the scientific advice we are getting suggest that that is a measure we should take at this time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the Foreign Secretary. Thank you very much.
Company Transparency (Carbon in Supply Chains)
Tuesday 17th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Company Transparency (Carbon in Supply Chains) Bill 2019-21 View all Company Transparency (Carbon in Supply Chains) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require companies to prepare an annual statement on carbon in their supply chains; and for connected purposes.
It may seem odd that, on a day when we are focusing on an immediate crisis facing the world, covid-19, we should also look at other issues facing the world, but there is no doubt that climate change is an immediate crisis. It will still be here when the immediate crisis we face over covid-19 is more manageable and under control, so it is right that we should not stop looking at global matters at a time when we have an immediate health emergency. I think that hon. Members would agree that this is probably the most significant long-term threat to our health, wealth and happiness, and that, like covid-19, it is an issue that affects the whole world.
Climate change, like covid-19, is an issue that requires global action. It cannot be tackled by any one country taking unilateral measures. It requires global leadership, which we in the UK have a duty to provide. We have done so already. We are the first developed country to legislate to be net zero by 2050 and I am extremely proud to have been a part of the Government who brought in that legislation. We are taking other significant measures at home, which are welcome. I also welcome the opportunity provided by hosting COP26 in the UK this autumn. This is a real opportunity to showcase the measures we are bringing in at home and to demonstrate our global leadership. At a point when the world has seen what a global pandemic can do, it is also an opportunity for the UK to shine. I want to put on record my thanks to former Member Claire Perry-O’Neill, who spotted the opportunity to make sure that COP26 would be brought to this country. My only regret, as the former Northern Ireland Secretary, is that I was not able to secure it for Belfast—or indeed Stoke-on-Trent. They were my two first choices.
We can always do more. When the UK is responsible for less than 1% of global emissions, and China responsible for 25% of global emissions, it is important to consider the actions we can take in the UK to ensure global action. The action we take here will come to nothing if it is not replicated globally or if businesses try to get around our rules by moving production overseas, using third-party suppliers who are not as clean and green as our industries. I particularly want to reflect on energy-intensive industries such as ceramics—I declare my interest as a north Staffordshire MP—where more and more ceramics production takes place overseas to deal with such issues as the energy trading scheme and other matters. It is quite right that we have measures in place to ensure our industries are as clean as possible, but we cannot allow business to move overseas, affecting our highly skilled and excellent businesses in the UK, just to get around carbon emissions.
I considered what it was possible for us to do and looked back to something I had done previously as a Minister, which was in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. As co-chair of the all-party group on human trafficking and modern slavery, I look at that issue on a regular basis. As with climate change, modern slavery and human trafficking is a global issue, and it can only be tackled globally. As a Minister, I was incredibly proud to take the Modern Slavery Act 2015 through Parliament. I thank my fellow Ministers who took it through with me: my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and Lord Bates and Baroness Garden in the other place. It was a world-leading Act, introducing new measures that had never been seen before in a developed country.
There were, however, challenges. One was how to deal with extraterritoriality—not least trying to say extraterritoriality when I had a horrible cold—and we looked at what we could do to ensure that businesses did not just offshore and outsource modern slavery. One measure championed by former Members Frank Field and Fiona Mactaggart, as well as by my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), Baroness Butler-Sloss, Lord Randall and our very old friend Anthony Steen, was the transparency of supply chains. Many others also campaigned on this matter, but they were the real leaders. We wanted to shine a light on supply chains. We wanted visibility on what businesses were doing to identify and eradicate human trafficking and modern slavery in supply chains. Businesses wanted that, too. Businesses wanted legalisation, because ethical, well-behaved businesses wanted to cross the line together. They wanted the Government to help them to make sure that when they took the right steps to eradicate modern slavery in their supply chains others would do the same.
Section 54 of the 2015 Act is a light-touch regulation under which businesses have to declare on their website every year the steps they are taking to identify and eliminate human trafficking and modern slavery in their global supply chains. They can say, and be completely in line with the law, that they are taking no steps to identify human trafficking and modern slavery in their supply chains. It is entirely legal for them to do that, but I think the public will see that and they will want action to be taken. The all-party group wants to look more at how that provision is working in practice. I think we should look at how we can replicate it elsewhere.
An important part of the provision is that it elevates the issue to board level. A director has to sign off the statement, so members of the board have to look at the action that is being taken. By giving the public that information and letting them see what action businesses are taking, they can make informed and educated decisions about whether they want to work with those businesses. I propose that we adopt a similar approach to carbon emissions. It is really important that we ensure businesses take seriously the level of carbon emissions in their supply chains. I was contacted yesterday by my former college, Imperial College London, which is doing an awful lot of work on how to identify and decarbonise supply chains. We know that this work is going on, and we know that businesses and others are interested in it.
I say to the Government that this is an opportunity to show global Britain at its best. It is an opportunity to show us on the world stage taking steps above and beyond those taken by other countries. It would ensure that we say to the businesses that want to operate and sell to consumers in this country that they have to act ethically with regard to carbon emissions. I urge the Government to seize the initiative, so that by the time of COP26 we have taken steps that are extraterritorial and can make a real difference. If we do that and show that leadership, we can make a real difference.
I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Alex Norris, Mr Laurence Robertson, Mark Garnier, David Mundell, Mark Logan, Mike Kane, Mr Alistair Carmichael, Christine Jardine, Dame Diana Johnson, Mrs Maria Miller, Darren Jones and Karen Bradley present the Bill.
Karen Bradley accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 15 May, and to be printed (Bill 113).
Ways and Means
Budget Resolutions
Income tax (charge)
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
Last week’s Budget was a blueprint for a more connected, more prosperous and more equal Britain—a nation where we deliver on our promises, where investors want to do business and where stable employment, decent housing, reliable transport, excellent healthcare and education, and the same opportunities extend to everyone in society, no matter where they live. Today’s Budget debate comes against a background of a global health emergency, however, so we must come together as a country to face the unprecedented threat posed by the coronavirus outbreak.
I pay tribute to and thank my opposite number, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), for his truly constructive support through this crisis. For several years, the country has looked on the House and its behaviour and seen it divided, in particular over the vexed issue of Brexit, so the way that this matter is being approached by the official Opposition and others is truly welcome. People will look at the House and see that, when it comes to rising to the occasion, we can to work together in the country’s interests.
This crisis requires radical action and support for our incredible health service, for businesses, for the self-employed, and, of course, for the elderly, sick and vulnerable members of our society. We made a start on that last week in the Budget where the Chancellor set out a £12 billion package of measures designed to counteract the immediate impact of the virus.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
I will not give way yet; I want to make some progress.
That package was part of a wider £30 billion stimulus to offset the economic impacts. However, we understand that this is effectively a war. The enemy is a virus, but we must none the less approach it in the same way as a war.
Several hon. Members rose—
Grant Shapps
Again, I want to make a bit of progress, because I am aware that many hon. Members want to speak in the debate.
We have been clear about how we will fight the war. The first principle is to follow scientific advice at every step. It is all too easy to be distracted by the demands of round-the-clock media coverage, by the clamour on social media or by means and measures that sound good at the time, but are not based on irrefutable scientific logic. We will continue to base our decisions on what the experts believe is in the best interests of this country.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I wholly support following the evidence and scientific advice, but the Government’s advice yesterday to avoid pubs and restaurants has caused a genuine outcry across the whole hospitality industry, because people are terrified that their businesses will be closing forever in two to three weeks’ time. They cannot manage their overheads, they desperately need support and they cannot even claim for insurance because the Government will not formally close them. Why will the Government not make that decision now?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Member speaks for the concerns of many across the House and across the country. I do not think there can be any denying it, because that is the severity of the enemy in this war. I reassure him, and many other hon. Members who plan to make interventions, by saying that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will say more on that later today.
At no point will we stop listening to the advice or reacting to events, because as the progress of the virus changes, so will the response. The nature of this crisis and the circumstances are changing all the time, so our response will evolve to meet the threat until the virus poses no threat to the country or to our citizens.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State will know that other countries have pledged to support every business so that it does not go bankrupt during the worst period of coronavirus infection, that they are supporting laid-off workers to the tune of 75% of their income, and that serious support is being given to the self-employed, many of whom will now not have any work. When will the Government take similar measures in this country?
Grant Shapps
As I said in pre-empting the hon. Gentleman’s intervention, the Chancellor will say more about all that shortly. I recognise the concerns raised by the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members.
My own sector, transport, is massively affected, so we are working to support the whole industry under these extreme circumstances. We are looking at a range of options to help the rail, aviation and bus sectors. We have already taken action to prevent the empty ghost flights that were flying because of the 80/20 rule, which meant that they had to make pointless journeys even if they did not have anybody on board. I took action by writing to Airport Coordination Limited, the slots co-ordinator in this country, and the European Commission on a couple of occasions. They have provided relief, which means that we no longer have to have those flights in the skies, but it will not lead to airlines necessarily losing their slots.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Clearly we all await the Chancellor’s announcement tonight with interest. I hope that it surpasses the response to the 2008 financial crisis. Regrettably, we need a fiscal response and a level of Government intervention on that scale. We do not want to see that, but it is what we need for people’s lives and for strategic industries.
Specifically on transport, the Secretary of State talks about support for airlines and the rail and bus industries. Does he accept that we may have to put some of those into national ownership, even if for a temporary period? Will he consider relaxing the rules on bail-outs for municipal bus companies and others? In Cardiff, Cardiff Bus will really struggle. We need the rules to be relaxed so that we can give it the right support, so it can survive and pay its workers.
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the principle should be that, as far as we can make it work, people—individuals and companies—are in the same position when we come out of this situation. I feel that we will be in a somewhat changed world and changed environment on the other side of it, but good organisations should not be going bust. It will be hugely challenging. We will require a lot of different responses and mechanisms to get there, including, on occasion, organisations being run by the public sector, which we have already seen in the case of trains for a completely different reason.
Turning to trains, it makes no sense for us to run empty trains. As fewer people will be travelling following last night’s advice and guidance from the Government and the Prime Minister, timetables may be altered in the short to medium term to ensure that we do not effectively run ghost trains. We are also determined to ensure that companies are left in as strong a position as possible so that they can continue to operate afterwards. Despite the immensely challenging situation in which we find ourselves, we will work in partnership with the transport industry to keep essential services running for the public and for those who need to get to work, who have essential business and who will therefore still be travelling.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
On the proposal to reduce the number of trains, buses and tubes that are running, given that so many of them are so crowded at the moment, would it not make sense to keep many more of them running so that those essential workers who still have to get to work have more space?
Grant Shapps
The right hon. Lady makes an excellent point, as ever. The reality is that, because of social distancing, it might well be desirable to have more space between people so that they can keep some distance. Yes, that absolutely needs to be taken into account as we consider the timetabling.
We will get through this crisis together as a nation. Working in this great national effort, we will ensure that we come through on the other side and provide hope for all our citizens. The Budget shows that we are serious about the pledges we have made and about the trust that the electorate put in us only three months ago. We intend to deliver on those infrastructure pledges.
The Department for Transport has already been working hard to deliver on those pledges. For example, in recent weeks we have taken decisive action to improve journeys for millions of Northern rail commuters by putting the franchise into the operator of last resort. We have announced plans to extend discounted train travel to more than 830,000 veterans. The Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), has kickstarted work on reversing the Beeching cuts, which have so blighted the nation in decades past and prevented people from being interconnected. In January we announced the preferred route for the east-west rail link that will connect Oxford and Cambridge, which will increase access to jobs and make it easier and cheaper to travel, creating a region that has been dubbed the UK’s silicon valley. We are not only making journeys more efficient and easier; we are also making them cleaner. We are consulting on bringing forward the end of fossil fuel cars and vans to 2035, or earlier if practical. We are taking enormous steps forward.
The Chancellor has delivered a Budget that includes some of the most ambitious infrastructure programmes seen since the 1950s. It will help to level up this country. Infrastructure that is unreliable, overcrowded and no longer fit for purpose acts as a drag anchor on our entire economy. When it is efficient and gets people where they need to be, it can turn around the fortunes of our towns and cities. With interest rates at an historic low, now is the time to get Britain building.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, I am pressing for a better deal for the Isle of Wight. What are the criteria for the levelling up agenda? The Island is part of the wealthy south-east, but our economy has more in common with the north, or indeed with parts of east Devon and Cornwall, so what does levelling up look like for us? Is it part of the funding settlement or is it infrastructure projects?
Grant Shapps
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As many Members across the House will know, people often think that just because a constituency is in a certain part of the country—the south-east in his case—it must be enormously prosperous. Many of us represent enormously deprived communities, perhaps just an individual ward, within an otherwise prosperous area, so it is very important that the criteria for levelling up take that all into account. That is why the Green Book is being rewritten as a result of last week’s Budget. We look forward to hearing more about that in due course.
With interest rates at an historic low, it is time to get Britain building. That is why the Chancellor set out plans to inject £640 billion by 2024-25 into roads, railways, hospitals, broadband, housing and research, to modernise the fabric of our country, turbo-charge our economy—perhaps to electrically charge our economy —and get every single region of the UK growing, not matter where it is.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Strategic investment in infrastructure is very welcome, but another Budget measure that the Chancellor announced was the removal of the red diesel rebate for the construction industry, which means the cost of diesel for construction will double. That is predicted in the Red Book to bring in £5 billion over two years. How much of that £640 billion investment will be written off by paying costs for diesel?
Grant Shapps
The hon. Gentleman, who has questioned me passionately many times about greening the economy, will appreciate that red diesel contributes tremendously to the problems he often cites. There will be a consultation, so he will have an opportunity to put his concerns on the record, as he has done partially today.
The Government will provide more details on our investment priorities when we publish our national infrastructure strategy in the spring and the comprehensive spending review later this year. That will include taking forward Northern Powerhouse Rail, having already committed to the section between Manchester and Leeds, and reversing many of the Beeching cuts, as I have mentioned. I am grateful to Members across the House for bringing forward an extraordinary number of potential Beeching reversals, which the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, is now in the process of assessing, working with colleagues across the House. We are also delivering High Speed 2, to transform rail connections between our major cities while releasing capacity on our existing railways, particularly for freight.
We will present an integrated rail plan for the north and for the midlands, examining how HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail can best work together, along with wider investment in transport across the regions. We have the largest ever investment in English strategic roads. We have £27 billion to tackle congestion and increase capacity. We have £2.5 billion to fill potholes and ensure that more do not develop. We have £5 billion for the roll-out of broadband, particularly in rural areas, to ensure that our four nations are fully linked together. We have record funding of £5.2 billion for flood defences—we have seen recently how important it is to have that cash going in. We have £4.2 billion for urban transport through long-term settlements with eight mayoral combined authorities. We have £22 billion for science, innovation and technology by 2024-25, to help us develop new products and services to sell around the world.
Of course, we also have a massive housing programme. We have made significant progress towards building more affordable, high-quality homes in recent years— far more than when I was Housing Minister—and the housing supply is now at its highest level for 32 years, which is quite an achievement. However, we still have a long way to go. The Budget mentioned remedying some of that shortfall, first by extending the affordable homes programme with a multi-year £12 billion settlement, and secondly by helping local authorities to invest while such low interest rates are available.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I very much welcome the investment that my right hon. Friend has announced. However, if we do not get our businesses through the crisis of the next few months, much of that investment will not bear fruit as it should. He has quite rightly said that he wants businesses to be in the same place in the future that they are in today, but lots of the income they will lose over the next few months will never come back. Does he agree that we must put in place a package of financial support based on grants, not merely business loans?
Grant Shapps
I do not want to pre-empt what the Chancellor might say later, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. I will repeat what I said at the beginning of my speech and then wrap up my remarks, to allow other Members to contribute. The situation is clearly approaching what we would otherwise, in different times, thing of as a war that this country needs to fight. As in a war, we need to deploy every possible weapon, and of course that will involve a variety of financial and other tools to do precisely that. Nothing must be off our radar when we consider the possible responses.
Levelling up will not be achieved through a single fiscal event such as the Budget, but it will be part of an integrated plan over the next five years, and I have mentioned already some of the other fiscal events. One of the most powerful agents for change will be the infrastructure programme that I have outlined today to get Britain building. The process will be triggered by an historic investment, through the national infrastructure strategy, the spending review and an autumn Budget later this year. We know that there are big challenges ahead—the most immediate, as hon. Members across the House have said, is dealing with the coronavirus outbreak.
This Budget is designed to build a strong foundation to make us fairer and more equal as a country, where we harness the potential of every region, and where people’s ambitions can be achieved. But we also recognise that we are doing so in the immediate short term against the backdrop of tackling what is perhaps the greatest health emergency that the country has seen since the Spanish flu. I know that we can do this as a country. I know that we can do this by showing the same spirit that this House has demonstrated in the past few weeks; by working together, finding the right solutions and getting the job done. That is our vision, and that is what we will deliver.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the shadow Secretary of State, let me say that it will be obvious to the House that a great many people wish to speak this afternoon. We have a lot of time for this important debate, and I am hoping to manage it without a formal time limit because that makes for better debates. We will manage it if everyone behaves with courtesy and speaks for between seven and eight minutes, which is quite a long time. At least, it is quite a long time for everyone who is listening. [Laughter.] So if Members speak for about seven to eight minutes we will manage without a time limit, but if that does not happen I shall have to impose one.
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)
Clearly these are extraordinary times, and everything that we say and do is said and done through the prism of the response to the coronavirus emergency. I thank the Secretary of State for his kind remarks, and also for his courtesy and candour in keeping me briefed as these events unfold. I hope that that conversation continues, and I recommit myself and my party to working with the Government to counter this national and international emergency. I send my sincere sympathies to those who have lost loved ones, and my sincerest thanks to our NHS and public service workers for their incredible work to date and what they will do in the future in response to what is the greatest peacetime challenge to face our country for more than 100 years.
While these are indeed abnormal times, I will endeavour to turn my attention and that of the House to a time when our focus will hopefully return to other matters which we would normally address. Before I do so, however, may I raise with the Secretary of State some points that have arisen overnight and in recent times? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) rightly said yesterday, it is no fault of the Chancellor, but his Budget is clearly out of date, and, sadly, a major reappraisal is already necessary. Accordingly, I very much welcome the news that he is to make a statement to the House later today about the additional measures that he intends to take.
Yesterday, at a press conference, the Prime Minister advised people to avoid pubs, restaurants and theatres, but despite that advice, which will result in many businesses being unable to operate and will cause job losses or loss of income, there was no sufficient accompanying support. Will the Secretary of State implore the Prime Minister, and others, to ensure that the right support is made available? I trust that, in addition, the Government will ensure that insurers do not plead force majeure and avoid their liabilities.
The Government are also asking people to self-isolate, but are not providing the financial assistance that those people need. It is not only unfair to ask people to enact social distancing and to self-isolate if necessary without giving them adequate support; it is dangerous and counterproductive, because it risks discouraging people from taking necessary action. In France, after the announcement of similar but more stringent measures, the French Government announced that electricity, gas and rental bills would be suspended. Why has the United Kingdom not announced similar measures?
It is being reported that private train companies are already requesting bail-outs or renegotiations of their contracts. Social distancing will hit fares revenue hard, making franchises unprofitable for some train operating companies, and with demand for travel down, there may be a temptation to run services at a different frequency from what is specified in the franchise agreements. However, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), I ask the Secretary of State to consider the possibility that contagion will be reduced by the presence of fewer passengers with the same level of service. No doubt the medical officers and others will advise.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is making some important and constructive points. I do not know whether he is aware that the First Minister of Wales has just sent a letter to the Chancellor, in which he makes clear that we will have to intervene in an unprecedented way. Does my hon. Friend approve of the measures that he has suggested, such as tax holidays, loan guarantees to help productive capacity, underwriting the wages of employees who are affected, and, if necessary, the temporary nationalisation of key transport infrastructure?
Andy McDonald
Those are indeed the sorts of responses that we hope to see emerge from the Government Dispatch Box later today. I entirely agree with the approach taken by the Welsh Government.
As I was saying—and my hon. Friend has echoed my view—the state should not bail out the private train companies. Indeed, the fact that those companies are already wanting to be bailed out demonstrates why it is irresponsible for public services to be run in the private sector. Rather than offering a bailout, the Government should offer to take back the keys and return the services to public ownership.
The aviation sector has been hit incredibly hard by the outbreak of coronavirus. We have already seen the collapse of Flybe with 2,000 job losses, not to mention the impact that that will have on jobs at regional airports and across the supply chain. Of course, many thousands of UK citizens are still overseas and will want to return, so the Secretary of State has my full support for his efforts to sustain services to facilitate such repatriation.
Indeed, it is not only a question of passengers: many vital goods and medicines are transported in the belly holds of aircraft. Can the Secretary of State tell us what specific measures are being taken to ensure that those supplies are maintained?
Clearly many people are going to extraordinary lengths to assist their neighbours and their communities, and I know that businesses will bend over backwards to help their loyal workforces at this time. That being so, will the Secretary of State send a message to major employers asking them to do what they can to sustain their employees’ incomes, and will he give an assurance that workers will also be supported by the underwriting of the majority of their wages by the Government should temporary cessations of trading be necessary?
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden in seeing our country through this crisis? If so, does he think it right that Richard Branson, the billionaire boss of Virgin, is asking his workers to take eight weeks’ unpaid leave?
Andy McDonald
My hon. Friend must have read my speech in advance. I was about to ask the Secretary of State to prevail on the very same Richard Branson to look to his own considerable reserves, built on the wealth created by his Virgin airline workforce, and withdraw his proposal that they should suffer eight weeks of unpaid leave. I note that he is asking for a Government bailout, but I trust that the Government may expect him to use his own considerable resources before that happens—perhaps when he is down to his last billion. He might be able to live without two months of income, but his workers cannot.
The Secretary of State’s decision—made in lockstep with the European Union—to end ghost flights involving empty aircraft flying simply to retain slots is clearly right, but can he advise us of the consequences for airline staff and ground crew and the support that they will receive, given that their risk of losing their jobs has undoubtedly increased significantly?
In that context, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition told the Prime Minister yesterday, the Government must now make commitments to extending full sick pay and lost earnings protection to all workers from day one, including insecure, low-paid and self-employed workers, during self-isolation and illness; raising statutory sick pay in line with amounts in other European countries; introducing rent and mortgage payment deferment options, and banning evictions of tenants affected by the outbreak; removing the requirement for people to present themselves for universal credit, suspending sanctions, and reducing the waiting time for the first payment from five weeks; and supporting local authorities working with food banks in the purchase and distribution of food stocks.
The road haulage industry is founded on an army of small businesses, and if they are to be sustained, it is essential for the cross-channel freight routes to be maintained. What assurance can the Secretary of State give in that regard? Northern Ireland should also have special consideration, given that it is of course dependent on goods coming from Great Britain—as, indeed, is the Republic of Ireland. What steps are being taken to ensure continuity of supply across the English channel and the Irish sea?
Over the past few days, it has been self-evident that the Government must commit themselves more fully to communicating truthfully and effectively with the public about the developments of the virus and their response to it. It should not be the case that we have Ministers giving anonymous briefings to select members of the press about facts known to the Government. Ministers must acknowledge that this poor communication has increased public concerns, and I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition requested of the Prime Minister when they met yesterday evening: I ask that the Government provide much greater transparency in their approach to tackling the outbreak. We must follow the advice of the World Health Organisation and see an increase in testing, along with provision of vital equipment such as ventilators and acute beds.
Sadly, because of this Government’s decade of crippling austerity, we have seen a slashing of over 17,000 NHS hospital beds since 2010, which has led to the disgrace of a private healthcare firm charging the NHS £300 a bed for coronavirus patients. Indeed, the outbreak of the coronavirus has illuminated what has been done to public services in this country over the last 10 years, and I fear that in the coming weeks it will become clear that the situation created by years of underfunding will become unsustainable.
The Budget announced last week showed that the austerity project has failed, even on the Conservative party’s own terms. We now know, once and for all, that austerity was never an economic necessity, but a political choice—a political choice that has left millions of working people across this country paying the price for the recklessness of the financial services industry, when it crashed the economy in 2008.
Today’s debate is focused on the “levelling up” of the economy, but far from levelling up, the Government have presided over huge inequalities on regional investment. In 2018-19, transport spending per head in the north-east, north-west, and Yorkshire and the Humber was £486, £412 and £276 respectively. In comparison, London received £903 per head in the same year. The OECD recently argued that
“addressing the regional productivity divide—between high-productivity areas like London and Southern England and low-productivity regions in the North—can be a key channel for fostering long-term growth and sharing prosperity across the country”,
recommending regionally focused investment in transportation as part of an industrial strategy to boost productivity. But this Budget fails to include such policies.
At the general election, Labour pledged to close gaps in regional transport investment by delivering projects including Crossrail for the north and HS2 to Scotland, and upgrading the rail network in the south-west, as well as providing transformational levels of investment for local public and sustainable transport. This Budget fails to even reverse Conservative cuts to the rail network, leaving in place the cuts to electrification in the south-west, the north and the midlands.
The Government have repeatedly talked up their commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail, but they have not committed to the full £39 billion project, as Labour has done. Instead, they will commit money only to improvements between Manchester and Leeds. Critically, there is no commitment to resolve bottlenecks such as the Castlefield corridor, or indeed any of the selected flyover and electrification programmes described in the excellent Channel 4 “Dispatches” programme last night. I can see the commitment to the infrastructure works in my own constituency at Middlesbrough station, which are critical to the running of the entire northern network, but sadly, I have no grounds to believe that the necessary funds will be made available until 2023 at the very earliest.
Similarly, the Government are promising to reverse the Beeching cuts, yet have only made £500 million available, which is small beer in real terms and would be lucky to open a very small section of track.
I note the Government’s interest in buses. I have been banging on about buses for years, and it was good to see the BBC devote attention to buses in another documentary last night, but can I gently try to persuade the Secretary of State to look carefully at Labour’s proposals to bring back and expand routes, increase ridership, decarbonise the fleet and provide free travel for all under the age of 25 within a re-regulated bus network that is wholly integrated with other modes? Were he to do that, he would come to the inevitable conclusion that the only way to achieve all that was within a public transport system that was genuinely public in ownership and control.
When the coronavirus crisis is eventually over—we all hope and pray that will be sooner rather than later—we will still face the climate crisis, and sadly, this Budget does little to address it. Greenpeace commented that
“the Chancellor has completely missed the opportunity to address the climate emergency... he’s driving in the opposite direction.”
Friends of the Earth agreed, saying:
“This Budget contains a massive road-building programme which completely destroys any pretence of UK government leadership ahead of this year’s crucial climate summit.
Funding for cleaner cars, EV charging, action on plastics and more trees are just a few green sprinklings on a truly awful budget.”
The UK is way off track to meet its own climate change targets and is further still from meeting its commitments under the Paris climate agreement. This failure is being driven by a rising trend in emissions caused largely by increased traffic growth, which has left transport as the UK’s single largest source of greenhouse gas emissions and the worst-performing sector when it comes to reducing carbon emissions. This failure is the result of deliberate Government policy encouraging traffic growth through an ever-expanding multibillion-pound programme of road building.
This Budget is destined to make the problem worse by pledging over £27 billion for new road building, which will increase car use, worsen congestion and increase air pollution and climate emissions, with little benefit for the economy and at the expense of concreting over large areas of the country. A huge part of the problem is that public transport fares have risen at more than twice the rate of wages since 2010 while fuel duty has remained frozen, meaning the cost of public transport has risen above the cost of motoring, discouraging more sustainable transport and worsening congestion and pollution. Yet the fuel duty freeze continues and there are no measures to reduce the cost of public transport, compounding the failure of recent years.
The contrast between what will be spent on new road building alone and what is pledged for cycling and walking and for public transport illustrates the Government’s priorities, with the investment in roads five times that in sustainable transport. The funding for local transport that the Government announced with significant fanfare simply will not cut it. Labour pledged £6.5 billion over the same period to reverse more than 3,000 bus route cuts in England and to invest in new services. It could cost around £3 billion to reverse the cuts made to bus services alone, yet the £5 billion pledged in the Budget is meant to fund bus services, build new cycle lanes and purchase around 4,000 zero-emission buses. This fund has been over-promised and will not deliver the investment in local transport needed to address the climate crisis and support local economies.
On electric vehicles, it is good that the Chancellor decided to continue the grants. It would have been highly damaging for the plug-in car grant to be scrapped, as subsidies for EVs are required until the up-front cost of EVs reaches price parity with internal combustion engine vehicles. But it should be pointed out that the grants had previously been cut from £5,000 to £3,500—a move condemned by industry. If the UK is to reduce transport emissions in line with climate targets, the cuts to grants should be reversed. By contrast, Labour had pledged to introduce 2.5 million interest-free loans, worth an additional £1,500, for the purchase of EVs so as to allow low-income households, those living in rural areas, and independent contractors and small and medium-sized enterprises to save on new electric cars.
Again, the £500 million investment in EV charging infrastructure is better than nothing, but £400 million of this fund is a reannouncement from the 2017 autumn Budget. This money should have already been invested and should have been supplemented by a further announcement in this Budget so as to provide an adequate charging network. By contrast, to jump-start the transition to electric cars and tackle the climate emergency, Labour pledged to invest £3.6 billion in a mammoth expansion of the UK’s EV charging network. A rapid roll-out of charging stations would eliminate concerns over driving range and lack of electric car charging infrastructure by providing enough electrical charge points for 21.5 million electric cars—65% of the UK’s fleet—by 2030.
On the greatest crisis facing humanity, the climate crisis, this Budget is going in the wrong direction. On the most immediate crisis facing us, the coronavirus, the Budget fails to provide the country and its workers with the safety and security they require. On the Budget’s central promise to level up the country, it is an abject failure, failing to reverse the austerity cuts of the past decade and to invest in infrastructure across the country. The coronavirus pandemic is a dreadful and most immediate crisis, but one day it will be behind us. When we are past this, the same problems of social and regional inequalities and the climate crisis will still be there. I worry that, on the evidence of this Budget, the Government do not have the vision or the ambition to tackle them. When we are through this, we should take the opportunity to reset our economy, so that it works for our people, as it always should.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It gives me great pleasure to call Gagan Mohindra to make his maiden speech.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to make my maiden speech as the Member of Parliament for South West Hertfordshire, and it is a real pleasure to have you in the Chair during it. I know I am among the last of my intake to address this House. I have had the pleasure of listening to many moving and memorable speeches from my friends over the last few months. I am not ashamed to say that I get goosebumps in this place; as I sit on these green Benches, I feel the weight of history and the legacy of my political heroes all about me. But I hope that, like Trigger’s broom, I will prove to be a worthy replacement for my forebears, whether I am the head or the handle! And I do not intend to ever take the trust of my constituents to represent them in this place for granted. The weight of our responsibility as public servants weighs on us all more now than ever. But everything has its place, and in my maiden speech. I know you want to hear about the best constituency in our country and I intend not to disappoint.
However, I would like to start by paying tribute to my predecessor, the right hon. David Gauke. During his 14 and a half years of public service, David was a dedicated Member of Parliament, and he was highly respected by his constituents and colleagues alike. He was fiercely intelligent and famously cool under pressure. However, during the 2019 general election, the public got to know another side of David: his wicked sense of humour, which was already well known to his friends in this House. As I fought the election, I found I had to overcome the appeal of not one Gauke, but two, as Gauke senior, Jim, went viral in David’s videos. David ran one of the most engaging campaigns to be found during the general election, and I commend his enthusiasm and passion. Despite the difficult circumstances of his fighting against his former party, it was a civilised battle and I thank him for that.
As to David’s political career, he was a heavyweight of the Conservative Government over the last decade. He held many senior roles, including Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and, finally, Secretary of State for Justice. As I have said before, in different times we may well have been colleagues, and I would have been proud to work alongside him. I thank David for his commitment to the residents of South West Hertfordshire, and wish him, Rachel and the rest of his family well in their future endeavours.
Moving on to my stunning constituency, South West Hertfordshire is shaped rather like a couture boot. Picture, if you will, scenic Tring on the thigh, bustling Berkhamsted—Berko to the locals—sitting on the knee, the pretty trio of Flaunden, Bovingdon and Chipperfield making up the calf, striking Sarratt sitting behind the shin and charming Chorleywood on the ankle. Vibrant Rickmansworth, or Ricky, where I live, sits on the heel, and the military base of Northwood headquarters sits on the toe. That is to name but a few of the collection of magnificent communities that make up my constituency, each unique and beautiful in its own way. The arresting natural and man-made beauty of my constituency, top to bottom, is certainly best experienced on foot!
My constituency offers an embarrassment of riches, from its historical market towns, such as Tring, to the Chiltern hills, which are rightly classed as areas of outstanding natural beauty. Further south lies the Colne Valley Regional Park, which is known as the first taste of countryside west of London and comprises some 60 lakes, among woodland, canals and farmland. You can pass many a peaceful afternoon walking here, or visiting the famous aquadrome, where you can water-ski, canoe or sail to your heart’s content.
Behind the thriving Berkhamsted High Street are found the ruins of Berkhamsted castle. It was in Berkhamsted that William the Conqueror received the surrender of the Crown of England in 1066. The castle was then built to assert control over the key supply route through the Chiltern hills from London to the midlands. It is a constituency heaped with history, some of which cannot be retold, like the activities of Northwood HQ. I would like to take this opportunity to thank our armed services for continuing to keep us safe.
The visual beauty of my constituency is only outdone by the warmth and good nature of my constituents. Nowhere in the country better represents the open-minded, tolerant, progressive nature of the United Kingdom than South West Hertfordshire, and I am so grateful that I have been so warmly welcomed. Of course, there are also a number of local concerns and issues to which I will devote my energies. For our commuters, the issues of unreliable rail and underground transport are a repeated source of frustration. There is a lack of access to affordable housing, a concern that has to be balanced against the desire to protect the green belt and character of the area. There are pockets of poverty in a mostly affluent area, resulting in associated social issues, including crime. Of course, we also have many excellent schools in my constituency, including Merchant Taylors’ School and Berkhamsted School, but we need to ensure that good education is accessible for all, not only the affluent.
In the interests of my constituents and the rest of the country, I proudly stand with my Government, who are dedicated to levelling up. This is not only about the north; it is about everyone who is not born with advantage having access to excellent education, public services and visible role models, so that their aspirations and ambitions are not stunted by circumstance. As we know in our hearts, talent does not discriminate and I, like many in my Government, am committed to ensuring that opportunity does not, either. I welcomed the measures announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor specifically targeted at levelling up our country, including public sector relocations and more transport capital investment outside London. I welcome the breaking of the old, tired assumptions of what it means to be a modem Conservative and whom we represent. I stand here, proud to be a British Asian and to inhabit the most diverse Parliament we have ever had. But diversity encompasses all manner of considerations, not just diversity of ethnicity or of gender, although I welcome both and am delighted that 34% of this place is now occupied by women—I look forward to that number being higher.
When we speak of diversity and inclusiveness, we must mean engaging the widest diversity of perspective, formed by bringing together individuals with all manner of differences, including those of upbringing and background. It is about destigmatising all forms of physical and mental health issues, and that starts with us in this House. I am dyslexic, so I understand the frustrations posed by learning difficulties, but I must acknowledge that I have also had the benefit of many advantages. I understand that, like many of us in this place, I have been blessed with the good fortune to have self-belief and ambition nurtured in me, both in the home and in the wider environment, from my earliest days. Many in our society are not afforded this most essential of luxuries, and the impact, compounded of course, by other inequalities, is far-reaching. I am passionate about our commitments, as a Government, to do our part to ensure that aspiration and self-belief are not luxury items. That, to me, is the true meaning of levelling up. I look forward to seeing more and more faces in this House who represent our great country in all its guises.
I have a final brief word on the situation in which we find ourselves, responding to the outbreak of coronavirus across the globe. I am encouraged to already bear witness to many open-hearted and civic-minded examples of individuals coming together to help the more vulnerable and needy in our society during a testing time. I also commend the careful response of Government, based on scientific evidence, and the Budget measures announced last week—and those possibly to be announced later today—designed to protect vulnerable individuals and small businesses, who will most need our assistance to navigate the coming months. Of course, I, alongside my colleagues, will be continuously monitoring how to best assist in our national efforts. Working alongside my constituents, every arm of the Government, and people from every walk of life and every corner of the United Kingdom, we will do what we have always done—we will overcome adversity together. It is the greatest honour to serve my country in a time of need. Like those in my position, here in this place, I will do everything I can. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for indulging me during this debate.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra) on his tremendous maiden speech—although it is a good few months since we were both elected, so where have you been, man? You should have been in this Chamber a long time ago. Some of us have obviously been shying away from our duties.
Let me turn to more serious matters. It is important for me to place on record my sincere gratitude to each and every member of our health and social care service at this time. The work that they do the best of times cannot be overstated, but in this unique circumstance we must all commend them. I know from first-hand experience—from my friends and direct close family who work in the care of others—that they do their work selflessly and with pride. I want them to know that we on these Benches are proud of their work.
It is less than a week since the Chancellor came to the Dispatch Box and gave his first Budget, but the reality is that the landscape in the United Kingdom is now much different. It seems almost inconsequential to be debating many of the finer details of the Budget given the ramifications of the ongoing coronavirus situation across these isles, particularly when we bear in mind the fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility estimates did not take into account the initial Government expending in relation to dealing with the coronavirus, let alone what I expect to see come forward later today, but we can and must debate the Budget in full, because we still have the opportunity to encourage the Government to do so much more.
On the topic of doing so much more, let me turn to an item—we heard about it from the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), too—on which the Government must act: statutory sick pay. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Ian Blackford) stated last week, statutory sick pay is currently £94.25. It pales into insignificance in comparison to what is on offer in other European countries and world partners. In fact, I am a little frustrated at the fact that, almost a week since the Budget was announced, we are still debating whether statutory sick pay needs to be increased. I was appalled by some of the comments I saw online from the Conservative hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Mrs Latham), who, in response to concerns expressed by individuals about the £94.25 figure, stated that they should “Get a life”. Such comments are deeply unbecoming of any Member at this moment in time, and I expect a much better tone from the Government later today.
If the Government are and continue to be unwilling to increase the level of statutory sick pay, there is an alternative, which is to follow the suggestion of that bastion of socialism in the United States of America, Mitt Romney, and look into the introduction of a universal basic income. He wants each and every adult in the United States to be given the equivalent of in excess of £200 each and every week while this crisis is ongoing. Conservative Members might not agree with me in this regard, but hopefully they will agree with one of their own. If it is good enough for the United States of America, why is it not good enough for the United Kingdom?
If the answer is no to statutory sick pay and no to universal basic income, why not look across the channel at the measures that have been put in place in France by President Macron in relation to the suspension of gas, electricity, water and rent bills? Or why not look further afield to New Zealand, where we have seen the doubling of the winter energy payment? If we are going to be asking individuals, particularly elderly and vulnerable individuals, to spend a prolonged time in their homes in isolation, that is going to cost them, and many of them cannot afford to pay the price. We have to be willing—we should be willing—to support them. That is particularly the case in my part of the world, the north-east of Scotland, where it is currently still Baltic. We cannot ask people to stay in their houses without offering them adequate support. In 2008, the UK Government bailed out the banks; my plea to the current UK Government is for them to bail out the public on this occasion. It is their moral duty to do so.
The public sphere extends beyond individual citizens; it encapsulates businesses, too. We have heard from Members from all parties about how we have all been inundated with concerns from businesses relating to the Prime Minister’s words yesterday advising individuals not to visit many of the hospitality venues on offer throughout this United Kingdom. The reality is that words need to be met with action. We need the Government to come forward today with real, clear action, and for them to state that those businesses have to be closed, so that companies and individuals can access the insurance that they require.
We may even need to go further than that. As it stands, the business rates relief that is on offer simply will not cut it. As we have heard from other Members—indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Alyn Smith) mentioned it in a contribution earlier today—we need to look seriously at the possibility of the Government becoming the insurer of last resort to protect all businesses throughout this United Kingdom, to ensure that no business fails on our watch, either at this time or in the current months.
There is, of course, an opportunity for the Government to go one step further. The hon. Member for Middlesbrough said that, when it comes to multibillion-pound bail-outs, many of which have been proposed by those in the private sector in recent days, we should in all seriousness be looking at not necessarily bailing companies out but taking back the keys. That would not only give short-term protection but provide a long-term benefit for this country. There is so much that can be done for the business community, and the Government need to think seriously in that regard.
I am conscious of the time, so I want to finish by talking about the north-east of Scotland. We are not just facing the coronavirus outbreak; we are also facing the harsh reality that at 9 o’clock this morning the price of Brent crude oil was below $30 a barrel. That is completely unsustainable for the industry. In the Chancellor’s Budget last week, there was not a peep in relation to oil and gas—not a single mention—despite the fact that the price has been plummeting for a number of weeks. There is a double whammy there and that industry in the north-east of Scotland needs to be protected.
When the Government make their statement later today, we need and must see protections put in place for the public, and we need and must see protections put in place for businesses. We must all come together to ensure that the future prosperity of everyone on these islands is protected.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
I rise to support my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s Budget. We are facing an unprecedented and very difficult situation, but we are better able to deal with it because of how the Conservative party—including in our earlier coalition with the Liberal Democrats—has managed the economy. We need to give credit to George Osborne and Philip Hammond. Philip has taken a lot of criticism because of his views on Europe, but he was a fiscally conservative Chancellor. The fact that, even with the ONS adjustments, the budget deficit will be under 2% this year gives us at least some room for manoeuvre to deal with what is going to be very difficult crisis.
I welcome the increase in investment in the Chancellor’s Budget. I have always felt that we ought to be a bit more French about big projects, because around some of those big projects, private enterprise can grow. Sometimes railways, ports and airports are necessary for an economy to grow. I also welcome the investment in roads—apparently buses as well as cars travel on roads. One of the quickest ways to get an boost to the economy is to take the road network and to add value to it. We have invested billions in roads—in bypasses, extensions and so on. In some areas, resurfacing can make our roads a bit quieter. Those are quite useful things for the Government to be doing, and they will provide a quicker hit than HS2 and other projects, which are far more long term.
In speaking in this debate, I am particularly pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), who made a wonderful start in addressing this Chamber. He said that he was dyslexic. There are at least two Tory Cabinet Ministers who have been dyslexic, so he should take that as a sign of hope for his future career after his fine start.
I have been in this Chamber a while, and can say that there have been a number of occasions when one has been debating a subject with the full knowledge that, at 7 o’clock in the evening, somebody else will make a statement that will totally change the terms of the debate. I welcome the fact that the Chancellor will be here at 7 o’clock, and I think that we all expect other measures to be announced.
Most economic downturns happen steadily and gradually over a number of quarters. Businesses can manage the change, but what has happened recently—sometimes overnight—is that the business model has been destroyed. What we need to do, certainly for the next three months, is keep all those businesses in a situation from which they can recover and prosper. That will require a lot of money and a lot of creative effort, but I am sure that the Government are up to it. I look forward to hearing what the Chancellor is going to say at 7 pm.
As I have said, we are in a much better position because of some of the things that we have done in the past. We had a big debate over austerity in 2010, and, you know what, we won it and we won the general election. We had a debate in 2015, and, you know what, we won it. We had a debate in 2017, and we just about won it, and we had a debate in 2019 and we won it again. I am perfectly content for the Labour party to argue with us on these terms, because it is 4-0 so far and, from what I can see, it will certainly be 5-0 if Labour does not accept that the British people understand that, sometimes, the books have to be balanced.
I hope that we use the economic scope that we have to provide the firepower to get the businesses through the next two or three months. I am confident that the Government are doing the right thing in terms of what is a very difficult wicket. I am confident that the fundamentals of our economy are sound, but what we must not do is let good sound businesses be knocked down because of a short-term difficulty.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
We have seen nothing like this in our lifetimes. We are in a situation where six days after hearing the Budget, it is already out of date. We are at a time when, across the world, aeroplanes are being grounded, borders are being closed, people are staying at home, health services are gearing up, and workplaces are being frozen down. Just two months ago, we had barely heard of covid-19, and since then 6,500 people across the world have died from it.
In China, hundreds of millions of children are being educated at home—some online. In Italy, people are building makeshift hospitals, even tents, to treat the sick. France has imposed a two-week lockdown, and Ireland has closed all its schools. The scale of the action that countries are having to take to deal with this global crisis feels overwhelming, and we are just at the start. Nothing will be normal for very many months, and all of us will have to face up to that in our communities, in our workplaces, and in families across the country. That means that, right now, many people are feeling very worried. Parents are worried about whether to send their kids to school. Pensioners are worried about whether they should be going to the shops. Their sons and daughters are worried about whether they should be visiting them. Cinema and pub staff are just worried about whether they are about to lose their jobs, and many will be facing exactly that fear this week. Self-employed contractors are at a loss because their business is drying up and small businesses fear that their life’s work and savings are about to be lost. Commuters are worried about travelling by bus, train or tube. Doctors, nurses and NHS staff and social care staff are in distress about the life-and-death decisions they know they may have to make on our behalf.
The immediate challenge for Government in the face of this is to provide some urgent answers, urgent interventions, and urgent reassurances so that we can stop the anxiety, the panic and the hardship growing, and so that we can stop a national crisis becoming millions of separate family crises across the country. We can rise to that challenge, but we need to do so now. That means answering some very practical questions. For example, people have contacted me following the advice that was given yesterday, asking, “What should people do if someone in the family has serious health conditions, but they are doing a job that cannot be done from home?” Those jobs may be in distribution, in retail, in education, or working in schools. They may be in policing, or they may be doing countless important jobs across the country. Should they go to work? Should they send their kids to school?
I have been contacted by one mum who is suffering from cancer and who wants to be able to keep her daughter at home. She and others need support and advice. What are the plans to deliver care, food and supplies for those who are going to be at home? Crucially, we will need urgent assurances that no one will lose their home, and that everyone will be able to pay their bills to feed their kids and to keep their families going. We look forward to the response from the Chancellor later today so that we can know that, whatever the changes in our lives that are going to be needed, we can strain every sinew to keep important services going. That means getting some immediate commitments for substantial financial support for families. We all know that the current system of universal credit, of statutory sick pay or of any of those tinkering measures just will not cut it. If the Government try to use them, all they will do is expose even further the weaknesses and failings in our welfare system and our social insurance system that are already causing huge hardship. Quite simply, those systems will not be able to take the strain. There needs to be substantial, unconditional support, so that people can pay their rents, their mortgages and their bills, because food banks will not be able to fill those gaps.
Those urgent assurances and interventions are essential if we are to address people’s anxieties and concerns, particularly in relation to family finances and family health. There is a much bigger task, which is to shift our shared mindset from anxiety to action to ensure that we are not just all overwhelmed by alarm when we have practical tasks ahead of us, and when we need to focus on the practical things that can be done and must be done to come through this together. There is little time for any of us to absorb or assimilate the scale of the changes that will be made in all of our lives this year, so that we can get through this, but we have to get on with it.
Incredible work is already under way. People have already paid tribute to NHS staff who are preparing for the task ahead. We should also pay tribute to emergency planners in our local councils, in social care services, in businesses, in food distribution systems and in voluntary groups across the country. They are already preparing and planning for the challenges that we face and those huge changes that we will need to make. It will need calm leadership, clear communication, frankness about how difficult some things are going to be, but firmness about our ability to come through this, about our resilience and strength, and about our ability to work together in extraordinary ways. In the end, we may be grateful that we are also the generation that now communicates so much online, and that has different ways to hold our families together, to communicate and to work. Some of those new technologies will make it easier to address new challenges than perhaps would have been the case 10 or 20 years ago. It also means that the Government must address the scale of the task, and it does not feel as if they are doing so yet. I do not blame Ministers for struggling to keep up with this, because in the early stages of the financial crisis it took time—often precious time—to realise the magnitude of what was happening and the scale of previously unthinkable things that had to be done to turn it round. We do not have that time now.
It is good that the Government seem to have shifted strategy in the light of evidence from Imperial College, which confirms what the WHO, epidemiologists and public health experts from other countries have been saying for some time, and which shows that the objective should be suppression of the virus, because the number of lives that would be lost by pursuing a mitigation or herd immunity strategy would be far too great. Again, it feels as if the Government still have to do more to shift to that new strategy in practice. For example, we are still only being advised to go to the pub—advised not to go to the pub. [Interruption.] If only! It feels as if we are only being advised, and it feels as if Ministers are being a little too squeamish to tell us what they need us to do, and to tell the pubs what they need to do. My message to Ministers is, frankly, “Get over it,” because there are an awful lot more things that they are going to have to tell us to do before the crisis is over.
It does not feel as if there is a proper strategy for testing yet—a proper plan massively to gear up the number of tests that we need. The chief scientific adviser has said that that is what he wants to see, but we need the same kind of national effort for which the Prime Minister has rightly called to produce ventilators across the country. We need a massive scaling up of testing. The World Health Organisation has said, “test, test, test” and
“You cannot fight a fire blindfolded”.
That is what we need. I have heard from consultants who say that in some hospitals three quarters of elderly care consultants are self-isolating and cannot gain access to tests to find out whether in fact they are fine and can get back to work, where they are urgently needed. If we rely on the information from hospitals to tell us what is happening on the scale of the spread we will be two weeks behind the curve. We cannot afford to do that. We need to learn from what South Korea did, with a massive mobilisation effort.
If the spread is accelerating, keeping schools running as normal is going to become impossible and seriously unwise. Given the reports from London hospitals about rising numbers of covid-19 cases coming in through A&E, and reports that we are three weeks behind Italy, we should ask ourselves what would Italy have done three weeks ago if it had known? That is what we have to face, and it means that we need urgent plans to be in place now on how to close or scale down schools while keeping parents and vital services in work; while stopping grandparents being drawn into childcare and being exposed to the virus; and while supporting families who depend on free school meals as well as those who have safeguarding risks. This is urgent.
The Budget was designed around the old strategy of mitigate and manage, or tinkering with sick pay and staff absence. We are way past that point. Entire sectors such as travel, leisure and hospitality cannot function at a social distance. There are 1.9 million jobs in catering, restaurants, pubs and coffee shops. There are more than half a million jobs in hotels and holiday accommodation. Those sectors are not sustainable, given the way in which we are going to have to operate and live our lives for at least the next few months. How we support those sectors and people who work in them is crucial.
Other sectors such as social care and food distribution need to grow and change to meet community needs. Communities will have to support one another, but we cannot just stand back and hope that the free market will solve the systemic challenges that we face. Emergency planning will be needed, as well as intervention and funding on a scale that the Government would never normally contemplate. I hope that as well as talking more about emergency funding for the NHS, the Chancellor will announce a big injection of emergency investment for local authorities so that they can support public health, emergency planning, housing, family support, social care and children’s services, which are now our crucial community actors, and which urgently need to take on more staff to deliver the changes needed. We need sectoral plans, to make sure that we still have something as simple as community pubs, which can open again when the crisis is over.
This will be a challenge. We all know and fear that those who are on the lowest incomes will be hardest hit, which will be a challenge for all of us. But we can do this, and we have the strength, resilience, ingenuity and ideas. We will have to pull everyone together, not push people apart. We will have to do things in new ways, including doing politics in different ways—pulling people together and facing up to the sheer scale of what needs to change. Politics has to stop being the art of the possible and become the art of the apparently impossible, so that we can come through this together.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am very pleased to call, to make his maiden speech, Ian Levy.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I give my sincere sympathy to anyone affected by the coronavirus.
It is with immense pride that I take my place in the Chamber and make my maiden speech as the first Conservative Member of Parliament for Blyth Valley since the seat was created in 1950. I pay tribute to my predecessor, Ronnie Campbell, who began serving Blyth Valley in Parliament in 1987. While we had many political differences, he sought to represent the people of Blyth well, and I am honoured to take over that role. It is a remarkable area and I will do all that I can to ensure that its people and their concerns and aspirations are heard here in Westminster.
Blyth is, of course, the main town, which gives its name to the constituency. My family have farmed the land there for generations, and Blyth is part of my DNA. It is a town steeped in history, but one that is dynamic and forward looking. It was a submarine port during both world wars; the place where the world’s first purpose-built aircraft carrier, the Ark Royal, was launched in 1915; and, not forgetting, the home of Blyth Spartans football club. I am so proud to wear their tie today. Built on coalmining and shipbuilding, Blyth is now at the forefront of developing renewable energy technologies. The port of Blyth will continue to play an important role in trade after Brexit.
Cramlington, also in my constituency, is the former home of the No. 36 Defence Squadron, which protected the north of England during the first world war, and one of the new towns that were built across the UK in the 1960s. This comparatively young town has a fantastic community spirit and residents have made their mark in so many areas, including sports, the arts and industry. I particularly enjoyed a visit to the Blagdon amateur dramatic society panto earlier this year—hon. Members are supposed to say, “Oh no you didn’t!” I was very impressed by the talents of that group of young people.
A number of villages, including Holywell, New Hartley, Seghill, Seaton Sluice and Seaton Delaval are also found in the area, which is more generally known as Seaton valley. With its beautiful coastal scenes and stunning countryside, Seaton valley illustrates why Northumberland is one of the most beautiful places in the north not just to live but to visit. Home to Arrighi’s café since 1925—without doubt, it sells the best ice cream in the UK, at least according to my wife, who visits regularly on Sundays—it is also the birthplace of Captain William Smith, who discovered Antarctica on a worldwide voyage on his Blyth-built ship, The Williams.
I started my working life in Blyth market when I was 13. Leaving school at 16, I worked for the council as a gravedigger. Back then, we had to dig the graves by hand; there were no machines to do the job. When I was 21, the family suffered a major setback: my dad was knocked off his motorbike by a hit-and-run driver, and never walked again. He became severely disabled. With my brother and sister both away from home, I provided support to both my parents at this relatively young age. That made me acutely aware of the need to support carers and of the challenges faced by both carers and the disabled people they look after. I eventually became a mental health nursing assistant and worked for the NHS—a role I had and loved for over 20 years.
My political journey began in 2016, when I became fed up with the state of my home town and some of the long-running problems that he area faced. After many months of my complaining, my long-suffering wife Maureen told me, “Ian—shut up or do something about it!” Recognising that I needed to act if I wanted to improve things, I wrote to the then Prime Minister David Cameron, joined the Conservative party and started working for what I believed would be a better future for Blyth Valley. Looking back at my journey now, I am honoured and proud—as well as mildly surprised—to find myself representing the area I call home down here in Westminster.
I give my sincerest thanks to all those who helped and supported me—from my agent Richard Wearmouth, my family, my friends and my NHS colleagues at Willow View, where I worked for many years, to the people who helped both during my campaign and since. I believe that my election proves that the Conservative party is one of real opportunity: it does not matter if you are the Eton-educated son of an earl, a council gravedigger or a nursing assistant with the NHS—if you have a passion for improving things for people, then you are welcomed with both arms.
The people of Blyth Valley voted for change in December 2019. They share my ambition to energise the town centre through the future high streets fund and a Blyth town deal and to connect our towns and communities with a new rail link and an improved road network. They want to support our industries and ensure that our children in Blyth Valley have the skills to secure employment in a thriving local business and they want to see a revolution in green technology. The people of Blyth Valley will rise to the challenges and opportunities that our departure from the EU—and that is what they voted for—will bring. For those reasons, I am proud to support this Budget: a Budget that recognises our country’s priorities and gives communities such as Blyth Valley the opportunity to thrive as we strive to make our way as world leaders of the future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a pleasure to call Ian Byrne to make his maiden speech.
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab)
It is an immense privilege to stand in the House today as the Member of Parliament for Liverpool, West Derby—the community that made me. With the coronavirus pandemic sweeping across the globe, this is a worrying time for the people we represent across this House. In light of that, the speech I deliver today will be very different from the one I wrote three weeks ago.
I would like to start by thanking my predecessor, Stephen Twigg, for the service he gave to West Derby constituency during his time in this House. I have heard from many people first hand what a good constituency MP and excellent parliamentarian Stephen was, and I am sure the House will join me in wishing him every success in his post-parliamentary career.
The constituency of Liverpool, West Derby has many notable sons and daughters, including Bessie Braddock, the formidable former Labour MP, who lived with her husband Jack on Zig Zag Road in West Derby in 1942. West Derby is home to The Casbah coffee club—a legendary venue that played a huge role in the formation of the world’s greatest band: the Beatles.
Continuing the theme of world class, as an avid Liverpool fan it would be remiss of me not to mention our legendary former manager and great socialist, Bill Shankly, who lived in West Derby opposite Liverpool’s Melwood training ground. The constituency is also the birthplace of currently the best right-back in the world: Trent Alexander-Arnold. We have, in our current manager Jurgen Klopp, a man who is showing more leadership and wisdom off the pitch during this crisis than some of our world leaders.
I grew up in West Derby in the ’70s, against a backdrop of de-industrialisation and Thatcher’s Government. Labelled “the hardest nut to crack” by the Tories and earmarked for “managed decline”, the Liverpool I grew up in knew the despair of joblessness and economic deprivation. It was a city on the brink—but one that dared to fight back. I am proud that, 35 years on, Liverpool’s red wall stands firm. People in our city know that Liverpool City Council has £436 million less to spend per year now than it did in 2010—that same council will be straining every sinew to keep its people’s heads above water, despite being hollowed out by cuts.
On 15 April 1989, at 17 years of age, I was in Leppings Lane at the FA cup semi-final at Hillsborough. What happened that day, the aftermath and the smears against the families, survivors and the people of our city have profoundly shaped my life and my politics. The 30-year fight for truth and justice serves as a reminder that when we pull together the power of the people is greater than the people in power. However, it should not have taken that fight to prove it. Our justice system still denies bereaved families a level playing field when they are taking on public authorities or the state. That is why we need the Hillsborough law to ensure that working-class people have access to the same tools that are available to the powerful.
We now know that austerity was a political choice. I know the human cost all too well. In 2015, I teamed up with my Evertonian mates Dave and Robbie to co-found Fans Supporting Foodbanks, a grassroots initiative that puts football fans at the heart of the fight against food poverty. What started with three fans standing with a wheelie bin collecting tins of food outside the pub on match days now supplies 30% of all donations to North Liverpool Foodbank and has become an operation that stretches from Glasgow to London to Dublin. We have united people of different backgrounds, different faiths and even people who wear different colours at the game, because our problems were not caused by other working-class people, but by a rigged system propped up by the born-to-rule elite who only represent the interests of the 1%—a system that means 1.6 million people need help from a food bank in one of the richest countries on earth. I am here in Parliament to challenge that system.
In West Derby, we are also immensely proud of our two world-class hospitals, Broadgreen Hospital and Alder Hey Children’s Hospital. I am proud to have organised workers in both hospitals for better pay and conditions as a trade union organiser for Unite the union. Now, as we face the coronavirus pandemic, I would like to express my unreserved gratitude to all our NHS staff for their dedication and courage. This pandemic clearly demonstrates how free health and social care is not a cost, but a precious and crucial asset when fate comes calling. The Government must rise to this challenge. We must act now to support those who need us. In the immediate term, we need a rescue package for working-class people and communities with the same scale and urgency as the bail-out of the banks.
The first duty of any Government is to protect their people, so the Government must adopt clear commitments to prioritise human need—that no one will lose their home, no one will be plunged into hardship, and no one will go hungry as a result of a virus that is not their fault. I say to the Government that now is not the time for half-measures. They should guarantee decent sick pay for all workers, suspend rent, mortgage and utility bills, make private healthcare facilities available for our NHS rent-free, ban evictions, end sanctions, scrap the five-week wait for universal credit and consider rolling out a basic income.
We cannot leave it to the whims and the warped priorities of the market. Only bold state intervention will see us through this crisis, if only we had the political will to act. Our demand must be an end to the broken political and economic model of the last 40 years. The reversal of the Thatcher doctrine will never be more critical than in the coming weeks, because there is such thing as society, and we must shape that society to place the health and needs of its people above the interests of profit. That is what socialism is. That is what humanity is, and without that we are nothing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a pleasure to call Mark Logan to make his maiden speech.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this most important of debates on the Budget, especially as it regards levelling up. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) on his maiden speech.
Quite a few of us on the Government Benches stand up and, before opening our mouths, have great visions of sounding thoroughly Churchillian. But with as strong a Boltonian accent as mine, I will not be trying too hard to imitate Churchill today. [Laughter.] This is the greenest of days: St Patrick’s Day. For many an evening, I looked out on to the falling sun on Mount Slemish in my birthplace of Ballymena, the home of St Patrick.
Indeed, these Benches are green, a colour evoking camouflage—a colour that is restful, harmonious and self-effacing, and a colour of modesty and humility. I got that from Parliament’s intranet, in the hope of sounding cultured. You see, Madam Deputy Speaker, the people of Bolton North East are a self-effacing and very humble people who none the less have a proud history, producing some of the greats like Bolton-educated Sir Ian McKellen, and home to the magnificent Hall i’ th’ Wood Museum and the historic St Maxentius church in Bradshaw.
My predecessor, Sir David Crausby, was elected in 1997, and he has many admirers in both Bolton and Westminster. Sir David led on many campaigns, including to help save Bolton’s fire stations and, over many years, being a voice for improving railway services for the town. I know that the House will join me in wishing Sir David and his family all the best.
Despite being thrown into a global crisis at the beginning of 2020, I believe that, as a nation, we must aspire to pull through together. It was aspiration in the midst of the post-world war crisis that led the United Kingdom to found the NHS—an aspiration that we have the breadth of shoulders to shoulder every one of our fellow countrymen in time of need. This virus is causing a global crisis, yet I can feel that aspiration in every one of my fellow Members, irrespective of which side of the House they sit on. I, you, we represent our 66 million people’s united aspiration for security, prosperity, quality of life and a dynamic, exciting future. For that is why we are here. This is why Parliament exists.
When I think of aspiration, I recall the aspiration of the young lad at Eden Boys’ School in Halliwell to become head boy and lead his fellow students into a new digital age. I think of the aspiration of a group of early-20s fellas, yearning for more from a society that they felt had let them down and branded them as useless—yet few more stimulating conversations was I part of during the winter campaign. You, the young people in Tonge with the Haulgh, can help build our future.
I have been deeply impressed by the aspiration of Sharples School in Astley Bridge, which goes by the motto “Learn, dream, achieve”, and St Catherine’s Academy in Breightmet, who impressed on me, “We aren’t just teaching kids; we are bettering our local community.”
The collective aspiration of the people of Bolton North East is manifested in our ambitious town regeneration vision—not so much a project, but a blueprint for the future of the UK’s largest town. It is spearheaded by the leader of Bolton Council, who represents Bromley Cross and who I personally thank, along with my local association, for taking a punt on me. I was glad to enjoy the luck of St Patrick in winning the election by an almighty 378 votes! I aspire to work hard to make our vision of a regenerated, prosperous town, and the required Metrolink from Bolton to Manchester, a reality.
You see, Madam Deputy Speaker, Bolton North East was once the epicentre of the textile revolution. Samuel Crompton was born in what is known today as Crompton ward. As the British inventor of the spinning mule, which permitted large-scale manufacture of high-quality thread and yarn, he had a decisive impact on the British—and, by extension, the world—economy. Where, might you ask, is my connection to the land of the spinning mule? Well, I was at one time the spinning mule of the Foreign Office in east China, serving as chief spokesman at the British consulate in Shanghai, and spinning the yarns of the coalition Government to help build relationships with an emerging superpower. For an extended period of time, I had a front row seat in the story of the 21st century: the re-emergence of China and of the Asian region more broadly, or in Chinese—if I am permitted—wo cengjing qinyan kandao zhongguo de jueqi.
I encourage ambition, entrepreneurship and innovation in my own country. I believe in Britain, and I believe we can benefit from the rise of Asia through trade and partnerships. Bolton’s fortunes, much like the ebbs and flows of international relations, experienced one of their first highs with the advent of the spinning mule, but once we get through this current ebb, another high point is beckoning.
This Government are committed to levelling up, and Bolton is once again the epicentre of this. You see, Madam Deputy Speaker, we are a creative people, curious and always finding new ways of overcoming old problems. For example, the Radic8 company in my constituency is using innovative technology designed specifically for protecting people with weak or compromised immune systems against airborne viruses.
Often, Bolton North East’s businesses have a special feature: you pay a few pounds, and then you add a few pounds to your waistline. There is Shahi Bakers on Blackburn Road, an area of much diversity, where I almost ate myself into oblivion on Friday past—it was that good—or like the week before, when I nibbled on a pizza flavour traditional pie at Empieor. Both of these small businesses are brand-new in Bolton, and even though I did not spend a single pound in either—the freebies of being an MP—the owner of the pie shop was ecstatic that the Chancellor spent a few quid in last week’s Budget.
It would be remiss of me to skip arguably Bolton North East’s most successful export, Warburtons bakery, which once featured Sylvester Stallone in an advert. I never thought I would be quoting Rocky Balboa and “Eye of the Tiger” in Parliament today:
“Don’t lose your grip on the dreams of the past
You must fight just to keep them alive”.
Metaphorically, we must fight to keep our Union alive—our united aspiration.
Our institutions have taken a bit of a battering of late, yet it has also been in times of adversity that our most integral of institutions, the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, has shone. You see, Madam Deputy Speaker, I spoke earlier of looking out on to St Patrick’s Slemish mountain, but only a few miles east over the glens of Antrim, I looked in awe, many a time, across the Irish sea at western Scotland towards the mull of Kintyre. At our closest point, it is only 12 miles away, and I say build that bridge! I say that in the spirit of aspiration, similar to my belief that we can lead the world in science, and I welcome the Chancellor’s increased spending for science and innovation in the Budget equalling £22 billion. We can continue to be a real success story that others look to with admiration and a desire to emulate.
I am incredibly honoured and excited to represent the hard-working people of Bolton North East. Even though I am not necessarily Bolton-born, you could say I am “Bolton bread”—and that at the very least, for the future of Bolton North East and our Union of united aspiration, it is time for me to earn more than just my mere crust.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan), and I particularly congratulate him on that bit in Mandarin, which was blatant showing off. Nevertheless, it was quite impressive.
As the country struggles to deal with a global health pandemic, the very structure and foundations of our economy are coming into focus. Today’s debate is an important opportunity not just to talk about how we deal with the immediate impact of the virus, but to consider the foundations and structure of our economy. We must build resilience. We know that this shock will not be the last that our economy faces, and we need to build an economy that is able to absorb and bounce back from future shocks.
The introduction of the Government’s so-called levelling up agenda reflects what many economists, politicians and commentators have recognised for many years: the gross inequalities that exist in the UK economy are, in no small part, down to where someone is born. Tackling regional inequality must be central to any strategy to create a fairer Britain.
In London, Britain plays home to the richest area in the whole of northern Europe, but the UK is also home to the five poorest regions in northern Europe, with west Wales and the valleys the poorest of all. In 2016, average incomes in London were 77% higher than the UK average, which is as staggering as it is unsustainable. We need a commitment from Government that they will bridge the widening gap between our cities and our towns.
The economic story of the past 40 years has been one of a job market that has shifted from manufacturing to services, boosting metropolitan cities, but leaving industrial towns bereft of opportunity, wealth, power, investment, and a sense of security. Workplaces have changed beyond recognition, with productive and meaningful industrial work evaporating, and high streets being ripped up due to rapid technological change. A winner-takes-all post-18 education system has whisked certain young people off to university, but delivered nothing for the individuals and communities left behind. All that has been compounded by a decade of self-defeating Tory austerity—a party that responded to seismic shifts in the global economy by treating industrial areas with a toxic mix of indifference and incompetence.
Now, for electoral reasons, the Conservatives have put levelling up front and centre of their agenda. They know that their success in keeping hold of leave voters in the north, the midlands and parts of Wales will be largely dependent on how they manage to transfer wealth and opportunity in those directions. That aim is worthy in itself, but will the strategy succeed when the motives are skin deep?
Let us look at the baby steps that the Conservatives made with this Budget. Commitments on improving infrastructure and devolving power to city Mayors are central to the Chancellor’s promises, but we get the sense that this Budget is really a continuation of the city-centric model on which the British economy is based, and which has failed our economy and country for far too long. There is plenty to say about Leeds; not that much about Leigh. Policies for Birmingham; pittance for Bassetlaw. As a country we must be far more ambitious in tackling regional equality, as well as the gaping chasm that exists between our towns and our cities.
The likes of economist Paul Collier, the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Industrial Communities Alliance have each identified important levers for the levelling up agenda. Across the board there is recognition of the need to focus on local political autonomy. Whitehall simply cannot plan the economy of a distant area; it must devolve more power everywhere, not just via piecemeal city devolution deals. We also need a locally based finance industry. It was a huge mistake for the Bank of England to force the merger of regional banks, because local knowledge is essential in knowing where to lend. We need locally organised business communities that work closely in lockstep with locally based college education. Local youth should be trained in pertinent skills, which in turn will help the surrounding firms. For example, German tertiary education has much stronger links with local business.
For a decade, the Conservatives have failed those who do not go to university. Far from reviving vocational education, the Government have poured money into universities which, as well as failing to defend free speech, have loaded students with debt, and too often failed to provide them with any significant return on their investment. That cycle must be broken and must change.
The Government must also support the clusters of industries emerging around the UK—steel and clean energy in south Wales, tech in Cambridge, chemicals in Hull and metals in Yorkshire, for instance. We need a comprehensive and integrated policy agenda. Investing in transport is important, but it will not suffice. A continuation of the city-centric model will lead to more social damage and increasing travel congestion, and will do nothing to green our economy.
The most critical part of rebalancing our economy has to be a commitment to a modern manufacturing renaissance. UK manufacturing has been in decline for decades, dropping from 30% of GDP in the 1970s to a meagre 9% today. That is very much a political choice; it is not an act of God. Germany’s manufacturing base has remained strong, at more than 20% of GDP, thanks to proactive Government support and a proactive industrial strategy. Its economy is more resilient as a result.
Of course, any UK manufacturing renaissance must be underpinned by a thriving UK steel industry. Steel is the backbone of the British economy. It is not a sunset industry but a 21st century industry that continues to underpin our entire manufacturing base, from defence to aerospace, and our everyday lives, from the houses we live in to the offices we work in and the trains, buses and cars we travel in—including the electric vehicles of the future. Steel jobs are well-paid manufacturing jobs, offering people in so-called left-behind communities real opportunities in life, yet the Chancellor’s Budget did nothing to address the sky-high energy costs that are crippling the steel industry—UK steelmakers pay 80% more for their energy than their French counterparts —or to tackle the extortionate business rates that are crippling our industry.
If the UK Government are serious about levelling up, steel simply must be front and centre of that strategy. Without its steel backbone, the British economy will not be able to stand up, let alone level up. There is still no word on the UK shared prosperity fund, which will replace EU development funding from 2021. The clock is ticking, but there is still no sign of the consultation on that fund, which the Government promised at the end of 2018.
Levelling up cannot just be a buzzword. Getting Brexit done is already starting to come unstuck, with the Prime Minister’s “oven-ready deal” seemingly stuck at the back of the frozen food section. The levelling up agenda must not be left to thaw, and neither must it come out of the oven half-baked. We need a whole-nation industrial strategy that actually reaches places such as Aberavon—one that goes beyond the city-centric model laid out in the Budget and begins to reunite our deeply divided country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a pleasure to call Sarah Dines to make her maiden speech.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make this speech today. It is an important day in our history.
I am told that one of the few pleasures—perhaps the only pleasure—in making a maiden speech is that it affords you the opportunity to thank your predecessor. It is none the less daunting for someone who has sat in this House for only a number of weeks to attempt to review the long career of Sir Patrick McLoughlin, who spent 33 years in this place, 30 of them on the Front Benches. Sir Patrick is much loved in the constituency. He assiduously balanced working hard on his constituents’ behalf with serving as a constant figure nationally. I am very grateful to him personally both for going out of his way to help me settle into the constituency and for coming out on the campaign with me so often during the general election. He left big shoes—or, in the case of Derbyshire and the rain of December, big wellington boots—to fill.
In the course of my research, I had the chance to read “Chance Witness”, the memoirs of another of my distinguished predecessors, Matthew Parris. I strongly recommend it to all Members of this House, particularly new Members. He made several observations about the place. The book provides salient lessons for a life in politics, not the least of which is about the dangers of assumption. While a Member, Matthew Parris courageously argued for the reform of sexual offences legislation, calling, for example, for the abolition of the penalty of imprisonment for the crime of prostitution. As part of his campaign, he invited a coachload of prostitutes to address a relevant Select Committee. At the appointed time, he entered Central Lobby to meet his guests. He cast his eye over those present and went up to a promising group of women and asked, “Are you the prostitutes from Birmingham?” There followed, as he described, “an awful silence”. “No,” came back the response. They were, in fact, a west midlands Catholic women’s group. [Laughter.]
It is a very great privilege to be standing here as the hon. Member for the Derbyshire Dales and the constituency’s first woman Member to boot. It is a large constituency of outstanding beauty: 377 square miles in size, most of which stands within the Peak District national park. It is bigger than several vocal European countries. The four main towns are Ashbourne, Bakewell, Matlock and Wirksworth and it includes over 100 villages. In large part, it is made up of rolling landscapes, green valleys and ragged moorland, and it is inhabited by fierce, independent and proud Derbyshire men and women, the backbone of this country. Bakewell and Ashbourne are established agricultural market towns, whereas Wirksworth, Bonsall, Monyash and Tideswell were centres of lead-mining. The population lies mainly along the River Derwent.
I am proud to state that there is a very clear connection between my constituency and this place. It is said that Henry Yevele, from the village of Yeaveley in the south of the Derbyshire Dales, did for English architecture what Chaucer did for English literature. He built the Jewel Tower across the road from this place and helped to remodel, reface and reroof Westminster Hall, as well as much of Westminster Abbey and Canterbury Cathedral. He used Derbyshire stone in his projects—this is of national significance—just as it was used several hundred years later when Birchover gritstone was used as load-bearing columns in the construction of Portcullis House. The flagstones for Trafalgar Square, Hyde Park Corner and the Thames Embankment also came from the Derbyshire Dales.
My constituency can also lay claim to be the home of the vigorous contact sport similar to the game of British bulldog so beloved of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The Royal Shrovetide football match is a game played annually on Shrove Tuesday and Ash Wednesday in the town of Ashbourne since the 1600s. It is played with a hand-sewn leather ball throughout the entire town, in its streets, fields and waterways, with sometimes more than 5,000 people divided into two teams made up of those born north of Henmore Brook, the Up’Ards, and those born south of it, the proud Down’Ards. The game is played over eight hours and the goals are three miles apart. It can be best described as a huge moving scrum with very few rules, the first and earliest of which is “no murder”. I know that the Prime Minister is not averse to a rough and tumble, and I cordially invite him to come and possibly participate, incognito, should he wish to come next Shrovetide.
Speaking of Ashbourne, I give notice to my friends on the Front Bench that they will be hearing a lot about the Ashbourne bypass, which we desperately need. It is a project of tremendous national strategic interest, because it services the quarries that provide minerals that are mined only in this particular constituency. We are fortunate to have many buildings of national significance in the constituency, including Chatsworth, Haddon, Sudbury and Kedleston, as well as Tissington, said by some to be the prettiest village in Derbyshire. In the words of that famous Chief Whip, Francis Urquhart, I could not possibly comment.
Derbyshire Dales has long been noted for economic innovation. We must not forget our historic traditional roots as we stand in these difficult times. It was the Silicon Valley of the 18th century. Richard Arkwright built the first water-powered cotton-spinning mill at Cromford in 1771, using waterpower provided by the fast-flowing streams. Inspired by the factory system pioneered by Arkwright, John Smedley, the knitwear company, was founded in 1784 by John Smedley at Lea Mills in Matlock. This factory, at over 230 years, is the world’s oldest continuous manufacturing factory in the country. It inspires generations of local families with its good practices of employer-employee relationships.
Derbyshire Dales was also the home of Florence Nightingale, the godmother of nursing in Britain and internationally. I do not forget agriculture, tourism, quarrying and mining. These are all vital aspects and activities of the district. I will do everything I can to support those communities and the farming communities, which are the backbone of the economy.
Derbyshire Dales is mineral rich. It has a long history of mining and quarrying. It shaped the landscape that built Britain over centuries. The Longcliffe quarries in the constituency provide key materials that we need nationally for all sorts of manufacturing and capital projects.
Also in the Derbyshire Dales are a variety of other world-class businesses ranging from family firms to artisan businesses and creative entrepreneurs. As a new candidate, I was duty bound to sample the world-famous Bakewell pudding, Derbyshire oatcakes and outstanding English cheeses, such as Dovedale Blue, Hartington Stilton and Peakland White, all washed down by a variety of local beers, including Chatsworth Gold and Bakewell Best. Some had to be sampled several times, I am afraid. Another example of the bespoke businesses in the Derbyshire Dales is the exquisite jewellery made by the world-class creative designer Jane Orton, an example of which I am immensely proud to be wearing today.
Moving swiftly on, I was honoured to attend a large Remembrance Day parade of those proud people in Derbyshire Dales, just two days after I was selected. In so doing, we honoured the men and women of the armed services, many from Derbyshire, who lost their lives in the service of our country. It falls on us to protect their reputation in the face of opportunistic and vexatious prosecutions.
The security of this great country is not only entrusted to our gallant armed forces. We are also protected by our intelligence and security services, which are often the unsung heroes of battles fought in the twilight and dark, and in the cold. One hero in that field was Sir Maurice Oldfield, the seventh director of the Secret Intelligence Service back in the days when it did not officially exist. I took some time off during my election campaign to visit his birthplace in my constituency, the village of Youlgrave, as well as Over Haddon, the village where he grew up and where he was buried in St Anne’s churchyard.
A tenant farmer’s son, Maurice Oldfield was one of the country’s most distinguished intelligence officers. He served at the height of the cold war and was described by the arch Soviet agent Kim Philby as formidable. He returned to Over Haddon for weekends as often as he could. He was noted for Derbyshire common sense. It is that sort of common sense that we need to embrace for the security and defence of the country in today’s world.
As for myself, I am a Conservative by both nature and nurture. I was born into this tribe. My first association, back in what was then the nuclear-free Labour heartland of Basildon, was a family enterprise run by my mother from the kitchen table in our council house. She canvassed with me in the pram. At the age of eight, I delivered my first Conservative party leaflet. At the age of 17, I was part of the selection committee that launched the distinguished parliamentary career of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Sir David Amess), who I am delighted to see here today.
Like so many on our side of the Chamber, I am a living embodiment of Conservative policies. I am a working-class, council-reared, comprehensive school-educated Conservative—a product of Margaret Thatcher’s blueprint for change. Her vision socially and economically enfranchised millions of individuals across our country, presenting them with opportunities unavailable to previous generations. I am one of those people. This country needs to continue to level up.
For example, vocational guidance at my comprehensive school scoffed at my stated ambition to become a barrister, suggesting hairdressing instead. I pushed back at that arbitrary ceiling for girls and women then, just as I now push for the levelling up at the heart of the Prime Minister’s vision for our country. I believe in the free markets, free trade, rule of law and meritocracy that made this country the greatest nation in the world.
I am humbled to stand here today in this Chamber, which has echoed with the speeches of many great people, including my hero Margaret Thatcher, and the largely unsung heroes, such as Airey Neave, Ian Gow— both tragically assassinated—and others, who paved her way.
My politics are simple: I am instinctively cautious of the encroachment of the state into the lives of everyday people. I believe that George Washington—an Englishman born in America, of course—got it right when he observed that government, like fire, is both a fearful master and a dangerous servant. It is our duty as legislators to act as an ever-vigilant fire brigade keeping government in check and dampening down its innately incendiary tendencies.
The Prime Minister has spoken of the importance of levelling up and I, for one, could not agree more. In so doing, the Conservative party would rightly claim the mantle of other historic movements, such as the Levellers of the 1640s and 1650s—the blue collar Conservatives of their day—whose free-market and social radicalism indelibly shaped so much of the parliamentary system and rights that we have today. Their vision might have been too much for the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, but their time may well have come under this Prime Minister.
I thank you for your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, and other right hon. and hon. Members for theirs. It was a privilege to speak today and I am very proud to represent the people of the Derbyshire Dales in this House. I hope that I might be able to catch your eye from time to time.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I remind the House that if Members do not stick to seven minutes, I will have to impose a time limit, which might be even shorter.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines). I congratulate her on delivering her maiden speech, and indeed on becoming the first female MP to represent her constituency, and wish her well for the future. She said that she embodies working-class values and that Margaret Thatcher is her hero—that is a concept that I have yet to get my head around, to be honest, but I wish her well.
Having been a civil engineer before coming to this place, I am instinctively in favour of investment in infrastructure, so I welcome the Government’s pledge to increase infrastructure investment. It can be truly transformational. The Scottish National party has argued for years that, instead of austerity, targeted investment can help improve the economy, especially with borrowing rates at an extended all-time low. It is good to see that this Government are finally listening. However, infra- structure investment should also fit a strategic picture and be part of long-term planning. It therefore does not make sense that the Budget and its headline announcements pre-date the Government’s long-overdue response to the National Infrastructure Commission’s national infrastructure assessment, which was published in July 2018.
A strategic approach also means avoiding a cavalier approach and glib announcements, such as proposals for a “Union bridge” between Scotland and Northern Ireland. The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) also made a fine maiden speech, but in the last couple of minutes it went badly south. He might be demanding the construction of a Union bridge, but the Secretary of State for Scotland has said that it is just a euphemism for a tunnel. If the Government cannot agree on whether they are going to build a tunnel or a bridge, surely they should instead allocate the money to the Scottish Government, who will use it much more wisely.
“Levelling up” is another Government catchphrase, but at least it acknowledges the neglect of some of the regions and nations of the UK over the years. That is particularly true in Scotland, where the lack of infrastructure investment by Westminster is an historic disgrace. Hansard is littered with broken promises of particular road schemes—projects that were subsequently delivered by the SNP Scottish Government. It took an SNP Government to construct a full-length motorway between Edinburgh and Glasgow, and it took an SNP Government to construct the missing M74 linkages. It was the SNP Government who build the M80. It is the SNP Government who are dualling the A9 and making it an electric highway. It is the SNP Government who had to complete the upgrading of what was the last single-track trunk road in Great Britain, the Road to the Isles between Fort William and Mallaig. To date it is the SNP Government and the Scottish Parliament, not Westminster, who have been doing the levelling up for Scotland.
Anyone driving around the highlands or across the Western Isles will see many road upgrades and causeways built by the Scottish Government with the help of EU funds. That was another way of having to make up for Westminster letting Scotland down. How will Scotland get its full share of the UK prosperity fund, given that access to the EU structural funds is no longer available?
We can talk about levelling up, but, as the Prime Minister said himself in the build-up to the Scottish referendum,
“A pound spent in Croydon is of far more value to the country than a pound spent in Strathclyde.”
Given that he has never apologised for that, it is hard to believe that he is taking the “levelling up” agenda seriously.
Another contradiction in the Budget and the big infrastructure projects proposed by the UK Government is the fact that they also propose to remove the red diesel rebate for construction plant. That would double the cost of fuel for plant hire companies, which would be passed on to clients. Have the Government considered the cashflow implications? Have they actually thought through the measure in total? The Red Book shows an income of an extra £5 billion over two years. That is £5 billion, more or less, added on to construction projects, so the Government are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Because of Scottish devolution, the Scottish Government and local authorities need to pay more for construction projects, and that money goes back to the Treasury, so we will be subsidising the Treasury yet again.
Another transport project that was supposed to level up connectivity between the regions and nations is the third runway at Heathrow. However, the UK Government lost in the court because they did not allow for aviation emissions to be aligned with the Paris agreement. They will now turn round and say that it does not matter because it is private investment, and it is up to Heathrow to sort it out. Well, it is not up to Heathrow to sort it out; it is up to the UK Government to do that, because climate change is their responsibility. They should follow the Scottish Government’s lead, and include aviation emissions in their net zero target. Moreover, if they are clear about levelling up, where are the public service obligations to protect the extra slots if the Heathrow third runway goes ahead? That is another vital aspect of connectivity.
There is also the issue of HS2. Where is the levelling up there? The route starts in London. The first phase is between London and Birmingham, and the London-Crewe section will follow. Trains will travel more slowly between Crewe and Scotland, because they cannot travel as fast on the existing main line. How can it be levelling up for us to have a poorer service once the high-speed trains are up and running—and where is our share of the Barnett consequentials? Roughly £750 million is due to us to date. If we are given that money, we can get on with our own infrastructure projects.
The Government have a big job to do if they are to hit their net zero carbon target by 2050. It will mean further strategic infrastructure investment, which will need to be done correctly to achieve this levelling up. That means investment in energy infrastructure. Again, we await the Government’s White Paper. When will it come, and when will we have a coherent energy policy that makes energy efficiency measures part of a national infrastructure project? The National Infrastructure Commission has long called for that, as has the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. The Scottish Government have led the way, spending four times as much as the UK Government per capita.
We need proposals for carbon capture and strategy—the current Budget proposals are too vague—and we need to end the nuclear obsession. It is completely illogical to pay £92.50 per MWh for Hinkley for 35 years, compared to just £40 per MWh for offshore wind and a 15-year concession. We need to invest in renewable energy.
We need a levelling up of broadband and mobile coverage. The proposed infill still leaves Scotland behind. The UK Government are contributing only £21 million to the £600 million R101 programme. The size of Scotland’s land mass is roughly 60% of the size of England’s, yet we will get only 18% as much funding as England from the UK Government. That is not levelling up.
If Westminster were serious about levelling up, it would make up for those deficiencies—and if it is not willing to level up, let Scotland become an independent country and we will level up on our own terms.
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
The backdrop to the debate is very much one of a serious crisis with huge implications for us individually and collectively, for our country and for our economy. Before I touch upon the Budget itself and the subject of today’s debate, I want to make one observation. The overwhelming majority of the people of this country are employed by small and medium-sized businesses; people’s mortgage, lifestyle and standard of living depend on them. Indeed, the wealth of this country very much depends on small and medium-sized businesses. Therefore, looking at this crisis, I hope that when the Chancellor makes his statement this evening he concentrates on the lifeblood and the success of those businesses. Otherwise, the crisis will be detrimental to the long-term health and success of this country.
Specifically on the Budget, I want to make three comments. The first is one of support and encouragement to the Government. The second is one of hope. The third is a word of caution from somebody who is a strong supporter of the Government.
I very much support and congratulate the Government on the serious amount of capital investment that they propose for the regions, and not just for the north. It is widely recognised that that is badly needed, and indeed, many people would suggest that it is long overdue. The important thing is that this must not be a splurge. We must not see a surge of money going into investment and then a famine in a few years’ time. We need consistent and maintained investment for many years—indeed, beyond this Parliament. We should almost be suggesting that this is a cross-party initiative, because it might well go beyond the Conservative Government. If we are to see real change in our regions and in the north, in our roads, rail and airports, and in digital and skills we need a sustained period of investment.
Through that investment, what we ultimately want to do is create an environment for business to thrive. In many respects, the success of this investment will not be the new roads, new rail and so on. It will be whether there is private sector investment following Government and taxpayer investment. We want to see private sector jobs and wealth creation in the north. Indeed, I want people wanting not to come to London for their career, but to go to other parts of the country. I also give a word of warning: we should always remember that Governments do not create wealth; it is business and the private sector that do so.
I also support the Government’s review of the Green Book, which again is long overdue and extremely welcome. That will create a real opportunity to see investment going to places that have wrongly missed out in the past.
My second point is about hope—a hope that the Government’s is a real ambition to change our public services and our complicated tax system; a hope that we have the ambition to reform social care and to look at how we can reform other public services, improve their performance and develop them for the future; a hope that we have true reform of local government and real devolution to the regions, so that they can make their own decisions and investments, and have some self-governance in a way that we have not seen in our regions for many years; and a hope that we see some reform of the taxation system to make it efficient and fair, and making a real contribution to the economy—less tinkering, more simplicity.
To give one specific example, I suggest looking at reform of inheritance tax—a tax that is disliked by many people, by those who are going to pay it and those who are not, and indeed by future generations, who think their parents might pay it or that they themselves might have to pay it. It is not a tax that raises a huge amount of income for the Treasury, but, through some simplicity and with some changes, it could be fairer and at the same time generate more money.
Thirdly, I have a word of caution. I appreciate that we have a serious crisis going on, and I recognise that the Government will be looking to supply a great deal of funding and support for businesses, individuals and organisations up and down the country, but I am a fiscal conservative and I do, in the long run, believe that we must live within our means and that we must have balanced budgets. We cannot borrow forever. Looking around the world at other economies, we see that those that are debt laden do not function as well. Looking back to the 2008 crisis, the borrowing was £40 billion a year. That was after 16 years of economic growth, yet the Government at that time were still borrowing instead of repaying debt.
We have had 10 years of growth, yet we still have a substantial budget deficit. The danger for us is that if at some point in the future there is a rise in interest payments, that will have a very detrimental effect on the state of our nation’s finances. Rates might well rise at some point, and unexpectedly, in the way that other things can hit an economy out of the blue.
I therefore suggest to Government that while they plan for future annual growth in the economy, we must always remember that recessions will happen. Indeed, given the present crisis, a recession might already be under way, so we must be prudent in the long run to ensure that the nation’s finances stack up and that we have the firepower to deal with downturns when they come. A final point: prudence is a virtue, and it is one that I believe the Government should follow.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Although the investment that this Budget provides in our public services is welcome, it does not go far enough, and it does not bring our public services and local authorities back to a level we saw before this decade of austerity began in 2010. Our councils and public services are suffering and they need some genuine hope that austerity really has ended.
The Government’s new commitment to borrowing to invest, set out in this Budget, shows that the past decade of austerity was a failed experiment and that, ultimately, our communities and public services endured a long decade of hardship and immense pressure for a political choice. As we know, the budget for the Welsh Government has been cut by £4 billion since 2010, and this new investment does not come close to delivering the support our local authorities and our communities desperately need now. The additional £360 million of funding promised for Wales is welcome, but much more is needed, especially given that the UK Government clawed back £200 million from Wales on a recalculation only earlier this year. We all know that this welcome money does not come close to dealing with the cost of repairs and recovery following last month’s floods, let alone to supporting the Welsh NHS and all our other public services, which continue to suffer and operate under continued pressure from austerity, particularly as they prepare for dealing with the virus. We have been told time and time again that austerity is ending or has ended, and this Budget was a missed opportunity to give us all some hope that that is now truly the case. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has since confirmed what we all already knew: that this Budget does not end austerity or truly reverse the decade of cuts our communities have suffered.
On the virus, although the extra package of support announced by the Treasury to help the Welsh Government deal with the outbreak in Wales is welcome, we need clarity on exactly what will be provided and when, so that Wales can be prepared for the next stages of the spread; especially as the Welsh NHS is already under significant pressure from operating on budgets that we have endured since 2010. We have concerns about the impact on the training-based apprenticeships and on training providers, trainees and apprentices. Obviously, a lot of that is a devolved area, but we need much more support from the UK Government to ensure that Wales is able to meet its responsibilities in these areas.
Due to the unprecedented nature of the spread of this virus and its devastating impact on businesses, communities and, crucially, families, I urge the Chancellor to bring forward emergency measures to support jobs, small businesses, including pubs and restaurants, and the most vulnerable in our society, as we all attempt to weather this increasingly serious and constantly changing situation.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need support for not just small businesses, but one-person businesses? I have been inundated by constituents contacting me because they run a business by themselves and do not qualify for much of this support. I hope that the Chancellor will make an announcement on that, because many people are desperate for that help in the future.
Gerald Jones
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on that. Indeed, only yesterday, I received an email from a constituent who was having similar problems. Such support is appropriate and we hope that the Chancellor will bring forward some measures later today or in the very near future.
I welcome the Welsh Labour Government’s response to the outbreak, which has seen a £200 million emergency package provided to support retail, leisure and hospitality businesses across Wales suffering due to the outbreak. We must also support our food banks in the coming months, because we know they will be needed much more than ever.
It was shocking that the Chancellor made no mention of Wales when talking about the damage from last month’s flooding. Communities in Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, and across Wales, were some of the hardest hit by last month’s storms, and the funding we desperately need to recover must now be forthcoming, as it has been promised—by the Prime Minister indeed. The cost of the initial repairs is estimated to be more than £15 million in my constituency alone, and we need assurances that Wales will not lose out and will get the funding it needs for our communities and businesses to recover.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) mentioned earlier, it was alarming not to hear anything in the Budget statement about progress on how EU development funding will be replaced at the end of the year. There are just nine months to go until the EU development funding programmes end and we have still not had any information or clarity from the Government on how the funding streams will be replaced, or any clarity on the proposed shared prosperity fund. For months, Members from all parties have called for clarity on the fund. The people of Wales need answers. There is a gap of well over £300 million in EU funds for the Government to fill. They cannot hide or kick the issue into the long grass any longer. Our public services, local authorities and businesses need assurance and must be given time to prepare for the transition. I urge the Minister to give us clarity and confirm that it will be “not a penny less, not a power lost,” as we have been promised time and again.
I welcome the measures introduced so far to help our communities and businesses to cope with the current situation with covid-19. I praise the Welsh Government in particular, and local authorities and community organisations in Wales and throughout the UK, for how they have responded to the virus and sought to protect the most vulnerable among us. I also praise the incredible acts of kindness and compassion that we have seen from so many residents—I know that all Members are seeing the same in their communities—as well as the community initiatives we have seen as we endeavour to help those who need it most. We will unfortunately need much more of that in the coming months.
Finally, I urge the Chancellor and the Government to take the decisive action required to protect those who will be hit hardest by the virus outbreak and who do not have the means to support themselves. It would be a good start to remove the five-week wait for universal credit and to support self-employed workers with a realistic statutory sick pay. I hope the Minister will show that this message and the calls from other Members have been heard, and that the Government will now do what is necessary in this increasingly severe and fast-moving situation.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in this debate as part of a Government who understand their fiscal responsibility and have produced a Budget that delivers on its promises to the British people and lays the foundation of prosperity for tomorrow. I am grateful for the firm economic foundations as the economy and the Budget are currently overshadowed by coronavirus.
I pay tribute to the support workers, nurses, doctors, volunteers and residents in my constituency. I am immensely proud of them all. The community has come into its own during this incomparable crisis with a sense of true British “Keep calm and carry on” spirit, helping those most vulnerable and in need. I would expect nothing else from my brilliant constituents.
Last night, when I thought about speaking in this debate, I thought at first that my heart would not be in it because of the pressing crisis, but instead that crisis has highlighted to me the importance of the Budget, which is about levelling up and getting Britain building, and whose foundations will see us through this crisis. Levelling up has been compared by some in the media to the verbal equivalent of Polyfilla or mere political jargon, but levelling up has been taking place for the past three years in the urban west midlands, with not an ounce of Polyfilla in sight. For this debate, I will specifically focus on the urban west midlands.
After decades of losing out and falling behind after successive Labour councils across the region failed to work effectively together, the urban west midlands is starting to catch up. It is without doubt that that is because in 2017 the West Midlands elected its first Mayor, who of course was Andy Street, a Mayor who recognised the need to level up because the people in the west midlands had fallen behind London, Manchester and other cities. His approach has secured £2.3 billion of extra funding from central Government; brought jobs and investment to the west midlands; secured investment from overseas companies; and brought together the team to secure investment from the Government to ensure that the Commonwealth games will be hosted in Birmingham. His approach has seen the urban west midlands on the cusp of economic renaissance.
I wish to take a few minutes to correct politely a few comments made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) last week. He asked for some evidence of Andy Street’s influence, and I am happy to oblige: £350 million for building homes on brownfield sites; £210 million for expanding the metro; £150 million for apprenticeships and skills; £30 million for new bus routes; £10 million to tackle rough sleeping; and £250 million for improving our high streets.
There is more. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned unemployment, which has fallen in the west midlands by nearly 50% since 2010. In the years during which Andy Street has been Mayor, some 97,000 new jobs have been created and there are nearly 7,000 new businesses. Nearly 50,000 people have started apprenticeships, too.
The right hon. Member mentioned housing. More than 31,000 homes have been built across the west midlands since Andy became mayor. That is a 42% rise, and, as I said last week, he smashed his own target of 25,000. Rough sleeping is down by a third because of his Housing First scheme.
This Budget gave us £160 million for the metro and for buses and a share of £4.2 billion for more rail and metro improvements. Construction has begun on the £449 million metro to Dudley and Brierley Hill. Please, Andy, if you are listening, do not forget to add a few extra tracks of the metro stretches to Stourbridge. This Government are also levelling up on the railways, developing the west midlands rail hub
The west midlands has been levelling up for the past three years, and, thanks to this Government, it will continue to do so in the future. That is the same levelling up that this Government are bringing to the whole country to provide opportunity and to share prosperity across the UK. The Government’s commitment to levelling up and getting Britain building will see impressive feats of engineering not just in the west midlands, but across the country. My one request to this Government is to do it sustainably and sympathetically to our natural environment. Whatever we are investing in for the future, we must respect the environment that they will share.
I welcome the announcement last week to reform our planning system and to bring forward a White Paper by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government. I hope that this planning reform will make the most of disused and neglected land. I welcome the Government’s announcement that they will launch a register of brownfield sites, which is backed by £400 million across the mayoral combined authorities to bring mostly unused land back to use. I hope the White Paper will have the confidence to follow the brownfield first example, which was set in the urban west midlands.
In conclusion, I welcome this Budget and the opportunity to level up and get Britain building. The only way to drive economic growth, as the urban west midlands has shown, is to boost productivity. Thankfully, it is this Government who will see us through this medical crisis—a Government who have a sense of fiscal responsibility and who recognise that levelling up will ensure the future prosperity of every town and city in this great and United Kingdom. It is a Budget that delivers on its promises to the British people to get things done, while also understanding that additional support in light of covid-19 will now have to be considered.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Budget that the Chancellor introduced six days ago is already out of date. While I appreciate that we are in untested times, I urge the Government to get ahead of the curve, as opposed to behind it.
I welcome the shift in policy yesterday away from the assumption that most people would get infected with covid-19 to stopping the spread in its tracks. I must say that I was a little surprised that, after seeing what happened in other countries, we thought that it would be different in Britain and that perhaps the virus would spread differently.
China is ahead of us and is therefore at least a model of what is likely to happen here. In China, there has been a 20% drop in economic activity. Something similar will happen in the UK, so we need a plan and we need urgent and decisive action. A significant drop in economic activity already means redundancies and people being laid off, especially the millions in the gig economy or on zero-hours contracts. There will be no alternative for them but to sign on. The current benefits system, with its six-week delay, is not fit for purpose. We need a system that can act fast. There must be no delays in payment and processing—no delays at all.
Secondly, we will have millions of people in the UK who—hopefully temporarily—will have less money coming in. Hundreds of thousands of those who are just about managing will not be able to manage without extra support. We must not allow this sudden loss of income turn into a housing crisis, so my second ask of Government is to protect renters and to make it temporarily illegal to evict tenants for non-payment of rent because of the covid-19 crisis.
My third ask of Government is to support businesses through the next few months. That is particularly important to my constituents in Bath, many of whom are in the leisure and hospitality industry. It makes no sense for these businesses to go under because of a temporary loss of customers. The Government need to make it easy and quick to access bridging loans, as announced in the Budget last week. Currently, there is no detail of how that access and the process are working, and we need that information fast. We need a serious commitment from Government that none of those businesses in the leisure and hospitality sector will go under because of the coronavirus.
Turning to the Budget response to the climate emergency, the Budget should have been an opportunity for Government to match their rhetoric on tackling the climate emergency with real action—now, more than ever, as Parliament voted to commit to a net zero target and as the UK is hosting COP26 later this year. The UK should show leadership on tackling the climate emergency, but the Budget falls short in many ways. While there were encouraging announcements on electric vehicles and charging points, they were negated by the Government’s continued support for road building and petrol and diesel vehicles. The fuel duty freeze in the past 10 years has not resulted in an increase in people taking public transport but in an increase in cars on the road and fewer people using public transport. That should not be the direction pursued by a Government who are genuinely committed to taking all petrol and diesel vehicles off the road in 12 years’ time.
Where are the plans for the complete electrification of rail travel? The electrification of the line to Bath has been halted. When will it be completed? Most worryingly, there was no mention of any Government plan to tackle the UK’s greatest source of carbon emissions—our homes. The challenge is twofold: first, to ensure that any home that is a new build is fit for a net zero future and, secondly, to upgrade our current housing stock to make it energy-efficient.
There is no real ambition on that—the Government have only committed to require the future homes standard from 2025. They should legislate now, so that the thousands of new homes that will be built over the next five years will be net zero straightaway. The greater challenge is to retrofit the current housing stock so that it is energy efficient. That will be challenging and expensive, but is crucial, both in reducing the emissions from our houses and for alleviating fuel poverty. It is therefore frustrating that there was no mention of any action on that in the Budget. It is not enough simply to hope that people will upgrade their home’s energy efficiency. People living in homes with the worst energy efficiency ratings are often the poorest and most vulnerable in society.
The Government, who cancelled the Liberal Democrat green new deal scheme without a replacement, need to take the climate emergency seriously, and replace words with action. That means ensuring that we have just measures so that the burden of the net zero transition does not fall on those who can least afford it. The Chancellor should use the Government’s new-found affection for spending to provide support for upgrading all houses and building to energy efficiency grade C or higher. Rather than building roads, we should invest a lot more in public transport.
The coronavirus crisis is uppermost in our minds, but it has not simply replaced the climate crisis, which continues to be the most pressing issue of our generation. Not responding adequately will result in catastrophic cost to human life. The Government must step up.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). I offer congratulations, too, to my hon. Friends the Members for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy), for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) and for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines), as well as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), on their maiden speeches. It is a real honour to serve in Parliament. I am proud to be part of the 2019 intake of MPs across the Chamber, and we are all profoundly humbled by the circumstances and responsibilities that are on our shoulders.
The Budget was delivered in truly exceptional circumstances that have grown ever more so in less than a week. This is a challenging economic environment for us as a nation as we face the global coronavirus outbreak, and I hope that colleagues across the House will recognise the Chancellor’s willingness, first of all, to give the NHS whatever help it needs to get through this unprecedented challenge. To describe this as a baptism of fire for the Chancellor and, of course, for the new Governor of the Bank of England, Andrew Bailey, whose appointment I welcome, would be significantly to understate things.
Our new Chancellor was extremely impressive last week, as he set out the measures that we are taking to protect, as best as we can, our economy, our workforce and indeed our entire population from the damaging financial effects of coronavirus, and I look forward to his making a statement later today in the same vein but with significantly more firepower. I must especially speak up for the small business owners of pubs, bars and restaurants and all their employees, many of whom have been in contact with me today. This is a hugely worrying time for these firms, which are pillars of their communities as well as of their local economies.
I turn to the substance of the Budget. The first point that I want to make is that it has delivered on the promises in our manifesto—promises that the British people voted for last December and that won us our majority. We are delivering the largest cash boost for the NHS in history, as we promised. The announcement of funding for 40 new hospital projects and the protected capital investment budget, to ensure that estate refurbishment and maintenance across NHS buildings goes ahead, is another manifesto pledge delivered.
I am particularly pleased by the announcement of £17.6 million of capital investment for the Royal Stoke University Hospital to build three new modern wards to increase capacity there. This Budget was also the first part of our long-term plan for levelling up the British economy—something that my constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme will hugely welcome. North Staffordshire has historically not had the best deal, so I am delighted to see concrete plans in the Budget to ensure that everyone across our country has the opportunity to succeed, especially in Newcastle-under-Lyme and north Staffordshire more widely.
I am also pleased at the announcement that the Department for Transport has included improvements to the notorious M6 junction 15 in the second road investment strategy. I promised Newcastle-under-Lyme residents that I would call on the Government to act and am delighted that my concerns and those of my colleague and neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), who has also been campaigning on this issue in his time in the House, have been heard. Work must now be done to see what a new junction 15 could look like and how quickly that much needed improvement can be brought forward. That will have important benefits for my constituents, particularly those in the southern suburbs of Clayton, the Westlands and Westbury Park.
I hugely welcome the Government’s commitment to put 0.8% of GDP into research and development; it is particularly welcome that that would place us above countries such as the US, China and Japan as a proportion of GDP. I especially welcome the commitment that more R&D funding will go to universities outside London, the east and the south-east of England. World-class science is happening right across the country. For example, fantastic, innovative projects are taking place at Keele University science park in my constituency, such as the smart energy network demonstrator and the hydrogen project HyDeploy, which should provide greener energy from our gas network. We also have a number of world-class firms in our science park, such as the vaccine manufacturer Cobra Biologics and Pharmaceutical Services, whose skills and capacity will, I hope, be tested sooner rather than later.
I hope that Keele will benefit from the increase in R&D funding, along with many other institutions across our country. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s announcement about investing £800 million into a model based on the US Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency is also very welcome and relevant at the moment. I know colleagues across the House will be particularly interested in seeing how that money is going to be used. Alongside my colleagues on the Science and Technology Committee, I will be looking at how it is best spent to ensure that we are investing in ideas and pushing our country forward.
I turn to a couple of campaigns. I am glad the Chancellor responded to the lobbying on the issue of the fuel duty freeze from me and other MPs in the Blue Collar Conservatism group. We promised during the general election that we would be on the side of hard-working families if we got into government, and that is why I am so delighted that he confirmed that fuel prices will not be going up in this Budget. The fuel duty freeze will make a huge difference to hard-working people in Newcastle-under-Lyme who rely on their cars—the cumulative effect is now about £1,200 more for the average driver. I also repeat my previous pleas in the House for investment in public transport provision across north Staffordshire, starting with a super-bus network.
I am delighted that the Chancellor has announced he will axe the reading tax on digital books, newspapers and academic journals from 1 December 2020. That was another campaign I had supported ahead of the Budget, and the announcement is fantastic news. The decision will make a huge difference to people with disabilities who struggle to read or handle printed books, and remove a barrier to literacy for children and young people, 45% of whom now prefer to read on a digital device.
In conclusion, I welcome the Budget and I expect to welcome the additional measures the Chancellor will be taking later today. These are unprecedented times, and he and the rest of the Government will have my full support in dealing with the challenge that we must now face.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I start by paying tribute to all the staff of our national health and social care services, who are working around the clock at the moment in difficult and unpredictable circumstances. They are doing an amazing job. They are resilient and hard-working, and I want to thank them all. I also thank all the staff in both Houses and on this estate for persevering and coming into work at this worrying time.
My message to the people of Newport West, and people right across our country, is that they must follow the medical advice published by the devolved Governments and the Government here in Westminster, to stay as safe as possible. I pay tribute to the well-established and enduring community spirit of the many people in Newport West who have got organised and are looking out for their neighbours and ensuring that all those in need get the support they deserve. They are a credit to their communities and I thank them for their public-spirited nature.
I welcome the measures in the Budget that will be directed to efforts to combat covid-19. I agree that this is a time for calm heads and wise decisions. We meet today in unique and uncharted territory. I recognise that this is a time for respectful and sensible co-operation among the parties in this House. I know that we, the Opposition, will play our part, but one specific request I must make on behalf of small businesses, including the pubs, clubs and bars of Newport West, is for the Minister to please ask the Chancellor to bring to the House special measures to help people who are so worried for the future of their businesses and their staff.
The background to this Budget is a climate emergency, a global pandemic and a Tory Government who have finally found the magic money tree after a long 10-year love affair with austerity. Four Chancellors, three Prime Ministers and a decade of under-investment have forced the Government to launch a levelling up agenda. I think it is less about levelling up and more about making up for lost time and the wrong decisions. From my weekly surgeries and talking to people right across Newport West, I know that our social security system has lost its way. We need to rebuild it from the principles on which it was founded: supporting people rather than policing them, and alleviating poverty rather than forcing people into it. The first missed opportunity of this Budget was to scrap universal credit once and for all. It has caused severe hardship for many people because of the major flaws in its design and the way it has been rolled out.
The second missed opportunity in the Budget was keeping our communities safe. Since 2010, the Tories and their allies—the Lib Dems and the Democratic Unionist party—have cut the police, police community support officers and police civilian staff, and that has been made far worse by the fact that the prosecution rates for all crimes has hit a new low. The other side of this important issue is the fact that the prison system in England and Wales has been pushed to breaking point through under-resourcing, with widespread violence and evidence of radicalisation in prison. That has been made worse by the fact that legal aid and the courts have been decimated by cuts, undermining access to justice. That proves that the Tories cannot be trusted to keep our country safe.
Another issue I am increasingly concerned about is the fact that free access to cash is reducing at an alarming rate. That is hugely impacting on the most vulnerable people and communities in all parts of the UK. The Government must take the strongest and most effective action to maintain free access to cash in our communities, and I particularly welcome the campaigning work done by the magazine Which? on that important issue.
In the recent debate on the Queen’s Speech, I noted that in my constituency of Newport West the average household wage in Marshfield is double the average household wage in Pillgwenlly. Those two communities are separated by just a few short miles. I hope the Government will focus on levelling up wages and creating a more equal society by deeds and not just words. I am pleased that the Government have listened to Members on all sides of the House and abandoned their plans to hike tax on motorhomes by 705%. That is a welcome step for those who own a motorhome, and it shows that campaigning by MPs of all colours can work.
Lastly, I want to say a word about our country. This United Kingdom is meant to be a Union of equals, but the lack of investment in and respect for Wales is nothing short of disgraceful. I caution the new Tory MPs in north Wales to not think that the Chancellor is their friend if this Budget is anything to go by. Just weeks ago, the Welsh Government were forced to return £200 million to the UK Treasury. That was just a couple of weeks before the people and communities of Wales saw millions of pounds-worth of damage caused by the recent flooding, which hit Wales and its communities very hard indeed. The Government allocated funds for flood resilience, but they need a fully funded and long- term plan, and they need it now. The Government talk about levelling up, but they now need to start thinking up and talking up our communities, too, in deeds as well as words.
I am proud to serve the people of Newport West, the people of Wales and the people of our United Kingdom, so I will keep working to scrutinise the Government and hold them to account to ensure that we can all be part of the building up—whenever it happens—and not just the favoured few.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I would like to echo many of the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) about the coronavirus outbreak. While there were measures in the Budget to provide increased and potentially unlimited funding for the NHS if required, we look forward to hearing more from the Chancellor today for our small and medium-sized businesses, charities, employees and employers, businesses of all types and schools and colleges—particularly in areas such as mine, where people often do not have the option of working from home, including those in the manufacturing sector and the tourism and leisure sector. This is also massively affecting our high streets, and I hope that specific measures will be brought forward to look after them. I urge Members and their communities to sign up to become Red Cross community reserve volunteers, which is a very effective way of getting involved in the local community, particularly if the coronavirus spreads as rapidly as one expects it to over the next few weeks.
Turning to the substance of the Budget, I echo the words of the hon. Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones) on the motorhome tax. She and I have both been campaigning on that and I am glad to see the Government move swiftly to reverse that measure, which would have done great damage to both our communities.
More broadly, I very much welcome the extra funding for 4G roll-out and high-speed broadband in constituencies such as mine with large rural communities. That will help us to compete in this new era, especially when so many of our homes and businesses are so far away from telephone exchanges. Full-fibre broadband will help them move into the 21st century.
I welcome the news on buses. Through the national bus strategy, I hope that some of my rural communities—those in Crook, Willington, Tow Law and Weardale—will be able to benefit from increased services, particularly later in the evening and at weekends, when many people struggle to get out and about if they do not have a car. I also welcome the extra cash for high streets and the reopening of the towns fund. My constituency did not get any of that money in recent years and the town of Consett and the villages in the south of my constituency are looking forward to working with Durham County Council to bid for that money.
Research and development is immensely important to my constituency, which lies just outside the university town of Durham. We are looking forward to getting cash in this area, particularly as some of the university’s facilities brush the edge of my constituency. We would like that extra money to help us to upskill the economy. I welcome the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) saying that steel is not a sunset industry. We can certainly see that in north-east England, with the Mayor of Tees Valley, Ben Houchen, bringing back steelmaking to the region.
The more than £100 billion of investment in transport infrastructure, out of a total £640 billion on infrastructure over the next few years, is most welcome. We need to see our region tied into the major transport hubs across the north-east, and I hope that Consett and the surrounding area will get their connection over the next few years into Newcastle, so that we can be part of that growing and thriving city.
Before I finish, I want to pay tribute to some of the maiden speeches today. On election night, the victory of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy) gave me the first indication that it was possible that I might be entering this place. I pay tribute to him and his wife Maureen for the welcome they have given me since I joined the House. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), who has joined me on the Public Accounts Committee. I look forward to working with him on investigations into how we spend taxpayers’ money.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) said that it is important that individuals and community groups are able to take on public authorities and the state when they feel that they have been threatened, such as in the Hillsborough situation. I commend those words and support him in that. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) spoke of the Prime Minister’s rough and tumble approach to politics. I am sure that she will be more than capable of dealing with the rough and tumble of this place.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)
I am always keen to start speeches with a note of consensus where that is possible and I am sure there is much consensus today. We are dealing with a very serious situation. It is an unprecedented crisis and it brings unprecedented challenges for individuals and businesses. As we are all sitting here in this ivory tower, we need to be really focused on doing the very best that we can to acknowledge what is needed and to do what we can to make sure that that happens, while there are people outside this place keeping essential services running and doing the hard shifts for all of us.
In that consensual vein, I am pleased to add my congratulations to the Chancellor on his presentation of the Budget at this very difficult time. His speech was upbeat. It was positive. It was almost convincing. He sounded as if he believed the Budget he was delivering was as good as the circumstances, which were certainly very difficult, would allow. The circumstances have certainly changed, and changed markedly for the worse. However, as reflection on the Budget itself has shown, it was not as good as it sounded. It was not as good as it could have been and it was not as good as it should have been. For example, COP26 is taking place in Glasgow later this year, we hope—coronavirus permitting—but his Budget did nothing to deliver net zero by 2050. Going into the Budget, we heard repeatedly about this promise of levelling up for people and for places across these islands, but on both fronts the Budget failed to deliver.
All these issues and difficulties are so much more pressing now because of the huge additional challenges we are facing. If we think back to the 2015 Budget—a key event in the austerity agenda—chasing welfare savings and the disastrous roll-out of universal credit have caused misery to countless thousands of the most vulnerable people in our communities—and they are all the more vulnerable just now. So we need to hear significantly from the Chancellor how we are going to stop people falling through the welfare gaps that we know already exist and are going to get so much more significant. This is hugely pressing and it is going to become increasingly so.
The Chancellor needs to tell us what he is going to do to deal with the magnitude of need, and the urgency with which he deals with that will be absolutely vital for our ability to support people, businesses and communities. That is the more pressing because of the unprecedented crisis we are dealing with at the moment. The Chancellor was right that the focus of his Budget was coronavirus and how we deal with that. It dominated everything he said. As he acknowledged, Government action or inaction can influence the spread of coronavirus. Exhorting people to wash their hands, to use handkerchiefs and to self-isolate—these things are really important and we do need everyone to follow the advice that is being given. However, we in this House also need to help people to make the right decisions, even if these decisions will impact on them financially. In that respect, what the Chancellor said fell very far short of what is needed. The measures he announced failed to extend statutory sick pay to roughly 2 million low-paid workers. They have been left to rely on universal credit. Members all across the House will be familiar with the huge number of difficulties that universal credit causes for people, day in and day out, when they fall foul of the delays and the chaos that are essentially built into the system itself. That is not good enough in the situation we are in: it was not good enough before and it certainly is not good enough now.
Following the Cobra meeting yesterday, the approach has been significantly ramped up. The Prime Minister has told people to stay away from many of the services that people who are self-employed, who are on zero-hours contracts and who work in the gig economy are employed to provide. So it is really important that the support available to people in these situations is stepped up. We need to hear more about this—much more—as a matter of considerable urgency.
The Secretary of State for Health also said yesterday in this Chamber:
“We should steer clear of pubs, clubs, cinemas and restaurants.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 697.]
But he did not say anything—he declined to comment—when he was asked whether he actually wanted these businesses to close. That is not okay; it is not good enough. The Government have to formalise their position on business closures. Only then might affected businesses be able to trigger business interruption cover, if that is available and applicable to them. If it is not, the Government need to bite the bullet, to step in and to be the insurer of last resort. They need to do this and to confirm that they are going to do this quickly, because the current lack of clarity spells the death knell for many businesses all across these islands. We need action now. The Government need to take action to stop that from happening.
The Chancellor’s announcement of temporary extensions to statutory sick pay has focused attention on the weekly amount of £94.25, which is the equivalent of someone working fewer than 12 hours a week on the national minimum wage. Surely the Chancellor does not believe that that will encourage people to act early and responsibly if they think they might have coronavirus. It is not good enough and we need much further action.
The Health Secretary said that the Government will give the NHS whatever it needs and do whatever it takes to tackle coronavirus. We can all agree with those sentiments. It is now time for the Government to match their deeds to their rhetoric and they need to do that now.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
I was pleased to be here this afternoon to listen to a number of maiden speeches from colleagues. Before I talk about the need for infrastructure to level up opportunities, I want to address the immediate challenge of coronavirus. I applaud the exceptional dedication of our health service workers and medical experts in delivering a professional response to an international emergency. We all need to play our part, heeding medical advice, but also supporting those who are most vulnerable in our communities, whether it be neighbours or relatives.
I am pleased to see measures in the Budget to support smaller businesses and high streets in the difficult times ahead but I hope that we will be able to go further. It is vital to support employers most affected by this situation and all necessary steps must be taken to preserve jobs for people to go back to. Disruption to transport and travel is particularly acute, and I welcome the measures being undertaken by the Government and by operators. Once the situation is resolved, it will be vital to get the country back on track and refocus on the investment in infrastructure that was promised as part of the Budget.
We in north Staffordshire are well connected to the national infrastructure. The M6, A50, A500 and west coast main line all serve Stoke-on-Trent and, in future, there will be High Speed 2 connectivity. But local transport in Stoke-on-Trent and north Staffordshire is very poor, with chronic congestion on our roads. The A500/A50 currently operates at 110% capacity and often resembles a car park. Incredibly, there is a great dependency on cars, despite 30% of the city’s population having no access to one.
Everyone struggles to get around the conurbation, which limits access to employment, education and leisure opportunities. It also has a dramatic impact on local air quality. The city is currently under ministerial direction to improve dangerous levels of air pollution. It is time to level up. Road congestion and poor connectivity are a major barrier to employment for one of the most disadvantaged parts of the country; it already struggles to access better opportunities. Improved local public transport would support wider developments in the area, unlocking sites that are currently unviable for housing and economic regeneration.
The decline of bus use across the Potteries has been at some of the highest levels in the country, with more than 1 million fewer bus journeys in Stoke-on-Trent in the last year alone. The main reason for that, according to operators, is a lack of reliability and delays caused by road congestion. Perversely, that has led operators to run fewer services at rush hour than during off-peak times.
I am encouraged by the Transforming Cities fund commitment to delivering a multi-modal transport hub at Stoke station, but it is essential that Stoke-on-Trent gets the full ask from that fund. I will be pressing Ministers, and the Secretary of State, on that point. A multi-modal hub at Stoke station is needed, but it also needs to be well connected to local communities across the whole area. It is vital that we see improvements to bus services across the city as well as to smaller local stations. I hope the Government will also give serious consideration to our superbus bid, which would focus on restoring routes, increasing frequency and capping fares, creating more bus priority measures and reintroducing cross-city routes.
In my constituency, I am campaigning to get a station restored at Meir on the existing north Staffordshire line, as well as to reopen the mothballed Leek to Stoke line, with a station at Fenton Manor. With HS2 serving Stoke-on-Trent via the promised Handsacre link, it is imperative that local feeder lines and local feeder stations are opened to spread the benefits of HS2 connectivity across the whole of north Staffordshire. I hope we receive support for our bids to the reopening of railways and stations fund.
On roads, I am grateful that my stream of letters to Transport Ministers and Highways England about M6 junction 15 has not gone unnoticed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) mentioned, we are delighted that the second road investment strategy—RIS 2—will work up a scheme for junction 15 so it can enter its development stages in the RIS 3 pipeline. The Government are delivering the largest ever investment in strategic roads, and I will work with local partners to build the case for much needed local improvements.
I must also mention potholes. I am glad that Stoke-on-Trent has been promised more money to address the decades of under-investment in road maintenance by previous Labour councils. The council is now putting more in, and extra help from the Government means we can replicate elsewhere schemes that have been delivered in New Inn Lane, Anchor Road and Times Square in my constituency over the last 12 months.
I know that the Government are determined to deliver for Stoke-on-Trent, which, as the Prime Minister himself put it to me last week, is
“the crucible in which the future of this country will be forged”.—[Official Report, 11 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 274.]
I am delighted that we are in the running for transport investment from the Government, and I hope they will give us their full backing to truly level up opportunity in Stoke-on-Trent.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
This is my first Budget as a Member of Parliament. When I registered to speak in the debate more than a week ago, I chose to speak about the topic of levelling up and getting Britain building, because after 10 years of austerity hitting hard in my constituency, it is about time we saw some investment. Although the coronavirus crisis overshadows everything, I am still here to speak up on behalf of my constituents, who have been affected by a decade of decline. As my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) said from the Front Bench, we will get through this crisis, but it highlights the fragility of many of my constituents’ lived experience.
Terminology such as “levelling up” allows the Government to create a picture of improving living standards and opportunities, but it is a fairy tale. Instead, the Budget focuses on levelling up the market at the expense of the social infrastructure that serves people across the country. As working people continue to struggle to make ends meet in insecure employment, the benefit system continues to punish the most vulnerable in society and public services are squeezed, the Budget ensures that fat cats in the City of London and big business continue to profit.
To consider whether the Budget can deliver the levelling up it so boldly claims to, we must judge it in the context of a decade of decline and consider whether it will directly improve the lives of our constituents. The political choice of austerity and cuts in public spending over the past 10 years has contributed to a severe housing crisis, and the distinction between the haves and have-nots is stark.
Inequality has rocketed as young people cannot get on the housing ladder, renters are stuck in unfit homes, families in need cannot get a council house, leaseholders are exploited by the system, and homelessness has reached a disgraceful record high. The Conservatives’ reliance on a deregulated free-market ideology has also allowed weak housing standards, as we see from the many poor homes created under permitted development rights, and emboldened commercial property developers. There must be greater investment in good-quality council housing.
According to Shelter, in 2018-19 only 6,287 new council houses were delivered in England, despite 1.15 million households being on housing waiting lists. In the same year, 24,000 social rented homes were lost through sales and demolitions. Since 2010, the number of new Government-funded social homes being built has dropped by 90%. Instead of building council houses or genuinely affordable homes, the Conservative Government have tried to obscure their cuts by labelling more homes “affordable”—even when they are priced for sale at up to £450,000, which would require someone to be lent a mortgage worth nearly 15 times the average UK salary, or to rent at up to 80% of the market rate. Both are completely unaffordable for most families in Luton.
I know the Government will point to the commitment in the Budget to develop brownfield sites and to lower interest rates by 1% when councils borrow for social house building. However, neither commitment will sufficiently address the crisis. Brownfield land, because of quantity, location and remediation costs, will never come close to meeting housing need on its own. The 1% reduction in borrowing costs comes only one year after the Public Works Loan Board increased borrowing rates by 1%. This is smoke and mirrors. To level up and to end the housing crisis, the Government need to be driving a national, publicly funded housebuilding programme alongside councils and housing associations, not simply leaving it to the market.
Similar disappointment is replicated in the Government’s much anticipated and much needed transport infrastructure investment plan. We have a climate emergency and emergencies require urgent action, so public transport must be at the heart of the climate strategy. Instead of investing in a sustainable integrated public transport system, however, the Government announced a £27 billion investment in roadbuilding and a fuel duty freeze. That is more than the investment for all other modes of transport combined. This is ill-thought-through policy- making, when we consider that over 60% of the UK’s rail routes have yet to be electrified and that many train stations, such as Luton station, are in desperate need of remediation.
The underfunding of public transport is not restricted to rail. A decade of austerity has led to buses suffering a real-terms funding cut of £645 million per year, the withdrawal of 3,300 routes, fares soaring at two and a half times the rate of wages, and bus usage in England outside of London falling by 11.9%. Buses are vital to the economic prosperity and social wellbeing of our communities, but the cuts and restrictions imposed on local councils have led to a franchising system which is run to deliver profit to shareholders, not an excellent service for passengers. The creation of an integrated publicly owned transport system would provide a brilliant opportunity to level up our country by addressing regional inequality. Regionally focused investment in transportation is an important part of an effective industrial strategy to boost productivity.
The Budget, however, does nothing to address regional investment inequality and accepts the outdated status quo of London receiving £410 more investment per passenger than the east of England. Rather than using taxpayer’s money to invest in green affordable public transport to promote regional growth, the Government have subsidised failed rail franchises, which, after their collapse or even now in the wake of the crisis, has exposed the limitations of a profit-driven privatised railway and funded the profits of bus operators. Virgin Trains East Coast, Arriva Northern Rail and the loss of bus routes in my constituency demonstrate the failure of a market-driven transport system.
Bringing transport into public ownership is not radical. We have German, Italian and Dutch state-owned companies running our railways and buses, and the profits are used to subsidise European transport. By pursuing a publicly owned, integrated transport system, we could ensure that every penny invested is focused on improving the standard of the service and working to tackle the climate emergency.
This Budget is not about levelling up the country, but a series of policy proposals designed to distract from the damage inflicted over the past 10 years. Our social infrastructure is crumbling. We have a housing crisis. Our transport system is broken. Regional inequality is growing. The Budget is an extension of austerity and a reminder that it is a political choice. It is political opportunism to protect the financial sector and burden our communities with a decade of cuts. It reaffirms what we already knew: the Conservative Government will time and time again choose to put profit over people.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this debate. It has been a real honour to hear so many excellent maiden speeches. Like my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), the moment the Blyth Valley result was declared was the moment I thought I had a chance of entering this place. I will never forget the look on the face of my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy) when he stood on the podium to make his acceptance speech and started with the words, “Thank you, Boris.” It was a memorable moment.
The progression of coronavirus over the past few days, and our response to it, has overshadowed the Budget. It is right that we focus every attention and effort on this significant challenge to our health, economy and way of life. Although it may take some time, we will overcome this challenge. I want to reflect on last week’s Budget statement and how my right hon. Friend the Chancellor signalled the most significant change to our national economic direction in my lifetime.
For the last few decades, our economy has followed a path of centralisation. As a result, money, investment and opportunity have been concentrated in London and the south-east. Cities have prospered while our towns and villages have been left behind. Business in our capital city has boomed, but if someone wants to start a business in one of our northern towns, such as Penistone, Stocksbridge or Chapeltown, they will be lucky to find a bank that will help them with a start-up loan. In fact, they will be lucky to find a bank at all. If someone wants to travel from Croydon to central London to work, they can choose from more than 20 services an hour with a journey time of about 20 minutes. If someone wants to get from Sheffield to Penistone, which is a similar distance, they can expect a journey time of 45 minutes and just one train an hour.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, talent is spread evenly across our country, but opportunity is not. Last Wednesday, the Chancellor delivered a Budget that begins to spread opportunity across every part of the UK. During the election campaign, our manifesto commitment to level up our transport infrastructure and public services struck a chord with voters in my constituency. When I was knocking on doors in Burncross, Midhopestones and Dodworth, people talked frequently about poor or non-existent bus and train services. They spoke of a lack of opportunity for young people and frustration about always losing out to the big cities. Our promises to invest heavily in public transport, hospitals, GPs and schools encouraged people to lend their votes to the Conservatives. We know what happened next.
The Budget was about delivering on those promises and demonstrating to people across the UK, but especially in the north and in left-behind towns, that we meant what we said. We have heard important announcements on infrastructure, such as the commitment to Northern Powerhouse Rail and a £4.5 billion transforming cities fund that will revolutionise the way that northern towns and cities connect, and give access to jobs, training and opportunities.
The hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald) mentioned the £500 million Restoring Your Railway Fund. He was right that that will not open many miles of track, but he has misunderstood what the fund is for, which is to fund business cases for new lines or for existing lines to be reopened, such as the Stocksbridge to Sheffield line in my constituency. Along with the Sheffield city region, we have completed the next stage in our bid to the Department for Transport to hopefully get some of that money to make a clear business case for that service, which will connect residents with jobs, training, leisure and healthcare, and allow cyclists and tourists to visit our fantastic area.
A £5 billion fund for buses and cycle routes shows that the Government recognise how important those local journeys are to our communities. I am holding out for a new number 26 bus between Penistone and Fox Valley. Of course, the £33.9 billion for the NHS and the additional relief measures will make sure that our most valuable national service continues to be the envy of the world.
The Budget sets out a path to future prosperity, in a future where opportunity and growth can be spread evenly and fairly across our country. The key to our success in improving productivity will be helping people in areas such as Penistone and Stocksbridge to start their own businesses that employ people, grow and create wealth. The Budget was unequivocally pro-business. It increased employment allowance, cut rates and made provision for start-up and scale-up loans.
We have a major hurdle to overcome that will require Government intervention, individual effort and national unity. We face economic disruption, but the Government are doing everything they can to make sure that the disruption is temporary, so that when it has passed, we can take hold of our one-nation mission to level up our economy and spread prosperity and opportunity to every corner of the United Kingdom.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)
While I welcome the Government’s delayed decision finally to ramp up some measures yesterday, I am not alone in feeling that far too many major questions have been left unanswered and that not enough is being done. Today’s Financial Times reported that our mortality rate tracker shows that we have more deaths at this stage of the break- out than anywhere except Spain.
A number of questions need to be addressed. Parents with serious health conditions have not been told whether they should send their children to school or keep them at home. What plans do the Government have in place to deal with those families and what is the timeline? If they are supposed to self-isolate with their children, what steps should schools take to ensure that those children are not held back at school? What about cases where a school closes and parents cannot work? How will they get paid?
I want to ask the Government to consider seriously the question of closing schools. I have just received an email from a constituent who says that her son, who is at Salford University, has been sent home for five weeks, but her other son, who is disabled, is still having to attend his primary school. Such inconsistencies need to be addressed.
We are also told that frontline staff are not being tested for coronavirus. Can the Minister confirm whether that is true? If so, what is the Government’s reasoning behind it? We need to know more about NHS capacity. What steps are being taken to move beds from the private sector, and what is the timeline? Will the Government consider following Spain’s example by nationalising all private hospitals?
What about ventilators? To date, 69 people have died, and everyone knows that those who fall seriously ill as a result of coronavirus will need ventilators—they will be our saving grace, and the one thing that will help prevent deaths. However, it seems that we might not have enough ventilators. Germany and Italy are ramping up production of medical ventilators, which cost about $17,000 each. In Italy the army is now involved in the production lines. Can the Minister confirm whether the reports are true that the UK has one small manufacturer of ventilators that has a 40% market share? Will the Government consider giving Ministers specific responsibility for ensuring that UK production is increased urgently by following what Italy has done?
We also have to deal with older people who are vulnerable in our communities. Many of my constituents are coming together to help out, and it is great to see that community spirit, but there are people who are homeless and food banks are reporting shortages. What provision is being given to help local authorities and voluntary bodies meet the needs of vulnerable groups? Again, we need to know what will be given and what the timeline is.
Insecure workers and those on low pay must be protected and supported through this crisis. Many people in Bolton are self-employed or on zero-hours contracts. Now that whole households are being advised to quarantine together, many families will lose all their income unless the Government step in. We will all be in danger if those with symptoms feel unable to stay at home. If they are not going to have any money, they might take the risk of going to work even though they should be self-isolating. That is why full sick pay is needed to cover the entire period for which someone is in self-isolation, and of course if they are then diagnosed with the virus. That has been done successfully elsewhere in Europe. It is a responsibility that we cannot avoid.
Furthermore, some people will be unable to pay their bills, so what is the Government’s plan in relation to mortgage payments, rent, council tax, utility bills, VAT and business rates? Are they thinking of cancelling the debt, or saying that people can defer payment? Rent and mortgage payment deferment options should be made available so that landlords cannot evict tenants and mortgage companies cannot take action against people in these circumstances. The Government need to work with the banks and mortgage lenders to offer mortgage payments.
The same questions about paying staff and bills will apply to businesses that have seen demand plummet, and some are facing bankruptcy. How do the Government propose to help them? How will their policies help those who run out of cash, which is a particular problem for small companies? Of course, other businesses will also be affected.
At the moment, I am not entirely confident that the Government will move quickly to give workers the support that they will need in the coming months. So far, many of their announcements have not been full enough and have not dealt with all those different issues.
Another industry that will be hit is, of course, the hospitality industry. A banqueting suite in my constituency is already preparing for cancellations. It will probably go out of business. Pubs, cafés and other such places will be closing down. They may well go out of business, and all their staff will be laid off. Because the Government have not introduced a compulsory lockdown, those businesses cannot even claim insurance. I know that this question has already been asked, but I do want to know what the answer is. If it is to stop insurance companies having to make a big payment, then the Government can reach an agreement with them. They can subrogate their losses for what they pay out, which is a traditional way of dealing with some of these matters.
Full sick pay and lost earning protection are needed from day one for all our workers, including insecure workers, low-paid workers, and the self-employed who are self-isolating. The Government must give quick consideration to the issue of compensation, and to how much it should be. There will be a great many job losses. That is why there should be urgent action and a rethink on universal credit, which started some time ago. The five-week waiting time should be cut immediately, and the process of making a claim should be simplified. Will Ministers reconsider the requirement to be present for universal credit interviews, immediately suspend sanctions and claimant agreements, and reduce the waiting time for the first payment? What about all the people who have to go to jobcentres to sign on regularly? Have the jobcentres been told to say that those people do not have to go out for the next few months? That would obviously reduce the number of contacts.
I understand that the Government say that their strategy is being led by scientific advisers when it comes to closures of schools or other places, but over the weekend 200 scientists wrote that that was not a good enough policy, and that the Government should be considering closures to ensure that there were the fewest possible contacts in the UK.
That is linked with the question of airports. What are we doing about them? It has already been said that some airlines will be cancelling flights. Of course there are British citizens who are abroad, and who need to come back. What will be done about them? I know that this was raised during Foreign Office questions earlier today, but I think that the Government need to come up with a proper plan for all those people, some of whom live here and work here, and some of whom are not British nationals but work here.
As a famous political scientist once said, the first responsibility of the state is the protection of its citizens, and at this time the citizens of the United Kingdom need their health, and their economic health, to be looked after. In 2008, the Labour Government invested a substantial amount to bail us out of the economic disasters. I know that people have made this a party political issue, but virtually all economists, all world banks and central banks agreed that Labour’s 2008 bail-out package saved our economy. We need that level of intervention now to save our economy. We need to ensure that our people who might be losing their jobs do not lose them, and that companies will be kept afloat. We require the Government to intervene—not in a few weeks’ time, but today.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I am delighted to speak in this debate about levelling up, especially in relation to the Budget. Following the comments of my esteemed hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), I could not think of a better place for the levelling up agenda to take place. We in Stoke-on-Trent are at the heart of the midlands engine. We are on the cusp of the northern powerhouse. We have the M6, the A50 corridor, the A500, the Handsacre HS2 link is coming to our fine city, and we have four international airports within 60 minutes of us. I could not think of a better place, and I am delighted that the Chief Secretary is in his place. I remember when he came with me to Stoke-on-Trent North to visit some of the amazing businesses that we saw on display. He was excited and impressed, and I am sure, having had my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South as his Parliamentary Private Secretary in his previous role, that he has heard about Stoke-on Trent more times than he cares to imagine. I know that the Treasury will be looking to ensure that this fine city, and obviously Kidsgrove and Talke, are delivered for as well. [Interruption.] I say to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn): I will say Stoke-on-Trent much more, believe me, my friend!
I welcome the business-friendly measures set out in the Budget by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, especially the effective abolition of business rates for businesses in properties valued at £51,000 or less as we fight coronavirus for the next financial year. This is excellent news for the high street across my patch, and an opportunity for regeneration as we rebuild after coronavirus, so that we can review business rates to make them fairer and not a burden to our beloved high streets.
I welcome the town deal in Kidsgrove and the opportunity that that will bring to economically regenerate a much-forgotten town, but I also wish to urge that we see an opportunity to improve the high streets within the city of Stoke-on-Trent. Many Members might be aware that, while we are a city under the Office for National Statistics definition, we are the six towns. Sadly, under the future high streets criteria, we are unable to access that type of funding. I hope that when that scheme is rolled out again, towns such as Burslem and Tunstall, but also ones such as Fenton and Longton in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South, will get an opportunity to bid. Burslem, tragically, already has the most closed high street shops in the UK. With this terrible coronavirus, which is going to ravage our economy, the high street will only suffer more.
That is why I urge the Government to continue what they did in Burslem by match funding us to allow £10 million for the Royal Doulton site, so we can redevelop and repurpose the use of some of the land and buildings that we have. Sadly, in Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke, property is so cheap that there is no financial incentive for developers to go in, regenerate those high streets and turn buildings into purpose-built flats. I would be most grateful for any help from the Government in that regard. As we learn to adapt to the consumer changes brought about by the digital revolution, it is absolutely right and correct for the Government to step in and take action to protect the hearts of our towns and cities.
In addition to the supportive measures for business announced in the Budget, I was delighted, as I know many of my constituents will be, to see the national insurance contribution thresholds increase, saving the average employee £104 per year from April. In Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, changes to national insurance mean that people can keep more of their hard-earned cash, and with the increase in the national living wage, those hard-working people will also see a pay rise.
I can hardly go any further without mentioning education. I have a vision of prosperity for Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. That vision can materialise only through investment in education. With the Government investing vast sums in further education, silicon Stoke is very much a real possibility. I want to see Stoke on Trent College partnering with Staffordshire University and Keele University to become an institute of technology and a beacon of the technological revolution. That is even more possible with the money invested prior to this Budget in the redevelopment of Burslem campus, which has included a new, innovative £10.5 million technology hub.
My ambition is to bring free schools to my constituency. I want schools with high standards and high expectations, both at primary and secondary level, which could therefore drive outcomes. That could lead into the ambition of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for one of 11 16-to-19 specialist maths schools to be opened in Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke, with support, I hope, from local entrepreneurs such as Denise Coates of Bet365, Carol Shanahan of Synetics Solutions and Ian Donaldson of Autonet.
Added to that is the £14 billion going into schools to level up per-pupil funding. That means my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke can be provided with more opportunity to unlock their potential. It is fantastic to see investments also announced in apprenticeships and sports.
On a similar note, the Government announced a whopping £5 billion of investment in ensuring that gigabit-capable broadband—that is full fibre, 5G and so on—can reach every UK home by the end of 2025. I have held meetings with the excellent Swedish firm, VX Fiber, operating in Stoke-on-Trent, which informed me that the UK is around 15 years behind Sweden in this technology. This money is enormously welcomed, not only to bring silicon Stoke ever closer, after the Government have already invested £9.2 million to support gigabit into every home in Stoke-on-Trent, but to increase entrepreneurial endeavours, boost the housing market and increase provisions for flexible working. I have been working with my Staffordshire colleagues to bring the very best connections to Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke, so much so that silicon Stoke is slowly morphing into silicon Staffs.
We have a plan, with the backing of our local enterprise partnership, businesses such as JCB and Bet365, and local universities, for a Staffordshire 5G-connected regional growth deal. That would make Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent the first region in the UK to develop a publicly owned digital infrastructure, underpinned by fibre, 4G and 5G, and would make us the first region in the UK to provide 100% gigabit coverage, as this Budget demands. Such a development would create both an at-scale commercial 5G network and a regional 5G demonstrator for future roll-out across the UK. That could potentially unlock billions into a region that, for too long, has seen very little investment.
In one of the first debates I took part in, I advocated a freeze in beer duty and championed the great British pub, so I am over the moon to see duty rates frozen on beer, cider and spirits. I know that Titanic Brewery, a first-class brewing company that I have mentioned before in this House, will be relieved and will be celebrating appropriately.
I applaud my right hon. Friend the Chancellor and the Treasury team for their hard work on finding a way to freeze fuel duty for another year. That is an essential measure to ease the cost of living for many across the country and help people and businesses reliant upon vehicles. I do believe we should set our sights to the longer term when considering greener transportation and more public transportation, and this Budget’s record investment in infrastructure will certainly help to deliver that. However, in the meantime, I believe securing access to be extremely important, and I am proud to be a part of a Parliament that is taking ordinary people’s lives and concerns seriously.
I would like to take this moment to unreservedly welcome Stoke-on- Trent’s shout-out in the Red Book as a potential multi-modal transport hub, under the transforming cities fund. Such a hub would change the landscape of travel across Stoke-on-Trent. A revamped travel map for Stoke could improve connections, with Longport receiving a park and ride, if we are given, as we must be, the full ask in the transforming cities fund bid, and finally deliver accessibility for all at Kidsgrove. Back in 2015, under my predecessor’s predecessor, £5.5 million of public money was given to Network Rail for this, but it is yet to deliver those important Access for All upgrades—that is an abomination.
We could also realise the huge potential for improved cycle and pedestrian routes, especially alongside the Trent and Mersey canal to Stoke station, and pave the way for improved bus services. We hope that that would be through the excellent superbus pilot, which I know my colleagues from north Staffordshire have been anxiously bidding on in order to secure it, especially for Stoke-on-Trent, Kidsgrove and Talke. To parrot the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South again, we have seen 1 million fewer passengers on our buses in the past 12 months and 5.4 million fewer over the past decade. That is a shocking thing to hear and it is certainly not going to help us to reach our net zero target, so that superbus pilot, with the transforming cities fund, would fundamentally revolutionise public transport across Stoke-on-Trent.
This vision stands strong enough on its own, but let us imagine the connective capabilities when the Handsacre link of HS2 is delivered to the area. The transforming cities fund and the opportunities it unleashes for my constituency cannot be understated. This hyper-connectivity could set the foundation for further expansion, such as reopening the Stoke to Leek line, bringing back Milton station and having a station at Chatterley to serve Tunstall. It will also be central to delivering on our campaign promise of levelling up, and regenerating post-industrial towns and cities, while remaining conscious of the environmental framework to reduce emissions and improve air quality. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has an awful lot on his plate, and of course our response to coronavirus must take precedence over all other things, but I would like to raise some issues that remain prominent to my constituents.
Chatterley Whitfield is an incredible example of a heritage site that has huge historical significance and huge potential. Would the Minister be willing to meet me to discuss regeneration projects for sites such as Chatterley Whitfield and how we can create financial incentives for former coalfield sites and communities, as we have seen in the industrial Ruhr, in Germany?
Kidsgrove sports centre is another key local campaign of mine, and its closure, under the then Labour-controlled Newcastle-under-Lyme Borough Council, was a blow to the local community. Is my right hon. Friend the Chancellor making all provisions necessary to ensure that, public health allowing, core community hubs, especially those focused on encouraging a healthy lifestyle, are supported to remain open and active?
I wish to finish by putting on record my thanks to all those in our NHS, social care, schools and other public services, and hope that every one of them is as safe as possible. I know that that feeling is shared among Members from all parties. Like them, I will work tirelessly to ensure that people, businesses and voluntary sector groups are protected as much as possible during these unprecedented times. Never in my lifetime have I ever known such a situation.
In my short time as the Member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, I have met some remarkable people such as June Cartwright, and organisations such as Middleport Matters Community Trust. I know that they will work tirelessly to ensure that we level up Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke and unlock its potential. I know that my community is stronger than any adversity.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I congratulate the Whip on duty, the hon. Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes), on having resisted any temptation to say yes to any request in that speech in the Minister’s absence.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
This Budget has been presented at a time of national and global crisis relating to coronavirus. Indeed, that crisis dominates people’s minds and thinking throughout the country. It is right that one of the main features of the Budget is the measures on coronavirus, and it is those measures that I shall address first.
The Government committed in the Budget to have an open purse for the NHS to combat covid-19. That is exactly the correct approach, but it is wrong to ignore the current state of our NHS and public health service. There have been years of cuts under this Government—cuts to community health provision, the closure of hospital departments and understaffed medical professionals in our hospitals. The list goes on. All those aspects lead to longer waiting lists, delayed appointments and cancelled operations, and cause increased pain, discomfort and burdens for our constituents.
On that note, I thank all the campaigners who some years ago campaigned, with the local authority, to save Lewisham Hospital’s A&E service. I pay special tribute to my predecessor, Heidi Alexander, for the role that she played. That campaign demonstrated what we can do and achieve when we come together as a society, which is exactly what we need to do now.
Years of cuts have meant a reduction in the number of hospital beds and in the number of acute beds in intensive care units. According to figures from the OECD, the UK has just 6.6 ICU beds per 100,000 people, compared with 29.2 in Germany, 12.5 in Italy and 9.7 in France. Sir Simon Stevens, head of NHS England, was arguing that the NHS needed an extra 10,000 acute hospital beds even before coronavirus was spoken about.
We are behind our European friends. I am sorry to say that we are not leading the way on this—not under this Government—and nor are we leading the way on the climate crisis. Out of the G7 countries, the UK’s health spending per person is the second lowest, behind France and Germany. We do not want to be a country that is behind others; we want to be a country at the forefront—at the cutting edge. Our current position is a consequence of a decade of NHS underfunding, wrapped around the auspices of austerity.
Although the Government are picking up the pieces of their own failure by now investing in hospitals and resources to combat coronavirus, I do believe that they are doing so with a level of sincerity. It is not quick enough, though, and there is not enough openness and transparency. We do not need dither and delay. We need more coronavirus testing for public health staff, NHS staff and the public. No one can expect staff to carry on as usual without first being tested. We owe it to the public, and to ourselves, to be able to see a clear picture of how the virus is spreading, who has it and how to manage it.
The people of this country are behaving responsibly. I applaud the British public for beginning to stay at home and for acting sensibly, as well as for working at home, but I encourage them not to panic buy, so that there is enough for all. For example, we all need toilet paper, so will people please consider their neighbours at this time? The legislation that is coming out later this week will seek to address the financial aid that is needed to prevent our society from diving further into unnecessary poverty.
I turn now to pressing issues in my constituency which the Budget did not address: education and social care. This April, 83% of schools will be worse off than in 2015. The National Education Union has claimed that the Budget does not support a long-term plan for the millions of young people being educated within a chronically underfunded system. The Government know that a lack of funding is putting schools and colleges under greater pressure: class sizes are rising; subjects are being dropped; SEN support is disappearing; and inadequate pay is making the staff crisis worse. Furthermore, on the issue of SEN spend and support, from next month, councils will no longer be able to reduce education budget deficits by taking money out of other spending. That will almost certainly squeeze funding for early years and for special educational needs—two areas already financially stricken—and force even more parents towards legal action to get the necessary support for their child’s education.
The Prime Minister gave a commitment in his first speech in Downing Street to fix the crisis in social care with a “clear plan”. That has not happened and is not happening. There is no legislation in the Government agenda on social care and no reform. The Prime Minister needs to keep his promise. He needs to stand by his word to deliver long-term reform, which is needed to increase access to social care; to help the 1.5 million people who are currently going without the support they need; and to support people with dementia to ensure that they receive the additional support that they need. Carers are also part of this as they play a vital role in our society. They are often under-appreciated and underpaid. Standards need to be raised by ending the use of zero-hour contracts, ensuring that carers are paid a real living wage, ending the 15-minute care visits and improving access to training and development for care staff. I wait for the Prime Minister to keep his promise to our country, to fix the crisis in social care and to have a plan.
Finally, I welcome the upgrade to two stations in my constituency and I wish to thank all NHS staff for all they are doing to support our country and to support patients and people affected by coronavirus. I appreciate and thank the medics, the porters, the cleaners, the ambulance drivers and all people who are working for our NHS.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this Budget debate. It is also a great pleasure to speak after some very excellent maiden speeches from my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy), the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne), and my hon. Friends the Members for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) and for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines).
I was particularly intrigued by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley who told us that his wife, Maureen, had said, “If you feel strongly about something get out and do it.” That is why he became an MP. His wife Maureen has much in common with my own wife, Sue. Whenever I complain about something, she will say, “You are a Member of Parliament, do something about it.” So I endeavour to do so immediately, as you can imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker.
We plan to level up the whole country, and we are starting very well with this Budget. As we go north, let us also goes south, west and east. Let us do it all while we are at it. We have excellent new Members of Parliament on these Conservative Benches, plus those of us who have been here a little while, to help get this policy delivered, because it is right that we do that.
I welcome the Chancellor’s first Budget. He came into the hot seat and delivered an excellent Budget, but the coronavirus has meant that the six days from the time that he delivered the Budget to now is a long time, so I look forward to his statement this evening.
Stephen Flynn
It is my understanding that the Chancellor has just made an announcement in relation to support for businesses. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that, when the Minister sums up, he should provide clarity in and around the terms of the loans that are being proposed for business. Although the overall sum is welcome, we do need some clarity on the loans.
Neil Parish
The hon. Member has very much made his point, and I suspect that our Ministers and the Secretary of State have listened to what he said, and I suspect that there will be complete clarity from the Government, as I would expect nothing else.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
My hon. Friend knows me well.
Neil Parish
And, of course, I know the Chief Secretary very well.
I am encouraged by the tireless efforts of NHS staff, and I very much pay tribute to what the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) said: we need to thank medical staff throughout the NHS for all the excellent work that they are doing to tackle coronavirus because it is unprecedented, though we can make all sorts of predictions. We need to be out there and sort it out. That is why the Government have introduced clear measures that will help.
We are going to come under greater pressure over the coming weeks and months, so I welcome the £5 billion emergency response outlined in the Budget. The funding will ensure that the NHS will receive the support that it needs. Even with that large sum of money, we will probably need to keep it under review. I welcome, too, the Government’s commitment to support local councils—the £500 million hardship fund will help local authorities to protect the most vulnerable members of our community. The Government, however, must ensure that that funding is readily available and distributed quickly. We must cut bureaucracy to ensure that individuals and businesses get the support that they need. Very often, we are laudable in this place—Governments of all colours always want to take action—but we must make sure that we take action quickly.
Many local businesses have contacted me rightly to express concern about how covid-19 will affect them. Government measures to suspend business rates and refund sick-pay payments for smaller firms are welcome, but the Government need to be ready to provide more emergency payments to support those businesses. My fear, especially for smaller and, indeed, all types of businesses, is that if they cannot pay their bills the knock-on effect on all other businesses and employees will be huge. This is unprecedented, and we need to take action.
The scientific knowledge and understanding of the virus are constantly changing. We need to ensure that the Government have the flexibility to adapt as the situation unfolds. Across Devon, we have seen an outpouring of offers of support for all those affected. I wish all charities and organisations well across the country, especially in my constituency, so that they come together and keep communities together, because we will very much need to do so through this very, very challenging time. As many Members have said in the House, it is probably the most challenging time that anyone has experienced in living memory, especially because the virus has the potential to lay the whole economy low.
In the Budget, we predicted that the economy would grow by 1.1% this year. It will be interesting to see the effect of coronavirus on that. I would say to the Opposition, who will naturally pour a little doubt on the economy, that in both the coalition and Conservative Governments we have turned the country round with the hard work of the British people. We have turned the economy round, so that we can go forward and spend this money on infrastructure in particular. At the moment, interest rates are low, and we have the ability, according to the Chancellor, to take up loans over 15 years, so we can set reasonably low interest rates for them, all being well, over that period. We need to upgrade our rail and road infrastructure, and deliver broadband across the country, and now is the time to do it. I have said in three or four elections that I am going to deliver broadband to the whole constituency, but I think my constituents are still waiting. I do not want to have to go to them in another election and say about the promise of broadband, “It’s coming—it’s still definitely coming!” Seriously, we have to make sure that we deliver that, as the issue has a huge effect on our economy and businesses as well as on our ability to deliver good business opportunities in the countryside. With the right broadband infrastructure and a very good broadband connection, many businesses can be run anywhere in the countryside.
Naturally, I am delighted that the Chancellor maintained the availability of red diesel for farmers in particular, but also for commercial ferries and fishing boats. It is absolutely vital that we maintain that at this particular moment. Agriculture has seen one of the wettest, if not the wettest, winter of all time, and there are huge challenges. That brings me neatly to the doubling of the money for flood defences to £5.2 billion over the next five years. We have to work out what we are going to do about flood protection. The Environment Agency needs to be absolutely clear about what it is and is not going to defend. We may have long periods of dry weather, but when we have rain it comes quickly and we get a lot of flooding. I look forward to putting the money to good use, but we must be clear about where we are going to spend it.
I am happy to see that £2.5 billion will be made available to fix potholes. Perhaps not at the moment, given the coronavirus, but in normal times, believe it or not, one gets as many letters about potholes as anything else. There are as many roads in Devon as in the whole of Belgium, so imagine the number of potholes. One or two constituents have lost wheels and various other parts of their cars going over them, so it becomes a major issue.
I was very keen to see the money for the A303 and the tunnel under Stonehenge. If my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) were here, he would be delighted. Edward du Cann talked about the A303 in 1958, and it has still not been dualled. We now have the opportunity to build the tunnel and the rest of the dualling from Andover right the way down to Ilminster. I would then like the last piece from Ilminster to Honiton to be done, but I will wait for that to happen. We must get the diggers actually digging the road and delivering. It is important that not only do we put these roads and rail in our Budgets but that we actually deliver them. That is what people want.
I welcome the £1.5 billion in capital spending on further education colleges. There are FE colleges in Axminster, Honiton, Cullompton and Tiverton, and they provide a very good education, including for those who left school young and perhaps did not know exactly what they wanted to do with their lives. They go to further education colleges later in life and do good things for themselves, their families and the country.
Jonathan Gullis
On further education, does my hon. Friend agree that it is so important that we continue with level 2 courses? They may be at a lower level, but for the people my hon. Friend is describing they are an access route to higher level apprenticeships further on.
Neil Parish
I could not agree with my hon. Friend more on level 2 schemes. Going back to nursing and all those types of occupations, it is so necessary and there is a pool of people out there who will be wanting to do that work, so long as they can build their skills and so long as we have the necessary education there. I very much welcome that suggestion, but again we have to deliver it to our colleges.
I also very much welcome the £500 million over the next few years for electric vehicles and charging infra- structure, because we will need many more electric cars. I do not think building roads and bypasses is wrong for air quality and air pollution. Actually, Mr Speaker— Mr Deputy Speaker, I beg your pardon; I have elevated you—I think that when we build a bypass or a dual carriageway and we stop that congestion, we lower the pollution that comes from our vehicles. It is therefore not only good for getting people through. Looking at the A303 and the motorways into the west country—it is a very big holiday area and very good for the economy—it is good for air quality if we can keep those cars moving. If we can make sure that in the future the majority of cars and eventually all cars are electric, then we solve many problems. We would also still have a great ability to have the family car, which I think so many people want.
Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)
Can I remind my hon. Friend that I think hydrogen cars will be making a big entry into the market very shortly? I am waiting for the hydrogen car, so I do not have to plug it in every night.
Neil Parish
My hon. Friend may have to wait a little while for the hydrogen car. I think that there will be some hydrogen cars, but what there will be many more of before that are hydrogen lorries. There is no doubt that the one vehicle where we have a problem is the lorry. It needs huge power for towing loads and the diesel engine, whether we like it or not, has that capability. We actually need a hydrogen lorry, rather than an electric lorry, because at the moment an electric lorry would have to carry most of the weight that it can carry in batteries in order to deliver the power. I can therefore see hydrogen lorries being very effective in the long term.
Stephen Flynn
On that topic, I invite the hon. Gentleman to Aberdeen, where we have hydrogen lorries, hydrogen cars and hydrogen refuelling stations.
Neil Parish
Putting my hat on as the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and having done a lot in previous inquiries on air quality, I should come and see exactly what Aberdeen is doing, because hydrogen has huge capabilities.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Forgive my ignorance, but does a hydrogen-propelled vehicle work on the same principle generally as the internal combustion engine, in that there is an explosion that creates a vacuum that turns a crank?
Neil Parish
I do not have the detail to give an exact answer to my right hon. Friend, but I do know that hydrogen is mainly produced from water with electricity, so the actual fuel itself is so much cleaner and so much less polluting. I cannot give him all the details of exactly how the engine itself runs, but it uses a clean fuel and gives that support.
Overall, I believe that this Budget is very good for the future of this country and the people of this country. I look forward, as I have said, to the statement later this evening from the Chancellor, because I think that the thing that is worrying all our populations and all our constituents at the moment is coronavirus. We need to get through this. We need people to have enough income to pay their rent or their mortgage and keep their families running, as well as their businesses, so that we do not have a knock-on effect of business failure bringing other businesses down with it. I look forward to the statement, and I very much welcome this Budget.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who has such knowledge of rural matters. It is also a pleasure to follow so many fine maiden speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy), for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) and for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) and the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne)—they were all fantastic speeches.
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I would like to talk primarily about the impact of the current situation on business, but I will touch briefly on levelling up, which was going to dominate my speech. I have always been a huge advocate of levelling up—we used to call it “a fairer deal for the north”—so the investment spending is welcome. However, I have made the point before in the Chamber that simply public sector spending will not do.
It is said that if all the economists in the world were laid end to end, they still would not reach a conclusion. I will mention two economists who have different views on this subject. Andy Haldane, chief economist at the Bank of England, said that connectivity is crucial to prosperity. At the other end of the scale, Mark Littlewood of the Institute of Economic Affairs points to places like Doncaster, which are very well connected, yet their economy is not in great shape. The arbiter on this is another economist, David Smith, who writes in The Sunday Times. He says that public sector spending without private sector investment is a waste of money, so we need to ensure that we encourage and incentivise the private sector to invest.
One way of doing that is through super enterprise zones. We could look at the devolved regions. The Tees Valley is a very good example in my neighbourhood. There are nine devolved regions, each with an elected Mayor, and of all those regions, the Tees Valley comes bottom in terms of average wages and GDP. We could, for example, make the bottom three combined authorities super enterprise zones for their entire area, with enhanced capital allowances and no business rates.
Jonathan Gullis
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. In Stoke-on-Trent we have the ceramic valley enterprise zone, which is thriving. Does he agree that, especially in the time of coronavirus, such zones should be expanded to give those businesses every opportunity to survive?
Kevin Hollinrake
Yes, definitely. That will level up in the process, but we have to get private sector involvement. It is the private sector that creates jobs, not the public sector. That is a means to an end in terms of transport spending. We have to get the private sector to move into these areas, start up and scale up or expand their businesses.
I primarily want to talk about covid-19. We are talking about levelling up. If we are not careful with this, there will be levelling down, because the coronavirus will have a huge impact. We cannot even contemplate the size of the impact that this could have on our economy and business sector. This could be an existential crisis for hundreds of thousands of businesses. It is huge.
The situation is so fluid, but we need to give people confidence—and we are getting there—that we will support them through this crisis. I was heartened by the Chancellor talking at the Dispatch Box about what he has done so far and what he will do in future if that is not enough. He has spoken this afternoon about a massively enhanced package, and that is exactly what we need, because the scale of this is huge. Capital Economics does not give the rosiest outlook in its forecast of the economic situation in the UK. It predicts that there could be a 15% drop in gross domestic product within a three-month period. If we compare that with the great financial crash, we saw a 6% reduction in GDP over a few years from 2008.
We need to say to businesses and consumers—and if we do not, it will cost us the amount anyway—what the German Finance Minister said a week ago: that, as far as possible, no company should get into existential trouble and no job should be lost as a result of this crisis. That is the message we need to get out. Macron has said the same thing, with a €300 billion guarantee that no firm will go bust due to social distancing.
Sir Desmond Swayne
That is an admirable ambition to have and I do hope that the Government accept that ambition, but be in no doubt that we have, in effect, closed down the hospitality industry and public entertainment, and that will require the Government to pay those wages.
Kevin Hollinrake
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point. One of the difficulties with the announcement last night was that it was not brought forward with a package of remediation or mitigation. I think that has come today, and clarity of that is very welcome.
We are going to need to pump hundreds of billions of pounds—not the odd billion, £5 billion or £10 billion—into the economy. I think the Chancellor has announced today £330 billion-worth of loans for the business sector, which is absolutely right, with £25,000 for businesses that are not insured for losses from business interruption, plus business rates holidays and three-month mortgage holidays, which is also absolutely right. If we talk about this in terms of hundreds of billions of pounds, the natural question is: where are we going to get that money from? This is a time when we have to set aside the fiscal rules. We will be paying for this anyway, in lost jobs and businesses, redundancy payments and reductions in tax receipts, if we do not put a huge fiscal stimulus into the system right now, so I welcome the measures from the Chancellor.
We need a few things in addition. We saw in 2008 that banks did not support businesses through that financial crisis—there is no doubt about it; in fact, quite the opposite. We need a commitment from the banks, UK Finance and the Treasury that they will continue to cash-flow businesses for as much as they need until they get through this period. To make sure that they do that, we should introduce emergency legislation to bring SME loans and financing commercial loans within the regulatory perimeter. That would mean that banks would have to have the oversight of the Financial Conduct Authority, and indeed of Members in this place, if they did not do the right thing through that period.
Neil Parish
We need to urge the banks to make sure that they offer commercial loans at very competitive rates. We do not want to see the banks trying to profit from the misery for all the businesses out there.
Kevin Hollinrake
I absolutely agree with that, and we must have oversight of that. We also have to make sure that all banks are included in these emergency loan schemes, such as business interruption loans. At the moment, some of the major banks, such as OakNorth, are not in that scheme, because they are not overseen by the British Business Bank. We need to see a widening of the scope of the scheme. We need to do a lot more for micro-businesses, the self-employed and sole traders. I have not seen a lot of support for those people at the moment.
The big thing I want to say is about how the support is provided. The £330 billion of support is great, but businesses will never again see the income lost, so in my view support cannot purely be through loans. We have combine loans—soft loans, interest-free loans or whatever—with putting grants into these businesses, otherwise we are just kicking the can down the road. We cannot simply say that businesses will have to pay, which is what we are saying if they are loans. We are going to have to go further, and that will put up the national debt by a significant degree: £100 billion, £200 billion or probably £300 billion. I am sure we will get the Opposition’s support for that. We have to see businesses through this time, because we will pay for it whatever happens.
I really welcome the measures from the Chancellor so far, and there are great measures again today. We must get through this. We have to give businesses confidence and to say to consumers: “You won’t lose your job. You won’t lose your business. We will get you through this.” That is what we have to say, and that way we will avoid the worst possible side of recession, we will save jobs and we will save businesses. It is the right thing to say, and I am absolutely confident that the Chancellor will do it.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate. Last week’s Budget focused on two issues: the UK’s co-ordinated initial response to the serious threat posed by coronavirus to the UK economic outlook, and a significant increase in public spending to raise productivity, promote growth, and spread its proceeds to all corners of the UK—a process that has been dubbed “levelling up”. That is particularly important in my constituency of Waveney, which is the most easterly constituency in the UK. I shall be focusing on the second issue, but such is the gravity of the first—it is increasingly apparent that this will not be a short-term blip—that the two issues are increasingly becoming intertwined.
It is right to increase public spending in this way, although it is not without risk. It is right because as we leave the EU, we need the economy to be firing on all cylinders, not spluttering along in third gear. Our productivity remains stubbornly low, and in many places our infrastructure is crumbling. We have a host of challenges to address, such as climate change and promoting the green economy, the crisis on the high street, and the urgent need to improve social mobility, so that young people, wherever they live and whatever their circumstances, have the opportunity to realise their full potential. Added to that cocktail, we must now support people and businesses to get through the enormous challenge of coronavirus.
It is important to emphasise the political case for this about-turn. The Brexit vote, which in many respects was repeated last December, was a cry for change. The UK economy as a whole has performed well over the past 40 years, but the proceeds of growth have not been evenly distributed, but rather concentrated in London and the south-east. For so many people, and so many communities, the improvement in our national economic performance has passed them by. They voted for a different way of doing things, and we must now deliver for them.
That different course is not without risk, and it is important that the Government provide reassurance that in the long-term, the UK is still committed to the sustainable and responsible management of our finances. When it comes to infrastructure, the right schemes must be chosen—not vanity projects, but productive and growth-enhancing schemes that are a catalyst for private sector investment. We must ensure that we have the capacity to deliver those projects: the right skills, enough engineers, project managers and planners, and a ready supply of steel, concrete and tarmac. If we do not do that, prices will escalate and schemes will not be delivered on time.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech, and although we differed on the question of Brexit, I agree with many of his points. Does this current crisis reinforce the fact that we must also ramp up UK production and UK ownership of production, and have more British-owned firms? In times of crisis such as this, production overseas and overseas ownership create difficulties. Although we obviously need inward investment, we must balance that with UK ownership.
Peter Aldous
I agree with the hon. Gentleman to a large extent, and we need more companies to be investing in, and based in, the UK. It is important to have UK companies, but I am also proud when companies from around the world invest in the UK. That is something we should be pleased about.
Let me return to infrastructure projects and the need to have the right skills and supply of materials. In 2014, funding was provided for six schemes on the A47 from Lowestoft through Norfolk to Peterborough. Six years later, five of those schemes have yet to see any work starting on the ground. We must ensure that planning and legal frameworks are fit for purpose. The third crossing project in Lowestoft will bring about great positive change to the town. It is an oven-ready scheme—we are ready to go, yet we still await a planning decision that should have been made more than three months ago.
I wish to highlight three aspects of levelling up. First, coastal communities have been left behind in recent decades, but they have so much to offer to UK plc. In Lowestoft, there is a compelling case for investment in the port, which occupies a strategic location. It lies in close proximity to one of the UK’s most productive fishing grounds, from which, as we leave the EU, we have a great opportunity to land more fish and to revive the local industry.
Neil Parish
There is a huge opportunity as we leave the European Union; we will gain much more fish for our fishermen. We must ensure that we not only land those fish but process them. We also need a great marketing ploy across the country to encourage people to eat many more different types of fish, so we do not have to export quite as much and we eat more of our own fish.
Peter Aldous
My hon. Friend is spot on. To make the most of this opportunity, we need to invest in infra- structure—in port infrastructure, markets and processing factories. That would be so much help to coastal communities that have been left behind.
In Lowestoft, we are close to the main cluster of offshore wind farms in UK coastal waters. We are also an area of the southern North sea UK continental shelf, which has an important role to play in the transition to the low-carbon economy, and where there will be an enormous amount of work in the decommissioning of gas and oil facilities over the next decade.
The Budget places much emphasis on free ports. It is good news that the Government recognise the important role that ports play, but it is vital that free ports add to the UK’s trade, making our ports more attractive than their international competitors, rather than diverting business from one UK port to another.
Coastal communities along the East Anglian coast face a significant challenge from coastal erosion and storm surges. The sea does not just damage homes and businesses; ultimately, it destroys them. The Lowestoft flood defence scheme will remove that threat. At present, it is only part funded, so it is good news that the Budget recognises the threat of coastal erosion, provides an additional £5.2 billion for flood defences and includes an undertaking to carry out a review of the Green Book.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I wonder whether my hon. Friend might add to his thinking on this subject support for the internal drainage boards, which do such great work in the fens in particular, including in his constituency. Will he implore the Government to ensure that the Environment Agency works with the drainage boards rather than against them, as I am afraid it sometimes does?
Peter Aldous
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I have internal drainage boards in my constituency, although I sense they may not be such big players as those in the fens in his constituency. From what I see of them, however, they are the ones who know the local area best and are best placed to come up with tailored, bespoke solutions.
Kevin Hollinrake
My hon. Friend briefly mentioned the Green Book. One of the reasons the A64 in my constituency has not been dualled is that, according to Highways England, it was competing with the Oxford to Cambridge corridor and the lower Thames crossing. How ludicrous is that? How easy would he feel explaining to his constituents that such an iniquitous situation is baked into the system for deciding where money is invested?
Peter Aldous
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The Green Book is long overdue a complete overhaul. It has held back communities all around the country—those we are looking to help with their issues—for far too long. It is right that we are now getting on with giving it a complete, radical overhaul.
My second request to the Government is not to forget the east. Our region is a net contributor to the Treasury, notwithstanding that at present we get poor local government, education and transport funding settlements. With the right investment, we could deliver so much more. The New Anglia local enterprise partnership recently published its report “Delivering an infrastructure revolution in Norfolk and Suffolk”, which outlines 12 connectivity infrastructure improvements that will boost productivity and make us global leaders in clean growth. I will not list the “clean dozen”, but I urge the Government to study these compelling schemes closely and to respond positively.
The third aspect of levelling up is to highlight the threat to our towns and their high streets, which are the heart of local economies all around the UK. There is an urgent need for towns to reinvent themselves. With the towns fund, the Government have recognised that, and Lowestoft is one of 101 towns eligible to bid for money that can be used to promote change and attract inward investment. That needs to be accompanied by a comprehensive reform of, and quite probably a replacement for, business rates. It is good news that the Government are committed to a fundamental review, although we have been talking about that for a long time and we now need to get on with it.
Investment in bricks and mortar and in concrete and steel is very important, but it is investment in people that matters most. The fact that the Government recognise the importance of further education in achieving levelling up is extremely good news. The additional £1.5 billion for capital investment in further education colleges and the £5 billion national skills fund to improve adult technical skills are welcome, and it is very good news for colleges like East Coast College, which last week achieved a good Ofsted rating. Those announcements follow on from the increase in revenue funding for 16 to 18 education that was announced last autumn, although there is still some way to go to get that day-to-day funding up to a sustainable level that will enable colleges to provide the full education, training and support needed to properly prepare young people for the workplace.
In conclusion, I welcome the Budget and I support its ambitions. I believe we are pursuing the right course. That said, there are hazards, obstacles and pitfalls lying immediately in front of us. It is important that the Government are flexible, and prepared to adapt and vary policy to meet challenges that will suddenly present themselves.
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous), who spoke passionately about coastal communities. My beautiful constituency of Milton Keynes North is not famously coastal, although we apparently have more miles of shoreline than Jersey; the definition of shoreline is stretched somewhat to include the many beautiful lakes that Milton Keynes has.
Neil Parish
Milton Keynes may not have much coastline, but it does have a lot of people. My hon. Friend could promote the great fish we catch all around our coast. I urge him to go out and feed his constituents with our great British fish.
Ben Everitt
That is an excellent point and it is well made. The nutrition of the people of Milton Keynes is well served by the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
We find ourselves in a strange situation in this Budget debate. It is almost as if the rules have changed. As I stand to speak, we are digesting the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has launched a £330 billion fiscal bazooka at the coronavirus to support our businesses, many of which are in my beautiful constituency. In that context, it feels odd to be talking about last week’s Budget. It was going to be the levelling-up Budget. It was going to be the got-Brexit-done Budget. It was going to be the Budget of infrastructure. Of course, it was the first-swing-at-corona Budget. As we look at it now, it was last week’s Budget. These are indeed strange times. However, I am sure that many Members on the Conservative Benches, and possibly some others, were struck by the optimism, hope and positive spirit of the Budget. It was enthusiastic about our future. While we deal with the sheer scale of the coronavirus outbreak, we should take some joy from the fact that this is a Government who are looking forward beyond the coronavirus and into a world where we have levelled up and we will have a more equal, more productive and more aspirant, tolerant society. It is a Budget of hope and positivity.
Sir Desmond Swayne
Does my hon. Friend recall a poster from the 2010 election campaign? It had a picture of a baby and the slogan, “He’s got his mother’s eyes, his father’s hair and Gordon Brown’s debt”. Does he think that future generations will applaud us for the action that we are taking, or curse us?
Ben Everitt
My right hon. Friend refers to the bail-out of the banks over a decade ago, which cost our economy in the region of £860 billion. It proved 10 long years before we could get over its effects, during which the British people worked incredibly hard and everybody came together, putting us in a position now where we are dealing with the next crisis. Will we be left with a burden of debt? Undoubtedly. Is it the right thing to do? Given the context, it probably is.
Last week’s Budget was excellent for families, not just in my constituency, but across the country. As set out by the Chancellor of fiscal bazooka fame, it will level up the economy, raise our regions, increase investment and encourage growth across the country. On transport, I particularly welcome not the big flashy transport projects, but the smaller, almost overlooked projects that engage our transport networks on a more local level.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Like my hon. Friend, I welcome the wide range of investments, particularly in local transport, contained in the Budget. My constituency cannot boast an extensive coastal area, any more than Milton Keynes, although the outstanding natural beauty of the Ruislip lido, London’s only beach, is one of its most prominent features. I certainly urge all those with an interest in the coastal aspects of London to take an interest in that site.
To pick up on a point that several hon. Members have made, even London, which remains a buoyant part of the United Kingdom from the perspective of economic growth, high levels of employment and high levels of productivity, seems at risk of being overlooked in one key respect. It greatly concerns me that my in-laws, who live in the Chancellor’s constituency, are set to benefit significantly from the pothole fund. My parents in south Wales will also gain because of the Barnett consequentials. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a shame, though, that there is no plan for London to benefit from the pothole fund, as is a reasonable expectation?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. For future reference, we are not desperately stuck for time, and therefore I have allowed the hon. Member, who is new to this House, to make his intervention, but lest anyone be misled, it was far too long.
Ben Everitt
The intervention may have been long, but it was well put and I appreciate it. In broad terms, my hon. Friend’s point was that we must not forget the other traditionally more productive parts of our economy. Interestingly, Milton Keynes is part of the south-east and people overlook the fact that we sit as almost the gateway to the north. A journalist from The Economist telephoned me last week and told me that Milton Keynes was the most productive part of the UK. I said, “Do you mean not including London?” and he said, “No. When you look at the OECD measures, they take in the whole of London, which includes the suburbs in Greater London, and actually, Milton Keynes comes out as more productive.” I therefore welcome any intervention that draws attention to the fact that we should be investing in the productive parts of our economy as well as levelling up the slightly less productive parts.
I warmly welcome the £500 million to roll out a fast charging network for electric vehicles over the next five years, ensuring that drivers will never be more than 30 miles from a rapid charging station. During the general election I was privileged to have a visit from the Secretary of State for Transport. We visited a charging point so that he could charge his electric car—he is very on brand, is our Transport Secretary. After a photo-op, he said, “Show me some transport infrastructure that needs a bit of investment.” I took him to junction 14 of the M1, which really does need an upgrade. We stood there, watching the traffic go past, and then we went to an island in the middle to make a little video, saying how much it needed an upgrade. Then, like life imitating art, we having stood there saying that the transport infrastructure needed an upgrade, suddenly all the world’s traffic came off the M1 and zoomed up junction 14. We were marooned on that island in the middle of an M1 slip road.
Now, our Transport Secretary, being an energetic fellow, cannot be held down for long. After a few moments he set off down the slip road, running—in fact, our Transport Secretary does not run; he scampers. Fortunately, my social media adviser was there to film the entire thing. He pulled out his camera just as our right hon. Friend was sprinting down the road, merging with the traffic in order to cross it. The video is available for parties, for a small fee.
Sir John Hayes
As a Member who lacks a social media adviser, and as the pioneer of the Government’s electric car policy, I am delighted that my hon. Friend has welcomed the additional charging points, for which I take the lion’s share of the credit.
The point that my hon. Friend is making about productivity is critical. The Government’s commitment to skills and to research and development, through the Budget, will allow us to tackle the prevailing macro-economic challenge facing this country and most of the west: the productivity gap.
Ben Everitt
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course, the productivity gap is core to levelling up.
Speaking of gaps, I have to declare an interest before moving on to the next important section of my speech: I am a councillor. The next section includes the perennial election-winning issue of potholes. The Chancellor has announced additional funding—£2.5 billion over the next five years—to fill millions of potholes across the country, which will make a huge difference for the many people who spend hours each week travelling on poorly maintained roads. That will speed up journey times, reduce vehicle damage and make our roads safer.
The Government are investing record amounts in improving and expanding our transport infrastructure—triple the average of the past 60 years. The Chancellor has announced £640 billion of capital investment in roads, railways, communications, schools, hospitals and power networks over this Parliament. I know that many of my colleagues will join me in welcoming this investment not just for the large national infrastructure projects, but for local roads, regional railways and urban transport. We will be increasing bus journeys. We will be reducing the cost of transport for young people, workers and those in retirement. We will have a modern and well-maintained road network.
I am a big fan of this Budget, as Members have probably noticed, but there is one piece that I was surprised to see in there. It is my single criticism of the Budget, so please bear with me. The small print of the supporting documents for the Budget contained an allocation of £94.6 million for a housing infrastructure bid to build 5,000 homes east of the M1 in Milton Keynes. That housing infrastructure bid is an indicative commitment to fund, subject to continuing local commitment, which is how the bidding process works for housing infrastructure fund bids. “A continuing local commitment” is news to me. Anyone who looked at my postbag and my inbox would not find a continuing local commitment; they would find quite the opposite.
That is not to say that people in my constituency are anti-growth. Far from it: Milton Keynes is a growing place. It is growing because it is a great place in which to live and work, in which to grow a family and grow a business. However, we must have the right houses in the right place at the right time. There is a balance to be struck. We need to get this right. We have a choice between growing local jobs and becoming a dormitory. If we get the right houses in the right place at the right time, we will incentivise pure economic growth—local, productive growth—but if we get it wrong and build too many houses, Milton Keynes will be cursed by the very benefit of being only 32 minutes away from London on the train. If we build too many houses too quickly we will become a dormitory for jobs elsewhere, and that is not what we need.
Jonathan Gullis
Does my hon. Friend agree that we need a good-quality mixture of housing, from one and two-bedroom homes to city centre living, and also the four and five-bedroom homes that the executives are seeking?
Ben Everitt
Absolutely. The point is well made, but I will not dwell on it, because, finally, I want to say this. We must also have the benefit of a university in our town, and I am proud to support a £100 million bid to make Milton Keynes a university town. The benefits will be fantastic.
With that I will sit down, having had a very good Budget, apart from that very small thing.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
Let me begin by welcoming the Chief Secretary to his position. As the former Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union, he may be spending a bit more time with his family now. I am sure that he is happy about that. I am not sure that his family are happy about it, but that is a different kettle of fish.
I do not have time to recap on what Members on both sides of the House have said today—except to say that we heard fantastic maiden speeches from the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra), who made a generous tribute to David Gauke, and the hon. Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy), who talked about the building of the Ark Royal in his constituency. I have a fantastic picture of the Ark Royal in my office, and if he is ever in Bootle, he can come and have a look at it. I will secure a secure passage out of Bootle for him.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) was doing well until he mentioned Liverpool football club. He brought things back by mentioning that great socialist Bill Shanklin, and went on to talk about justice for Hillsborough. The hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) made an interesting speech. A teacher once said, “We are not just teaching kids, we are backing Bolton”, and I think that that sums it up. It was an excellent comment. Finally, the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) described very well the beautiful landscape and historic architecture of her constituency.
The substance of the announcements made by the Chancellor last week has had a very short life. In the light of the coronavirus emergency, I am glad that the Government have had a serious rethink about their economic and financial support response to the challenges facing the country. I will take advice on this, but they appear to be getting their act together, and we welcome that. However, at the time—last week—the package of measures did not go far enough. For example, while President Macron has announced €547 billion of support for French businesses, we have got £330 billion, apparently, although I am pleased that the Chancellor has followed the suit of the French President.
The Financial Times reported that Peter Altmaier, Germany’s Economy Minister—
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Peter Dowd
Just a moment. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.
The Financial Times reported:
“The German budget currently guarantees KfW”—
that is the credit institute for reconstruction—
“a financial framework of €460bn, but officials said this could now be raised by €93bn, giving the bank more than €550bn in available firepower.”
Mr Altmaier said:
“And that is just the start”.
I am glad that the Chancellor has followed the line—the model—that the Germans are taking as well.
In the meantime, notwithstanding the Government’s apparent announcement, significant parts of the economy are in freefall, as well as, more immediately, places, organisations, agencies within the hospitality sector both large and small, the travel industry and retail. So, okay, a bit late, but, nevertheless, moving in the right direction. But what this does not indicate yet, as far as we are concerned, is what support will be given to employees—the people working in those industries. The industries themselves might get support, but we have to be clear about what actually is happening. People in here will have constituents losing their jobs.
Peter Dowd
In a moment.
It has to be said that the Government simply underestimated the challenge facing the country, but better late than never. However, many millions of people still have no financial certainty from the Government. People are worried about their livelihoods. The Government are responsible for our decaying social and physical infrastructure. They bear a huge responsibility for the parlous state of our public realm. While we will support measures to aid our economy, we will not settle for half measures, so we will look carefully at the Chancellor’s statement and at what he says later on.
The Government’s mantra of “levelling up” also completely misjudged the serious issues facing the country. The Government are not a new Government. They have been in power for 10 years. The 12 December election was not the start of year zero. They have spent 10 years systematically and consciously levelling down the country. For example, one of the Government’s fiscal rules identified 3% of GDP as an appropriate level of public sector net investment, but, Madam Deputy Speaker, if you were to look back at the last 10 years, the Government have underspent on infrastructure—far less than 3% of GDP—every single year. That was alluded to by Conservative Members.
The gap between what the Government spent and the 3% level over 10 years in office is £192 billion. That is the size of the hole the Government have spent 10 years digging, and if you were to sift through the hype, Madam Deputy Speaker, and note the fact that the Government’s headline figures on infrastructure double-count existing spending—one estimate has put the Government’s new capital spending at £143 billion, excluding depreciation—you would see that what the Government announced last week would not even fill the big hole they dug in the first place. Now, they appear to want to be congratulated on a pathetic attempt to rebuild what they spent 10 years destroying and dismantling.
The Resolution Foundation has pointed out that the UK has a very low level of Government capital stock at about 46% of GDP. That is three quarters of the advanced economy average of 63%, so the Government are levelling up from a very low base—a low base of their own creation.
Another problem with the Government’s levelling up agenda is that there is a series of one-off announcements without any coherent plan. For a start, the Government postponed their national infrastructure strategy. Again, they have cut skills funding in recent years. By the end of the last decade, spending on apprenticeships and work-based learning had fallen by a quarter since 2009-10 in real terms. That is according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.
The Budget was disappointing in relation to climate action. The environmental justice commission set up by the Institute for Public Policy Research said that £33 billion of green investment was needed a year to get to the Government’s weak target of net zero emissions by 2050. But there is £27 billion for road building, although nothing for renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. We have heard excuses over the years that they inherited a poor economy, but they have been in power for 10 years and the responsibility for the poor performance of our economy in the past 10 years lies squarely at the Government’s door. They did not believe that public investment could boost the economy. In a speech in 2009, George Osborne said that
“fiscal policy is more or less powerless to affect output”.
He was wrong about that. Let us consider the statement that a
“large planned increase in public investment should boost potential output”.—[Official Report, 11 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 282.]
Who said those words? It was the Chancellor, when citing the Office for Budget Responsibility. Other countries took a different approach from us and did invest, and they have recovered more quickly. We have had the slowest recovery for a century in this country, and we have had the Bank of England’s chief economist Andy Haldane describing a pay “disaster”.
On that point, let me deal with the issue of the so-called “jobs miracle”, so beloved of Conservative Members. What they fail to mention is that low pay, zero-hours contracts and insecure working conditions bankroll that act of God, meaning that 8 million people in working households are living in poverty. According to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s annual poverty report, seven in 10 children in poverty are now in a working family. I am not sure that God would like his name associated with that outcome.
The Office for National Statistics is reporting falling manufacturing output and zero growth in the three months to January because of “widespread weakness”—and that was before the outbreak of the coronavirus. The Government could have started in the Budget to invest in our public services, as well as our infrastructure, but they chose not to do so. As the IFS said last week, after this Budget spending on day-to-day services will still be well below what it was in 2010-11 per head—so much for levelling up. What we have is the Government putting off tackling areas in our economy where bold decisions are needed. The economic crisis facing the country as a result of the coronavirus simply proves their lack of foresight and planning. They have left our public services so depleted of capacity that many fear they will struggle to cope.
We have before us the so-called “Get it done” Chancellor, but he is more like the put-it-off Chancellor. He even put off his announcement today. What about social care—is he getting that done? No, he is having another review. He has put it off. What about the Green Book—is he getting that done? No, he is having another review. He is putting that off. What about the fiscal rules framework—is he getting it done? No, he is having another review. He is putting it off. What about the national investment plan—is he getting it done? No, he is having another review. He is putting it off. He cannot even decide when he is going to have a comprehensive spending review. In a footnote on page 30 of the Red Book, which I know all Conservative Members will have assiduously read, he says that he will
“keep the timing of the CSR under review”.
I hope you will bear with me here, Madam Deputy Speaker. In other words, he is even putting off the timing of the review of the review of the comprehensive review. So much for getting things done.
There is a great deal of not getting things done going on in No. 10 at the moment, contrary to the belief of the backslappers opposite. The word “review” is mentioned no fewer than 117 times in the Red Book, which has only 120 pages in it, including the blank ones. The Chancellor reminds me of the character in one of the less well-known Monty Python sketches: the self-satisfied president of the royal society for putting things on top of other things; we have a meaningless body of men gathered together for no good reason—that is the Cabinet. No wonder we have the lowest productivity levels of our G7 partners, and this is getting worse because the man in charge of getting things done is far too busy putting things off.
Let me give the Chancellor a word of advice. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The House is being unfair to the hon. Gentleman. There is too much noise going on, and we must hear him.
Peter Dowd
Well, they are Tories.
Let me give the Chancellor a word of advice: I suggest that, for the sake of the country, he stops putting things off and gets things done by pulling his finger out.
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
I thank the hon. Member for Bootle (Peter Dowd) for his warm welcome to me in my new role. I join him in paying tribute to the number of excellent maiden speeches that we have heard today. The first was by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). It was fitting that he paid tribute to his predecessor David Gauke, who was not only respected across the House but very much liked and respected within the Treasury as an institution.
In an excellent speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Ian Levy) spoke about his personal experience of working for two decades in our NHS. He must be particularly proud of everything that the NHS is now doing as we face the challenges ahead.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) gave a strong speech about the need for bold action on covid-19. I assure him that the Chancellor will be true to his word when he says that we will do everything needed in response to the situation. The hon. Gentleman’s speech shows that he will be a valuable colleague representing Liverpool, together with his Front-Bench colleagues.
In a first-class speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Mark Logan) said that this great House exists exactly for times like these. I could not agree with him more. He will be a fantastic addition to the House, and in particular his experience from his time in the Foreign Office will be valuable in the weeks and months ahead.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (Miss Dines) pointed out that she is the first woman to represent her constituency, just as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were the first woman to chair a Budget. My hon. Friend invited my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to join in with the Shrovetide football next year. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has quite a lot on, but knowing my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) as I do, I am sure that there will be colleagues in the House keen to partake of any football with my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales.
The hon. Member for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) gave an excellent speech about her commitment to her constituency and highlighted issues such as housing, railway electrification, bus routes and the climate emergency. It is clear from the range of contributions from new Members that they will all contribute considerably to the House in the weeks and months ahead.
It is no surprise to me, in closing the debate on the Budget, that many of the contributions from Members from all parties have focused less on the text from last week and more on the national challenge of our economic response to coronavirus. Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), struck a constructive tone in their opening remarks, recognising their collaboration in meeting the challenge. Many other Secretaries of State have been similarly collaborating with their counterparts. On behalf of the Government, I should say that their approach has been much appreciated.
I very much agree with the hon. Member for Middlesbrough that our focus today is, as he said, primarily on the challenge, nationally and internationally, of fighting the virus. He was also right to recognise that it is no fault of the Chancellor that much has happened since last week and that since the Budget we have needed to move further. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor will update the House shortly and will respond to the legitimate point that the hon. Gentleman raised in his opening remarks.
At the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that he would do
“everything we can to keep this country, and our people, healthy and financially secure.”—[Official Report, 11 March 2020; Vol. 673, c. 278.]
At that time, less than a week ago, that involved a £12 billion temporary and targeted set of measures to respond to coronavirus, supporting public services, individuals and businesses. My right hon. Friend will shortly update the House on the further measures required to provide a comprehensive, co-ordinated and coherent response to the serious and evolving situation that we face.
As my right hon. Friend has said, we will do whatever it takes to give the British people the tools to get through this challenge. I can also announce that the Government are postponing the reforms to the off-payroll working rules IR35 from April 2020 to 6 April 2021. The Government will therefore not move the original resolution tonight, but will shortly table an additional resolution confirming that we will reintroduce the off-payroll working rules provisions by amending the Bill, with a commencement date of the 6 April 2021. This is a deferral in response to the ongoing spread of covid-19 to help businesses and individuals. This is a deferral, not a cancellation, and the Government remain committed to reintroducing this policy to ensure that people who are working like employees, but through their own limited company, pay broadly the same tax as those employed directly.
Let me turn in the remaining time to a number of key measures within the Budget, which, for understandable reasons, have perhaps received less focus in the course of the debate in light of recent events. [Interruption.] In particular, infrastructure links people to jobs, delivers products to markets and underpins supply chains and, indeed, supports domestic and international trade. Better roads, better rail and better internet connections enable businesses and individuals to work more quickly, cheaply and efficiently. While more quality infrastructure boosts social well-being, it means less time stuck on motorways—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The House is too noisy. As I said with regard to Mr Dowd, the House must listen to the Minister.
Steve Barclay
Infrastructure is an issue that concerns all Members of the House. We are committed in this Budget to boosting productivity and to levelling up opportunity across all regions within our United Kingdom. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out half a trillion pounds of investment in our public sector, and the Government will bring those plans together in the forthcoming national infrastructure strategy. We already know a lot of the details. For example, there is the commitment to the Northern Powerhouse Rail to enable faster more frequent services between northern cities. In February, the Prime Minister announced that we will proceed with High Speed 2, and last Wednesday, the Chancellor confirmed a £27 billion investment in strategic roads and motorways, the UK’s biggest ever outlay.
At the same time, we are investing £5 billion to support the roll-out of gigabit-capable broadband, starting with rural communities that have felt excluded up to now, binding all parts of the country closer together in the virtual realm and connecting global Britain to the global marketplace.
Alongside the big ticket eye-catching projects, the Budget also focused on meeting the most pressing local needs, whether that is the £2.5 billion for potholes, the £1.2 billion to support local transport infrastructures or, indeed, the funding for bus routes, trunk roads, cycle paths, trams, and park-and-ride schemes that all have the potential to make a transformative difference at a local level. Together it represents an infrastructure transformation that brings faster speeds and greater capacity and that would breathe new life into communities across our United Kingdom.
This transformation is not only about making every town and city more productive, but about recognising their uniqueness of character. Each place in this country has its own quirks and curiosities, traditions and traits that people depend on and draw strength from. Levelling up is about respecting and retaining those brilliant characteristics and making sure that each town keeps hold of its civic soul, while helping every region and nation of the United Kingdom make of its best. The Government know that civic pride and regional identity matter, and we want to bring about a strong and vibrant connected community where people choose to live and work. It is for that reason that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out in the Budget the largest affordable homes programme in a decade, with £12 billion in additional funding to support home ownership. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government has already laid out our proposals to bring Britain’s planning system into the 21st century.
Although this is the end of the Budget debate from last week, many of the speeches have looked forward to the challenges ahead posed by covid-19 and its impact on our health, our businesses and our resolve. Much has changed over the past week and people are worried and their livelihoods are at risk. That is why my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will update the House shortly on the further measures that we intend to take. I commend this Budget to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That income tax is charged for the tax year 2020-21.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the motions made in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Standing Order No. 51(3))
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I must inform the House that for the purposes of Standing Order 83U and on the basis of material put before him, Mr Speaker has certified that in his opinion motion No. 2 on income tax main rates relates to England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and is within devolved legislative competence. If the House should decide to divide on this motion, it will be subject to double majority voting. “Car Appropriate percentage Car with CO2 emissions figure of 0 0% Car with CO2 emissions figure of 1 - 50 Car with electric range figure of 130 or more Car with electric range figure of 70 - 129 Car with electric range figure of 40 - 69 Car with electric range figure of 30 - 39 Car with electric range figure of less than 30 0% 3% 6% 10% 12% Car with CO2 emissions figure of 51 - 54 13% Car with CO2 emissions figure of 55 - 59 14% Car with CO2 emissions figure of 60 - 64 15% Car with CO2 emissions figure of 65 - 69 16% Car with CO2 emissions figure of 70 - 74 17%” “Disability assistance for children and young people SS(S)A 2018 Sections 24 and 31” “Job start ETA 1973 Section 2”. “Scottish child payment SS(S)A 2018 Section 79”. 1 Cigarettes An amount equal to the higher of— (a) 16.5% of the retail price plus £237.34 per thousand cigarettes, or (b) £305.23 per thousand cigarettes. 2 Cigars £296.04 per kilogram 3 Hand-rolling tobacco £253.33 per kilogram 4 Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco £130.16 per kilogram 5 Tobacco for heating £243.95 per kilogram” “CO2 emissions figure Rate (1) (2) (3) (4) Exceeding Not exceeding Reduced rate Standard rate g/km g/km £ £ 100 110 10 20 110 120 20 30 120 130 115 125 130 140 140 150 140 150 155 165 150 165 195 205 165 175 230 240 175 185 255 265 185 200 295 305 200 225 320 330 225 255 555 565 255 — 570 580”. “CO2 emissions figure Rate (1) (2) (3) (4) Exceeding Not exceeding Reduced rate Standard rate g/km g/km £ £ 0 50 0 10 50 75 15 25 75 90 100 110 90 100 125 135 100 110 145 155 110 130 165 175 130 150 205 215 150 170 530 540 170 190 860 870 190 225 1295 1305 225 255 1840 1850 255 — 2165 2175”. “CO2emissions figure Rate (1) (2) (3) Exceeding Not exceeding Rate g/km g/km £ 0 50 25 50 75 110 75 90 135 90 100 155 100 110 175 110 130 215 130 150 540 150 170 870 170 190 1305 190 225 1850 225 255 2175 255 — 2175”. Taxable commodity supplied Rate at which levy payable if supply is not a reduced-rate supply Electricity £0.00811 per kilowatt hour Gas supplied by a gas utility or any gas supplied in a gaseous state that is of a kind supplied by a gas utility £0.00406 per kilowatt hour Any petroleum gas, or other gaseous hydrocarbon, supplied in a liquid state £0.02175 per kilogram Any other taxable commodity £0.03174 per kilogram”.
2. Income tax (main rates)
Resolved,
That for the tax year 2020-21 the main rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the basic rate is 20%,
(b) the higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the additional rate is 45%.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
3. Income tax (default and savings rates)
Resolved,
That—
(1) For the tax year 2020-21 the default rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the default basic rate is 20%,
(b) the default higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the default additional rate is 45%.
(2) For the tax year 2020-21 the savings rates of income tax are as follows—
(a) the savings basic rate is 20%,
(b) the savings higher rate is 40%, and
(c) the savings additional rate is 45%.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
4. Income tax (starting rate limit for savings)
Resolved,
That section 21 of the Income Tax Act 2007 (indexation) does not apply in relation to the starting rate limit for savings for the tax year 2020-21 (so that the starting rate limit for savings remains at £5,000 for that tax year).
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
5. Main rate of corporation tax for financial year 2020
Resolved,
That—
(1) For the financial year 2020 the main rate of corporation tax is 19%.
(2) Accordingly, omit section 7(2) of the Finance (No.2) Act 2015 (which is superseded by the provision made by paragraph (1) of this Resolution).
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
6. Corporation tax (charge and main rate for financial year 2021)
Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made—
(a) for corporation tax to be charged for the financial year 2021, and
(b) for the main rate of corporation tax for that year to be 19%.
8. Taxable benefits (appropriate percentage for a car: tax year 2020-21 onwards)
Resolved,
That—
(1) Chapter 6 of Part 3 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (taxable benefits: cars etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In section 136 (car with a CO2 emissions figure: post- September 1999 registration)—
(a) in subsection (2A)—
(i) after “figure” insert “in a case where the car is first registered before 6 April 2020”,
(ii) for “light-duty” substitute “light”, and
(iii) for “an EC certificate of conformity” substitute “the EC certificate of conformity or UK approval certificate”, and
(b) after subsection (2A) insert—
“(2B) For the purpose of determining the car’s CO2 emissions figure in a case where the car is first registered on or after 6 April 2020, ignore any values specified in the EC certificate of conformity or UK approval certificate that are not WLTP (worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedures) values.”
(3) In section 137 (car with a CO2 emissions figure: bi-fuel cars)—
(a) in subsection (2A)—
(i) after “figure” insert “in a case where the car is first registered before 6 April 2020”,
(ii) for “light-duty” substitute “light”, and
(iii) for “an EC certificate of conformity” substitute “the EC certificate of conformity or UK approval certificate”, and
(b) after subsection (2A) insert—
“(2B) For the purpose of determining the car’s CO2 emissions figure in a case where the car is first registered on or after 6 April 2020, ignore any values specified in the EC certificate of conformity or UK approval certificate that are not WLTP (worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedures) values.”
(4) In section 139 (car with a CO2 emissions figure)—
(a) for subsection (2) substitute—
“(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) and the table—
(a) if a CO2 emissions figure is not a whole number, round it down to the nearest whole number, and
(b) if an electric range figure is not a whole number, round it up to the nearest whole number.”, and
(b) after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) For the purpose of determining the electric range figure for a car first registered before 6 April 2020, ignore any WLTP (worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedures) values specified in an EC certificate of conformity, an EC type approval certificate or a UK approval certificate.
(5B) For the purpose of determining the electric range figure for a car first registered on or after 6 April 2020, ignore any values specified in an EC certificate of conformity, an EC type approval certificate or a UK approval certificate that are not WLTP (worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedures) values.”
(5) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect for the tax year 2020-21 and subsequent tax years.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
9. Taxable benefits (appropriate percentage for a car: tax year 2020-21 only)
Resolved,
That—
(1) For the tax year 2020-21, Chapter 6 of Part 3 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (taxable benefits: cars etc) has effect with the following modifications.
(2) In section 139 (car with a CO2 emissions figure: the appropriate percentage)—
(a) in the table in subsection (1), in the second column of the entry for a car with a CO2 emissions figure of 0, for “2%” substitute “0%”, and (b) in subsection (7) before paragraph (a) insert—
“(za) section 139A (recently registered cars),”.
(3) After section 139 insert—
“139A Section 139: recently registered car with CO2 emissions figure
In its application in relation to a car that is first registered on or after 6 April 2020, section 139 has effect as if—
for the table in subsection (1) there were substituted—
(b) in subsection (3)(a) for “20%” there were substituted “18%”.”
(4) In section 140 (car without a CO2 emissions figure: the appropriate percentage) in subsection (3)(a) for “2%” substitute “0%”.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
10. Taxable benefits (cars)
Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision taking effect in a future year may be made amending the provisions of Chapter 6 of Part 3 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 that concern the determination of the appropriate percentage for a car.
11. Income tax (apprenticeship bursaries paid to persons leaving local authority care)
Resolved,
That provision may be made providing that no liability to income tax arises on certain bursaries paid to persons leaving care and starting an apprenticeship.
12. Income tax (certain Scottish social security benefits)
Resolved,
That—
(1) Table B in section 677(1) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (UK social security benefits wholly exempt from income tax) is amended as follows.
(2) In Part 1 (benefits payable under primary legislation etc), insert each of the following at the appropriate place—
(3) In Part 2 (benefits payable under regulations), insert the following at the appropriate place—
(4) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect for the tax year 2020-21 and subsequent tax years.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
13. Income tax (social security benefits)
Resolved,
That provision may be made conferring power on the Treasury to exempt certain social security benefits from income tax.
14. Income tax (payments in respect of expenses of voluntary office-holders)
Resolved,
That—
(1) After section 299A of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 insert—
“299B Voluntary office-holders: payments in respect of expenses
(1) No liability to income tax arises in respect of a payment to a person who holds a voluntary office if the payment is in respect of reasonable expenses incurred in carrying out the duties of that office.
(2) It does not matter whether—
(a) the payment is an advance payment or a reimbursement;
(b) the person who makes the payment is the person with whom the office is held.
(3) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 299A apply for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section as they apply for the purposes of subsection (1) of that section.”
(2) In section 299A(3)(a) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (voluntary office-holders: compensation for lost employment income) after “payment” insert “(whether an advance payment or a reimbursement)”.
(3) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect for the tax year 2020-21 and subsequent tax years.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
15. Loan charge
Resolved,
That provision may be made—
(a) substituting a reference to 9 December 2010 for the reference to 6 April 1999 in paragraph 1(1)(b) of Schedule 11 to the Finance (No.2) Act 2017 and in paragraph 1(2)(a)(i) of Schedule 12 to that Act,
(b) enabling a person to elect for the tax consequences of Schedules 11 and 12 to the Finance (No.2) Act 2017 to be split over three tax years,
(c) eliminating or reducing the tax consequences for a person of Schedules 11 and 12 to the Finance (No.2) Act 2017 in certain cases where the person was chargeable to income tax for the tax year 2015-16 or an earlier tax year on an amount that was referable to a loan or quasi-loan,
(d) providing relief from late payment interest for a person who is chargeable to income tax on an amount by reason of Schedule 11 or 12 to the Finance (No.2) Act 2017 or who would be so chargeable but for the provision mentioned in paragraph (a) or (c),
(e) substituting a reference to 1 October 2020 for the reference to 1 October 2019 in paragraph 35C(2)(b) of Schedule 11 to the Finance (No.2) Act 2017 and in paragraph 22(2)(b) of Schedule 12 to that Act, and
(f) enabling the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to repay, or waive the payment of, certain amounts that—
(i) have been paid to them, have been treated as paid to them, or are due to be paid to them under certain agreements made with them in a specified period commencing no earlier than 16 March 2016 and ending no later than 10 March 2020, and
(ii) are referable to certain loans or quasi-loans made on or after 6 April 1999 and before 6 April 2016.
16. Pensions annual allowance charge (tapered reduction of allowance)
Resolved,
That provision may be made about the reduction of the annual allowance in the case of high-income individuals.
17. Capital gains tax (entrepreneurs’ relief)
Resolved,
That provision may be made about relief under Chapter 3 of Part 5 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.
18. Capital gains tax (relief on disposal of private residence)
Resolved,
That—
(1) The Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 222 (relief on disposal of private residence)—
(a) after subsection (5) insert—
“(5A) But a notice or further notice under subsection (5)(a) determining which of 2 or more residences is an individual’s main residence for any period may be given more than 2 years from the beginning of the period if during the period the individual has not held an interest of more than a negligible market value in more than one of the residences.”,
(b) in subsection (7) (a) (disposal of dwelling-house to a spouse or civil partner)—
(i) for “the dwelling-house” substitute “a dwelling-house”, and
(ii) omit “which is their only or main residence”,
(c) in subsection (8A) (when living accommodation is job-related for a person) after paragraph (b) insert “; or
(c) an armed forces accommodation allowance for or towards costs of the accommodation is paid to, or in respect of, the person or the person’s spouse or civil partner”, and
(d) in subsection (8D) (interpretation) after paragraph (b) insert “; and
(c) “armed forces accommodation allowance” means an allowance which is exempt from income tax by reason of section 297D of ITEPA 2003.”
(3) In section 223 (amount of relief)—
(a) in subsections (1) and (2)(a) for “18 months” substitute “9 months”, and
(b) omit subsection (4).
(4) After section 223 insert—
“223ZA Amount of relief: individual’s residency delayed by certain events
(1) Subsection (4) below applies where—
(a) a gain to which section 222 applies accrues to an individual on the disposal of, or of an interest in, a dwelling-house or part of a dwelling-house,
(b) the time at which the dwelling-house or the part of the dwelling-house first became the individual’s only or main residence (“the moving-in time”) was within the first 24 months of the individual’s period of ownership,
(c) at no time during the period beginning with the individual’s period of ownership and ending with the moving-in time was the dwelling-house or the part of the dwelling-house another person’s residence, and
(d) during the period beginning with the individual’s period of ownership and ending with the moving-in time a qualifying event occurred.
(2) The following are qualifying events—
(a) the completion of the construction, renovation, redecoration or alteration of the dwelling-house or the part of the dwelling house mentioned in subsection (1);
(b) the disposal by the individual of, or of an interest in, any other dwelling-house or part of a dwelling-house that immediately before the disposal was the individual’s only or main residence.
(3) In determining whether and, if so, when a qualifying event within subsection (2)(b) occurred, ignore section 28 (time of disposal where asset disposed of under contract).
(4) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) of section 223, as they have effect in relation to the gain, the dwelling-house or the part of the dwelling-house mentioned in subsection (1) above is to be treated as having been the individual’s only or main residence from the beginning of the individual’s period of ownership until the moving-in time.”
(5) After section 223A insert—
“223B Additional relief: part of private residence let as accommodation
(1) Where—
(a) a gain to which section 222 applies accrues to an individual on the disposal of, or of an interest in, a dwelling-house or part of a dwelling-house, and
(b) at any time in the individual’s period of ownership the condition in subsection (2) is met in respect of the dwelling house, the part of the gain that is within subsection (3) is a chargeable gain only to the extent, if any, to which it exceeds the amount in subsection (4).
(2) The condition is that—
(a) part of the dwelling-house is the individual’s only or main residence, and
(b) another part of the dwelling-house is being let by the individual as residential accommodation.
(3) The part of the gain that is within this subsection is the part that (but for subsection (1)) would be a chargeable gain by reason of the fact that, at the times in the individual’s period of ownership when the condition in subsection (2) is met, the individual’s only or main residence does not include the part of the dwelling-house that is being let as residential accommodation.
(4) The amount is whichever is the lesser of—
(a) the amount of the gain that is not a chargeable gain by virtue of section 223, and
(b) £40,000.
(5) Where by reason of section 222(7)(a) the individual’s period of ownership mentioned in subsection (1) begins with the beginning of the period of ownership of another person, any question whether the condition in subsection (2) is met at a time that is within both those periods of ownership is to be determined as if the references in subsection (2) to the individual were to that other person.”
(6) In section 224 (amount of relief: further provisions)—
(a) in the heading for “Amount of relief” substitute “Relief under sections 223 and 223B”,
(b) in subsection (1)—
(i) for “the gain”, in the first place those words occur, substitute “a gain to which section 222 applies”,
(ii) for “section 223” substitute “sections 223 and 223B”,
(c) in subsection (2) for “section 223” substitute “sections 223 and 223B”, and
(d) in subsection (3) for “Section 223” substitute “Sections 223 and 223B”.
(7) In section 225E (disposals by disabled persons or persons in care homes etc) in subsection (4) for “18 months” substitute “9 months”.
(8) In section 248E(6) (relief on disposal of joint interests in private residence) for “and 223” substitute “, 223 and 223B”.
(9) The amendment made by paragraph (2)(a) of this Resolution has effect in relation to a notice given on or after 6 April 2020.
(10) The amendments made by paragraph (2)(b) of this Resolution have effect in a case where the disposal or death mentioned in subsection (7)(a) of section 222 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 is made or occurs on or after 6 April 2020.
(11) The amendments made by paragraphs (3) to (8) of this Resolution have effect in relation to disposals made on or after 6 April 2020.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
19. Corporate capital losses
Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made relating to capital losses made by companies.
20. Corporation tax (instalment payments)
Resolved,
That provision may be made amending regulation 3 of the Corporation Tax (Instalment Payments) Regulations 1998.
21. Relief from capital gains tax for loans to traders
Resolved,
That provision may be made restricting the operation of section 253(1)(b) of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 to loans made before 24 January 2019.
22. Corporation tax (research and development expenditure credit)
Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made increasing the percentage in section 104M(3) of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 to 13%.
23. Capital allowances (structures and buildings allowances)
Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made in relation to allowances under Part 2A of the Capital Allowances Act 2001.
24. Intangible fixed assets (pre-FA 2002 assets etc)
Resolved,
That provision may be made—
(a) amending Chapter 16 of Part 8 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009, and
(b) restricting the debits to be brought into account by a company for tax purposes in respect of certain intangible fixed assets acquired on or after 1 July 2020.
25. UK property businesses etc carried on by non-UK resident companies
Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made, in consequence of Schedule 1 or 5 to the Finance Act 2019, in relation to non-UK resident companies that carry on UK property businesses or have other income relating to land in the United Kingdom.
26. Surcharge on banking companies (transferred-in losses)
Resolved,
That provision may be made about the treatment of losses transferred to a banking company from a non-banking company in calculating the surcharge profits of the banking company under Chapter 4 of Part 7A of the Corporation Tax Act 2010.
27. Corporation tax (payment of tax on certain transactions with EEA residents)
Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made for the deferral of the payment of corporation tax arising in connection with certain transactions involving companies resident in an EEA state.
28. Changes to accounting standards affecting leases
Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending paragraphs 13(1) and 14 of Schedule 14 to the Finance Act 2019.
29. Enterprise investment scheme (approved investment fund as nominee)
Resolved,
That provision may be made amending section 251 of the Income Tax Act 2007.
30. Gains from contracts for life insurance etc (top slicing relief)
Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made amending sections 535 to 537 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005.
31. Losses on disposals of shares
Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made repealing section 134(5) of the Income Tax Act 2007 and section 78(5) of the Corporation Tax Act 2010.
32. Digital services tax
Resolved,
That provision may be made imposing a tax on revenues arising in connection with the provision of a social media service, internet search engine, online marketplace or associated online advertising service.
33. Inheritance tax (property comprised in settlements)
Resolved,
That provision may be made amending the Inheritance Tax Act 1984 in relation to cases where property becomes comprised in a settlement.
34. Inheritance tax (payments to victims of persecution during Second World War)
Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about inheritance tax relief in respect of payments to victims of persecution during the Second World War era.
35. Stamp duty (unlisted securities and connected persons)
Resolved,
That provision may be made for the purposes of stamp duty in relation to transfers of unlisted securities involving connected persons.
36. Stamp duty reserve tax (unlisted securities and connected persons)
Resolved,
That provision may be made about the application of sections 87, 93 and 96 of the Finance Act 1986 in relation to transfers of unlisted securities involving connected persons.
37. Stamp duty (acquisition of target company’s share capital)
Resolved,
That provision may be made amending section 77A of the Finance Act 1986.
38. Value added tax (call-off stock arrangements)
Resolved,
That—
(1) The Value Added Tax Act 1994 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 14 insert—
“Goods supplied between the UK and member States under call-off stock arrangements
14A Call-off stock arrangements
Schedule 4B (call-off stock arrangements) has effect.”
(3) In section 69 (breaches of regulatory provisions)—
(a) in subsection (1)(a) for “or paragraph 5 of Schedule 3A” substitute “, paragraph 5 of Schedule 3A or paragraph 9(1) or (2)(a) of Schedule 4B”, and
(b) in subsection (2) after “under” insert “paragraph 8 or 9(2)(b) of Schedule 4B or”.
(4) In Schedule 4 (matters to be treated as a supply of goods or services) in
paragraph 6, after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
“(3) Sub-paragraph (1) above is subject to paragraph 2 of Schedule 4B (calloff
stock arrangements).”
(5) After Schedule 4A insert—
“SCHEDULE 4B
Section 14A
CALL-OFF STOCK ARRANGEMENTS
Where this Schedule applies
1 (1) This Schedule applies where—
(a) on or after 1 January 2020 goods forming part of the assets of any business are removed—
(i) from the United Kingdom for the purpose of being taken to a place in a member State, or
(ii) from a member State for the purpose of being taken to a place in the United Kingdom,
(b) the goods are removed in the course or furtherance of that business by or under the directions of the person carrying on that business (“the supplier”),
(c) the goods are removed with a view to their being supplied in the destination State, at a later stage and after their arrival there, to another person (“the customer”),
(d) at the time of the removal the customer is entitled to take ownership of the goods in accordance with an agreement existing between the customer and the supplier,
(e) at the time of the removal the supplier does not have a business establishment or other fixed establishment in the destination State,
(f) at the time of the removal the customer is identified for the purposes of VAT in accordance with the law of the destination State and both the identity of the customer and the number assigned to the customer for the purposes of VAT by the destination State are known to the supplier,
(g) as soon as reasonably practicable after the removal the supplier records the removal in the register provided for in Article 243(3) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28
November 2006 on the common system of value added tax, and
(h) the supplier includes the number mentioned in paragraph (f) in the recapitulative statement provided for in Article 262(2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC.
(2) In this Schedule—
“the destination State” means—
(a) in a case within paragraph (i) of sub-paragraph (1)(a), the member State concerned, and
(b) in a case within paragraph (ii) of sub-paragraph (1) (a), the United Kingdom, and
“the origin State” means—
(a) in a case within paragraph (i) of sub-paragraph (1) (a), the United Kingdom, and
(b) in a case within paragraph (ii) of sub-paragraph (1 )(a), the member State concerned.
Removal of the goods not to be treated as a supply
2 The removal of the goods from the origin State is not to be treated by reason of paragraph 6(1) of Schedule 4 as a supply of goods by the supplier.
Goods supplied to the customer within 12 months of arrival
3 (1) The rules in sub-paragraph (2) apply if—
(a) during the period of 12 months beginning with the day the goods arrive in the destination State the supplier transfers the whole property in the goods to the customer, and
(b) during the period beginning with the day the goods arrive in the destination State and ending immediately before the time of that transfer no relevant event occurs.
(2) The rules are that—
(a) a supply of the goods in the origin State is deemed to be made by the supplier,
(b) the deemed supply is deemed to involve the removal of the goods from the origin State at the time of the transfer mentioned in sub-paragraph (1),
(c) the consideration given by the customer for the transfer mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) is deemed to have been given for the deemed supply, and
(d) an acquisition of the goods by the customer in pursuance of the deemed supply is deemed to take place in the destination State.
(3) For the meaning of a “relevant event”, see paragraph 7.
Relevant event occurs within 12 months of arrival
4 (1) The rules in sub-paragraph (2) apply (subject to paragraph 6) if—
(a) during the period of 12 months beginning with the day the goods arrive in the destination State a relevant event occurs, and
(b) during the period beginning with the day the goods arrive in the destination State and ending immediately before the time that relevant event occurs the supplier does not transfer the whole property in the goods to the customer.
(2) The rules are that—
(a) a supply of the goods in the origin State is deemed to be made by the supplier,
(b) that deemed supply is deemed to involve the removal of the goods from the origin State at the time the relevant event occurs, and
(c) an acquisition of the goods by the supplier in pursuance of that deemed supply is deemed to take place in the destination State.
(3) For the meaning of a “relevant event”, see paragraph 7.
Goods not supplied and no relevant event occurs within 12 months of arrival
5 (1) The rules in sub-paragraph (2) apply (subject to paragraph 6) if during the period of 12 months beginning with the day the goods arrive in the destination State the supplier does not transfer the whole property in the goods to the customer and no relevant event occurs.
(2) The rules are that—
(a) a supply of the goods in the origin State is deemed to be made by the supplier,
(b) the deemed supply is deemed to involve the removal of the goods from the origin State at the beginning of the day following the expiry of the period of 12 months mentioned in sub-paragraph (1), and
(c) an acquisition of the goods by the supplier in pursuance of the deemed supply is deemed to take place in the destination State.
(3) For the meaning of a “relevant event”, see paragraph 7.
Exception to paragraphs 4 and 5: goods returned to origin State
6 The rules in paragraphs 4(2) and 5(2) do not apply if during the period of 12 months beginning with the day the goods arrive in the destination State—
(a) the goods are returned to the origin State by or under the direction of the supplier, and
(b) the supplier records the return of the goods in the register provided for in Article 243 (3) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC.
Meaning of “relevant event”
7 (1) For the purposes of this Schedule each of the following events is a relevant event—
(a) the supplier forms an intention not to supply the goods to the customer (but see sub-paragraph (2)),
(b) the supplier forms an intention to supply the goods to the customer otherwise than in the destination State,
(c) the supplier establishes a business establishment or other fixed establishment in the destination State,
(d) the customer ceases to be identified for the purposes of VAT in accordance with the law of the destination State,
(e) the goods are removed from the destination State by or under the directions of the supplier otherwise than for the purpose of being returned to the origin State, or
(f) the goods are destroyed, lost or stolen.
(2) But the event mentioned in paragraph (a) of sub-paragraph (1) is not a relevant event for the purposes of this Schedule if—
(a) at the time that the event occurs the supplier forms an intention to supply the goods to another person (“the substitute customer”),
(b) at that time the substitute customer is identified for the purposes of VAT in accordance with the law of the destination State,
(c) the supplier includes the number assigned to the substitute customer for the purposes of VAT by the destination State in the recapitulative statement provided for in Article 262 (2) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC, and
(d) as soon as reasonably practicable after forming the intention to supply the goods to the substitute customer the supplier records that intention in the register provided for in Article 243 (3) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC.
(3) In a case where sub-paragraph (2) applies, references in this Schedule to the customer are to be then read as references to the substitute customer.
(4) In a case where the goods are destroyed, lost or stolen but it is not possible to determine the date on which that occurred, the goods are to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as having been destroyed, lost or stolen on the date on which they were found to be destroyed or missing.
Record keeping by the supplier
8 In a case where the origin State is the United Kingdom, any record made by the supplier in pursuance of paragraph 1(1)(g), 6(b) or 7(2)(d) must be preserved for such period not exceeding 6 years as the Commissioners may specify in writing.
Record keeping by the customer
9 (1) In a case where the destination State is the United Kingdom, the customer must as soon as is reasonably practicable make a record of the information relating to the goods that is specified in Article 54A(2) of Council Implementing Regulation (EU) No. 282/2011 of 15 March 2011 laying down implementing measures for Directive 2006/112/EC on the common system of value added tax.
(2) A record made under this paragraph must—
(a) be made in a register kept by the customer for the purposes of this paragraph, and
(b) be preserved for such period not exceeding 6 years as the Commissioners may specify in writing.”
(6) In Schedule 6 (valuation of supplies: special cases) in paragraph 6(1) in paragraph (c) after “that Schedule” insert “; or
(d) paragraph 4(2)(a) or 5(2)(a) of Schedule 4B”.
(7) The Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 (S.I. 1995/2518) are amended as follows.
(8) In regulation 21 (interpretation of Part 4)—
(a) the existing text becomes paragraph (1), and
(b) after that paragraph insert—
“(2) For the purposes of this Part—
(a) goods are removed from the United Kingdom under call-off stock arrangements if they are removed from the United Kingdom in circumstances where the conditions in paragraphs (a) to (g) of paragraph 1 (1) of Schedule 4B to the Act are met,
(b) references to “the customer” or “the destination State”, in relation to goods removed from the United Kingdom under call-off stock arrangements, are to be construed in accordance with paragraph 1 of Schedule 4B to the Act, and
(c) “call-off stock goods”, in relation to a taxable person, means goods that have been removed from the United Kingdom under call-off stock arrangements by or under the directions of the taxable person.”
(9) After regulation 22 insert—
“22ZA(1) A taxable person must submit a statement to the Commissioners if any of the following events occurs—
(a) goods are removed from the United Kingdom under call-off stock arrangements by or under the directions of the taxable person;
(b) call-off stock goods are returned to the United Kingdom by or under the directions of the taxable person at any time during the period of 12 months beginning with their arrival in the destination State;
(c) the taxable person forms an intention to supply call-off stock goods to a person (“the substitute”) other than the customer in circumstances where—
(i) the taxable person forms that intention during the period of 12 months beginning with the arrival of the goods in the destination State, and
(ii) the substitute is identified for VAT purposes in accordance with the law of the destination State.
(2) The statement must—
(a) be made in the form specified in a notice published by the Commissioners,
(b) contain, in respect of each event mentioned in paragraph (1) which has occurred within the period in respect of which the statement is made, such information as may from time to time be specified in a notice published by the Commissioners, and
(c) contain a declaration that the information provided in the statement is true and complete.
(3) Paragraphs (3), (4) and (6) of regulation 22 have effect for the purpose of determining the period in respect of which the statement must be made, but as if—
(a) in paragraph (3)(a) of regulation 22, for “paragraphs (4) to (6)” there were substituted “paragraphs (4) and (6)”,
(b) in paragraph (3)(a) of regulation 22, for “the EU supply of goods is made” there were substituted “the event occurs”,
(c) in paragraph (4)(a) of regulation 22, for “the supply is made” there were substituted “the event occurs”, and
(d) in paragraph (6) of regulation 22, the reference to paragraph (1) of that regulation were a reference to paragraph (1) of this regulation.
(4) In determining the period in respect of which the statement must be made, the time at which an event mentioned in paragraph (1) (a) of this regulation is to be taken to occur is the time the goods concerned are removed from the United Kingdom (rather than the time the condition mentioned in paragraph (g) of paragraph 1 (1) to Schedule 4B to the Act is met in respect of the removal).”
(10) In regulation 22B (EC sales statements: supplementary)—
(a) in paragraph (1) for the words from “statements”, in the first place it occurs, to “and” substitute “more than one statement is to be submitted under regulations 22 to”,
(b) in paragraph (2) after “22” insert “, 22ZA”, and
(c) in paragraph (3), in the words before paragraph (a), after “22” insert “, 22ZA”.
(11) Regulation 22ZA of the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 (as inserted by paragraph (9) of this Resolution) is to be treated for the purposes of sections 65 and 66 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 as having been made under paragraph 2(3) of Schedule 11 to that Act.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
39. Post-duty point dilution of wine or made-wine
Resolved,
That—
(1) After section 55 of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 insert—
“55ZA Post-duty point dilution of wine or made-wine
(1) This section applies if—
(a) wine or made-wine is imported into the United Kingdom or produced in the United Kingdom for sale,
(b) excise duty is chargeable on the wine or made-wine as a result of section 54 or 55,
(c) after the excise duty point in relation to that charge, a person mixes or otherwise adds, at any place in the United Kingdom, water or any other substance to the wine or made-wine in a case where what results (“the new product”) is intended for sale, and
(d) if the addition had taken place immediately before that duty point, the amount of the excise duty would have been greater than the amount actually payable.
(2) The addition attracts a penalty under section 9 of the Finance Act 1994 (civil penalties), and the new product is liable to forfeiture.
(3) This section has effect, despite section 8 of the Isle of Man Act 1979, as if a removal of wine or made-wine to the United Kingdom from the Isle of Man constituted its importation into the United Kingdom (and references to the charge to excise duty as a result of section 54 or 55 and to the excise duty point are to be read accordingly).”
(2) The amendment made by this Resolution has effect in relation to any addition of water or any other substance on or after 1 April 2020.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
40. Rates of tobacco products duty
That—
(1) In Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 (table of rates of tobacco products duty), for the Table substitute—
“TABLE
(2) The amendment made by this Resolution comes into force at 6pm on 11 March 2020.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
41. Vehicle excise duty (rates)
That—
(1) Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (annual rates of vehicle excise duty) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1 (general rate)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (2) (vehicle not covered elsewhere in Schedule with engine cylinder capacity exceeding 1,549cc), for “£265” substitute “£270”, and
(b) in sub-paragraph (2A) (vehicle not covered elsewhere in Schedule with engine cylinder capacity not exceeding 1,549cc), for “£160” substitute “£165”.
(3) In paragraph 1B (graduated rates for light passenger vehicles registered before 1 April 2017), for the Table substitute—
(4) In the sentence immediately following the Table in that paragraph, for paragraphs (a) and (b) substitute—
“(a) in column (3), in the last two rows, “320” were substituted for “555” and “570”, and
(b) in column (4), in the last two rows, “330” were substituted for “565” and “580”.”
(5) In paragraph 1GC (graduated rates for first licence for light passenger vehicles registered on or after 1 April 2017), for Table 1 (vehicles other than higher rate diesel vehicles) substitute—
(6) In that paragraph, for Table 2 (higher rate diesel vehicles) substitute—
(7) In paragraph 1GD(1) (rates for any other licence for light passenger vehicles registered on or after 1 April 2017)—
(a) in paragraph (a) (reduced rate), for “£135” substitute “£140”, and
(b) in paragraph (b) (standard rate), for “£145” substitute “£150”.
(8) In paragraph 1GE(2) (rates for light passenger vehicles registered on or after 1 April 2017 with a price exceeding £40,000)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “£440” substitute “£465”, and
(b) in paragraph (b), for “£450” substitute “£475”.
(9) In paragraph 1J(a) (rates for light goods vehicles that are not pre-2007 or post-2008 lower emission vans), for “£260” substitute “£265”.
(10) In paragraph 2(1) (rates for motorcycles)—
(a) in paragraph (b) (motorbicycles with engine cylinder capacity exceeding 150cc but not exceeding 400cc), for “£43” substitute “£44”,
(b) in paragraph (c) (motorbicycles with engine cylinder capacity exceeding 400cc but not exceeding 600cc), for “£66” substitute “£67”, and
(c) in paragraph (d) (other cases), for “£91” substitute “£93”.
(11) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to licences taken out on or after 1 April 2020.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
42. Vehicle excise duty (applicable CO2 emissions figure)
Resolved,
That—
(1) In Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (annual rates of duty) in paragraph 1GA(5) (meaning of “the applicable CO2 emissions figure”)—
(a) omit “and” at the end of paragraph (a),
(b) in paragraph (b)—
(i) after “figure” insert “of a vehicle first registered before 1 April 2020”,
(ii) for “light-duty” substitute “light”, and
(iii) after “EU certificate of conformity” insert “or UK approval certificate”, and
(c) at the end of paragraph (b) insert “, and
(c) for the purpose of determining the applicable CO2 emissions figure of a vehicle first registered on or after 1 April 2020, ignore any values specified in an EU certificate of conformity or UK approval certificate that are not WLTP (worldwide harmonised light vehicle test procedures) values”.
(2) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to licences taken out on or after 1 April 2020.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
43. Vehicle excise duty (electric vehicles: extension of exemption)
Resolved,
That—
(1) The Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 25 of Schedule 2 (exempt vehicles: light passenger vehicles with low CO2 emissions) omit sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) (no exemption if vehicle price exceeds £40,000 etc).
(3) As a consequence, Part 1AA of Schedule 1 (annual rates of duty: light passenger vehicles registered on or after 1 April 2017) is amended as follows.
(4) In paragraph 1GB (exemption from paying duty on first vehicle licence for certain vehicles)—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1) omit “(2) or”, and
(b) omit sub-paragraph (2).
(5) In paragraph 1GD (rates of duty payable on any other vehicle licence for vehicle), in sub-paragraph (2) omit “or (4)”.
(6) In paragraph 1GE (higher rates of duty: vehicles with a price exceeding £40,000)—
(a) omit sub-paragraphs (3) and (4), and
(b) in sub-paragraph (5) for “sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) do” substitute “Sub-paragraph (2) does”.
(7) In paragraph 1GF (calculating the price of a vehicle), in sub-paragraph (1) omit “and (3)(a)”.
(8) The amendments made by this Resolution come into force on 1 April 2020 but do not apply in relation to licences in force immediately before that date.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
44. Vehicle excise duty (motor caravans)
Resolved,
That—
(1) In the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, in Part 1AA of Schedule 1 (annual rates of duty: light passenger vehicles registered on or after 1 April 2017), paragraph 1GA is amended as follows.
(2) After sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) But this Part of this Schedule does not apply to a motor caravan which is first registered, under this Act or under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, on or after 12 March 2020.”
(3) After sub-paragraph (2) insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1A) a vehicle is a “motor caravan” if the certificate mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) (b) identifies the vehicle as a motor caravan within the meaning of Annex II to Directive 2007/46/EC.”
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
45. Vehicle excise duty (exemption in respect of medical courier vehicles)
Resolved,
That—
(1) Schedule 2 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (exempt vehicles) is amended as follows.
(2) In the heading before paragraph 6, after “Ambulances” insert “, medical courier vehicles”.
(3) After paragraph 6 insert—
“6A (1) A vehicle is an exempt vehicle if—
(a) it is used primarily for the transportation of medical items,
(b) it is readily identifiable as a vehicle used for the transportation of medical items by being marked “Blood” on both sides, and
(c) it is registered under this Act in the name of a charity whose main purpose is to provide services for the transportation of medical items.
(2) In this paragraph—
“charity” means a charity as defined by paragraph 1 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 2010;
“medical items” means items intended for use for medical purposes, including in particular—
(a) blood;
(b) medicines and other medical supplies;
(c) items relating to people who are undergoing medical treatment;
“item” includes any substance.”
(4) The amendments made by this Resolution come into force on 1 April 2020.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
46. Hydrocarbon oil duties (private pleasure craft)
Resolved,
That provision may be made as regards the use of rebated fuels in private pleasure craft.
47. Rates of air passenger duty
Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year increasing the rates of air passenger duty.
48. Amounts of gross gaming yield charged to gaming duty
Resolved,
That provision may be made increasing the amounts of gross gaming yield specified in the table in section 11(2) of the Finance Act 1997.
49. Rates of climate change levy from April 2020
Resolved,
That—
(1) Paragraph 42 of Schedule 6 to the Finance Act 2000 (climate change levy: amount payable by way of levy) is amended as follows.
(2) In sub-paragraph (1), for the table substitute—
“TABLE
(3) In sub-paragraph (1)—
(a) in paragraph (ba) (reduced-rate supplies of electricity), for “7” substitute “8”,
(b) after that paragraph insert—
“(bb) if the supply is a reduced-rate of supply of any petroleum gas, or other gaseous hydrocarbon, supplied in a liquid state, 23 per cent of the amount that would be payable if the supply were a supply to which paragraph (a) applies;”, and
(c) in paragraph (c) (other reduced-rate supplies), for “22” substitute “19”.
(4) In consequence of the amendment made by paragraph (3) of this Resolution, in the Notes to paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Climate Change Levy (General) Regulations 2001, for the definition of “r” substitute—
“r= 0.92 in the case of electricity; 0.77 in the case of any petroleum gas, or other gaseous hydrocarbon, supplied in a liquid state; and 0.81 in any other case.”
(5) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to supplies treated as taking place on or after 1 April 2020.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
50. Rates of climate change levy (future years)
Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made taking effect in a future year amending the rates of climate change levy.
51. Rates of landfill tax
Resolved,
That—
(1) Section 42 of the Finance Act 1996 (amount of landfill tax) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) (standard rate), for “£91.35” substitute “£94.15”.
(3) In subsection (2) (reduced rate for certain disposals), in the words after paragraph (b)—
(a) for “£91.35” substitute “£94.15”, and
(b) for “£2.90” substitute “£3”.
(4) The amendments made by this Resolution have effect in relation to disposals made (or treated as made) on or after 1 April 2020.
And it is declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
52. Carbon emissions tax
Resolved,
That provision may be made about carbon emissions tax.
53. Greenhouse gas emissions trading schemes
Resolved,
That provision may be made for the imposition of charges by the allocation, in return for payment, of allowances under paragraph 5 of Schedule 2 to the Climate Change Act 2008.
54. Import duty (international trade disputes)
Resolved,
That provision may be made amending section 15(1)(b) of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018.
55. Priority of certain HMRC debts on insolvency
Resolved,
That provision may be made conferring, on the insolvency of a person, a priority as regards an amount owed by the person to the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in respect of—
(a) value added tax, or
(b) certain deductions that the person is required to make from a payment made to another person.
56. Joint and several liability of individuals for tax liabilities of companies etc
Resolved,
That provision may be made for individuals to be jointly and severally liable, in certain circumstances involving insolvency or potential insolvency, for amounts payable to the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs by bodies corporate or unincorporate.
57. Operation of the general anti-abuse rule
Resolved,
That provision may be made—
(a) about the procedural requirements and time limits for the making of adjustments by virtue of section 209 of the Finance Act 2013, and
(b) amending paragraph 5 of Schedule 43C to that Act.
58. Tax relief for scheme payments etc
Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made for tax relief in respect of—
(a) payments made under or otherwise referable to the Windrush Compensation Scheme,
(b) payments under the Troubles Permanent Disablement Payment Scheme, and
(c) other compensation payments made by or on behalf of a government, public authority or local authority.
59. HMRC exercise of officer functions
Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about things done by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs in the exercise of functions conferred by or under enactments relating to taxation on officers of Revenue and Customs.
60. Tax returns (limited liability partnerships)
Resolved,
That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made about tax returns in relation to limited liability partnerships that are not carrying on a trade, profession or business with a view to profit.
61. Preparatory expenditure on plastics tax
Resolved,
That provision may be made about preparations by the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for the introduction of a new tax to be charged in respect of certain plastic packaging.
62. Limits on local loans
Resolved,
That (notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters that may be included in Finance Bills) provision may be made increasing to £115 billion, with power to increase by order to £135 billion, the limit imposed by section 4 of the National Loans Act 1968 in relation to loans made in pursuance of section 3 of that Act.
63. Incidental provision etc
Resolved,
That it is expedient to authorise—
(a) any incidental or consequential charges to any duty or tax (including charges having retrospective effect) that may arise from provisions designed in general to afford relief from taxation, and
(b) any incidental or consequential provision (including provision having retrospective effect) relating to provision authorised by any other resolution.
Finance (Money)
Queen’s recommendation signified
Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorise—
(a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums incurred by the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs which is attributable to the increase in the percentage in section 104M(3) of the Corporation Tax Act 2009, and
(b) any increase in the sums payable out of or into the National Loans Fund which is attributable to increasing to £115 billion, with power to increase by order to £135 billion, the limit imposed by section 4 of the National Loans Act 1968 in relation to loans made in pursuance of section 3 of that Act.
Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions;
That the Chairman of Ways and Means, the Prime Minister, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Matt Hancock, Secretary Alok Sharma, Secretary Grant Shapps, Steve Barclay, John Glen, Kemi Badenoch and Jesse Norman bring in the Bill.
Finance Bill
Jesse Norman accordingly presented a Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with finance.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 114).
Business without Debate
Liaison Membership
Delegated Legislation
Publication of Content of Ministerial Statements
Mr Speaker
Before I call the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make his statement, I wish to make a few remarks. Ministers have the right to make statements immediately after questions and urgent questions in the normal way, but ministerial statements at other times require my permission. The Government asked my permission for the Chancellor to make a statement today at 7 pm. I agreed to that, but I made it clear that I did so only on the basis that the House would be the first to hear from him and that he would not first appear before the media. I turned down requests for urgent questions to the Chancellor that I would otherwise have granted. I wanted to ensure that elected Members had the first opportunity to question the Chancellor.
I am deeply disappointed that what I understood to be a commitment has not been honoured. These are difficult and sobering times. I do not want to pick a quarrel with any Member. I do, though, want to make it crystal clear that my view is that Ministers have a duty to report first to this House when major policy changes are announced. The Chancellor has the chance to do the right thing in the future. I call upon him now to give the House an assurance that any future statements will be made to the House first, which is consistent with section 9.1 of the ministerial code.
Economic Update
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to you for allowing me to make this statement. Let me wholeheartedly apologise that I was not able to set out these measures to the House first. I can provide the reassurance that you requested and I hope that hon. and right hon. Members across the House understand that these are extraordinary circumstances.
I want to take the opportunity today to set out for the House the next stage of our economic plan in response to the coronavirus. The coronavirus pandemic is a public health emergency, but it is also an economic emergency. We have never, in peacetime, faced a fight of an economic nature like this. I know that people are deeply worried. I know that people’s anxiety about the disease itself is matched only by their anxiety about their livelihoods.
In the Budget last week, I set out the first stage of our economic response with a £30 billion package to support people and businesses. I promised to do whatever it takes to support our economy through this crisis and that, if the situation changed, I would not hesitate to take further action. As the Prime Minister set out yesterday, we are now approaching the fast-growth part of the upwards curve. He has set out the next stage of our public health response; I want to update the House on the next stage of our economic response.
Let me begin by setting out for the House our overarching economic strategy. People should know that the objective of our economic policy remains clear and our resolve remains firm: we will do whatever it takes to protect households and businesses to get through this, and to make sure that the effects do not become permanent. As we develop our strategy, not just today but over the coming days and weeks, we will be guided by three principles. First, our response must be comprehensive. This national effort will be underpinned by Government interventions in the economy on a scale unimaginable only a few weeks ago. This is not a time for ideology and orthodoxy. This is a time to be bold—a time for courage.
I want to reassure every British citizen that this Government will give you the tools you need to get through this. We will support jobs, we will support incomes, we will support businesses, and we will help protect your loved ones. We will do whatever it takes.
Secondly, our response must be co-ordinated. We in Government are working hand in glove with the wider economic authorities. Domestically, that includes the Bank of England, the regulators, and the health response. And internationally, I continue to engage with my G7 and G20 counterparts to agree and facilitate a global response.
Thirdly, our response must be coherent. It would be easy, at a time like this, to rush into a response and measures that we found out later had been ill-considered. The single most important test we in this House must set ourselves is to make sure that the actions we take will, in the lives of ordinary people and businesses, make a difference. To apply those principles in practice, we will use fiscal action to support public services, households and businesses. The Budget last week set out the first stage, including our commitment to provide the NHS with whatever it needs. In the coming days, I will take further steps, with a particular focus on supporting people and individuals.
In response to the updated medical advice yesterday, I can take three immediate steps today. First, the Government will stand behind businesses small and large. I can announce today an unprecedented package of Government-backed and guaranteed loans to support businesses to get through this. Today, I am making available an initial £330 billion of guarantees, equivalent to 15% of our GDP. That means any business that needs to access cash to pay its rent, salaries or suppliers will be able to access a Government-backed loan on attractive terms. If demand is greater than the initial £330 billion I am making available today, I will go further and provide as much capacity as required. I said whatever it takes, and I mean it.
That support will be delivered through two main schemes. To support liquidity among larger firms, I have today agreed a new lending facility with the Governor of the Bank of England to provide low-cost commercial paper. To support lending to small and medium-sized businesses, I am extending the new business interruption loan scheme I announced at the Budget last week so that rather than loans of up to £1.2 million, it will now provide loans of up to £5 million, with no interest due for the first six months. Both of those schemes will be up and running by the start of next week. I am also taking a new legal power in the covid Bill to offer whatever further financial support I decide is necessary.
Some sectors are facing particularly acute challenges. In the coming days, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport and I will discuss a specific potential support package for airlines and airports. Yesterday, I asked my Cabinet colleagues to urgently convene meetings over the coming days with business leaders and representatives in the most affected sectors to identify other specific opportunities to support them, including possible regulatory forbearance. I repeat: we will do whatever it takes.
Secondly, as well as access to finance, businesses need support with their cash flow and fixed costs. Following the changed medical advice yesterday, there are genuine concerns about the impact on pubs, clubs, theatres and other hospitality, leisure and retail venues. Let me confirm today that for those businesses that do have a policy that covers pandemics, the Government’s action is sufficient and will allow them to make an insurance claim against their policy. But many businesses do not have insurance, so we need to go further. I announced last week that businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors with a rateable value of less than £51,000 will pay no business rates this year. Today, I can go further and provide those businesses with an additional cash grant of up to £25,000 per business to help bridge through this period.
Additionally, I am extending this business rates holiday to all businesses in those sectors, irrespective of their rateable value. That means that every single shop, pub, theatre, music venue and restaurant, and any other business in the retail, hospitality or leisure sector, will pay no business rates whatsoever for 12 months, and if they have a rateable value of less than £51,000, they will now get a cash grant as well. I also announced last week that we would be providing £3,000 grants to 700,000 of our smallest businesses. To support their cash flow in these exceptional circumstances, today I can increase those cash grants to £10,000.
Taken together, on top of the unlimited lending capacity I have already announced, that is a package of tax cuts and grants in this financial year to directly support businesses worth more than £20 billion. That comes on top of the existing multibillion-pound package I set out at Budget, which included reimbursing small and medium-sized companies for the cost of statutory sick pay. Local authorities in England will be fully compensated for the costs of these measures, and the devolved Administrations will receive at least £3.5 billion in additional funding as a result, to provide support to businesses in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I repeat again: we will do whatever it takes.
Thirdly, I will strengthen our support for peoples and individuals. At Budget last week, I committed £1 billion to support the financial security of vulnerable people through a half-a-billion-pound boost to the welfare system and a half-a-billion-pound hardship fund for local authorities. Following discussions with industry, I can announce today that, for those in difficulty due to coronavirus, mortgage lenders will now offer a three-month mortgage holiday, so that people will not have to pay a penny towards their mortgage while they get back on their feet. In the coming days, I will go much further to support people’s financial security. In particular, I will work with trade unions and businesses to urgently develop new forms of employment support to help protect people’s jobs and incomes through this period.
Let no one doubt our resolve. When I said in the Budget last week that we will do everything we can to keep this country and our people healthy and financially secure, I meant it. The measures that I have announced today are part of a comprehensive, co-ordinated and coherent response to a serious and evolving economic situation. These are only the first steps, and I will set out the next stage of our response in the coming days. We have never faced an economic fight like this one, but we are well prepared. We will get through this, and we will do whatever it takes. I commend this statement to the House.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
There was an element of déjà vu about that statement. I thank the Chancellor of the Exchequer for providing us with an earlier copy of it. Of course, we recognise the immense threat that this virus poses to our country and the globe, and we want to work with him to ensure that we do everything we can to protect our economy and our people. But today, in some of our constituencies, people were being laid off—they were losing their jobs and their incomes, and their livelihoods are being threatened. People are worried, and I am disappointed that today’s package of measures does not really appreciate the urgency or the gravity of the situation for those individuals and their families.
Let us establish a principle throughout our discussions. To protect our people, the underlying principle must be that, wherever a person is sick, self-isolating or laid off from their employment, we will protect their income and give them security. I want to raise a number of questions about issues that the Chancellor failed to address and that I hope will be addressed urgently.
On those people who are sick, there is an urgent need for statutory sick pay to be available for everybody from day 1, and that means extending it to people on low pay, in part-time work and on zero-hours contracts, who at the moment do not qualify. Will the Chancellor now consider abolishing completely the lower earnings limit with regard to statutory sick pay, as called for by the CBI? May I also ask him to heed the call of the TUC and other groups to lift the overall level of statutory sick pay? The TUC has proposed that it should be raised to the level of the real living wage, and I think we should support that. Other countries are providing 100% protection of wages.
Other questions with regard to individuals remain unanswered. Will those workers who have been asked or required to self-isolate—teachers, health workers, nurses, carers and other essential public servants—be protected on full pay to ensure that essential services continue? Will the Government assure people of a right to work from home?
Other pressures felt by individuals relate to rents, mortgages and evictions. I really regret—I ask the Chancellor to consider this urgently this evening—that there was nothing in the statement to protect renters. It affects all our constituents. Will the Chancellor bring forward urgently now measures to protect renters, prevent evictions and enable rent holidays for those people unable to meet their costs? Will he put powers in the legislation now to follow the example of some other countries that have frozen or suspended utility bill payments and put that on a statutory footing because this is an emergency?
For those who have already lost their jobs, let us be clear: the level of and access to universal credit are unacceptable. The Chancellor has said that those receiving universal credit can receive an advance as a loan. This is pushing people into debt, some of them the poorest in our society. The Child Poverty Action Group has asked whether we can make that loan non-repayable as a grant. Can I urge him to consider that?
The Chancellor has said, and I welcome it, that he is going to bring the trade unions together to look at a more sustainable package. We need to do that within days, not weeks, and we will work with him to ensure that happens. I would cite other examples. In Denmark, the Government cover 75% of wages and companies cover 25%. It is true that workers give up some holidays in exchange, but there is a job guarantee for those workers.
We want financial support, but we want guarantees that these people, when this crisis is over, will have a job to go back to, particularly in those companies where there have been significant lay-offs. Unfortunately, we are now facing significant job losses, and a real sense of uncertainty for workers and businesses alike. I have to say that that uncertainty was made worse last night by statements with regard to the hospitality sector. I do not believe that the Chancellor’s statement today gives the clarity that is needed. Will he make it clear to the insurance companies that those in the hospitality sector—the pubs, the clubs, the theatres, the festivals—are closing on the instruction of the Government? In that way, most of them, even if they do not have “pandemic” in their insurance policies, will be covered.
I welcome today’s announcement of loan guarantees to businesses, but I notice in the small print—can the Chancellor clarify this?—that this is interest free for a period of six months only. I am not sure whether that gives the sufficient support and guarantee for the long term that many will want. I welcome the grants, but may I say to him that the response so far from a number of businesses has been that the scale of the grants needs reviewing? They are too small, and they do not relate to the costs that people are involved in at the moment.
I welcome what the Government have said about the business rates relief holiday, but last week the statement seemed to exclude nurseries and childcare. Can the Chancellor just clarify that that has been remedied now, because childcare and nurseries will be desperately needed in the coming period? A bit of concern has been expressed about the British Business Bank being asked last week to deliver the business interruption loan scheme. As of very recently there is little public evidence that the scheme has been established or developed.
I will turn quickly to individual sectors. On the aviation sector and other key transport sectors, I accept that there is a need now for support. I say gently, however, that I resent Mr Branson urging his workers to take eight weeks of unpaid leave, when he makes such a fortune, often by tax avoidance as well. If we are to give grants, loans and assistance to some of these sectors, we should consider whether to take an equity stake for the long term. That also relates to the rail sector. If any franchise fails, is there any planning to bring it under public ownership and management?
Another sector that has been mentioned—this is deeply worrying—is the fishing industry. It has been hit hard, particularly because of its inability to export. We have been told about the lack of insurance cover for boat mortgages. Can we look at that rapidly now to develop some form of legislative protection? Agriculture is now moving into the planting season. The sector was already facing a significant shortage of workers, but it now faces even bigger challenges. Will the Chancellor reassure the House that there will be support for agriculture throughout, because food supplies will be essential during this coming period, especially domestic food supplies?
I must also raise the issue of public services, which the Chancellor did not mention in any depth. The Opposition received well the commitment that whatever the NHS needs it will get, but can we be clear about the allocation of funding to enable testing to take place at scale? The £5 billion response fund did not earmark any particular funding for the NHS, let alone for testing. Clearly, the public now want reassurance that testing will be developed, and we need the funding. Also on the NHS, can the Government point to stronger steps that need to be taken to manufacture essential ventilators and provide personal protective equipment for frontline NHS workers? If we are harvesting our resources, Labour Members do not believe that we should be paying for private hospital beds at this time. Indeed, many of us believe that they should be requisitioned for the use of the whole community.
The overall system of caring for our population relies not just on the NHS but on social care. Will the Chancellor be absolutely clear now about the scale of funding that has so far been directed to social care, as there is uncertainty about that at the moment? What does he think is the best estimate for the level of funding that will be needed, given that we have already inherited 120,000 vacancies, and staff numbers may well dwindle because of the impact of the virus? In recent years, we have seen evidence that some care companies face threats to their financial viability. What plans have the Government developed to intervene if necessary in that sector? There is also pressure on family carers, who are relied on to support our social care system. We need proposals to support them financially as well.
One area of change that has been mooted is the possible closure of our schools. It is crucial that childcare support is provided in the event that any closures occur. We will work with the Chancellor on that issue and with local authorities, but it is crucial that children who depend on free school dinners receive support if the schools are closed. We cannot allow them to go hungry. School staff may be off for long periods and we would like an assurance that their incomes will be guaranteed. Pupils and students are being advised to study from home and most will require access to high-speed broadband. What will be done to ensure access to broadband for students? May I suggest to the Chancellor that it could be free? We all rely in our communities on the voluntary sector as well and it is being hit hard because of the temporary downturn in donations and staffing levels. What consideration has been given to grants to ensure that the voluntary sector can continue to carry out its important functions?
We need more clarity on the Barnett consequentials, and very quickly, because there is uncertainty about the scale of support that will be given to the devolved countries and regions.
With regard to international interventions, whatever people thought about Gordon Brown’s individual policies, in 2007 and 2008 he showed international leadership to tackle that crisis. I have expressed previously my disappointment that the Government did not act sooner in bringing countries together. I urge the Chancellor to follow up the teleconference with the G7 on Monday with engagement through the G20, the World Bank, the World Health Organisation and the UN, and to bring forward a global plan with his colleagues to ensure that we can give assurance not just to the markets but to those, particularly in the global south, who may well be hit hardest by this virus.
Rishi Sunak
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the constructive attitude with which he approaches some of these issues. I very much welcome his desire to work with me to try to solve some of the pressing issues that face our nation.
I will try to answer as many of the right hon. Gentleman’s specific questions as possible, starting with financial security for our most vulnerable people. I wholeheartedly agree that this is a priority and should be a priority, which is why, in the Budget, we made significant changes to the operation of statutory sick pay, universal credit, and employment and support allowance to ensure that people had quicker and more generous access to a support system for them and their families. We have already invested £1 billion to provide that extra security, but of course we keep all these things under review. As I said, the next step of our plan is to focus on providing support to people, their incomes and their jobs over the coming days.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about insurance for the leisure sector. I can confirm that, after extensive meetings today between my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and the insurance industry, the insurance industry will honour insurance contracts that would have been triggered if the advice had been to ban certain things, rather than it being advisory not to do them. That has been agreed and negotiated by my hon. Friend. I thank him for those efforts, and I thank the insurance industry for doing the right thing.
The shadow Chancellor asked, rightly, about renters. Of course, I announced measures today on mortgages. He is absolutely right that the biggest fixed cost that many families face will be their rent payment, and it is right that we have regard to that. I can tell him that my right hon. Friend the Housing Secretary will, in the coming days, make a statement with further measures to protect renters through these difficult times.
The shadow Chancellor asked about other countries and their experience, and about global leadership. He mentioned some specific examples of schemes. I can assure him that I am in touch with my counterparts across the G7 and the G20 to understand how schemes in other countries work. He mentioned, for example, employment support schemes in both Germany and Denmark. I say to him and to the House that, whatever package or scheme we come up with that we believe will provide the appropriate support, it is important that we can operationalise that at speed. The difference between our system and that of many other countries is that they have these systems already in place, so it is far easier for them to step them up quickly. We need to make sure we come up with a solution that can be delivered so that it makes a difference to people quickly, which is why I am happy to work closely with unions and business groups to see what will make the most sense.
On international leadership, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it was widely noticed by other countries that last week, in this country, we saw both monetary and fiscal policy—the Government and the Bank of England working independently but in a co-ordinated fashion to provide significant support and confidence to the economy. That was acknowledged by people, including the International Monetary Fund, which noticed what happened here and pointed at it as an example for others to follow.
On the scale of our response, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the analysis comparing the scale of the fiscal support that various different countries are providing. Again, I think he will find that the package of measures announced both last week and today shows that we have one of the strongest responses of anybody in the G7 as a percentage of GDP to the significant challenge that we face.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the delivery of the loan scheme and it is right to focus on how it will be delivered. We have been working at pace over the past week to make sure that the loans can be delivered not by the British Business Bank, but by individual retail banks on high streets up and down the country. Again, because of the work of the Economic Secretary, that will happen by early next week: businesses will be able to walk into their local branches and request a business interruption loan that has been backed by the Government on these attractive terms. Again, we have to work with the systems that we have. We cannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good because we want to be able to deliver these schemes as quickly as possible to businesses up and down the country.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about support for a variety of sectors. I can tell him that I have urgently asked my Cabinet colleagues to convene roundtables and engagement with their particular industries to understand if there are specific measures we should be looking at, on top of the measures for airlines and airports that we can look to address in the coming days. All the sectors he mentioned will be covered by that.
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: when it comes to providing support to larger companies, if the taxpayer is going to be put at risk in supporting those companies, it is right that the taxpayer is rewarded on the other side. That is a principle with which we also wholeheartedly agree. He can rest assured that, as we negotiate those situations, we will always protect the interests of taxpayers.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly asked about public services. Our No. 1 priority is to ensure that the NHS has everything it needs to get through this period. I made that commitment last week. I re-echo that commitment today.
On the Barnett consequentials, the right hon. Gentleman will have seen this week that we released the full amount of the Barnett consequentials resulting from the Budget package in advance to all devolved authorities. Today, I announced the overall quantum. Again, we will quickly release those, in advance of those payments being released in England, to the devolved authorities, so they can plan appropriately.
The right hon. Gentleman can rest assured that all the specific public service issues he mentioned, whether school meals, schools and social care, are under active and urgent consideration.
I will end on this point. Our public servants, in particular those working hardest in our NHS right now, deserve nothing but our support at this difficult time. I want them to know, and I want the country to know, that we will do whatever it takes to get through this.
Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)
These are truly shocking times and a great weight lies upon the shoulders of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. I hope it is felt right across the House that we wish him every success in his endeavours to steer us through this crisis. He has come forward with a huge response to the current situation, which I know will, in many quarters and businesses up and down the country, provide some reassurance. There are, however, inevitably some areas on which there is still work to come, not least in terms of the employment support package. I note the fact that he will shortly be engaging closely with trade unions and businesses to flesh that out. May I urge him to do so as quickly and promptly as possible? Does he know at this stage when the conclusions of that exercise may be reached, so that we can provide vital reassurance to employers and employees who fear for their jobs up and down our country? This is a time in our history where not just days, but hours matter.
Rishi Sunak
I thank my right hon. Friend for his thoughtful support. I can tell him that we are working on those proposals urgently and plan to have answers for both him and the House in the coming days, ideally next week, with an early thought of what we can do. As I said, designing these schemes will take an appropriate amount of diligence and care. That is what we are focused on urgently as we speak. He is right: this is about hours, not days and weeks.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I thank the Chancellor for the action and the extra money that he has announced this evening. I put on record my thanks to health staff, volunteers and everybody working at the forefront of this crisis. I also mark my sadness at the second death that was recorded in Scotland today.
We want to work across the economy and across society, because fundamentally this is about people’s lives. The Chancellor is right that nothing should be spared when it comes to that. Can he tell me precisely what the Barnett consequentials will be from today’s announcement? He says that the Scottish Government knew in advance. I do not make the point to be party political, but my understanding is that the Scottish Government were only notified by letter at 5.30 pm yesterday of the previous set of Barnett consequentials from last week’s Budget. [Interruption.] I hear hon. Members saying that that has been the same for Wales.
The Scottish Government want to act swiftly. They must not be behind the curve of what England is doing. The Chancellor must pick up the phone to Kate Forbes, the Scottish Cabinet Secretary for Finance, to let her know exactly what is coming, so that she can take action for Scotland’s businesses and individuals across the country.
The Chancellor mentioned that the loans will be on attractive terms. Can he tell us more details? Businesses will be nervous about taking on more debt at this time, and interest free for six months is perhaps not good enough for businesses that are struggling and questioning their very future. His flexibility on the next steps is also welcome, but we expect those measures to come before the House if at all possible.
Will the Chancellor take a stake in the airlines to guarantee that money for the future? In any intervention for airlines, will he make sure that staff are protected first, including support staff in airports and in the supply chain, not just airline staff directly? They are all worried about their jobs.
Cash grants for small businesses are welcome, but I gently suggest that the £3,000 announced last week was not enough. Today’s announcement of £10,000 shows how short that was. The hospitality sector in particular needs urgent clarity about what is going to happen for events, for pubs and right across the sector. The Government need to be absolutely clear: if people are to stay away from pubs, pubs need to know that and have the Government’s backing if they close. That applies across the hospitality sector, including for hotels and lots of small businesses in the supply chain.
The Association of British Insurers has suggested that many businesses will not have a policy that covers pandemic. Will the UK Government stand as an insurer of last resort, as Professor Sir Charles Bean suggested at the Treasury Committee today, saying,
“Big early action is better than half-hearted action that’s late”?
I urge the Chancellor to think on that. Can the insurers cope if they are asked to pay out on all those policies? Will the Government stand behind the insurers if need be?
What protection has been given to pregnant women around maternity entitlement? Lots of women have been asked to take their maternity leave early, which will affect how long they can stay off at the end. They need to know that the Government will back them on that and that they will not lose out on their maternity leave because of the coronavirus.
The Chancellor made no mention of private renters, particularly young people who are more likely to be in insecure employment. He is giving a break to those paying mortgages, lots of which are buy-to-rent mortgages where people rent the accommodation. If the mortgage holders are getting a break, that must be guaranteed for renters as well. It must be passed on, and passed on quickly. If the Chancellor looks at Twitter, he will see that people around the country are losing their tenancies and do not know whether they can get a new one.
There has been talk in the US of $1,000 being given to Americans, and in Italy €500 being given to the self-employed. Will the Chancellor consider such direct schemes for individuals who may be struggling to cope? Will he also look at the situation for asylum seekers and those with no recourse to public funds who cannot claim benefits and are particularly vulnerable? The services, food banks and voluntary action that they rely on will disappear. They need direct payments as well if they are to live through this crisis.
I note that France is moving to the direct payment of bills. Will the Chancellor look at that measure? That is a different mechanism that stops money being taken out of people’s pockets, rather than putting money into them. Has he spoken to the energy companies about that?
Turning to the vulnerability of people in the economy just now, the Fraser of Allander Institute has said that only one in four under-25s has enough savings to cover one month of income. The under-25s are incredibly vulnerable, so will the Chancellor consider specific measures to tackle issues for those young people? Only 42% of households in the bottom income decile have enough savings to cover one month. People will not get through this crisis with the money they have in the bank, because a lot of them have no money in the bank. He needs to consider how he will ensure that people can put food on the table. That need is particularly pressing for families, because if the schools do close and parents cannot work, there will be no money coming in. He needs to think about how those families will put food on the table for those children during this extended period.
I agree with everyone who has said that statutory sick pay is woefully inadequate to deal with this crisis. The Government have suggested that people should apply for universal credit, but they seem to be forgetting that for many people universal credit is far less generous even than statutory sick pay, so will the Chancellor urgently increase the amount that people can get through the universal credit system? Will he uprate that so that people can get enough money to survive the crisis? Will he consider extending the period for universal credit advances, or ideally get rid of the advances and pay people straight away? Will he ensure that the Department for Work and Pensions looks carefully at the implications of people claiming universal credit for their entitlement to legacy benefits, because people might lose out on their legacy benefits if they jump into universal credit just now? Will the Department protect that for all claimants so that they do not lose out in the long term?
This is a crisis. I welcome all action that the UK Government will take on this, but the questions this evening will be legion, and people will have so many questions in the days ahead. I ask the Government to listen and to react as quickly as possible to all the questions that honourable colleagues will raise this evening, and in the weeks and months ahead.
Rishi Sunak
I thank the hon. Member for her comments. I can reassure her that I am listening. I welcome all the suggestions that she has made, and indeed all those that other hon. Members will make. We are listening intently to hon. Members, and to businesses and others, to ensure that we provide the support required.
Let me answer the hon. Member’s specific questions. The Barnett consequentials resulting from today’s package will be about £3.5 billion. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will be speaking to the Scottish Finance Secretary tomorrow to explain in more detail how that will work. Earlier this week we released the Barnett consequentials to the devolved authorities before the money has been drawn down in England, as would be typical, in order to provide advance on the Barnett consequentials to all devolved authorities in recognition of the circumstances that everyone is grappling with, so that they can plan appropriately. I hope that will be welcomed.
Obviously, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on specific interventions in any particular company, whether an airline or anything else, but I agree with the hon. Member that in general we are interested in protecting people’s jobs. When I stand here and talk about supporting businesses, I am keen to support businesses because that is the best way to protect jobs, and ultimately that is the best way to protect people.
The hon. Member asked about cash grants. In thinking about the scale of the grants and how significant they might be, let us take the £10,000 grant available for anyone currently in receipt of small business rate relief. The typical rateable value on one of those properties would be approximately £7,000. That is a good proxy for a year’s worth of rent. A £10,000 cash grant is therefore reasonably significant in covering what is probably a business’s biggest fixed cost. When we look at what the average income of one of those smaller businesses might be, again we see that it will be significant.
The hon. Member talked about pubs and the leisure sector. Not only will there be a business rates holiday for the sector for the next 12 months, but for all businesses in the sector, regardless of their rateable value, there will be a £25,000 cash grant for businesses up to £51,000.
The hon. Member asked about insurance. The statement is welcome on insurance. With regard to retrospectively changing insurance policies, she rightly identified that that would most likely cause solvency issues with insurance companies, so it is perhaps not the most appropriate course of action, which is why we have several other measures for providing support directly to businesses in those circumstances. She will probably be aware that very few businesses actually have the requisite insurance in any case, so although the steps set out today are welcome, it is important that we think more broadly about direct support.
I welcome the hon. Member’s question on maternity pay, which I will discuss with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and reflect on. With regard to renters, as I said in my earlier answer, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will shortly announce further measures to protect renters.
The hon. Lady talked about other countries, and about fiscal responses and individual measures. Every country is doing this slightly differently, but, broadly, are trying to do the same things through different means. I think that the best way to judge us is by the total scale of our fiscal response, and on that metric, as a percentage of GDP benchmarked to nearly all developed countries, we have what is to date one of the most comprehensive and significant packages of scale—which, as I have said, underlies our commitment to doing what it takes to get the country through this.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I strongly welcome the Chancellor’s enormous loan and guarantee package, but he himself recognised that he is supporting the liquidity of businesses rather than their long-term viability. We want to see employment protected, so may I ask him to fund business not just in ways that enable the maintenance of employment, but in ways that actively incentivise it? It is not the same thing. Block grants will not do it. May I also ask him, when he does that, to do more than just taking the route of sectoral support packages? If he takes that route, tens of thousands of small businesses will fall through the cracks.
That, unfortunately, means an incredibly tailored system. The Chancellor will have to design rather intricate mechanisms to ensure that we pay people properly, which may involve small claims courts, the insurance business and British chambers of commerce and the like. I ask him to consider doing that, however. What he has done today is important in terms of maintaining liquidity, but his main aim must be to maintain the viability of the British economy.
Rishi Sunak
My right hon. Friend has made a good point. I believe that providing liquidity now ensures sustainability for the future, but he is right to identify the further steps that are needed to provide support on fixed costs such as employment, and preserving and incentivising that employment. This is work that we are undertaking as a matter of urgency.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
For those who are currently off work on statutory sick pay or are self-isolating for public health reasons, who are laid off because there is no work or who are self-employed or low-paid, there is nothing at all in the Chancellor’s package of measures. The Chancellor says that these matters are under review. As a matter of urgency, will he at least increase statutory sick pay to the level of the national living wage, and come back to the House with a package of support that ensures that workers will not be financially penalised for doing the right thing, and will not be unable to pay their bills and rent and put food on the table?
Rishi Sunak
We have put £1 billion into the welfare system to provide extra financial security for those people, to speed up both access and the generosity of all those benefits.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
I thank the Chancellor and his team for all that has been announced today. I know that those in the retail hospitality sector in my constituency will be very pleased to hear about it.
There is a sector of the retail market that is doing incredibly well, and that is the supermarkets. Many of my constituents are worried because they rely on home deliveries from supermarkets. Can the Chancellor update us on what talks he and his colleagues are having with the supermarket industry about increasing capacity for home delivery?
Rishi Sunak
That is an excellent point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is engaged in urgent talks with supermarkets to ensure the security of our food supply and to improve accessibility, particularly for those who may now be at home.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I simply want to ask the Chancellor whether he could live on £94.25 per week. It is a simple question: has he ever lived on that, and could he live on that, because that is what most of my constituents are currently having to live on?
Rishi Sunak
We believe in a strong safety net during a short period so that people can get through this, which is why we have strengthened that safety net with £1 billion of extra investment to increase generosity and accessibility.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I commend my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for his bold measures today, which will encourage many small businesses to believe that the Government are on their side. There is more to do, I know. Can I also encourage him, though, in his statement to come, on further employment measures to bear it in mind that the most important thing we can do is to do everything we can to keep people in employment? That will help to deliver growth.
One area I want to raise with my right hon. Friend, which has not really been touched on, although I think the shadow Chancellor raised it, is the voluntary sector. The Centre for Social Justice has done some quick work on this and come to the conclusion that the smallest elements of the voluntary sector, which have no reserves, are going to lose about £400 million during this next few months, and they are going to be the ones that are called upon most for support in the community for those who suffer. Can I please ask him to look at this very carefully and see what we can do to give them that cash aid?
Rishi Sunak
My right hon. Friend knows better than most the value of making sure that people have the security of a good job, and I commend him for all his work in that regard. I agree with him wholeheartedly. My right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary is talking already to the voluntary sector and we stand ready to provide the support that may be required.
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)
I recognise, as I am sure the whole House does, the Chancellor’s wish to get any employment support scheme right, but he will recognise, as the shadow Chancellor said from the Front Bench, that people are facing redundancy right now. May I suggest two things that he can say tonight to help ward off those redundancies? The first is that he accepts the principle that Government should cover a substantial proportion of people’s wages, because it is in their interests and those of the economy and their businesses. The second is that he undertakes to come back not next week but by Friday of this week with a clear plan developed with unions and businesses.
Rishi Sunak
I say to the right hon. Gentleman that it is more important that we get this right than rush to things that will not work, but he can rest assured that we agree wholeheartedly with the ambitions of what he says, but delivering them and getting it right are vital and that is what we are working on doing.
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)
I congratulate and thank the Chancellor on behalf of the people in Mid Norfolk for a coherent and comprehensive package, in particular the support on rates and mortgages. In my rural and quite fragile economy, it is the pubs, the high streets, the small businesses, tourism and farming, and food processing that are the backbone of the economy. May I press him on the insurance point? The policies of many of my local employers simply do not cover liability for epidemics. Would it not be sensible to look at reinforcing the insurance industry, which has the wherewithal to deliver the support, so that those that have made money in the good years can help companies that really need it in tough times?
Rishi Sunak
I appreciate the point my hon. Friend is making. The steps today on insurance are welcome, but he is right to identify that retrospectively changing the situation that insurers would have reserved against could have a very significant impact on their solvency, which would send a ripple effect throughout the insurance market. That is not something that any of us would want to see.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
The Chancellor must surely recognise that those on statutory sick pay are being asked to protect the rest of us, but take only £96 a week in income and live on that, and that those on universal credit, if they can access the system at all, will be asked to live on £74 a week. Millions of people are simply not eligible for either of those deeply flawed structures. He has to do something fast. He has to do it quickly. Instead of talking about the £1 billion he has already put in, will he now realise that he has to move fast to reassure people that if they do the right thing they will not suffer and that they will be able to put food on the table and maintain their housing and their children’s meals?
Rishi Sunak
We have provided half a billion pounds specifically to local authorities to provide extra support, particularly to help people with housing costs, notably council tax. That will make an enormous difference to people on the ground.
Mark Eastwood (Dewsbury) (Con)
Many mortgage payers in my constituency will welcome the three-month holiday announced today. However, can the Chancellor confirm whether this will be implemented automatically by the banks and mortgage lenders, or will borrowers need to apply?
Rishi Sunak
Borrowers can speak to their mortgage provider and, owing to the work of my right hon. Friend today, they should receive a three-month mortgage holiday, depending on their circumstance as explained, but it should be reasonably automatic thereafter.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
Our economy is suffering a heart attack, one deeper and bigger than in 2008, so the Chancellor has a serious responsibility and he deserves constructive engagement from everyone in this House, including my party. His main task is to ensure that there is confidence among the business community and the British people. I have to tell him that although he has made a good start, this is still very much a work in progress. His package for the business sector was large, but may I urge him to say far more about the loan terms he is putting forward? Many small businesses will be very worried about taking on this debt. May I also urge him to go much faster to give confidence to the ordinary people who are suffering in our constituencies?
Rishi Sunak
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his constructive attitude, and I look forward to working with him. The loan terms will be interest-free for six months. Because of the liquidity that has been provided by the Bank of England, they will be incredibly cheap, and they will be available on a rolling basis for commercial paper, so they will be loans that are accessible and very valuable to businesses. They will be ready from next week.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
I am delighted that the Chancellor recognises the need for burden-sharing on employment costs in badly affected sectors such as tourism, travel and hospitality, but will he also make sure that there is a package for the self-employed, because some of those people are losing a large amount of their business, too?
Rishi Sunak
My right hon. Friend has written about the importance of employment support, and I look forward to getting his thoughts on those measures.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Half of my constituents rent privately—that is the highest proportion in the country. A quarter of all Londoners rent privately, and 13 million people across the country rent privately, with a third having no savings whatsoever. Will the Chancellor assure me that when we have the statement from the Housing Minister, there will, in addition to any legislative change to protect renters, be money on the table to help people on low incomes and in insecure employment to pay their rent, so that this crisis does not mean that they also get into debt and risk losing their homes?
Rishi Sunak
We very much recognise that rent is a significant portion of most household bills, which is why the Housing Secretary will shortly be outlining measures in this regard.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
The measures announced by the Chancellor should be welcomed, but many of my constituents who are self-employed are worried because their cash flow has stopped now. When can we expect further announcements on how we are going to help these people? Will he consider extending the loans he has made available to businesses to cover this category of people?
Rishi Sunak
I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the loans available already will be available to those who are self-employed and that many of them, those who do have small properties, will benefit from the business rate reliefs and grants too.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
My party also wishes to work with the Government on ensuring that we get through this crisis as easily as we can. Redundancies are already starting across a range of industries in Northern Ireland. It is important that if the Chancellor is coming with the next step, it addresses the issue of how we keep people in employment and how firms are supported. I understand that he wants to get this right, but he also has to get it done.
Rishi Sunak
I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that we will get it done, we will do it at pace and we very much agree that it is important to protect people’s jobs. That is the security we want to provide.
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) (Con)
I very much welcome the Chancellor’s statement and all that the Government are doing to support individuals and businesses in my constituency. I have a specific point for him that has been raised with me by the chairman of Gillingham football club. They are in league 1, but this also covers clubs in league 2. A lot of the matches for those clubs have been postponed. They rely on matchday income to support them. What will be done to work with those smaller football clubs and organisations to ensure that their Her Majesty’s Customs and Revenue payments are dealt with adequately and that they are given soft loans over a certain period to ensure that they can get through these challenging, difficult circumstances?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend’s football club, like many others, will be eligible for the business rates relief measures and grants that I have announced today. On HMRC, we activated Time to Pay last week, and there are now 2,000 specific, dedicated HMRC officers ready to take the calls of businesses such as Gillingham football club, in order to provide exactly what he suggested: a deferral for their tax payments and an agreed schedule for paying them back.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Yesterday, the Government announced measures for the hospitality industry. Businesses are laying off people today, throughout the country and certainly in County Durham, where I have spoken to businesses this afternoon. It is clear that the Chancellor does not have a clue how ordinary people live. They do not have access to savings and they do not have access to trust funds or independent wealth; they rely on what comes in each week. I urge him very strongly either to ensure that benefits are paid from day one, or to bring in some system that allows the Government to subsidise wages directly for some small businesses.
Rishi Sunak
It is because we care deeply about the financial security of all people that we want to work hardest to protect their jobs. That is the way to help working people in this country. We have strengthened the welfare system, and the measures that we have taken today will increase the likelihood that we can preserve those jobs. We know that there is more to do.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I very much welcome the package of measures that the Chancellor announced this evening, but when does he expect to be able to give some more detail on support for the aviation industry? Virgin Atlantic, easyJet, British Airways and Gatwick airport in my constituency are suffering deeply.
Rishi Sunak
I know that my hon. Friend knows those businesses well. He should rest assured that we are already in contact with them, through both the Treasury and the Department for Transport. As I said, we will work with them as quickly as possible to put in place what measures are necessary.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
This afternoon, Lochfyne Langoustines, which employs 20 people in the village of Tarbert, told me that it did not have a single UK or export sale today. Soon, the company’s boats will be tied up, processers will be laid off, and the business could close. The far east markets are beginning to reopen and there is a glimmer of hope, so will the UK Government work with the Scottish Government to help to arrange cargo flights to get into the reopening markets as soon as possible?
Rishi Sunak
I am happy to ask my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for International Trade and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to have a look at that.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the scale of the package that he has announced, and I recognise the significance of the Barnett consequentials that will come from it. Does he agree that simplicity and commonality are key features? It was only late yesterday that the Welsh Government matched the business rate package, which left—[Interruption.] It left many businesspeople in my constituency anxious before the support was made available. Does my right hon. Friend recognise that commonality will be an important theme?
Rishi Sunak
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point: a simple, common message across our Union would make an enormous difference to people everywhere.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I am disappointed to hear the tone from the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). I do not doubt what the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary have said about the devolved Administrations and what they are trying to do to give them information, but I must tell the Chancellor that it is not coherent and it is not working. He knows that getting cash to the frontline—to businesses and individuals—is absolutely mission-critical and time-critical at the moment, so will he work with the Administrations so that they can make future announcements together, so that businesses are not confused, people are not scared and we do not have further chaos? That has not happened today. The Welsh Finance Minister has made it clear that she would do that, but the Welsh Government did not have the information. Can we sort that out please, as a matter of urgency?
Rishi Sunak
I thank the hon. Member for his comments. As I said, the Chief Secretary will talk with all his counterparts in the devolved Administrations to ensure as co-ordinated an approach as we can achieve.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I warmly welcome the package that has been announced today, but my constituency is home to one of the largest concentrations of self-employed people in the country. Will the Chancellor please commit to looking at what further help might be given for them? Will he also please look at A2 properties, which do not currently receive business rates relief, and see whether some of those businesses—such as estate agents on the high streets—can be helped?
Rishi Sunak
I know that my hon. Friend is a champion of the self-employed. Some of the measures announced last week at the Budget will benefit them, as will, indeed, some of the loan and other grant measures announced today, depending on their circumstances, but my hon. Friend is right and we will of course keep an eye on that issue as we develop these packages.
Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)
The difference with this crisis is the profound effect it is having on human behaviour. The Chancellor has acknowledged that the big missing piece from the package announced tonight is direct financial support for workers who are laid off as a result of the advice that the Government have given to the country, so will he commit now—in principle if he cannot give the number—to bringing forward a package of support for a significant proportion of the wages of those who have been laid off as a result of this crisis?
Rishi Sunak
I have already committed to that urgent piece of work that we are undertaking. We have already improved the financial security available to people who find themselves either ill or off work, as a result of the £1 billion invested last week in these measures.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
At a time of national emergency and national need, Dover once again stands ready to do its duty. The Port of Dover, the hauliers and the ferry companies will be moving the goods, medicines and resources that are needed to keep our country safe and fed. Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that the port, transport, ferry companies, Border Force and all the hard-working local workers in my constituency will be given the necessary financial and practical assistance so that they can do their duty for our country?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the vital importance of our ports, particularly Dover. They are conduits for trade and everything else that our country needs at this critical time, and, of course, we stand ready to listen and hear what they need.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Last night, a constituent in the hospitality trade contacted me to express concern at the Prime Minister’s measures and to ask what could be done about them. Today, she emailed me to say that she had been made redundant and to ask how she could pay her rent. The Chancellor does not seem to grasp the scale of the fear, the uncertainty and the desperation in the country now. Will he guarantee to me now that every renter will have the means to pay their rent, and every small business the means to pay their staff?
Rishi Sunak
It is because of what was announced yesterday and the particular impact on the hospitality sector that today we have announced a series of steps of considerable support for that sector. As I have already said, when it comes to renting, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will shortly be announcing measures to protect renters in these circumstances, and we have strengthened the safety net, the security, for people to fall back on.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
In amplifying the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), will the Chancellor specifically say whether the charitable sector will be eligible for both the rate holiday and the grant funding? It is critical that we help those whose aim, purpose and mission is to help others.
Rishi Sunak
Most charities are already eligible for 80% charitable rate relief, but they will benefit from the new enhanced retail rate relief at 100%.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
The Chancellor has talked about courage, but I will tell him what takes courage: fighting this pandemic on the frontline without adequate protective clothing. Will he commit right now to doing whatever it takes to ensure that every single frontline healthcare worker has the protective clothing they need if they are working exposed to this virus?
Rishi Sunak
My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is working around the clock to support our healthcare workers to have everything they need to do the vital job that they are doing for us. They will get whatever support that they require.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I welcome the scale of what the Chancellor has announced. It is up to the mark. Some of his specific measures will be welcomed by constituents who have contacted me, but may I press him a little on the employment support package? I recognise the importance of coming up with a package that is deliverable, but I fear that if he is unable to say anything more urgently, he needs to give businesses the confidence to keep those employees employed, because some of them will be facing massive reductions in cash flow immediately. Will he look at what he can say quicker than next week to give them the confidence that they will be supported in due course?
Rishi Sunak
I very much appreciate the strains that business cash flows are under, which is why, today, we have already taken steps with the announcement of new cash grants of £10,000, £25,000 and an extension of the business rate holiday to thousands more businesses.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
The health action that is being put in place is essential to save lives, but does the Chancellor accept that that also means that some of the jobs that are going this week and the redundancies that are being made will not come back in a hurry, because many hospitality, leisure and tourism jobs simply cannot be done at a social distance? Does he accept that there is a gap between the employment support package that he is rightly working on, I hope, as fast as possible and the welfare support that is simply not adequate for the huge numbers of people who are going to be urgently losing their jobs and who will be terrified of losing their homes as well?
Rishi Sunak
We have strengthened the security and the safety net for those in that situation, but the right hon. Lady is right that we are urgently working on measures to do more.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I asked for more firepower at half-past 4 this afternoon, and it is fair to say that the Chancellor has delivered. However, a number of businesses whose entire model has been undermined, such as village pubs and restaurants, are facing a very uncertain year. On that note, may I ask him what he proposes that they should do? Does he welcome the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government that such businesses can now operate as takeaways, which will help to solve some of the problems of self-isolation as well?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point about the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government and what he has done. I think that it will make an enormous difference, as will the cash support that we have provided today to pubs and restaurants in his constituency and elsewhere across the country.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
This is a welcome step in the right direction—there is much to welcome in the Chancellor’s announcement—but the family reliant on a zero-hours-contract hospitality worker’s salary or the self-employed tradesman whose cash flow has dried up want to know how this money will reach their bank account. What prevents the Chancellor from introducing a coronavirus universal basic income in his package of new measures which, in itself, would give confidence to thousands of Welsh workers and beyond?
Rishi Sunak
We have already taken steps to strengthen the safety net that the right hon. Lady has mentioned in particular. They will be eligible for those enhanced packages, and beyond that, we are looking to do more, as she knows, in the employment support field.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
These measures are indeed bold, and will provide practical support. I particularly look forward to further information about renters and measures for the childcare and nursery sector, which was generally omitted from the Budget last week and is in a fragile state. The hospitality industry, which the Chancellor rightly singled out—it is our third largest industry—is laying off people, and the number of customers has absolutely collapsed. I am told that they are approaching banks and being told, “We may be able to get something for you in April.” Can he instil a sense of urgency in the banks and make sure that the grants from central Government are immediate so that people do not have to wait for them, which could make the difference to their being there in a few weeks’ time or not?
Rishi Sunak
I can tell my hon. Friend that the grant schemes are being delivered in the coming weeks. Businesses will receive a letter from local authorities. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is doing that work at pace. With regard to the loan schemes, that will not take until April—they will be ready to access for business from the start of next week.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The Chancellor says that we have to do whatever it takes, and I completely agree with him, but that must apply to everyone in the UK. I cannot believe that every step of the way we, the fifth richest nation in the world, have to battle for the poorest and those who are struggling the most in our communities, including in my constituency—homeless people, those who do not qualify for statutory sick pay, private renters and families on low incomes. When will we stop debating and start the action that is desperately needed?
Rishi Sunak
I refer the hon. Lady to the measures in the Budget last week, particularly on homelessness and rough sleeping. We announced £640 million to build 6,000 more units and to provide support for substance abuse support services, once people are off the streets, to help them tackle their long-term addictions. That money will make an enormous difference and build on the good work of the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
It was not possible for ordinary businesses and working people to anticipate the scale of the most severe public health crisis for 100 years, so does the Chancellor accept that for many businesses the nation has to act, not so much as a lender of last resort, but as a collective insurer of last resort, meeting their unmet operating costs if they are to keep people employed and inoculate against economic contagion?
Rishi Sunak
My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the need to provide support for businesses with their fixed costs, rather than their variable ones. That is what we need to help bridge through—the cash grants today related to rateable value, with reference directly to rent payments—but he is right that other fixed costs are people, which is why we are working up measures in that area.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
The measures in the Red Book are nowhere near enough. For families in need, can statutory sick payments be available from day one, for all workers when they are sick, and can it be set at the level of the national minimum wage?
Rishi Sunak
As a result of the actions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, SSP is available for those who are eligible for it from day one. Regulations are being laid to that effect, and employment and support allowance will also be available from day one, rather than day eight.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
The measures announced by my right hon. Friend are extremely welcome, and he should be congratulated on them. For many people, including freelancers and those working in the gig economy, the most vital thing over the next few weeks will be some kind of guarantee of continuing income, so they can know that they can continue to pay their bills. Will those measures and the ones that he says are to come over the next few days guarantee that vital help?
Rishi Sunak
Many of the workers in the gig economy will benefit from statutory sick pay, depending on their exact contractual relationship with their employers, but the measures that we undertook last week in the Budget will provide direct support to those people.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
What contingency will be put aside by the Treasury to assist in recruiting more social care workers, who are desperately needed to look after people in their homes as they fall ill?
Rishi Sunak
As I reiterated last week, we will provide whatever is required to public services. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary is working with the Local Government Secretary to understand exactly what is required in social care.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I welcome the package that the Chancellor has laid out and all the work that he has been doing. He said that he will look at other things over the coming days. May I please ask him to consider pre-schools and nurseries? They pay business rates, so will not receive the £10,000, but they are not within the category of hospitality, retail and leisure. Mine have been in to see me today and they are very worried. It would be awful for the very people that rely on them—the parents. Will my right hon. Friend consider that ask?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and am happy to look at what he is saying.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Many of my constituents are freelancers. One wrote to me unable to pay his rent or bills in the next couple of weeks. That is how urgent the situation is. Can the Chancellor give any comfort tonight for people who are very worried? They have been laid off today, have no ability to pay the bills and their freelance work has dried up. We are told that we have to wait for an answer from the Housing, Communities and Local Government Secretary. The Government have known that this was coming. Where is the planning? What answer does the Chancellor have now?
Rishi Sunak
For those people, the measures that we took last week will already start to help from day one. The Work and Pensions Secretary has already put in place support to make sure that access to the security that they need is both faster and more generous than it was.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
The events industry is not only highly seasonal but full of people working on a self-employed basis. Given that this season has pretty much been wiped out, what reassurance can my right hon. Friend give the industry that he is looking to its needs?
Rishi Sunak
I am happy to look specifically at the issue that my right hon. Friend has raised, but the measures that we took last week will provide immediate support to many of her constituents in that situation.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I was contacted today by a constituent who is self-isolating and has underlying health conditions. She was trying to get a food delivery, which she vitally needs. Tesco could only do it within 10 days, while other suppliers would take three weeks. There is clearly a massive issue, probably a combination of stock levels and delivery logistics. Will the Chancellor do whatever it takes to work with the supermarkets and logistics companies? There are opportunities to get other people into short-term employment if this is done right and quickly, so that people get the supplies that they need.
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Gentleman is right that the security of our food supply and deliveries is critical. My right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary is already having those conversations and has already taken steps on delivery curfews to ensure that deliveries can continue and to maintain the security of those supply chains.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
Today is a very good part 1; the Chancellor would be the first to admit that it is part 1—he obviously has a lot of other ongoing workstreams. I do not know what he has done with the mortgage lenders, but so many of my constituents and people across the country will be incredibly pleased about the three-month holiday.
The second biggest outgoing for thousands of my constituents is probably their train season tickets. Right now, they are paying for a service that they are not getting—some would argue that they have been barely getting it for a long time. They are currently paying for a service they are not getting at all and are not able to use at all. Will my right hon. Friend use whatever influence he did with the mortgage lenders to lean on the train companies to show some humanity to their customers right now? Frankly, those companies are not in their customers’ best books already.
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is always a champion of his commuting constituents. I am happy to have that conversation with the Transport Secretary to see what we can do to encourage companies—whether mortgage companies or others—to help people through this difficult time.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
For somebody who is self-employed, self-isolation will often mean giving up their income. The advice is to claim benefit, but all someone gets with universal credit in the first five weeks, as has been pointed out, is a loan. People are not going to give up their incomes for that. Will the Chancellor replace those advances with non-repayable grants for those who lose their income because of this crisis?
Rishi Sunak
Depending on the particular circumstances of the person who is self-employed, they may well qualify for ESA, which is also available from day one now, rather than day eight.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I was very pleased this evening when Nicola Sturgeon confirmed to me promptly that every penny of the likely £1.9 billion that the Scottish Government will receive as a result of today’s announcement will go directly to businesses and individuals. It is very important that we have that common approach across the United Kingdom from Governments, but it is also important that we have a common approach from banks. The Chancellor has referenced the banks in relation to his loan and grant schemes, but many businesses have existing loan arrangements with the banks. What confirmation does he have from the banks that they will not seek to change those arrangements or to take advantage of the situation where people may be able to get Government money to repay those loans?
Rishi Sunak
I can tell my right hon. Friend that we have had extensive discussions with the banks just this week, and they have outlined their forbearance measures. I very much expect them to honour those commitments. He is absolutely right with his point that we will get through this as one United Kingdom.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
Today the Government have announced a mortgage holiday for homeowners, and that is welcome, but they have made the political choice not to give a rent suspension to millions of tenants. The average rent is £220 a week. Statutory sick pay is £94.25 a week. Before people are forced on to the streets because this virus will stop them from working, I, like many other Members in this House, call on the Government to follow the example of other countries and suspend rents and ban evictions today.
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady talks about other countries. If she looks at the overall scale of the fiscal interventions that we have outlined last week and this week, she will see they are more significant than almost every other country.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
The Welsh Labour Government stand to gain £1.6 billion as a consequence of coronavirus. Will my right hon. Friend comment on how the UK Government can encourage the Welsh Labour Government to spend that money timely and appropriately, because business and people need help now?
Rishi Sunak
As I said before, we will get through this as one United Kingdom. We have provided Barnett consequentials early and in advance to devolved authorities, and I very much hope that we can take a joint approach to supporting businesses, public services and individuals through this difficult time.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
The notes that have been handed out from the Vote Office tonight say “Statement to the Press”, not to the House of Commons. I do not think there is any difference between what the Chancellor has said to the House and what was said to the press earlier on, and that should not happen again.
Are businesses that are strapped for cash flow likely to take out a loan rather than lay staff off? Is it not assistance with paying wages that they do not have to pay back later that those businesses need? They do not need more debt from the Government; they need help with paying wages.
Rishi Sunak
As we have already outlined, in addition to the extensive loan guarantee scheme, we have also announced significant cash grants to business to provide immediate cash flow relief to them. With regard to employment support, as I have said, that is our next urgent priority.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Difficult times require bold measures, and I commend my right hon. Friend for twice in the space of a week coming to this House and demonstrating that he will do whatever it takes. I support the comments on employment support, but may I ask him also to extend hospitality and leisure benefits to the equally hard-pressed exhibition sector?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. With regard to the exhibition sector, those that have physical properties and business rates will be eligible for the scheme that we announced today and the cash grant. I am happy to have further conversations with him as well.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
The RSA recently pointed out that 32% of workers in this country live on less than £500 a month in terms of savings, and 41% have less than £1,000 in the bank. That means there could be as many as 20 million people living from one pay cheque to the next. From what I have heard tonight, renters, freelancers, gig economy workers and zero-hours contract workers will not be feeling reassured. Will the Chancellor be able to look them in the eye and tell them honestly that he has truly done enough, or are they going to be collateral damage on the scrapheap, like so many with the Government’s already failing strategy over herd immunity?
Rishi Sunak
We already took extensive measures last week to strengthen our safety net for vulnerable people. I firmly believe that the best way to help all people through this is to protect their jobs, and that is why the actions we have taken today to support business cash flows provide the best means of doing exactly that.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I warmly welcome the bold and decisive steps that the Chancellor has taken today, which will be welcomed by many businesses in mid-Cornwall, particularly those in the hospitality sector.
I want to raise something that many Members have already raised—the self-employed and small businesses that do not own premises and therefore will not benefit from the measures on business rates and grants. Many people such as taxi drivers, window cleaners, electricians and plumbers have overheads that are not rent, because they are keeping vehicles on the roads. Will he urgently look at what he can do to get cash to those people, so that they can keep their businesses going?
Rishi Sunak
I am happy to look at all the measures that my hon. Friend suggested. The steps we took last week will provide immediate support for those people, and the further measures that are coming will provide a degree of relief for those who have property and small businesses. Of course, they will be able to access the loans that we have talked about, but he is right to highlight the importance of those who are self-employed. They deserve our support, and indeed, last week and this week they are getting it.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Following the previous question, I want to press the Chancellor on sole traders. There are measures on taxation that he could introduce quickly to support sole traders. Many in my constituency are very worried that they will not benefit from any of the Chancellor’s proposals laid out last week or today. Will the Chancellor look at that specific area with Treasury officials, the devolved Governments and anybody else who could support sole traders?
Rishi Sunak
I am happy to hear those suggestions from the hon. Gentleman. He will have noted the comments made by the Chief Secretary earlier in relation to IR35, and HMRC has activated its time to pay service, but if he sends me the details, I will happily look at that.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend for this raft of packages, although Members on both sides of the House clearly feel that there is still a lot more to do. I shudder at the administrative task ahead of him to ensure that all this money gets to the right people at the right time. Should we not bring back the small bank branches that have closed over the years, particularly in rural communities that simply do not have access to them?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of rural communities. My right hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury has done a sterling job of preserving access to cash for those communities, and we have said that we will legislate to do more, but in the short term, we will keep that under review.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
May I ask the Chancellor again whether he will work with the Home Office to revisit its rules on no recourse to public funds? If it does not revisit those rules, thousands of the most vulnerable people in this country will not have access even to the most basic support to see them through this crisis.
Rishi Sunak
My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary is talking to all Departments about the resources that they require to get through these challenging few months.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I warmly welcome this package of support for small businesses, which has been warmly welcomed by a number of businesspeople who have already contacted me. The business interruption loan scheme is a key part of this, but some lenders cannot access that scheme because they are not registered with the British Business Bank, and it would take months for them to do so. Will the Chancellor act now to ensure that all lenders can access that scheme?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. He is right: we want this scheme to be available through as many branches and outlets as possible. We are urgently working with the Prudential Regulation Authority to see whether we can onboard new providers at pace. He will understand that there are regulatory requirements, but we are seeing what we can do to speed that up.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
I welcome the increase in the small business grant to £10,000, and I understand that those grants will be distributed by local authorities. What assessment has the Chancellor made of the capacity of local councils to deliver that help, and when will businesses actually receive the money?
Rishi Sunak
As a former local government Minister, I have amazing faith in the capacity of our local authorities to deliver for us in this regard. They are being provided with extra resources to help deal with the administration of this money, and my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary is already working at pace to ensure that the rebilling and processing of these grants happens in a matter of days and weeks.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
I warmly commend my right hon. Friend for this package. The support for the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors is welcome, but he could make it even more effective if he extended the same package to those who are in the supply chain of those industries and the businesses that disproportionately supply customers for those industries, such as English language schools.
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and that is why all Secretaries of State have been tasked by me to engage with their affected industries to see whether there are further specific measures of support that are worth our exploring.
Naz Shah (Bradford West) (Lab)
I welcome the Chancellor’s measures for small businesses, and especially in my constituency lots of people have been in touch with us about them, but they will only be effective if they are timely, so when will the cash grants be available to small businesses in real terms? Will he also consider the idea that, when landlords get mortgage breaks, they pass them on to their renters, and how will we ensure that actually happens?
Rishi Sunak
On the processing of the cash grants, as I have said, my right hon. Friend the Communities Secretary is working on this at pace. It will require local authorities to write to the recipients of small business rate relief to collect their bank details, which they do not hold centrally, so that they can then provide the cash payment, but I can assure the hon. Member that that work is happening at pace.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Businesses in the hospitality sector will appreciate the relief the Chancellor has given on business rates and the cash grants, but can I raise the question of suppliers to the sector, many of which have seen their sales fall off a cliff? In particular, there are those with short-dated products, such as Wood Farm micro-brewery in my constituency, which produces an excellent product but has £20,000 of short-dated stock with four weeks’ life left on it, and stands to bear a pretty substantial loss as a consequence. Is there something that can be done to support businesses such as these?
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that particular case, and I am happy to have a look at it.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
The Prime Minister’s public health advice to avoid pubs, restaurants and theatres was not coupled with immediate economic protections, causing panic and upset for the small businesses, the self-employed and those on zero-hours contracts who form the backbone of coastal constituencies such as mine. The measures announced today do not address their concerns. They struggle with high rents and high bills, and my friends have lost their jobs today. Today, the grafters should have been a priority. When will they be?
Rishi Sunak
The package of measures today does specifically provide cash support to those in that sector to help with things like rent, but I make no apology for our being led by the public health response. This is first and foremost a public health emergency, and we will be led by responding to that. Of course, the economy is foremost in our minds, and I will always respond quickly and rapidly to any changes in the public health advice.
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I commend the Chancellor for this package of measures as far as they go, and we understand that it is a moving narrative, but I particularly urge him to focus on the importance of cash flow when it comes to smaller businesses and the self-employed. However, can I raise with him a group of people who so far have not been mentioned, which is the elderly and the vulnerable who live alone? There is a real risk in a situation such as this that they get inadvertently overlooked, and we need to reach out to them. Would the Chancellor consider providing appropriate support for local authorities to do just that—to identify them, locate them and make contact, because no one should be left behind?
Rishi Sunak
I can tell my hon. Friend that he is absolutely right, and the Communities and Local Government Secretary has already been engaging on this particular issue, working together with the Health Secretary with regard to social care, to make sure that, in our local communities, we can identify and protect the elderly and most vulnerable, and make sure that they get the support that they need.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
A constituent of mine in the Howe of Fife, who is self-employed, has contacted me today because she is worried about her future employment and how she will pay her mortgage and support her family. Although I welcome the Chancellor’s moves in relation to mortgages, the fact is that mortgage products often have payment holidays as part of them. Given that these are the first steps, may I ask the Chancellor, first, is this going to be for people who are directly impacted by coronavirus, or is it potentially for people who are self-isolating as they are at risk of getting an infection; and secondly, is he considering other measures to support my constituent, such as statutory sick pay for the self-employed or, indeed, council tax relief?
Rishi Sunak
I say to the hon. Lady that I think the measures today on mortgage forbearance are significant and welcome, and banks will show flexibility in providing that. In regard to council tax support, we did provide £500 million of hardship funding to local authorities specifically to use and deploy through their local council tax or support systems that already exist to provide extra support to people with their council tax bills.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor’s package, but he will recognise that many of our constituents remain anxious and we look forward to further measures. He rightly mentioned the aviation sector, which could lose many thousands of jobs. At a more local level, bus and coach operators will suffer as a result of people staying home. They provide a vital service to get NHS workers, for example, to and from work. Could he have a word with his colleague in the Department for Transport and ensure that bus operators are looked after?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend makes a good point and I will certainly take that up with the Transport Secretary.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
If Denmark can step in and offer 70% subsidies as a transitional arrangement, why can’t the Chancellor? Step up. Step up!
Rishi Sunak
I have already mentioned looking at the Denmark scheme and indeed the German scheme. The point is what we are able to deliver at pace. Other countries have had schemes in place beforehand, which makes it easier for them to do things, and we need to work with what we have got. But the principle of providing support is one that I fully acknowledge, which is why we are working on that at pace. Again, when considering individual measures, it is worth looking at fiscal interventions between this week and last week in the round, which, in the context of any global response, are extremely significant.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor’s statement and have two questions. First, charities and social enterprises, such as Age UK on the Isle of Wight and the West Wight Sports and Community Centre, face significant income cuts and I fear that rate relief will not be enough. Can more be done to support social enterprises? Secondly, my chamber of commerce is concerned about the ability of small businesses, especially tourism businesses, to access the grants and it fears that
“businesses will be closing, and on mass, before money becomes available”.
So can we act as swiftly, quickly and generously as possible?
Rishi Sunak
As I said, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will have already been in touch with my hon. Friend’s local council through MHCLG. They will be the ones processing these grants. There is no reason why that cannot happen as swiftly as a council is able to act.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
In the past few weeks, businesses in my constituency, and across Rhondda Cynon Taf, have been devastated by unprecedented flooding and are still trying to recover. Many are faced with the bureaucracy of insurers and are trying to rebuild their livelihoods. They are now faced with the prospect of closing for good because of the loss of business due to coronavirus. What conversations is the Chancellor having with the Welsh Government to secure financial relief for all these businesses in the UK?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Lady asked about flooding. In last week’s Budget we outlined a variety of packages to help the communities affected by that. First and foremost, there was £120 million to rebuild flood defences that have just been destroyed, as well as £200 million of new resilience funding for communities that are repeatedly flooded and £5.2 billion, which represents a doubling of the amount that we spend every year to build new flood defences. That will protect 300,000 people and it comes on top of the work by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government in activating the Bellwin scheme and providing immediate relief for communities that have been impacted by local flooding.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)
I welcome the Chancellor’s pledge to do whatever it takes to support businesses, families and individuals, but when will we get the details of support for renters, for the self-employed and for freelancers, and when will businesses that are losing customers day by day get those cash grants in their bank accounts, so that they can pay their staff, keep them employed and pay their rents?
Rishi Sunak
Measures to help those who are self-employed and in the gig economy are already taking effect as a result of the measures taken last week. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government is working at pace to deliver these cash grants to businesses in the coming days and weeks.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Sole traders in my constituency work as driving instructors and personal trainers. They are watching their bookings evaporate before their eyes. What support is the Chancellor providing for sole traders?
Rishi Sunak
Again, the measures that we took last week to strengthen our security net will benefit those who are self-employed and sole traders. Those with properties that qualify for business rate relief will benefit from that and cash grants will also flow to those people.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
This morning in the Treasury Committee, we asked the Chancellor to throw the kitchen sink at the economy and I thank him because he has certainly done that. However, small businesses in my constituency of Kensington have an issue, because most of the business rate relief is funnelled only if the rateable value is under £51,000. But they are suffering in the same way as other businesses. Will the Chancellor look into that?
Rishi Sunak
I am pleased to tell my hon. Friend that, as a result of the measures I have taken today, any business in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector, regardless of its rateable value, will now qualify for 100% business rates relief for these next 12 months.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Like colleagues, I spent today talking to businesses in my community. They wanted to know that, when they follow health advice to the letter, and if they keep all their staff on payroll, as they desperately want to, their business will be safe. As a result of the package the Chancellor announced tonight, can I give them that categoric assurance first thing in the morning?
Rishi Sunak
I very much hope that the businesses that are looking at the range of measures outlined today will see that there is significant financial support for them, whether that is business rate holidays, direct cash grants or access to incredibly low-cost and accessible financing. The combination of all those measures, on top of the compensation we will pay to small and medium-sized businesses for statutory sick pay, is a significant direct fiscal support for businesses up and down our country to protect people’s jobs.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
Life and the economy on the Isles of Scilly are particularly fragile. To give a quick example, a passenger boat operator who needs to provide a service for the whole of the islands but relies on tourism tells me that he has five weeks left in business. What can the Chancellor do to help businesses and the community on the Isles of Scilly?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the particular issues that his remote communities face. I believe the measures announced today, whether on business rates or direct cash grants, will make an enormous difference to local businesses in his constituency.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
I am grateful to the Chancellor for the effort he is putting into these measures. One question that has been raised is about the facility that is being made available for business interruption payments. Can the Chancellor outline what criteria will apply to that facility? Will there be complete access, should it be required, or will businesses have to fulfil criteria that will be assessed? If so, what will be the basis of that assessment—books this week, last week or before any interruption?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. Our ambition is for the criteria to be as flexible and generous as possible. The basic point will be to ensure that a business was sensible and well-traded before coming into the crisis that it now faces. As long as that is the case, the loans should be able to be provided through the banks on the ground, with our guarantee standing behind that.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Should payment quarterly and in advance be tolerated for commercial lets?
Rishi Sunak
As always, my right hon. Friend makes a pithy point. He is right to highlight the importance of prompt payment, especially during this time. That is why the Government are taking every step we can to be prompt in our payments and urging all other businesses that can do so to do exactly the same.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
Given the exceptional circumstances, why exactly can statutory sick pay not be paid at the real living wage rate?
Rishi Sunak
We have an extensive security and support network, which extends beyond statutory sick pay to an NHS that is free at the point of use. Our welfare and security support system works well, and we buttressed it with an extra £1 billion investment last week.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)
Although I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the package he has worked very hard on, sadly, I received a phone call today from one of my employers, whose contract had been cancelled forthwith. He has had to lay off 1,000 people. There will be a lot of very anxious people tonight. Although they are probably entitled to employment and support allowance and universal credit, they will suffer a considerable drop in their wages. I urge the Chancellor to come up with an employment support package as soon as possible.
Rishi Sunak
I thank my hon. Friend for his support. I have sympathy with his constituents in that situation. That is why we strengthened our security and safety net last week, but the best thing we can do is help employers get through this and ensure that those jobs are ready for people to go back to as soon as practically possible.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
The reality is that universal credit and statutory sick pay were not generous enough in the best of times, and they certainly are not enough to live on in these worst of times. When the Chancellor comes forward again, will he announce immediate plans to provide income protection for people who suffer loss of earnings, and will he give a tax holiday to freelancers and contractors facing tax bills in July for work that will never materialise in these circumstances?
Rishi Sunak
We have taken steps to strengthen the safety net. On deferring tax payments, that is something that is able to happen through Time To Pay. I urge people to contact Time To Pay. The details are available online. HMRC has 2,000 people standing by to talk to individuals. If tax deferrals are needed, it stands ready to negotiate and agree those.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
On behalf of my constituents, I welcome the significant package of financial measures the Government have made available today. Businesses in Ynys Môn, such as Seawake, Gwynedd Shipping and the restaurant Catch 22, have contacted me today, desperate for the Government to take action. Will the Chancellor join me in urging the Welsh Government to make this additional funding available as quickly as possible to small businesses across Wales so they can survive?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of speed in Wales and everywhere else. That is why we have taken steps to make Barnett consequentials available in advance as quickly as we can, so that all devolved authorities can plan and execute their plans expeditiously.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
Businesses face collapsing revenues and the biggest part of the Chancellor’s response is to invite them to take on substantially more debt. That will not save people’s jobs. For the Chancellor to compare that £330 billion, which is a guarantee he is making that he may never have to spend, with the package President Macron put together in France is absolutely absurd.
Rishi Sunak
Far from being absurd, President Macron yesterday announced exactly €300 billion in loan guarantee schemes.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
I represent the Peak District, where hotels, restaurants, pubs and the tourism industry in general are absolutely central to the local economy. I therefore welcome the economic measures announced, but people and businesses are struggling right now. So may I urge the Chancellor to make certain that loans and grants are paid and put into people’s bank accounts as soon as possible?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is exactly right. That is why the steps we are taking are designed to work at pace. Loan schemes will be available from early next week and the Communities Secretary is ensuring that the grant payments are processed as quickly as possible through local authorities in the coming days and weeks.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I have been contacted by my constituent Andy, from Erith and Thamesmead. Businesses like Andy’s collapsed this week. The scrapping of business rates does not help small businesses like Andy’s. Loans of £300 billion do not help small businesses like Andy’s. Will the Chancellor clearly set out how he will help small businesses? Will he personally promise me that he will help my constituent Andy and do whatever it takes to make sure he is properly supported?
Rishi Sunak
We have outlined a package of measures to support small businesses specifically. Indeed, 700,000 of our smallest businesses will now be receiving a £10,000 grant. I suggest that the hon. Lady’s constituent Andy contacts his local authority for further support, either on business rates or local council tax support, where we are injecting an extra half a billion pounds into the system.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)
I declare my interest as a member of Kettering Borough Council. I commend the Chancellor for coming up with a £350 billion business support package in record time. That will be welcomed by many small businesses in Kettering. Billing authorities such as Kettering Borough Council are already at their busiest time of year, sending out council tax bills. Can the Chancellor explain what role they will play in getting business support to local businesses and what extra support they will get to enable that to happen?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. He is right to highlight the capacity of local authorities to execute this plan. The Communities Secretary is working closely with them and they will be provided with extra resource funding to deal with the extra administration they will now have to undertake on our behalf. But I know and have confidence that they will do that job extremely well.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Members on both sides of the House are demonstrating that there are gaps in terms of not only the provision that has been announced but the urgency required to address the issue. May I therefore return to the issue of a universal basic income, or a series of flat payments to people? Would that not be a much more efficient and effective way of helping people in the immediate term, with the proviso that money can be clawed back through the tax system in due course?
Rishi Sunak
I believe our approach represents a sensible, coherent, co-ordinated and comprehensive way to tackle the problem. We have a range of targeted measures, each of which will make a significant difference to those on the ground, but as I said, we stand ready to do more and are indeed actively doing extra things.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I warmly welcome the enormous package of measures outlined by the Chancellor. This morning, I spoke to Energy Generator Hire in Kimble Wick in my constituency, which has lost most of its order book and is uncertain about the future. Can he confirm whether event hire companies are included in the envelope of leisure and hospitality?
Rishi Sunak
Those that have business properties will be eligible both for the relief and the grant, which will cover a significant number of events companies that have premises. Obviously, if they do not have premises, they will not qualify for business rates relief, but should be eligible for some of the other measures that I have outlined today.[Official Report, 29 September 2020, Vol. 681, c. 4MC.]
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
The failure of the Chancellor to mention private renters in his statement was a grave error, because many of those private renters are the same precarious workers in hospitality, the arts and culture and other industries who are being laid off today. Will he guarantee that no one will lose their home as a consequence of coronavirus?
Rishi Sunak
The Housing Secretary will urgently and soon bring forward measures to protect renters. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the importance of that, and that is why we will be acting in short order.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I commend the Chancellor for coming forward with such a comprehensive range of support. If he is to use the benefits system to support those ineligible for sick pay, I urge him to take on board the concerns raised by the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) about the fundamental flaw with universal credit. I also highlight the vital work that food banks, citizens advice and local churches will be doing in the coming weeks. He should ensure that they get the right support for that.
Rishi Sunak
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of our voluntary sector, particularly at this time, and the vital role that it will play. It is right that it gets our support. The Communities Secretary is actively engaging with it and I stand ready to do more as needed.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
What measures will the Government take to ensure that landlords who benefit from mortgage holidays do not profit from the crisis by having their pockets lined by tenants still expected to pay their rent?
Rishi Sunak
As I said, the Housing Secretary will shortly outline our measures to protect renters. We understand well the point that the hon. Lady makes.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
This is a huge step to support jobs. Speed is of the essence, so will the Chancellor confirm when the business interruption loans will be available and how quickly applications will be processed? Will he also confirm that the Communities Secretary’s package will cover renters, the self-employed, nurseries, community groups, kindergartens and charities so that all the people in those sectors will be reassured as well?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend is right that speed is of the essence. The loan programme will be available from early next week. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is doing an excellent job working with the banks to make sure that those applications will be processed at speed, so businesses that need that support will get it quickly.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The amount of money announced for the loan guarantee scheme is a massive sum, but will businesses want to be saddled with debt when they have no income and no means of paying it back? Previous loan schemes were poorly taken up because the banks ignored the guarantee part of the scheme, so how will the Chancellor make sure that the loan guarantee scheme is delivered by the banks at the scale and speed needed?
Rishi Sunak
I thank the hon. Member for the thoughtful question. He is right to ask about that particular point. He will be pleased to know that, compared with previous loan guarantee schemes, the generosity of the Government guarantees is significantly increased to provide a strong incentive for the banks to provide that lending. We have spoken to all the banks individually specifically on this measure and have their assurance that they will work at pace to deliver it. As a result of our entreaties, they have also unilaterally unlocked £21 billion of their own extra lending capacity to provide to the sector, so I am confident that they will deliver as required.
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
Many businesses depend on not the public or other businesses, but the state itself, through contracts with different parts of the public sector. Many such contracts are on a payment-by-results basis, so they are paid according to outcomes that might no longer be possible, given the situation. Will the Chancellor work with other parts of Government to ensure that the state’s contracts, particularly with social enterprises, charities and social businesses, can be flexed to ensure that those important businesses stay afloat?
Rishi Sunak
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, which I will be sure to raise with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Can the Chancellor clarify whether community interest companies will be treated in the same way as other small companies when it comes to being able to apply for the £10,000 grants?
Rishi Sunak
If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I do not have a precise answer for her at this moment, but I will look into the matter as soon as I am done and write to her.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
A firm in the hospitality sector has written to me to say that tomorrow it must lay off 200 workers and halve the pay of 100 more, because bookings are close to zero and it cannot cover the wage bill. How much longer should it hold off?
Rishi Sunak
Hopefully it will benefit today from the significant measures that have been put in place to provide forward business rate relief and immediate cash support through grants. That should provide the business with some reassurance that help is on its way to enable it to protect jobs, with more to come.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday a constituent of mine was laid off from his employment, along with 50 colleagues. He described how he watched the company’s owners trying to hold back tears as they let go people who have worked for them for decades. Why will the Chancellor not cut off this problem at the root by providing to British businesses the same reassurance that President Macron has provided to French businesses: that no business will go bankrupt?
Rishi Sunak
As I have already said, the French Government announced €300 billion of loan guarantees yesterday. We have gone a step further with £330 of loan guarantees, equivalent to 15% of our GDP, to provide the same level of support. Beyond that, the fiscal measures that we have taken between last week and today are comparable in scale to those undertaken by any major economy.
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) (SNP)
The introduction and increase of grants is a welcome step in the right direction, but a number of food and drink producers in my constituency have seen the outlet for their produce dry up, so what additional support can be offered to help keep such companies afloat?
Rishi Sunak
The measures announced today, whether the loan or other guarantee schemes, will be of significant support to those businesses, and the measures we announced last week will also help the employees. As I have said previously, we are looking at more measures in all areas, and I will update the House at things develop.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
All our constituents will require realistic statutory sick pay if they are required to self-isolate. Will the Chancellor do whatever it takes to ensure that happens, and will he include the self-employed and those on zero-hours contracts in his measures?
Rishi Sunak
As previously discussed, depending on people’s particular employment circumstances, they might well be eligible for statutory sick pay even though they are self-employed or in the gig economy. We have already taken measures to ensure that they are eligible for those benefits and for employment and support allowance from day one, rather than day four and day eight respectively, and we have further strengthened the safety net with an investment of £1 billion.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Hundreds upon hundreds of aviation workers in my constituency were sent home today. Coronavirus has devastated the airline industry. Because they had less than three years’ experience, 21 days’ pay is all they get, with no prospect of a job going forward. Can the Chancellor give us more information on the aviation package that he has announced tonight?
Rishi Sunak
We are in active dialogue with the key companies in the sector, both airlines and airports, to discuss what specific support might be required. In the circumstances, it would not be appropriate for me to comment on the measures that individual companies might want to engage with us on, but the hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we are working hard for the industry.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Lab)
Given the acceleration of the virus and the collapse of the aviation industry, which means that there is no prospect of any deportation charter flights leaving the UK, and given that there is no testing, it seems inhumane and unjustified to continue to raid the homes of my constituents, especially those who have underlying health conditions or are self-isolating, and put them into detention centres indefinitely, at great expense and in poorly sanitised conditions. That puts the lives of my constituents in danger and violates their human rights. Detentions and deportations by charter flight are barbaric and costly. The outbreak of covid-19 further underlines their cruelty and expense. Will the Chancellor urge the Home Secretary to end them immediately?
Rishi Sunak
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is doing an excellent job, making sure that our borders are secure and that we enforce our laws as required, but in a way that is humane and compatible with all human rights. I am sure that she will do exactly that as we go through the challenging next few months.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
The Chancellor will be aware that in certain business sectors, the loss of just one or two people in specialised roles from an organisation can bring down a business. France and Italy are reviving the approach adopted in a global financial crash of supporting workers with a proportion of their wages. Will the Chancellor do the same here?
Rishi Sunak
As I have said, we are considering employment support packages and what can be designed and implemented at pace. As for other countries, let me again put it on record that the fiscal interventions we have undertaken are comparable in size with those of any other major developed economy.
Kate Green (Stretford and Urmston) (Lab)
There is huge fear, and also confusion, among my constituents this evening about a range of issues: whether measures will apply to start-ups, what will happen to VAT on advance sales, the position of businesses in the hospital supply chain, and what will happen if a freelancer cannot work because he or she must look after a family member who has been sent home. May I suggest to the Chancellor that local authorities will not have the capacity to deal with all those queries while they are doing many other things, including delivering vital services? It would be very helpful if a dedicated MP hotline could be set up to deal with such questions, so that we could go to one Government location to help our constituents.
Rishi Sunak
I shall be happy to look at that suggestion. The hon. Lady also asked a specific question about VAT on postponed accounting. I am actively considering that, in terms of when we are scheduled to introduce it and whether it could be improved.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Small businesses in my constituency will welcome their eligibility for grants of £10,000, up from £3,000 last week. How will they receive information on how to gain access to those funds, if, indeed, they qualify?
Rishi Sunak
If those businesses are already receiving small business rate relief, that will be known to the local authorities, which will shortly be writing to them to request their financial details so that they can process the grant payments. If businesses have not heard in short order, they can get in touch with their local authorities.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
Food banks are used by 1.6 million people, 250,000 more than the number indicated by the previous year’s data, and the demand will increase. Food banks rely on the surplus from supermarkets, and on people’s food donations. What is the Chancellor’s contingency plan to address this very serious issue?
Rishi Sunak
My right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary is engaging actively with supermarkets to make sure that all aspects of our food supply are secure, including deliveries and ensuring that everyone receives the food that they need during this time.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Chancellor needs to be more than a desiccated calculating machine. When he answers questions, we need to hear talk about people, not just packages. Will he look at early-day motion 302, which I tabled and which advocates a universal basic income—particularly for freelancers and the self-employed—as a temporary measure during this crisis, and will he pledge to return to the House, rather than just making an announcement through the press, to tell us what he is going to do about these employment measures?
Rishi Sunak
The hon. Gentleman talks about packages to support business. They are not divorced from people’s circumstances; they are directly helping people’s circumstances. The way to help people is to secure their employment, now and in the future, and that is what these packages are designed to do, which is why they will make a real difference to people on the ground.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
The Chancellor is already late with support for aviation. Airlines, airports, and support services such as baggage handlers have already announced, or are strongly considering announcing, significant job cuts. Can the Chancellor reassure them that they do not need to do that, and that he will follow other Governments such as that of New Zealand, which announced £35 billion worth of direct wage subsidies to keep not just those jobs but all jobs safe?
Rishi Sunak
We have announced our own range of fiscal measures to help businesses to protect jobs, with particular reference to the airline industry. As I have said, my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary and I are actively engaging with the companies and the airports in that sector to establish what support is required.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
A lot of my constituents work in the events and leisure industry; many are self-employed freelancers. I spoke to one today, who told me that she earns a large proportion of her annual income during the summer event and festival season. She is going to lose that this year. Given that it could be another year before she is able to get back on her feet, can I urge the Chancellor to come back with a package of support for people like her—ideally grant support, a long-term package for individuals in that sector?
Rishi Sunak
Those in the leisure and hospitality and the retail sectors are of course particularly impacted by what we are experiencing, which is why the package of measures announced today builds on what was announced last week and goes to the heart of that industry to provide direct cash support and business rate relief. The measures we announced last week also provide support to those who are self-employed.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I, like many others in this House, have been contacted by constituents who are extremely anxious and worried about the uncertainty and disruption in the months ahead. This includes constituents who are self-isolating, especially those who are expected to self-isolate for extended periods, who may face loneliness and other mental health challenges. Is the Chancellor planning to allocate any funding to address this?
Rishi Sunak
I very much appreciate people’s anxiety at this difficult time. With regard to those who are self-isolating, we have already made changes to our welfare system to ensure that those people qualify for the support that they deserve. With regard to public services support, as I have said, the Communities Secretary and the Health Secretary are actively engaging with those sectors to understand whether there is extra support that is required.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
The reality is that for businesses and workers this crisis is going to last for many months. Has the Chancellor considered a much more interventionist microeconomic policy? For instance, has he thought about repurposing the businesses shutting now—hotels, restaurants, music venues, theatres—as infection rates rapidly rise?
Rishi Sunak
That would be a question for my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, who is actively engaged in making sure that we can increase the capacity of our health service to cope with the next few months and is considering a range of measures, but we will do whatever it takes to make sure that we have the capacity we need to help those who fall sick at this time.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
The Government effectively discouraged UK citizens from entering sectors of the economy that traditionally offer low-paid and precarious employment. Is it the Chancellor’s intention, when he talks to trade unions and business over the next few days, to enter into those discussions with the principle that the wages of those who jobs are under threat, whose shifts have been cancelled and whose hours have been cut will be protected?
Rishi Sunak
The Government telling people not to visit those places, or to hold back from them, was based on the advice of scientists and medical experts to ensure that our health as a country is protected. The measures we announced today directly go to help those in those industries to protect those jobs. As I said, we will work urgently with the unions and businesses to see what further measures can be put in place.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Many decisions the Government have taken on isolation, at-risk groups and testing limit the ability of NHS staff to go to work. It is easy to say, “Whatever it takes,” but how can we be sure that our hospitals in particular have the resources to save every life that can be saved?
Rishi Sunak
Of course, we take the advice of the chief medical officer in this regard and we will continue to do so. We have been absolutely clear that the NHS will get whatever support financially it needs from the Government to help get us through what will be a very challenging time. We are considering all measures to increase the capacity of the NHS to respond to this, and indeed provide the support to those on the frontline who are going to deal with a very difficult few months.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
I obviously welcome the Chancellor’s commitment to making sure that jobs are saved and that people can stay in work, but I wonder whether he agrees that by structuring his package around loans rather than grants, he actually loses some control over what the money is spent on. Therefore, he cannot be certain that the money is going to be spent most effectively in pursuit of this objective.
Rishi Sunak
It is not just loans; it is loans and grants and tax relief on business rates, as well as deferral of tax payments through time to pay and reimbursement for statutory sick pay. Across the piece, it is a series of different interventions, all of which will be effective at doing one fundamental thing: improving the cash flow in the short term of businesses to help them bridge through what will be a temporary dislocation, so that they can emerge on the other side and we do not lose for the long term that productive capacity and lose those jobs.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Making announcements is one thing, but, to use the Chancellor’s words, operationalising at speed is quite another, so can he be more precise about the resources available for the civil service and local councils? A simple example—a Canadian nurse phoned my office today so frustrated that she cannot help the NHS because we cannot sort out the equivalent qualifications. It will be the same for many others, particularly Bangladeshi nurses working in the care sector.
Rishi Sunak
I am happy to take on board the suggestion from the hon. Gentleman. I will raise it with the Health Secretary, who I know is actively looking at ways to bring extra people into the NHS to help respond to this crisis. There is a range of options and flexibilities we should consider. I will make sure that I raise that one with him as well.
St Patrick’s Day
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
Before I begin the debate, may I suggest to all Members that this is their opportunity to intervene on Jim Shannon?
Mr Campbell
I just couldn’t resist it, Mr Speaker. I have waited years and years to do that. My hon. Friend has an Adjournment debate on St Patrick’s Day. We have had events, parades and all sorts of functions on St Patrick’s Day cancelled, in Brazil, Washington, New York, Belfast, Dublin and London, but the indefatigable nature of my hon. Friend has meant that his Adjournment debate continues.
Jim Shannon
It is a pleasure to be here to speak in this debate. May I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all right hon. and hon. Members, a very happy St Patrick’s Day?
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Kevin Brennan
The hon. Gentleman will know that I am very proud to have an Irish father and a Welsh mother, and I recently attended the champ reception at the House of Lords, as I believe he did. The Irish ambassador explained that St Patrick’s Day is becoming a festival that lasts over many, many weeks, and that the first function he had attended this year was on 1 March, at which point I pointed out that that is St David’s Day. Can we put a stop to having St Patrick’s Day celebrations on the day of the Welsh patron saint, St David?
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but every day is St Patrick’s Day for us and we are very pleased to celebrate it on St David’s Day.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is great for me to be celebrating St Patrick’s Day in this Chamber, in his Adjournment debate, because I have an Irish grandmother. I just want to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on probably being the Member who has intervened the most in Adjournment debates in this House.
Stephen Farry
For the sake of balance and inclusivity, it is worth reminding the House that St Patrick was, of course, Welsh.
Jim Shannon
He certainly was. This is my first Adjournment debate for many, many years, but I have intervened in a great many Adjournment debates held by other Members and I have been pleased to do so.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. I was born on St Patrick’s Day, so I fully support the extension of celebrations of 17 March by at least a couple of weeks either way. Will he join me in extending best wishes for St Patrick’s Day to those in all our constituencies who hail from Ireland, from whichever side of the border they originate?
Jim Shannon
I certainly will, and I will be saying that if I ever get the chance to do so.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous in taking interventions this evening. He said that every day is St Patrick’s Day for an Irishman, from whichever side of the border. He will therefore be delighted to hear that Gloucester celebrated St Patrick’s Day on Saturday evening in the Irish club, with an acting mayor, Councillor Collette Finnegan, who was born in Dublin. She is the first ever Irish-born mayor of Gloucester and the first to have worked in the NHS for 30 years. Will he join me in congratulating her and the Irish club?
Jim Shannon
I certainly will, and I am pleased to do that. It is wonderful that whenever St Patrick’s Day comes around, deep down we are all supporters of St Patrick’s Day and perhaps a wee bit Irish as well. I am speaking as British person, of course, and someone who has a passport that says that.
We all have saints, and I recall that on my first day at Westminster in 2010, I came through the doors and marvelled at the wondrous Lobby just outside these doors, where each nation’s patron saint is depicted. We have St George for England, St David for Wales, St Andrew for Scotland and of course the incomparable St Patrick for Ireland.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Of course, the mosaic of St Patrick depicts the unity on our island, because to his right is St Brigid, from Kildare in the south, and on his left is St Columba, to represent Ulster and the north. In the spirit of that unity, may I express on behalf of our colleagues, Mr Deputy Speaker, our pleasure that the ecclesiastical history of Ireland is being repeated yet again with my hon. Friend, who not only champions freedom of religion and religious belief in this House, but has been appointed by Mr Speaker to his Ecclesiastical Committee?
Jim Shannon
That is very kind, and I am pleased to have accepted that position, as are others in the House.
I am happy to claim St Patrick as my patron saint—let us be honest: how could I do otherwise? I am blessed to live in the most wonderful constituency of Strangford, in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and the fingerprints of St Patrick can be seen throughout and all over it.
St Patrick, the patron saint of Ireland, was born Maewyn Succat to a Christian family in Wales, in Roman Britain, in the late fourth century AD. Shortly before he was 16, Patrick was captured from the villa of his father, Calpurnius, by a group of Irish raiders who took him to Ireland and forced him into slavery. Six years later, he escaped home to Britain, his religious faith strengthened during his time in slavery. Believing he had been called by God to Christianise Ireland, he later returned to Ireland as a missionary.
How wonderful it is to see the beauty of the Union at work within St Patrick’s life—a British man who fell in love with the people, but more importantly whose love for God made him return to the bosom of those who had mistreated him. We all love the story of the little man coming good, and that is the story of St Patrick, a former slave who absolutely changed a nation for God and for good. As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) said, out there in Central Lobby, where the four nations come together as one nation—the four regions as one—that is our strength. Our strength is in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
St Patrick was a man who made it easy to understand the divine with simple illustrations and who simply wanted people to know more of God and his redemptive plan for us all through Christ Jesus. His dedication to his Lord and his love for the people of this land are something that I hope to attain, too, in the time I am here.
Some may be surprised to see me, an Orangeman, celebrating what has been turned into a green event. That is not my view. I celebrate the story of a man who changed the course of our history. He was neither orange nor green—I agree with what the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) said—but used all means to point to Christ and the hope offered to every man by him. How I wish there were more like Patrick today.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
I am delighted to intervene on the hon. Member. St Patrick’s lorica—the poem upon his breastplate—refers to a “shield in the strife”. Is St Patrick’s message relevant to today’s world and the debate we have been having tonight?
Jim Shannon
I believe it is. When I asked for this Adjournment debate—Mr Speaker kindly agreed—I felt there was a need to tell the history of St Patrick and how St Patrick’s Day came about, because his message is the simple message of the gospel, to all mankind, wherever they may be, of all political aspirations and of all regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. His message is simple but it is a true message and we all need to hear it. That is why I wanted to have this debate. There are two parts to the story, of course; I will tell the first, about the gospel message, but I also want to tell the second story about what he does and can do.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
As one of the Patricks in the Chamber today, I think it is right that the hon. Gentleman is acknowledging this. The hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale East (Mike Kane) spoke of St Patrick’s breastplate, and it was fitting, and worth getting on the record, that our new Chaplain led us in that prayer at the start of business today. It was a fitting thing to do, especially in these times, given what the prayer invokes.
Jim Shannon
Yes, I noticed that today. Indeed, I said to my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell)—who intervened as soon as I got three words into my contribution—that it was interesting that the Speaker’s Chaplain used St Patrick’s prayer this morning. It was really nice. I want to finish my comments with that prayer, and it is important to do so.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
As people might be able to guess, I too have an Irish father. It is obviously a difficult time to celebrate St Patrick’s Day, and the celebrations are very muted. Last year, I joined St Patrick’s church in east Bristol to take part in the celebrations. Does the hon. Gentleman think that, given the situation we are in, churches like St Patrick’s have a role to play in the voluntary relief effort and reaching out to the vulnerable and isolated, particularly at this time?
Jim Shannon
I certainly do, and I thank the hon. Lady for her question. It is very important that we recognise that point. There cannot be a Member in this House who does not have the same opinion. The Church has a key role to play in this. We can think of all the bad things that are happening, such as the coronavirus, but we should also think of all the people who do good things—and do those things without anyone ever knowing. That is what she is referring to. In that group, there are people with strong beliefs who want to reach out and help.
The huge parades that take place across American cities have their roots in the New York parade of 1762, when Irish soldiers in the British Army marched to St Patrick’s Day celebrations with their band playing—we do love the bands—and their regimental colours flying. I salute the work that is carried out to this day by the Irish Guards. The second largest branch of the Irish Guards Association is in my constituency of Strangford and in my town of Newtownards. The largest association is in Liverpool. I want to put on record my thanks to the Irish Guards for being great ambassadors of this great nation. I thank all of those who gave their lives for Queen and country over many, many years. The celebrations continue to this day in New York, Washington, Chicago and throughout the world and are testament to the attractiveness of St Patrick.
Richard Graham
As a declaration of interest, my brother-in-law was a colonel of the Irish Guards. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that history has not always been easy for the Irish Guards in the whole of the island of Ireland, but that things are now much better and the role that they and their individuals played in the two world wars is now much better recognised on both sides of the border?
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is right. The Irish Guards have drawn their numbers from the north and the south, and they have done so over many years. The colonel of the Irish Guards is Simon Nichols, who, at the minute, is serving in Belize. He is a very good friend of mine and also happens to be one of my constituents. He and his wife and family are in Belize for a three-year sojourn. I am very pleased to highlight the good work of the Irish Guards.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
I welcome my hon. Friend’s speech and the debate. Does he agree that Her Majesty the Queen has played a very important role in recent years in promoting reconciliation between the British and Irish people? There is a former order known as the Order of St Patrick, which was once awarded in recognition of the contribution that men and women make to relationships within our islands. Would it not be appropriate for Her Majesty to consider reinstating that order?
Jim Shannon
My right hon. Friend and colleague has suggested something that perhaps the Minister of State could respond to in a positive fashion. I know that he will do so if he gets the opportunity. [Laughter.] I am sorry—I will give him the opportunity! I think that I may have been misinterpreted.
I have had the opportunity to attend, with the Friends of St Patrick, Irish Fest in Milwaukee over the years. There has been a really determined attempt to ensure that there are balanced and respectful accounts, and I welcome that.
Having spoken about the religious aspect of St Patrick, which is really important to me and to many others in this Chamber, it is also important to look at the tourism aspect, and I want to speak about that if I can.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I am sure that the parliamentary app on Twitter is loving this debate tonight. In relation to celebrations, I think that, as a Scot, it is fair to say that the Irish are also known in their celebrations of St Patrick’s Day for drink. As a former Diageo employee, it would be remiss of me not to call out a Guinness and other alcoholic beverages that are used to celebrate St Patrick’s Day. Does he agree that we should be celebrating those, too?
Jim Shannon
I am very happy to let people celebrate in whatever way they wish, and I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. It is all about moderation, so let us celebrate in moderation.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene on him. In a different kind of celebration, because the people involved are younger, St Patrick’s Primary School in my constituency has also been celebrating St Patrick’s Day today. It is located next to St Patrick’s Church in Anderston. Would he like to extend his congratulations to the young people at the school who have been celebrating today, despite the coronavirus?
Jim Shannon
I am very pleased to do so. It is good to know that, across all four regions today, young and old are celebrating the story of St Patrick.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I declared on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests that my stepmother is Janet Harbison, leader of the Irish Harp Orchestra, from the Republic, who did a great deal of work in Belfast to bring peace together. We have heard about drink, and we have heard about celebrations in schools. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that music is a superb way to help to bridge the divide with the cultural spirit?
Jim Shannon
I am happy to support the use of music. I love music; I love all sorts of music. I love Elvis Presley, who was an Ulster Scot, as we all know. He brought hillbilly music to the society that we have today. I love music on 12 July, which is one of our special days, and we hope to have the special day this year if we have the opportunity. There is lots of music, including ecclesiastical music. There are the hymns that we all love, and those things all come from St Patrick, and we are pleased to have them.
Belfast City Council said that 23,500 people attended the 2017 St. Patrick’s day event: 60% from Greater Belfast, 20% from the rest of Northern Ireland and a further 20% from outside Northern Ireland. The economic impact was worth £758,000, independent research showed. The fact that the St Patrick’s Centre in neighbouring Down Council can attract 130,000 visitors every year tells us that the appetite is there. The question we must ask ourselves is how we can exploit that. I am aware of tremendous council initiatives such as the St Patrick’s trail. The Discover NI website says:
“Follow the Saint Patrick’s Trail through a host of Christian sites at Bangor, the Ards Peninsula”—
in my constituency—
“ Downpatrick, Newry and Armagh to uncover just how strong Northern Ireland’s links are with this patron saint. The 92 mile linear driving route links 15 key sites, all identified as having some connection to his life, legacy or landscape”.
I believe that we need greater funding—I know that the Minister will respond to that, as we had a chat before the debate—and emphasis on that to attract overnight visitors and not just day-trippers. For example, if people followed the Christian heritage trail down the Ards peninsula in my constituency, where I live, they would find the abbey at Greyabbey, which is open thanks to the generosity of the Mongomerys of Rosemount estate—I take this opportunity to thank them in Hansard. To get to that historic Abbey, they would have to drive through Newtownards, with our unique Scrabo tower, open at certain times; the old priory dating to 1244; and one of the UK’s oldest market crosses, which has been renovated and refurbished to bring back some of its glory. With many a coffee shop along the way and Northern Ireland’s winning high street of the year—it is always good to mention that fact—they could shop in boutiques and enjoy at least half a day in the historically and culturally rich Newtownards. They could take in some of the most beautiful scenery in the world as they made their way to the abbey at Greyabbey.
Those people would drive past world-renowned Mount Stewart estate and gardens—officially one of the top 10 gardens of the world, which is in my constituency of Strangford. That is only half a day of the itinerary. They would travel slightly inland to see Ballycopeland mill—the only remaining working windmill in East Down, which allows people to grind their own flour—then nip across to the folk and transport museum, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson), where they can learn to bake bread with the flour they milled at Ballycopeland. There goes another half day at least, and the need for an overnight stay in a hotel or Airbnb accommodation along the beautiful Strangford lough. That is before they have even made it to the Abbey.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member on his description of his constituency. He is making it sound not just like Mount Stewart gardens but like the garden of Eden, but may I remind him that that is where original sin was invented?
Jim Shannon
We are all sinners, and I am one of them.
People could enjoy the antique shops in Greyabbey, and some of the best home-made scones at Harrisons of Greyabbey, with its unrivalled view and service. They could carry on down the peninsula to Portavogie and see the only working fishing village in Northern Ireland. They could then go then down to the Exploris aquarium at Portaferry for a bite to eat and an interesting afternoon sightseeing, ending at the great Portaferry Narrows hotel, with its warm hospitality and great food. It is owned by Cathal Arthur, who is doing tremendous work during the coronavirus crisis by helping the elderly and disabled, delivering necessities to them in the bounds of Portaferry. Many people, as the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said, are doing great work in their community.
Jonathan Gullis
I cannot listen to this amazing description of the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and not think that once the coronavirus crisis is over he must lead a delegation of all MPs to his constituency, ideally on St Patrick’s day. I would certainly like the opportunity to do that, and I hope that he will offer and extend that invitation to us.
Jim Shannon
We will try to do it over three days. The immigration Minister, the hon. Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), had hoped to come to my constituency, although that will probably not happen because of the coronavirus, but we look forward to getting him down there eventually; it will be a special time.
Apart from me—I have lived there all my life—and other Strangford residents, who knows that we have such world-class golf and spa facilities and playing facilities for children? We must do better at offering what we have, and St Patrick’s day celebrations are a way of doing just that. Will the Minister outline how he believes that that can be achieved and whether some joined-up thinking with local councils and ensuring a Northern Ireland-focused tourism drive can help? Will he confirm the Barnett consequentials of today’s announcement by the Chancellor so that the Northern Ireland Assembly can support businesses? It is important to have that on the record. I am pretty sure that it will be good news, so it would be good to have it in Hansard as a positive response.
It will be apt for me to end with the prayer of St Patrick, which I hope I can in some way replicate throughout my life, knowing that if I emulate St Patrick in loving God and showing his goodness, I will do good and leave my family, friends and countrymen the better for it. The Speaker’s Chaplain recited it this morning, and I want to finish with it:
“Christ with me,
Christ before me,
Christ behind me,
Christ in me,
Christ beneath me,
Christ above me,
Christ on my right,
Christ on my left,
Christ when I lie down,
Christ when I sit down,
Christ when I arise,
Christ in the heart of every man who thinks of me,
Christ in the mouth of everyone who speaks of me,
Christ in every eye that sees me,
Christ in every ear that hears me.”
What better way to finish this debate? I thank the Minister in advance for his comments, and right hon. and hon. Members for their interventions—it would not be an Adjournment debate if we did not have interventions.
Jim Shannon
You have got your intervention into Hansard, Mr Deputy Speaker—thank you.
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
I thank and warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—who, let us face it, is no stranger to either Adjournment debates or interventions—on his excellent speech on the importance of St Patrick’s day and its support across communities, both within Northern Ireland and across the world. I am grateful for his giving me this opportunity to shine a light on Northern Ireland as a uniquely placed region in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman was absolutely right to point out the splendid depiction of St Patrick in the Lobby just a few metres from where we stand, with his peers from England, Scotland and Wales. As he said, St Patrick became the patron saint of Ireland but was born and raised in Britain—he was probably a Welshman. He is a strong reflection of the links between our islands, going back centuries.
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has brought this debate to the House and I thank Mr Speaker for allowing it on St Patrick’s day. People across the world take part in St Patrick’s day celebrations, although they are muted this year due to the coronavirus outbreak. I am struck by the efforts across the UK and in all the devolved Administrations to tackle the virus in the most efficient way possible, and I want to touch on that in a little more detail as well as on its subsequent impact on national and local economies.
I understand that the Economy Minister Diane Dodds has been in close contact with local industry leaders and that the Executive are working on a stimulus package tailored to Northern Ireland’s unique needs and pressures. Despite those concerted efforts, it is a shame that the annual Belfast St Patrick’s day parade has had to be cancelled; the hon. Gentleman has previously set out its benefits to the local economy.
St Patrick’s day is hugely important for people throughout Northern Ireland as they celebrate the man historically associated with bringing Christianity to the island of Ireland and transcending traditional divides. St Patrick and the arrival of Christianity in Ireland were historically responsible for influencing so much of the learning, writing and arts for which Ireland and Northern Ireland have become so famous. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, this legendary saint is a significant tourism draw to Northern Ireland.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the St Patrick’s trail driving route and mentioned the St Patrick centre—a modern complex in Downpatrick Country Down, with an exhibition dedicated to telling St Patrick’s story. In the townland of Saul, a replica of an early church and round tower stand on the spot of his first reputed sermon. When he visited Armagh, St Patrick called it his “sweet hill”, founding his first large stone church in 445 AD. Believed to have died on 17 March in the 5th century, his influence and impact continue to resonate to this day, never more so than with Armagh’s two cathedrals that bear his name: St Patrick’s Church of Ireland cathedral on Sally Hill and the twin-spired Catholic St Patrick’s cathedral on the opposite hill. Both are illuminated in preparation for the feast of St Patrick. Those cathedrals are an embodiment of the rich cultural experience and one of the highlights of the heartland of St Patrick.
While the story of St Patrick is well known and celebrated across the world and is a crucial element of the tourism industry of Northern Ireland, that tourism industry is much more multifaceted and has so much to offer. Northern Ireland’s local tourism sector has been going from strength to strength over recent years, with an increasing number of visitors who stay longer and spend more than ever before, but the hon. Gentleman is right to point out the need to drive forward that dynamic.
We now find ourselves in a dynamic and concerning situation with regard to covid-19. Notwithstanding the great tourism assets and warm hospitality of Northern Ireland, the need for increased social distancing and reduced international travel will make this a difficult time for the tourism and hospitality industries. The Government will continue to do whatever we can, and the Chancellor announced in the Budget last week £30 billion of fiscal stimulus to support the economy in response to the covid-19 outbreak. Northern Ireland will benefit from that package, resulting in a further £260 million for the Northern Ireland Executive on top of the more than £210 million of Barnett consequentials announced on Budget day. Today the Chancellor made a further significant announcement of additional measures to mitigate the impact of covid-19, which will result in further funding for the Executive. Taken together, the Executive will be receiving £900 million of Barnett funding from the Chancellor’s announcements on covid-19.
Northern Ireland will also benefit from the UK-wide measures in the Budget, including new funding for investment and the increased national insurance threshold. I know that the Executive will now be taking steps to build on that additional financial support to do what it can to address the specific needs of the Northern Ireland economy.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned his own connections and conversations with groups celebrating St Patrick’s day in the United States, and I have to say that he taught me something that I did not know before, which is that Elvis was an Ulsterman.
Mr Walker
Indeed. Countries such as the United States, with whom we share a special relationship, maintain a huge interest in Northern Ireland, and the US derives that interest partly from its own historical and cultural relationship with Ireland, as well as its instrumental role in supporting the Belfast agreement negotiations. As everyone knows, Ireland’s long-standing historical connections with the US meant that Irish and Ulster Scots immigrants were fundamental in the early years of the United States. As the hon. Gentleman mentioned in his opening remarks, that bond is an important link between Northern Ireland and the rest of the world, creating further potential for attracting visitors to Northern Ireland’s shores.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was in Washington last week for the annual St Patrick’s day celebrations—an annual event that has endured for more than 25 years. He met a wide range of key stakeholders from across Irish America, including the new special envoy for Northern Ireland, Mick Mulvaney. They discussed the diplomatic break- throughs represented by the “New Decade, New Approach” agreement and the restoration of the Northern Ireland Executive—further milestones that will help to secure Northern Ireland’s social and economic success.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted the connections that Northern Ireland’s people enjoy across the world, as well as their justified local pride. I should point out that Northern Ireland’s tourist attractions can, and often do, speak for themselves. How could visitors to Northern Ireland not be enticed by the promises of wide open spaces and fresh air? Indeed, anyone on a wellness pilgrimage should look no further. Boasting many miles of stunning coastline, unforgettable experiences and exceptional food and drink, local tourism is a dynamic and rapidly expanding sector, making a substantial contribution to growth, employment and prosperity in Northern Ireland. I have been fortunate over the last few weeks to visit a number of the key attractions and sample some of the outstanding hospitality for myself, but I can hardly compete with the hon. Gentleman’s travelogue in selling the benefits of his constituency.
Jim Shannon
May I invite the Minister to visit my constituency of Strangford? We would be more than happy to have him there, and I could give him a guided tour, so that he can see some of the beauties of my constituency.
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman is extremely kind, and I would be delighted to take him up on that offer. I think he will find—as we have heard in the debate, including from my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis)—that he has many friends across the House who will be keen to join him in his constituency.
In conclusion, the hon. Gentleman has done the House a great service by bringing today’s celebration of St Patrick’s day to the Chamber, celebrating all that Northern Ireland and his constituency have to offer. The UK Government will continue to work hand in hand with the Northern Ireland Executive in supporting the tourism industry and Northern Ireland’s economy and ensuring that future St Patrick’s days can be celebrated with great success.
Sentencing (Pre-Consolidation Amendments) Bill [ Lords ]
Tuesday 17th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Act 2020 View all Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Before we begin, I will outline the procedure in Second Reading Committee, as it is an uncommon Committee. This Committee is charged with recommending to the House whether the Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) [Lords] Bill ought or ought not to be read a Second time. The debate in this Committee replaces a Second Reading debate in the House. After this Committee has made its recommendation, the Question on Second Reading in the House will be decided without further debate. The rules governing a Second Reading debate in the House apply in Second Reading Committees, so that in particular Members may speak more than once only by leave of the Committee, or through interventions. I call the Minister to move the motion.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the Committee recommends that the Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill [Lords] ought to be read a Second time.
As always, Dame Rosie, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. The purpose of the Bill is to make amendments to existing sentencing legislation in order to facilitate the enactment of the Law Commission’s Sentencing Bill, which will consolidate the law governing sentencing procedure in England and Wales into a single Sentencing Code. Although the may be technical in nature, at its heart this legislation is about legal certainty. Hon. Members will agree that the law must be clear and accessible; unfortunately, it has become difficult to say that with any sincerity about the statute governing sentencing procedure. It is well known and understood in the legal community that this body of law has grown incredibly complex and disparate over the years, even for the most experienced practitioners. Sentencing legislation now runs to over 1,300 pages; judges and barristers alike say it is too complicated and needs to be consolidated. Indeed, it is noticeable in the Court of Appeal that quite a large number of appeals against sentences are successful not on the ground that the sentence is too lenient or too harsh, but on the ground that an error in law has been made, owing, we think, to the complexity of sentencing legislation. This Bill and the sentencing code that will follow it are designed to correct that uncertainty.
The sentencing code will bring together all the procedural provisions on which courts need to rely during the sentencing process, including those detailing the general legislative principles of sentencing and the types of sentence a sentencing court may impose. By bringing these provisions into one place and providing them with a coherent structure, the code will assist judges and legal professionals in identifying and applying sentencing procedural law. That will help to reduce the risk of error, appeals and delay in the sentencing process and improve the transparency of the process for the general public.
I cannot stress enough the significance of this to practitioners. The Law Commission was asked in 2014 to undertake a review, and the sentencing code, which has just been introduced in the House of Lords and which directly follows this Bill, was developed by the commission in the following years. The commission published its report in November 2018; it included a draft of this Bill and the separate Sentencing Bill, which will create the sentencing code. The main recommendation in the report was to enact both pieces of legislation, but before the Sentencing Bill can be enacted, technical changes to existing legislation are needed to facilitate the consolidation of sentencing procedure, and this Bill will make the necessary changes.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
I declare an interest: I am one of those barristers who used to practise in the criminal courts and use the sentencing provisions in the statutes the Ministers refers to. I want to put it on the record that this legislation is long overdue and very welcome to judges, barristers and practitioners alike, and I look forward to scrutinising the detail.
Chris Philp
I am delighted that my hon. Friend feels that way. As we all know, he has a long and distinguished track record practising in the criminal courts, so he has direct experience of the current complexity. As he says, judges, academics, barristers and many others support the measures in the Bill before the Committee.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
It is 20 years since I practised criminal law, but it was pretty confusing even then. I am glad it is was not just me who did not understand. I did not realise the scale of the problem until I read in the Library briefing that the survey conducted by the Law Commission found that sentences in 36% of its sample of cases were unlawful, so I agree that this measure is long overdue. Have the Government considered publishing what they regard as common mistakes made? If that is the level of incorrect sentencing that has been going on, there must be many more wrongly decided cases out there.
Chris Philp
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Witney, the hon. Member for Hammersmith has had a long and distinguished career as a practitioner of of the law, and we are always interested in what he has to say. The idea of identifying common mistakes and drawing them to the judiciary’s attention is a very good one. Perhaps my officials can work with the Judicial College and the Judicial Office to see whether a list of common errors could be compiled and circulated to the judiciary. A couple of studies have been done; the hon. Gentleman referred to one of them, another was done in 2012 looking at Court of Appeal overturns of unlawful sentences, and another by the Criminal Appeal Office in 2018. I am sure we could draw on that work to identify whether there are common themes, and if there are, the idea of drawing them to judges’ attention is an extremely good one. We will investigate the hon. Gentleman’s idea with a view to taking it further.
There are two substantive clauses in the Bill because the Bill does two things. First, clause 1 provides a “clean sweep”. It takes the existing sentencing procedures and ensures that sentences passed are in accordance with the law applicable at the time of the offence. It is not uncommon for sentencing courts to deal with offenders who committed offences several years previously, when a different sentencing regime applied. There are many examples of when this happens, and if the sentencing provisions have changed between the time of the offence and the time of sentencing, it is not immediately clear which provisions apply. As we have heard from two practitioners on this Committee, it is no wonder that barristers and judges are keen on change.
The so-called clean sweep mechanism provided in clause 1 attempts to remedy the anomaly by removing the need for the sentencing court to identify and apply historical versions of sentencing law. Instead it will apply the sentencing law prevailing at the time of sentence rather than at the time of offence. As a result, when an offender is convicted after the start of the new sentencing code, sentencing procedural law as enacted in the code will apply, regardless of when the offence was committed. However, from a common law and human rights point of view—an article 7 point of view—it is important to provide exceptions, to ensure that offenders sentenced under the sentencing code are not subject to a harsher penalty than they would have been had the sentencing law at the time of the offence applied. Although current sentencing law will apply, there is an exception if the minimum sentence or the maximum sentence has increased, to make sure that a harsher penalty is not applied. That respects an important common law principle, as well as an article 7 human right.
Maria Eagle (Garston and Halewood) (Lab)
Of course, when there is a moving target or a snap change is made, as the clean sweep does—it says, “Stop that. We start here.”—exceptions have to be made. However, we already have 12 categories of exception set out in the Bill. Will the Minister undertake to ensure that we do not have 50 or 100 categories by the time we reach the end of this process, thus building in complexity again? I understand the importance of the points he makes about the Human Rights Act and not doing rough justice under the common law, but if our aim is to put things right, we should keep it simple.
Chris Philp
The hon. Lady makes a good point. The aim is to simplify, yet we have these exceptions. A balance has to be struck. We cannot, as responsible legislators, do anything that violates the long-established common law right she refers to, or breaches human rights. We want to keep it as simple as possible. It is worth bearing in mind that sentencing law sets generally the maximum and in some cases the minimum sentences, but it is always up to the independent judiciary to decide exactly what sentence they hand down. I take the hon. Lady’s point about the exceptions, though. I hope we have enunciated those comprehensively, particularly in schedule 1 to the Bill, and that we will not have to add to them as rightly warns against.
The second substantive provision, clause 2, provides for various pre-consolidation amendments, which are listed in schedule 2. They are almost entirely highly technical in nature. They are explained in detail in the explanatory notes, but essentially they tidy up and correct small historical anomalies before the sentencing code is enacted. I will give one example to illustrate:references in schedule 9 to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to now repealed petty sessions districts in Northern Ireland are replaced with references to their replacements, administrative court divisions. That is the sort of technical amendment we are making via schedule 2. There is a list in the explanatory notes that we can examine in more detail during the Committee stage of the Bill, if required.
Let me be clear: everything we are doing, both in this Bill and in the sentencing code that will follow, is essentially about clarifying and simplifying. In none of these provisions are we changing substantive sentencing law. It is a simplification exercise. Nothing is being changed in the way that sentencing policy operates. It is simply a clarification exercise, which is supported by the judiciary, barristers and academics. It has been scrutinised at some length in the other place, which has among its Members some very distinguished former judges, and it is the culmination of four or five years’ work by the Law Commission. I thank the commission for the extraordinary work it has done, especially the outgoing criminal law commissioner, David Ormerod, who led the work.
The Bill has one simple purpose: to pave the way for the sentencing code. That code will make the sentencing process easier, quicker and more transparent. The Sentencing Bill, which creates the code, was introduced in the House of Lords on 5 March under the special procedure reserved for Law Commission consolidation Bills. I commend the Bill to the Committee as an important and, some have said, long overdue step to simplify a very complicated area of law.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Rosie. As the Minister set out, this is a largely technical and, as such, uncontroversial Bill to bring to fruition the Law Commission’s four years long project on consolidating sentencing legislation. The Opposition fully support the Government’s intention to conclude the commission’s work and will not oppose the motion. I too take this opportunity to thank the Law Commission for its work drafting the sentencing code, and the many others who fed into the process through the consulation and outreach work.
We all agree that sentencing legislation is overlong, complex and obscure, even to experienced legal professional and judges. It is clear that urgent change is needed. As the Law Commission pointed out, current sentencing legislation, with its sources in numerous places in legislation, runs to well over 1,300 pages and creates immense difficulties in understanding and access the relevant law. It is also widely disparate in the way in which it can be amended, as the Minister described. Some changes can be made by amending previous enactments, others by introducing their own enactments, and there are even some that modify the effects of other enactments without actually amending the wording of the provisions. The way these amendments are brought into force is just as inconsistent.
The Law Commission also highlighted the number of times that Parliament has amended sentencing legislation and the erratic way in which it has done it, which just compounds existing problems with the complexity of sentencing legislation. As the volume of changes and the pace at which they are made increase, it becomes ever more difficult first to locate the law and then to fully understand it. In fact, I think the only people who oppose the Bill are law librarians, who have the knack of identifying sources of legislation in obscure places.
The result of all this can quite simply be described as a near-dysfunctional mess that is a considerable problem for our legal system. It puts burdens on lawyers and judges, results in wrong sentencing decisions that subsequently need to be appealed, and requires additional court hearings which have a knock-on effect of delaying other hearings. That clogs up a system already straining under nearly a decade of cuts to courts and legal services.
Although those from a legal background who have wrestled with sentencing legislation and its many complexities will probably welcome these long overdue measures, the sentencing code offers substantially greater benefits than just making the lives of lawyers easier—although that is also to be commended. Consolidating legislation in a sentencing code could give the public confidence in sentencing procedure. We accept that it is not possible for the legal system to be infallible all the time; that is why the appeals process exists. But when it is found that more than one in three of the cases assessed by the Law Commission in the criminal division of the Court of Appeal in 2012 involved sentences that the court simply should not have made, it is inevitable that public confidence takes a knock.
The public must feel secure in the belief that sentencing decisions are the correct decisions as often as possible. By addressing the immense complexity and inconsistencies with sentencing legislation, the sentencing code can give them that confidence, but if the public are to properly have confidence in sentencing, they must also have confidence in those handing down the sentences, so the Government must not repeat their reckless encouragement of partisan attacks on our independent judiciary.
Although we accept the need for the sentencing code set out by the Law Commission and we support the Government in bringing it to this House, we are concerned about the time that it has taken to reach us—a point raised by the aptly named Lord Judge, a former Lord Chief Justice who expressed disappointment on its slow progress. The Law Commission published its report on the sentencing code project in November 2018 and the draft Bills that they included are innocuous and uncontroversial pieces of legislation. As a consolidating measure, procedures available allow this Bill to be heard in a Second Reading Committee, as we are doing today, with time not needing to be made available in the Main Chamber. Will the Minister tell us what caused the delay in enacting the Law Commission’s sentencing code? How many offenders since November 2018 have handed sentences that were unlawful, too short or too long as a result of the complexities of the current sentencing legislation?
Broadly speaking, however, we support the Government in bringing forward both this Bill and the Sentencing Bill that will fully enact the sentencing code, which is awaiting its Second Reading in the other place. We also support any measures that will simplify our sentencing system and will benefit the legal process, legal professionals, the judiciary, and ultimately, the public. We support this Bill being given a Second Reading.
Chris Philp
With the permission of the Committee, Dame Rosie, I thank the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate for his considered support for the Bill. It is very welcome indeed, and I am glad that we can work together in a spirit of co-operation to get it through the House. He mentioned a delay. He is right that the Law Commission report was published in November 2018. In fairness to my predecessors, I should say that 2018 was a rather eventful year in Parliament, with quite a lot going on, including a change of Prime Minister and a general election, along with various other things. As a result, matters progressed through Parliament a little more slowly than they might otherwise have done. The Bill was introduced in May 2019, carried over and then had to be reintroduced after Dissolution. It has suffered from the political turbulence of the past 12 months, but we are here now and want to get it passed as quickly as possible. I am grateful for the Opposition’s support for the Bill and look forward to working with them to get it on to the statute book quickly.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Luke Hall)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. This Government are committed to ensuring that private tenants live in safe, secure and high-quality properties. We truly value the contribution that responsible private landlords make to the housing market and the private rented sector. The majority of private rented houses and flats are well maintained and offer safe accommodation to tenants. However, there are still unscrupulous landlords who wilfully flout their responsibilities and put their tenants at significant risk of harm. At present, only 60% of privately rented homes have all the recommended electrical safety features installed—modern PVC wiring, modern earthing, modern consumer units, miniature circuit breakers and residual current devices—compared with 75% of social housing. That is why these regulations are so important.
The regulations will require all landlords to do what good landlords are already doing: make sure that electrical installations in their rented properties are safe. The regulations form part of the Government’s work to improve safety in all buildings. They will drive up standards, reduce deaths and injuries caused by electrical faults, make tenants safer and help to level the playing field for the majority of good landlords who already provide decent rented properties. Landlords who choose to not comply with the vital safety measures in these regulations will have to improve or leave the business.
These regulations will apply to all new tenancies from July 2020 and to all existing tenancies from April 2021. They will require landlords to have the electrical installations in their properties inspected and tested at least every five years by a person who is qualified and competent. Landlords will have to provide a copy of the electrical safety report to their tenants and to their local authority if requested. If a report requires investigative or remedial works, landlords will have to carry those out. In practice, if a report does not require investigative or remedial works, the landlord will not be required to carry out any further work. Some landlords may already be complying with the requirements in the regulations—for example, where they have already had an inspection, where the electrical safety standards are being met and where no remedial work is required. Those proactive and responsible landlords may not need to take any further action when the regulations come into force.
In addition to requiring remedial work, reports can recommend improvements. If a report only recommends improvements but does not require any further investigative or remedial work to be carried out, although it would be good practice to carry out that work, it will not be required in order to comply with the regulations. In this way, we have ensured that the requirements are proportionate.
Because these regulations are so important, local authorities will have strong legal enforcement powers. They will have the power to require landlords to carry out remedial works, or even arrange the works themselves and recover the cost from the landlord. They will be able to decide on the appropriate penalty for landlords who do not comply, with the power to issue a financial penalty of up to £30,000. This is because those local authorities know their areas best and can make serious decisions about the unscrupulous landlords who are undercutting those who already provide safe and secure accommodation. Local authorities can see the severity of the issue and will know best how to tackle irresponsible landlords in their areas. Landlords will, of course, have a right of appeal against enforcement action. Local authorities will be able to keep the proceedings of financial penalties for enforcement purposes, allowing them to keep up the good work, driving up standards and contributing to their long-term financial stability.
The majority of landlords are proactive when it comes to ensuring the safety of their tenants, so the requirements in these regulations will not put an additional burden on those landlords, who make a welcome contribution to the housing market. However, it is of course reasonable to expect all landlords to make sure their tenants are safe from the risk of electrocution or fire. These regulations are important, because they will increase tenant safety and make the private rented sector fairer for those good landlords who are already concerned with tenant safety. Accordingly, I hope the Committee will support them.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. The Opposition welcome these regulations, which are an example of good regulation that will protect tenants in their homes and landlords’ properties and is not overly burdensome. I am grateful to the Minister for laying out the Government’s case, and we will not be contesting this measure. However, I want to seek clarity on a number of points.
First, it is four years, almost to the day, since the measure was tabled as an amendment to the Housing and Planning Act 2016. That seems astonishing when we consider the fact that it has cross-party support, having first been tabled by Labour’s Baroness Hayter and Lib Dem Lord Tope, and later adopted by the Government. One of the reasons for the Government accepting it was the evidence showing the huge gulf between the number of gas and electrical fires in properties.
A private renter is 10 times more likely to experience an electrical fire than a gas one. Data from the London Fire Brigade compiled by the campaign group Electrical Safety First shows that in London alone there have been at least 1,169 fires caused by electrics since 2010, compared with just 131 caused by gas. We also know from the data that since 2016, when the measure could have been enacted, there have been more than 400 fires in private rented properties in London alone.
Those fires could have been avoided had the draft regulations been introduced more quickly. Such fires not only result in avoidable costs for tenants and landlords, but could involve injury or even death. Electrical Safety First has found that around 350,000 people are injured and 70 killed in the UK by electrical accidents every year. It would be good to understand why we have had such a delay. It might be, in part, because today’s Minister is, with respect, the 10th in 10 years. The lack of continuity has meant that the measure has fallen by the wayside when we could have implemented it much sooner.
All Members present will agree that regulations are not worth the paper on which they are written unless they can be properly enforced. Our councils have suffered billions in cuts under this Government, losing 60p in every pound that they used to receive from the Government to spend on services. It is disappointing that the Government are placing the burden of enforcement solely on local authorities, without any additional funding for that enforcement. Scotland and Wales have successfully implemented a system that uses first-tier tribunals rather than council environmental health teams. Did the Minister assess the success of those systems before deciding to place the burden on councils? Can he confirm the number of cases brought to the first-tier tribunal in Scotland since the Housing (Scotland) Act 2014?
An investigation by Unison last year found that environmental health budgets have more than halved in the last decade, as have visits from environmental health officers. We have heard a lot about public health in the last few weeks, and we will hear more as coronavirus spreads. It is worth bearing in mind that environmental health teams cover a wide spectrum of health and safety in our communities, not just housing.
I was the shadow Minister for the Tenant Fees Act 2019, and concerns were raised on Report about the ability of councils to fund enforcement, particularly in the first year. The Government eventually agreed to provide £500,000 of funding for local authorities for enforcement in the first year, with fines funding enforcement from year two. Has similar funding been considered or agreed for councils this year?
In my borough in Croydon, and elsewhere, borough-wide landlord licensing has meant that the council can already require electrical safety checks as a condition of the licence, with enforcement funded through the licence fee, but the Government have indicated that they will not continue to support borough-wide licensing, meaning that funding for that enforcement will decline in such places as Croydon. How does the Minister intend to plug that funding gap?
Unlike similar regulations in Scotland, the draft regulations do not include the portable appliance testing of electrical appliances included as part of the let, such as white goods. Although the Government have chosen not to make it mandatory, would the Minister consider adding a recommendation for landlords to PAT test their goods, as well as guidance for both landlords and tenants to check for product recalls on any of the electrical appliances in their properties?
Homes in the private rented sector are more likely to have a higher proportion of second-hand white goods, and we know the dangers that faulty white goods can create. A fire in a Shepherd’s Bush tower block in 2016 was caused by a Whirlpool tumble dryer, and the Grenfell Tower inquiry is looking at a Hotpoint fridge-freezer as a potential cause of the fire that killed 72 people. Whirlpool commenced a series of product recalls last year, but many tenants could be left with faulty, dangerous products in their properties that were bought by the landlord and forgotten about. Tenants could be entitled to a new, safe replacement. Surely it makes sense for the Government to take the opportunity to remind them of that if they will not enforce the PAT testing of appliances.
I will make a few final brief points, which I hope the Minister will respond to—if not today, then perhaps in writing. I mentioned the Grenfell Tower, which was, of course, a social housing block. Electrical Safety First has pointed out that the draft regulations will not apply to social housing. Although many councils and housing associations will already be doing the right thing and requiring the checks, it seems unfair to yet again treat social housing tenants as if deserving of a lower standard of safety. Will the Government consider extending the measure to social housing?
On enforcement, section 40 of the Housing and Planning Act 2016 makes provision for rent repayments in certain cases, including failure to comply with an enforcement notice. Regulation 3 refers to “remedial action”. Will failure to take remedial action constitute grounds for rent repayment?
Although we wholeheartedly support the regulations, we would go further to help the 4.5 million households in the private rented sector who, for too long, have not had the support they deserve. We need to face up to the fact that support for private renters has been sparse under this Government. It has taken four years to enact this relatively minor and non-contentious measure, and there have been a series of promises from the last Secretary of State that we are yet to see progress on, including the promise, almost a year ago, to abolish no-fault evictions.
During the general election, the Opposition set out plans for a new property MOT for landlords. It would have brought together existing requirements for gas and electrical safety with new checks to ensure homes are fit for habitation. Under our proposals, like with a vehicle, landlords who failed the check would not be allowed to let their property. Non-compliance is a really serious issue. Will the Minister consider going beyond fines as a penalty and consider banning landlords from letting properties?
Those most affected by rogue landlords are those who have borne the brunt of Government policy decisions since 2010—those on the lowest incomes. We support the regulations, but we would go much further to ensure everyone gets the basic right of access to a safe, secure home.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Nokes. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central, I warmly welcome the regulations. They are long overdue; it has taken a very long time to get here. It is shocking that in this country, tenants can still rent a property without any assurance about electrical safety.
My hon. Friend discussed the 400 fires that have occurred in private rented properties. I am particularly concerned about electric fan heaters. They are a major cause of fires, although they are not covered directly here. A few years ago, of 11 fires in the London area, three were down to fan heaters. That was not necessarily down to the landlord—I do not have the detail—but it goes to show what can happen if something goes badly wrong with an electrical appliance.
That brings me to the issue of PAT tests, which my hon. Friend raised. It is all very well having good wiring in a property—that is vital, of course—but if a single appliance has a problem, there can be a serious issue. In parts of the country where young professionals are passing through on short-term lets in single rooms in a property with shared electrical facilities, landlords are probably not checking every appliance. They are certainly not doing PAT tests; they are not required to. I urge the Minister—I know he is new in his post; I hope he stays a bit longer than any of his predecessors, which will not be difficult to achieve—to look at that issue and to respond to that serious point.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The missing part in this is who is actually doing the testing. There seems to be a serious gap in the regulations on the requirement for that person to be professionally competent. There is talk about issuing guidelines and all the rest of it, but there is precious little detail.
Meg Hillier
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He has read my mind—that is one of my other concerns. It is a really long-awaited measure and yet it is full of holes.
I am sorry, Ms Nokes—I should declare an interest. I let a property so I know a bit of what I speak. It is in the register of interests. I mentioned PAT tests. Good landlords should maintain high standards but, as my hon. Friend highlighted, finding someone with the right qualification to do this work and knowing that the recommendations they make are the right ones is a challenge. It is important. I hope the Minister, in guidance if not in the regulations at this late stage, will be able to look at the standards that electricians should be maintaining.
Even where someone has an electrician to visit a property or their home to have something done, standards change over time. Standards have changed even in the last decade or so. Perhaps the fuse box or other elements of electrical equipment may need to be altered. If that work is done piecemeal or by somebody with a lower qualification, there is a real concern.
The law did change—all electrical installations in any property, rented or otherwise, need to be done by a qualified electrician. For landlords, there is a public safety interest as well. It is not the same as in a private home. A landlord is acting to keep a place safe for a third party. It is important that we have slightly higher standards of inspection at that point.
The other issue I am concerned about is enforcement. In part 2, regulation 3(3)(c) says that the landlord is to
“supply a copy of the report”—
the one that my right hon. Friend and I were discussing—
“to the local housing authority within 7 days of receiving a request in writing for it from that authority”.
That is all very well, but given the squeeze on local authorities, highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central, and on environmental health, I cannot envisage that councils will have the resources to run around trying to find where landlords are and ask them whether their properties are safe. Of all the things that landlords do for tenants’ safety, electrical safety will be at the top of the list of importance.
Does the tenant therefore alert the local authority? In an ideal world, yes, but we all know that there are unscrupulous landlords who will inflict punishment on tenants for making a single complaint to the local authority—and anyway, that is reliant on the local authority having the resources to act in time and do something about it if it does not receive a report within seven days or considers it to be in some way inadequate. The enforcement element of the regulations is very light.
My hon. Friend also mentioned new burdens. I am sure the Minister will have done a new burdens assessment or required to see one on local government. This paragraph alone will provide a significant new burden, let alone the overall responsibility for ensuring that properties in an area are safe. At the same time, the Government have clamped down on local licensing regimes and refused to set in place even a basic national licensing programme.
Licensing can be another burden on local government, but basic modern safety standards for private rented housing are long overdue. I urge the Minister, early in his career with responsibility for housing—hopefully his career will be longer than his predecessors’—to look seriously at this issue. We have individual licensing schemes around the country that vary greatly, with no basic minimum standards other than those required by other parts of the law. We keep adding bits to legislation, like on a Christmas tree, without seeing coherently what should be at front and centre. A private let property is a home for the tenant living there, and they should be safe and secure at all times in the home in which they live. There are so many holes in the system.
I turn to the fine of up to £30,000. Is that how local government is expected to fund this measure? That will require local government to find some very bad transgressors quite quickly to get the money in to pay for staff time alone to ensure its implementation. We can all talk warm words about how vital it is to have this measure on the statute book, but how will it be delivered?
Finally, we are in the grip of a deadly killer in coronavirus, where households will self-isolate and professionals—however well qualified—will struggle to manage their workload; indeed, they may not want to leave their own homes. In part 3, regulation 5(2), on the duty of a private landlord to comply with a remedial notice, says:
“A private landlord is not to be taken to be in breach of the duty under paragraph (1) if the private landlord can show they have taken all reasonable steps to comply with that duty.”
Nothing should let an irresponsible landlord off the hook. However, given the timeframe involved, with the regulations coming into force in June for all new tenancies from July, and the severe restrictions on British society because of the coronavirus situation, it might be challenging for some good landlords—possibly bad ones, too—to comply. Will the Minister be crystal clear about whether “reasonable steps” will cover the serious state we are in now? Will he also make clear how he will ensure that unscrupulous landlords do not use that as a get-out clause for doing what is proper and right in the interests of private tenants?
John Spellar
May I probe the Minister a bit further about who will do inspections? I hope he may intervene to satisfy me on that. The regulations talk about a “qualified person” but the explanatory memorandum says that the Department decided
“not to introduce a mandatory competent person scheme”.
I would not argue that the Department should set up its own mandatory competence scheme, but they are already out there in the industry, in the same way as they are in the gas industry. It is not necessarily for the Department and the Minister to identify one particular qualifying organisation, but what I find slightly odd is the fact that they are not requiring that someone qualified under part P must have a qualification from the National Inspection Council for Electrical Installation Contracting or whoever in order to be able to undertake such work—as far as I recall, it is already required for certifying a new electrical installation. That is also a protection for the landlord against people who might purport to have such qualifications—unless they produce a fraudulent certificate, but that is a different danger and another issue. It would surely benefit the tenants and local authorities to have somebody sign off and give their registration number, which can be checked if there are subsequent problems.
Meg Hillier
My right hon. Friend raises a really important point. If we are trying to reduce the burden on local authorities while protecting tenants, a trusted trader scheme or a trusted inspection scheme can cut through some of the bureaucracy that local government may otherwise feel the need to introduce. Actually, local government does not have the resources to do that. Surely he would agree that that would be cost-effective to the taxpayer all round.
John Spellar
Very much so; it makes the local authorities’ job much easier. We already have a well-regulated scheme for training and for testing the competence of people working in the industry—for very good reasons, given the inherent dangers of electricity. As I said, I understand that people might produce fraudulent certificates and so on, but that can be dealt with in a different way. This approach would make it much easier for local authorities to say to a landlord, “Where’s your certificate?” and, if they have their suspicions, to check back on that or even to check on the individual. It cuts out a huge amount and does not require the Department, local authorities or consortiums of local authorities to pull that together.
If I may say bluntly to the Minister, this process seems to have a bit of a feel of, “We’re against the big state and bureaucracy.” This would cut bureaucracy, but we still have to cut through to the idea that having proper qualifications, regulation and checking is enormously important. It facilitates commerce, rather than inhibits it, but it also provides a lot of reassurance to all the parties involved.
Luke Hall
I am grateful for the contributions to the debate. I am certainly grateful for what sounds like support for the principle of introducing the regulations but, understandably, a number of questions have been raised.
All Opposition colleagues asked why this has taken so long. We wanted to introduce them early in this Parliament, having announced in July 2018 that we would introduce mandatory requirements. I hope all Members will appreciate that there have been parliamentary challenges on time over the past couple of years, but we have been using this time to work closely with experts in the sector, carefully considering some of the complex issues that we have talked about in the debate to ensure that what we are introducing is proportionate. Delivering the regulations early in this Parliament has been a priority.
We have heard a couple of questions about how landlords will know that an electrician is a qualified and competent person. We will ensure that landlords know that an electrician is a qualified and competent person. Before the regulations come into force, guidance on this specific issue will be published for landlords. I will make a note to ensure that the Members who have spoken in the debate are notified when that guidance is published.
Meg Hillier
I thank the Minister for alerting colleagues in the room—presumably others will pick this up—but we are now in mid-March. The regulations come into force in June, but landlords will want to make plans to get the tests done. When will the Minister provide that information? Will it be in time for landlords to know exactly who they should ask to do such work?
Luke Hall
I cannot give the hon. Member a specific date, but I will respond to her in writing on a number of the issues that she and others have raised. I will do my best to provide a date as soon as possible.
The right hon. Member for Warley mentioned the idea of competent person schemes and the principle of trusted trader schemes. We will be encouraging industry to establish competent person schemes but membership of them will not be compulsory, to ensure that there is no further pressure placed on industry nor burdens placed on inspectors or customers.
John Spellar
That is not necessary. Electricians are already highly regulated under all sorts of electrical legislation. They also have to be trained and to pass competency tests. They get certificates indicating their level of competency: some are competent to install, some to supervise and some to test. The industry already has this, and there is no need to create a new structure. Why does the Minister not just say that there are long-established regulatory bodies, and we will use their certification and schemes to establish competency? I honestly do not see the logical problem he is facing.
Luke Hall
As I say, before the regulations come into force we will be publishing guidance. I will look closely at the issues, but the guidance can be used before employing inspectors and testers to ensure that the person is competent. Of course, I will take the right hon. Gentleman’s point away.
A number of Members raised the issue of PAT testing. They are right to point out that that has not been included in the draft regulations because of the variety of electrical appliances and because the use of one single mandated approach has not been considered practical. The Chair of the Public Accounts Committee has asked to me to look at that issue, which I am happy to do. I will report back to her on that point.
The Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson talked about the importance of not only considering the private rented sector in our work, but considering the social sector as well. She is right to make that point. We all acknowledge that the standards in the private rented sectors are significantly lower in some incidences than in the social sector, so the draft regulations target that sector, but we will be separately considering measures for social rented properties. I am happy to work with the hon. Lady and continue discussions as we move through this Parliament about how we can best achieve that.
Hon. Members also talked about how the regulations will be funded. Local authority environmental health departments are already responsible for enforcing electrical safety standards in the private rented sector. The new regulations will make it simpler for local authorities to do this because landlords will now have to provide them with proof that their electrics are safe. Local authorities will also be able to keep any money raised from financial penalties to fund those activities.
There was also a question about the first-tier tribunal, instead of enforcement, and about the system in Scotland and the number of cases. I do not have that information to hand, but I will find it and make sure it is reported back to the hon. Member for Croydon Central after the debate.
I am pleased that we have general support for the regulations and for our work to improve the private rented sector. I think we all agree that this is timely and overdue, and it is right we are bringing it forward this morning. We rightly heard that 871 people were injured in England in electrical fires in the home in 2016-17, and 16 people died. In a five-year period, the London Fire Brigade dealt with 748 fires caused by electrics. In the same period, only 97 fires it dealt with in London were caused by gas.
We have heard the discrepancies and disparities between the social rented sector and the private rented sector. Although there is a compelling case for change, it is right that we put on record the important contribution that private landlords make to the housing market. The majority of landlords in England provide well-maintained and safe accommodation for their tenants, allowing them to put down roots and thrive in their communities. However, we must ensure that all landlords, not just the good ones, are meeting standards of electrical safety. We want irresponsible and unscrupulous landlords who wilfully disregard their responsibilities and rent out dangerous properties to change their behaviour or leave the business. That will help level the playing field and helps support good landlords to deliver the homes that our country needs. The regulations are an important part of our wider reform programme, which seeks to level up the private rented sector, making it fairer, safer and more secure.
Meg Hillier
I thank the Minister for giving way again. I raised the issue of new burdens. We recognise that in certain parts of the country there are clusters of poor landlords, who need to be driven out. The challenge, though, is for local authorities, because they are going to have to pay up front for the inspections for the work before they get any money from the fines. Some of those landlords may well be the sort of fly-by-night people from whom it is very difficult to extract the fine at all, because they will find a way of dodging it by going bankrupt or whatever, or they often have properties in the name of other family members. How is the Minister going to make sure that local government can afford to get on with this job, and has he considered the new burdens?
Luke Hall
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. The House has secured the most positive local government finance settlement for 10 years, a £2.9 billion increase in funding for local authorities. We are quite clear that that will not resolve all of the pressures on local authorities, but that settlement—a 4.4% real-terms increase in support for local government—has been welcomed by the sector, and we think they do have the resources they need. We accept that they are—
Meg Hillier
I apologise for intervening on the Minister again, but the new burdens rules are very clear. If there is a new requirement for local government to act, the Department has to make sure that the Treasury provides the necessary money to local government for at least 12 months after the new burden is introduced. If he cannot answer now, perhaps he could write to us with that information, but this is vitally important, particularly in areas with large swathes of unscrupulous landlords where it will be costly for the local authority to act when, quite rightly, they will want to do so.
As Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, I must pick the Minister up on the fact that Minister after Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and tells us that local government has had its biggest financial settlement in cash terms for the past decade. That is because local authority funding has been cut back so ruthlessly over the past decade—by 40%, in my own local authority’s case—so that does not go anywhere near filling the gap. There is still a huge squeeze on local authorities, and they certainly do not have money swilling around to deal with this as a huge priority above everything else. Although it is vital that they deal with it, they are having to face Hobson’s choice, so will the Minister undertake to look at those new burden issues? I am sure it has been done already, but if he cannot tell me now, perhaps he could write to me.
Luke Hall
I will write to the hon. Lady with that information. She is right, by the way, that we do not think this latest settlement solves all the pressures that local government is facing. The Secretary of State made that very clear when we brought the settlement before the House a couple of weeks ago, so we completely appreciate that point. We do think, though, that it is the most positive settlement for a few years, and are pleased that it has been welcomed and supported by the whole House for the first time in a number of years. We will absolutely consider the points that the hon. Lady has made.
I am grateful that the Committee seems to support these vital regulations, and I will pick up on the points that have been raised. They will drive up standards and reduce injuries in the private rented sector, so I am grateful for the Committee’s support.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Electrical Safety Standards in the Private Rented Sector (England) Regulations 2020.
Draft Buckinghamshire (Structural Changes) (Supplementary Provision and Amendment) Order 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Luke Hall)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Buckinghamshire (Structural Changes) (Supplementary Provision and Amendment) Order 2020.
This order was laid before the House on 24 February 2020. If approved and made, it will update the membership arrangements for the conservation board of the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty to take account of the restructuring of local government in Buckinghamshire. We expect this to be the final statutory instrument connected to local government restructuring in Buckinghamshire.
The order bringing about local government reorganisation in Buckinghamshire came into force on 23 May 2019. It provided for a reorganisation date of 1 April 2020, when the new Buckinghamshire Council will assume the full range of local authority responsibilities and the five existing councils—the county council and four district councils—will be wound up and abolished.
That order established a shadow authority and shadow executive, which has been managing the transition to the new council. I am very pleased that all the councils have been working closely together to deliver the new unitary council, and I take this opportunity to thank them for their hard work and dedication during this period. We look forward to seeing the new Buckinghamshire Council flourish and deliver the high-quality services that its residents deserve.
The conservation board of the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty is made up of members appointed by the relevant local councils, parish council representatives and members nominated by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, following open national competition. The board’s composition is set out in the Chilterns Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (Establishment of Conservation Board) Order 2004. The board is responsible for conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the Chilterns and increasing the understanding and enjoyment of their special qualities.
Local government restructuring in Buckinghamshire will abolish all five of the Buckinghamshire councils that nominate a member of the Chiltern AONB conservation board, and some changes are needed to the membership arrangements to take account of those changes to local government. The Chilterns AONB conservation board currently has a total membership of 27: one representative for each of the 13 councils specified in schedule 1 to the 2004 order; two parish council members for each of Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Oxfordshire; and eight members nominated by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Without this order, the new Buckinghamshire Council would be able to appoint only one member to the conservation board. However, 50% of the area of the Chilterns AONB falls within Buckinghamshire Council’s boundaries. The shadow executive of Buckinghamshire Council has requested that the status quo be maintained so that the new council will nominate five members to the board, to provide adequate representation for the area. It considers that the current membership arrangements, with five board members for the area of Buckinghamshire as a whole, better reflect the extent of the AONB that falls within the new council area.
The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 specifies that at least 40% of the AONB board membership must be from local authorities and at least 20% from parish councils. These changes ensure that that requirement continues to be met. There are no other changes to membership of the board.
In conclusion, this order will amend the membership arrangements for the board of the Chilterns AONB to retain a total of 13 members nominated by local councils, five of which are nominated from the Buckinghamshire area. There are no changes to membership of the board otherwise. This ensures that the new Buckinghamshire Council is able to nominate a number of members that is commensurate with having 50% of the AONB within its borders and that local authority membership complies with the requirements of the 2000 Act. The order delivers on that objective and I commend it to the Committee.
Jim McMahon (Oldham West and Royton) (Lab/Co-op)
I appreciate that the Minister has a number of more pressing issues to deal with at the moment, so I do not intend to speak other than to confirm that the Opposition do not intend to divide the Committee on this issue.
The Chair
Right. Well, this has been a very long and difficult debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2020
Draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020.
The Minister will speak to both instruments. At the end of the debate, I will ask him to move the second motion formally.
Paul Scully
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. One of the Government’s proudest achievements is creating millions more jobs since 2010. We are determined to make the UK the best place in the world to work. As announced in the Queen’s Speech, we will bring forward an employment Bill to deliver the greatest reform of workers’ rights in more than 20 years. Our approach is to balance the needs of workers and employers. These regulations, concerning the national minimum wage and the national living wage, are crucial to that approach.
We are helping to protect low-paid workers while supporting employers to comply with the legislation. We have a labour market to be proud of. Our employment rate is at 76.5%, a record high, and unemployment is 3.8%, which is lower than this time last year. Since 2010, the national minimum wage has increased faster than average wages and inflation, meaning more money for the lowest paid workers. The regulations will increase the rates of the national minimum wage and the national living wage from 1 April, which we estimate will lead to a pay rise for about 2.4 million workers.
I am delighted to say that we have accepted all the recommendations made by the Low Pay Commission. That independent expert body brings together the views of businesses and workers and, informed by research and analysis, reaches a consensus on that advice. I place on record my gratitude for its work.
The regulations will increase the national living wage for those aged 25 and over by 51p to £8.72 an hour. That increase of 6.2% means that the national living wage is projected to meet the Government’s target of reaching 60% of median earnings in 2020. A full-time worker on that rate will be more than £930 better off over the course of the year.
The regulations also increase the rates for younger workers and apprentices. Those aged between 21 and 24 will be entitled to a minimum hourly rate of £8.20, a 50p increase. Workers aged between 18 and 20 will receive an extra 30p an hour, taking their rate to £6.45. Under-18s will earn at least £4.55 an hour—a 20p increase. Apprentices aged under 19 or in the first year of their apprenticeship will receive an increase of 6.5%, meaning an hourly rate of £4.15.
The regulations also change the amount that employers can charge workers for accommodation without it affecting their pay for national minimum wage purposes. From April, that will increase to £8.20 a day.
Looking ahead, the Government have pledged to raise minimum wages further. In our manifesto, we set a new target for the national living wage of two thirds of median earnings by 2024. The Low Pay Commission will continue to have a central role in taking economic conditions into account and advising the Government on this ambitious target, ensuring that the lowest paid benefit from the increases. To improve fairness for younger workers, we will apply the national living wage to workers aged 23 and over by 2021, and to those aged 21 and over by 2024.
The first step was changing the law. We need to ensure that all workers know they are entitled to the minimum wage and that all employers know that they must pay it. The Government run an annual campaign to increase awareness. Last year, we spent £1.1 million reaching workers and employers through posters and billboards, as well as digital and online channels.
We know that most businesses pay at least the statutory minimum wage, but we take tough action against the minority of employers who underpay their workers. Since 2015, we have more than doubled our investment in minimum wage compliance and enforcement activities to £27.4 million. Such an increase in the budget allows Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to focus on tackling the most serious cases of non-compliance while educating employers to comply. HMRC follows up every worker complaint it receives, even those that are anonymous. It conducts proactive enforcement in sectors or areas where there is a higher risk of workers not being paid the legal minimum wage. In 2018-19, HMRC identified a record £24.4 million in pay arrears for more than 220,000 workers, and issued more than £17 million in penalties for non-compliant employers.
In February, we announced the recommencement of the national minimum wage naming scheme. Publicly naming employers who do not adhere to the rules remains an important part of our enforcement and compliance toolkit for the minimum wage. From now on, any firm that owes minimum wage arrears of more than £500 to its workforce can be named. To help educate employers, future naming rounds will be supported by a quarterly educational bulletin to highlight details of common compliance issues.
We are also acutely aware of the burden that regulations, including the minimum wage, place on business. As the level of the national living wage enters new territory, we want to make sure that the rules are as straightforward as possible. So long as workers are getting the wages they are entitled to, we want to make it easier for businesses to comply with the law. That is why I am also presenting regulations that will aid business compliance.
We have worked closely with stakeholders to identify areas of the national minimum wage rules that add complexity for employers, without providing clear protections or benefits to workers. Employers, particularly in the retail sector, told us that some aspects of the rules can be particularly and unnecessarily difficult to comply with. We have listened to those views. Following a review of evidence from the consultation on salaried workers and salary sacrifice schemes, the changes to the regulations will support businesses who employ salaried hours workers. Changes have been considered only where they maintain or enhance protections or benefits to workers.
Currently, low-paid salaried workers cannot be paid in fortnightly or four-weekly cycles without their employer risking a breach of regulations. Similarly, if companies were to pay such salaried staff extra for working a bank holiday shift, there is a risk of breaching regulations. The amended regulations widen the range of pay arrangements that are compatible with workers being treated as salaried hours workers from 6 April 2020. That will help preserve certain pay arrangements that are valued by many workers.
The regulations also make a small change to the rules on workers making purchases from their employer—for example, where a clothing retail worker buys a uniform from their employer. The change ensures that employers get credit for reimbursing the worker as they currently do when the purchase is from a third party.
As well as making changes to the regulations, the Government have announced further support for businesses to comply with the minimum wage rules. For instance, we are offering tailored support to new, small businesses. HMRC is proactively visiting selected employers to educate them on the national minimum wage and to help them get their practices right from the start.
To further improve understanding of the rules, we will soon be publishing an improved guidance offer through gov.uk. Our new offer will include thematic guides on topics where breaches are common, such as pay deductions, apprentices and unpaid work. We have convened a guidance readership panel of employer groups, unions and relevant experts, to make sure that we get these products right.
The regulations ensure that the lowest paid workers are fairly rewarded for their valuable contribution to the economy. They also provide greater flexibility to employers to help them comply with the rules, while maintaining our world-leading employment rights. Our commitment to raising the national living wage to two thirds of median earnings makes the UK the first major economy to set such an ambition. I commend the regulations to the House.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I apologise for being slightly late for the Committee, Mr Paisley. I was in the advertised room, where they were discussing Buckinghamshire, but I managed to avoid that—
Chris Stephens
Indeed, Mr Paisley.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister. I am looking at the percentages that the Low Pay Commission has recommended. It is welcome that an increase of 6.5% is going to 21 to 24-year-olds. Is there an explanation as to why there is a lower increase for the development rate and the youth rate, for example, which are going up by only 4.9% and 4.6%? I am sure I am not the only Member of the House who has some issues with the age rates. Should people who are 21 really be getting the same rate as someone who is 25?
Secondly, the Government may describe this as the national living wage, but it is not the real living wage as far as we are concerned. The real living wage is £9.30 an hour. When does the Minister envisage the Government’s living wage being equal to the living wage applied and calculated by other organisations?
The Minister mentioned compliance. Do the Government have any plans to increase the number of employees employed by the national minimum wage compliance unit? It is important that there is strict compliance and regulation.
Another question relates to the current covid-19 pandemic. The Minister will be aware that the Government are discouraging citizens from going to pubs, nightclubs and so on. A lot of employees in the sector will be paid the national minimum wage. Are the Government encouraging the payment of the national living wage for people employed in pubs and nightclubs, which might very well close?
On Government contractors, are the Government encouraging the living wage to be paid, and are they ensuring that, when they issue contracts, the living wage applies? Can the Minister also tell us how he will make sure that employers do not use tips to qualify for the national minimum wage? That is still an issue in the hospitality sector, and it needs to be tackled.
Justin Madders
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again today, Mr Paisley. I am grateful to the Minister for his introduction. There was a glaring omission from his speech: he failed to mention that it was a Labour Government who introduced the national minimum wage. I am sure the next time he speaks he will acknowledge that it was the Labour party that introduced that groundbreaking policy.
That said, we will not oppose these statutory instruments; we recognise that any increase in people’s income is welcome, especially at this most uncertain time. However, there are areas where we would like more progress to be made. Millions of people are in work and struggling to make ends meet. Having a job is no longer a guarantor of a decent standard of living; indeed, work and poverty often go hand in hand. The current crisis has put a spotlight on certain parts of the economy, and the extremely precarious nature of many working people’s lives is coming to the fore. Millions of people are trapped in low pay or insecure employment, and the above-inflation increase presented still falls short of the promise made by former Chancellor George Osborne that it would reach £9 an hour by 2020. If the Minister wishes to clarify that there will be a further increase later this year to take us up to that level and honour that promise, that would be most welcome, although that would still fall short of Labour’s own plans.
An increase in the minimum wage will provide some help to the lowest paid, but it will not be the transformative change that we need. It will not end the growing levels of in-work poverty faced by millions. As we have discussed in recent weeks, it does not cover everyone in work. With the growing gig economy forcing more and more workers into sham self-employment, it is more important than ever that every worker is paid a decent living wage.
The minimum wage does not cover self-employment. According to the TUC, almost half of self-employed people do not earn the minimum wage. That means that around 2 million self-employed workers are now stuck on poverty pay. Does the Minister think that is acceptable? What is being done to address poverty pay among the self-employed? It may be that later announcements offer some temporary respite for people in this category, but I suspect they will not tackle the chronic low pay many in the gig economy or in self-employment face.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow South West mentioned, there is a huge discrepancy in the minimum wage for people over 21 and those aged 18 to 20, which is exacerbated by the differential percentage increases presented today. Will the Minister set out why the Government believe that workers aged 18 to 20 should be paid a far lower rate than those aged 21 for exactly the same work, and even less than those under 25?
I declare an interest: I have two sons in the lower age bracket. They previously both worked in the same establishment, and would regularly complain to me that they worked just as hard as their colleagues over 25, did all the same duties and performed just as well, but those colleagues got a much higher pay rate. I have never been able to provide them with a satisfactory answer as to why that is the case. Hopefully, the Minister can make my home life a little easier by giving me a good answer for them. It goes without saying that not everyone under the age of 25 can benefit from staying with their parents. For them, the daily cost of living is no different than it is for those over the age of 25, in terms of rent, council tax, utility bills or whatever.
In representations to the Low Pay Commission, the TUC highlighted some of the areas where it is apparent that further Government action is required. In its submissions, the TUC said that there should be greater use of labour market enforcement orders and undertakings, recognising that those tools form an important bridge between informal action and official prosecutions. It would be good to know how many enforcement orders have been issued so far and how many undertakings have been given by employers. Of the undertakings that have been given, how many have gone on to be breached? Of those occasions where undertakings and orders have not worked, how many prosecutions have followed?
We agree with the TUC that the current fines imposed following prosecutions, which are typically only a few thousand pounds, do not act as a sufficient deterrent, particularly when the employer has been found to have engaged in what would be considered aggravating activities, such as falsifying records. The fines need to be substantially increased. As the TUC suggests, £75,000 would be reasonable. The fact that there have been relatively few prosecutions suggests that the resources, and possibly the appetite, for enforcement are not there.
The TUC submission also raised the routine evasion of the national minimum wage regulations by such devices as false self-employment, work trials and unpaid internships. I touched on false self-employment and the gig economy, but will the Minister enlighten us on how many of the 50-plus recommendations made in the good work plan have been implemented? Although it only scratches the surface of the multiple problems of exploitation and insecurity in the gig economy, the last time I checked, I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of recommendations that had been implemented, so I would be grateful for an update on any progress.
Wearing my hat as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on social mobility, we called some time ago for a ban on unpaid internships, recognising that to access certain professions they had become an almost compulsory rite of passage, including for jobs in the media, fashion and drama. Sadly, they are quite often used in politics, even in this place. Some people are expected to work for up to a year free of charge. In some places, of course, there is no guarantee of a job at the end.
I am aware that several private Members’ Bills are floating around that seek to put an end to that shameful practice. If the Minister were to indicate whether the Government intend to support any of those Bills, that would also be welcome. One further minor point from the TUC submission was the difficulty that third parties have in reporting national minimum wage infringements. Such people are often trade union officials who have in-depth knowledge and expertise in certain sectors. It seems sensible to make the most of that knowledge and experience with a workable protocol for referrals.
The Committee will be relieved to hear that I do not propose to go through every TUC recommendation, but one final important point that I wish to draw to the Committee’s attention is the proposal for public sector bodies to make it a requirement of any tendering or work outsourced that those providing the service ensure that all workers are paid at least the minimum wage. That does not require a change in legislation by the Government; it requires leadership. I would be grateful if the Minister advised on what efforts have been undertaken to encourage all those who contract with Government to pay the minimum wage and, for those who work in London, the London living wage?
The second instrument deals mainly with responses to a Government consultation on salaried hours and salary sacrifice. As the Minister explained, they are broadly technical changes to the rules around how minimum wage rates are calculated. The changes broadly afford the employer a greater degree of flexibility when determining the payments to be included within the regulations and the reference periods from which they are to be calculated.
We recognise that the regulations have been introduced as a result of responses made to the consultation by employers, but it is far from clear how significant and widespread the practices are. As the TUC said in its consultation response, there appears to be little evidence of that issue being raised regularly. We will therefore not oppose the regulations, but we urge the Minister to keep a close eye on how they work in practice because we would not want them to be used as a convenient way to game the system. One can envisage payments and reference periods being manipulated to create a certain outcome, which might well be within the letter, but not necessarily the spirit of the regulations,.
I would say the same about the reimbursement rules: on the face of it, they could be used as a Trojan horse to find even more matters to undermine the intended effect of the minimum wage. Care also needs to be taken to ensure that reimbursement takes place in a timely fashion. Although it is far from apparent that these changes will have any dramatic impact in one way or another, it is important that there are regular reviews of their implementation.
In conclusion, the Opposition believe it is important that the state sets minimum rates, but they are just part of the solution to low pay. We strongly believe that trade unions, as the collective voice of workers, are in the best place to negotiate with workers and employers about getting good pay and good terms and conditions for every sector in the country. We hope that one day we will see a Government that deliver that.
Paul Scully
I thank hon. Members for their valuable contributions to the debate. The national minimum wage and the national living wage make a real difference to the lives of millions of workers in the country. I am glad that there is agreement—notwithstanding some questions, which I will try to answer to the best of my ability—that the lowest paid workers deserve an inflation-busting pay rise, which the regulations will provide.
The regulations mean that, from 1 April, workers on the national living wage will be over £3,700 better off over the year compared with 2015, when the policy was announced. That marks a 21% increase in the national living wage since 2015. Younger workers will also get more money through the increases to the national minimum wage rates. We know that most businesses support increases to the minimum wage rates. Through the regulations, we are reducing burdens on employers in meeting minimum wage obligations while maintaining worker protections.
The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston mentioned the technical changes to the second set of regulations. He is right to say that we will continue to review the situation. Part of the reason for the changes to the regulations is that there were some unintended consequences when the national minimum wage and national living wage were introduced—for example, the four-weekly cycles and the fortnightly cycles. Regardless of how extensive they are, smoothing out those problems is a sensible measure. Of course, we will continue to see how that works in practice, as we will with all those sorts of things.
In no particular order—I have papers strewn absolutely everywhere—I will try to cover some of the points raised. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West talked about Government contractors paying a real living wage. The national minimum wage is a minimum wage, as is the national living wage. Good employers should always seek to go beyond that. The Department ensures that all contractor staff receive a minimum wage equivalent to the annual survey of hours and earnings median rate for their occupation or to the Living Wage Foundation rate, whichever is higher. It means that from April 2020 contractor staff will receive no less than £10.75 in London, or £9.30 outside London.
The hon. Member for Glasgow South West also asked why the national living wage is not higher. Right from the conception of the national living wage and the national minimum wage, we have been trying to work with businesses to ensure that employers and workers get the right balance. That goes to the question from the hon. Members for Glasgow South West and for Ellesmere Port and Neston about younger people. Again, we hope to rectify the situation so that, by 2024, 21-year-olds will be able to benefit from the higher amount. The Government took the decision to ensure that we get the right balance for younger people in the employment market. Our 16 to 21-year-olds’ unemployment rate is four times higher than that of people aged 25 and over. It is about having a balance between ensuring that they are paid a fair wage and that there are jobs and opportunities for them in the first place.
We are at the forefront on enforcement, and are significantly increasing the amount of money paid to HMRC for that purpose. HMRC will enforce in a proactive way, through education and visits to employers in the sectors that are most at risk. HMRC will have the financial resources to put where it considers best to tackle non-compliance. We have closed 770 investigations into employers between 2016-17 and 2018-19 that were opened with a potential apprenticeship risk. More than half those cases were closed with arrears found for the worker.
Several projects over the last few years have targeted apprentices and the sectors in which non-compliance is most prevalent, such as hairdressing and childcare. HMRC has undertaken many communication campaigns, including webinars and targeted projects, communicating rights and responsibilities to apprentices and their employers, to ensure that people know their rights, so that they can call out non-compliance, and that employers adhere to the rules.
HMRC also send text messages to nearly 350,000 apprentices when the annual rate increase comes into effect. We ensure that we have that communications campaign as soon as the increase is approved because it is so important that those who are the most vulnerable and the lowest paid understand their rights and how to complain. As I said in my opening remarks, HMRC also investigates anonymous complaints.
Clearly, unpaid internships are a concern, in terms of their being a barrier to social mobility. The hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston is right to identify that they are often used in this place. In terms of tax and worker rights, the term “internship” does not mean anything. If someone is on work experience, just looking and learning, they are not working day to day and adding value to the company. If they are adding value to the company, and doing what could be seen as a worker’s job, the national minimum wage and national living wage legislation applies to them. Employers should look at that, and we will come down heavily on those who fail to adhere to it.
HMRC has contacted more than 2,000 employers found to be advertising unpaid internships online to ensure that they are compliant with the law. We have sent 35,690 letters to employers in those sectors that tend to use interns: publishing, media, the arts, marketing and fashion, as the hon. Gentleman said.
Justin Madders
I appreciate what the Minister says about how the nature of the work determines whether someone should be paid the minimum wage, but is it not a slightly artificial situation to expect someone at the very bottom of the ladder, in a very precarious situation in an internship, to report their employer to the national minimum wage helpline?
Paul Scully
By contacting 2,000 employers, we are reminding them of their legal responsibilities. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about vulnerability and whistleblowing in those situations, but that is why it is important that we give HMRC the resource that it needs to have proactive oversight, and to go to those companies that are most likely to offer and advertise unpaid internships, so that we can nip it in the bud. To build our understanding, so that HMRC can follow the matter up properly, we have incorporated a question into the Department for Education’s employer skills survey, asking 90,000 UK employers whether they have used unpaid interns. Results are expected in late spring 2020, and we will follow up on that.
On the protection of the low-paid self-employed, we will introduce the Employment Bill, which covers a couple of the questions that were raised. That is a result of the good work plan published by Matthew Taylor and his colleagues. We hope to tackle a number of the issues raised in that report and will publish the Bill as soon as we can to ensure that it gets scrutiny from, and involvement of, all parties in its development. I look forward to introducing the Bill and having debates on it so that we continue to lead on workers’ rights.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise for missing the Minister’s opening remarks. He will understand the particular concern among the low-paid and self-employed about their situation during the coronavirus crisis, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston mentioned. Can the Minister give us a hint about Government announcements in that area, as part of the process of reassuring constituents who are in that employment bracket?
Paul Scully
Unfortunately, I am not the Chancellor, but I look forward to the statement this evening. At this time, it is important that we continue to speak out daily for businesses and, as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, for the self-employed, for workers and for people who are worried not just about their jobs and the viability of the business, but about shifts in those areas. Make no mistake, we have all seen in our inboxes the amount of concern out there, so it is so important that we continue to address the concerns of self-employed workers, employees and businesses. The Chancellor introduced a timely and targeted package last week in his Budget, but things are clearly moving at pace, and we will see what he says during his statement at 7 o’clock.
On the future of the national living wage, although we are increasing it and getting through the technicalities now, it is really important to reiterate the point about younger workers. We are planning to extend the reach of the national living wage to workers aged 23 and over from April 2021, and to workers aged 21 and over by 2024. Unfortunately, I suspect that the children of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston will have already reached that higher level by that time.
A UK-wide minimum wage, recommended by the independent expert Low Pay Commission, ensures that the pay of the lowest paid in society is protected, and means that businesses compete on a level playing field. In 2016, the Government committed to raising the national living wage to 60% of median earnings, and we have stayed true to that commitment. We have the highest employment rate since comparable records began. The strength of our labour market shows that a higher minimum wage can go hand in hand with strong employment growth.
Chris Stephens
Before the Minister continues, he did not answer my question about employers using tips to reach the national living wage. That is a form of cheating that happens in the hospitality sector in particular. Will he respond to that specific point?
Paul Scully
Forgive me, I missed that one. The current rules are clear that tips do not count towards pay for national living wage purposes. That is part of the education that we need to ensure that the hospitality sector adheres to and does not fall foul of those rules, whether or not employers know about them. That is an area of possible exploitation and can be an area of ignorance, which is no excuse. We will shortly introduce legislation to ensure that 100% of tips go to workers, which I am sure will be welcomed in the hospitality industry.
Our pledge to raise the national living wage to two thirds of median earnings by 2024, taking economic conditions into account, makes the UK the first major economy in the world to set such an ambition. We will soon publish the remit for the Low Pay Commission, which will include recommending the national living wage rate to apply from April 2021—that is the first step on the path to two thirds of median earnings. We will continue to come down hard on employers who fail to pay the minimum wage.
The regulations and accompanying non-legislative measures show that we are committed to helping employers get the rules right at the first time of asking and without the need for enforcement. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) Regulations 2020.
draft national minimum wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft National Minimum Wage (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020.—(Paul Scully.)
Ministerial Corrections
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Justice
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Hollobone
Foreign national offenders convicted in this country should serve their terms of imprisonment at the expense of their own Governments in their own countries. We may have 110 prisoner transfer agreements, but only about three are compulsory. Now that we have rediscovered our mojo for tough international renegotiation, can we please have more compulsory prisoner transfer agreements with high-volume crime countries with lots of nationals in our prisons, such as Pakistan, Nigeria and Albania?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of removing foreign offenders to serve sentences in their own countries, and we have removed 51,000 such offenders from our prisons since 2010. He is right to highlight that we have a number of nationalities within our prisons, including a high number of Albanian, Polish and Romanian prisoners. We are considering all these matters in some detail.
[Official Report, 25 February 2020, Vol. 672, c. 170.]
Letter of correction from the Minister of State, Ministry of Justice, the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer).
An error has been identified in the response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone).
The correct response should have been:
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of removing foreign offenders to serve sentences in their own countries, and we have removed 51,000 such offenders from our prisons, immigration removal centres and the community since 2010. He is right to highlight that we have a number of nationalities within our prisons, including a high number of Albanian, Polish and Romanian prisoners. We are considering all these matters in some detail.
International Development
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
My apologies: I am short on voice today, about which many in the House will no doubt be very relieved. The Government’s 2019 spending review allocated sufficient funding to ensure that the UK can deliver on our commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance in 2020-21. Thanks to this Government’s focus on a strong economy, we can deliver on this commitment, improving the lives of millions in developing countries—for example, by giving more than 14 million children access to a decent education, immunising 56 million children and supporting 52 million to access clean water and better sanitation in the past two years alone.
[Official Report, 4 March 2020, Vol. 672, c. 819.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan):
An error has been identified in my response I gave to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard).
The correct response should have been:
The Secretary of State for International Development (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
My apologies: I am short on voice today, about which many in the House will no doubt be very relieved. The Government’s 2019 spending review allocated sufficient funding to ensure that the UK can deliver on our commitment to spend 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance in 2020-21. Thanks to this Government’s focus on a strong economy, we can deliver on this commitment, improving the lives of millions in developing countries—for example, by giving more than 14 million children access to a decent education, immunising 56 million children and supporting almost 52 million to access clean water and better sanitation since 2015.
Topical Questions
The following is an extract from International Development Questions on 4 March 2020.
Antony Higginbotham
The UK plays a leadership role in countries around the world, projecting our values and ensuring that free societies can flourish. Education is a key part of that, so, ahead of International Women’s Day, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that every child gets 12 years of education?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Talent is spread around the world but, sadly, opportunity is not. Twelve years of quality education is a key priority, and I am proud that between 2015 and 2019 we supported 14.3 million girls to gain a decent education, across 70 of our most fragile countries. As another International Women’s Day is before us, we have the opportunity to refocus our energies on making sure that there is not a single girl who is not educated.
[Official Report, 4 March 2020, Vol. 672, c. 824.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for International Development, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Anne-Marie Trevelyan):
An error has been identified in my response I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham).
The correct response should have been:
Antony Higginbotham
The UK plays a leadership role in countries around the world, projecting our values and ensuring that free societies can flourish. Education is a key part of that, so, ahead of International Women’s Day, what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that every child gets 12 years of education?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Talent is spread around the world but, sadly, opportunity is not. Twelve years of quality education is a key priority, and I am proud that between 2015 and 2019 we supported 14.3 million children to gain a decent education in over 70 countries, of which at least 5.8 million were girls. As another International Women’s Day is before us, we have the opportunity to refocus our energies on making sure that there is not a single girl who is not educated.
Environment Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 17th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 March 2020 - (17 Mar 2020)
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before we start, a couple of housekeeping matters. Please make sure that your electronics are turned off. No tea and coffee, I am afraid; you will have to go outside if you want that, as it is not allowed during the sittings. Members may remove their jackets if they wish.
We now begin the line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list is available on the table if you do not already have it. We had a discussion on this during the evidence-taking sessions, but I repeat that amendments are generally put into groups on the same or similar issues for debate. Amendments are decided on not necessarily in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they come up in the Bill. You will find yourselves debating matters that are not immediately voted on, and there is sometimes a tendency, particularly on the part of the Opposition, to panic and say, “We wanted to vote on that.” You may well be right that we have missed something, and if we do, please remind us, but bear in mind that the vote happens at the right place in the Bill, and not necessarily because of where the amendment appears in the group. If that does not make sense, ask me and I will try to clarify it.
My policy—Sir George may have a different one—is that it is often helpful to have a fairly broad-ranging debate at the start of a group of amendments on a clause. I have no problem with that; it tends to facilitate the discussion, but—and it is a big but, for the benefit of the new Members—at the end of consideration on each clause, we have a debate on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. There cannot be a stand part debate at the beginning and the end of proceedings on a clause, so if you choose to talk a lot at the beginning, you will not get two bites at the cherry. The Chair will decide whether there will be a stand part debate.
I hope that is clear. Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom; if you have any cause for concern, or you do not understand what is going on, please ask, and someone will endeavour to provide you with a tolerably intelligent answer.
Clause 1
Environmental targets
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment seeks to ensure the power given in this Bill to the Secretary of State to set long term targets is exercised.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Gale, as it will be, I anticipate, for many more mornings and afternoons. I will not say it is a pleasure every time I speak, but please take it as being one.
I would like to say a few things about how the Opposition intend to pursue matters in this Committee. As hon. Members will see, a substantial number of amendments have been tabled, and we will go through those in Committee. I hope that upon scrutiny of those amendments, hon. Members will conclude that every one is an attempt to make a good Bill better. They are not in any way intended to be subversive of the Bill’s purposes, to wreck the Bill’s outcome, or to divert the Bill from its intended outcomes. Rather, they are intended to make the Bill as good as it can be. I echo the sentiments of one of the star witnesses in our evidence sessions last week, Richard Benwell of Wildlife and Countryside Link, who said that this could be a brilliant Bill. I hope that it will be by the time we finish our considerations in Committee.
I am fully dedicated to making sure that when the Bill gets on to the statute book, it has the purposes that we all, I think, agree on, and is a serious marker of what this country has to do to develop environmental biodiversity and a healthy environment—a healthy environment in which nature recovers, and we have clean water and, in the context of the climate change emergency, everything that will allow our natural environment to be in a healthy state for the future. I want the Bill to mark this House’s contribution to that process.
I am completely at one with the Minister in that aim; I know that is what she wants to achieve. I know from her environmental commitment and credentials, which she has worn on her sleeve ever since she has been in this House—she has a fine, nature-friendly outfit on today—that she is completely dedicated to getting the Bill passed in the best possible way. I hope that our discussions in Committee, and our amendments, will be viewed in that light. Regardless of party affiliation or other considerations, I hope they will be looked at based on one criterion: do they or do they not make this a brilliant Bill? I hope that is how we will judge our proceedings; I will certainly try to conduct myself in that spirit.
That brings me to my concerns about what is in clause 1—and a number of other clauses throughout the legislation, as we will find as we go through the Bill. In addition to being a potentially brilliant Bill for now, this has to be a brilliant Bill for the future. The House, and this Committee in particular, has to turn it into legislation that will really last—that will commit future generations of parliamentarians and Governments to the actions it sets out. It has to be very robust in the instructions that it sends to those future generations, but we are particularly concerned that it simply is not, in a number of respects.
The Bill derives in substantial part from the Government’s 25-year nature plan. There is a clue there about how long its provisions are supposed to last. The things we consider today have to be robust and relevant for tomorrow. The Bill has to work in that way, and we have to know that it will work across Administrations. However, clause 1 demonstrates that it may not easily do so.
In the clause, and a number of others, the Secretary of State is given the option of implementing, by regulations, a particular part of the Bill. Throughout the Bill, a number of provisions are couched in terms of not “may” but “must”. For example, clause 92 states:
“The Secretary of State must publish information…The Secretary of State must publish reports…A report must relate to a period”,
and
“A report must set out”.
Those provisions are all clear about what has to happen, but the same is not true of clause 1 and a number of other clauses.
There is an even more worrying double lock—or double unlock—regarding the Bill’s way of doing things. When I look at a Bill, I always turn to the end. It is rather like looking at the last three pages of a novel to see what happens before starting to read it. I do not recommend doing that for a novel, but I do recommend it for this particular Bill.
Clause 131, the commencement clause, is clear. For Members who are less familiar with how such clauses work, the commencement clause sets out a number of dates on which clauses in the Bill should be taken as commencing—that is, become live legislation. Clause 131 states that a number of provisions in the Bill come into force on the day that it becomes an Act. A number of other provisions come into force two months after the Bill becomes an Act. Part 1 of the Bill, which contains clause 1 and is probably the most important part of the Bill, comes
“into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by regulations appoint”.
There is therefore a double lock on the clause. The Secretary of State “may” decide to make it live—or not. If they decide not to make it live, it simply does not become real, and what is set out in the clause does not happen. Even if they decide in principle that it will happen, and the clause is live, its wording means that the Secretary of State can decide that what it sets out will not take place, and need not implement the regulatory process.
Hon. Members may be thinking, “He protests too much. This doesn’t happen in real life, surely. This is just how things are set out in legislation,” but I assure them that this does happen in real life; it has happened on a number of occasions. The statute books are not exactly littered with, but are substantially populated by, things in Bills that simply have not happened because of the way the legislation was constructed. I can give the example of the Energy Act 2013. I happened to sit on that Bill Committee. Part 5 is on the construction and designation of a strategy and policy statement, which would set out imperatives that would bind authorities and bodies dealing with low-carbon energy. When that Bill was passed, I really thought that the statement would happen; I considered that really important—and still do—in making sure that Ofgem would be guided by a low-carbon imperative.
The wording on that policy and strategy statement was couched in the same way as the provision in this Bill. The 2013 Act said:
“The Secretary of State may designate a statement as the strategy and policy statement for the purposes of this Part”.
The 2013 Act was stronger than this Bill. Part 5 of the Act became live two months after the Act became law. However, the Act was passed during the Conservative- led coalition of 2010 to 2015, and in a subsequent Administration, a Minister decided, because they could, that there was no need for a policy and strategy statement, and that it would not be produced. I have asked a number of questions about why that statement has not appeared. The situation does not help at all to ensure that Ofgem does what it should on its low-carbon commitments and imperatives. But the Minister in that Administration decided that they were not going to produce the statement, and that was it. I hope that this Administration will take a different view and finally introduce such a statement, which I think is essential.
Dr Whitehead
But I might do if no consideration at all is given to this particular point.
I hope that the Minister will be able to come at least some way towards me in reshaping the Bill so that the confidence we both want to have in this legislation can be seen by the outside world, and so that we can ensure that what we say in this Committee actually gets done—not just by this Minister, but by subsequent Administrations. With that, I assure the Committee that that is the longest I am going to speak on this subject. I rest my case. I hope that the Minister has something positive on her piece of paper in this respect. We shall see how we go.
Rebecca Pow
It is a huge pleasure to have you as our Chairman, Sir Roger. Hopefully we are all going to have a long and fruitful bonding experience over the next few weeks.
I thank the shadow Minister for his opening remarks and for describing this legislation as a “good Bill”; we all welcome that tone. I echo his general comments about wanting to do the right thing for the environment. I believe everyone on this Committee wants to do that, but I do in particular. I also thank him for his personal comments. I must actually throw some similar comments back at him. He and I have appeared many times in the same Committees, environmental all-party parliamentary groups and all that, so I know that he has a great deal of experience in this area. In many respects, we sing from the same hymn sheet. I welcome his involvement, as he brings a great deal of experience to the table.
Let me turn to the detail of the amendment. I understand the shadow Minister’s desire for there to be a duty on the Secretary of State to set targets. However, such a duty would remove the flexibility and discretion needed by the Secretary of State in relation to target setting. The Bill creates a power to set long-term, legally-binding environmental targets, and provides for such targets to be set in relation to any aspect of the natural environment or people’s enjoyment of it. It is very wide-ranging, so flexibility is required. It is entirely appropriate to give the Secretary of State flexibility as to when and how the power ought to be exercised. That is the beauty of this power.
As I am sure the shadow Minister knows, primary legislation consistently takes this approach to the balance between powers, which are “may”, and duties, which are “must”. I welcome the fact that the shadow Minister has raised this point, because I have been quizzing my own team about those two words and exactly what they do, and it is quite clear to me that this is the right approach. When the Government are under a clear requirement, the word “must” is used. This recognises that the circumstances, scenario and background to the use of the provision are clear.
In other scenarios, it might not be possible definitely to say that something must be done, due to factors outside our control—for example, if public consultation is still under way, and there will be a great deal of consultation as the statutory instruments are laid before Parliament.
The Secretary of State is already under a duty—that means “must”—to exercise this power to set “at least one” target in each of the Bill’s priority areas. That is in the next few lines of the Bill. They are also under a separate duty to set the PM2.5 target. That is a legal requirement and the Government cannot get out of that. The Bill’s statutory cycle of monitoring, planning and reporting ensures that the Government will take early regular steps to achieve the long-term targets and will be held accountable through regular scrutiny by the Office for Environmental Protection.
The shadow Minister asked whether the system would be robust. I assure him that it will be—that is its purpose. The need for new targets will be reviewed every five years through the significant improvement test that we will come on to later. That is also a legal requirement, and the Secretary of State will use the review’s outcome to decide whether to set new long-term environmental targets.
The significant improvement test provisions of the Bill will form part of environmental law, with the OEP—the body that will be set up to hold the Government to account—having oversight of the Government’s implementation of the provisions, as it will over all aspects of environmental law. That is my summary of the shadow Minister’s queries.
Dr Whitehead
Does the Minister not accept that, as I pointed out in my analysis of the Energy Act 2013, if a number of obligations or “musts” in a clause are subservient to a fundamental “may”, they have no independent existence? That was exactly the case in that Act: the Minister had a number of musts to do, but they were all subject to the original may. As the original may turned out to be just a may, all the musts completely fell away. The Minister has given examples of some musts in the Bill, but unless we have a first must or duty—it might not be time-limited, so that the Minister has flexibility over when exactly to do it—those other things are not of any great significance. It is the first may or must that is key.
Rebecca Pow
We are muddling a lot of “musts” and “mays” here—it is a good job that Theresa May is not still Prime Minister.
Rebecca Pow
It is clear that there is flexibility in the power to set long-term targets by regulations, but clause 1(2) says that the Secretary of State “must exercise the power”. That brings in the duty, which is a legal requirement to set the targets. If there is a “must” provision—and there is: to set targets in those four key areas—it must be exercised. It is quite clear.
Dr Whitehead
Mr Gale, I think you can gather that I am not terribly convinced. I do not doubt the Minister’s sincerity for a minute. Indeed, I wonder whether, had the Minister been in post during the Bill’s construction—I think this part was originally constructed in 2018—she would have gone along with that particular wording. I appreciate that she has a Bill in front of her with the wording as it is, and she has advice that the wording is as it is because that is how it should be.
Rebecca Pow
I want to point out one other thing. The Office for Environmental Protection will be able to enforce against the Government if they do not set the targets. That indicates that the process and structure we are setting up are strong.
Dr Whitehead
The Office for Environmental Protection can intervene against the Minister, but the Minister will see later on in the Bill that not even the office has to be set up under these circumstances. The word “may” is so pervasive in the Bill that a number of the things that can act to do what the Minister wants to do are contingent. That should give the Minister some concern, as well as me.
The Minister makes the strong point that once the mechanism is up and running, arguably it will be quite robust. We would like the mechanism to be a little more robust. However, if the whole thing depends on the idea that a Minister may or may not decide that it will be implemented, the rest of it does not necessarily follow strongly. I urge the Minister to please go away and think about this, despite what she said this morning, and see whether a formulation—not necessarily exactly the formulation in the amendment—can be arrived at that will give us and the outside world a much better series of assurances about the Bill’s robustness overall. I may speak on this matter again later in the Bill, but I have done my best this morning and we will see where we go from there.
The Chair
The hon. Gentleman did not make the request, but I think he indicated that he wished to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 103, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must exercise the power in subsection (1) with the aim of establishing a coherent framework of targets he or she considers would, if met:
(a) make a significant contribution towards the environmental objectives, and
(b) ensure continuous improvement of the environment as a whole.
(1B) Where the Secretary of State considers that a target is necessary but the means of expressing the target is not yet sufficiently developed, he or she must explain the steps being taken to develop an appropriate target.”
The amendment aims to bind the target setting processes into the environmental objectives.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—The environmental objective—
“(1) The environmental objective is to achieve and maintain a healthy natural environment.
(2) Any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures arising from this Act must be enforced, allowed and followed for the purpose of contributing to achievement of the environmental objective.”
This new clause is intended to aid coherence in the Bill by tying together separate parts under a unifying aim. It strengthens links between the target setting framework and the delivery mechanisms to focus delivery on targets.
New clause 6—The environmental purpose—
“(1) The purpose of this Part is to provide a framework to enable the following environmental objectives to be achieved and maintained—
(a) a healthy, resilient, and biodiverse natural environment;
(b) an environment that supports human health and wellbeing for everyone; and
(c) sustainable use of resources.”
The new clause is intended to give clear and coherent direction for applying targets and the other governance mechanisms contained in the first Part of the Environment Bill.
Alex Sobel
I am afraid that my level of expertise does not match that of the shadow Minister, but I will do my best with the time, space and knowledge that I have to do justice to the three amendments.
Amendment 103 is listed in the names of the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), who is Chair of the Select Committee for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee; and myself, as vice-chair of the EAC. It is therefore clear that these are not partisan amendments. We took it upon ourselves to table them as a result of the prelegislative scrutiny we undertook. The scrutiny applied by this Committee last week underlines the need for the amendment.
I will speak to amendment 103 and new clauses 1 and 6, and will then refer to some of the things that were said my our expert witnesses last week, which underline the need for the amendments to be included in the Bill. All three are complementary, although they all provide something slightly different to strengthen the Bill. I say to the Minister that these proposals will strengthen the Bill and give it clarity; I do not intend to wreck the Bill or change its intent.
Amendment 103 would give the Secretary of State the power to look at environmental objectives holistically, and would ensure that the overarching goal of the Bill and of the Department is the continuous improvement of the whole environment. It would also make the targets richer, as the Secretary of State must explain why targets are being set at that stage and the necessity for them.
The amendment links target setting with environmental objectives. Evidence from last week’s expert witness sessions explains why that is important and why the Bill may not yet be strong enough to ensure it. I am not saying that the Minister or Secretary of State would not do such things, but we have to legislate for future Administrations that may not be as committed as the current one.
Last week, we took evidence from Ali Plummer of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead asked her:
“Do you think the clauses give a sufficiently clear direction of travel on the sort of targets that will be set?”
The amendment relates specifically to that matter. Ali Plummer responded:
“Not currently, the way the Bill is written. The provisions to set targets in priority areas are welcome. We are looking for slightly more clarity and reassurance in two areas: first, on the scope of targets that will be set, to ensure there are enough targets set in the priority areas, and that they will cover that whole priority area, and not just a small proportion of it; and secondly, on the targets being sufficiently ambitious to drive the transformation that we need in order to tackle some big environmental issues.”
The amendment speaks directly to that evidence—for me, not strongly enough, though it takes us a long way towards the goals that Ali Plummer set out.
Ali Plummer also said that
“on, for example, the priority area of biodiversity…I think we are looking for more confidence that the Government’s intent will be carried, through the Bill, by successive Governments.”
We will come back to that. The amendment is not about the aim of the present Government, but about successive Governments and setting a long-term framework. She went on to say:
“I am not sure that that sense of direction is there. While there is a significant environmental improvement test, I do not think that quite gives us the confidence that the Bill will really drive the transformation that we need across Government if we are to really tackle the issues.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 10 March 2020; c. 75, Q118.]
The point about transformation being needed across Government, not just in the Minister’s Department, brings me on to a question that I asked of Ruth Chambers of Greener UK, regarding the carve-outs and exclusions in the Bill. She responded that they
“absolve much of Government from applying the principles in the way that they should be applied. The most simple solution would be to remove or diminish those carve-outs. We do not think that a very strong or justified case has been made for the carve-outs, certainly for the Ministry of Defence or the armed forces; in many ways, it is the gold standard Department, in terms of encountering environmental principles in its work. There seems to be no strong case for excluding it, so remove the exclusions.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 10 March 2020; c. 76, Q120.]
The amendment provides a framework to do that, although not wholly.
I will move on to new clause 1, and return later to some of the expert witness statements. I was honoured to table the new clause with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test; hopefully he will not be dissatisfied with the way I speak to it. The intention of the new clause is to enshrine an environmental objective in the Bill. The new clause complements amendment 103, because it is about achieving and maintaining a healthy natural environment. That goes very well with the point that we need continuous improvement of the environment.
The new clause also says:
“Any rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures arising from this Act must be enforced, allowed and followed for the purpose of contributing to achievement of the environmental objective.”
It would give all those powers—or duties, shall we say, as “powers” are one of the things listed—to the Secretary of State and would give the Bill an overall coherence that it lacks. It would tie things together and give confidence that there is a single unitary aim, and would start the process of tying target-setting to the aim.
That was underlined by the excellent evidence that we had from Dr Richard Benwell of Wildlife and—
Alex Sobel
I thank my hon. Friend—Wildlife and Countryside Link. We also heard from George Monbiot in that sitting. The hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth asked last week—I am sure that it relates to her constituency —how far back we would need to go in terms of preserving Dartmoor, and they gave a good answer. Parts of their answers are useful with reference to the new clause. George Monbiot said:
“We need flexibility, as well as the much broader overarching target of enhancing biodiversity and enhancing abundance at the same time. We could add to that a target to enhance the breadth and depth of food chains: the trophic functioning of ecosystems, through trophic rewilding or strengthening trophic links”.––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 121, Q163.]
That, again, is a broad aim, which is included in the new clause.
Dr Benwell said in answering the same question:
“In the Bill at the moment, that legal duty could be fulfilled by setting four very parochial targets for air, water, waste and wildlife. I do not think that that is the intention, but when it comes down to it, the test is whether the target would achieve significant environmental improvement in biodiversity.”
I do not think that the Minister or the Secretary of State would set very parochial targets in those four areas, but perhaps a future Minister or Secretary of State would. That is why I think that not only would a much broader environmental objective, as in the new clause, be welcome, it is necessary.
Dr Benwell continued:
“You could imagine a single target that deals with one rare species in one corner of the country. That could legitimately be argued to be a significant environmental improvement for biodiversity.”
For instance, our entire biodiversity target could relate to red squirrels, which now mainly reside in Cumbria. That would be our whole objective. If a future Secretary of State were obsessed with red squirrels, and did not care for any other aspect of biodiversity, that might happen. I know that the current Secretary of State does not have those views, but while I have been in Parliament, and sat as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, there have been four Environment Secretaries, so they come and go fairly often, although I hope the present one stays longer in his role.
Dr Benwell said:
“You could set an overarching objective that says what sort of end state you want to have—a thriving environment that is healthy for wildlife and people”.
That is what new clause 1 would do. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test does not seem to be shaking his head, so I assume I am getting that right. Not much later in the sitting, the hon. Member for Dudley North asked whether the Bill sufficiently empowers all Departments to protect and improve the environment. Dr Benwell said:
“‘Empowers’, possibly; ‘requires’, not quite yet.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 121-22, Q163.]
New clause 1 responds to Dr Benwell’s response, and goes from “not quite yet” to now. That is why it is a necessary improvement to the Bill.
Many of the amendments and new clauses that we shall talk about later and during the passage of the Bill will bring us back to new clause 1, which is an anchoring point from which to improve the Bill. Even if the Minister does not accept it today, I hope that through in Committee and on Report she will consider taking a much broader environmental objective as part of the Bill, to help us improve it.
Dr Whitehead
My hon. Friend has made a powerful case for these amendments to be included in the Bill, and has said most of the things that I wanted to say about them. What I will add for the clarification of the Committee is that, as hon. Members can see, new clause 1 is very similar to new clause 6, which has the support of the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The purpose of these new clauses, particularly new clause 1, is—as the title of new clause 6 suggests—to add an overall clarification of the environmental purpose of the Bill, and to draw together a Bill that, for all its merits, has in many ways turned up via a process of iteration.
The first two sections of the Bill originally surfaced at the end of 2018, and it was then amended to some considerable extent and appeared as part of a larger Bill in 2019. That Bill did not get through all of its stages before the election was called, although it passed on Second Reading. Significantly, between the original Bill and the 2019 Bill appearing, no less than six parts had been added, including the Office for Environmental Protection part. As a result, the Bill does not have a coherent overarching principle that applies to all its parts. Historically, that has been done in some instances by what is called a preamble clause, which is pretty obscure and has fallen into disuse when writing Bills in this country. I would have preferred a preamble clause to do the job, but an environmental purpose clause does the job just as well. Indeed, there are numerous examples in different pieces of legislation. In health and safety legislation, for example, there is a purpose clause to pull everything together.
The clauses differ only very slightly in their definitions, so I would be happy with any of them. New clause 6 brings together the purposes of the Bill within a stated framework that enables,
“a healthy, resilient, and biodiverse natural environment”
and
“an environment that supports human health and wellbeing for everyone; and...sustainable use of resources.”
It defines the overall purpose of the Bill, which is important. It keeps the different elements of the different parts of the Bill’s metaphorical noses to the grindstone. It makes sure that all the things we are thinking of doing in the Bill have an overall purpose behind them: a healthy, natural environment. The Minister might say that that is a bit of a free hit for environmental lawyers who might come in on the environmental purpose and say, “You are not putting forward a healthy, resilient and biodiverse natural environment with what you are doing.” I might say that that is precisely the purpose of the amendment, which is to enable the overall objective of the Bill to be judged against the actions of parts of the Bill as they fall for individual action in any clauses that we might pass.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West has said, that is the idea of these clauses. I think they would add considerably to the robustness of the Bill—a theme we began to talk about seriously this morning—because of the way in which they would gather everything together under an umbrella of purpose. That point is arguable. Some might say there is sufficient purpose in the Bill, and there is indeed plenty of purpose in the Bill. It is just a question of whether it is fully gathered together in the relationship between the parts of the Bill on biodiversity, water, air and waste, and gathered together into the fundamental purposes of the first part of the Bill and put together as an overall whole.
I hope the Minister will think about what I have said carefully. As you have reminded us, Mr Gale, the clauses would not come up for a vote until the end of our proceedings, so they will not be voted on today. However, we feel strongly about this, and I think we would consider dividing the Committee when they come up, if there is no reasonable response to the intent put forward in these new clauses.
The Chair
Thank you, Dr Whitehead. We will make a note, and whoever is in the Chair at the time that the new clauses are reached will take cognisance of what you have just said.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member for Leeds North West and the shadow Minister for their input, and I acknowledge the input of the Chairs of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee. I have a great deal of respect for both Committees, having been on both of them myself, as have some hon. Members here.
I thank hon. Members for the interest they have shown in part 1 of the Bill, which genuinely and openly talks about the new framework of environmental governance. I welcome their input and the fact that they want to look at the intention to ensure that the targets, the environmental improvement plans, the environmental principles and the Office for Environmental Protection work together to protect our natural environment.
As this was one of the specific points raised by the hon. Member for Leeds North West, I want to touch at the outset on driving significant environmental improvement and to reassure him that through the Bill the Government will set at least one new long-term target in each of the four priority areas of water, air quality, waste and resources, and biodiversity by 31 October 2022. Those targets will be set following a great deal of robust evidence-gathering, consultation and engagement with experts, advisers and the public, and they will have to be approved by Parliament through the affirmative process when the statutory instruments are set. People will have plenty of opportunity to engage.
I also want to reassure the hon. Gentleman, since he in particular raised this matter, about other targets. I think the witness from the RSPB raised that in our session last week. I want to offer reassurance that the target-setting process is an ongoing process. It is not a one-off thing, where we set one target and that is the end of that. That is why we will also need to consider what other targets might be needed to ensure that we can significantly improve the natural environment in England—in the area of biodiversity, for example, which he mentioned, because it is complicated and involves all sorts of areas linking into each other.
We will conduct that review at the same time as the first statutory review of the environmental improvement plan, and report to Parliament on its outcome by 31 January 2023. The first environmental improvement plan is the first plan of this Bill; it will help us to deliver what is in the 25-year improvement plan. I hope that reassures the hon. Gentleman that target setting is not a one-off thing, but will be a constant, flowing landscape.
I also want to reassure colleagues that a huge amount of thought has gone into the setting of this framework, so that it is a coherent framework for environmental protection and improvement. I would say to the shadow Minister that it does have an overarching purpose: it has the environmental principles. Those principles will work with all other areas of the Bill to improve the natural environment and environmental protection. It is a huge and wide commitment. The policy statement will explain how those principles will be applied to contribute to that environmental protection and to sustainable development. In my view, we have those objectives right there at the top of the Bill.
Dr Whitehead
I wonder if the Minister could help me. Let us take the example of a habitat in extremely poor condition and facing further decline. That habitat could be significantly improved simply by preventing further decline and intervening to bring the habitat up to a poor but improving condition. That would be a significant improvement, but it would not constitute a high-quality or healthy habitat. Does the Minister accept that that is a problem with the definition of significant improvement? Or does she think that other elements in the Bill would define significant improvement to make that definition of a poor environment improvement—[Interruption.] I see the Minister has been provided with inspiration. Does she think that other parts of the Bill would make that argument superfluous—namely, that significant improvement would equate to healthy, with the other elements of the Bill being in place? I am not sure it does.
Rebecca Pow
The hon. Gentleman raises a good point. Before I read the inspiration that has been passed to me, let me say that the whole point of the significant improvement test, which is a legal requirement—we have other requirements to keep on checking, testing and monitoring targets through the environment improvement plan, which is also checked every five years —is that it is a holistic approach. The shadow Minister is picking one thing, but with the range of targets that will be set, that one thing will be constantly reported on and monitored. Later in the Bill, we will discuss the nature recovery networks and strategy. The point he raises will be addressed through those other measures in the Bill that, on the whole, will be the levers to raise all our biodiversity and ensure nature improvement.
We have a constant monitoring system in place where we raise up the holistic approach. Every five years the Government have to assess whether meeting the long-term targets set under the Bill’s framework, alongside the other statutory targets, would significantly improve the natural environment. That is all open and transparent; the Government have to respond to Parliament on their conclusions and, if they consider that the test is not met, set out how they plan to close the gap, setting other powers. There are many powers in the Bill for target setting, but also for reporting back. I hope that will give the hon. Gentleman some assurances that the things I believe he wants in the Bill will get into it through the levers provided in it.
Clause 22 sets a principal objective for the Office for Environmental Protection. It will ensure that the OEP contributes to environmental protection and the improvement of the natural environment in exercising its functions. Not only do we have measures for Government, we also have an overarching body checking and monitoring everything and saying what it thinks should or should not happen—whether there should be new targets or whether the targets are being addressed. All those measures are closely aligned; the idea is that they will work together to deliver the environmental protection mentioned in the amendments, concerning improvement and protection of the natural environment as well as the sustainable use of resources.
The shadow Minister said that the Bill had come and gone a few times and has grown a bit; I say it has grown better and stronger, and that we need lots of those measures. The framework now is coherent. I have done a flow-chart of how this all works together, because it is quite complicated. However, if the shadow Minister looks at all the measures together, they knit in with each other to give this holistic approach to what will happen for the environment and how we will care for it.
The hon. Member for Leeds North West and the shadow Minister mentioned this “healthy environment” wording. Clearly, there are many different views on what constitutes a healthy environment, and the Government could not assess what they needed to do to satisfy that new legal obligation, and nor could anyone else. The Government cannot support an amendment that creates such an obligation. It would create uncertainty to call just for a “healthy environment”, because everyone’s idea of that is different. The Government cannot support such a commitment, because the legal obligations are too uncertain. However, we support the overarching architecture of everything working together to create the holistic environment, and an approach where all the targets work together and we are on a trajectory towards a much better environment. The shadow Minister and I are in complete agreement with each other that that is the direction that we should be taking.
To sum up, the Government do not believe that amendment 103 or new clauses 1 and 6 are necessary. I ask hon. Members kindly to withdraw them.
Alex Sobel
I will not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
On a point of order, Mr Gale. I want to be clear that amendment 103 and new clause 6 are to be withdrawn, with no effect on new clause 1.
The Chair
That is absolutely the case. Let me restate, because none of us has a monopoly on wisdom: formally, only the lead amendment is moved. If any other amendments or new clauses are to be moved, we have to have an indication of that fact at the right time, when they will be moved. Only the lead amendment can be withdrawn, because only the lead amendment has been moved, at this stage. Everyone happy?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) The Secretary of State must exercise the power in subsection (1) so as to set the appropriate long-term targets within each priority area for the purpose of achieving and maintaining a healthy environment on land and at sea”.
This amendment seeks to provide legal clarification to show that the Secretary of State’s purpose when setting targets is to maintain a healthy environment. It also seeks to explicitly include the marine environment links to which are currently sparse in this Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 85, in clause 6, page 4, line 21, at the end insert—
“on land, and at sea.”
This amendment makes explicit that the review of environmental targets should consider both marine and terrestrial environments
Dr Whitehead
We have not yet got beyond the first page of the Bill because, I suggest, it is a particularly important page for the rest of the Bill. These two amendments seek to put clearly on the face of the Bill what we are talking about in terms of the environment. They add “on land” and “at sea”, first to the targets in line 11 onwards. They do so because we think—as we have made clear by tabling an amendment to clause 6—that the Bill ought to be completely clear that we are talking about the threats not just to the environment but to the marine environment as well. The two are indissolubly linked.
Later, we will talk about beaches, which one might say are neither terrestrial nor marine, but involve a particular series of concerns about both of them. The Bill needs to be clear that that all comes within an definition of what we are talking about.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the shadow Minister for amendments 1 and 85, which would include specific reference to
“on land, and at sea”
in clauses 1 and 6. The Bill requires that at least one long-term target is set in each of the four priority areas, as has been explained. That provides clarity and certainty about the areas on which policy setting will focus between now and October 2022.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the power to set targets is not limited to those priority areas alone and can be used in respect of any matter relating to the natural environment. I give him absolute reassurances that the definition of the natural environment includes consideration of the marine environment. Indeed, I welcome this being raised. The fact that we are discussing it and getting that in writing will clarify the position. He is absolutely right to raise the issue. The marine environment will be included, and it is explicitly highlighted on page 57 of the explanatory notes. The shadow Minister is not alone in calling for that; the Natural Capital Committee also wanted clarification, and we gave it reassurances.
The Secretary of State will consider expected environmental improvement across all aspects—terrestrial and marine—of England’s natural environment when conducting the significant improvement test, which is a legal requirement. That involves assessing whether the natural environment as a whole, including the marine environment, will have improved significantly. Such an approach is aligned with comments made at the evidence session. The Committee may remember that Dr Richard Benwell, the chief executive of Wildlife and Countryside Link, stated that
“the environment has to operate as a system.”—[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 116, Q157.]
Of course, the system has to include marine and land—all aspects. Furthermore, the Office for Environmental Protection has a key role, and if it believes that additional targets should be set, it can recommend that in its annual report on assessing the Government’s progress. The OEP could therefore comment on the marine environment specifically, and the Government must publish and lay before Parliament a response to the OEP’s report.
The process ensures that Parliament, supported by the OEP, can hold the Government to account on the sufficiency of measures to significantly improve the natural environment. I hope that provides clarification and reassurance about the word “marine” and references to “on land” and “on sea.” I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
As the Minister said, the fact that we are discussing these matters, and that our words are going on the record, is useful in buttressing what is in the legislation. I am grateful to her for her clarification, which is also on the record. On that basis, I happily beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Kerry McCarthy
I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert—
“(e) global footprint.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 77, in clause 1, page 2, line 16, at end insert—
“(10) Without prejudice to subsection (6), the global footprint target is required to be met with regard to ecosystem conversion and degradation, and to deforestation and forest degradation, by 31 December 2020.”
Amendment 78, in clause 44, page 27, line 24, at end insert—
“‘global footprint’ means—
(a) direct and indirect environmental harm, caused by, and
(b) human rights violations arising in connection with the production, transportation or other handling of goods which are imported, manufactured, processed, or sold (whether for the production of other goods or otherwise), including but not limited to direct and indirect harm associated with—”.
Kerry McCarthy
Amendments 76 to 78 are intrinsically linked with new clause 5, which we will come to, which is about the enforcement mechanism and due diligence in supply chains that would allow us to ensure that actions takes place. I will try to separate the amendments from the new clause and return to this issue in a bit more detail when we get to the new clause.
Amendment 76 would add “global footprint” to the four priority areas in which a long-term target must be set. As the Minister is aware, the target is only in respect of at least one matter within each priority area. Some people may think, at first glance, our ability to know what the global picture will look like over a long period is limited, particularly given the uncertainties we face. However, as the Minister will know, this measure is about trying to drill down and find an action we can take in each priority area.
Amendment 77 is not about long-term targets but about a very short-term target we could address on ecosystem conversion, degradation, deforestation and forest degradation by the end of the year. I will come in a moment to why the date given is important. Amendment 78 would define “global footprint”, and we will come later to new clause 5, on due diligence in the supply chain, which is really important.
The amendments in the group address the climate and ecological emergencies that we all recognise. The 25-year environment plan commits to leaving a lighter footprint on the global environment, but that is not supported in any way by legislation. The overseas impact of our consumption, production and, I would add, financial investment—banks lending to the companies that are doing these things—is partly about the embedded carbon and water in the products that we produce and consume, but it is also about the depletion of natural resources, including deforestation, and it often comes with a human cost, too. We hear about indigenous people being displaced from their land and we hear terrible cases of environmental defenders being murdered or disappeared, particularly in Latin America. We hear about modern slavery in the food supply chain, or exploitation of workers.
I took part in a debate last year or the year before—I lose track of time in this place—linking up World Food Day and modern slavery. The cheap food that we consume comes at a cost. Sometimes, that is an environmental cost. Often, it is at a cost to the people who work within the food system.
If we need an economic reason to pursue this agenda, as opposed to just caring about the environment and climate change, the World Economic Forum “Global Risks Report 2020” ranks environmental risk as the greatest systemic threat to our global economy, although I suspect that the report may have been published before coronavirus hit us. It says that the decline of natural assets will cost the world at least £368 billion a year, which adds up to almost £8 trillion by 2050, and the UK will suffer some of the biggest financial losses because of our trading patterns, consumption and so on.
As we all know, the extraction and processing of natural resources globally has accelerated over the past two decades. It accounts for more than 90% of our biodiversity loss and water stress and around a half of our climate impacts. That is having a particular impact on the world’s forest.
From other debates, we know about the importance of our land and our oceans in terms of carbon mitigation—acting as natural carbon sinks. Land and oceans could offer as much as one third of carbon mitigation needed globally by 2030, to contain global warming at 1.5°. We have had that debate in the UK, about tree planting and peatlands and so on, but obviously, the huge forests of the world, such as the Amazon, are incredibly important. However, the world’s intact tropical forests are now absorbing a third less carbon than they did in the 1990s, owing to the impact of higher temperatures, droughts and deforestation. In the 1990s, the carbon uptake from those forests used to be equivalent to about 17% of carbon dioxide emissions from human activities. That figure has now sunk to around 6% of global emissions in the last decade. If dramatic action is not taken now to halt deforestation, tropical forests may even become a source of additional carbon into the world’s atmosphere by the 2060s.
Much of this global deforestation is the result of agricultural production. Some 77% of agricultural land is currently used for livestock, through pasture grazing and the production of animal feed, such as soya. Soya imports represent almost half of Europe’s deforestation footprint, and around 90% of that is used for animal feed. Many of the products that we consume in the European market, particularly embedded soya in meat and dairy, as well as palm oil, cocoa, pulp and paper, are directly or indirectly connected through the supply chain with deforestation and human rights abuses in some of the most precious and biodiverse ecosystems across the world, including the Amazon and Indonesian forests. For example, 95% of the chickens slaughtered in the UK each year are intensively farmed—a model of production that relies on industrial animal feed containing soya.
The solution is to stop deforestation and to give significant areas back to nature. The 2015 United Nations New York declaration on forests committed to restoring an area of forests and croplands larger than the size of India by 2030. We need three significant interventions to meet that goal.
The first is significantly to reduce global meat and dairy consumption and to give large areas of existing agricultural land back to nature. Another is to end the use of crop-based biofuels, to prevent further land conversion away from high-quality natural ecosystems. We also need to clean up global supply chains, to limit deforestation, which new clause 5 particularly addresses. This is one way that the UK can show leadership as we approach COP26. It would also show leadership towards one of the draft targets for the Convention on Biological Diversity at Kunming in China later this year, if that goes ahead.
Dr Whitehead
I apologise, Sir Roger, for having inadvertently deknighted you earlier. I do not wish to continue with that practice any further. It is a new world, but it is quite useful, I think.
My hon. Friend has made a powerful case for the amendments, which we strongly think should be supported. It would be an omission if the Bill did not recognise what the international footprint of our actions is all about and how intrinsically linked that is, in a world where sugar snap peas are grown in Kenya—[Interruption.] I am merely saying that they are grown there, Minister—our choices are our own in those respects. Things are flown around the world at a moment’s notice and flowers are put in cargo plane holds. There are the effects of our attempts at reforestation, but we then observe deforestation in substantial parts of the world as a result, quite probably, of them taking part in the processes by which we get soya milk on our tables in the UK. We might deplore such practices in principle, but actually, we substantially support them as a result of our preferences for particular things in this country. That causes those international events to occur, which we then deplore further.
The idea that we are intrinsically linked through our global footprint, in terms of what we do in this country as far as the environment is concerned, seems very important in the Bill’s successful passage through the House. Although amendment 77 makes very specific points, the amendments are more than slightly contingent on new clause 5, which we will debate later. I would like to hear how the Minister thinks that in the absence of a something that includes our international environmental footprint, the Bill can do justice to what should be intrinsic elements of concern when we talk about our domestic environment. Not only did my hon. Friend make a powerful case, but we are completely convinced that this needs rectifying in the Bill, and I hope that we can do that by not just passing the amendments, but taking serious cognisance of new clause 5 when we discuss it later on.
Alex Sobel
I have signed amendments 76 and 78 from my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), but not amendment 77—that is an oversight, however, and I also fully support it. I will talk about two specific things relating to our global footprint in the Amazon and West Papua, and it is worth declaring that I am the chair of the all-party group on West Papua, although I have no pecuniary interests.
My hon. Friend and the shadow Minister made excellent cases, but I want to add a bit more detail. Three weeks ago, Chief Raoni, one of the indigenous leaders of the Amazon, came to the House and I met him, and last week, I hosted WWF Brazil’s chief executive here. They also met the Minister’s colleague, Lord Goldsmith, while they were here, and one of their key asks was that the UK Government are very clear about the import of goods from the Amazon. The range of goods is very broad. The dangers in the Amazon are live at the moment, with concerns that in just a matter of months, wildfires could rage in the Amazon as we saw last year, destroying millions of hectares of rainforest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East made good points about soya and cattle farming, but there is also extremely widespread mining—not just by large companies, but the wildcat mining, in which the family of the Brazilian President have traditionally been involved —for metals such as aluminium, iron, nickel and copper. The sourcing of the materials for many of the everyday products that people use involves deforestation and mining in the Amazon. That has further effects because activities such as farming and mining require infrastructure, such as roads right through the rainforest. The use of the river and of heavy diesel vehicles creates water and air degradation.
We spoke about biodiversity in the UK, but our biodiversity pales into insignificance compared with the biodiversity in the rainforests of the Amazon or West Papua. It is the Committee’s duty not to forget that the UK is a major importer of goods and a major world centre for resources and raw materials, which are traded in London and imported into the UK. That means that we have a much broader responsibility.
West Papua is a lesser-known area that is part of Indonesia and has one of the world’s largest mines, the Grasberg Freeport mine. There, beyond the loss of environmental habitat and the pollution of water and air, there are also human rights abuses. There is a well-documented history of extrajudicial killings around the operation of the mine. Offshore, BP—a British company—is involved in oil and gas resources. Our global footprint is huge and the Bill must focus on that. If we are to enshrine environmental protections in domestic law, we cannot close our borders and say, “We are doing sufficient things here,” while forgetting our global footprint and the effects of our markets, imports, production facilities and export investment in causing global environmental degradation.
Rebecca Pow
I thank hon. Members for their contributions on this really key subject. I remind the Committee that the Bill gives us the power to set long-term legally binding targets on any matter relating to the natural environment.
I will pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Bristol East about the 25-year environment plan, which is of course the first environmental improvement plan under the Bill. That plan talks about “leaving a lighter footprint” and the whole of chapter 6 is about,
“Protecting and improving our global environment”.
That is there in writing and I assure the Committee that the power in the Bill to set long-term legally binding targets on any matter relating to the natural environment allows us to set targets on our global environmental footprint.
Kerry McCarthy
I know that the 25-year plan will be incorporated as the first environmental plan, but my point was that by adding amendment 76 and the fifth priority on the global footprint, we would ensure that the Bill specifies that global footprint targets would have to be set. Simply referring to the 25-year plan is just warm words rather than any clear commitment to action.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention, and I recognise all the work that she is doing on this issue; she speaks knowledgably and passionately about it. However, the amendment would go further by creating a legal obligation on the Government to set targets on our wider global footprint, including human rights aspects, and amendment 77 would require us not only to set a target but meet it by 31 December 2020.
Before accepting such obligations, a responsible Government, which I like to think we are, would need to be confident that we had or could develop reliable metrics and an established baseline for such targets, and a clear understanding of any potential perverse incentives that such targets could create. The proposal sounds very straightforward but, of course, there is a great deal involved in it. We are working to explore the feasibility and effectiveness of a global environment footprint indicator, which includes reviewing the existing methodologies of global impact indicators.
We cannot responsibly accept a commitment to set global footprint as a priority area, as that would entail us in setting at least one legally binding target in a timescale that does not reflect the need to build the solid foundations that are needed. However, the hon. Lady was right to draw our attention to the impact that our domestic consumption can have on our global footprint, and the shadow Minister also mentioned that. Indeed, I went berserk with my own children when I found a packet of Kenyan beans in the bottom of my fridge; that was in December, so they were not seasonal for us. Woe betide them if they ever do that again! I put said packet in the bottom of one of their Christmas stockings to make the point. Anyway, I digress.
This is such an important issue and many colleagues have touched on it. That is why it is really important that the UK establishes roundtables on palm oil and soya. Indeed, we have already done a great amount of work on some of these issues. For example, the UK achieved 77% certified sustainable palm oil in 2018, which is—staggeringly—up from just 16% in 2010. The UK has moved very fast on that issue. Eight of the UK’s largest supermarkets, representing a combined retail market share of 83%, have published new sourcing policies to deliver sustainable soya to the UK market. We will continue to work both with those businesses, through these roundtables on palm oil and soya, and with producer countries through our UK international climate finance projects to improve the sustainability of forest risk commodities.
The hon. Member for Leeds North West starkly highlighted the example of the Amazon and the impact that we have; we must take things very carefully. However, that is not to say that, in doing all this work, we should not then harness the power through the Bill to introduce a target on our global environmental footprint. That is something that we have the option to consider.
I will also touch on the Global Resource Initiative, which was set up last year to investigate what the UK can do overall to reduce its footprint. We are awaiting the GRI’s recommendations and we will consider them carefully before responding. Any recommendations for long-term, legally binding targets will need to identify the reliable metrics, baselines and targets that I have mentioned before. However, the Bill gives us the power to introduce a target on our global environmental footprint at any time, so such targets are definitely in the mix.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Our global environmental footprint abroad is very important and the hon. Member for Leeds North West made an interesting point in particular about our footprint in Indonesia. I happen to know about the BP investment at the Tangguh liquid natural gas project very well. It uses two offshore platforms, and there is an absolutely amazing social responsibility programme, which I have seen in detail. It is widely recognised as one of the best in the world, both by the people of West Papua and more widely in Indonesia.
It is worth noting that we have significant renewable energy projects there, including some interest in tidal stream—we brought a delegation from Indonesia to Scotland recently. Through the Department for International Development’s climate change unit, we have worked on making their timber production sustainable and are now looking at how we can help them make the palm oil industry sustainable. The Minister makes an important point about how we can build a strong environmental footprint abroad.
Alex Sobel
On a point of order, Sir Roger. Does the hon. Member for Gloucester have any interest to declare in relation to the statement he just made?
The Chair
That is not a point of order for the Chair. If the hon. Member for Gloucester had any interest to declare, I am sure he would do so.
Richard Graham
I am happy to say that my only interest to declare is as an unpaid, voluntary trade envoy in Indonesia for the last three Prime Ministers.
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He speaks with a great deal of knowledge about worldwide issues, as he always does in the Chamber.
On the grounds of what I have said, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.
Kerry McCarthy
I will have to go back and read what the Minister said, because I am rather confused. She seems to be jumping around all over the place. On one hand, she says a global footprint target can be included in the Bill and cites some good things that have happened through volunteer initiatives and through companies—perhaps with a bit of Government pressure on them—to say that such things can be done. On the other hand, she says that we cannot possibly put it in the Bill.
I point out that amendment 77 is designed to ensure that there is an end-of-year target, which was previously a commitment. The Government have said in various different forums that they would achieve that, so it is a bit late now to say, “We need to worry about the metrics, and we need to be working on this, that and the other.”
I tried to intervene on the Minister because I wanted to ask her about the GRI recommendations, which will come forward on 30 March. If it recommends that the provision should be in the Environment Bill, will the Minister commit to table amendments that reflect the GRI recommendations? As she would not let me intervene to ask her about that, she is very welcome to intervene and tell me whether that is the case. It might affect whether I decide to push anything to a vote.
Rebecca Pow
I will intervene very briefly. I reiterate that we await the outcome of the recommendations and will consider them very carefully. Getting the metrics right is absolutely crucial, as is every target in the Bill. I said strongly that there is a power in the Bill to set targets on our global environmental footprint. I shall leave it there.
Kerry McCarthy
As I said, I want to revisit that, because I thought the Minister was making an argument against being able to pursue targets. She did not adequately make the case for not having the specific priority of a global footprint target, but we will return to that when we discuss new clause 5, which is a comprehensive clause about due diligence in the supply chain and how we enforce all this. We shall return to the debate then, rather than my pressing these issues to a vote now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 178, in clause 1, page 1, line 17, at end insert—
“(3A) Targets set within the priority area of air quality must include targets for—
(a) the ambient 24 hour mean concentration of PM2.5 and PM10;
(b) average human exposure to PM2.5 and PM10; and
(c) annual emissions of NOx, ammonia, PM2.5, PM10, SO2 and non-methane volatile organic compounds.
(3B) Targets set within the priority area of water must include, but are not limited to, matters relating to—
(a) abstraction rates; and
(b) the chemical and biological status and monitoring of inland freshwater and the marine environment.
(3C) Targets set within the priority area of biodiversity must include, but are not limited to, matters relating to—
(a) the abundance, diversity and extinction risk of species; and
(b) the quality, extent and connectivity of habitats.
(3D) Targets set within the priority area of waste and resources must include, but are not limited to, matters relating to the reduction of overall material use and waste generation and pollution, including but not limited to plastics.”
We are now moving on to a debate on one of the most important elements of the Bill. I suspect it will take us beyond the break for lunch, but I will start my remarks. The amendment is designed to address the priority areas for environmental targets, which are set out in clause 1(3). Hon. Members can see that the stated policy areas are air quality, water, biodiversity, and resource efficiency and waste reduction. Other targets, particularly on PM2.5 air quality, are mentioned later in the Bill, but those are the priority areas for the purpose of the Bill.
Environment Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 17th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Environment Act 2021 View all Environment Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 March 2020 - (17 Mar 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Before we start proceedings, I have been advised that the ambition today is to get to the end of clause 6, which as far as I am concerned is both admirable and acceptable. The Chairman’s job is to be in the Chair, and I am prepared to do that, but if we sit rather later than we might have done, I will suspend the sitting, probably for 15 minutes at 4.30 pm—for natural causes.
Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)
For the elucidation of the Committee, I confirm that the intention of the Opposition is to get to the end of clause 6 in reasonably good order, so it will not be necessary, I hope, for the Chair to suspend proceedings, because we will already have gone home by then. We will see whether I manage to keep my remarks suitably brief, so that we can achieve that goal.
I barely started my remarks about the amendment this morning. I will first emphasise how important the amendment is to ensuring that the priority area targets are seen as targets with content, rather than targets in theory. That is important because of the frankly rather odd way in which subsection (2) is set out:
“The Secretary of State must exercise the power in subsection (1) so as to set a long-term target in respect of at least one matter within each priority area.”
That might suggest that the Secretary of State will have a lottery choice, and will say, “Well, I’ve got to set at least one target in each area, so what’s it going to be? If I go above my limit of one target per area, I might not be able to get targets in other areas,” or perhaps, “I haven’t got enough targets in this section, so I have to beef them up.”
In reality, targets are not one per customer; they are based on what targets should be set in each area. What are the themes that one would prioritise within each area in which a target might be set? What are the priorities regarding air quality, water, biodiversity and waste and resources that would cause us to say, “Perhaps in this area there should be three or four targets, and in that area two, or more than three”?
The Bill allows the Secretary of State to set more than one target, but it at least strongly suggests that it should be one target, and implies that that should be it. I hope we can be clear today that that certainly is not it, and that the Secretary of State will be charged with looking at each area and deciding, on the basis of what is needed, what the targets for those areas should be. They might or might not be numerous.
There is a rumour that there was discussion with the Treasury about how many targets might be allowed in each area, and the Treasury said, “Maybe keep it to one each. That will be okay.” I am sure that is untrue, but nevertheless the drafting of this part of part 1 seems a little odd.
In amendment 178, we have tried to say, “What would be the general priority areas?” One might say that it was our best go at answering that. If we have time to spare this afternoon, having got through our business, we could have a little roundtable and decide whether we think those are the absolute priorities, or whether we should put in others or change them around. It is an attempt, which I think is good enough to go into the legislation, to look at what the main areas are within each priority area that we could reasonably set targets on.
Within air quality, it would be good to have targets on average human exposure to PM2.5 and PM10, and annual emissions of nitrogen oxides, ammonia, the different PMs and non-methane volatile organic compounds. For water, the targets could be on abstraction rates,
“the chemical and biological status and monitoring of inland freshwater”
and, importantly, the marine environment, which we touched on this morning.
In the priority area of biodiversity, there could be targets on
“the abundance, diversity and extinction risk of species”
and
“the quality, extent and connectivity of habitats”.
Later in the Bill, we will talk about recreating habitats if necessary, and ensuring, through local plans, that habitats join up with each other, so that we do not have a series of island habitants with no relation to each other. Perhaps we should have a biodiversity target on ensuring that those habitats are connected.
In the priority area of waste and resources, there could be targets on
“overall material use and waste generation and pollution, including but not limited to plastics.”
As we will see later in our discussions, there could certainly be targets relating to the extent to which things are properly moved up the waste hierarchy. One of the concerns we have regarding the waste and resources part of the Bill is the extent to which there is, rightly, a concern for recycling, but not for going any further up the waste hierarchy than that.
Amendment 178 is the explanation that we would like to see after the very thin gruel served up in clause 1(3). It is by no means the last word, and we state in the amendment that the targets are not limited to those set out in it. Indeed, it would be a perfectly good idea if the Secretary of State or Minister said, “I don’t quite agree with the targets that you have set out here. There are other priority areas in these sectors, and we’d like to set targets on those instead.” We are not precious about that in any way.
I hope the Committee can accept the principle that it is not sufficient to set out single-word priority areas, particularly in clause 1(2). In the Bill, there needs to be some unpacking of the process, so that we can assure ourselves that we will get to grips with the sort of targets that we believe are necessary. That is a friendly proposal. I hope it is met with interest from Government Members, and that we can discuss how we get that right, having accepted the principle. We do not necessarily need the amendment to be accepted in its totality, but if we do not see any movement at all in its direction, we strongly feel that we ought to set down a marker to show that it is important that such a process be undertaken, and would therefore reluctantly seek to divide the Committee.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I thank the shadow Minister for seeking to specify the targets that the Government should set within each priority area. He asked if what he said was met with interest. Of course it was. He recognises that the Bill includes a requirement, which I reiterate, to set at least one long-term legally binding target in each of four important areas: air quality; water; biodiversity; and resource efficiency and waste reduction. Those were chosen because they are the priority areas that reflect where we believe targets will drive long-lasting significant improvement in the natural environment, which is the aim of the Bill.
The four priority areas were chosen to complement the chapters of the Bill, to build on the vision in the 25-year environment plan—the first environment improvement plan in the Bill—and to facilitate the delivery of comprehensive measures, with an “s” on the end, across the natural environment; we are talking about not just one thing, but a whole raft of measures. The Bill’s framework allows long-term targets to be set on any aspect of the natural environment, or people’s enjoyment of it, beyond the four priority areas in order to drive significant improvement in the natural environment. Of course, all those things will be monitored, checked and reported on to ensure that the significant improvement is achieved, and if more targets are seen to be required, then more targets are what will happen.
I would like to reassure the shadow Minister that the Government will be able to determine the specific areas in which targets will be set via the robust and transparent target-setting process that I referred to this morning. Advice from independent experts will be sought in every case during the process. Stakeholders and the public will also have an opportunity to give input on targets. Indeed, just now in the Tea Room, one of our colleagues asked about giving input on the deposit return scheme. I said, “Yes, there will be a lot of engagement and a lot of consultation, through the Bill.” Targets will be based on robust, scientifically credible evidence, as well as economic analysis.
We do not want to prejudge which specific targets will emerge from the process, and the Office for Environmental Protection has a role in setting targets. If the OEP believes that additional targets should be set, it can say what it thinks should be done in its annual report when it is assessing the Government’s progress. It will do that every year. The Government then have to publish and lay before Parliament a response to the OEP’s call. Any long-term targets will be set via statutory instruments, which will be subject to the affirmative procedure. That means that Parliament can scrutinise, debate, and ultimately vote on them, so everyone gets their say. I hope that will please the shadow Minister, because he will very much be part of that. This process ensures that Parliament, supported by the OEP, can hold the Government to account for the targets they set.
Several hon. Members rose—
The Chair
Service on a Bill Committee such as this might seem like doing porridge, but—[Laughter.] Before we proceed, the normal convention is that whoever moves the motion speaks first. There is then a pause, not because I have forgotten what to do, but so that I can see whether anybody else is excited by the debate. If I pause and nobody bothers to indicate that they wish to speak, I call the Minister. Two Members have now indicated that they wish to speak. That is perfectly in order, and I have no problem with it, but traditionally, the Minister speaks last to summarise the debate. There is then the possibility of prolonging the matter further, but that is how it is usually done.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
I apologise for not rising quickly enough before the Minister spoke. I will try to do so more quickly in future.
I reiterate that under our current regime, it took three court cases, brought by a voluntary organisation, for Government to bring forward the clean air measures that are now being introduced. Obviously, a lot of other targets are included in amendment 178, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test—my name is not on that amendment, but I will be supporting it—but the ones about air quality are particularly close to my heart.
The fact that we had to go through those court cases under the European regulations, and that those clean air targets are not in the Bill, is deeply worrying. I am sure that we have ceilings, but for a lot of people, those ceilings are too high, and people are still going to die of breathing-related and other lung-related conditions. The ceiling in this Committee Room, for example, is very high; knowing what we now know, we would not again build this room with this ceiling height; we would have a far lower ceiling. The same is true for levels of particulate matter.
When we took evidence from ClientEarth last week, Katie Neald said:
“The cases that ClientEarth has taken against the UK Government have been key both to driving action to meet the legal limits we already have and to highlighting this as a serious issue and highlighting Government failures so far. It is really important that the Bill allows people to continue to do that against these new binding targets.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 95, Q136.]
This amendment creates that framework. Without it, the Bill is insufficient.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
I apologise, Sir Roger, for not indicating earlier that I wished to speak. I want to make a very quick point, which underpins quite a lot of my criticism of many of the amendments that have been tabled to this Bill.
This Bill is a framework measure. The Government have already set out their priority areas, which are listed in the Bill. To get into the level of specificity in the amendment presupposes that we could know, theoretically for 15, 20 or 25 years, all the measures we may wish to choose. There are some that might seem good now, but in future may not seem so good. Flexibility is very important and something any Government of any colour or description, or any Minister, would need in future because, as we are seeing, the science and advice can change quite quickly. Having priority areas around the broad themes set out in the Bill makes sense because air will not cease to exist—if it does, we will cease to exist. Within that, however, we need Parliament and the Government to have flexibility. On those grounds, I do not support the amendment.
The Chair
Does the Minister wish to comment on what has just been said before I go back to Dr Whitehead?
Rebecca Pow
Very briefly, thank you, Sir Roger.
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. He has hit the nail on the head in summing up the flexibility for the targets and the importance of getting and inputting the right expert advice and having the flexibility to move and change with the requirements. The environment is such a huge thing. There is no one thing; it is not a straightforward answer. There will be lots of different targets to consider. Specifically, however, we have a requirement to set at least one long-term target.
To pick on the point made by the hon. Member for Leeds North West on air quality, we have a clean air strategy already, which the World Health Organisation has held up as an example for the rest of the world to follow. We are already taking the lead on that and have committed £3.5 billion to delivering our clean air strategy and the measures within it. They are already operating and will work part and parcel with the Bill’s new measures to have an even more holistic and comprehensive approach to air quality.
Dr Whitehead
If the Bill were just a framework Bill, it would be about a quarter as long as it is. The fact that, in various parts, it has quite a lot of detail about the things that are required within the overall framework indicates that the Bill is more than that. It seeks to set out, guide and secure a whole series of advances in environmental standards and enhancements of the natural environment in a way that hopefully we can all be proud of.
That is why I call this particular section thin gruel. I was trying to see where we can go with the porridge analogy. Although its potential is not thin gruel, the way it is set out in the Bill appears to me to turn out something that is rather more thin gruel than good porridge. Some Government Members, meanwhile, are thinking “How can we make it flower out of its bowl with all sorts of things added to it?”
Our amendment does not stop Ministers coming up with new targets—wide targets, changeover time and so on—and go with the flow of circumstances as they unfold, but it prevents the porridge from being thinner than it might otherwise be. We want to see basic, good porridge with some fruit, raspberries—
Dr Whitehead
With some nuts on top, which together makes a pleasing dish that one can understand and be secure that one is going to get a good breakfast as a result. That is the purpose of our amendment. We feel strongly about that—we all like a good breakfast. On that basis, I am not happy with the Minister’s response. I do not see how the things that she wants to get done on the Bill will in any way be undermined or diluted by the structure that we have put forward. On the contrary, I think they would be underpinned and expanded. On that basis, I will press the amendment to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 1, page 2, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) A target under this section must be set on the basis of the best available evidence and any advice given under section (3)(1).
(4B) In setting targets under this section, the Secretary of State must take into account relevant international best practices and seek to improve on them.”
This amendment seeks to ensure that targets are evidence based and have considered international best practises.
The amendment deals with what the targets must specify. As the Bill stands at the moment, that is a little vague. Subsection (4) states:
“A target set under this section must specify—
(a) a standard to be achieved, which must be capable of being objectively
measured, and
(b) a date by which it is to be achieved.”
We think that that formulation does not take full account of the way in which those targets should be appraised, particularly the way they should be appraised on the basis of the best available evidence and international best practices and how the UK might be able to improve on them. We therefore suggest adding proposed new subsections (4A) and (4B) after subsection (4).
We have to look at the best available evidence. I am not saying for a moment that this would occur, but a target that was set under this procedure by the Minister, which appeared to have been conjured out of thin air on a whim and did not have much support, would be gravely undermining of those people who want those targets to be achieved and those achievements to be firmly attained.
The best available evidence and the relevant international best practices are extremely important. We should be able to say that we can learn from others and incorporate that into our practices so that we leap ahead in our achievements. That is a very good guideline to inform target setting, and it is what we offer in our amendment. Again, I would be interested to hear from the Minister whether she thinks that what is in the Bill at the moment really does the job in terms of setting targets, or whether, perhaps by using different means from the clause, there are ways in which we can make sure that the Bill stands up rather better to the target-setting task that we have set it.
Rebecca Pow
Of course I recognise the shadow Minister’s desire to ensure that, when these targets are set, they are based on the highest possible standards of evidence, practice and advice. However, I believe that it is not necessary to make such explicit amendments as the one that we are considering, because we have already committed to setting targets under a robust, evidence-led process. We expect the best available evidence to inform this, including, of course, scientific data, models, historical datasets and assessment of what is feasible from a socioeconomic perspective. I can assure him that absolutely nothing will be conjured out of thin air, as he was suggesting; conducting ourselves in such a way would not be a correct way for Government to operate.
I am sure that the shadow Minister will be interested to be reminded that every two years, we will conduct a review of significant developments in international environmental legislation. I think that that was one of the new additions to the Bill that was inserted during the process that he was outlining earlier, about how the Bill came and went, and fell, and various other things. This is an extra addition that I believe will be useful and will address exactly what he is talking about, because it is right that we consider what is happening across the rest of the world, to make sure that we are aligned, whether we want to be or not, and consider what other people are doing, and make sure we keep abreast of developments in driving forward our environmental protection legislation.
Of course, we will publish that review and make sure that any relevant findings are factored into our environmental improvement plan, and considered with the environmental target-setting process. We will also seek and consider very carefully the advice of independent experts before setting the targets. Additionally, our target proposals will be subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament; both Houses will have the opportunity to scrutinise, debate and ultimately vote on the details and the ambition of the targets. We also expect the Select Committees to take an interest in this process and they will have an opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s target proposals. They might choose to conduct their own inquiries or publish reports, which the Government would then respond to in the usual manner.
Having given that amount of detail, I hope that it provides some reassurance. The shadow Minister is obviously raising really important issues, but I hope that my response makes it clear that we are taking this matter very seriously. I therefore ask him to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister has said exactly what I had anticipated she might say in the best of outcomes, and that is now on the record; indeed, our purpose principally was to ensure that that kind of statement about these targets was there for all to see. I am grateful to her for setting that out and I am much happier than I would have been if she had not said that. I am happy to withdraw the amendment.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Rebecca Pow
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 1, page 2, line 15, leave out “the National Assembly for Wales” and insert “Senedd Cymru”.
This amendment reflects the renaming of the National Assembly for Wales as “Senedd Cymru” by the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020. Similar changes are made by Amendments 29, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47,48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 67, 72, and 73.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 29, 32 to 36, 67, 37 to 57, 72 and 73, and 58 to 64.
Rebecca Pow
Section 2 of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Act 2020 renames the National Assembly for Wales as the Welsh Parliament or Senedd Cymru. The changes will take effect from 6 May 2020. As a consequence, amendment 28 would replace references in the Bill to “the National Assembly for Wales” with “Senedd Cymru”, and replace references to “the Assembly” with “the Senedd”—I hope I have made that quite clear. This is consistent with the approach that the Welsh Government are taking to their own legislation.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
Could the Minister clarify whether we are replacing “the National Assembly for Wales” with “Senedd Cymru” in all legislation or whether we are inserting both, as was implied in part of her statement, by saying, “the National Assembly for Wales/Senedd Cymru”? Does the National Assembly for Wales cease to exist completely, and are we always to refer to it as Senedd Cymru in all future parliamentary debates?
Rebecca Pow
That is a very perceptive question, which does not surprise me at all—my hon. Friend is always on the ball. The answer is no, the Welsh Assembly will remain. I will just add that the Government consulted the Welsh Government on how the Welsh legislature should be referred to in legislation moving forward, and using the Welsh title ensures there is a consistent approach across the statute book.
Richard Graham
For clarification, can I just confirm that we will refer to “the National Assembly for Wales” and to “Senedd Cymru” in the Bill, and that that is the format that Parliament and the Government will adopt for all legislation, and that we are not replacing “the National Assembly for Wales” with “Senedd Cymru” on every occasion?
Rebecca Pow
The answer to the first part of his question is yes.
Amendment 28 agreed to.
Amendment made: 29, in clause 1, page 2, line 16, leave out “Assembly” and insert “Senedd”.—(Rebecca Pow.)
See Amendment 28.
The Chair
I am satisfied that clause 1 has been sufficiently debated, and I therefore do not propose to take a clause stand part debate.
Clause 1, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Environmental targets: particulate matter
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) The PM2.5 air quality target must—
(a) be less than or equal to 10µg/m3;
(b) have an attainment deadline on or before 1 January 2030.”
This amendment is intended to set parameters on the face of the Bill to ensure that the PM2.5 target will be at least as strict as the 2005 WHO guidelines, with an attainment deadline of 2030 at the latest.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 185, in clause 2, page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) The PM2.5 air quality target must—
(a) follow World Health Organisation guidelines and;
(b) have an attainment deadline on or before 1 January 2030.”
This amendment ensures that the international standard on small particulate matter set by the World Health Organisation is followed, and that this target is reached by the end of the decade.
Amendment 25, in clause 6, page 4, line 21, after “England” insert—
“and minimise, or where possible eliminate, the harmful impacts of air pollution on human health and the environment as quickly as possible”.
This amendment is intended to strengthen the test against which targets are assessed, to ensure that the human health impacts of air pollution are considered, with the aim of minimising, or where possible eliminating, them.
Amendment 26, in clause 6, page 4, line 29, after “2023” insert—
“or, in the case of the PM2.5 air quality target and any other long-term and interim target set within the air quality priority area, within 6 months of publication of updated guidelines on ambient air pollution by the World Health Organization, whichever is earlier”.
This amendment is intended to allow any new targets to reflect updated WHO guidelines.
Amendment 27, in clause 6, page 4, line 31, after “completed” insert—
“or, in the case of the PM2.5 air quality target and any other long-term and interim target set within the air quality priority area, within 6 months of publication of updated guidelines on ambient air pollution by the World Health Organization, whichever is earlier”.
This amendment is intended to trigger an early review of the PM2.5 target, and other air quality targets, within 6 months of the publication of the updated WHO guidelines.
Dr Whitehead
This amendment should be discussed with amendment 185. Amendment 23 is tabled in the name of the esteemed Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), and a number of other Members, most of whom are not on this Committee—and some of our names have been added. Amendment 185 is in the names of Members who are mostly on the Committee.
These amendments highlight a real difference between what is in the Bill about the additional environmental target on particulate matter, in addition to what is in clause 1(3), and the World Health Organisation guidelines. Clause 2 indicates why this is not just a framework Bill, as it includes some real stuff on particulate matter. But that real stuff does not get us to where we need to be on targets for particulate matter in ambient air.
One way or another, these amendments seek to equate the target guidelines to the World Health Organisation guidelines on particulate matter. Indeed, amendment 23 states that the PM2.5 air quality target should be,
“less than or equal to 10µg/m3”.
I understand that that would be equivalent to the World Health Organisation guidelines. In that sense, although the amendments are slightly differently worded, they do not have any different intent or purpose.
The questions are: why the WHO guidelines; what have we done so far on PM2.5 emissions; and where might the targets suggested in the Bill get us? One problem with how we have addressed PM2.5 and other particulate matter is that although the emissions expressed as density per cubic metre of air have come down very substantially over the years, levels have pretty much plateaued between the early 2000s and the present. Indeed, as I see it we will not get too much further in achieving targets on the basis of that performance over recent years. The suggested targets set out in the Bill do not take us much further down the road as far as a fall in emissions is concerned. We need to align ourselves with the WHO guidelines, so that we can ensure that we are targeting a regular and continuing reduction in emissions.
As hon. Members will know, these emissions are serious for human health. The smaller the particulate emissions, the more likely those particulates are to penetrate human tissue and lungs, and to cause long-term injury and health problems for the recipients. These finer particulates are pretty much a product of a lot of modern living, coming from, for example, tyres, brakes, diesel emissions—all sorts of things like that. It is certainly more than possible to target those factors in such a way as to get emissions down to a much more seriously depleted level than at present.
Indeed, that was the subject of a report by the Department in 2019 entitled, “Air quality: Assessing progress towards WHO guideline levels of PM2.5 in the UK”. That report, which was obviously a Government report, suggested in its conclusion that the analysis of progress that had been made and of future progress demonstrated that,
“measures in the Clean Air Strategy, alongside action by EU Member States, are likely to take us a substantial way towards achieving the WHO guideline level for annual mean PM2.5”,
but that:
“It also helps us understand where further action is needed.”
That is probably a summary of where the Government are as far as these guidelines are concerned: we are some way towards the WHO guidelines, but we are not there yet, and we need to understand that further action is needed and where it is needed. That is why we think a target, which should run alongside the WHO guideline level, is essential in or around this Bill.
Richard Graham
The hon. Gentleman says we must have guidelines; I agree with him totally, but in fact the guidelines are there in the legislation. Clause 1 lays out specifically what the standard means and the date by which it is to be achieved, which cannot be more than 15 years after the date on which the target is initially set. The guidelines are there, and clause 2, in seven crisp bullets, gives more detail about what is expected of the Secretary of State.
The hon. Gentleman’s amendment looks, on appearance, to be a modest word or two, but what he is trying to achieve is a rewriting of clauses 1, 2 and 3 altogether, setting not the guideline, but a very specific target and deadline. I cannot help wondering whether the deadline, which is before January 2030, is not linked specifically to the Labour party conference motion that called for net zero carbon by 2030—something his own Front Bench has rejected, accepting the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s target of net zero by 2050.
Dr Whitehead
That is a bit like thinking that, if there are two bodies in different parts of the country, they must be connected because they are two bodies. It does not follow, to be honest, because they are not connected.
Richard Graham
I am interested in the hon. Gentleman saying that they are not connected. The two dates happen to be the same, so there is a connection. It is not like two bodies in different parts of the country. The key thing is that the guidelines for which he calls are there; the deadline for which he calls is a separate thing.
Rebecca Pow
The Government shares the shadow Minister’s desire to take ambitious action to reduce public exposure to air pollution and ensure that the latest evidence is taken into consideration when targets are reviewed. The Government take fine particulate matter, and air pollution as a whole, extremely seriously, and completely understand public concerns about this very serious health issue. That is why the Government are already taking action to improve air quality, backed by significant investment.
We have put in place a £3.5 billion plan to reduce harmful emissions from road transport. Last year, we published our world-leading clean air strategy, which sets out the comprehensive action required at all levels of Government and society to clean up our air. I reiterate that that strategy has been praised by the WHO as an example for the rest of the world to follow, so we are already leading on this agenda. That is not to say that there is not a great deal to do; there is, but the Government are taking it extremely seriously.
The Bill builds on the ambitious actions that we have already taken and delivers key parts of our strategy, including by creating a duty to set a legally binding target for PM2.5, in addition to the long-term air quality target. That size of particulate is considered particularly dangerous because it lodges in the lungs, and can cause all sorts of extra conditions. I have met with many health bodies to discuss that. It is a very serious issue and a problem for many people. However, we are showing our commitment to tackling it by stating in the Bill that we will have a legally binding target.
It is important that we get this right. We must set targets that are ambitious but achievable. Last week, Mayor Glanville, the representative from the Local Government Association, highlighted the importance of ambitious targets, but was at pains to emphasise the need for a clear pathway to achieve them. It would not be appropriate to adopt a level and achievement date, as proposed in amendments 23 and 185, without first completing a thorough and science-based consideration of our options.
Bim Afolami
Bearing in mind that the Minister has already quoted from last week’s evidence sessions, does she agree that Professor Lewis made it very clear that, once we reached the target level mentioned in the amendment, the United Kingdom would not be fully in control of the target, and it would therefore be dangerous to put such a target in the Bill?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I was going to mention Professor Alastair Lewis. Members will remember that he is the chairman of the UK’s air quality expert group. He gave stark evidence. He is obviously an expert in his field, and it was really interesting to hear what he said. He stressed the technical challenges involved in setting a target for a pollutant as complex as PM2.5, which he explained is formed from diverse sources—the shadow Minister is right about that—and chemical reactions in the atmosphere. He was at pains to explain that a lot of PM2.5 comes from the continent, and it depends on the direction of the wind, the weather and the atmospheric conditions. My hon. Friend is right that those things are not totally within our control.
Professor Lewis explained the need to decide how we would measure progress towards the target, and that the process would be challenging and would take time. It is crucial to get it right. When developing the detail of the target, we will seek evidence from a wide range of sources and ensure we give due consideration to the health benefits of reducing pollution, as well as the measures required to meet the targets and the costs to business and taxpayers. It is really important that we bring them on board.
I want to refer quickly to the report that the shadow Minister mentioned. I thought he might bring up the DEFRA report published in July 2019, which demonstrated that significant progress would be made towards the current WHO guideline level of 2.5 by 2030. He is right about that. However, the analysis did not outline a pathway to achieve the WHO guideline level across the country or take into account the full economic viability or practical deliverability.
In setting our ambitions for achievable targets, it is essential that we give consideration to these matters—achievability and the measures required to meet it. That is very much what our witnesses said last week. If we set unrealistic targets, it could lead to actions that are neither cost effective nor proportionate. That is why we are committed to an evidence-based process using the best available science—something I know the shadow Minister is really keen we do—and advice from experts to set an ambitious and achievable PM2.5 air quality target.
I reiterate that it is crucial for public, Parliament and stakeholders that they have the opportunity to comment on this and have an input in the process of developing these targets. By taking the time to carry out this important work in engagement, we will ensure that targets are ambitious, credible and, crucially, supported by society. We have the significant improvement test, which is a legal requirement, outlined in the Bill. It will consider all relevant targets collectively and assess whether meeting them will significantly improve the natural environment of England as a whole. It is intended to capture the breadth and the amount of improvement. It is very much a holistic approach and it encompasses the impacts of air pollution on the natural environment and the associated effects on human health. All these things will be taken into account in assessing the journey to the targets. I therefore surmise that the proposal in amendment 25 is not necessary.
Dr Whitehead
The Minister is quite right in pointing out that the report we mentioned did not take into account within a scientific model the full economic viability or practical deliverability of that change. If she were to commission this group to go away and do that, would she commit to the WHO guidelines after that point?
Rebecca Pow
The shadow Minister knows that I will make no such commitment here. This has to be evidence based. Get the right evidence, then the decisions can be made. That is how this Bill will operate. All the advice we took last week from the experts—the people we have to listen to—very much agreed that this was the direction that we need to take. Reviewing individual targets through the test, as proposed in amendments 26 and 27, would not be in line with the holistic approach of the Bill.
Furthermore, the fixed timetable for periodically conducting the significant improvement test provides much needed certainty and predictability to business and society. We have heard from many businesses that they want this surety. It would be inappropriate to determine the timescale for this test on the basis of one new piece of evidence. However, we recognise that the evidence will evolve as highlighted by amendments 26, 27 and 185. The Government will consider new evidence as it comes to light after targets have been set, as part of the five-yearly review of our environmental improvement plan and its annual progress report. The Office for Environmental Protection has a key role. If the OEP believes that additional targets should be set, as I have said before, or that an update to a target is necessary as a result of new evidence, it can recommend this in its annual report, assessing the Government’s progress.
Dr Whitehead
I do worry about the idea that a target should only be set if we know that the target can be achieved and exceeded immediately. If we did that all of the time, we would not have targets. We would set what we were going to do as a target and—well I never—we would always achieve it. A target has to be something that is grasping at the stars in order to be achieved. A target, among other things, should not just be based on the idea that you can do something now, easily. It should be, in part, a wake-up call and a gee-up to make sure the target is achieved once you have done the basic work that it is technically possible to do. Indeed, the Government report got us to a position of doing that. I do not accept the Minister’s arguments on this. There should be a target, at the very least to keep us on the straight and narrow as far as reduction in particulate emissions are concerned, which is based on WHO guidelines. I therefore seek a division on this.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 81, in clause 3, page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
“(1) Before making regulations under sections 1 or 2, reviewing targets under section 6, setting interim targets under section 10, or considering actions required to achieve targets set under sections 1, 2, or 10, the Secretary of State must—
(a) obtain, and take into account, the advice of a relevant independent and expert advisory body set up for this purpose;
(b) carry out full public consultation;
(c) publish that advice as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(1A) If regulations laid under sections 1 or 2 or interim targets make provision different from that recommended by the advisory body, the Secretary of State must both publish the public interest reasons for those differences and make a statement to Parliament on them.
(1B) Any advisory body set up under subsection (1)(a) must comprise 50 per cent of members nominated by the OEP and 50 per cent of members nominated by the Committee on Climate Change.”
This amendment seeks to prevent the Secretary of State from breaking Articles 4 to 8 of the United Nations Aarhus Convention of which the UK is a party. It encourages the Secretary of State to set up and listen to an independent expert body, to consult with the public, and share information. Where discrepancies between what is advised and the regulations the secretary of state chooses to make arise, it requests explanation of that discrepancy. Finally it makes suggestions for how that advisory body should be set up.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 181, in clause 3, page 2, line 35, at end insert—
“(1A) The advice sought under section 3(1) must include advice on how the scope and level of targets should be set to significantly improve the natural environment and minimise, or where possible eliminate, the harmful impacts of pollution on human health and the environment.”
Dr Whitehead
I was slightly taken aback as I had received an indication from the Chair’s provisional grouping and selection of amendments that amendments 81 and 181 would be taken separately.
The Chair
They can be voted on separately but debated together. I hate to say it, but I am right.
Dr Whitehead
I think I probably have a provisional grouping in front of me here and things maybe have changed since then. In that case, I am very sorry that I raised that particular point.
The Chair
No problem at all. The grouping on the selection paper indicates amendment 81 with 181 and then, separately, amendment 24.
Dr Whitehead
My other problem here was that I had extensively marked up the provisional grouping with colour coding and so on, and was reluctant to set it aside. That is maybe why I brought it into the Committee. It is a nice piece of work in its own right.
We are talking about amendments 81 and 181 grouped together, which I am happy to talk to. I begin with amendment 81, which seeks to unpack the statement at the beginning of clause 3 that before “making regulations” the
“Secretary of State must seek advice from persons the Secretary of State considers to be independent and to have relevant expertise.”
That is a rather strange form of wording. Hon. Members may agree on that. It appears, at its face, that the Secretary of State could choose who—in his or her opinion— is “independent”, a subjective view from the Secretary of State, and who has “relevant expertise”. That is also a subjective view. The Secretary of State can decide on his or her advice without consultation, and can decide from whom he or she must seek that advice.
Amendment 81 seeks to make it much clearer that that is not how the process of seeking and obtaining advice would be carried out. Not only that, that it also seeks to put in place what is essentially good practice from previous legislation in this area, to guide us on how that process would be undertaken. Amendment 81 sets out that the Secretary of State would have to “obtain” and “take into account” the
“advice of a relevant independent and expert advisory body set up for this purpose”
when reviewing targets and making regulations under clauses 1 or 2. It would not just be someone who the Secretary of State thought had some relevance to the matter, or to whom they decided to go in the belief that they might be independent. They would be “independent”, they would be “expert”, and they would be separate. It would be clear who that advice was coming from.
On the basis of that advice, full public consultation should be undertaken, and that advice would be published as soon as was reasonably practical. It gives the Secretary of State a get-out, and it is proper that it should. Since the advice is to be given as advice, and if the Secretary of State decided that they did not want to take that advice, or wanted to make a provision other than the one recommended by the advisory body, then the Secretary of State should
“publish the public interest reasons for those differences and make a statement to Parliament on them.”
That is what is known as a comply or explain procedure. It would be expected, in the first instance, that the Secretary of State would comply with properly given, properly expert and properly independent advice, but if they did not feel that they could comply with that advice, it would be up to them to put up a good case as to why not, to publish that good case and to make a statement to Parliament on the good case as to why they could not comply.
We have suggested that the members of the advisory body for this purpose should be nominated by two bodies, one of which is independent and the other, we hope, will very shortly be independent. We suggest that 50% of members be nominated by the Office for Environmental Protection and 50% by the Committee on Climate Change.
That brings me to the procedures that were set up under the original climate change legislation, the Climate Change Act 2008, which, as I have already mentioned in these proceedings and will undoubtedly mention again, seems to me to be a yardstick by which we should measure what we are doing in the Bill. The Bill has often been described as a Climate Change Act for the environment, and it is right that we should make that comparison, because a Bill in its best form will, first, stand the comparison and, secondly, as the Climate Change Act has, stand the test of time between Administrations and through vicissitudes and changes in scientific consideration. It will have within it the mechanism to keep a firm eye on what we are doing, but at the same time change, if necessary, with changes in circumstances.
The Climate Change Act is clear about what the Secretary of State must do in terms of either setting targets or amending target percentages. That is a comparator with what is suggested in this Bill in clause 3. The Climate Change Act states the following:
“Before laying before Parliament a draft of a statutory instrument containing an order…amending the 2050 target or the baseline year…the Secretary of State must…obtain, and take into account, the advice of the Committee on Climate Change”—
the Committee on Climate Change was set up by the Climate Change Act for that purpose of providing independent advice. The Act also says that the Secretary of State must publish that advice and, if the order that the Secretary of State lays makes provision different from that recommended by the committee,
“the Secretary of State must also publish a statement setting out the reasons for that decision.”
The “comply or explain” mode of doing things is enshrined in the Climate Change Act. Indeed, it is shot through the Climate Change Act in terms of different orders that can be made to amend targets or baseline years or to amend target percentages. When the target percentage in the Act was, as hon. Members will recall, changed in July of last year—I was privileged to lead for Labour on the change that was put forward in, as it happened, a statutory instrument—that change went through well, in that the procedures in the Climate Change Act allowed the change to be made on the basis of proper advice and consultation and ministerial statements to that effect. All those procedures worked well in relation to the Climate Change Act and the changes made there.
There are no such procedures in this Bill. That is what we are particularly concerned about. We think that a procedure similar to that in the Climate Change Act but addressing the particular concerns of the Environment Bill—not everything can simply be squeezed in unamended and unchanged—would be the appropriate way to deal with this request for advice on setting targets and interim targets. Yes, the amendment is quite a bit more extensive than the brief mention of targets in clause 3, but it would add real lustre to the Bill, ensuring that targets would be properly set, properly consulted on and properly explained. Therefore, they would be properly and legitimately adopted.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for amendments 81 and 181. I hope he has already got the impression that we are absolutely committed to setting targets under a robust evidence-led process. Independent experts, the public, stakeholders and Parliament will all play a part in informing the scope and level of target development. The Government will carefully consider advice from independent experts before setting targets.
As the Bill progresses, we will continue to consider how the role of experts is best fulfilled. A number of witnesses last week referred to the need to use experts, and they will be used constantly and continuously. Such experts could include academics, scientists and practitioners within the four priority areas included in the Bill. The expert advice we receive to support the setting of both the target for PM2.5 and the further long-term air quality target will include that on how targets will reduce the harmful impacts of air pollution on human health. We will rely hugely on that expert advice.
Long-term targets will be subject to the affirmative procedure, so Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise and analyse the target proposals. That will, of course, include the shadow Minister, because both Houses will debate the statutory instruments that will set the targets. The Office for Environmental Protection will publish annual reports on the Government’s progress towards the targets, which may include recommendations for improving progress. As I have reiterated a number of times, the Government will be required to publish a response to the recommendations.
I want to stress that the Office for Environmental Protection can advise on targets, either through its duties related to environmental law or through its annual progress report on the environmental improvement plan. For example, it has a statutory power to advise on changes to environmental law, which enables it to comment on proposed legislation on long-term targets. It also has a statutory duty to monitor progress towards meeting targets as part of its annual progress report on the environmental improvement plan, which can include recommending how progress could be improved. So there is already a very strong mechanism.
Environmental law extends to all target provisions of the Bill—for example, procedural requirements on target setting and amendments, and the requirement to achieve targets. In addition, the Government will conduct the first significant improvement test—that is a legal requirement—and report to Parliament on its outcome, three months after the deadline for bringing forward the initial priority area targets.
The significant improvement test provisions of the Bill will form part of environmental law, which is why they will come under the OEP. That means that the OEP will have oversight of the provisions, as it does over all aspects of environmental law, and will have a key role in making sure that the Government meet the targets.
The shadow Minister rightly drew analogies with the Climate Change Act 2008 and the Committee on Climate Change. I am pleased that he recognises the similarities. In designing this framework, we have learned from the successful example of the Climate Change Act—for example, the strong duty to achieve long-term targets, the requirement to report on progress and scrutiny of progress by an independent, statutory body, in this case, the Office for Environmental Protection. That mirrors the CCA. We are confident that the framework is every bit as strong as the CCA framework and that it provides certainty to society that the Government will achieve the targets, delivering significant environmental improvements.
Ongoing stakeholder engagement, expert advice and public consultation will help to inform future target areas, as part of the robust, evidence-led, target-setting process. The Government will, as a matter of course, conduct a wide range of consultations for the first set of long-term targets. I hope that that is clear. We do not need the amendments suggested by the shadow Minister, and I ask him to withdraw them.
Dr Whitehead
That is all quite terrific, but it is not quite what it says in the Bill. That is the problem. The Minister has set out a robust and wide-ranging procedure for setting targets and I hope that all the steps she mentioned are going to be followed. If they are, we have a good arrangement. However, if we look at the Bill, there is fairly scattered evidence that that is the way we are going to conduct ourselves. On the contrary, it actually appears to give a great deal of leeway for somebody or some people not to do most of those things in setting the targets, if that is what they wanted to do.
We are perhaps back to some of the discussions we had this morning about the extent to which the Bill has to stand not just the test of time, but the potential test of malevolence. If a well-minded and dedicated Minister, such as the one we have before us this afternoon, were to conduct the procedure, that is exactly how she would conduct it, and I would expect nothing less of her, because that is the frame of mind in which she approaches the issue—but, in legislating, we have to consider that not everyone would have that positive frame of mind. I do not want to divide the Committee, but I am concerned that the procedure in the Bill is too sketchily set out for comfort. Maybe, when we draw up the regulations, we could flesh out some of the things that the Minister said this afternoon, to assure ourselves that that is what we will do, and do properly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Sobel
I was not expecting to be called quite so soon, so I will move amendment 24 formally.
Amendment proposed: 24, in clause 3, page 3, line 20, leave out “31 October 2022” and insert “31 December 2020”.—(Alex Sobel.)
This amendment is intended to bring forward the deadline for laying regulations setting the PM2.5 target to December 2020.
Rebecca Pow
I could cut my speech short and just say that I am very pleased the hon. Member has withdrawn his amendment.
Rebecca Pow
I will give my speech then, Sir Roger.
The amendment would undermine the intention to ensure that we set targets via an open consultation process that allows sufficient time for relevant evidence to be gathered, scrutinised and tested. As part of that process, we intend to seek evidence from a wide range of stakeholder interests, carry out good quality scientific socioeconomic analysis, take advice from independent experts and conduct a public consultation, alongside the parliamentary scrutiny of the target SIs that I have mentioned many times before.
It is important that we get that right rather than rushing to set targets, so we do not want to bring the deadline forward from 31 October 2022. We have heard strong support for that approach from stakeholders, who are all keen to have time and space to contribute meaningfully to target development. It is critical that there is certainty about what our targets are by the time we review our environmental improvement plan. That is essential for us to set out appropriate interim targets—the ones that will get us to the long-term target—and consider what measures may be required to achieve both the interim and long-term targets. The review of the plan must happen by 31 January 2023, so to that end, the target deadline of 31 October 2022 works well.
The Committee should also note that 31 October 2022 is a deadline. It does not prevent us from setting a target earlier where we have robust evidence and have received the necessary input from experts, stakeholders and the public.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Can the Minister reassure us that the 2022 deadline does not mean that progress on those issues will not be made or that we cannot have interim targets before we reach the deadline? The whole thing is not being kicked off until 2022; we should still be doing our best to tackle the problem of clean air between now and then.
Rebecca Pow
The target deadline of 31 October 2022 works well for us to report back on our first environmental improvement plan three months later. We hope that some consultations will start during the process, so work will be under way to improve the environment, take advice, set targets and so on. Work will be under way to start the ball rolling.
Alex Sobel
I thank the Minister for giving some reassurance that the date is not absolutely set in stone and that measures could be introduced earlier, although obviously the date given in the amendment is ideal from my point of view and that of the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Environmental targets: effect
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 82, in clause 4, page 3, line 24, at end insert
“and,
(c) interim targets are met.”
This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to meet the interim targets they set.
For the Committee’s further enlightenment, I can say that amendment 24 was in a different place in the provisional grouping. I landed my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West in it slightly by assuming that it would be debated under clause 2; it is actually a separate discussion. I am sorry to my hon. Friend for that, but he did a brilliant job under the circumstances.
Amendment 82 is deceptively small but makes an important point about interim targets in this piece of legislation. The Bill requires interim targets to be set on a five-yearly basis. In the environmental improvement plans, the Government are required to set out the steps they will take over a 15-year period to improve the natural environment. However, environmental improvement plans are not legally binding; they are simply policy documents.
Although the plans need to be reviewed, potentially updated every five years and reported on every year, that is not the same as legal accountability. Indeed, voluntary environmental targets have been badly missed on a number of occasions. The target set in 2010 to end the inclusion of peat in amateur gardening products by 2020 will be badly missed. The target set in 2011 for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to conserve 50%—by area—of England’s sites of special scientific interest by 2020 has been abandoned and replaced with a new target to ensure that 38.7% of SSSIs are in favourable condition, which is only just higher than the current level. A number of voluntary, interim and other targets have clearly been missed because they are just reporting objects; they do not have legal accountability.
Interim targets should be legally binding to guarantee that they will be delivered, and it is vital to have a robust legal framework in place to hold the Government and public authorities to account—not just in the long term, but in the short term. As things stand, the Government could in theory set a long-term, legally binding target for 2037, as suggested in the legislation, but then avoid having to do anything whatever about meeting it until 2036.
Amendment 82 would insert the phrase, “interim targets are met.” That would effectively place a duty on the Secretary of State to meet the interim targets that they set. In that context, it is no different from the provisions of the Climate Change Act, which I keep repeating as an example for us all to follow. Indeed, how the five-year carbon budgets work is an example for all of us to follow. They were set up by the Climate Change Act effectively as interim targets before the overall target set for 2050, which is now a 100% reduction; it was an 80% reduction in the original Act.
Those five-year targets are set by the independent body—the Committee on Climate Change—and the Government are required to meet them. If the Government cannot meet them, they are required to take measures to rectify the situation shortly afterwards. Therefore, there are far better mechanisms than those in the Bill to give interim targets real life and ensure they are not just exercises on a piece of paper.
It is important that the Secretary of State is given a duty to meet the targets, because that means that they will have to introduce mechanisms to ensure that they meet those targets. That is what we anticipate would happen as a subset of these measures.
We need to take interim targets seriously, as I am sure the Minister would agree. Indeed, it is not a question of whether we take them seriously; it is a question of how we take them seriously, in a way that ensures that they are credible, achievable, workable and play a full part in the process of getting to the eventual targets that we set at the start of the Bill.
Kerry McCarthy
I will be very brief. I entirely support what my hon. Friend says about the need for interim targets. We have seen how the carbon budgets work under the Climate Change Act. There is real concern that the timetable might be slipping and that we might not manage to meet the commitments in the next couple of carbon budgets, but at least there is a mechanism.
I know that we have the environmental improvement plans, and that there is a requirement to review them and potentially update them every five years. However, there are so many strategy documents and plans. If we look at peat, for example, my hon. Friend mentioned the fact that the target set in 2010 for ending the inclusion of peat in amateur garden products by the end of this year will be missed. I know that the Government have a peat strategy, and there are various other things kicking around that are mentioned every time we talk about peat. But there is a lack of focus, a lack of drive and a lack of certainty as to where the Government are heading on that issue. I feel that if we had legally binding interim targets in the Bill, that would give a sense of direction and it would be something against which we could hold the Government to account—more so than with what is currently proposed.
Regarding my last intervention on the Minister, I was trying to be helpful. I was just asking her to give a reassurance that all the efforts to clear up our air and to tackle air pollution are going on regardless; it is not just about setting this target and whether we set it for 2022 or 2020. That is one particular measure. All I am trying to say is that I am looking for reassurances that the Government will still be focused on cleaning up our air. All she has to do is say yes.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling this amendment. Very quickly, I can give assurances that of course work is ongoing to clean up our air, because we have our clean air strategy. A great many processes are being put in place through that strategy to tackle all the key pollutants that affect air quality. The measures in the Bill come on top of that. I hope that gives the reassurance that was sought.
It is of course critical that we achieve our long-term targets to deliver significant environmental improvement, and this framework provides strong assurances that we will do so. The Bill has this whole framework of robust statutory requirements for monitoring, reporting and reviewing, combined with the Office for Environmental Protection and parliamentary scrutiny, to ensure that meeting the interim targets is taken seriously, without the need for them to be legally binding.
Interim targets are there to help the trajectory towards meeting the long-term targets, to ensure that the Government are staying on track. We cannot simply set a long-term target for 2037 and forget about it. Through this cycle—the reporting requirement and the requirement to set out the interim target of up to five years—the Bill will ensure that the Government take early, regular steps to achieve the long-term targets and can be held to account. The OEP and Parliament will, of course, play their role too.
To be clear, we have a little mechanism called the triple lock, which is the key to driving short-term progress. The Government must have an environmental improvement plan, which sets out the steps they intend to take to improve the environment, and review it at least every five years. In step 2, the Government must report on progress towards achieving the targets every year. In step 3, the OEP will hold us to account on progress towards achieving the targets, and every year it can recommend how we could make better progress, if it thinks better progress needs to be made. The Government then have to respond.
If progress seems too slow, or is deemed to be too slow, the Government may need to develop new policies to make up for that when reviewing their EIPs. They will not wait until 2037 to do that; these things can be done as a continuous process, and that is important.
The shadow Minister rightly referred back to the Climate Change Act and the five-yearly carbon budgets, as did the hon. Member for Bristol East. He asked why, if the carbon budgets were legally binding, the interim targets are not. That is a good question, but of course the targets in the Environment Bill are quite different from carbon budgets. Carbon budgets relate to a single metric: the UK’s net greenhouse gas emissions. These targets will be set on several different aspects of the natural environment.
As I am sure hon. Members will understand, that is very complicated; it is an interconnected system that is subject to natural factors as well as to human activity. Additionally, aspects of the natural environment such as water quality or soil health might respond more quickly to some things and more slowly to others, even with ambitious interventions. It is possible that the Government could adopt extremely ambitious measures and still miss their interim targets due to external factors.
What is important, in this case, is that a missed interim target is recognised and that the Government consider what is needed to get back on track. I am convinced that the system that is there to recognising that—the reporting, analysis and so on—will highlight it. There will be reporting through the EIPs, the targets and the OEP scrutiny, and the incorporation of any new interim targets or measures; it can all be looked at in the five-yearly review of the EIP. I believe there is a strong framework there already.
Finally, of course, the OEP will have the power to bring legal proceedings if the Government breach their environmental law duties, including their duty to achieve long-term targets. Of course, we cannot reach the long-term targets unless we have achieved the interim targets first. I hope I have been clear on that; I feel strongly that we have the right process here, and I hope the shadow Minister will kindly withdraw his amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I hope the Minister will not think I am being too unkind if I say that she is describing a triple lock process rather more like a triple bunch of flowers process. Yes, what she says about the process operating under positive circumstances is good. Indeed, if it happens as she has outlined, we will have a good process in place. It may well be that as time goes by and people have more confidence in how the process works, and if the Government of the day play ball with that process in its own right, the outcome will be good.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 83, in clause 4, page 3, line 24, at end insert
“and,
(c) steps identified under section 5(5)(b) are taken.”
This amendment places a duty on the Secretary of State to do what they have said needs to be done in their report.
The amendment attempts to tidy up the procedures in clauses 4 and 5. Clause 5 talks about reporting duties, and it identifies the steps that are taken to make sure the Secretary of State does what they need to do according to their report. At present, the steps identified in clause 5 stand separate from the Secretary of State’s report, and the Secretary of State appears to report in isolation. Various things have to be done, but they are not tied in with the report.
The amendment would ensure that the
“steps identified under section 5(5)(b) are taken”,
which would mean that the Secretary of State’s report is not only a piece of paper. The amendment would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to do what their report says needs to be done, so the report would have real substance for future activity in this area.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the shadow Minister for tabling the amendment. I am sure he agrees that the most critical thing is the meeting of long-term targets in order to deliver significant environmental improvement, rather than the specific process of getting there. Our target framework provides strong assurance that the Government will achieve them, so the amendment is not necessary.
If a long-term target is missed, the Government’s remedial plan must set out the steps they intend to take towards meeting the missed target as soon as reasonably practicable. The Government will remain under an explicit duty to meet the target. The OEP will have a key role in holding the Government to account on the delivery of targets, both through the annual scrutiny of progress and through its enforcement functions. If a long-term target is missed, the OEP may decide to commence an investigation, which could ultimately lead to enforcement action. We expect the case for enforcement action to increase with time if the target keeps being missed, including if the Government fail to take the steps outlined in the remedial plan. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
I am a little happier with the Minister’s consideration of that amendment. I think it might be a good idea to pull these things together, but I accept what the Minister says, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Environmental targets: effect
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 5, page 4, line 1, at end insert—
“(c) include a timetable for adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures, and the authorities responsible for their delivery, and
(d) an analysis of the options considered and their estimated impact on delivering progress against the relevant targets.”.
The amendment strengthens the Secretary of State’s reporting by including a timetable and analysis.
We now turn to clause 5, which sets out that the Secretary of State must
“set out the steps the Secretary of State has taken, or intends to take, to ensure the specified standard is achieved as soon as reasonably practicable.”
To give the clause a little more robustness, the amendment would add at the end that the Secretary of State’s report should
“(c) include a timetable for adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures, and the authorities responsible for their delivery, and
(d) an analysis of the options considered and their estimated impact on delivering progress against the relevant targets.”
That sounds a little routine, but we think that without such shaping, the report could be pretty much anything. We could give the report considerable shape by requiring it to contain a timetable for the adoption, implementation and review of the chosen measures, to shape and specify them; to set out who will be responsible for doing those things; and to contain an analysis of the options that have been considered and their estimated impact. That might not necessarily be an impact assessment as we traditionally know them in legislation, but a background analysis of those options and how they would affect the delivery of progress against relevant targets would be a good net addition to the Bill. I anticipate that the Minister may think otherwise, but I am interested to hear what she has to say. I am interested to know whether she thinks that such a process, which would give reports a lot more shape, might be considered for future reports. That might be done by further secondary legislation, or by other means—not necessarily those that are laid out in the amendment.
Rebecca Pow
I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman agrees that missing a legally binding target should lead to clear consequences and next steps. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary, however, because it does not strengthen the requirements that we are creating. The Bill requires the Government to publish a remedial plan to achieve the missed standard
“as soon as reasonably practicable”.
To draw up their remedial plan, the Government would therefore have to assess both what is practicable—feasible —and what is reasonable. That would include how long the chosen measures are expected to take to achieve the missed standard, how and by whom they would be implemented, and what alternatives had been considered. To show that they had met that standard, the Government would need to set out how they had selected the measures included in the remedial plan—I think that is what the shadow Minister was getting at—as part of sound policy making and to ensure transparency.
The OEP would have a key role to play. If, for example, the Government failed to publish a remedial plan that met the relevant statutory requirements, the OEP might decide to open an investigation, which ultimately could lead to enforcement action. There are already very strong measures to back up the remedial plan, and in case standards or targets are missed. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Dr Whitehead
As I anticipated, I did not have an eager taker for my suggestion. Nevertheless, the Minister put on the record some of the anticipated structure following those reports. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Environmental targets: review
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 183, in clause 6, page 4, line 21, at end insert—
“(3A) In considering whether the natural environment would be significantly improved, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that—
(a) the terrestrial and marine natural environment in England has improved as a system; and
(b) that the achievement of any targets which meet the conditions specified in subsection (8) would constitute significant improvement in that matter.”
This amendment would require a review to consider whether significant improvement is achieved for the environment as a whole, as well as for certain individual aspects of the environment.
We now move to the fabled land of clause 6. We have been looking at it from afar and thinking that it might be a mirage, but it turns out that, like the targets we are talking about, it may be within our grasp. The amendment is important when it comes to looking at the system of the terrestrial and marine environment as a whole in the consideration of significant improvement to the natural environment.
We have talked about what we mean by significant improvement. We have discussed whether in certain circumstances, the improvement of the habitat for a particular species near Birmingham might constitute significant improvement, or whether we need a more holistic consideration of significant improvement. I think we need something more holistic, because it is important that our individual efforts—we will discuss them later in relation to local nature action plans—join up, and that they are seen as a whole and as parts of a wider process that provides systematic improvement for the whole terrestrial and marine environment. Individual improvements should therefore be judged against that wider yardstick.
Rebecca Pow
I welcome the shadow Minister’s intention of ensuring that the Secretary of State looks at whether targets will achieve significant improvement in the natural environment as a whole, as well as in individual areas of it. I do not believe that the amendment is necessary. The shadow Minister will not be surprised to hear me say that, but even in our evidence session of last week, Dr Richard Benwell, chief executive officer of Wildlife and Countryside Link, stated that
“the environment has to operate as a system. If you choose one thing to focus on, you end up causing more problems to solve.”––[Official Report, Environment Public Bill Committee, 12 March 2020; c. 116, Q157.]
In line with that, the significant improvement test—a legal requirement in the Bill—is intended to consider both the breadth and the amount of improvement, with the aim of assessing whether England’s natural environment as a whole would significantly improve. It is a holistic approach, and the Bill’s definition of the natural environment is drafted to be broad enough to encompass all its elements, including the marine environment, which we discussed earlier. I believe the shadow Minister and I are thinking along the same lines, as I think he was intimating that he wants this all-encompassing approach, which is explicitly highlighted in the Bill’s explanatory notes.
The Secretary of State will consider expected environmental improvement across all aspects of England’s natural environment, both terrestrial and marine, when conducting the significant improvement test. The test involves assessing whether England’s natural environment would significantly improve as a result of collectively meeting the long-term targets, which are legally binding, under the Bill, alongside any other relevant legislative environmental targets to which we are also adhering. I hope that reassures the shadow Minister, and I ask him to withdraw amendment 183.
Dr Whitehead
I am interested to know what status the Minister thinks the explanatory notes have in these proceedings. I imagine they are rather more than insignificant, and rather less than completely significant. I read the explanatory notes to any piece of legislation. Sometimes, it occurs to me that they run very close to what is in the legislation, and sometimes they depart a little, yet they come before us in the same form on all occasions. They are a sort of concordance that goes along with the legislation so that we can understand the clauses more easily.
I am not sure whether there is a consistent production line technique for explanatory notes, and whether they have at least some legal significance in terms of seeking the Minister’s intention in presenting a piece of legislation or, indeed, a Committee’s intention in seeking to legislate.
Rebecca Pow
The shadow Minister makes a very good point about the explanatory notes, although I always love having a look at them. Explanatory notes can obviously be used in the interpretation of the Bill and in legal proceedings, if necessary, as part of wider evidence.
Dr Whitehead
That is a very helpful intervention, and it is what I thought. It means that even if explanatory notes appear to stray a little from what one might read in the legislation, if one took it absolutely at face value, we can rely on them for clarification, for future reference. That is an important point, because this afternoon, in the Minister’s response to my inquiry, she relied on what the explanatory notes said about the Bill, rather than what the Bill said. I take her point. If we are to take on board what the explanatory notes say, then that is not a bad response to my point. I wonder whether it would have been a better idea to put that stuff in the legislation, but hey, no one is perfect. We probably have a reasonably good framework to proceed with, in the light of the Minister’s explanation. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Dr Whitehead
I beg to move amendment 86, in clause 6, page 4, line 41, at end insert—
“(9) In carrying out a review under this section, the Secretary of State must consider whether any targets relating to the priority areas in section 1 that are contained in legislation which forms part of the law of England and Wales—
(a) have expired, or
(b) are required to be achieved by a date which has passed.
(10) If paragraph (a) or (b) applies, then the significant environmental improvement test is only met if a new target or targets are set relating to the same matters which specify a new standard and a future date by which such standards must be reached.”
This amendment prevents the targets from meeting the significant improvement test through virtue of being out of date and so more easily achieved.
The amendment seeks to ensure that—
Richard Graham
On a point of order, Sir Roger, am I right in thinking that we have got roughly halfway down page 1 of the selection list, and still have more than three full pages to go? By your calculation, are we on time to complete this business by 6 pm? If we are not, would it be possible for the Opposition to consider which of the amendments they most want to discuss, debate in detail and to push to a vote?
The Chair
Mr Graham, there is a wonderful organisation known as the usual channels, and I think you and I should allow them to do their job.
Dr Whitehead
I think we were aiming to get to the end of clause 6, so this is the last amendment that we want to raise this afternoon.
This amendment seeks to ensure that measures that are considered in carrying out a review are timely and in date. For example, the Secretary of State cannot carry out a review when things are out of date, and so more easily achieved than they would have been if the tests were in date. The amendment requires the Secretary of State to consider whether the targets that relate to the priority areas in clause 1 have expired or are required to be achieved by a date that has passed. That sounds a little like sell-by dates on cartons of milk, but it is more important than that, because a review could address targets that have expired, have been changed or have been achieved, and then the effect of that review could be pretty null.
This amendment puts at the end of the clause the requirement that
“the Secretary of State must consider whether any targets…have expired.”
If either of the considerations in proposed new subsection (9) apply, then under proposed new subsection (10),
“the significant environmental improvement test is only met if a new target or targets are set relating to the same matters which specify a new standard and a future date by which such standards must be reached.”
That is to say, if, in carrying out a review, the Secretary of State considers a target to have expired, or to have been required to be achieved by a date which has passed, then the significant environmental improvement test is met only if that is rectified.
As hon. Members said this morning, this is a moving and creaking ship. Things can change over time. New targets can be put in place, and existing targets can be changed, amended and improved. This amendment reflects the fact that over time, that may well happen. Indeed, some targets might be achieved and exceeded. If a Secretary of State is reporting on a target that has been exceeded, but is saying how a target should be reached, then clearly that report does not make a great deal of sense. The amendment rectifies that possibility, and puts in place a requirement that new targets be sought through the target-setting process discussed this morning. It allies these targets with the significant improvement test, and allows them to be met in a coherent way.
Rebecca Pow
I thank the hon. Member. If I may say so, he tables slightly tortuous amendments and it is often a case of trying to get one’s head around them. I reassure him that this is not a creaking ship. This is a buoyant ship sailing towards a bright new blue environmentally enhanced horizon. As this is the last amendment today, I feel I can slip that in.
Dr Whitehead
Perhaps I can clarify the issue. My understanding of the term “creaking ship” is that it is a ship that is under sail, flourishing and driving through the water, and whose timbers are creaking as it is propelled to new horizons.
Rebecca Pow
I feel a bit of backtracking going on here.
Amendment 86 would mean that the significant improvement test could be met only if any targets within the four priority areas that have expired have been replaced by new targets. I reassure the hon. Member that the Government would consider current targets—not expired targets—only when conducting the significant improvement test. That test involves assessing whether England’s natural environment would improve significantly as a result of meeting the longer-term legally binding targets. That has taken up a large part of today’s discussion and is set under the Bill, as well as any other relevant legislation relating to environmental targets.
If the test is not passed, the Government must set out how they plan to use their new target-setting powers to close that gap. In practice, that will most likely involve plans to modify existing targets, make them more ambitious, or set new targets. That helps the Government to focus on the most pressing environmental issues of our time, rather than simply replacing targets that have expired. Some expired targets might, for example, no longer be the key issues on which we should focus in our long-term goals.
The Office for Environmental Protection has a key role through the exercising of its scrutiny functions, and it could publish a report if it disagreed with the Government’s conclusions that the existing targets were sufficient to pass the significant improvement test. The Government would then have to respond to that OEP report, and that response must be published and laid before Parliament. That is a clear pathway. The process ensures that Parliament, supported by the OEP, can hold the Government to account on the sufficiency of their measures to significantly improve the natural environment. I hope that clarifies the situation, and I ask the hon. Member kindly to withdraw amendment 86.
Dr Whitehead
I think that does provide clarification, to a reasonable extent. The amendment sought to copper-bottom guarantees, but the ship can sail quite well under the circumstances set out by the Minister, while perhaps not being fully caulked. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
Before everybody leaves, the expectation is that the Committee will sit at 11.30 on Thursday 19 March. I say “expectation” because, as we all know, we live in rather strange times, and I feel I owe it to Mr Graham, having slapped him down a bit, to answer the question properly.
The timetable for the Bill is agreed by the usual channels, in consultation with the Minister and shadow Minister. There should be more than adequate time to thoroughly debate the Bill, given the programme we have. I have no problems with that whatsoever. However, I understand that discussions are taking place that may affect the progress not only of this Bill, but of other legislation. That remains to be seen. We may find this extremely important piece of legislation going on ice for a week, a month or six months.
Before we part—in case we do not meet even on Thursday —I want to say two things. The proceedings today have been slightly ramshackle around the edges, but I can live with that. You have been immensely courteous, thorough and good-humoured about the proceedings, and I am grateful to you for that.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Leo Docherty.)
Birmingham Commonwealth Games Bill [ Lords ]
Tuesday 17th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 View all Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 17 March 2020 - (17 Mar 2020)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public, and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary points to make. The most important is: happy St Patrick’s day. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication. I call the Minister to move the programme motion, which was agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
I beg to move,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 17 March) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 17 March;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 19 March;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 24 March;
(2) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 5; Schedule 1; Clauses 6 to 10; Schedule 2; Clauses 11 to 20; Schedule 3; Clauses 21 to 34; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 24 March.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh. You are a vision of green today.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Nigel Huddleston.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee room. We will now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. It shows the order in which clauses, schedules and new clauses will be debated.
Clauses 1 to 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clauses 6 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Short title
Nigel Huddleston
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 34, page 20, line 16, leave out subsection (2).
I have rarely been in a Committee where the Chair has spoken more than the Committee members. We will see how that goes today.
For Bills starting in the House of Lords, a privilege amendment is included to recognise the right or privileges of this place to control any charges on the people and on public funds. It is standard practice to remove such amendments at this stage of a Bill’s passage in the House of Commons.
Amendment 1 agreed to.
Clause 34, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Local Commonwealth Games levy
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations to provide the powers necessary for the relevant local authorities to levy charges on hotel occupancy and short-term rentals in their respective areas for the duration of the Birmingham Commonwealth Games in the United Kingdom.
(2) The regulations must define ‘relevant local authorities’ to include the local authorities for each Games location.”—(Catherine West.)
This new clause would provide for money to be raised during the Games by the relevant local authorities charging a levy on hotel occupancy and short term rentals.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
You do look splendid in your green today, Ms McDonagh. I wish all Committee members a happy St Patrick’s day. I want to speak to all four new clauses at the same time. Am I permitted to do that?
Catherine West
Thank you for that clarification.
Given that we have sped through all the clauses in the Bill so quickly, it will come as no surprise that the Opposition are delighted to welcome the prospect of the Commonwealth games in 2022. With the big question mark over the Olympic games this morning, let us hope that, by 2022, we can all be enjoying the Commonwealth games. We are all thinking about Japan and the international organising committee in these tough times.
I welcome the fact that the Government have looked at the broad question of a carbon-neutral games, which was the subject of my first question to the Minister in departmental questions the week before last, but I want to highlight two issues on the environment.
The first is the question of the bus provider, National Express. On our visit to Birmingham last week, I was concerned to learn that it is considering keeping diesel. Given that we are being so accommodating on the Bill, can the Minister touch on the conversations the Department is having with the provider around the carbon-neutral games? That is not directly relevant to my new clause, but I wanted to introduce it, because while it would be easy to see this as a national project—indeed, it is—there are also many things that could come out of it for the region. I am concerned that the fleet will still be diesel, when it could be electric, given the two-year run-in to the games. The Minister may not be able to respond now, but if he would like to write to me later, I would be grateful for his views on what progress is being made towards a carbon-neutral games.
Secondly, there has been a lot of debate about the environment as it relates to the Perry Barr flyover, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Preet Kaur Gill) would be keen for us to mention in Committee. Even though that relates to the Lords element of proceedings, I know the Minister has listened carefully to the consideration of the issues involved. Although this is mainly a matter for local government because it pertains to highways, I still believe it is important to put it on record.
New clause 1 was spoken to on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston, who of course has a massive interest in the Commonwealth games because there is going to be cricket there—we are all very pleased about that. She and others in the region have looked on a cross-party basis at the question of a hotel levy, and are encouraging the Government to seriously consider such a levy so that the region can have that little bit of extra funding. That is the question the new clause deals with, and I would be grateful if we could debate it now, so that we can hear what the Government’s prima facie view is.
We on the Opposition Benches accept that this is a new idea. A £1 a night per room levy was not, for example, applied to the Olympic games in Stratford, so the new clause seeks to introduce something new. However, we are also aware that. with a regional games such as this, there is an argument for a hotel levy to be spent exclusively in the region, in order to help tourism and to help the region in general pay for what is going to be quite an expensive project. I am sure that taxpayers in Birmingham and the midlands would want us to consider affordability at this stage of the Bill, so would the Minister enlighten us as to the Government’s thinking about a hotel levy?
Nigel Huddleston
I very much appreciate the comments made by the hon. Lady, and the tone that she and the Opposition parties have adopted towards the Bill to date. I completely agree with her earlier comment that, in these difficult times, the games are something we can all look forward to, and I appreciate the speed with which we have gone through the Bill in Committee so far. I will address some of her comments.
I am aware of the issues relating to the A34 highway scheme. I know there are strong views on it, both locally and in the House, and that local residents have petitioned the council and raised the prospect of a judicial review. Although this is indeed a decision for Birmingham City Council, as the authority responsible for the local road network and the wider regeneration of the Perry Barr area, those concerns need to be taken seriously, and I will be happy to continue my dialogue with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr about that.
Regarding the Sprint routes, I understand that a decision has recently been taken to use zero-emission vehicles for the operation of Sprint, which in turn has increased the timescales for delivering the scheme because of the additional infrastructure requirements. The broader issue of climate change and sustainability is one that we all take seriously, as does the organising committee, and there is a real commitment to ensuring that sustainability is a key pillar of the planning and delivery of the games. The organising committee has signed up to the UN’s sports for climate action framework, which aims to combat climate change and raise global awareness and action. That is a first for the Commonwealth games, and represents a key commitment to work towards global climate change goals. The organising committee is also in the process of developing its sustainability strategy for the games, and has convened a local sustainability forum that is supported by many bodies, Government Departments and agencies, including the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency.
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s comments relating to the proposals for a hotel tax, which is a hotly debated issue that has already been discussed in great detail during the Bill’s previous stages. There is constant dialogue between the Government and the council on all aspects of the games, including the budget. Birmingham City Council is absolutely committed to meeting its financial contribution to the games’ budget, and has published a plan for how it will do so without the need for a hotel tax. In any case, this Bill is not necessarily the appropriate vehicle, as it is not a money Bill and a statutory hotel tax is not necessary for the council to meet its share of the cost of the games, although I appreciate that the concept is much debated.
Catherine West
I am very pleased to respond to the Minister’s remarks. First, I welcome the fact that having a carbon-neutral games is a key value. I will push him later on by letter on the question of the provider and what efforts are being made to introduce the least polluting buses. To respond on the question of the Perry Barr flyover, the current cost is quite high for a local authority. I would seek a reassurance that, if the local authority is unable to cover that cost, the Government are able to step in. It does seem expensive, given residents feel they are getting back from the games, and there is a lot of opposition at the moment.
Moving on to the principle of new clause 1—the hotel levy—my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston and other local MPs in the west midlands and Birmingham city area make a valid point. While full VAT is charged on hotel stays, the Minister will agree that the Treasury is not famous for ensuring there is a trickle-down effect in regions. Will he have his officers look fully at whether there could be some kind of agreement whereby some of the VAT is more transparently redirected to the region, to offset the cost of putting the games on at a local level? Would he care to respond to those issues before we move on?
Nigel Huddleston
I am happy to continue the dialogue, and I commit to responding to the hon. Lady’s letter and the questions she raised.
Regarding any further location of taxes and VAT, I do not think we really have a mechanism for that in the UK. On the point about fundraising and ensuring that Birmingham and the west midlands receive adequate financial support to ensure that the games are successful—we are talking about more than £750 million of Government money going into the games—I will happily work with the hon. Lady to ensure she is comfortable that the west midlands are indeed getting a substantial proportion of Government expenditure for that.[Official Report, 19 March 2020, Vol. 673 c. 11MC.] I am happy to continue the dialogue with her.
The Chair
Does the shadow Minister want to push the new clause to a vote or to withdraw it?
Catherine West
I am keen not to push it to a vote at this stage, but I hold on to the right to raise it later in the passage of the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Payment of a living wage
“(1) Within 3 months of this section coming into force, the Secretary of State must direct the Organising Committee to prepare a strategy for ensuring that a living wage, as a minimum, is paid to all staff employed—
(a) directly by the Organising Committee, and
(b) by organisations awarded contracts to deliver the Games.
(2) In preparing the strategy under subsection (1), the Organising Committee must consult representatives of businesses and trade unions in the Birmingham area.
(3) For the purposes of this section, the hourly living wage for the year 2020 is—
(a) £9.30 outside London, and
(b) £10.75 inside London.
(4) For the purposes of this section, the living wage for each year after 2020 shall be the amounts determined by the Living Wage Foundation.
(5) The Secretary of State must direct the Organising Committee to seek accreditation from the Living Wage Foundation once it is eligible to do so.”.—(Catherine West.)
This new clause would direct the Organising Committee to seek accreditation from the Living Wage Foundation.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Catherine West
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause deals with the living wage for Birmingham and the west midlands. As we heard on Second Reading, the living wage is popular in the region and has been pushed by campaigners and trade unions for quite a while. During a recent visit to Birmingham, I heard evidence from staff of the Trades Union Congress, and I understand that the living wage would be very welcome from the point of view of the workforce. For example, a number of people working in the leisure industry currently do not even receive the national minimum wage, let alone the real living wage. We know that the real living wage makes a huge difference to the lives of working people and that, if staff receive the living wage, they need only work one job, whereas many people—particularly women—on the minimum wage or less have to work two to three jobs, which puts enormous strain on their families and their mental health.
The new clause is very simple. It seeks to introduce the living wage for all staff directly employed in the running of and preparation for the games and for subcontractors. I thought about inviting the Living Wage Foundation to give evidence to the Committee, but I felt that, on balance, we all know what the living wage is and so did not need that evidence. Those of us who know members of the workforce who have gone from being on the minimum wage to being on the living wage know that it makes an enormous difference.
The new clause seeks to ensure that the prosperity that the games will bring—not only in July 2022, but in the run-up to the games—will have an uplift effect in the region. It aims not only to promote things such as women in construction, more apprenticeships and safety in the workforce and in the works going on in and around the region for the games, but to promote that concept as a legacy of the games. For example, we all want to see more grassroots sport as a result of the games. Introducing the living wage would push up the hourly rates of people working in the leisure industry, such as swimming and athletics teachers or coaches in the personal training industry. We would be doing an enormous service to not only sport and leisure in general, but, importantly, the region of Birmingham and the west midlands, which, as Members know, has the lowest level of accreditation in the UK.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Lady for tabling the new clause. This issue has been raised several times during the Bill’s passage, and the Government share the intent to make sure that we become a higher-wage economy. I concur particularly with her comments on the hospitality and leisure sector. However, I am confident that the games are setting an excellent example on fair pay. As an arm’s length body, the Birmingham 2022 organising committee’s pay scales are set in line with civil service pay rates, and all direct employees of the organising committee are therefore paid above the Living Wage Foundation’s rates.
Of course, all organisations awarded games contracts will be required to pay at least the Government’s national living wage, which is set to receive its biggest cash increase ever, rising by 6.2% from 1 April 2020, which will mean a pay rise of almost £1,000 for around 2 million workers across the UK. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget speech last week, the Government are also targeting the national living wage reaching two thirds of median earnings by 2024, provided economic conditions allow. On current forecasts, that means a living wage of more than £10.50 per hour.
The Chancellor also announced that the national insurance threshold will be increased from £8,632 to £9,500 from April. Taken together, the changes to the national living wage, income tax and national insurance mean that someone working full time on the minimum wage will be more than £5,200 better off per year than in 2010.
Let us look at the wider picture of huge Government investment in Birmingham and the west midlands. Such investment will see thousands of jobs created and will lift skills and training opportunities across the region. Games partners continue to develop plans to maximise the employment, training and volunteering opportunities that the games will give rise to, ensuring lasting and meaningful benefits for those living and working in the region.
We should remember that the Birmingham 2022 games will be the first Commonwealth games with a social values charter. Organisations bidding for games contracts will be asked to demonstrate how they support delivery of the charter—for example, by promoting local employment opportunities and skills development. The games will provide a huge uplift to the local and regional economy and provide fantastic employment, training and skills development opportunities for local people and businesses. Although I understand the intent of the hon. Lady’s new clause, given what I have outlined, I ask her to withdraw it.
Catherine West
I accept the Minister’s arguments about the introduction of increases to the minimum wage, but I do not accept that it would be as good as having the living wage and living wage accreditation, with the uplift that that would give to the region as soon as the Bill is passed. I do not agree that the new clause should be withdrawn, but I do accept that I will have a further opportunity to raise this important matter during the passage of the Bill.
Catherine West
Yes. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 3
Gambling advertising
“(1) The Organising Committee must not enter into any sponsorship, or contractual arrangement, with any business or company that derives part or all of its income from gambling.
(2) For the purposes of this section, ‘gambling’ is defined as it is in section 3 of the Gambling Act 2005.” —(Catherine West.)
This new clause would prevent the Organising Committee from receiving sponsorship from gambling companies.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Catherine West
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am pleased to introduce this new clause, which deals with gambling advertising and the Commonwealth games. We all know that my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) is a fierce campaigner on this question, as are others in the House, including the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler). There is considerable concern in the House around gambling advertising, and I want to see that reflected in the Bill. I want gambling companies barred from sponsoring the games. I know it is unlikely that the organising committee will enter into an agreement with a gambling company, but it is important to have that in the Bill so that we can be sure that gambling companies will be responsible in how they proceed.
Gambling is a significant and harmful aspect of sport in general, and the NHS has recently opened a gambling clinic for 14-year-olds. The Minister and I have discussed the concerns in the House. We are pleased that the FA has decided that young people who want to watch football on their phones should not have to register with a gambling company first—that has now been stopped. That is down to the campaigning from expert Members in this House, and I want to see that apply to any sport. Because the Bill falls under the heading of sport, I want a specific pledge from the Minister to prevent any form of official gambling support. That would send a strong and notable signal that gambling in sport should be discouraged.
The Commonwealth games, with the 54 members of the Commonwealth, is an international phenomenon. It would be negative for young people watching the games to be bombarded with gambling messages. Although we have the issue of our 14-year-olds and other young people succumbing to the addiction of gambling, we would not want that to spread across any other Commonwealth country. I hope the Minister will look carefully at the new clause and advise us on how those values can be brought to the Commonwealth games.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I know we will continue to debate issues of gambling with many Members from across the House, particularly as we review the Gambling Act 2005 as it relates specifically to new clause 3.
As hon. Members know, commercial revenue, including sponsorship, forms an important part of the games budget and will reduce the level of public sector investment that would otherwise be required for the games. Securing sponsorship and granting authorisations to associate with the games are matters for the Birmingham 2022 organising committee and Commonwealth Games Federation. Their negotiations with potential sponsors are continuing, with three sponsors announced to date: WLG Gowling, an international law firm; Gl Group, a recruitment services firm; and Longines, who will be the official timekeeper for the games. All potential sponsors will have to demonstrate their alignment with Birmingham 2022’s vision and mission, and an ongoing commitment to social values, as set out in the organising committee’s social values charter.
Catherine West
I am pleased to hear the reassurances from the Minister. If other concerns unfold during the passage of the Bill, we will raise them at a later stage if we need to. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Broadcasting: listed sporting events
“(1) The Secretary of State must designate the Games as a Group A listed sporting event.
(2) For the purposes of this section, a ‘Group A listed sporting event’ is an event included in Group A of the list maintained by the Secretary of State under section 97 of the Broadcasting Act 1996.” —(Catherine West.)
This new clause would direct the Secretary of State to make the Games available on free to air television.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Catherine West
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a very topical debate. Many Members will be aware that the future of the BBC is high on the list of priorities for the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and the shadow DCMS team. Of course, it is not only the BBC that provides sport free to air; other channels do so as well. In this crisis of coronavirus, it is increasingly clear how important the concept of free-to-air viewing is. We do not want people to feel that they have to rush to spend hundreds of pounds to watch sport, particularly given that they cannot, at the moment, pop down to the local to watch a match any more. The shadow team has campaigned on this issue for different sports, and I am keen to reflect that campaigning and those values in the Bill.
I am keen to hear the Department’s thinking, and an efficient way to do that is to move a new clause so that we can have the debate and the Minister’s response recorded in Hansard. This simple new clause seeks to have the Commonwealth games on free to air so that everyone can enjoy them. The BBC has its networks around the world—the fantastic international service it offers and its different language services. The issue is particularly important for the 54 nations participating in the Commonwealth games. I would be pleased to hear from the Minister what the current thinking is about free-to-air broadcasting, and in particular whether the games will be classified under group A, rather than group B, under the broadcasting categories.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. May I also wish everyone a happy St Paddy’s day?
I rise to support new clause 4, in the name of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green. In keeping with this stage of the Bill, I will be relatively brief. We have seen from the decline in participation in many sports—notably cricket and others—that when live broadcast is moved from terrestrial TV to subscription TV, participation rates can plummet, and that sport is then affected in the medium and long term. The current issues surrounding the Six Nations coverage highlights that we need a much broader debate on this matter. In the meantime, I am happy to lend my support to the new clause to protect the games.
The SNP fully supports the Birmingham Commonwealth games. Everyone in Scotland was very proud of Glasgow’s Commonwealth games, and I hope the games have the same impact in Birmingham as they did in Glasgow. But I do have to note—as we always do—that the Glasgow games were delivered without any financial support from this place. I can sense that the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk straining to tell me that this matter is devolved, and he would be right, but that cuts both ways. We had to go 10 rounds with the Treasury to secure any appropriate Barnett consequentials flowing from the London 2012 games and, prior to that, the Manchester Commonwealth games. We would appreciate that not being the case. We will table an amendment on Report to try to ensure that 100% Barnett consequentials are secured. That assurance has been given over the Dispatch Box, but we would feel a lot more secure if the commitment were part of the law of the land.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank Opposition Members for their comments. This topic will be hotly debated, and I know that the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee is aware of these issues and concerns.
On the Government’s support for the games in Scotland, hosting major events is indeed, as the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North acknowledged, a devolved matter, with responsible agencies in each of the devolved Administrations. Support from DCMS and UK Sport complements and aids the ambitions of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in identifying and securing events across the whole UK. The UK Government also support Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in UK-wide matters, including the delivery of Government guarantees on reserved policies areas. The hon. Member mentioned the great success of the Glasgow games. I completely agree. The whole of Scotland can be very proud of those games, which I will mention further in a moment; they were an incredible success.
The Commonwealth Games Federation and Birmingham 2022 are committed to ensuring that as many people as possible can access the games via their TV, mobile phone, computer screen and tablet—whichever device they choose. I have been assured that, as part of its digital strategy, the organising committee is looking to provide content on a diverse number of digital platforms, with a view to maximising audience and reach. As the Commonwealth games are a listed event, broadcasting rights must already be made available to the qualifying free-to-air terrestrial broadcasters on fair and reasonable terms. In any case, the listing regime ensures only that events are available to qualifying channels, and does not guarantee that an event will be broadcast by a free-to-air broadcaster.
Free-to-air channels have the opportunity to bid to show live coverage of group B events and have done so successfully in the past, as with the BBC’s live coverage of previous Commonwealth games held on the Gold Coast and in Glasgow. The Commonwealth games have been in group B since the list was put together in 1998 and have had excellent live coverage on free-to-air television, with 35 million domestic viewers in total for the Glasgow games. The event’s group B listing helps to enable extensive free-to-air coverage for the nation and allows the organising committee to agree live free-to-air coverage as it sees fit.
We believe that the current list strikes the appropriate balance. Reconsidering which group the Commonwealth games sit in would not be appropriate, as the organising committee is in the middle of a competitive commercial process with potential rights holders, and cannot pre-empt the outcome of those negotiations. I am sure hon. Members will appreciate that any change to the listed events regime at this time could therefore significantly and detrimentally affect the ongoing negotiations. However, I appreciate and share the spirit of the new clause, which aligns with the organising committee’s vision to ensure Birmingham 2022 is the games for everyone, with everyone having the opportunity to access and experience them, should they wish to do so.
In that vein, let me remind hon. Members that over a million tickets for games events will be available across 11 days of elite sport. Fairness, affordability and accessibility will be the central underpinnings of the organising committee’s ticketing strategy. I am therefore confident that there will be many ways for people to access and enjoy the games, whether on TV, mobile, computer screen, tablet or in person. Accordingly, I hope that the Committee can see that the new clause is not required, and that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green sees fit to withdraw her new clause.
Catherine West
I am pleased to sum up on new clause 4. I accept the Minister’s point that we are in the middle of a competitive tendering exercise, and I am happy to hold fire. However, I welcome the debate we have had, and it is important to have had it at this stage.
I also welcome the thoughts of the SNP spokesman—particularly his reference to the 35 million viewers who watched the games in Glasgow and to the Six Nations competition. I shadow declare an interest, with a Scotland rugby supporter in my household.
Catherine West
Not that it is always a happy Saturday. Hopefully, the games will lead to more grassroots participation. I would be interested, at a future date, to hear the assessment of Scottish MPs of the participation rates in grassroots sport as a result of the Glasgow Commonwealth games.
I note that the DCMS Committee has opined on broadcasting, and that is a live and ongoing debate. On value and the importance of as many people watching the games as possible, the London experience in 2012 sadly coincided with mass cutbacks to municipal and school sport. During 2012, high-achieving local authorities —I am sure Merton was one of them, Ms McDonagh —allowed all under-18-year-olds to pay £1 a swim, for example, which promoted swimming as a sport that many people could enjoy. If young people watch those fantastic swimming races, I hope that families will not have to spend £20 to go swimming, but will pay £1 a swim. I hope that local authorities in Birmingham and the west midlands will take up the challenge of increasing municipal sport, that schools will grab the opportunity and that the tickets will be available to schoolchildren, so that they can watch water polo, the exciting swimming races or any other sport.
Ms McDonagh, I am coming to my concluding remarks, but I would glad of advice on whether there will be a concluding debate or whether this is the end of the sitting.
Catherine West
Thank you. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Catherine West
I thank hon. Members for their patience and for the combined efforts of both sides of the House. I thank the Scottish National party spokesman for his depth of knowledge of the Glasgow experience.
I would like to conclude on some of the values I introduced in the four clauses. First, there is the importance of a carbon-neutral games, and some of the specifics around transport. I hope civil servants will look carefully at the bus networks, which seem to be a point of contention for local people, who will enjoy these sports, but who would enjoy them even more if the air quality was as good as it possibly can be.
Gavin Newlands
On behalf of the SNP, at the conclusion of the most bizarre Bill Committee I have been involved with in five years, I thank you, Ms McDonagh, the Clerks, the Doorkeepers, the millions watching at home—
Gavin Newlands
On free-to-air television. I thank all Members present, even the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk—he is in Hansard now, so he has had a mention. I thank everyone present, and I look forward to further robust debate on Report.
Nigel Huddleston
I thank all hon. Members for their participation today, and I thank everyone else involved. The speed of progress today should not be misinterpreted as lack of scrutiny. We have had intense scrutiny in the Chamber and outside, in the House of Lords and on Second Reading. As testament to the preparation of my team, I should say that hon. Members did not get to hear all the speeches I had in my folder today. Maybe I can get them out at some other point.
I thank everybody for their engagement and involvement with what we know will be a fantastic games; they are something we can look forward to in these challenging times, as sport can unite the nation. I thank everybody who has been involved in their development to date, including the stakeholders, the organising committee and the partners of the games. I thank the parliamentary staff, the Doorkeepers, the Clerks, hon. Members here today and the public observing. I particularly thank the team at DCMS, who have worked hard pulling the Bill together, and, of course, you, Ms McDonagh—the vision of green today.
Thank you to everybody involved. We will continue the robust debate on many of the important issues raised today. I do not dismiss them; they are all valid topics for debate. We have a shared intent and purpose, and I look forward to working with everybody involved in the coming weeks and months.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Alcohol Harm
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered tackling alcohol harm.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this debate. The request for it was made some six months ago, in the hope of it being granted in the run-up to Christmas or when many join in Dry January, but pressure on parliamentary time meant that it has only just been granted. I appreciate that now we are in a very different time as regards health concerns. None the less, alcohol harm is an ongoing and long-term concern not just for those who drink to excess but for their families and wider society, and it will still be with us even after—as we hope—the coronavirus crisis is past.
I thank the Minister for Care for stepping in to respond to the debate at a time of great pressure for her and the Department of Health and Social Care. I pay tribute to the great leadership being provided by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the other Health Ministers and all those involved in leading on the exceptional and unprecedented crisis in our nation—thank you.
I appreciate that the current unprecedented situation means that fewer colleagues are present for the debate. Many put down their names and intended to speak. I thank those who are in attendance. One colleague asked me to mention that she regrets being unable to be here: the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Dr Cameron), who is chair of the recently instituted all-party parliamentary group for the excellent 12 steps programme, which has made a difference in so many people’s lives.
There are, and have been for a long time—as long as I have been in Parliament, which is now some 10 years—several all-party groups concerned with alcohol harm: one under that name, one on foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, another on the children of alcoholics, and the drugs, alcohol and justice all-party group, and I am delighted to see its secretariat in attendance today. Alcohol harm, therefore, is not a minority concern here in Parliament, as some may think.
Before I go on to talk about the concerns that many of us have about the impact of alcohol harm, this debate is in no way intended to denigrate the fact that drinking responsibly and enjoying a drink is something that I and many others do. That is not what we are here to do today; we are here about drinking to excess, harming oneself and others.
I will come on to the speech that I had prepared, although that was before we found ourselves in these exceptional circumstances this morning, when the country faces the prospect of many self-isolating for long periods. Even so, while Ministers in the Department of Health focus on the crisis, over the coming weeks when giving health advice, they might still send out a few helpful messages to those stuck at home who may be tempted to drink more than is good for them.
Many tips, many of them straightforward, have been given over the years by organisations such as Drinkaware, whose work I commend, but perhaps not sufficiently widely promoted. This might be an opportunity to do that—for example, taking a non-alcoholic drink before an alcoholic one, having a glass of water by the side of the alcoholic drink, or trying alcohol-free drinks. Last year, here in Parliament, our all-party group hosted an alcohol-free drinks event attended by 60 colleagues. We had an enjoyable time—alcohol-free gin, champagne, lager—[Interruption.] I am very aware that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) attended that event and it was indeed enjoyable. We should try alcohol-free drinks and, as Drinkaware suggests, aim for two or three alcohol-free days a week to rest the liver.
To turn to the substance of the debate, 10 million people are drinking at levels that increase the risk of health harm.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on this timely debate. Does she agree that, in these exceptional circumstances, one of our concerns over the coming weeks and months should be the massive reduction in social interaction? There will inevitably be a spike in the number of people drinking alcohol at home. Both Government and communities have to be aware of that to try and ensure people do so responsibly and not to significant excess, which may well happen in the coming weeks.
Fiona Bruce
The hon. Gentleman has expressed far more eloquently than I have exactly the issue that many will face. It is particularly interesting that the 55 to 64 age group is one of the most at risk, with its excess drinking described by charities working in the field as a “national health disaster”. There is an opportunity here to gently—I am aware there is a lot of other stress—help people understand the implications of drinking to those levels.
In the Green Paper published in July 2019, the Government said
“the harm caused by problem drinking is rising.
Over 10 million people are drinking at levels above the official guidelines and putting themselves at extra risk.”
Tragically, exactly the same thing was stated by Public Health England in the third line of its 2016 evidence-based review, “The Public Health Burden of Alcohol and the Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Alcohol Control Policies”:
“there are currently over 10 million people drinking at levels which increase their risk of health harm”.
It goes on to talk about
“1 million hospital admissions relating to alcohol each year”.
Interestingly enough, half of those occur in the lowest three socioeconomic areas.
“More working years of life are lost in England as a result of alcohol-related deaths than from cancer of the lung, bronchus, trachea, colon, rectum, brain, pancreas, skin, ovary, kidney, stomach, bladder and prostate, combined.”
Sadly, several years on, we still do not have what is very much needed: a distinct and discrete alcohol strategy—it could be better called an alcohol harm strategy—to address the issue. I recommend the Health Minister to look at the alcohol charter, if she has not seen it, which was produced by some of our all-party parliamentary groups following the 2016 report and makes some suggestions as to what that strategy could contain. They include tackling the increased availability of excessively cheap alcohol, empowering the public to make fully informed decisions about their drinking and providing adequate support for dependent and non-dependent drinkers.
If I had a main call today, it would be to ask that the Government produce an up-to-date alcohol strategy. The last one was produced in 2012 and it is out of date, not only because of statistics—I am afraid I will bore colleagues with some more shortly—but also with reference to our approach to minimum unit pricing, which I will refer to later.
Our relationship with alcohol is complex, and so are its harms. Alcohol is embedded in our culture. Whether we are celebrating, had a tough day or need to reward ourselves, alcohol very often seems to play a role. It has become normalised. It is increasingly difficult to find a birthday card that does not wish an un-beer-lievable or gin-tastic birthday to someone, or makes another reference to alcohol. Although our culture celebrates alcohol—enjoyment in the right proportions is not a bad thing—we are too silent about its harms. All too often, we stigmatise people who are dealing with the consequences of harmful alcohol consumption, or leave them to cope with those consequences alone.
Most of us know a person or family affected by harmful drinking. The statistics are, if I may say, sobering: across the UK, more than 80 people a day die from alcohol-related causes. That figure is far higher in areas of poverty where people struggle to cope. Alcohol is now the leading risk factor for death, ill-health and disability among 15 to 49-year-olds in England, and is associated with around 40% of violent crime. In my local authority of Cheshire East, there were 185 alcohol-related deaths and 8,460 alcohol-related hospital admissions in 2017. The number that sticks out the most, however, is the number of people who do not get help: 88% of dependent drinkers in Cheshire East are not in treatment and do not get the support that they need.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
My hon. Friend said that the effects of drinking alcohol were obvious, but does she accept that for men trying to have a family, for example, the effects can lead to permanent difficulties such as infertility, which is not always obvious?
Fiona Bruce
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Having engaged on this subject for many years in this place, I thought that there was nothing that I did not know, but I did not know that, so I thank him for drawing people’s attention to it. Similarly, it is of great concern that many people are unaware of the impact of foetal alcohol syndrome, which arises from drinking during pregnancy—we cannot emphasise enough the importance of not doing so.
Public Health England estimates that only one in five dependent drinkers in England gets the right support. That is sad because treatment, when obtained, can be very effective and good value for money. For every £1 spent, there is a societal benefit of £3. It does not stop there, though. Alcohol not only impacts individuals, but wider society and public services, costing NHS England £3.5 billion every year. There is no better time than now to remind ourselves that we should encourage help and the prevention of harm where we can, so that our NHS staff, whom I thank in this time of crisis, can treat those in health difficulties.
Anyone who has been in an A&E on a Friday or Saturday night will not be surprised to hear that alcohol-related incidents account for 25% of A&E work in England. Sir Ian Gilmore, who chairs the Alcohol Health Alliance—I thank them and commend their work informing the public and supporting parliamentarians—said
“While A&E departments used to feel the impact on Saturday nights, it’s now every night of the week”,
and that
“The lack of a strategy is really harming the nation”.
English police spend more than half of their time dealing with alcohol-related casework.
Alcohol’s impact on families is stark: in England, about 200,000 children live with an alcohol-dependent parent. I will speak a little about that, but I will first commend the Government because when my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine) was Health Minister, he was very conscious of the issue and granted more than £6 million to help the children of alcoholics, following a campaign run by colleagues in the House. He rightly said:
“Alcohol abuse can tear lives apart, not only for the people trapped in the grip of an addiction but for their children, who are often robbed of the support, comfort and structure they need from their parents.
I am committed to finding new ways to help families in the midst of these heart-breaking situations.”
I would be interested to hear from the Minister about progress on the pilot schemes in several local authorities, which I expect are now quite well developed, to help children of alcoholic parents or carers, following his initiative.
I have always found Health Ministers to be very concerned about the issue, but one of the systemic problems appears to be that the Home Office leads on alcohol strategy. That has to change. There is a lot of concern among Health Ministers and the Department of Health and Social Care about the issue, but we need them to lead on it.
Children of alcoholic parents or carers experience real difficulties. They are twice as likely to experience difficulties at school, three times more likely to consider suicide, four times more likely to develop alcohol problems of their own, and five times more likely to develop eating disorders. I am pleased by the progress that I have mentioned, but we still have a long way to go on tackling harms.
The Government are rightly excited about the positive impacts of alcohol care teams in hospitals, and I encourage them to go further and ensure that a team is embedded in every hospital when time can be given to that. However, we know from listening to dependent drinkers that help in hospital needs to be complemented by help in communities, if they are truly to be helped.
The loneliness agenda and social prescribing are important initiatives that need to include suitable provision for dependent drinkers. Having attended an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting as a guest, I was really impressed with the care and support that members of that AA group gave one another. It was clearly proving very effective, but we need to do more.
I thank Adrian Crossley, the head of addiction and crime at the Centre for Social Justice, who is doing a lot of work on alcohol treatment. He basically says that we have to assign funding to each local authority in accordance with locally recognised need. I know that this is an unpopular term, but we must ring-fence it so that it really can make a difference.
We must also develop the Government’s promised addiction strategy to ensure that there are wrap-around services to help to stabilise and then promote lasting recovery—particularly the family support that is needed for the 200,000 children in England who are living with an alcohol dependent parents. Those are important initiatives. There is no wrong door to accessing the most appropriate services, but we need to join them up—whether they are local family services, voluntary groups or mental health support.
If I may, Mr Paisley, I will take a little longer than normal to make my speech, because there are not too many colleagues present. I was disappointed in the Chancellor’s view on alcohol duty in the recent Budget. I thank him for providing £2.5 million towards the development of family hubs in local areas. Such hubs are one-stop-shops where people will be able to go—several are up and running in the country now—for joined-up services from local health providers, local authorities and voluntary groups.
People can go to such hubs with any issue that relates to their family life. One of those issues should, and hopefully will, be addiction. Sadly, many families do not come forward for help. They are ashamed of the stigma, are soaked in a culture that celebrates the products that often blight their lives, and carry a burden that is often unrecognised and unsupported. We need more accessible, practical support for families.
We need to remember, too, that the harms from alcohol do not fall evenly across the UK. The burden falls most heavily on poorer communities. The north of England, for example, has significantly higher rates of alcohol-related deaths than London or the south-east. I am delighted that this one nation Conservative Government are committed to reducing inequalities and levelling up across the country, but, as I have mentioned in this House before, we will not be able to do that simply by repairing physical infrastructure such as roads and bridges. We need to create stronger, healthier communities and families, and one of the ways we can do that is by tackling alcohol harm.
The figures I have mentioned demonstrate that alcohol presents a grave public health challenge. Without question, we need a paradigm shift. Tackling alcohol-related harm needs to become a fundamental policy priority. Regulation certainly plays a part in shifting behaviour on a personal level, as we have seen over the past few years with tobacco; I commend parliamentarians who took a lead on that. As we have seen there, the Government can create an environment that enables us to make informed choices and lead healthier, happier lives.
I will now focus on price. Why? Because the 2016 report from Public Health England concluded:
“Policies that reduce the affordability of alcohol are the most effective”
policies in health treatment. Yet, over the past few years since then, and even before then, quite the opposite has occurred. Alcohol duty rates have been cut or frozen in Budget after Budget and as a result, in real terms, beer duty is some 18% lower than in 2012, duty on spirits and cider is 10% lower and duty on wines 2% lower. We all know that the price of something has an impact on whether we will buy it, and alcohol is no exception; as I say, Public Health England said price was the number one factor in determining how much alcohol is bought.
Alcohol has become dramatically more affordable in the past 30 years. The affordability of beer in the off-trade has more than tripled in real terms since 1987 and off-trade wine and spirits are 163% more affordable. One of the most targeted approaches to addressing the price of the cheapest alcohol is minimum unit pricing. I urge the Minister to look at it again.
Minimum unit pricing, as the name suggests, sets a price below which alcohol cannot be sold. In Scotland, which introduced minimum unit pricing two years ago, it is currently 50p. That means that a pint of beer containing two units of alcohol—for the record, as many here will know, the chief medical officer’s suggestion for sensible and moderate drinking is 14 units a week—cannot be sold for less than a pound.
Minimum unit pricing would have hardly any effect on pubs and restaurants, where the vast majority of alcohol is sold at more than 50p per unit. Instead, it is highly targeted at the cheapest products that cause the most harm, such as white cider and super-strength cheap lager. If the Minister cares to look, I introduced the Alcohol (Minimum Pricing) (England) Bill in 2018, so there is one oven ready if the Government would like to take it up.
One reason the Government did not take it up was that they said they wanted more evidence that MUP would work. I remember the Chancellor saying that we would await the outcome in Scotland. As I say, two years since Scotland implemented MUP, the evidence is very encouraging. Consumption fell by 3.6% in Scotland in the year after MUP was implemented. During the same period, it rose by 3.2% in England and Wales. The important thing is that the fall in consumption appears to have occurred particularly among those consuming the most alcohol, who are most at risk, and it seems to have been in the high-strength, dangerous drinks of the sort that I mentioned that consumption has fallen.
Wales has decided to follow Scotland’s lead and is implementing MUP this month. Following the evidence, these are the statistics. Again, I apologise to colleagues for more statistics. In England, a 50p MUP is predicted to save 525 lives and prevent over 22,000 hospital admissions and 36,000 crimes annually when at full effect. The evidence is clear, we need to act without delay and implement MUP in England. It was interesting that the 2012 alcohol strategy referred to this very positively. I refer the Minister to the foreword by the then Prime Minister:
“We are not rejecting MUP, merely delaying it until we have conclusive evidence it will be effective”.
Will the Ministers look again at MUP and the evidence following Scotland?
The duty escalator which was in place between 2008 and 2012 increased alcohol duty by 2% every year. The result was that alcohol-related deaths fell while it was in place. They have started to rise again since it has been abolished. Last week, the Chancellor announced in this year’s Budget alcohol duty will be frozen across the board. In real terms, this means a cut. It will lower the price of alcohol. All decisions present trade-offs.
While I appreciate the desire to support our local industry of pubs and brewers, I want to reflect on the impact of this decision on health. Research from the University of Sheffield—I am sure the Minister’s staff will look at the report, because it is commendable—has shown that changes in alcohol duty since 2012 have led to nearly 2,000 additional deaths and 61,000 hospital admissions in England. There was an enormous human cost, but also a strain on public services by adding an estimated £317 million to NHS England’s bill. It is estimated the duty changes could have cost England’s businesses as much as £58 million in lost working days since 2012.
Increasing alcohol duty also raises urgently needed revenue. Considering the impact of the current cuts alongside all changes to duty policies since 2012, in this year, 2019-20, the Government are losing out on nearly £1.3 billion in forgone revenue. That is enough money to pay the salaries of more than 40,000 nurses. By 2024-25, the cumulative costs of these cuts will be £13 billion.
While the budget focused on supporting pubs, I do not believe that cutting duty will be that helpful for them. Ending the alcohol duty escalator after 2012 and the subsequent duty cuts and freezes have not made a measurable difference to the rate of pub closures. This reflects the experiences of those working in the pub trade. Nearly 90% of publicans in the north-east said that duty cuts have not had a positive effect on their business. Less than 5% felt that alcohol taxes were the main cause of pub closures, while a majority thought that cheap alcohol from supermarkets and off-licences was to blame.
Before I end, I want to address alcohol labelling. If we want to create an environment in which people are supported to make informed choices to live healthier, happier lives, we need to make sure they have all the information they need. At the moment, people do not get it. We have more information on a pint of milk than when buying alcohol. It is no surprise that only one in five people know that the chief medical officers commend us not to drink more than 14 units a week, but the public wants to know this information. Research from the Alcohol Health Alliance found that more than 70% of people support warnings that exceeding the drinking guidelines can harm one’s health. I put down an EDM on this last June. It is interesting that it garnered support from 20 colleagues. It stated that two and a half years after the chief medical officer’s guidelines of 14 units per week for low-risk drinking were published:
“a survey of 320 products found that two-thirds of alcohol labels still displayed the old guidelines; … that the pregnancy logo and number of units are not legally required to be shown on labels”.
We believe they should be and there is a lack of information generally on alcohol labels compared with other food and drink labels. Will the Government look again at labelling and make the information on alcohol products mandatory? The public want to know more. It is not just that alcohol increases health risks and that therefore information on alcohol content is wanted, but that they are actually interested in the calorific content. I was involved in a joint event with the all-party parliamentary group on obesity some years ago. It was remarkable. Evidence was given that when people drink with a meal and are perhaps not as thoughtful about what they are eating, the overall increase in calorific consumption can be 400 in that meal alone. It is time to look again at alcohol harm. Alcohol containers should, like any other food and drink container, have to display ingredients, nutrients and calories. They should display the CMO’s guidelines and warnings that exceeding this amount could damage one’s health. We can no longer ignore the harm caused to our society, communities, constituents, families and friends by alcohol.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for introducing this debate, and you the Chair for allowing it, Mr Paisley. There is a perennial and universal issue across the UK and Ireland. No nation or region is exempt. Policies may differ, but the challenges remain the same. I declare that I sit on the commission on alcohol harm. Presumably my past experience as Scottish Justice Secretary in invoking legislation on alcohol, including kicking off minimum unit pricing—as opposed to past indiscretions of which I am less proud—have allowed me some focus. We must consider how alcohol harm comes about.
The papers available to me as a result of sitting on the commission on alcohol harm have been revelatory to me, even as somebody who served for seven and a half years as Justice Secretary and has been aware of the harm across huge swathes of our society, as correctly pointed out by the hon. Member for Congleton. The testimony from children in particular—those who have grown up in families with alcohol-dependent parents and where other siblings have been affected by other issues—is quite distressing, to say the least. For that reason, we require a reaction.
I have a personal interest too. Bus passes are issued to people at a lower age in Scotland than elsewhere in the UK. I went to two funerals lately of friends with whom I grew up, neither of whom lived long enough to get their bus pass. Both of them succumbed to alcohol. Nobody sets out to succumb to alcohol and die as a result of it. In the case of those two close friends, it happened because they had underlying issues. They were lost souls and had problems, and indeed had suffered themselves. It was a tragedy, and they deserve our sympathy every bit as much as anybody else who dies from any other aspect. The issues remain universal, and how we tackle them. It is about affordability, availability, and advertising.
I am certain, through my experience of seven and a half years, that more education alone will not work. That was stated by someone in the alcohol industry when I first went into office. Someone said, “What we need is to educate people better.” That is utter nonsense. We have been doing that throughout my lifetime. Do we need to educate better? For sure we do. The idea that we will be able to tackle the problem in our society simply through better education or greater awareness is not capable of being sustained. Action needs to be taken. As the hon. Member for Congleton correctly said, that does not mean that one needs to be a prohibitionist. I most certainly am not, and I enjoy a drink along with my friends and indeed my family. Alcohol is an important part of our economy, and an important lubricant within wider social aspects. As hon. Members said in interventions, it will be affecting how our people deal with matters. It cannot simply be a matter of prohibition.
Affordability is key. Minimum unit pricing is important, and David Cameron supported it when I introduced it in Scotland. England and Wales should take it on board, and Wales, to its credit, is looking at that. Equally, it has to be borne in mind that minimum unit pricing was never meant to be a stand-alone policy; it was meant to tie in with other tax regimes, and that means other fiscal and tax charges. We need the proverbial belt and braces. Scotland cannot deliver all it wants through MUP without being able to control the excise duty, so there has to be action on that. While I support steps to protect the Scotch whisky industry from actions and levies imposed in the United States of America, I am disappointed that we have not seen a continuation of the increase to tackle it hard here.
However, this is about not just affordability but availability. I am always reminded of John Carnochan, the head of our violence reduction unit, who talked about alcohol problems in our peripheral housing schemes. He made the point that if he wanted a haircut, he went to the barber, and if he wanted new shoes, he went to a shoe shop, so why, if he wanted alcohol, could he go to virtually any shop? Within 500 metres of where I live, in both London and Edinburgh, people can go out of their front door to anything upward of 40 outlets that sell alcohol on or off-trade. The likelihood is that as a result of coronavirus, there may be a cull of the on-trade outlets, but the off-trade outlets will remain, and that is where the significant problem has grown. In my lifetime, off-sales have gone up massively and the on-sale trade has declined massively. That is an issue, because alcohol consumption is a learned pattern. People need others there who encourage them to moderate their drinking and make it a social pastime, as opposed to them perhaps sitting at home consuming to excess. That is why even in Scotland, action has to be taken to restrict availability. There are far too many off-sale outlets. We need to encourage licensing boards not to issue licences and, where there is over-provision, to ensure that that does not happen.
Equally, there is the question of advertising. For alcohol, it is becoming almost subliminal. The evidence coming through from young people giving testimony to the harms commissioner is clear: they view alcohol almost as another product, but it is not. We enjoy it and benefit from it, and our economy even requires it, but it is not another product—it is a licensed drug. Therefore, how we make it available and allow it to be advertised is fundamental. We are taking action as a society to ensure that we restrict smoking so that it is no longer the cool thing to do. We need to do likewise with alcohol, because the advertising at sporting events has most certainly had a detrimental impact.
I welcome the steps that the Minister has taken. I look forward to further action from her and the UK Government, but it is also fair to say that those in the devolved Administrations also have to take action, because we are on a journey. We cannot stay as we are. The harm is too great and further action is needed. To sum up, this cannot simply be about education; we need to tackle affordability, availability and advertising.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, and to follow my two colleagues, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), who have done us a great service by looking at the underlying causes of alcohol consumption and its role in society. Those very important factors need to be taken into account.
I totally agree with the hon. Member for East Lothian that education on its own will not solve the problem. A much bigger attack on the whole way we drink, and the reasons why, is required. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton raised a number of those, particularly pointing out people’s need for alcohol when they are lonely, and we should look at that in more detail. Public Health England states that between the ages of 15 and 49, alcohol is the leading risk factor for ill health. It also pointed out that working years of life lost would be saved as a result if this situation were to end.
I raise two issues in particular—one about drink-driving and another relating to pregnancy. I absolutely support the coronavirus strategy. In 2014, there were 240 fatalities as a result of alcohol. That has to be set against the number of fatalities at the moment from the coronavirus. Getting some perspective on this is essential to tackling the disease. I would certainly like to see a lower limit for drink-driving. There has been some success in curbing drink-driving, but I do not think it has been enough. It still accounts for a large amount of hospital admissions and difficulties in that area.
There is an important point relating to pregnancy. There is a tremendous amount of advice for a woman who is looking to become pregnant or is pregnant, but pregnancy does not arise from just one person, it arises from a couple, and there needs to be equal concentration on the result of drinking alcohol for the man as well as the woman.
We know that drinking during pregnancy can lead to lifelong physical, behavioural and cognitive disabilities for the child. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton mentioned foetal alcohol syndrome as a sign that a woman has drunk too much during pregnancy. Of course, binge drinking is the great no-no. A long list of difficulties occur as a result, but I will not go into them into them all here; a number of speakers have already gone into that.
However, the important question is when to advise a woman to stop drinking altogether, since that is the advice of the medical establishment in this area. There is a very good indication that she should stop when she intends to get pregnant, rather than when she is pregnant. There can be a fairly long period between someone intending to get pregnant and knowing that they are pregnant, which reinforces the value of that.
I mentioned that the role of the man needs to be taken into account, and I repeat that the ability of a man to stay off alcohol when wanting to create a family is essential. I pointed out that a long-term risk is that alcohol increases the risk of infertility. There are issues here that we need to take into account. We need to provide much wider advice to reinforce that. The short-term risks of alcohol fall on men, but the long-term risks of alcohol fall on women. Understanding that is a helpful way of approaching this for the future.
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
I have two Members left to call. Before I call the next, I ask them to bear it in mind that I would like to call the first Opposition spokesperson at 10.30 am. That gives each speaker about seven minutes each, if that is sufficient, but I will not set a formal time limit.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, and to debate this matter with the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I am always inspired by her compassion and her devotion to doing all she can to make her constituency and the nation a better place to live. That always encourages me and encourages all of us.
I am also pleased to stand with the hon. Lady on many things; I do not think there is anything that she and I disagree on—not that I am aware of anyway. We are kindred spirits across political parties. We may have different opinions on the politics, but not on the constitutional issues and certainly not on what we want for society.
I am a great believer in all things in moderation. Since becoming a type 2 diabetic I have realised that the key to my continued health lies in my ability to eat in moderation. It took me many years to realise that. The issue with alcohol is that many people struggle for moderation, just as I used to struggle with sweet food—two bottles of Coca-Cola with a Chinese takeaway from Davy Lee’s in Newtownards, five nights a week. In addition to that, there was the stress issue. I was probably Davy Lee’s best customer. Now I have a meal from there once in three months, at most, and it is “no Coke here”. I have no sweet drinks whatsoever.
The issue of alcohol-related harm is not ring-fenced for people with alcoholism, or any specific age group. It is a UK-wide problem across classes, genders and race, and we need a better way to address it. We look to the Minister for a helpful response. I concur with the comments of those who have spoken—and probably those who will speak after me—in that we need to address the issue not only in England but in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, from where I have got my statistics and information.
Across the United Kingdom, 80 people a day die because of alcohol, and that statistic has to change. In Northern Ireland there were more than 11,000 hospital admissions due to alcohol in 2016-17. Across the UK 33 people a day are diagnosed with an alcohol-related cancer. There is a high cost to those numbers, and it is not only medical and physical; it is emotional and affects families. Healthcare costs associated with alcohol in Northern Ireland are estimated at £122 million, and alcohol is strongly linked to health inequalities there. We can see that it is, in our offices and advice centres. The rate of alcohol-specific deaths is more than three times higher in Northern Ireland’s most deprived areas than in its least deprived areas. I see that in my office every day, as I am sure you do, Mr Paisley. I see families who are broken by alcohol, by verbal and physical exchanges, by the effect on children, by abuse, marriage break-up, despair and sadness.
Shockingly, alcohol is involved in 40% of violent crime in Northern Ireland. I understand that the relationship between alcohol and domestic violence is complex, but research finds that between 25% and 50% of perpetrators of domestic abuse have been drinking at the time of the assault. The figure is as high as 73% in some studies. I concur with what my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) said in reference to the coronavirus and the steps that the Government have taken. I welcome what the Government have done and urge everyone everywhere to focus on the directions and rules laid down by the Prime Minister and the Government. As my hon. Friend said, if there is no sport or social interaction during the coronavirus outbreak, people will be at home—perhaps for 24 hours a day, if they are struck down with the virus. There is potential for all sorts of problems and, let us be honest, people will probably go to the off-licence—or someone will go for them—and buy drink in. They will consume alcohol at home. I am not a prophet, nor the son of a prophet, but I can see great potential for issues to arise from that.
It is for that reason that I support the calls by the Alcohol Health Alliance UK for minimum pricing. In its words:
“The cheaper alcohol is, the more people drink, and the more harm is caused. One of the reasons why alcohol harm has been rising is because alcohol has become much more affordable over the last few decades. It is possible to buy a bottle of…cider, containing the same amount of alcohol as 19 shots of vodka, for as little as £3.70.”
That is someone’s high for under a fiver. The alliance states:
“The most effective policy to tackle such cheap high-strength drinks is minimum unit pricing (MUP). By setting a floor price linked to the amount of alcohol in a product, MUP targets the cheapest drinks which are linked to the most harm, while having minimal impact on moderate drinkers or on pub and restaurant prices.
MUP was introduced in Scotland in 2018 and in Wales in March 2020. The early evidence from Scotland is very encouraging”.
I often look to Scotland for the direction it is taking on health issues. Particularly in this case it has shown what the rest of us can do. The alliance says that
“off-trade alcohol sales fell by 3.6% in the year following MUP; in England and Wales, they rose by 3.2% over the same time. The minister of health in the Republic of Ireland has recently written to the Northern Irish executive regarding implementing MUP on both sides of the border”.
I fully support that, and I urge the Northern Assembly to take that action and to do it as soon as possible.
It is essential that Northern Ireland, the part of the United Kingdom with the second highest rate of alcohol-specific deaths, is not left behind. I want to see minimum unit pricing in Northern Ireland. For the protection of health in my country, I stand by these calls, Mr Paisley, as I know you will, too, and I urge the Minister to consider how we can help to minimise alcohol harm without adversely affecting our hospitality sector, which is vital. If people drink in moderation, that is okay, but we are talking about those people who do not do it in moderation. That is why this debate is so important.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and I thank the hon. Member for Congleton again for bringing this matter forward. Her desire to help to make homes and communities stronger and happier by reducing the harm caused by alcohol is something that is close to my heart, close to my chest and close to the person that I am.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I wanted to take part in it because alcohol harm has been a live issue in Gateshead and the rest of the north-east for a long while. Across Gateshead, which covers my community, the admission rate for alcohol-related conditions in 2010-11 was 817 per 100,000, compared with 643 for England as a whole. However, when we look at 2018-19, the latest year for which we have figures, we see that the rate had increased by 28% compared with an all-England increase of 3%. Admission rates for alcohol-related conditions now stand at 1,045 per 100,000 for Gateshead, compared with 664 per 100,000 across England.
I will talk specifically about minimum unit pricing, as other colleagues have done. Sheffield University research shows that if there was a minimum unit price of 50p per unit, there could be 8,000 fewer deaths, 14,000 fewer hospital admissions and 21,000 fewer crimes related to alcohol consumption every year. The impact of minimum unit pricing would be greatest in the most deprived areas, even though—this point is really important—people in those communities do not necessarily consume larger amounts of alcohol. Nevertheless, nine out of 10 alcohol-related deaths in those areas could be prevented.
I will also say a little about the impact of pubs, because most Members will have been lobbied very strongly by constituents, as I have been, as part of the Long Live the Local campaign, especially in the run-up to the Budget. I agree with the idea behind Long Live the Local. In fact, I will declare an interest, as a community shareholder in the community pub in the village where I live, Ye Olde Cross; we won an award recently for saving our pub. However, having made that plug, pubs seriously have an important role to play in the community.
Evidence already mentioned by the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) shows that minimum unit pricing would have little impact on pubs, as the minimum unit price is aimed at the strongest and the cheapest alcohol. Across the UK as a whole and more specifically across the north-east of England, where my constituency is, 48% of pub managers support minimum unit pricing, because they are competing with cheap, shop-bought alcohol that is consumed at home or while people are out and about.
I want to be clear that to resolve this issue, we should not simply point the finger at individuals; this is a public health issue and it must be tackled as such. For many people, it is linked to poverty, poor social conditions and lack of opportunity, so we need to take a holistic approach to resolving it, and minimum unit pricing is one element of that approach.
I am sure that the Minister knows what I am about to say—we need to restore public health funding. We also need to ensure that public health directors know what their funding is, so that they can provide the appropriate services, as a matter of urgency.
As other Members have said, minimum unit pricing must be part of a wider strategy. I urge the Minister to consider minimum unit pricing as an important part of that strategy along with marketing, which makes alcohol more attractive.
I thank colleagues at Balance North East for their research and for working with me on this issue. I also want to say that this is not about completely stopping people drinking; that is a personal choice. It is about ensuring that the odds are not stacked against people who may find it difficult not to drink to excess.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I am pleased to be participating in this debate. I begin by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) for giving us a very thoughtful and comprehensive opening to the debate. I begin also by saying that people have mentioned the effect of being isolated at home because of the coronavirus and that it is worth bearing in mind, as we go through this crisis, that drinking alcohol lowers the body’s immunity.
We have heard a lot today about the damage of alcohol over-consumption. The cost to our families, our communities and ourselves is almost incalculable. It cannot be counted in pounds and pence, although very often we are forced to do that, for practical reasons. Alcohol abuse leads people to lose their homes, families and jobs. There is a cost in hospital admissions, perhaps on numerous occasions, and people may even end up encountering the criminal justice system. Victims of alcohol abuse become economically inactive. They often become absent parents. The damage to mental health and physical and emotional wellbeing is profound.
I remember standing in this Chamber a couple of years ago to speak on alcohol abuse. A number of us involved in that debate were willing to admit that we came from homes with an alcoholic parent. My father was by all accounts an alcoholic, although I never knew him, as he died when I was 15 months old—he was very much helped on his way by alcohol. The damage to my family was not insignificant. My husband’s father was also an alcoholic and died because of the demon drink. These stories are not unusual; in fact, they are far too common. Almost every person we meet has a family member or knows someone who is an alcoholic. That is very sad, but it is a fact of life. However, that does not mean that we cannot turn things around. It does not mean there are not measures that we can take and, in Scotland’s case, have already taken to combat this problem. There is no silver bullet, but much can be done to mitigate the harmful grip that alcohol has on our communities. In the round, a number of measures can be taken.
In Scotland, 686 hospital admissions and 22 deaths every week are due to alcohol. In 2018, the figure for alcohol-specific deaths was 1,136. In 2018-19, there were 35,685 alcohol-related hospital admissions in general acute hospitals. Worryingly, hospital admissions are still more than four times higher than the level seen in the 1980s. Clearly, in Scotland, we could not simply shrug our shoulders and tolerate that. We tried to turn the situation around. I am pleased that the SNP Government chose to use the powers at their disposal to tackle the level of alcohol harm suffered by our communities, at great cost to those communities, on every single measure.
The hon. Member for Congleton pointed out the need for England to have a revised or updated alcohol strategy, and she is correct to say so, as the current one is out of date. Indeed, the Scottish Government updated their own alcohol strategy in 2018.
I could stand here today and talk about the fact that the Scottish Government have invested almost £800 million to tackle alcohol harm and drug use since 2008 and will allocate a further £95 million next year to reduce the harms caused by alcohol and drugs. I could mention—indeed, I have already alluded to—the Scottish Government’s alcohol framework setting out 20 actions that build on existing measures to change Scotland’s relationship with alcohol. I could even mention the legislation introduced by the Scottish Government to ban irresponsible alcohol promotions, such as the multi-buy discounts in supermarkets.
Patricia Gibson
I am worried about time, so I will press on, if that is okay.
That legislation was associated with a 2.6% reduction in consumption in the 12-month period following its introduction from October 2011. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) might be interested to know that in 2014 Scotland reduced the legal alcohol limit for drivers from 80 mg to 50 mg in every 100 ml of blood. That reduction has not been made in the rest of the UK, which, apart from Scotland, currently has the joint highest levels in Europe that are permitted for driving. I could mention a whole range of measures—
Ian Paisley (in the Chair)
The hon. Lady has another six minutes. She does not need to feel that she is rushed.
Jim Shannon
I compliment the hon. Lady and particularly the Scottish Parliament on what they are doing. The hon. Lady has outlined a blueprint for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. We should all take note of it and let it be our blueprint for Northern Ireland, Wales and England.
Patricia Gibson
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. As I will go on to say, there is no room for complacency in any part of the United Kingdom. There are things that work that every part of the United Kingdom should implement, and the UK should continue to review them to see how the measures can be improved.
All the measures that have been taken, on their own merits and collectively, represent real action and commitment to dealing with the scourge of alcohol on our communities. Many of them were set out by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), who has significant insight into the issue from his role as Cabinet Secretary for Justice in the Scottish Government. There has been broad agreement today that minimum unit pricing for alcohol is the single most significant action that can be taken to tackle alcohol harm, as we have seen in Scotland, but it is not a silver bullet. Nothing is, and nothing ever will be. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian reminded us, it is part of a package of measures and must be seen in that context. I urge the Minister to emulate that measure in England in order to benefit the communities that many Members in this Chamber represent.
When it comes to the strongest drinks on the market, in England we can buy cider for 18p, lager for 23p, vodka for 36p and wine for 38p—I am talking about units, not bottles. Minimum unit pricing was introduced in 2018 in Scotland. Shamefully, the policy was delayed for several years as the alcohol industry dragged it through every court it could find to stop it or delay its implementation for as long as possible. Studies indicated that there would be around 121 fewer deaths a year as a result, and there would be a fall in hospital admissions of just over 2,000 a year by the end of year 20 of the policy.
It gives me no pleasure to say that the initiative sadly met more blocks during its passage through the Scottish Parliament, as opposition parties opposed it purely on the basis that nothing the SNP Government introduced could ever be supported. Although that is the usual response to any SNP policy in the Scottish Parliament, eventually the Tories abandoned their absurd opposition. Labour, however, simply could not bring itself to do so because it was an SNP initiative. The Labour party argued and argued against it and grew more ridiculous with every word. In the end, unable to support it even in the face of overwhelming evidence that it would be a key weapon in the battle against alcohol harm, Labour contented itself with abstaining on the issue. I know that many Labour MPs from other parts of the UK looked on at their Labour colleagues with bewilderment at what was going on—not for the first time, and probably not for the last. Willingness to put narrow party politics before public health is one of several reasons why the Labour party in Scotland is completely adrift. Some issues go far beyond party political lines.
The evaluation of the first year of alcohol minimum pricing has been very promising. As the first country in the world to introduce such a measure, we saw off-trade sales per adult in Scotland fall by 3.6% in the first year after implementation. In the same period in England, there was a rise of 3.2%. There was an 18.6% fall in off-trade cider sales per adult in Scotland in the year following minimum pricing, and an 8.2% rise in sales in England and Wales. There is still more to do, and there can be absolutely no complacency.
A 50p per unit price provides a proportionate response to tackle higher-risk alcohol use. We know there is a proven link between consumption and harm, and that minimum unit pricing is the most effective and efficient way to tackle the cheap, high-strength alcohol that causes so much harm. Going back to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian, the World Health Organisation said that tobacco education was not, and could not be, as effective as regulation and Government action. We need to remember that when we seek to tackle alcohol harm.
People in Scotland still buy 9% more alcohol per head than those in England and Wales, but that gap is closing because of growing sales of alcohol in England and Wales last year. A 50p minimum unit price is no longer sufficient, because after it was brought in in 2012, the implementation of the policy was delayed by court action for years after the 50p level was set. It is time to explore raising that unit price to 60p, because it has to be set at a level where it is effective; it is not there for some kind of virtue signalling. A 60p minimum unit price seems reasonable to me.
I urge the Minister to carefully examine the action that has been taken in Scotland to tackle alcohol harm. It is a basic economic fact that if the price goes up, consumption goes down, and if the price goes down, consumption goes up; it is not rocket science. There are no silver bullets for tackling this issue, but there is some good practice in Scotland. Scotland, as well as England, has to build on what we already know and what we are already doing. I urge the Minister to emulate this practice for the good of the families and the communities who live with this scourge every day, and who need action.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on having secured this debate. It is always a pleasure to hear from a fellow Cheshire MP, and she introduced the subject extremely well. She was right to say that this is an extraordinary time, but when we hopefully get through the current crisis, the issue of alcohol harm will still need to be tackled. She was also right to say that as we face this crisis, there is an increased risk that long periods of self-isolation will lead to excessive drinking. I know there is tremendous pressure on the Department at the moment, but I hope that important point will be considered. The hon. Lady has also described the importance of integrating the loneliness and social prescribing agenda into alcohol support strategies.
We also heard from the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), who brought his own experience to bear on this matter. He was clear that affordability, availability and advertising are the key ways in which to tackle this issue, and that education on its own is not enough; he was also right to identify off-sales as a trend that needs looking at. The hon. Member for Henley (John Howell) made some interesting points about drink-drive limits and also raised the issue of drinking before conception—before the period of pregnancy—which we do not talk enough about at the moment. As always, we heard from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who discussed in detail the history of his eating habits, raising an important point about moderation and controlling temptation that can be applied equally to this area. He also clearly highlighted the social difficulties caused by excessive alcohol consumption.
We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), who spoke mainly about minimum unit pricing. She talked about the benefits that the University of Sheffield’s study demonstrated such pricing could create, and made the interesting point that 48% of publicans support minimum unit pricing, which we do not always appreciate. She was also right that a holistic approach needs to be taken to alcohol harm, which is a point that most Members touched on to some extent.
Every year, thousands of people die because of alcohol consumption and many more people are harmed. This is an issue that goes beyond the individual and affects the whole of society, including their family and their whole community. The statistics we have heard this morning are shocking, and I make no apologies for repeating some of them, because they are worth repeating. Alcohol is the leading risk factor for death for 15 to 49-year-olds in England, and eight people die every day due to alcohol. Alcohol-related hospital admissions are at a record high, having risen by 44% over the past decade. In 2018, there were 1.1 million admissions to hospital related to alcohol use. Every day, 33 people are diagnosed with one of seven types of alcohol-related cancer, and liver disease is a major and increasing cause of death. It causes about 2% of all deaths in the UK every year, having increased by a shocking 400% since 1970.
Those numbers come at a high cost. Alcohol costs NHS England £3.5 billion annually, and 25% of A&E workers’ time is spent dealing with alcohol-related incidents. It is also reckoned to cost the economy £1.2 billion to £1.4 billion annually. In total, over 10 million in the UK consume more than the recommended levels of alcohol.
As we heard, 2 million people have an alcohol-dependent parent; at least 200,000 children live with at least one alcohol-dependent adult. According to the Children’s Society, parental alcohol abuse damages the lives of 700,000 teenagers across the UK. More than 4,000 children a year contact Childline with concerns about their parents’ alcohol use—it is the most common reason for children to call about their parents. We know from previous debates about the adverse childhood experiences of growing up with a parent with alcohol or substance misuse, which can have lasting, and sometimes devastating, impacts on children. We hear about them having to fend for themselves, when they have no option but to take on as best they can the adult responsibilities foisted upon them.
Children themselves may get into a similar spiral. One in three diagnosed mental health conditions in adults is known to directly relate to adverse childhood experiences. The World Health Organisation outlines a cycle of violence, because alcohol and substance misuse impacts on children’s lives, with a devastating impact on their adulthood.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) has campaigned passionately on these issues; he is clear that alcohol addiction is a public health issue and is strongly linked to health inequalities in England. The rate of alcohol-specific deaths is more than double in the most deprived areas compared with the least. Tackling alcohol harm is a key route to increase the health of our nation, to reduce health inequalities and to reduce pressure on our public services. That means investment in those services, focus on prevention and challenging the wider circumstances and social determinants of ill health, including addiction. We struggle with that at the moment, because alcohol services continue to be cut because of public health spending reductions of around £700 million, including addiction services cut by £162 million. That has an impact; we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon that local authorities still do not know their public health allocation for next year, despite it coming into force in two weeks’ time.
We must fund alcohol treatment services fully; the hon. Member for Congleton highlighted that 88% of those who need services in Cheshire East are not getting that support. Unless we take this issue seriously, that figure will not improve.
I want to say a few words about workforce. Whenever we talk about health issues, there are always workforce implications. The number of training posts in addiction psychiatry has decreased by 60% since 2006. In 2017, the Royal College of Psychiatrists census found that the NHS had 20% fewer consultant addiction psychiatrist posts than four years previously. Obviously, that has an impact on frontline staff, and there is less one-to-one client contact, which is vital. We must improve co-ordination and partnership working with mental health services. Too many people who experience addiction problems also experience mental health conditions such as depression, anxiety or schizophrenia. Yet just one in four people with a diagnosed mental health problem in substance treatment also receives mental health treatment. We have talked many times about the need for mental health to get parity of esteem.
The Government’s alcohol strategy in 2012 devoted just two paragraphs to recognising the link between co-morbidities of alcohol problems and mental health. That simply is not good enough. Dual diagnosis must be the expectation, not the exception. Just as we need to do more to improve recovery and addiction services, we need to be bolder on prevention and population health interventions. We have a proud record on bringing down smoking rates, because we have taken decisive action. We need to do the same with alcohol abuse; it must be at the heart of the prevention agenda.
There are three areas that should be included—transparency on alcohol labelling, pricing, and prevention and marketing. Unfortunately, there is not time to go through all those in much detail, but I know that the Government committed to a new prevention Green Paper and updated alcohol strategy. While I appreciate that the Department has huge pressures on it at the moment, it would be helpful if the Minister gave us an indication of when we might expect to see that, if she is able to, because that will be the key to making progress on those issues in the future.
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) on securing the debate. Despite all that is going on around us, there have been some substantial contributions to the conversation that have made some really important points. I am responding on behalf of the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Jo Churchill), who is currently working on emergency legislation for coronavirus, and will do my very best to give a full response to the questions that have been raised.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton for her comments, particularly about the work that we are doing in response to coronavirus. I should add that, although I am grateful that she thanked the ministerial team, the thanks should go to those on the frontline, such as the NHS and social care workforce. They are the ones who are really taking the issue on.
I commend my hon. Friend for the huge amount of work that she has done on this matter and for her commitment to ensuring that we reduce the harm caused by alcohol. Most people drink responsibly and the good news is that we are seeing an overall decrease in the number of people who drink, especially among young people. However, the Government are not complacent and are determined to do more to support people at risk from alcohol misuse. Our aim is to ensure that people are directed to the appropriate service wherever and whenever they look for help.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the Minister for giving way and for stepping in to respond to the debate. She said that most people drink responsibly, but Drinkaware’s statistics, which are very worrying, show that 49% of men are classified as increasing or higher risk drinkers compared with 31% of women. That is a very high percentage.
Helen Whately
As I said, I fully appreciate and respect my hon. Friend for the huge amount of work that she does to urge us to recognise the harmful effects alcohol can have.
We know that alcohol misuse can have an impact on hospital care and demand. It contributes to a wide range of conditions including cardiovascular disease, cancer and liver disease, as well as accidents, violence and self-harm. Some 12% to 15% of A&E attendances are alcohol-related, and alcohol is a causal factor in the patient’s diagnosis for more than 1.1 million hospital admissions every year. We absolutely take my hon. Friend’s concerns seriously.
As part of our NHS long term plan, alcohol care teams are being introduced in hospitals with the highest number of alcohol-related admissions. It has been shown that those teams significantly reduce avoidable bed days and re-admissions. The seven-days per week service at Royal Bolton Hospital saved 2,000 bed days in its first year, and modelling suggests that alcohol care teams in every non-specialist acute hospital will save 254,000 bed days and 78,000 admissions per year by their third year of operation.
Thanks to the personal testimony and campaigning by hon. Members present and by others who were unable to attend, the Government have invested £6 million to improve outcomes for children with alcohol-dependent parents. That funding includes £4.5 million for nine local areas to test innovative ways of working and to join up systems to support children and families—promising results are emerging in those areas. We have also allocated £1.5 million to voluntary sector organisations to build resources and capacity at national level, including helpline and contact-centre support through the National Association for Children of Alcoholics. We are also investing £6 million through a capital fund to enable local authorities to improve services and facilities for people with alcohol problems.
We continue to educate the public, ensuring that people are aware of the health risks of alcohol through local and national programmes, such as Public Health England’s One You campaign. The alcohol risk assessment in the NHS health check is used to inform a discussion on reducing the individual’s risk. New guidance encourages referral for liver investigation, where risk is identified. In addition, there is a commissioning for quality and innovation—CQUIN—scheme to incentivise increased cirrhosis and fibrosis tests for alcohol-dependent patients.
My hon. Friend also mentioned labelling. We have worked with industry to communicate the UK chief medical officer’s low risk drinking guidelines on the labelling of alcohol products. The Portman Group and others in the industry have made a commitment that labels will reflect the guidelines and we are closely monitoring progress.
We have also made a commitment in the prevention Green Paper to work with industry to deliver a significant increase in the availability of alcohol-free and low-alcohol products by 2025. A roundtable is being organised to take this work forward. Encouragingly, sales of no or low-alcohol beer are up 30% since 2016 and “nolo” alcohol is set to be one of the driving trends of 2020, although I am sure trends are being reviewed in the light of the pandemic.
Public Health England supports local authorities in their work of needs assessment and commissioning alcohol and drug prevention and treatment services by providing advice, guidance and data. PHE is developing UK-wide clinical guidelines for alcohol treatment. That work will promote good practice and improve the quality of service provision, resulting in better outcomes for patients.
We know that alcohol-exposed pregnancies present a significant public health problem across the country. Foetal alcohol spectrum disorder can have a major impact on the early years development of children and their life chances. There is great work under way at local levels to tackle this. For example, the Greater Manchester health and social care partnership recently launched its #DRYMESTER campaign to raise awareness of drinking alcohol when pregnant. NICE are currently consulting on a draft quality standard on FASD. The voluntary sector also plays a vital role here. As part of the children of alcohol-dependent parents funding programme, over £500,000 is being made available to support work on FASD.
Finally, the good news from the budget is that £46 million in funding is being provided to improve support to individuals experiencing multiple complex needs. That includes tackling homelessness, reoffending and substance abuse, including alcohol misuse. In addition, as part of our rough sleepers programme, there is £262 million of new funding for substance misuse treatment services. When fully deployed, that is expected to help more than 11,000 rough sleepers a year. It will enable people to move off the streets and support them to maintain a tenancy for the long term. The funding complements £237 million announced by the Prime Minister for accommodation for rough sleepers, and a further £144 million for associated support services.
Several hon. Members raised minimum unit pricing, particularly the hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who drew on her experience in Scotland. There are no plans to implement minimum unit pricing in England at present, but the Government continue to monitor the evidence as it emerges from Scotland and Wales.
Several hon. Members talked about the Government’s alcohol addiction strategy. As announced in November, we are undertaking a UK-wide cross-Government addiction strategy. Plans on the contents of the strategy are being developed and we will have more to say on this shortly.
Patricia Gibson
I listened carefully when the Minister said that the Government currently have no plans to implement minimum unit pricing. In the light of that, and given the funding and investment she talks about that will deal with the consequences of alcohol addiction, does she agree that tackling the consequences is less effective than tackling the problem at source? Cider and some of the highest content alcohol is on sale in shops in England for less than a bottle of water or a pint of milk. Does she agree that making alcohol a little bit more expensive could have an impact?
Helen Whately
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution and I take her point. It is important that we continue to look at the evidence and that is the approach we will follow. I thank everyone here today for their contributions to this important debate and for having this conversation.
Jim Shannon
I urge the Minister to contact each of the regional devolved Administrations, in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales. It would be a good idea for interaction with those three regional Administrations, to gauge a universal policy for the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and to take all the evidence from other parts of the United Kingdom, which could gel a strategy that we could all agree on. That would be a substantial way forward.
Helen Whately
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about working together, and the UK Government working with the devolved Administrations, drawing on the lessons that we have all learned and the evidence we all have. I do not think I will make a commitment to do that immediately in the light of the current public health situation, but he does make a very good point.
The Government absolutely are taking action and we are determined to do more to support people who are most vulnerable from alcohol misuse.
Fiona Bruce
I thank the Minister for Care for stepping in to respond to this debate. I also want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (John Howell), the hon. Members for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for Blaydon (Liz Twist), for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) and for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) for their contributions.
It is very rare that we hear in this place such a united voice from Members of Parliament from all political parties, but we did so today, because we recognise that alcohol harm is a major threat to our country’s wellbeing. It is a blight, particularly on the lives of the most vulnerable—the youngest and those in many of our most deprived areas. Wider society, too, is paying an incalculable toll. What came across again and again in the debate was that, although all the initiatives that we have heard from the Minister are good and we are grateful for them, much more needs to be done. Alcohol harm must be elevated in the national prevention agenda. A distinct and separate alcohol harm strategy is essential.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered tackling alcohol harm.
Lea Castle Farm Quarry
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Lea Castle Farm Quarry.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, and to be in Westminster Hall, even as it evacuates so only the three of us are left, alongside you and your good team. I completely understand, as this very specific local issue of the Lea Castle quarry in my constituency is not of huge interest to other people.
It is quite ironic to have this Minister here responding to this debate. I look back on a January Sunday afternoon in 2004, when he and I were in the final of the Wyre Forest Conservative Association competition to become the parliamentary candidate for the constituency. I beat him, but it could easily have been the Minister standing here, championing the cause for his constituents— as I know he does very well—and me elsewhere.
This is a highly specific issue and I appreciate that the Minister cannot necessarily go into details because of the planning application, but the strength of feeling about it in my constituency is incredibly strong. Basically, the application is to excavate 105 acres of Lea Castle farm in my constituency, bang in between the villages of Wolverley and Cookley and to the north of Kidderminster. The quarry, as I say, is 105 acres and is set to be excavated over a 10-year period, with a requirement to restore the land to its original agricultural use at the end of that period. The family who own Lea Castle farm have entered into an agreement with NRS Aggregates, which will undertake the excavation.
Before I get to the meat of my points, I want to talk about a few points of agreement, because there are certain things that I do agree with. First, I completely agree that we need to quarry; it is essential that we can dig out aggregates and building materials to meet the Government’s target of building 300,000 homes over the period of this Parliament, and 1 million over the complete forecast period. The materials have to come from somewhere, and holes in the ground are as good a place as any, although it is worth bearing in mind that recycling aggregates is something we should do.
Secondly, I understand that, to lessen the impact on the environment, the nearer a quarry is to any development, the better; fewer miles driven by lorries lowers damage to the environment. The Wyre Forest local plan sets ambitions for around 5,400 homes between now and 2032, the vast majority of which will need aggregate resources.
Thirdly, the planning application is designed to be sensitive. It proposes a phased process, with a central plant being established for the full 10-year period, and five processes lasting, I guess, two years each, with each successive phase being required to infill the previous phase to reduce the impact on the local area. It is also worth bearing in mind that there are requirements to have a left-only exit from the site, thereby avoiding the village of Wolverley and all the schools in the locality.
Fourthly, the community benefits from £2 per tonne local community tax, known as the aggregates levy. That is fantastic; it was brought in in 2002 and mitigates the impact on the local community, so that the community can benefit from it. However, I would say that the Government made a mistake in 2010 when as a result of the spending review they ended the aggregates levy sustainability fund. That fund brought together industry, environmentalists and local communities to restore areas affected by extraction and to transform degraded sites back into areas that could be used by the local community.
Those are the areas where I broadly agree with the Government’s position, but there are many areas of contention. First is the location of the quarry, which is bang in between two villages—Wolverley to the west, directly on its western extreme, and Cookley to the north; to the south is Sion Hill, a suburb of Kidderminster. There are four schools within a mile’s distance of the centre of the site: Wolverley Church of England Secondary School is 0.9 of a mile away, Cookley Sebright Primary School is five eighths of a mile away, St Oswald’s CE Primary School in Kidderminster is just over half a mile away and Heathfield Knoll School’s nursery is on the other side of the road from the edge of the second phase of the site. Wolverley Sebright Primary School is just over a mile away, but, as I say, that is measuring from the centre of the site; the full extent of the 105 acres means that the site it is much closer to some of those schools.
Within the immediate locality are three communities: Cookley has 2,034 people on the electoral roll, with 1,114 homes; Wolverley has 1,820 people on the electoral roll and Sion Hill has 760. A lot of people live very close to this site, and despite the proposal’s being low impact, it is inevitable that they will suffer from noise pollution, dust pollution and the impact on highways. Of course, I completely understand that there is an enormous amount of legislation surrounding, for example, the pollution put up by silicates as they come off these sites, and there is a requirement to suppress them. One would hope that NRS Aggregates would comply fully with those with that legislation, and I expect it to do so, but it is possible that there will be accidents. While accidents are wholly to be avoided, and any punishment is the right thing to do, the problem is that, while it is possible to get away with an accident in an area with nobody living around it, the middle of a highly populated area is a really bad place to have one. That creates a greater threat to the local community.
Finally, we have a riding stables, which is privately owned, right in the middle of the site. The riding stables will be quarried all around over the 10-year period. Their lives will be appallingly badly affected. The whole planning application has profound impacts on the local community and the local community is very heavily against it.
Looking to the future, the planning application is merely for a 10-year period, to extract 3 million tonnes of aggregates from a 105-acre site. I recently met Mr Louis Strong, who seemed a perfectly reasonable and nice chap. He is the son of the site’s owner; he is 36 years old and wants to be a farmer. The site has been in the family for three generations, and while his father is a successful entrepreneur doing land deals who now lives in Jersey, Mr Strong strikes me as being a very sincere individual who genuinely wants to farm. I think his wishes are at odds with his father’s. His father previously applied to secure planning permission for the site to be a golf course; although planning was approved, the plans were shelved for one reason or another. The farm is around 250 acres, and although they farm one or two other sites locally, the farm seems only marginally viable. Louis Strong is understandably seeking alternative cash generation schemes from his farm. Farm diversification is a wholly understandable and desirable option, and Mr Strong wants to continue farming the site once it has returned to agricultural use.
I used to be an investment banker. Among other things, I used to invest in and study aggregate companies and extraction companies. I am absolutely convinced of the sincerity of Mr Strong’s desire to be a farmer, but the key principal in the application is NRS Aggregates Ltd, which in this case—it does a number of different things—is entirely in the business of extracting value from the ground. I know the company will be eager to secure the maximum output from the quarry. To deliver its fiduciary duty to shareholders—having secured the big heave of getting the initial planning permission across the line— it will almost certainly seek to maximise the output beyond that stated in its initial low-impact intentions.
There are too many variables that could change decisions over the coming 10 years. As we know, extraction rates are determined by market demand, and the cost to developers of sand and gravel are a function of market price and delivery cost. We are proposing in the Budget to increase the demand for aggregates by encouraging the building of 300,000 houses per year over the next few years. That can result only in an increase in the price of the aggregate and a subsequent increase in quarrying. Although the argument is that local demand means there is a local market, it requires the demand locally to match in every way the continuous extraction of 300 tonnes per annum. How can anyone predict at this stage the exact flow of local demand? It requires synergy for a decade, which is very unlikely to happen.
Should there be a period of low development locally, the quarry will have to find markets further afield or slow production. That would bring into question the end date of the process. Similarly, if demand is high, will the quarry beef up production and seek to vary its planning permission in order to excavate at a higher, and thus more aggravating, rate? That will cause greater concern and upset to the local community. If market rates for sand and gravel continue to rise, there will be a greater imperative to dig more. If the company seeks to change the planning grant to extract more aggregates from the area, it will create more hassle for my community. In any event, the average six-room home requires around 100 tonnes of sand and gravel—in Wyre Forest, that equates to a total demand for 5,400 tonnes of sand and gravel, compared with 3 million tonnes being excavated. The vast majority of the quarry’s output will actually have to go out of the district.
Looking at the green issues, the local plan has a variety of sites across the district. Meeting low-emission targets for delivery could easily result in a subsequent application to change the left-only exit policy from the site, meaning that lorries would drive past a number of schools and through villages. On this particular argument, the environment’s interests are at odds with those of the local community. Did I mention that the quarry is smack in the middle of the green belt? It is quite offensive in terms of the green belt legislation.
There are plenty of examples of quarries that have submitted subsequent planning applications to enhance their size. Clifton quarry in Worcestershire was extended in 2016. In 2017, Willingdon quarry sought to enable the production of a further 2.07 million tonnes of sand and gravel. There was a proposed extension to restore Chadwich Lane quarry in Bromsgrove. There was an extension to Barton Quarry Western to extract 6.3 million tonnes of sand and gravel over a period of 10 years. These are all extensions, not the absolute planning. At Newington quarry there was a proposal for an extension to sand and gravel extraction. The Norton Bottoms quarry applied for a four-phase extension, Hints quarry for a variation of conditions, and Methlick quarry for an extension for a further 10 years—and on it goes. Quarries change their planning applications because they want to extend what is going on. Lea Castle Farm quarry is already hideously offensive to the local community. What will it become if NRS Aggregates decides it wants to maximise the output from this opportunity?
The application is due to go before Worcestershire County Council’s planning committee later this year, possibly in May. Officers are committed to ensuring that planning law is upheld. It may well be that they recommend approval. All of us know that planning committee members are prevented from predetermination, so I have no idea how the planning committee will vote, but I think that if its members take the recommendation of the officers, it is not impossible that this may get passed. If the application fails, the refusal will almost certainly be challenged. I warn the Minister that, in the event of a successful appeal and the inspector passing the application, I will ask him to call in the decision to get the Secretary of State to look at it.
There are plenty of examples where planning has been refused in the past. For example, a proposed expansion of Wangford quarry in Suffolk was blocked given its location in an area of outstanding natural beauty. The planning inspector found that there were no exceptional circumstances to justify the expansion of mineral extraction on the site. At the Thrislington quarry in County Durham, residents fought Lafarge Aggregates’ proposed extension to the quarry. Officers had recommended that the planning committee did not object to the development, but councillors blocked the quarry due to the unprecedented level of objection to the scheme, with 1,366 individual letters and objections. It is entirely possible that at Lea Castle Farm quarry, an application may have a similar number of objections.
At Bengeo quarry in Hertford, campaigners were fighting plans to quarry an extra 1.25 million tonnes of sand and gravel from its field. The planning inspector rejected plans for the quarry, and the developer appealed to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State backed the views of residents and the planning inspector decided that the quarry had the potential to threaten water supplies and loss of amenities. More important, and very similar to what we face at Lea Castle farm, his concerns were also raised due to health risks from silica dust in the air and significant damage to open space and the green belt. Similarly, at Fullamoor quarry in Oxfordshire, an Oxfordshire based company, Hills Quarry Products, wanted to use land over 12 and a half years to extract 2.5 million tonnes of earth. The application was finally rejected in 2017. The company reapplied in 2018 and the council again turned the application down, concerned about the green belt and severe highways impact; that was for a smaller and lower impact development.
I am not against quarrying, but I am against quarrying in people’s backyards in semi-urban areas. Canada has a rule forbidding quarrying within 600 metres of schools and residences. I know there is an argument that there is more available space there, but nonetheless the point is still well made. No part of this quarry is not within a 600-metre radius of a school or property adjacent to this site.
Today, I want to make the Minister aware that, if the planning inspectors put the application through, I will ask him to call it in and give all his support to help the Secretary of State come to a sensible decision—in case of doubt, “sensible” means backing my constituents. I also want to ask the Minister to review planning laws on quarries. I completely accept that we need quarries, but we cannot have quarries so close to people’s private residences, businesses, and schools. It does not make any sense. If Canada can have a 600 metre rule, why can we not have something similar here? I look forward to hearing how the Minister would have dealt with this had he been elected Member of Parliament for Wyre Forest all those years ago.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, I think for the first time, but it is an even greater pleasure to respond to the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) introduced. He said that the Chamber lacks quantity, but I do not think it lacks quality while he sits here. He is absolutely right: it was 16 years ago one Sunday afternoon when he defeated me in the selection for the Conservative candidacy in Wyre Forest. He also knows, though he did not choose to tell you, that he beat me by one vote, although I suspect that after 16 years of his candidacy and some other years as Member of Parliament, and after his performance today on behalf of his constituents, were I to stand against him again, he would defeat me by a landslide. He is a doughty campaigner and champion for his constituents.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that there is a due and proper process to be followed in the consideration of planning applications for mineral development, in this case by Worcestershire County Council. Although the Secretary of State’s quasi-judicial role in the planning system means that I am unable to comment on the merits of individual planning applications, he is right that there is much upon which we can agree, for example, the importance of building the right sort of new homes, which are appropriate and sensitive to their location and surroundings, and the means by which those homes are built.
Determining planning applications is a matter, in the first instance, for the local planning authority to carefully consider and decide in accordance with proper planning and legal requirements. All planning applications have to be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. I want to stress at this point that the local planning authority is best placed to determine local development proposals. Residents must have confidence that their local council will consider and determine this application in a fair and open manner, as is its duty. The planning application for mineral extraction at Lea Castle Farm quarry is currently, as my hon. Friend has said, being considered by Worcestershire County Council and is, I understand, of a type and scale that requires it to be subject to an environmental impact assessment and have an accompanying environmental statement.
The aim of the EIA is to protect the environment by ensuring that a local planning authority, when deciding whether to grant planning permission for a project that could have significant effects on the environment, does so in full knowledge of those likely effects and takes them into account in its decision-making process. The environmental statement accompanying the planning application assesses a range of environmental effects, including issues such as air quality, dust, health, traffic, noise, heritage, biodiversity and visual impacts, as well as many other matters, some of which are of particular concern to local communities. It is for the mineral planning authority to assess the adequacy of the information provided in determining the application, taking into account all relevant material considerations, including the views of local people, local stakeholders and, of course, the local Member of Parliament.
The Government’s view, as set out in the national planning policy framework, is that the planning system should be genuinely plan-led. It is important we have succinct and up-to-date plans to provide a positive vision for the future of each area; a framework for addressing housing needs and other economic, social and environmental priorities, including making sufficient provision for minerals; and a platform for local people to shape their surroundings. Our policy states that it is essential that there is a sufficient supply of minerals to provide the infrastructure, buildings, energy and goods the country needs.
Mineral planning authorities are charged with providing for the extraction of mineral resources of local and national importance. They are required to plan for a steady and adequate supply of aggregates, including crushed rock, sand and gravel, by designating specific sites, preferred areas or areas for search. In my constituency, there are several such aggregate sites. Staffordshire, like Worcestershire, is a major provider of aggregate, so I am familiar with some of the issues that my hon. Friend raised.
Unlike other developments, however, minerals can be worked only where they are found. They are temporary in nature and a finite natural resource that needs to be made best use of. That creates unique challenges for local areas of how best to meet local and wider mineral needs while ensuring that mineral operations do not have unacceptable adverse consequences on the natural and historical environment or on human health. Given that I come from a similar constituency with a similar background, I understand some of the points that my hon. Friend raised.
My hon. Friend mentioned Canada. He is right to say that Canada has a very different geography from that of the United Kingdom. The open spaces in Canada are somewhat more significant than those in the UK. However, I of course recognise the challenges that he has identified. The national planning policy framework is regularly reviewed, and this is an issue that he will bring to me again and again, and I am very happy to consider his points.
I fully understand the concerns of local communities such as the ones my hon. Friend mentioned—Wolverley, Cookley and Broadwaters—about the proposed Lea Castle Farm quarry, particularly concerns about any adverse impacts on homes, businesses and the local environment. He mentioned a riding stables. High Speed 2 cuts through my constituency. I also have a riding stables and horse training centre in my constituency, run by Eddie McMahon, which is similarly affected. So again, I understand the challenges that my hon. Friend’s local businesses face.
My hon. Friend mentioned in passing his concerns about future extension plans for the quarry. I remind him that any future extensions will be subject to further planning permission, and have to be judged on their merits at the time. It is not the case that the quarry can simply extend and extend beyond the permissions that have already been granted.
As I explained earlier, given that this is a live planning application under consideration by Worcestershire County Council, and that there is a submitted local plan undergoing examination by the Planning Inspectorate, I am not in a position to directly address the specific concerns raised by my hon. Friend’s constituents. Nevertheless, it is vital that people’s concerns are heard and that local residents are listened to. That is why all steps of our planning system are supported by a public consultation process, through which people can consider the proposals and the applications.
Worcestershire County Council submitted its mineral local plan for examination to the Secretary of State on 17 December 2019. I have to say that it was rather overdue, because I think that the plan, as currently adopted, was constituted in 1997. So it is important that an up-to-date plan is in place. The Secretary of State has appointed an independent planning inspector to assess the soundness and legal compliance of the plan. The inspector will consider the evidence provided by the local planning authority to support the plan and any representations that have been put forward by local people and other interested parties, including, of course, my hon. Friend. The examination hearings are due to open on Tuesday 5 May and the second week of hearings will be held in the week commencing 1 June, if necessary. Those hearings are an opportunity for people to voice any concerns or anxieties that they have.
I am pleased that the Planning Inspectorate’s procedural practice encourages Members to participate in examination hearing sessions, and that the Government also encourage Members to involve themselves in this way. I do not suspect that I will need to encourage my hon. Friend very much further in that regard.
Unfortunately, because of its very nature, new development will have some effect on the local environment. It is for that reason that there are clear and defined measures by which development proposals and their potential impact on residents, local communities and the environment are assessed. Of course, the NPPF includes a requirement for local plans to be accompanied by a sustainability appraisal, which allows the potential environmental, economic and social impacts of the proposals to be taken into account systematically, and such plans should play a key role throughout the plan-making process.
The sustainability appraisal plays an important part in demonstrating that the local plan reflects sustainability objectives and has considered reasonable alternatives. A sustainability appraisal and a habitats regulation assessment has been undertaken for the Worcestershire minerals local plan, and those will be before the planning inspector.
I appreciate that I have not been able fully to address some of the specific concerns expressed by my hon. Friend and his constituents. However, I hope that my explanation of the system has provided some reassurance to him and to residents that their voices are being heard—they are being listened to and will be taken into account before any decision is reached. I encourage him to continue to champion his constituents and their concerns. I look forward to his further representations, and I am absolutely sure that he will not be inviting me back to Worcestershire and his local association because he would not impose on me the humiliation of being defeated by such a huge margin.
Question put and agreed to.
Football Attendances: VAR
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
Order. As I just said to Mr Perkins, given the number of people here, you will all have longer than it takes for the video assistant referee to make a decision.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered VAR and its effect on football attendances.
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts, particularly as it is so difficult to get the opportunity to speak to a Sheffield Wednesday supporter about football at the moment.
I confess that it feels somewhat incongruous, as the country’s attention is focused on the coronavirus crisis and football has come to a stop, for Parliament to debate a non-life threatening matter such as video assistant referees and their impact on football attendances. I have been attempting for several weeks to secure a debate on this subject in the fortnightly ballot; it is somewhat unfortunate that the debate was finally drawn in this of all weeks.
The coronavirus crisis is both a medical and economic crisis, and the financial health of our national game is an issue that should matter to us. Football—particularly the Premier League—is one of the nation’s key economic and cultural exports, and anything that affects the Premier League’s popularity and esteem matters. Although we all accept that there are more pressing matters, there will be a day when coronavirus is in the past and we will turn again to the normality that makes life rich, varied and enjoyable. I hope that those watching at home will accept that debate is being held in that spirit and that taking an hour or less to discuss the impact that VAR has had on football will not in any way diminish the Government’s preparedness to tackle the coronavirus crisis and to take the necessary steps to support businesses and people through it.
There seems to be almost universal agreement that the way that VAR is currently used in the English Premier League is bad for football. Opinion is less uniform on whether it is a good idea done badly or just a bad idea. During my speech, I intend to make the case for the abolition of VAR, while also looking at some of the steps that could be taken to improve it if the EPL, clubs and the wider game insist that it is here to stay and can only be reformed rather than abolished.
To explain why I believe that VAR should be abolished completely, I must start by explaining what I see as football’s enduring appeal. There is a reason why football is the most successful, the richest and the most widely watched and played sport in the history of our planet. Football’s appeal is in both its simplicity and its accessibility. Wherever someone may be in the world, if they have something round and two rocks for goalposts, they have a game. Until very recently, no matter the level, football’s core rules were the same. Whether in the local park, where more people play than watch, or at Celtic Park in front of 60,000 people, football was football.
Alongside that simplicity, football’s unique selling point is the rarity of the goal. A goal can be a thing of beauty—a thrilling movement that builds to a crescendo with a thrilling release—or it can be workmanlike and brutal, with the ball forced over the line. It can be fortunate, freakish or amazingly simple and, sometimes, it can even be comical and farcical. The goal can be controversial, a moment to delight and bring a nation together in a shared explosion of joy; or it can be tragic, as an entire ground and nation clasps their heads in their hands in perfect unison. No other moment in any other sport is so special as the moment in football when a goal is scored. However that goal is scored, it is rare and important, and because of its rarity and importance, it matters and it is celebrated.
That moment, which is the fundamental ethos of what it means to love football, is the moment that VAR interferes with. We are robbed of that moment of simple joy or despair by a faceless man sitting in an industrial estate in south-west London, miles away from those who really care. All the fans can do is wait for his dreadful, often imperfect, verdict. The wild, breathless celebrations are halted by the dreadful, purple appearance on the big screen of the words “checking goal”. Sometimes celebrations that have been under way for 30 seconds or more are placed on pause as two sets of fans stop and stare at a screen that offers them nothing but the fact that uncertainty now reigns.
In a sport that thrives on being played without delay, that uncertainty can last for three minutes or more. The chant about VAR is so commonplace that there is not a single premiership fan who could not instantly sing it. If VAR offered flawless decision making I would still say that it was not worth it, but it does not even do that. When VAR was introduced we were promised that it would overturn clear and obvious errors, but it has become a farce.
For a toenail offside, 30 seconds before a goal was scored—and after a three-minute delay—Sheffield United’s goal at Tottenham was ruled offside. Arsenal scored a goal at Old Trafford that was uncontested by the Manchester United defenders because the linesman’s flag had gone up several seconds before the goal was scored. West Ham fans celebrated their last-minute equaliser at Bramall Lane for a full 45 seconds before there was even a suggestion that it might be called into question. I must confess that that last-minute disallowed goal brought me momentary pleasure, but even as we celebrated the goal being disallowed a part of me mourned what we had all lost.
I have explained why I do not want VAR in football, but even if it must be tolerated, so much is wrong with how it is being delivered. First, the technology is applied to offside decisions on the basis of where one player’s most prominent limb is in relation to another player at the specific moment when the film is frozen. A millisecond either side of that, however, and the player might have been onside. The technology is imperfect in terms of the exact moment when the ball was kicked. VAR is overruling goals on hairline decisions with a technology that is not good enough to deliver the level of precision that it pretends to offer. A camera that is not in line with the offside line is used to overrule a decision by a linesman who was, accepting that arbitrary lines drawn on a screen provide an accurate description of who was furthest forward by a millimetre.
I guarantee that if VAR, this dreadful stain on the beautiful game, continues long into the future, fans will look back in 20 years and laugh at the technology on which we currently rely to determine whether someone was offside. VAR has exposed the gap between our expectation of players’ performances and those of referees. When a striker skies a shot over the bar or a goalkeeper lets the ball slip from his grasp, fans on his side are willing to view that error in the context of the overall performance, but no such allowance is ever given to the referee. That thirst for perfection in decision making—a product of the pundit era and the enormous investment in technology by Sky Sports and others, designed to improve our enjoyment of the game—has driven us to the soulless VAR experiment.
For years, the coverage of every match, and of every post-match managerial interview, has included a section on the decisions that the referee made or the manager’s view of whether the referee was any good. It turns out that managers whose teams lost usually thought that he was not. We all became used to that as part of the background music to every match. Now the focus has shifted from whether the referee was right to whether VAR was right. Every week, the football headlines are not about the performances of the players but about the decisions made and the technology.
In attempting to justify the success of VAR, the English Premier League’s note to me in advance of the debate informed me that a decision was overturned in only one in every three matches, as though that should show me how little it was intervening. Far from it. If VAR is correcting so few decisions, what problem are we trying to solve? It has ruined a lot more goal celebrations for me than that, and not just those that are overturned. Even the celebrations that ultimately are not in vain are not the same because fans wonder whether what happened was something that would be called into question. The spontaneity that is so crucial and endemic to football is lost as a result of VAR.
VAR is also changing the way that football is played, refereed and watched. It is changing the decision making to the detriment of the fairness of the sporting contest. Linesmen are instructed not to flag for offside unless they are absolutely sure, even if they believe it is offside. A linesman in an EFL Championship game who would flag for offside, because he thinks it is, will in the Premier League allow the game to carry on because it was close, giving an unfair advantage to the attacking side. This can lead to a load of football that is a waste of time, because ultimately a goal is disallowed or to an offside player winning a corner or a free kick that then leads to a goal that should never have happened, because the linesman thinks that he was probably offside anyway but did not give it, because he was correctly following the edict not to flag for a marginal offside. When I think about the difference between the fan experience in the Premier League and the Championship, I almost envy you, Mr Betts—but perhaps I would not go that far.
If VAR is to continue, changes are needed both to the rules of the game and VAR’s operation if it is going to be anything other than a drag on the appeal of a hugely successful product. Most crucially, the offside law needs reviewing. New referees and linesmen were always taught that if a player is level, they are onside, as the rules state. In real time, that made sense, but in the VAR era, there is no such thing as level. It now means that if, at the moment that the screen is frozen, one player’s toe is a millimetre beyond another player’s shoulder, the goal is disallowed. That is not what the offside rule was designed to outlaw and it needs rewriting, because it is spoiling the sport’s simplicity, which is so important. We need to return to the original principle that if the majority of two players’ bodies are basically level, the striker is considered to be onside.
Secondly, fans must be involved in the process, as other sports manage, with the pictures that are being viewed by the referee also available for fans in the stadium. Thirdly, the referee is the referee and he should view the original pictures. If he is certain that he has made a clear and obvious error, only at that moment should the decision be altered. Finally, a clear and obvious error should mean precisely that. If it takes someone three minutes to work out whether something was an error, it was not clear and obvious. In cricket, there is “umpire’s call”, which means that a degree of latitude is given, meaning that they stay with the original decision to allow for the uncertainty in the technology and the decision that is made. That should be adopted in football so that fewer hairline decisions are overturned and fans can once again celebrate a goal, knowing that unless there is a clear and obvious error, there will be no change to the decision.
I am pleased to have brought this important matter to Parliament. The title of the debate refers to the effect that VAR has on football attendances. That was partly because the Table Office considered football attendances to be a matter that the House was allowed an opinion on, while the rules of football were not, and partly because the evidence is that VAR is reducing football fans’ enjoyment. A YouGov poll showed that 67% of fans who watch football felt that VAR had made watching football a “less enjoyable” experience. Can anyone imagine any other industry introducing, at great expense, an innovation that its paying customers said made its product worse, and then, instead of scrapping it, reacting by doubling down on it and claiming that it was progress that we all had to get to enjoy?
I do not like the principle of VAR. I hate the implementation of it. It professes a precision that it does not deliver. It makes the game our children watch a different sport from the one they play. It changes the way that football’s rules are refereed and it makes obsolete or unworkable rules that made sense with on-field referees in the pre-VAR era. The beautiful game is diminished by VAR, and I say “Scrap it.”
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I know that you take a close interest in football as well.
I commend the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) for securing the debate. I had expected that the SNP spokesperson would be summing up many contributions, but understandably many hon. Members are focused elsewhere today. It feels as if we could be said to be fiddling while Rome burns, but as the hon. Gentleman rightly points out, the debate was applied for several weeks ago, and it is not too much of an inconvenience to spend an hour or so focused on an issue that is on the minds of many football fans. Later in my remarks I will refer to the situation with covid-19 and its impact on our football clubs, which is a bigger, existential threat.
I declare an interest, as I am a proud season ticket holder of the pride of Lanarkshire, the Airdrieonians football club, which is the best wee football team in the land. Although I spend the majority of my Saturdays at football, I have never seen VAR in action, partly because we do not have it in Scotland, certainly not at league 1 level. However, I have seen it on TV a lot. This is the only time, certainly in public, that I will confess to being a small “c” conservative. It might not surprise too many people, but on the issue of football, I am absolutely a small “c” conservative and a traditionalist. I believe that football should be played at 3 o’clock on Saturday. It is a nonsense that teams are playing just about every night of the week. For example, a situation where Newcastle is playing Portsmouth on a Thursday night is not helpful for fans trying to get to games. VAR is just another step down the road of pandering to the commercialisation of football, and particularly TV.
As a football fan, I tend to take a view that over the course of a season some decisions will go for a team and some will go against it. Sometimes a stonewall penalty will be denied, but a soft one will be allowed. In my view, it tends to level out over the course of a season. The cost of VAR for clubs, especially in Scotland, is an issue. The technology is obviously hugely expensive. There are situations in the English premiership where the likes of clubs such as Manchester United do not have the screens to show VAR. That plays into the idea that fans are being excluded from the VAR process, and that they are having to watch the referee making shapes in the sky. It is a nonsense and not helpful for fans. It makes them feel excluded.
There is a separate issue with the amount of time being taken to consult VAR. It interrupts the flow of the match. In the English premiership there are now regularly situations where there are five or six minutes of stoppage time for the first half of a game, which is absolutely ridiculous. Some countries other than Scotland tend to have more stoppage time, but I will not necessarily name them. After the second half there might be three or four minutes added, to take into account substitutions, but the idea that there would be five or six minutes of stoppage time in a first half is a nonsense.
In the opening part of the season, Liverpool beat Norwich 4-1, but there were nine VAR checks in that game. That is huge amount of time for fans to sit and try to work out what on earth is going on. It has been suggested that it could be around 10 years before fans finally get their heads around VAR. Perhaps it is for that reason that so many football fans are chanting, “It’s not football anymore,” in the stands.
The hon. Member for Chesterfield made a point about the post-match discussions. More often than not, we have a discussion in the pub or going home in the car about the whether the referee got it right or wrong. With VAR, we need to remember that there is still a human element involved; the decision still has to be made by a human, but now not necessarily the referee in the park but someone in a centre elsewhere, in London, I think.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
I was not planning to intervene, but my hon. Friend is doing an impersonation of a footballing Luddite. Does he agree that these decisions can cost millions of pounds and a club’s future can be mapped out on such decisions? It is not that VAR is wrong in and of itself, but its implementation should be improved, rather than chucking the whole deal or experiment out, as he is suggesting.
David Linden
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I believe he is a global Celt in my constituency.
David Linden
He and I are very good friends but, unusually, on this point I disagree with him. I tend to take the position of the hon. Member for Chesterfield of being quite keen to see the back of VAR altogether, but I appreciate that my hon. Friend takes a slightly different view.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. I have always been a big fan of video refereeing coming into football, but VAR is doing its level best to dissuade me of that support. I played rugby and am a big follower of American football. Lots of sports have used video evidence and it has worked. In the likes of cricket, the process is followed in live time. The issue is the transparency of the process, and the fact that fans are not involved. Does he agree that if changes were made to VAR, and if it followed other sports, it could be a success?
David Linden
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who reminds us of his time playing rugby. He is far too modest to tell the House that he was actually a very good rugby player but had to retire due to injury. He does not talk about that very often. I once again find myself in a situation in which I must say that, on this issue, I speak personally—there is probably no SNP policy on VAR, but I need to be slightly careful not to over-egg the pudding.
I want to come on to the interpretation of the handball rule.
Gavin Newlands
As the SNP spokesperson for sport at Westminster, I believe I have just set the policy, and that my hon. Friend is in fact going against party policy.
David Linden
I am glad that my hon. Friend put that on the record. That point is well made.
Coming back to the interpretation of the handball rule, the rules around handball have been reviewed and changed in recent years, which in many respects accounts for some of the stranglehold on the game. A few weeks ago, alongside my hon. Friends here and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry), I watched the Hearts-Hibs game. There was a whole bit of commentary towards the end of the game that focused on whether Hearts had handled the ball. What actually happened was that a player was going down for a slide tackle to try to get the ball and put his hand down behind him to try to break his fall, and the ball came off his arm. Clearly, that was not a deliberate handball, but depending on their interpretation of the rules, some might say it was, so we need to review the handball rules. I appreciate that that decision is not necessarily within the gift of the Minister, although one day he might be that powerful; he can certainly aspire to that.
I also want to see a review of the offside rule. I agree with the hon. Member for Chesterfield that this microscopic analysis is absolutely killing the game. We now see situations where a referee might decide that something was a goal, but the VAR decides, after two minutes of consultation and with 10, 11 or 12 different camera angles, that somebody’s toenail—that was the hon. Gentleman’s example—might have been offside, which is clearly nonsense. I guess it comes back to his point that we call football the beautiful game for a reason. We do not call it the forensic game or the legalistic game, which it is increasingly becoming.
Before I conclude, I will address what is actually the biggest threat facing our game, which is obviously coronavirus. Most professional clubs—certainly my own—do not have a lucrative sponsorship deal or big TV deal. Indeed, many are not sitting on big reserves. In the case of Airdrieonians, something like 45% to 50% of its revenue comes from gate receipts. It is probably a bit of a nonsense to expect the football season to resume in April—I think most of us probably appreciate that no football will be played this side of the summer, although a decision will be taken about that later in the week—so the Government should definitely give more clarity about what will actually happen, in terms of sport being played and the safety around that.
There is also a question of what should happen to the football season. Will it be declared null and void? Are we in a situation where we just say that whoever is top of a particular league should be designated as champions?
David Linden
I see that my hon. Friend approves. However, my club is five points off the top of the league with eight games to go. I certainly take the view that we should restart when it is safe to do so in the summer, and perhaps have a truncated season, although I appreciate the difficulties owing to players who might be out of contract in May. However, I fear that I might be diverging slightly from the topic of debate.
The overarching point that I want to leave with the Minister and all of Government is the idea that these are challenging times for football clubs. Most of us in this Chamber appreciate that football clubs are not just a business. For so many of us football is a part of our culture, our community and our history, and it must be supported during these immensely difficult times.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) for securing this debate, which comes at a time of crisis for our country. Coronavirus has closed clubs up and down the country and loads of pressing matters are on Members’ minds today. Earlier we learnt that the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Hertsmere (Oliver Dowden), is self-isolating with his family, so we send him our regards and hope that he gets well soon and is okay. Also, we send our thoughts to all the fans and players around the country who love the game. For them it is absolutely unbelievable that they have to go for weeks on end without watching their players or playing the game themselves, so we also think about them.
There is something incredibly British—
Tracy Brabin
And something incredibly Scottish about our discussing VAR and football at a time of crisis. We have heard lyrical, passionate and poetic descriptions of the game. I agree with what the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) said about the smaller clubs. As we go forward with the closures, we really have to think about the small community clubs such as we saw in Bury a few months ago. We must try to put in place opportunities to protect them from closure because they are the very heart of our communities. They provide jobs and for the businesses that support those clubs it is really important that we make sure they survive this terrible crisis.
We are undoubtedly a nation of football lovers. Both recent World cups captured the public’s imagination, and the national teams of our home nations enjoyed fantastic support. There is a collective belief in the game. We want it to absolutely thrive. During the men’s World cup in 2018, most of the British football-supporting public experienced the video assistant referee for the first time. During the World cup, what became known as VAR was generally received as an exciting addition that made the game fairer, but managed to avoid becoming a hindrance. However, the same cannot be said when it was introduced into the premier league a year later at the beginning of the season.
It is easy to forget that, ahead of VAR’s introduction into our beautiful game, many were welcoming, some with a little trepidation, because it might have been the chance to make football fair. Far too often the back pages were dominated by a goal that might just have been or a goal that was or should not have been, or an unjust sending off or a dive outrageously missed by the poor mortal referees. VAR was an opportunity to allow football to thrive and to make the story about the sport and the drama, and not the controversy. Regrettably, such optimism quickly diminished.
This season, as we have heard from hon. Members, VAR has quickly established itself as the scourge of fans, commentators and pundits. Football is a game that happens in the moment. It is not comparable to tennis, cricket, snooker, or, to a lesser extent, rugby, where there are natural pauses or breaks in the game: an appropriate moment where there can be a quick look or a double check. Iconic moments in football when the ball ripples the back of the net and terraces erupt have too often been lost this season and replaced with anxious faces, as we have heard, watching the screen to see if the goal has gone to be checked. It causes undue agony for fans. The question is whether losing such moments of joy and jubilation are worth it in the pursuit of absolute decision-making accuracy. As things stand, VAR is losing that argument.
Too often fans in the stadium or at home, or even the players on the pitch, do not understand what is being checked. “Squint and you’ll see it” offsides are one thing, but the goals that get ruled out for a foul that happened much earlier in the play are another. However, easy as it would be, we must not get carried away with criticisms. Although my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield and others have called for VAR to be scrapped, it is quite possible that it is here to stay. This is the maiden season of a radical, bold change. It was overly optimistic to expect such a seismic shift in a game that ignites so much passion to be received as easily as a duck takes to water.
However, to understand and appreciate that is not to say that changes do not need to be made. If VAR is to remain, the in-stadium experience must change. Fans who are used to living in the moment enjoying a game blow by blow can no longer be expected to watch and wait for minutes on end—long minutes—for those purple screens to make a game-changing decision. The scope of VAR referrals must be made completely clear. Checks should be completed in a certain timeframe, and fan communication must improve. Certainly what I enjoy about rugby is that it is possible to hear what is going on, which keeps people connected to the game and engaged in the decisions. Out of all Britain’s leagues, VAR is currently used only in the premier league—not in the championship or other leagues below. Next season there will be 17 clubs that have experienced playing under VAR and three that do not have that experience. That could be a disadvantage, considering that we already know how difficult a maiden season in the premier league can be. We in West Yorkshire hope to see Leeds United back in the premier season soon. Hopefully Huddersfield Town will join the elite soon, too.
I shall be watching with concern to see whether acclimatising to VAR will hamper the newly promoted clubs. It is only fair to say that I have had representations on this from the premier league, as I am sure others have, ahead of the debate. It helpfully points out that VAR is only 29 games into its first ever season. Stadium attendance since its introduction is tracking at a record high of 97.5%, although it is questionable whether that is about VAR or just the brilliance of the football. The league is working with the clubs on guidance with respect to stadium information for fans. I take all that on board; but the premier league is the crème de la crème of football. Children from places that we in this Chamber have never heard of go to bed dreaming of one day playing in it. Such is its success that it is beamed all over the world, and its superstars are truly global. Therefore, while I am willing to take on board the premier league’s opinions, fans are right to expect a better, more successful introduction.
In conclusion, VAR must learn to work better. It is vital for fans, future fans and the future of the game. The Labour party and, I am sure, every Member present, and Members across the House, look forward very much to premier league football, and the rest of football, getting back to their brilliant best as soon as it is safe for them to do so.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) for securing today’s debate and for the contribution he has made today, and for those of other Members, including the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden), for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O'Hara), and for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) and of course the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin).
I very much appreciated, as I am sure everyone did, the professional tone in which the hon. Member for Chesterfield introduced the debate, given the circumstances. We obviously take the coronavirus situation extremely seriously, but football fans around the world also need to look to the future, as he said. We need something to look forward to, as well, and the hon. Gentleman explained that he has been trying for the debate for a considerable time. I recognise that these are slightly unfortunate circumstances, but he explained very well.
Football clubs are the heart of local communities. They have unique social value and many enjoy a rich history. Our football competitions are the best in the world and some of our greatest assets. The top tier of domestic competition, the premier league, is one of our most important soft power assets. It is the most watched and supported football league in the world, with matches broadcast to more than 1.3 billion homes in 192 countries. Part of what makes it the most attractive league in the world is the stellar quality of its competition, and we want that to continue. However, I must be clear: it is down to the premier league and its clubs to decide the rules of their competition—not the Government and, I am afraid, not even the Sports Minister. I may have a view, but I am afraid I have no such control. This year, the premier league decided to introduce the video assistant referee, commonly known as VAR.
Since the first introduction of VAR to English football, in the FA cup third-round tie between Brighton and Crystal Palace back in 2018, it has been much debated in pubs, football clubs and homes across the country. I am sure that that debate will continue. The premier league continues to deliver a fantastic experience, and the introduction of VAR does not seem to have hampered attendance, which is tracking at a record 97.5%, as the Leader of the Opposition—[Interruption.] Maybe one day! As the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Tracy Brabin), said. That is great capacity for this season, and builds on seven consecutive previous seasons in which utilisation has been above 95%. VAR does not appear to be reducing fans’ appetite to turn up to support their team. That healthy picture is reflected in all professional leagues: attendance at the English football league has reached its highest levels in 60 years.
Mr Perkins
We should be a little careful about those statistics. The vast majority of fans at premier league games are watching via season tickets. It is a hard habit to break, and no one is suggesting that they will leave in their droves, but if 67% of those watching are saying, “This is making my experience worse,” simply saying, “Well, they’re still turning up,” is not good enough.
Nigel Huddleston
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point about the level of enjoyment in the games, but the key thing is attendance and people watching. That is a metric we need to pay careful attention to. The passionate way in which he articulated the emotional impact of scoring a goal and the potential disappointment with the delays on the VAR, I understand, but we can all remember times when we passionately disagreed with a terrible decision. We should not forget such circumstances.
More than 18 million people made their way to league fixtures during the 2018-19 season, the highest figure since 1959. Cumulative attendances across the championship, league one and league two broke the 18 million barrier for a third consecutive year, with the average gate across all three divisions eclipsing 11,000.
The EFL Away Fan Experience Project, which was launched for the 2016-17 season, is a prime example of the work of the football authorities to improve fans’ experience at matches. The EFL is not only focused on those fans attending the game, though. Its new iFollow service offers fans the chance to watch selected live games and to enjoy audio commentary from matches across the EFL, meaning that games remain accessible to those who may have moved away from the area or cannot make it to matches with their physical presence.
It is great to see that the game is going from strength to strength in this country. The football authorities are engaging with fans to improve their matchday experience and the record-breaking attendance implies that that is working. They continue to do a great job running their respective competitions, and it is right that any decisions over their rules, including the future use of VAR, should rest with them as custodians of the game. Again, I am not convinced that fans want the Sports Minister to decide on such things, or on the offside or the handball rule.
Attendance at top-tier football games is important, but it is also vital for games at a local level. Frequently, grassroots games are being called off owing to a lack of available or adequate facilities. The Government have therefore committed to investing £550 million in grassroots football facilities in support of our bid for the men’s 2030 World cup. That will help to improve facilities all across the country, meaning that by 2030 every adult and child, in every community across England, will be no more than 15 minutes away from a quality pitch.
That investment will build on the great work already done by the Football Foundation, a charity jointly funded by the Government, the Football Association and the premier league. Since its inception in 2000, the Football Foundation has delivered £495 million towards developing and creating new facilities.
The premier league is doing great work with children across the country through its Kicks programme. Kicks offers young people, often those most at risk of getting involved in antisocial behaviour, regular and constructive activities delivered by respected club staff.
Football forms a significant part of many of our lives, and the game is giving back to communities right across the country. I am grateful for today’s wide-ranging discussion about the beautiful game. Football is an important part of this country’s history, and the Government are committed to investing in the grassroots game to ensure it can continue to be enjoyed by all.
Mr Clive Betts (in the Chair)
I call Toby Perkins to wind up. I will just say that as Chair I have to remain neutral, and I think I have been more than restrained in not rising to the bait of his comments about football rivalries in Sheffield. We will leave it there, and I will see him afterwards.
Mr Perkins
I am somewhat nervous now, Mr Betts!
I thank those Members who have contributed. I appreciate that, as everyone has said, there are other matters that concern us, but the case that I have made over the course of my speech remains my view. I also welcome the comments that other people have made about the ways in which VAR can be improved; I accept the likelihood that there will be reform to VAR and, hopefully, improved engagement with fans and spectators rather than abolition, which is what I would prefer.
On the subject of attendance, the demands of the public are not to be ignored. As someone who has attended football matches for 40 years or more, the popularity of football is not what it has always been. There have been times when it was a very different experience, and we should not take for granted the successes we have had. It is incumbent on those who are in charge of the game to understand what they have and why their product is so successful, and to preserve and safeguard it. When the people who put in the money to make that product so successful urge them to change direction, they should take that seriously.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered VAR and its effect on football attendances.
Private Rented Sector
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the private rented sector.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I declare my interest as a landlady to private renters and I refer everyone here to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I know the whole House is focused on the coronavirus—rightfully so—and I think I speak on behalf of everyone here when I say that our thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones and those suffering the symptoms and having to self-isolate. I give a nod to everyone here, including our civil servants who have made the effort to come in. Things are quite scary, and I have just found out that my daughter’s nursery is closing, which is the scariest prospect for the children. I want to talk about how coronavirus will impact those who privately rent, especially those on a low income.
The crisis poses a serious threat to private renters. I wanted to bring this topic up because I do not want people to have to choose between whether they pay rent or self-isolate should they be faced with the symptoms in the months and weeks ahead. I am sure the Minister understands that we need to act now to protect tenants. A large number could be unfairly evicted, which could lead to homelessness if people start to fall behind in paying rent in one of the scariest and most dangerous periods of our history in this country. It is vital that we protect people in the private rented sector from homelessness and vital to insulate them financially to ensure that security of tenure is available to them if they feel they need to self-isolate and cannot go to work. I hope the Minister will seriously consider Labour’s Front Bench proposals on rent deferrals and a ban on evicting those who fall behind in their rent because of coronavirus.
A lot has been talked about coronavirus in terms of what happens if we get it, what we should do, and how we should self-isolate, but one thing missing, perhaps rightly, is what happens when we actually get the symptoms. The godmother of my children—Members need not worry; I have not been near her in weeks—got it and she told me the breath was taken away out of her. She was lying in bed and could not get up. She felt like a shadow of her former self. There was absolutely no way she could go to work, but she is in a situation where, even if she does not go to work, she will still get paid. She is one of the lucky ones because she can continue to live in her house, but that is not the case for all of us, which is why this debate is so important today.
It is not only working-age renters that coronavirus will impact. I have looked at the Office for National Statistics and found a few facts and figures that surprised me. The private rented sector is gradually becoming older as fewer families can afford to buy a home. According to Age UK, more than 700,000 over-60s privately rent in England, and the proportion of households headed by older renters has doubled in the past 15 years. In my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn, an estimated 937 over-60s are on housing benefit alone. Older renters are more likely than homeowners to have long-term health problems. I am sure other Members are aware from their advice surgeries that problems in the private rented sector are rife. We have probably all dealt with damp walls and other conditions that people live in. We have to ensure that older and more vulnerable renters are protected, which is why this debate is so important today.
We know that poorly maintained housing is rife in the private rented sector. As a democracy, as a Government and as a country, we need to start looking at it more and more, especially as we have been warned over and again that we are more likely to get the virus if we have an underlying health condition.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is making a passionate speech. The other day at the all-party group on housing and planning, it was pointed out that one in four adults in this country suffers from a diagnosable mental health condition, and one in five says that it is exacerbated by their housing. Does she agree that with this killer/death/invisible pandemic in our midst we should address mental health conditions, too, in the housing picture? Will she also pay tribute to our hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and her Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, which the Government agreed to only after Grenfell?
Tulip Siddiq
I will pay tribute to our hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) shortly, but what my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) says is very important. I have not mentioned mental health in this speech, because it is already too long, as most people can see. However, every time I hold an advice surgery, 80% of my casework is based on housing. When I deal with housing casework, people say, “Well, I have asthma”, or this or that problem medically, and then, “As a result, I have had mental health problems,” so there is a clear link between the housing conditions that someone lives in and the mental health problems that they may develop. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and I hope that the Minister will address this topic.
More and more people are growing old in substandard rented accommodation, and that shines a light on the fact that, as a country, we do not take private renting seriously. Five million people in the UK live in the private rented sector, which is an enormous number, up from 2.8 million in 2007. The proportion of renting households in London, where my hon. Friend and I are MPs, is expected to grow to 40% of the total in five years’ time. Again, these are staggering figures, yet I feel that too often as politicians, and as a Government, we see renting as nothing more than a stepping stone to home ownership. While the aspiration to own a home is common among us, including many of my constituents, the obscene cost of housing, especially in London, puts this dream well out of reach for the hundreds of thousands of private renters who are living on the breadline and the 63% who say that they have no savings at all. We have to do more to tackle the problem facing private renters. The economic and social crisis that we face as a result of coronavirus is shining a light on how many low-income private renters’ lives are fragile, and it lends greater urgency—and maybe provides an opportunity—to address this and provide them with the security and safety that they need.
I want to talk a bit about my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn, because we have one of the largest proportions of people who live in private rented houses in the country—30% of my constituency privately rents. The more than doubling of the private rented sector over the last 20 years has meant that in the Borough of Camden, which I live in, that type of tenure is now only slightly smaller than the owner-occupied sector. Ahead of this debate, I emailed my constituents to ask them for their experiences and thoughts about it. I was overwhelmed by the number of people who emailed to talk about their experience and how important this issue was to them. Many made the point that privately renting is not a short-term solution for them. They will have to do it for the rest of their lives, and therefore, they feel very passionately that we as politicians should tackle the problems that come with it.
The No. 1 thing that came up over and over again is how unaffordable renting in London is. That came out loud and clear and I am sure that my hon. Friend—a London Member—will recognise that. Renters in Camden face the fourth highest rents in the whole country. The median monthly rent for a two-bedroom flat is over £2,000. That reflects the dramatic growth in rents that we have seen in the last decade, far outstripping any rise in earnings that my constituents may have had.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I very much agree with the points that my hon. Friend is making. Is not one of the problems the failure to keep the level of rents in track with the local housing allowance, which supports families on low incomes who rent privately? On the latest assessment, after the four-year freeze that we have had, and the tiny inflation rise this year across England, only in 2% of the country can people afford to rent a three-bedroom home within the local housing allowance.
Tulip Siddiq
I will come to the link between local housing allowance rents and rental growth later, but I thoroughly agree with my right hon. Friend that because the link has been broken, people are put at risk of eviction and eventually homelessness. He will know that more than ever, representing a London constituency, where there are serious problems with overcrowding—I know his constituency well.
We have seen a dramatic growth in rents in the last decade. The average private rent is an astonishing £4,500 more than it was in 2010. That is how much it has accelerated in the last 10 years and here are some of the results. Some 30% of tenants now struggle to pay rent; over a quarter of London renters spend more than half their wages on rent alone; one in three older renters lives in poverty after rent has been paid; and it is no wonder that 60% of renting families say they are just one pay cheque away from losing their home.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab)
On that point, over the past week, I have been contacted by many constituents with coronavirus. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential for the Government to step in and ensure that those people are looked after, as has been done in other countries?
Tulip Siddiq
This is why I felt that we should continue with this debate even though I know there are other things on our mind. With the virus, there is a big link to those who are renting. This is a time when we need to pull together and make demands of the Government to fix this problem, which has been ongoing for a long time but which requires particular urgency now in the light of the situation we are facing.
The impact of coronavirus on low-income private renters could be devastating. I know many renters are already contacting housing charities and renters’ organisations such as ACORN out of fear they will not be able to pay rent this month: those on zero-hours contracts are particularly worried. I am sure my hon. Friend’s constituents are emailing her constantly about that.
Statutory sick pay of £94.25 will not even come close to covering rent for most Londoners. Members from these constituencies in this room will know that their constituents are struggling to make ends meet, and they could face far bigger income reductions from the loss of a job or working hours. I hope the Government will listen to calls from Opposition Members and others to increase statutory sick pay and give more protection to low paid, insecure and self-employed workers from the effects of coronavirus.
Anyone who needs to self-isolate—I keep making the point—needs to be able to do so without fearing that they will lose their home or that they will not be able to feed their children or themselves. We have to make sure that anyone who has a cough or a fever feels that they can stay at home without fear of falling behind on their rent and suffering huge financial repercussions.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Does my good friend concur that landlord licensing is a good way of ensuring that, in the private rented sector, the most vulnerable members of our constituencies live in adequate accommodation and do not suffer adversely because of the poor quality of their properties, exacerbating their health conditions? Will she call on the Government to extend landlord licensing in Liverpool?
Tulip Siddiq
I will come to this later in my speech, but I fully agree with her. Some of the conditions in which our constituents and especially those who are very vulnerable live, which are described to me and in some of the reports I have read, is despicable. We have got to do something about this and tackle the issue, which is becoming a serious problem across the country—not just in London but, as my hon. Friend says, in Liverpool as well.
The long-term impact of our failure to tackle sky-high rents is a slow erosion of our communities. That is why I brought this debate here because I am worried about what that is doing to our communities. Local people from my constituency of Hampstead and Kilburn are being driven out of areas where they grew up and which they love but where they cannot afford to live.
The Conservative Government have wasted so much time, effort and money on schemes such as Help to Buy. I know some people benefit from that, but the vast majority of my constituents have not. We want the Government to build genuinely affordable homes and we need to bring down rents in the private sector. Now we want to make sure the Government do not block mayors such as Sadiq Khan from introducing sensible rent control. That will help people in my constituency from being priced out of London. I feel very strongly about this. I grew up in my constituency and I went to school there, but I can afford to live there. There are thousands like me who were born there, lived there and went to school there, but who feel they can no longer afford to live there.
I will turn now to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside about poor housing conditions. Anyone who has held advice surgeries will know that conditions in the private rental sector are the worst of any tenure. One in four privately rented homes is classified as “non-decent”, which should make us hang our hands in shame. That means that an estimated 600,000 children are living in housing that is either damp, dangerous or overcrowded, sometimes lacking in basic facilities. Some 200,000 households are in overcrowded private-rented accommodation, including a shocking 32% in Camden, where I live. That could pose huge challenges for people who have coronavirus or have the symptoms of it and want to self-isolate.
Advice4Renters, a fantastic organisation based in the Brent part of my constituency, highlighted the story of one family who have developed serious health problems as a result of nearly two decades of living in a property that Brent Council eventually declared uninhabitable. The surveyor’s report makes for grim reading—I am sure lots of Members have seen similar reports. It talks about water leaks, black mould, rotten wood, waterlogged brickwork, insufficient heating, loose electrical sockets, long-broken fixtures, cracked walls—the list goes on.
Another corporate landlord who has been sued multiple times by both Camden and Brent left one elderly resident with health problems in accommodation with serious water penetration for more than 15 years. With coronavirus posing the greatest risk to exactly the people I am describing, it is vital that we provide resources to local councils to enforce improvements to their housing.
It is not all gloom and doom. Obviously, there are good landlords. I spoke to a landlord who is going to let his private tenants defer payment until August to ensure that they do not feel nervous and are not living in fear. There are good landlords, and I am grateful for all the good landlords who are showing compassion at a difficult time. They take care of their properties and respect their tenants. One of the most thoughtful responses I received when I emailed my constituents ahead of this debate was from a landlord who keeps rent low. He said that he wants to see tenants’ rights strengthened. He thinks that the market will be better if his tenants have better rights than they have right now. Unfortunately, there are far too many landlords exploiting the lack of protection for tenants, to avoid responsibilities, and who are, in some cases, breaking the law. There are some cases where people have come to my surgery and I say, “They are actually breaking the law.”
One particularly aggressive corporate landlord I am dealing with at the moment—he will remain unnamed, although I am very inclined to name him—has hundreds of properties in my constituency. Constituents have spoken to me about how he is aggressively refurbishing properties to drive out existing tenants and drive up rents.
Kim Johnson
One of the issues we face at the moment is that private landlords are benefiting significantly from housing benefit and public sector money. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to look at how we invest that money in a different way to ensure that our constituents live in good properties? We need to look at how public sector funding stays in the public sector, to support the most vulnerable.
Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)
I would just remind hon. Members that this debate ends at 4.30 pm.
Tulip Siddiq
I agree with my hon. Friend and will come to that topic later in my speech.
We are hearing stories of some landlords trying to increase rents since coronavirus hit and refusing to negotiate with tenants over rent holidays in response to the pandemic. That not only highlights the need for the compulsory rent deferrals that Labour is calling for—I hope the Minister will address that point—but for a universal register of landlords, to crack down on rogue landlords and to give renters the information they need to make informed choices when they are thinking of renting a house. As one good landlord who lives locally wrote to me, a register is in the interest of good landlords.
I am pleased to see that Labour is leading the way around the country. The Welsh Labour Government have introduced a compulsory licensing scheme, called Rent Smart Wales. Sadiq Khan, who I have already mentioned, has used the limited powers he has to introduce a rogue landlord checker. Brent is one of the councils that has successively used selective licensing to improve conditions in thousands of homes and to prosecute rogue landlords. It was disappointing that Brent’s application to expand the licensing scheme was rejected by Ministers last month. The Government should be encouraging landlord licensing, rather than trying to shut it down at every opportunity. I hope that the Government will look seriously at introducing an England-wide landlord register.
The most important thing that renters need is enforceable rights to get their accommodation improved, if it is not to standard. They have some options. The first is to contact the local authority, which has the power to inspect properties and take enforcement action against landlords. However, local government funding has been cut so much—by 43% since 2010—that councils’ ability to enforce standards has been decimated. The amount available to spend on housing enforcement has fallen by 25% in that time. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton mentioned that our constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North, to whom I pay tribute, pushed the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 through Parliament. That means that renters can take their landlord to court. However, to do that people need the financial means, and the Tories have taken an axe to the legal aid system. I hope that they will look again at that, because few people can now apply for legal aid for housing matters. There is a need to restore funding to both local government and legal aid.
There is a lot more I want to say but, because of the time, I will ask the Minister a few questions, which I hope he can answer. First, what measures do the Government plan to bring in to support private renters who are affected by coronavirus? That is the obvious question. In particular, will he support low-income and insecure workers, including those on housing benefit, so that they can self-isolate safely and not worry about eviction? Secondly, with rents in London remaining so stubbornly high, for what possible reason are the Government refusing to devolve powers to introduce sensible rent controls? Why are they blocking attempts by regional and local governments to bring in landlord licensing? Thirdly, when will the renters reform Bill be introduced, and how long will it take for no-fault evictions to be scrapped? Will the Minister consider bringing in emergency legislation to ban evictions for rent arrears caused by loss of a job or income as a result of the virus? What measures does he plan to tackle DSS discrimination in the private rented sector, so that people have a fair shot at getting accommodation and councils can easily rehouse homeless people? Finally, I have focused on older renters, and, given the risk to them from the virus, what urgent steps will the Government take to improve conditions in the private rented sector, so that people can be safe in their homes?
I am sure that the Minister is aware of the urgency of the situation. This is a time when the country needs to come together and help the most vulnerable. We need to be bold and bring in emergency legislation to make sure that low-income private renters are not hit hardest by the virus that is taking over the country.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Luke Hall)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Gary. I thank the hon. Member for Hampstead and Kilburn (Tulip Siddiq) for bringing the debate to the House and for the way she did so. She brought a constructive tone to the issues that she raised, and is clearly passionate on behalf of her constituents. She made clear points about the number of people living in the private rented sector whom she represents, and the clear, positive level of engagement that she has with her constituents about those matters. I commend her for that, and I understand about her daughter’s nursery provision being cancelled. My two boys are under two and theirs has been cancelled this week. She made a number of points about the seriousness of the situation we face with covid-19 and I shall come on to that. I will touch on as many of the points she raised as possible.
The hon. Lady is clearly right that not only is the private rented sector the second largest tenure in England, housing more than 11 million people and representing about 19% of all housing in England; it is also housing an increasingly diverse range of tenants. The sector plays a hugely important role in providing homes across the country and is an integral element of our approach to making sure that the housing market works for people across the country. Yet the housing market has undoubtedly left many tenants feeling insecure. She highlighted that articulately in her speech. We are clear that we will introduce a better deal for renters and deliver a package of reforms aimed at creating a fairer, more effective rental market. We know that there is a lot more to do. We are committed to taking action and we know that that action must improve people’s lives across the country and deliver a sector that works for everyone living in it. Everyone renting in the private sector has the right to feel secure in their home and settled in their community, and to plan for the future with confidence. Millions of responsible tenants could be uprooted by their landlords with little notice and often, as I am sure we all agree, with little justification. That is wrong, and we plan to put an end to it.
We are therefore making the biggest change to the private rented sector in a generation: our rental reform Bill will introduce a better deal for tenants. It will contain a package of reforms to deliver a fairer and more effective rental market, improving the lives of many renters across our country. We will set out our plans for the Bill in the coming months. We are now working intensively with stakeholder organisations across the private rented sector to ensure we get that right. That is informing the development of the legislation, so that we create a system that really works.
The hon. Lady touched on older renters in her speech. She is absolutely right that the private rented sector is home to an increasing number of older people. Poor standards are a real risk for that group. We are working closely with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that older people can keep their homes warm. That is why we are embarking on a major drive to improve standards in the private rented sector. The vast majority of landlords, I am sure we agree, are responsible and law-abiding people who care passionately and deeply about providing good-quality accommodation for the people who live in their homes.
Standards in the private rented sector, however, are lower than those in other tenures. That is not acceptable, and we have given local authorities strong enforcement powers, including banning orders, to address that by law. Private rented homes must be free from the most serious health and safety hazards. They must have smoke detectors on every floor and have gas boilers and installations checked every year. Just this morning, we debated our regulations requiring landlords to carry out electrical safety inspections at least every five years. I am grateful that support for that measure came from across the House. Landlords must also prove that the electrics in their property meet the legal standards, or get the work done to make them safe.
The hon. Lady and other Members raised the important issue of the mental health of tenants in the PRS. She is absolutely right: poor standards can affect mental health negatively. That is why they will form an important part of our reforms of the housing health-and-safety rating system. She also asked about the national register to protect tenants. We absolutely want to get the balance right between supporting good landlords and tackling criminals. We have already introduced a database of rogue landlords and property agents so that local authorities can tackle the worst offenders and prevent them from operating in order better to protect tenants. The consultation on extending information on the database to tenants closed on 12 October. We are reviewing the responses. When we publish any follow-up, I am happy to ensure that the hon. Lady is sighted of that information.
I highlight the fact that the vast majority of landlords play an important role in providing decent quality housing, but we are determined to crack down on the small number of unscrupulous landlords who neglect their property and exploit their tenants. We want such landlords to comply or to leave the sector altogether. The cost of enforcement should be placed on the few landlords who deliberately rent out substandard and unsafe accommodation, not on the taxpayer. We are also looking at ways to improve access to, and to expand the scope of, the database.
Given the time, I will turn to covid-19. Hon. Members in all parts of the House have taken a hugely constructive view of how to support people through this hugely difficult situation faced by our country. The hon. Lady is right that no one should feel that they cannot afford to self-isolate in the current climate. To preface some of the remarks that I am about to make, we have already announced some measures, but I confirm that very shortly the Chancellor will outline a further package of support for people in this sector later today. I cannot, unfortunately, update her on exactly what that is before it is announced; I hope she understands. However, I confirm that this is being taken very seriously, and we are working on it intensively to ensure that we can get it announced as quickly as possible.
We have already announced a range of measures, including a £500 million hardship fund. We will set out more details of that shortly. We are bringing forward measures to allow the payment of statutory sick pay from the first day rather than the fourth. We also have a range of support in place for those who do not receive statutory sick pay, including those on universal credit and contribution-based employment support allowance. I hope that the hon. Lady will bear with us for a few more hours to hear some more detail.
We are committed to building a private sector that works for everyone across our country. We will introduce a better deal for renters that improves the lives of people across our country. I thank the hon. Lady for securing the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Surrey: M25 Noise Pollution
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered M25 noise pollution in Surrey.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary, and I am delighted to have secured this debate.
The issue at hand is a simple one. Between junctions 10 and 11 on the M25, the surface of the motorway consists of concrete blocks. The concrete surface itself is noisy, and there are gaps between each of the concrete blocks that constitute the road. The repetitive buffeting that occurs as a vehicle’s tyres pass over these expansion joints adds substantially to the overall noise levels. Take it from me, Sir Gary, it is unpleasant and noisy to drive on, and it causes noise pollution for several thousand of my constituents who live in Byfleet, West Byfleet and Pyrford. The noise is so loud and incessant that it can regularly carry for up to 3 km or so, but when the wind is in certain directions, it can also affect those who live up to 4 km away.
The noise is, of course, also heard by residents living and working near the M25 in the neighbouring constituency of Runnymede and Weybridge. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to my hon. Friend and neighbour the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) for his diligent work and support on this important matter, and to his predecessor, the right hon. Philip Hammond, with whom I have also liaised closely on this in previous years. I also acknowledge the work and campaigning of the key members of the M25 J10-11 Action Group, who have highlighted this matter very effectively since forming their group in June 2019, and the leadership of that organisation by Councillor Amanda Boote, who has brought formidable amounts of drive and energy to that role.
Some 20 years ago, the then Labour Government announced their commitment to replacing or overlaying all concrete main roads with lower-noise materials by 31 March 2011, irrespective of maintenance needs. Sadly, during a subsequent Labour Government’s spending review—in 2008, I believe—it was considered that that commitment was no longer affordable, presumably due to fiscal tightening in the immediate aftermath of the global financial crisis.
Since then I have been told by Highways England and by Ministers that, while they appreciate the concerns of residents, there are currently no plans to resurface the 7 km section of the M25. They have assured me and my constituents that they are looking for ways to improve the situation, and Highways England has recently done work to repair failed joints in the concrete carriageways.
However, it is clear to all those who use this section of the M25 that the driving experience is still unpleasant and noisy, and the feedback so far from local residents is that the work has not made an appreciable difference to the overall noise levels for surrounding communities. At one point in our recent correspondence, Highways England told me that it does not now resurface a concrete road unless it is strictly needed from the point of view of driving safety, and that in the case of the M25, with continued maintenance, it did not expect the road to need resurfacing for many years to come.
But what about the lives of residents who have to put up with these unacceptable noise levels? Why should residents be kept awake at night? Why should residents not be able to enjoy their gardens in summertime or even be able to open their windows? What about the impact on teachers and children, who cannot help hearing this noise in their schools? Mrs Letitia Mackie, the deputy head of Byfleet primary school, told me the other week:
“Byfleet primary school lies directly beside the M25, at a stretch where the concrete is in place. Our children and families live within the catchment area for the school and many of their homes are very close to the M25 as well. The sound of the vehicles rumbling over the concrete can be heard in our playground and on a windy day it tends to be even louder. However, at night the sound carries much further and many of our pupils speak of not being able to sleep, or having a disturbed night, every night. Sleep is a major factor in growing up to be healthy and strong, and we are very concerned that some of our children have had this sleep disruption all of their lives. How has this affected their ability to learn and what are the long-term health issues that they may face? It is a serious limiting factor in our aim to enable each child to reach their full potential.”
Those are wise words, expressing genuine concerns.
Surely something must be done about this issue. Doubtless the cost of resurfacing this section of road will be high, but I am confident that that cost pales in comparison with the damage that this section of road is doing to the lives of thousands of my constituents and their children.
Last month, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and I joined members of the M25 J10-11 Action Group to deliver a petition signed by over 3,000 local residents to No. 10 Downing Street. The petition is not asking for every motorway section in the UK to be resurfaced and nor is it asking for the other concrete sections of the M25 to be resurfaced where there are no built-up or residential neighbourhoods nearby. However, it is petitioning for the carriageway between junctions 10 and 11 to be resurfaced properly, so that residents and pupils can enjoy their lives without this incessant noise.
The petition read as follows:
“The petition of the residents of Woking declares that the resurfacing work and noise reduction must be carried out on the M25 between junctions 10 and 11…further that these residents, children attending local schools and people who work in the area have been and are currently adversely affected by the ever increasing volume of traffic and continued deterioration of the original surface; and acknowledges that an online petition for drivers has collected a significant number of signatures calling for the resurfacing of the road. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Transport and Highways England to fully resurface and significantly reduce the noise levels on the M25 between junctions 10 and 11.”
On 3 March, I received an answer to two written parliamentary questions, which I believe is the most recent formal response on this important matter that I have received to date from either Ministers or Highways England. The reply from the Minister who is here today—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst)—read as follows:
“Highways England is aware that noise is an important issue for residents living next to the M25 motorway between junctions 10 and 11, and is actively looking for ways to improve the situation.
Work to repair failed joints in the concrete carriageways was completed in November 2019 and this should help to reduce the noise level.
There are currently no plans to resurface the carriageways on this section of the M25, but there is a trial to test materials and techniques which could help to reduce noise and improve the performance of concrete surfaces which is currently being carried out on the M1. The trial includes measurement of the noise reduction achieved and the rate of deterioration of the different treatments and is anticipated to continue until 2022. The results of this trial will help Highways England to decide how to manage concrete surfaces on its roads in the future, including this section of the M25.”
It is hugely disappointing to me that the Government and Highways England seem to have set their face against an acceptable resolution of this matter within the next year or so. I hope that the arguments set out in the petition and put forward by me and my colleagues in this debate can lead to the urgent work that I believe is required. After all, we have been waiting since the millennium for an initial Government promise on this matter to be fulfilled, and the long-suffering residents of the areas most affected have had to put up with this noise since the opening of the M25 in 1986.
If urgent action does not prove possible, I would like a firm undertaking from the Minister that this issue will be fully sorted out within 12 months of the results of those tests on the concrete surfaces of the M1 being completed. That is a reasonable request to make on behalf of those residents whose quality of life has been blighted for the past 34 years.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Lord) for all his work in this area, and to the M25 action group. Most of what I intended to say was quite eloquently summed up by my hon. Friend, so I will just go over a few points, to reiterate the strength of my hon. Friend’s argument. I appreciate that, given current events, this is arguably not the right time for this debate. It is right that the Government must prioritise tackling the current pandemic, but Members must also continue to represent the wider needs of our constituencies.
When we emerge from the current social restrictions, ensuring a swift return to economic and social activity will be vital, and our infrastructure will be key. However, improvements to our infrastructure also need to be quality, because it cannot be that our residents are already hugely adversely affected by the impact of our infrastructure—noise pollution on the M25. Many of my constituents are quite seriously affected by the noise. In parts of New Haw, Addlestone and Chertsey, cars can be heard rattling past a kilometre away from the motorway. When driving up the motorway, as I have done many times, cars shake with the noise. It is quite clear to everybody how that noise can go over the barriers and affect people living locally.
Is the Minister willing to commit to reviewing the proposals for this stretch of the M25 later this year, and to meet me and my hon. Friend, in order to take this forward and look at how we can improve the situation?
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
It is always an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Gary. I congratulate the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Lord) on securing this debate, which is incredibly important to his constituents. I intend to keep my remarks incredibly brief, not least because I know the Minister, and I know that she is working incredibly hard with her officials on other business.
Noise pollution is an issue, and motorists clearly find this problem deeply unpleasant when driving. I know that the AA is often inundated with complaints and concerns about faults to vehicles, and I also know that this is a road safety issue, in that some people slam on the brakes when they hear the noise. Noise pollution is a major issue. It causes physical and mental health problems. The Budget committed to a £30 billion investment in road networks, but a surge in road building will only increase road noise and pollution.
The Government should reduce road usage by better investing in public transport, such as bus networks and—in the area of the hon. Member for Woking—the South Western rail network. In addition, the Government need to do much more to encourage the uptake of electric and hybrid vehicles. That is all I want to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Kelly Tolhurst)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Gary. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Lord) for securing this debate on an issue that I know he and his constituents feel strongly about. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer), who offered his thoughts on the subject.
I believe that the roads Minister, my colleague, Baroness Vere, would be happy to meet hon. Members to discuss their concerns about the M25. I will highlight that I am very aware of the problems that hon. Members have mentioned in relation to this section of the M25. I travelled on it extensively over the years prior to my becoming a Member of Parliament, so I am not completely ignorant of the challenges.
I understand and appreciate that the constant noise generated by road traffic can be seen as a real burden by those living next door to a busy road. As this debate has highlighted, the road surface in place on this section of the M25 in Surrey is a real problem for those who live near it. The use of concrete as a road surface undoubtedly has flaws, compared with asphalt. Nevertheless, it was and remains a resilient and durable material, which is why it was used extensively throughout the 1980s, and specifically in 1985 when this section of road was built. Concrete is extremely durable: it lasts about three times as long as asphalt, demonstrated by the fact that this section of the M25 has not been resurfaced, as others have been.
The concrete surface of the road is not the only reason why noise levels in this area are high. It is important to remember that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has done extensive work to highlight those areas of this section of the M25 that are considered excessively noisy. DEFRA has designated those areas as noise important areas, and Highways England is working hard to do what it can to reduce noise levels in them. I will say more about that issue later.
Much has been made of the fact that one solution to the noise problem could be to resurface this section of the M25 with asphalt. It has been suggested that a layer of asphalt could simply be put over the concrete, or the whole section could be removed and replaced. However, both of those approaches would lead to further problems. Resurfacing over the concrete with a layer of asphalt would mean that the joints between the slabs would continue to show through, which would present real weaknesses in the road surface. This is particularly the case because this section of the M25 was widened in the mid-1990s, so the joints are now in the lane, not under the white lines as they were originally. Because the asphalt on those joints would be subjected to constant wear and tear from vehicles, it would degrade more quickly, resulting in more frequent closures to repeatedly resurface the road. It would also mean that one of the causes of the noise in the area—that is, the noise created by cars travelling over the joints—would not be properly resolved.
An alternative proposal is that the concrete be removed in its entirety. However, doing so on one of the busiest sections of motorway in the country would be prohibitively disruptive and expensive. Lanes would need to be shut entirely for extended periods of time to both remove the concrete and replace it with a new surface, and the difficulty of removing the concrete from under and around bridges would further increase costs. Therefore, both resurfacing over the concrete with asphalt and replacing the road surface in its entirety are costly and disruptive options: covering with asphalt would not resolve the issue sufficiently and would lead to an increase in disruptive works on the motorway, and replacing the concrete would be prohibitively expensive and disruptive.
Having covered some of the proposed solutions to the problem of noise from the M25 in Surrey and explained why they do not make either practical or economic sense, it is important to highlight what is being done. A great deal of work is going on that aims to reduce or resolve the noise issues experienced by those who live closest to the motorway. Highways England is well aware of the noise important areas that DEFRA has highlighted, and has done extensive work to ensure preventative methods are in place at these locations. In most cases, those preventative methods take the form of a barrier alongside the road that shields the properties nearby from much of the noise. There are no further sections of this part of the M25 in Surrey at which barriers would be of significant benefit to those living in the vicinity.
There are, of course, other areas that are not as densely populated and are without barriers, but nevertheless still need noise mitigation action to be carried out. In those areas, designated as locations where there are fewer than 10 properties, it does not make economic sense to install a barrier. Therefore, in those locations, there has been an offer to install noise insulation, which is essentially double glazing designed to reduce the amount of noise experienced in those properties. I absolutely take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking that such measures do necessarily not control the noise levels residents experience in their gardens and the wider atmosphere outside properties. I also note his point about the primary school.
Nine sites on this section of the M25 have already had noise insulation offered and installed where house- holds wanted it; on a further two sites it has yet to be completed. Highways England has also identified further sites where noise insulation would be a possible solution.
Noise insulation is not the only approach being taken. Extensive work is under way to replace the joints between the slabs of concrete. As my hon. Friend outlined, the joints are one of the main causes of noise, and replacing them is not only good for the condition of the road surface but helps to reduce noise. The joints are being made flush with the surface of the road.
Although work on this section of the M25 has been focused on mitigating noise and improving the experience of those living close by, other sections of the strategic road network also have concrete surfaces. Highways England is currently running a trial on the M1 at junction 5 near Bricket Wood in which it is looking at materials and surfacing techniques that could be used to reduce the noise of traffic travelling over concrete. The trial started in 2018 and is due to complete in 2022. So far, Highways England has identified a number of potential solutions to reducing noise. There are still more options to investigate before the trial finishes in 2022. I do not want to prejudge any the results of the trial, but the solutions that it identifies will help form the basis of Highways England’s planning as it looks to the future. That is particularly important because any ways to reduce road surface noise effectively and cheaply mean that locations such as those in Surrey on the M25 can be treated, with the lives of those living nearby significantly improved.
Finally, I turn to what is happening now and in the immediate future on this section of the M25. Highways England is focused on maintenance to ensure that the road infrastructure on this section of the M25 remains in a suitable condition. That includes work to reduce the amount of water ingress through joints. There is a programme of retexturing that will increase safety for the travelling public as it will increase grip on the road surface, which has been smoothed down over time. Highways England will also conduct a review of the joints between junctions 8 and 10 this year, with an expectation that any works will be carried out in the 2020-21 financial year.
Once again, I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate and for the constructive approach that Members have taken to tackling an issue that affects their constituents so much. As I said at the start of my speech, I recognise the noise concerns of those living in the vicinity of the M25. The Government are well aware of these issues—as my hon. Friend outlined, he and colleagues have been lobbying on it over a number of years—and Highways England is fully committed to doing what it can to reduce noise levels in those areas.
My hon. Friend asked me to guarantee that works will be agreed within 12 months of the trial finishing. He will appreciate that I am unable to guarantee that absolutely, but I guarantee that once the trials have taken place, Ministers will work with hon. Members to ensure that we can take forward the remedial works that are possible and economical. That will be either through mitigation such as barriers, noise insulation or regular maintenance of the road surface, or through innovation and development of new techniques and use of materials to reduce the level of noise for constituents living around the M25 and for those who drive over it.
Mr Lord
I thank the Minister for responding to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) and I would very much like to take up her offer of exploring the potential solutions and reiterating the challenges and problems with the roads Minister, so I look forward to that meeting. I was encouraged, and even tantalised a little, by what treatments might be being tested. I hope that they can bring some succour and an end to the worst aspects of the problems that my constituents have faced over many years. I also thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), for speaking, I think, broadly in support of my constituents and for recognising the challenges that they face.
I would particularly like to offer warm thanks to my friend and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. It was a great pleasure to go with him and some campaigning constituents to take the petition outlining these problems right to the door of No. 10 Downing Street—to the heart of Government. If I may say so, he is already a great champion of his constituents. I very much look forward to working with him in the months and years ahead on this and any other issue that affects both our constituencies.
Thank you, Sir Gary, for your chairmanship. I look forward to battling on for my constituents on this important matter in the months and years to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered M25 noise pollution in Surrey.
Written Statements
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Gigabit Broadband
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Matt Warman)
This Government have ambitious plans to achieve nationwide roll-out of future-proof gigabit broadband as soon as possible. Delivering these ambitions will unlock huge economic and social benefits for all members of society.
The provision of gigabit-capable connectivity to new build developments is a crucial element of meeting our ambitious broadband targets. Ensuring virtually all new homes, rural and urban, are built with the future in mind, ready to support the next generation of digital infrastructure, is vitally important. My Department consulted on delivering gigabit-capable connections to all new build developments across the UK in 2018.
Today I am pleased to inform members that we have published the Government response to this consultation.
This response announces that the Government will require developers in England to install gigabit-capable infrastructure and, subject to a cost cap, a gigabit-capable connection. To do this, we will use existing powers in the Building Act 1984 to amend the Building Regulations 2010 to mandate that:
Developers ensure new homes have gigabit broadband. This includes ensuring that the physical infrastructure necessary for gigabit-capable connections is provided on site for all new build developments and that the home is connected by an operator to a gigabit-capable connection.
The requirement on the developer to provide a gigabit-capable connection exists unless the cost to the developer of providing connectivity exceeds £2,000, or the operator declines to provide a connection.
Developers must seek a second quote from network operators, where the first quote suggests that gigabit-capable broadband cannot be installed within the cost cap.
If gigabit broadband exceeds the cost cap, the developer must provide connectivity to other technologies which can provide at least superfast connection1 within the same cost cap, unless the operator declines to provide a connection.
This will establish a system that provides a clear and simple process for developers to comply with, limiting the administrative burden on developers to a minimum and gives a clear point in time for submission of evidence.
Implementing through the Building Regulations 2010 will also remove the six to nine month period that would have been required for primary legislation, speeding up the implementation of this policy. It allows us to proceed immediately to secondary legislation, which would have been required in all circumstances in any case. We will bring forward this legislation as soon as possible in this parliamentary session.
This is not to say that network operators do not have a key role in this area or that Government will not hold them to account to ensure that they deliver gigabit-capable connections. Government are looking to secure commitments from network operators to contribute to the costs of connecting new builds. We have been in active conversations with a number of network operators on this topic and have already secured commitments from Openreach and Virgin Media. Virgin Media will contribute at least £500, rising in the case of some larger sites to £1,000. Openreach has also committed to a combined Openreach and developer contribution of £3,400, with a maximum developer contribution of £2,000.
We have had initial discussions on similar commitments with smaller network operators and will seek to formalise more commitments in advance of this legislation coming into force.
As building standards are a devolved matter, these proposed amendments will apply in England only. However, as the provision of gigabit-capable connections to new homes is a priority for all of us across the whole of the UK, my officials will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure this policy is implemented in a consistent manner across the UK.
1 that is a connection with speeds of at least 24 Mbps
[HCWS166]
Public Health Grant
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
Today I am publishing the public health allocations to local authorities in England for 2020-21, based on the 2019 spending round.
Funding for local government’s health responsibilities is an essential complement to our plans to invest strongly in both the NHS and social care, and an important element of our commitment to focus on prevention of ill health. The 2019 spending round provided a 0.9% real-terms increase (£85 million cash) for local authority public health funding in 2020-21. In addition to this increase I now intend to make an additional £60 million available through the grant, from DHSC central budgets.
Through the public health grant and the pilot of 100% retained business rate funding for local authorities in Greater Manchester, we are spending £3.279 billion on local authority public health in 2020-21. This in addition to what the NHS spends on preventive interventions such as immunisation and screening.
The 2020-21 grant will continue to be subject to conditions, including a ring fence requiring local authorities to use the grant exclusively for public health activity.
Full details of the public health grants to local authorities can be found on gov.uk and are attached. This information will be communicated to local authorities in a local authority circular.
[HCWS163]
National Guardian’s Office: Annual Report
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Ms Nadine Dorries)
The Government are committed to supporting the right of staff working in the NHS to speak up and raise concerns. This is a vital step towards ensuring patient safety and improving quality of services. It should be routine in the NHS. Our interim NHS people plan reinforces this commitment, setting out a vision to make the NHS the best place to work—a place where everyone feels they have the power and freedom to speak up.
As a Government we take the issue of speaking up extremely seriously and have introduced several sources of support for staff to help them raise concerns when they think something is not right.
In 2016, we established the independent national guardian to help drive positive cultural change across the NHS and make speaking up business as usual. As well as leading culture change, the national guardian also provides support and leadership to a network of over 500 local guardians—in every trust.
Today, I am laying in Parliament, on behalf the national guardian, the national guardian’s annual report for 2019. The report sets out the improved culture in the NHS, as well as the positive influence that the national guardian and the network of local freedom to speak up guardians are having. However, it also shows that there is still more to do. Copies are also being deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.
We are committed to ensuring our NHS staff are encouraged and supported to raise anything that is impacting on their ability to provide the best possible care to patients, and the healthcare system is a place where concerns are valued, listened to and acted upon.
As a Government we will continue to work with the national guardian and others to do all we can to support NHS staff to raise concerns and make the NHS the best place to work.
[HCWS164]
State-based Threats
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
The risks posed to the UK and its allies from state-based threats have both grown and diversified in recent years, ranging from espionage and subversion to coercion and assassination. The use of the internet as a way for states to expand their influence poses new issues and has made it easier for attacks to be carried out, whilst making it harder to identify those responsible. We face sustained and hostile activity which is deliberate and targeted and intended to threaten our national security. Together with our allies, we are taking steps to safeguard our open and democratic societies and promote the international rules-based system that underpins our stability, security and prosperity.
My officials have been reviewing current legislation in this area. As set out in the Queen’s Speech in December, we are developing proposals for new legislation to counter the threat of hostile activity emanating from states during this Parliament.
But new legislation is not the only way we are working to counter this threat. Given the risk of state-based threats, the Government created a specialist assessment organisation to focus resource on this critical issue in 2017. The Joint State Threats Assessment Team, or JSTAT, is an independent assessment body whose function is to deepen understanding across Government of this threat and to inform the policy response. Like other assessment bodies including the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, JSTAT reports to a governance board comprising senior officials from across the UK intelligence community and wider policy departments, with the Director General of MI5 having ultimate responsibility for the organisation.
Until now JSTAT has not been publicly acknowledged but in order to maximise its utility to the national security community, I have taken this important step of announcing the existence of this organisation. Reaching out to all parts of the Government, our stakeholders, industry and academia offers the opportunity to gain a better understanding of state based threats and will enable more analytic challenge. It will also enable a broader communication of the threat to HMG and partners across a wide range of areas as well as enabling the private and charitable sectors to have access to information about the threats so that they can better protect themselves.
JSTAT has enhanced our capabilities and understanding of the state-based threats we face and will continue to do so now it has been made public. More information about the work of JSTAT can be found on a webpage on the MI5 website.
[HCWS165]
Covid-19
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Disabled People, Health and Work (Justin Tomlinson)
We have been carefully considering what steps need to be taken in order to reduce the risk to vulnerable claimants and staff members in light of the escalating covid-19 outbreak. The safety of these individuals is the No.1 priority.
We therefore took the decision to suspend all face-to-face assessments for health and disability related benefits with immediate effect from 17 March. This includes personal independence payment, the industrial injuries scheme and work capability assessments in both employment and support allowance and universal credit. This decision has been taken in order to safeguard the health of individuals claiming these benefits, many of whom are likely to be at greater risk due to their pre-existing health conditions. This is also in line with measures announced yesterday by the Prime Minister.
Due to the immediacy of this change and the need to urgently communicate this to individuals affected, we began communicating this change yesterday. This included contacting affected claimants with appointments booked in the coming days as well as contacting MPs directly, encouraging them to share the information with their constituency members and local organisations. I can however confirm that this measure has only come into place from today, 17 March.
Anyone who has a face-to-face assessment appointment scheduled no longer needs to attend. We are working at pace with our assessment providers to put in place alternative arrangements and I am grateful to the providers for their support in working collaboratively with the Department to provide continuity of service at this critical time. Claimants do not need to take any action, we will be contacting claimants to discuss next steps and alternative arrangements as soon as possible. This may involve either telephone or paper-based assessments.
We expect this measure will be in effect for the next three months but we will be regularly reviewing the position in line with public health advice. We continue to accept new claims to all benefits and for existing claimants, benefits will remain in payment while alternative arrangements are put in place. Any decisions made under the alternative arrangements will of course also come with mandatory reconsideration and appeal rights as normal, should claimants wish to challenge any decision made.
This change does not affect the existing public health advice. The current NHS guidelines on coronavirus, including advice on those who should stay at home can be found here.
As and when changes in public health guidance necessitate other changes, the Department will endeavour to inform Parliament as soon as possible.
[HCWS167]
House of Lords
Lord Speaker’s Statement
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, yesterday I made a Statement about Parliament’s response to the spread of Covid-19. Yesterday evening, the Government issued new advice; it is right that we respond by taking further action here in Westminster.
As the Prime Minister has stated, we are all now involved in the national fight-back against the virus. Parliament will continue to sit—that is important—but the way we operate will have to change. In addition to the measures we announced last week about official travel and access to the Parliamentary Estate, non-essential access to the Parliamentary Estate for non-passholders will now cease. Access to the public galleries and side galleries of both Chambers will now be restricted to use by Members only. Non-passholders will not be admitted to observe Select Committee proceedings, but witnesses will still be able to attend. Democratic access tours arranged by Members will be cancelled, and no further bookings will be taken. The parliamentary education centre will close, educational and school visits will cease, and no further visits will be arranged. There will be certain changes to the catering provision on the Parliamentary Estate. Further details will be communicated by the Administration later today.
Copies of my letter, together with details of these new arrangements, are now available in the Printed Paper Office. Mr Speaker and I, together with our commissions, will keep arrangements under constant review. I thank you once again for your continued co-operation.
I just want to add something. The Government have also issued specific advice about social distancing for those aged over 70 and those with specific underlying health conditions. Obviously, that has particular implications for Members of this House. I want to emphasise one point: no one should consider it their duty to be here in these circumstances. As parliamentarians, we also have a duty to show leadership and heed the advice of the public health experts. In my view, Public Health England, the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser are serving our nation exceptionally well. I ask that everyone now reflects on their own situation in the light of their advice and in the broader public interest.
Anti-terrorism Policy
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have, in pursuit of their anti-terrorism policy, to conduct an inquiry into the accuracy of the Religion of Peace website; and whether they will publish the results of any such inquiry.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the Government do not currently plan to conduct an inquiry into the accuracy of the website. UK legislation values free speech and enables people who wish to engage in debate to do so, regardless of whether others agree with the views being expressed. However, freedom of speech cannot be used as a reason to break the law or to spread intolerance and hate.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I fear it shows that the Government still have their head in the sand about the realities of Islamism. Does the Minister accept that we can say what we like about any other religion but our freedom of speech is curtailed when we try just to talk about Islam and are promptly accused of Islamophobia? Secondly, do the Government think that they are really doing enough to encourage and support our brave Muslims who do not agree with the Islam revealed by the Religion of Peace website, and who want to follow a reformed version, at peace with the rest of us? Would not the proposed inquiry contribute much to their cause?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, as I said, we do not intend to institute an inquiry into this website. If he so wishes, the noble Lord can refer the website to the counterterrorism referral unit that looks at websites that might contravene counterterrorism legislation, to have it taken down. But freedom of speech is not an excuse to break the law or to stir up hatred. It is right that hate speech is not acceptable in this country.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, it is interesting to hear once again the House talk about Islam; we seem to do nothing but talk about Islam, especially the noble Lord. Does the Minister accept that, at a time when households up and down the country, and indeed around the world, are concerned about their lives and livelihoods, it is unusual for this House to be discussing a website whose main role appears to be division and hate, when what we should be doing in this House is showing leadership by demonstrating community and tolerance? Are the Minister and the Home Office concerned that a number of people who write for this website have been excluded from entering the United Kingdom because they are considered as not being conducive to the public good?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
To answer my noble friend’s last question first, I had a brief look at the website, and it does not look like the sort of website that I would want to derive any information from. She is absolutely right in what she said about showing leadership at this time. One thing I saw on the news the other day was Muslims in, I think, Leeds, making up bags of food for older people who could not get out of their homes. On her point about those concerned with their livelihoods, we know in times of difficulty where our friends are.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
In September last year, the head of counterterrorism said that far-right extremism was the fastest growing terror threat in the UK. Do the Government agree that that is the case? What action are the Government taking to address this situation, including reviewing Prevent, part of their terrorism prevention programme?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I most wholeheartedly agree with the noble Lord’s first point: far-right extremism is indeed on the increase at a rate that we did not think possible some years ago. In fact, it makes up 50% of referrals to Prevent. Prevent is currently being reviewed, but I think it provides a valuable tool for safeguarding very vulnerable people from the far right and any other type of extremism.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that we have seen an unprecedented convergence of anti-Semitic attacks, Islamophobic attacks and racist attacks? Never before in our history have we seen these three forms of race hatred all converge; that is what makes it particularly threatening. Does she also agree that the many UKIP and Brexit Party members who have been accused of Islamophobia should stand condemned?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Without calling out any particular party, anybody who engages in anti-Semitism, Islamophobia or any other type of hatred should be condemned. It is up to all political parties to show leadership to this end. The noble Lord is absolutely right that there is an almost perfect storm of far-right and Islamist-type extremism, whose messages are similar but opposite in tone. It provides a perfect melting pot, as he says.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch
My Lords, if no other noble Lord wishes to enjoy this Question, I wonder if I might ask another. Does the Minister agree with the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, who said recently that we will never defeat Islamism if we do not understand Islam?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
There is something in that question, around theological learning and teaching in this country, which can be derived from several parts of the world, each having their own interpretation of Islam. I totally agree with the point that we need more experts in the field of Islam, particularly in prisons and other places where ignorance can proliferate the wrong teaching.
Children: Special Educational Needs
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Blunkett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they expect to publish the outcome of their departmental review into children with special educational needs, announced on 6 September 2019, and whether this will include a response to other recent reviews and consultations on this subject.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to carrying out a SEND review. The 2014 reforms gave vital support to more children, but we know that for too many children and parents the vision has yet to become a reality. We all want a system of support for those with special educational needs and disability which is consistent, high quality and integrated across education, health and care. We will take the time we need to get that right, drawing on evidence from the relevant reviews.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, at a time of enormous challenge, those who face challenges on a daily basis need our support most of all, so it is extremely disappointing news about the review of the education high-needs block for local government, which started between May and July last year, and the review that the Minister referred to, announced in September last year. The House of Commons Select Committee report of 23 October, which has not yet been responded to, and the Budget on 11 March, failed completely to deal with the challenges that children with special educational needs and their parents face on a daily basis. Is it not time that there was action rather than review?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, the review is a comprehensive review led by the Department for Education across government. It incorporates last year’s call for evidence on the funding of schools. We need to take the time to get this right. This year, we have given another £780 million to support education for those with special educational needs and disability. At this time, it is not possible to give a specific timetable for the publication of the review. I hope noble Lords will understand that.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, can my noble friend tell us what the focus of the review of the autism strategy will be, and whether it will focus in particular on providing more support for girls with autism?
Baroness Berridge
I am grateful to my noble friend. Under the 2009 Act, the Government are required to review the autism strategy every three years. This is the first time that the strategy will include children and young people; my noble friend is correct that one of the areas we will also address within that review is the misdiagnosis, and what we are convinced is an underdiagnosis, of girls with autism, who often present later and are better at camouflaging it. They often present very differently to boys with autism.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, do the Government accept that there are huge numbers of people who have moderate problems, which are being left for a long time and then have to be dealt with in the high-needs category? This is because we are not investing in classroom support. Could this be a key part of any review and new strategy? At the moment, all it does is to make people’s lives worse and costs us more money.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I will take the specific question for the review about moderate needs becoming high needs. As the noble Lord will be aware, most young people who have special educational needs and disabilities—the SEND population—are accommodated within mainstream schools and without an EHCP, which was in the 2014 reforms. We are providing through dyslexia organisations and the Autism Education Trust, as he will be aware, further teaching qualifications and support for those in the classroom.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I endorse the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Blunkett, but there is a more immediate issue as far as special educational needs are concerned. It can surely be only a matter of time now before all schools in England are closed. When that happens, the effects will be widespread across the country but for SEND children and their families, the impact will be profound. What planning are the Government undertaking with a view to ensuring that the vital support that SEND children and their families rely on will be prioritised in the weeks and months ahead? Will local authorities and other agencies be properly funded to enable them to deliver it?
Baroness Berridge
I am grateful to the noble Lord. Obviously, within priorities at the moment the most vulnerable group at risk has been that of older people; but, as of last night’s guidance, there was reference to those young people with specific medical conditions, such as severe asthma or cystic fibrosis. They will be contacted directly by the NHS. But we are acutely aware that there are groups of young people, particularly within the SEND population—for instance, those in special residential schools—where there are implications in having any kind of household-type isolation. There are also profound implications for the families; those children are in residential special provision for very good reasons. As we completely realise, it is not as simple as saying “You now need to go home”, so that guidance is being worked on as well.
Lord Lexden (Con)
My Lords, is it not important to try to reduce the large sums of public money that are being spent by local authorities as they attempt to resist legitimate requests by families for special educational needs?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I think my noble friend is referring to the tribunal process. Since 2014, the percentage of decisions being taken to the tribunal as a proportion of the overall number of plans is the same. Numerically, it is going up because the number of plans is going up. There are actually now five different decisions, or combinations of decisions, that parents can appeal. But my noble friend is right, too: we have given £365 million of capital so that local authorities can build more spaces because—he might not be happy to hear this—it is actually cheaper for local authorities to provide the spaces themselves, rather than use private or independent providers.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I declare my interest in that I have an adult son with learning disability and autism. Will the Government’s review consider ring-fencing the money for special educational needs, which has always been a problem? This is especially given the fact that local authorities and other institutions are facing extreme cuts and pressures at this time.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, as I understand it, the funding goes out to local authorities and schools now receive, within the national funding formula, a proportion of that money. The money that I referred to—what is now over £7 billion— is given to local authorities and it is for them to determine locally what the needs of their population are. We believe that to be the right strategy, as they are closer to the needs on the ground.
EU: Negotiations
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what contingencies they have put in place in the event of any delay to the negotiations with the European Union due to COVID-19.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are giving the highest priority to the welfare of all citizens—and, indeed, those of friendly nations—in the coronavirus crisis. Given the latest developments, we are of course in regular contact with the European Commission to explore alternative ways to continue discussions and we will be guided by scientific advice.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
I am pleased about that last comment, because we need not just Brexit but the right Brexit. This week’s talks have been cancelled because of Covid-19, and the attention of not only our Government but all the EU Governments is on that crisis. I ask the Government to take account of that, and of the fact that businesses are concentrating more on their survival than on preparations that they will have to make for the end of the transition. Should it become advisable not to walk out of the talks in June if we have not made enough progress, will the Government not be hidebound by their repeated holding on to a particular date and, if necessary, allow the talks to continue? With this global crisis, surely it is important to get the right Brexit, not just a rapid one.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, in his reply to the debate on the EU Committee’s report yesterday, the Minister made an absolutist statement that “under no circumstances” would the Government “accept an extension”. This contrasted interestingly with an earlier response to my noble friend Lord Oates by the Minister’s colleague the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, at Question Time, who said:
“Were it the case that the … Government felt the need to do such a thing”—
amending the EU withdrawal Act—
“they would take the step that the noble Lord has outlined”,—[Official Report, 16/3/20; col. 1274.]
so that they have the power to extend. However, that is not the Government’s view today. The answer from the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, was much more flexible. Does the noble Lord, Lord True, accept that a flexible rather than absolutist, rejectionist policy towards extension would be regarded by the House and by the country as statesmanlike, rather than as some kind of cave-in?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, is more uncertainty not the last thing that business needs at the moment? For the Government to sound an uncertain note on our determination to leave the European Union, as has been agreed, would be a great mistake. When the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, talks about the right Brexit, we all know that she thinks that the right Brexit is no Brexit at all.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, the Minister talked about the ongoing discussions and the coronavirus emergency in his Answer. Could he tell the House what discussions are going on about relationships with the European Medicines Agency? I hope that we will have new vaccines and new medicines, which need a speedy, combined and accepted recognition and licensing process. It would be a great shame, since we no longer have the European Medicines Agency here, if we were not in the closest co-operation with it over this very urgent matter.
Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)
My Lords, Parliament did indeed accept the ambitious timetable of the Government but, since then, an amendment has been moved—namely, the crisis of coronavirus. Surely the Government should be sufficiently flexible to see that things have changed and to realise that perhaps the conference calls and so on will not deal with a situation where many of the potential negotiators are unable to leave their own countries because of lockdown.
Lord True
My Lords, I hear what the noble Lord says and understand where he is coming from, but I must repeat that both sides remain fully committed to these negotiations and to continuing them. Of course we are looking at the possibility of videoconferencing and conference calls as he suggests. That is the resolve of both parties in this negotiation.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
Can the noble Lord tell the House whether the emergency legislation that we will be considering, either at the end of this week or the beginning of next week, will contain power for the Government to amend the withdrawal Act?
Lord Grocott (Lab)
My Lords, I doubt anyone would disagree that the absolute priority—a term we sometimes use loosely—of the Government at present must be to deal with the virus. However, in the way that different countries have reacted, is it not at least worthy of reflection—I put this in as neutral a way as I can—that when individual citizens of individual countries face a real crisis, they look not to supranational bodies to resolve it, although of course they want countries to co-operate with each other, but to their own Government? In many cases, that leads to them closing their own frontiers. Does that not give some pause for thought about the continuing expectation of the populations of individual nation states to look to their own Government in times of crisis?
Lord True
The noble Lord makes a very interesting point. Of course, it does not in any way resile from the views of those countries about their membership of the European Union. It is not for us to comment on the policy of other countries, but he is certainly right that different approaches are being made by different countries. Each one will adopt policies, as we are, in the interests of securing the livelihoods and lives of its citizens.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, since I doubt that the Minister will agree with anything I say about the European Union, can I try to find some consensus with him? Will he agree with me that one of the very few positive things to come out of this awful coronavirus epidemic is the fact that a second Scottish independence referendum is off the agenda for the foreseeable future?
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
Does the noble Lord want to say something more? It seems not.
Smart Motorways
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Quin
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what further discussions they will have with motorist organisations and others concerning the implementation of their recently announced plan for smart motorways.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, last week the Government published an 18-point action plan to improve safety on our smart motorways. Whether it is increasing public awareness and understanding of smart motorways, helping to improve training and procedures for recovery workers or getting places to stop in an emergency shown on satnavs, to give just three examples, I can assure the noble Baroness that we will continue to have discussions with motorist organisations and others to deliver the plan.
Baroness Quin (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful for that reply. I think the changes announced by the Government last week have been welcomed, but there are certainly fears that they still do not go far enough and that, in particular, the distances between refuge areas will still be too great. Given that surveys have shown that only one in 10 members of the public feel safe on all-lane running motorways, will the Government keep this under urgent, constant review and, if necessary, be prepared to abandon their use altogether?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Baroness makes a number of interesting points. There are two things to consider here: actual safety and the perception of safety. On emergency refuge areas, we are doing all sorts of things to ensure that they are more visible. On new motorways, the standard will be that they are three-quarters of a mile apart. We are making sure that, where possible, they meet the 15-foot width standard. As for the perception of safety, the important thing is that drivers understand what a smart motorway is, how it can benefit them, how they should use it and, if they get into trouble, exactly what they need to do.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister take my thanks back to the Government following the debate to which she kindly responded recently? Will she accept that the smart technology is not up to speed for the smart motorways, and will the Government delay the continuation until the smart technology is in place?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I thank my noble friend for her warm words about the report and put on record my thanks to everybody in the department who worked on it. It was an enormous undertaking, involving a huge amount of data that had to be analysed. I am perhaps not entirely sure to what the noble Baroness is referring as all sorts of technology already exists on these motorways, be that the red “X” signs to prevent people travelling in certain lanes, the enforcement of those signs, or the MIDAS speed monitoring systems. All sorts of things are in place. She may have been referring to stopped vehicle detection, which we are rolling out more quickly than we originally anticipated; that will be in place within three years.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
My Lords, the smart technology not in place in most cases is that needed to detect vehicles stopped in the inside lane. The outcome of the review gives Highways England up to 36 months to roll this technology out. Does the Minister agree that 36 months is a long time for vital technology that is core in relation to the safety of these motorways? Does she agree that they should be converted back to their original layout, with hard shoulders, until technology has been fully installed in each individual case?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
I am afraid I cannot agree with the noble Baroness. She is referring to stopped vehicle detection, which is just one type of technology and the safety case is not dependent on it. There are two other technologies that can also make sure that stopped vehicles are seen. They are MIDAS, as she well knows, and the CCTV that covers all elements of the smart motorway system. I would like the noble Baroness to consider one thing: does she accept that, if we were suddenly to turn around and put back the hard shoulder on all these motorways, by putting roadworks on those roads, we would immediately make those roads less safe?
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, can the Minister give the House the accident rate on smart motorways as opposed to conventional motorways?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
My Lords, that was the absolute crux of the 79-page report that we have prepared. We looked at it in two different ways. We looked at the average numbers and then delved down into the detail on whether a motorway, when it becomes a smart motorway, is more or less safe. I therefore encourage the noble Lord to read the 79-page report, if he has time over the coming weeks. From that, he will see that, in most ways, smart motorways are safer. In a smaller number of ways, on specific things, they may not be, but that again is within the margin of error. We are acting on these 18 points because it is absolutely important that people should feel safe as well as being safe.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, speaking as a simple sailor, it seems amazing to me that we call this smart. We have a road on which cars go along at about 70 miles per hour. If your car goes wrong, you stop in that road where cars are doing 70 miles per hour. I cannot see how that is smart when quite often there is no large gap where you can pull over. I would certainly not feel very happy if my car broke down—luckily it does not do that very often—having to stop on the inside lane of a motorway where traffic is belting along at 70 miles per hour. It does not seem very smart.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
The noble Lord will be well aware that if you are barrelling along at 70 miles per hour on the A31 Hog’s Back and you stop, there is no technology at all and there is no hard shoulder. We have roads all across our country that do not have a hard shoulder.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton
But you travel on them. You can do very high speeds and there is no technology to detect a car that has stopped. I shall go back to say something about something that is quite in vogue at the moment, which is evidence. That is what we did. We went back and looked at the evidence. I accept that the risk on a smart motorway may be different, but if you stop on the hard shoulder of a conventional motorway, that, too, is not safe. One in 12 fatalities happen on the hard shoulder of a conventional motorway. I encourage all noble Lords to go back to the evidence and have a look at exactly what it says. These motorways are in most ways as safe as, or safer than, conventional motorways.
Covid-19: Business Interruption Insurance
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Clement-Jones
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consideration it has given to the ability of entertainment and hospitality businesses to claim on their business interruption insurance policies where customers have been advised to stay away but no order for closure has been given.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government understand that this has been an unprecedented time for these industries and that Covid-19 has indeed had a very profound impact. At the Budget last week, the Government set out a £30 billion fiscal stimulus to support British people, British jobs and British businesses. I think the noble Lord will be aware of the statement this morning from the Association of British Insurers saying that the vast majority of businesses would not be covered for business interruption of the type we are talking about under their insurance, but my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is having calls across the industry this afternoon to make sure that our lines of communication are open.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I, too, have read the statement from the ABI. This is a major issue which has rightly received extensive and negative attention in the media. These businesses are in limbo and are threatened with ruin as a result of being unable to invoke the terms of their business interruption insurance policies. Will the Government now reconsider their policy and direct closure, as has been the case in so many continental countries? It is much more likely—although not certain, as the ABI statement makes clear—that claims will be successful in those circumstances. The other alternative is for the Government to put their own scheme in place where insurance is not available. It is incumbent on the Government to show that they understand what business is facing.
Baroness Barran
The noble Lord is quite right. Across government we are trying to understand the challenges that business is facing, which is why all Ministers are in regular, frequent conversations with the key stakeholders they represent. I referred to the package of measures in the Budget, but we know that given the scale and speed of this epidemic we need to do more and we need to do it quickly, which is why the Chancellor will be addressing the other place with a package of measures at 7 pm today.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, earlier today in the other place, during a debate on finance, it was said that Ministers in the Treasury would be meeting the insurance industry this morning, I think. The Minister said that lines of communication are open, but what is the nature of the discussions with the industry? Are the Government telling the insurance industry that it needs to refocus its effort on supporting its customers or, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested, will they underpin these businesses with, in essence, their own insurance policy?
Baroness Barran
To be clear—the noble Lord will appreciate this—the discussions are across many industries, and this industry is critical. There is something about stitching those different conversations together in terms of the overall package. On the approach, we are trying to sequence the priority issues, of which cash flow seems to be perhaps the most pressing in the short term, but I do not want to—and cannot—anticipate exactly what my right honourable friend the Chancellor will say this evening.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a director and shareholder of a number of businesses, which are set out in the register. My noble friend will be aware of the Chancellor’s announcement last week of the business interruption loan guarantee, an essential announcement which could be the difference between a business surviving or going under in the current crisis. Having spoken to a number of banks about how it will play out, the clear indication is that they do not have guidance from the Treasury about what this package will look like. We are now nearly a week on from that announcement. As noble Lords will appreciate, businesses are looking to stabilise their finances now to ensure that they keep people employed. Does my noble friend have any idea of what guidance has been given, when it was given and when businesses will hear from banks about the package of measures that could be put in place to stabilise them?
Baroness Barran
My noble friend makes a very important point. A new coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, which is being delivered by the British Business Bank, will launch in a matter of weeks—I cannot give a more precise answer than that—to support businesses to access bank lending and overdrafts. In addition, all businesses and self-employed people who are in financial distress in relation to their outstanding tax liabilities may be eligible to receive support with their tax affairs through the HMRC’s time-to-pay service.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, what might be done about theatres? Only this morning Tamara Rojo, the great ballerina and the leader of English National Ballet, pointed out that unless the Government say that theatres should close, they will have no access to insurance to cover the losses they will incur in having brought companies together and so on. Their insurers are requiring that there is a direction from government that they close in order to protect public health. Is it the Government’s intention to protect our arts, which are so important and which run on very tight margins?
Baroness Barran
The noble Baroness makes an important point about the contribution of the arts to this country. The department is extremely aware of that and is proud of our arts and anxious to protect them. On insurance, as I said to the noble Lord, Lord Clement- Jones, the Association of British Insurers has already said that the vast majority of businesses would not be covered in this way. If that is different for theatres, I will write to the noble Baroness. There was also a question about the timeliness of receiving funds in relation to insurance, but the key point is that we are looking at all possible options to support these valued sectors.
Lord Newby (LD)
Does the Minister accept that businesses will hear the phrase “within weeks” with a chill running down their spine? This is intensely urgent. Within weeks businesses will be going bust. Even if the scheme comes in within weeks that does not mean that everybody who wants to benefit from it will get immediate support. Once a scheme is up and running, it takes time for everybody to benefit from it. Will the Minister take back to her colleagues that this is an intensely urgent issue, that a week has gone by since the Budget, that no further guidance appears to have been given, and that weeks and weeks simply will not cut the mustard as far as many thousands of businesses are concerned?
Baroness Barran
I am more than happy to take the noble Lord’s concerns—and, I am sure, those of others in the House—back to the department. What we are trying to balance here is speed, which the noble Lord rightly focuses on, and clarity, which businesses also want. We all hope that we will get more of that from the Chancellor later today.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)
My Lords, businesses do not need clarity, they need cash. There is an absolute need for the Government to make it clear that they will change the regulations that prevent the banks providing the support that is needed. I am afraid that the Chancellor is going to have to get himself a helicopter. This is a major financial crisis on a scale similar to what we saw following the banking crisis. If the Chancellor is making a Statement to the other place, will we get the opportunity to have a Statement and discuss these issues?
Baroness Barran
On my noble friend’s final point about the opportunity to review those issues here, I understand that that will be dealt with through the usual channels as speedily as possible. On the need for cash and the need to change regulations, I think that is the point I was trying to make a few moments ago about how we sequence this. Cash flow appears to be the single most pressing issue, and that is where we are focused.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, it is my understanding that the Statement is not being repeated later today. Could the Minister take back to the usual channels the acute concern about that? This Statement is the single most important business that Parliament will conduct this week, and I sense that noble Lords would like the opportunity to ask the Government questions about it and to give their views.
Baroness Barran
I understand from my noble friend on the Front Bench that an offer was made to repeat the Statement here today, but the usual channels agreed that the economic debate tomorrow will be used as a platform to debate it.
Covid-19 Update
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement delivered in the other place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary on Covid-19. The Statement is as follows:
“Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the Prime Minister has said, the coronavirus pandemic is the worst public health crisis for a generation. It is an unsettling time for families up and down the country, so we need a united effort to tackle Covid-19 effectively and come through this challenge, as I am confident we can and we will.
Following on from, and consistent with, the domestic measures announced by the Prime Minister yesterday, and based on the fast-changing international circumstances, today I am announcing changes to the FCO travel advice. UK travellers abroad now face widespread international border restrictions and lockdowns in various countries. The FCO will always consider the safety and security of British nationals. So, with immediate effect, I have taken the decision to advise British nationals against non-essential travel globally for an initial period of 30 days, subject to review.
This decision has been taken based on the domestic measures introduced here in the United Kingdom, along with the changes to border and a range of other restrictions that are now being taken by countries around the world. The speed and range of those measures across other countries is unprecedented. Some of those decisions are being made without notice. In some countries, even in countries or particular areas where cases of Covid-19 have not yet been reported, local authorities are none the less imposing restriction on movement and are doing so with little or no notice at all. In the light of these circumstances, we want to reduce the risk of leaving vulnerable British tourists and visitors stranded overseas. We will of course keep this advice under review and amend it as soon as the situation responsibly allows.
The Government are keenly aware that international freight services such as shipping and haulage are vital for ensuring the continuity of the supply of essential food, goods and material to the UK. We regard this kind of travel as essential, and we will work with industry to ensure detailed advice that maintains the flow of goods while also protecting the well-being of staff working on those routes. The Department for Transport will be leading this work with the freight sector, with the objective of minimising disruption to those routes as far as possible.
At the same time, FCO consular teams are working around the clock to provide the best and most up-to-date information that we can possibly provide to UK nationals. In the last week alone we have made more than 430 changes to FCO travel advice, and obviously we will continue to keep that advice under close and constant review.
We are providing support to British nationals who have been impacted by coronavirus while travelling. During the initial outbreak or containment phrase, we arranged the repatriation of more than 200 vulnerable British nationals from China between 31 January and 9 February. We took that action to support British nationals and control the return of those possibly exposed to Covid-19 at the earliest point in the crisis when it appeared that the virus might be contained in China.
In other cases, such as that of the British nationals affected by Covid-19 infection in a hotel in Tenerife, we worked with travel companies and airlines to ensure that those concerned were safely brought home. We have also changed our travel advice to advise people over 70 or with underlying health conditions against travelling on cruises, to protect those who are most at risk from coronavirus.
We have arranged repatriation from cruise ships, including most recently the 131 UK nationals returned from the “Grand Princess”, docked in California, who arrived home last Wednesday. We have been working intensively with the Cuban authorities and Fred. Olsen Cruise Lines to ensure that all British nationals are able to return quickly and safely to the UK, in relation of course to the “Braemar” cruise liner. We are doing all that we can to ensure that they return to the UK on flights from José Martí airport in Havana within the next 48 hours. The Foreign Secretary spoke with the Cuban Foreign Minister twice over the weekend, and we are very grateful to Foreign Minister Rodríguez Parrilla and the Cuban Government for swiftly enabling this operation, and for their close co-operation in making sure that it could be successful.
As well as those repatriations, UK consular teams are working with those affected by difficult quarantine conditions, the closure of tourist resorts—for example, in Europe and north Africa—or new regulations introduced in various countries where UK nationals are visiting. We will do everything in our power to get those British nationals affected the care, support and practical advice that they need.
We also need to be clear about our capacity to repatriate people from abroad, given the scale of the numbers. We have taken action where necessary, but no one should be under any illusions: it is costly and complicated to co-ordinate, so government-supported repatriations have been undertaken only in exceptional circumstances. Ultimately the primary responsibility for managing outbreaks of Covid-19 and quarantine measures must rest with the country in which the outbreak has occurred.
FCO teams around the world are working urgently to ensure that Governments have sensible plans to enable the return of British and other travellers, and, crucially, to keep borders open for a sufficient period of time to enable returns to take place on commercial flights wherever possible. Following today’s change in travel advice, British nationals who decide that they still need to travel abroad should be fully aware of the increased risk of doing so. That includes the risk that they may not be able to get home if travel restrictions are put in place. So we urge anyone still considering travel to be realistic about the level of disruption that they are willing and able to endure, and to make decisions in light of the unprecedented conditions that we now face.
Today’s travel guidance follows the domestic measures announced yesterday. It forms part of our national effort to meet the international challenge presented by coronavirus—a challenge that we will rise to as a Government and as a country. I commend this Statement to the House.”
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement by the Foreign Secretary. Perhaps I may first express my appreciation for the extraordinarily hard work of all the FCO staff who, I know from comments made in the other place, have been working tirelessly over the weekend and throughout the night to support their fellow citizens.
I will turn first to international freight services, such as shipping and haulage. As the Statement said, they are
“vital for ensuring the continuity of supply of essential food, goods and materials to the United Kingdom.”
The Government, rightly, view this kind of travel as essential and say that they will work with the industry to issue detailed advice to maintain the flow of goods, while protecting the well-being of staff working on those routes. Can the Minister assure the House that the Department for Transport, which will be leading on this work with the freight sector, will consult those most directly affected—the workers in the sector—and ensure that trade unions are also properly consulted? It is vital that we get the co-operation of all sides of society in the battle against this virus.
What assessment have the Government made of the impact, particularly in the food and agriculture industry, of people naturally wishing to leave and return to their home country? What sort of cross-government co-ordination is there on that?
As we heard from MPs in the other place, this is clearly a time of immense concern for tens of thousands of people. We have heard about individual examples of young people stranded without the resources to make decisions about how to come back. The Foreign Secretary constantly referred to clear and practical advice. I strongly believe that this is one of the rare occasions when people want to be told what to do. It is not just advice; people need to be absolutely clear about the consequences if they have to make difficult decisions—for instance, if a parent is ill in a foreign country. This applies to my own husband; we were due to fly next week. People need a clear statement of what to do.
The other place heard the example of Morocco, which unexpectedly closed its air and sea borders, causing particular problems. I was hoping to hear from the Foreign Secretary that his department had been in touch with the French and Spanish authorities, which have many nationals there as well, to try to create a more co-operative and international response, especially in assisting people to get back home. Morocco will surely be joined by other countries making similar announcements. Can the Minister confirm that we are making representations to Governments—in co-operation with our EU partners, because many of our citizens are travelling to similar places—to ensure that those Governments who are contemplating similar action give us information in advance so that we can be prepared to give appropriate advice to our citizens?
The Foreign Secretary also referred to liaising with the civil aviation authorities and airlines. This is an example of action being taken before the Government’s advice has been issued. Can the Minister assure the House that airlines which halted flights had reassured the Government that they had made provision to enable customers to return immediately or early?
Finally, this is a difficult situation and we are focused on the immediate need for a response. However, whatever we do today, we need to ensure that we learn lessons. We do not know what is around the corner: in the 1980s it was AIDS, and we saw the response of the Lord Speaker at the time. Whatever immediate action we take in responding now, we need to learn the lessons that ensure we are better prepared next time something like this happens.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement and associate myself and my noble friends with the expressions of appreciation of the efforts of those in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and other government departments. What is contained in the Statement is generally acceptable. It may seem draconian to advise against travel globally, but in the febrile atmosphere of many countries, restrictions will often be placed without warning. I have no doubt that the repatriations to which the Minister referred were most welcome. It shows the benefit of co-operation that this was able to be done by the relevant authorities in Tenerife and Cuba.
One matter that sticks out in the Statement is the observation that the ultimate responsibility for these matters rests with foreign Governments. What if such Governments have neither the inclination, capacity nor resources to assist British citizens? Would that be regarded as exceptional and therefore justifying government repatriation? Similarly, what if the considerable efforts of Foreign Office officials are unsuccessful? Would that count as exceptional circumstances, or would we leave our citizens—forgive the slang—“twisting in the wind”?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Collins and Lord Campbell, for their words of support. I will take those, and the level of unity in your Lordships’ House, back to the Foreign Office and to all departments in Her Majesty’s Government—particularly the Department for International Development, which is playing a leading role in such unprecedented circumstances. I am sure that the sentiments which both noble Lords aired are reflected across your Lordships’ House.
One of the final points made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was about my mention, in the Statement, of responsibility. That reflected the responsibility of the Government in question for the measures in place for controlling the spread of Covid-19 in sovereign states. We are working with international partners and providing international support. We have already allocated over £241 million in support of other countries that need assistance and we are providing financial assistance to the World Health Organization. That is also intended to provide support where the measures being put in place may not yet be of the standard one would hope for. This is about sharing expertise and insights. What we have seen from the spread of coronavirus, from where it started in China to where it is today, and what we have seen not too far from here in Italy, shows the global challenge that we are facing and the importance of sharing research and insight. On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about ensuring lessons are learnt, we have also allocated a further £65 million for research into the spread of the virus.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, was right to point out that the Department for Transport is leading on the issue of freight services. He made important points; I support them and will share them. We should be talking to all representative bodies, whether of employers or employees, who may be on the front line and performing difficult tasks in supply chains, and ensure that they are given the support they require.
The Government are also stressing the importance of airlines continuing their services. We are talking to airline operators and ensuring that commercial routes are kept open. While airlines are, understandably, rationalising certain routes, we are imploring them, and working constructively with them, to ensure that the commercial routes continue to be operational, so that British nationals who seek to return to the UK can do so as early as possible.
I also pay tribute to those working in our ports and airports. They are often on the front line and not always given the acknowledgment they deserve. I declare a personal interest, as my elder brother works on the operations side for British Airways at T5. I know only too well from the stories that he is sharing about the challenges that staff are facing, often with passengers who are returning ill and clearly needing support, while ensuring that they fulfil their duties as well. I am sure the whole House will join me in paying tribute to those who are playing important roles on the front line.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, also raised the important point about how we ensure the repatriation of British citizens, as did the noble Lord, Lord Campbell. To show you what we are up against, over the weekend, just in my patch, which is south Asia, we made 220 changes to travel advice just on Saturday and Sunday. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, was right to point out that, as far as possible, this should be done with advance notice, but, as we have seen with near neighbours in Europe, countries are taking action.
The noble Lord described changing our travel advice to only essential travel as draconian. We need only cast our eye across the channel to see what other measures are being taken. It has not been the Government’s approach to impose, and we are working in a structured way. Nevertheless, as circumstances change, as the announcements made by the Prime Minister yesterday indicated, we are responding to what is a fluid and ever-changing set of circumstances, not just nationally but internationally.
The noble Lord, Lord Collins, made specific reference to Morocco and working in co-ordination with other partners. As he will be aware, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister took part in a G7 meeting with representatives of our European partners participating in the call, as well as other nations and the European Commission. His point is absolutely valid, and I assure him that we are working closely with partners. I and my noble friend Lady Sugg were involved in the repatriation over one weekend of one set of passengers. Every repatriation where we have had to engage directly with charter flights organised by Her Majesty’s Government has involved opening channels to other European countries, if so required, and we have sought to facilitate that.
That underlines the point that international co-operation is taking place—in certain circumstances, between countries that would not normally be talking to each other. Again, in my patch of south Asia, countries which have normally been challenged in their bilateral relations by international circumstances have come together because everyone recognises that this is a global challenge and needs global solutions.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I want to ask my noble friend a question on those visitors who have come from outside Europe, have a visa to be here, fall sick with the virus, then cannot travel back and their visa may have expired. What position do those visitors have, and how do we protect them from fear that they will then be penalised for a visa overstay because they are sick?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, first, my noble friend will recognise from her experience as a Minister that, if someone is ill and needs urgent treatment and support, they will be provided with that in the United Kingdom. She makes an important point—bearing in mind the travel restrictions that have been put in place by other countries—on citizens seeking to return to their respective countries from across the world. In our discussion with other countries, the return of nationals to their own borders is still very much accepted because, ultimately, we are all responsible for our own nationals. On the issue she raises about visitor visas that may expire for foreign nationals because of cancellation of flights or, as she pointed out, specific illnesses, I will come back to her specifically, because these are live discussions, reflective of our own change in advice and on how we have looked at particular visa situations. That is in the domain of the Home Office, but she raises a practical issue. If I may, I shall come back to her on it.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl)
My Lords, returning to Europe, I think that the Minister will be aware that continuity of supply, particularly of food, is of particular concern to those who have been asked to stay indoors for long periods. He will also be aware that several EU countries have closed their borders in the past 24 hours or so, even within the Schengen zone. For example, where food supplies are coming from southern Italy, the borders to Switzerland, Austria and Germany have been closed. What conversations are the Government having with supermarkets and food retailers as to whether food supply through road transport will be allowed to continue through those closed borders, or whether they are having conversations with airlines as to whether they need to transport food supplies by air freight instead?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the noble Baroness raises an important point about the free movement of goods. Earlier, I alluded to the issue of essential travel, and I reiterate that essential travel includes the need to retain supply chains, particularly when it comes to the delivery of goods. On our discussions with our European Union partners, the President of the European Commission discussed with all G7 partners the actions that the EU would be taking. The fact that the European Commission has acted in the manner it now has reflects the fact that individual countries within the EU were taking separate action. It has acted to ensure consistency and address the very concerns that she raised. From our perspective, it is important to ensure that supply channels remain open. That is why our advice recognises the importance of ensuring that supply lines, including for the delivery of goods, remain open.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
I will ask the Minister another practical question. Many students are in this country just now. I give an example that we have had to deal with at the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute. One of our interns received a notice that India was closing down the border, even for Indian nationals who are abroad. They were given until the 18th to return, so we have had to expedite her return and assist her financially to do so—to get a different air ticket. People will be caught. This picks up on a question asked earlier: how will the Government deal with that, because some young people who have not completed their educational courses are full of anxiety about whether they will be locked out of their own countries and then be in breach of the basis on which they can stay in this country?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
On her first point, as I am the Minister responsible for our bilateral relations with India, perhaps the noble Baroness would share that information with me and I will take it up with the Indian high commission. From talking to the Indian authorities, my understanding is that the restrictions apply to foreign nationals and those who hold passports with overseas Indian status but that Indian nationals could return if they chose to. However, if a particular issue has arisen, particularly with a student studying here, my understanding is that they should continue with their study. Coming back to the point raised earlier by my noble friend Lady Verma, providing that there is no reason for them to be unable to travel, and if flights continue—as they currently are—they should be able to return to India, in this case, or any other country as would be fit because, ultimately, nationals should not be stopped from entering their countries.
I say that, but 24 hours in this crisis is a long time, and I am minded to add the caveat that things are changing drastically. I do not envisage flights stopping and, as I said in response to a previous question by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, we are imploring commercial operators to continue to operate their flights, but as commercial decisions are taken about flights—understandably, they seek not to fly empty planes—an added challenge will be imposed on us globally to face up to. However, as I said, I am happy to look into the specific issue that the noble Baroness raised.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I have a question about the diaspora and the ambassadorial corps. This morning, I was able to meet the Pakistan high commissioner, Mohammad Zakaria, who was concerned—as we all are—about the spread of coronavirus and the implications for his community; other ambassadors and high commissioners will be thinking the same. What are we doing to ensure that the corps as a whole receives information directly? How are we using it to reach the diaspora in this country, especially where there are linguistic difficulties and people are not getting the information they need?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord raises an important point. I assure him that I am certainly engaging directly with high commissioners from across south Asia, particularly those with large diaspora communities. We are mindful of ensuring that they are cognisant of the announcements the Government are making and that, if there is a need for that to be understood more effectively because of a lack of language skills or understanding, that is taken up.
I have been really heartened by the response we have seen from not just responsible citizens but organisations from different communities. As I was coming into your Lordships’ House, I noticed that the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury has just put out a statement about congregational prayers. Equally, we have seen a very responsible attitude by other faith leaders, including in the Muslim community. As noble Lords will know, Friday constitutes an important day of gathering for the Friday prayer. I think of the actions we have seen in other parts of the world. I noticed that the Kuwaitis were encouraging people to remain at home through the call to prayer. These are the nuanced approaches that we should take on board for all communities in the United Kingdom. We should also ensure that we can share positive experiences we have here in the UK internationally.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)
My Lords, there have been reports in the last few days that, given the shortages of key medical supplies, the European Union might restrict exports outside the EU of certain supplies and equipment in short supply. Do the Government know if that is happening? If so, would the UK be treated as within the European Union area? In this country, we produce only a small number of ventilators, for example.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, on the specific issue of ventilators, I am sure the noble Lord followed the announcement. We have had a very positive response from various manufacturers in the UK on the issue of addressing any shortfall of ventilators that may occur. He raises an important point on the new restrictions imposed by the European Union. The Commission President has clearly indicated, for example, that medical staff should be able to travel freely into the UK, as are transporters of goods. She has also made clear that UK travellers will not be affected by the measures imposed. We certainly believe that supplies will continue without hindrance. However, there are challenges domestically for each country in the European Union, as we have found here in the UK, and there will undoubtedly be challenges that are taken together on issues of supplies reaching people as efficiently as they are.
I draw an analogy with the challenge we have had in certain supermarkets up and down the country, which has actually been caused not by a certain shortage of food but by people’s practices. Supply chains are set up to cater for a delivery of a certain quantity to a certain place. If a person is going in and buying 10 things instead of one, that has an implication in the supply chain. That is why the Government have implored everyone not to be panicked by this, to be responsible and to look out for each other. Ultimately, if I have one piece of advice to share from the Dispatch Box, it is exactly that: we need to ensure that we look in front of us, behind us and to our left and right to ensure that we are equally looking after those around us, as well as ourselves.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I work externally for dispensing doctors. They have put to me that there is a shortage among front-line medical staff—both doctors and nurses—of personal protective equipment, or PPE. There is a fear that this is being exported and not made available to local staff. Can my noble friend look into that and also give the House an assurance that medical supplies coming from countries such as the United States will be completely accessible going forward? Obviously, there will be no transatlantic flights. Is any information available on Eurostar journeys and what the advice is on Eurostar?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, transatlantic flights are continuing. As I said, certain airlines have made certain decisions to rationalise routes, but those routes continue to operate. The importance of international collaboration and ensuring that we work together as one was discussed at the G7. The noble Baroness asked about health services and staff at the front line. I will take that back to the Department of Health, but I assure her that, having had occasion to attend specific COBRA meetings, I know that this is very much a one-HMG effort, although, as we have seen, it includes the Chief Scientific Adviser, the Chief Medical Officer and representatives of NHS England—we have very much adopted an inclusive approach.
The Duke of Somerset (CB)
The Minister has spoken extensively about UK citizens needing to return from overseas, but many UK citizens here live and work abroad. Will the FCO be in a position to try to help them, bearing in mind that some of them will have no home base here in which to reside for the quarantine period?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, if I understand the noble Duke’s question correctly, the first port of call for British citizens who work and live abroad should be to contact the British high commission or embassy. If they are residents of another country, I am sure that they are being updated in accordance with the measures that that country is taking. If they are British citizens and they wish to return home here, that is a choice for them to make and we will, as far as possible, seek to facilitate that return. When this Statement was made in the other place, specific cases were raised about British citizens around the world. The first advice that we offer them is to contact their representatives at the UK embassy or high commission to see what support can be given to them on the ground. I repeat that we are seeking to ensure that commercial air routes continue to operate. As for specific assistance for UK residents from elsewhere in the world, this would be a decision for them to make. They would, of course, get whatever support is offered to any other UK citizen resident in the UK.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
Does the Minister agree that, while this virus poses a real threat to life here, in developing countries it is just one added threat to life, where people already face terrific threats and where health services are much poorer than those in Europe and the United Kingdom in particular. Is DfID undertaking something special to help developing countries to deal with this and to assist the excellent health NGO workers who are out there in their efforts? Finally, will he join me in thanking Dr David Nabarro, a former health adviser at DfID, for the excellent work that he is doing as an adviser to the WHO on this virus?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The three quick answers to the noble Lord are yes, yes and yes. He is quite right about DfID support and I am proud of DfID’s role—after the most recent reshuffle, I am also a Minister at that department. As I said, we have been working with G7 and G20 partners in this regard. We have allocated a £241 million aid envelope on exactly the points that the noble Lord raised. We are also providing £150 million to the International Monetary Fund, £10 million to the World Health Organization and—he mentioned NGOs—£5 million to the Red Cross international federation and another £5 million to UNICEF in our immediate response.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I said yes, yes and yes. The third yes was for him.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
Will my noble friend address a medium-term issue? I join the Front Benches in their comments and sentiments about the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, including its staff, who have played a tremendous role at the front line in dealing with this. Is there any thinking at the Foreign Office and across the wider Government about Britain’s exit from the European Union? At a time when we face unprecedented challenges, both in movement of people and the economy, will there be some thinking about the circumstances in which we find ourselves and the backdrop against which we will be negotiating these deals?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, my noble friend asks quite a specific question. This crisis has made everyone think very carefully about our place in the world, the relationships that we have and the importance of connectivity. A virus knows no frontiers and no boundaries. It does not matter whether you are in the European Union or outside it, in the African Union or anywhere else in the world. It is important that we share experiences, insights, expertise and good practice. If we are learning anything from this, it is that the best response is a collective response from humanity. If there is one lesson to be learned, I hope it is exactly that. The negotiations that we will have with our European Union partners are a matter of detail and will be taken forward, but I am sure that our experiences during this crisis, which is far from over, will also feed into discussions with not just our European partners but other partners across the world.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, arising from Brexit and the change in exchange rates between the euro and the pound sterling, it is estimated that shoppers from the Republic of Ireland spent £500 million in Northern Ireland last year. Can the Minister assure us that any controls by the European Union on borders with non-EU nations will not apply to the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, and that the common travel area will be maintained?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I have already addressed that in part. The announcement made by the European Commission does not apply to the United Kingdom. As the noble Lord will be aware from his own insights and expertise, the restrictions that the Republic of Ireland has also imposed do not apply to Northern Ireland.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
I hesitate to add to the Minister’s burden of taking matters to his friends at the Department of Health, but there are extreme shortages of things such as Calpol, thermometers and epinephrine autoinjectors, such as EpiPen and Auvi-Q. I hope that, despite all the Government’s assurances, Ministers and others will bear in mind that this is very important equipment and medicine, particularly for the young and vulnerable.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I will certainly take that back to the Department of Health. Not being a medical expert, I will not repeat every medicine mentioned by the noble Baroness but, as a father, I get Calpol. We will ensure that our medicines are appropriately stocked.
Procedure Committee
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the Report from the Select Committee Appointment of Parliamentary Works Sponsor Body Spokesperson and Sponsor Body members; General and balloted debates for the new parliamentary session; Committee statements; Privileges Committee: consequences of establishing the Conduct Committee; Terms of reference of the European Union Committee (1st Report, HL Paper 29) be agreed to.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the first report from the Procedure Committee covers five areas. The reasons for each proposed change are set out clearly in the report published last week, but I will say a few words about each.
First, the report proposes arrangements for a Lords spokesperson to speak and answer parliamentary questions on behalf of the restoration and renewal sponsor body. Under arrangements proposed in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the report, the spokesperson would answer Written and Oral Questions, take part in relevant debates, make Written Statements and move any resolutions required. The spokesperson would not make Oral Statements or ask Private Notice Questions, topical Oral Questions or topical Questions for Short Debate. That would be inadmissible. If agreed, the changes would require amendments in due course to the Companion.
Secondly, the report seeks to address the practical implications of the current parliamentary Session starting last December rather than the usual springtime, and recommends that on Thursdays, the following items of business shall all run until the end of September this year: general debates, balloted debates and topical Questions for Short Debate.
Thirdly, the report takes forward a proposal made by the Liaison Committee, to highlight important committee work on the Floor of the House. We propose that for a trial period running until the Summer Recess, 10 minutes should be set aside each Thursday after Oral Questions, for committee statements. I am sure noble Lords will welcome this as an opportunity for chairs of Select Committees to make short statements to promote recently published committee reports. Paragraph 13 of the report sets out how the committee statements trial would operate.
Fourthly, as a consequence of the appointment of the appointment of the new Conduct Committee, we recommend that the functions of the former Committee for Privileges and Conduct relating to matters of privilege are carried out by the current Procedure Committee, with amended terms of reference. The Procedure Committee will be renamed the Procedure and Privileges Committee. The renamed committee will be required to co-opt two Members of the House who are former holders of high judicial office when considering issues of privilege. We also recommend that in the now rare event of having to consider a peerage claim, an individual committee to consider the claim should be set up when necessary. Any such committee would be appointed with four Lords Members and three holders of high judicial office, who would have the same speaking rights and voting rights as Lords members of the committee. We also recommend a change to the House’s Standing Orders, to allow a report from the Conduct Committee, as well as the Finance and Services Committee, to be given the same precedence in the Order of Business as the business of the Chairman of Committees.
Finally, the report recommends changes to the terms of reference of the European Union Committee, as proposed by the Liaison Committee. The new terms of reference reflect the UK’s changed status since 31 January and the committee’s role during the transition period and allow it to establish a sub-committee responsible for scrutinising treaties or international agreements.
Noble Lords will no doubt have noticed the second Motion in my name on today’s Order Paper, immediately following this one. That seeks the House’s agreement to changes to the Standing Orders which are consequential on the recommendations in this report. I beg to move.
Standing Orders (Public Business)
The Senior Deputy Speaker
That the standing orders relating to public business be amended as follows:
In Standing Order 9(6), leave out “Committee for Privileges” and insert “Committee for Procedure and Privileges”
In Standing Order 12(2) and 12(3), leave out “Committee for Privileges and Conduct” and insert “Conduct Committee”
In Standing Order 19(5), leave out “Committee for Privileges and Conduct” and insert “Procedure and Privileges Committee”
In Standing Order 40(3), leave out from “and to the Chairman of Committees’ Business” to the end of the paragraph and insert “to the Chairman of Committees’ Business, and to the business of the Conduct, Finance and Services Committees shall have priority over other Public Business if the mover so desires.”
In Standing Order 64:
(1) after “Communications Committee” insert “Conduct Committee”;
(2) leave out “Committee for Privileges and Conduct”;
(3) leave out “Procedure Committee” and insert “Procedure and Privileges Committee”
Leave out Standing Order 77 and insert the following new Standing Order:
“77A Committees for peerage claims
The House may refer a peerage claim to a committee for determination. In such a case, the Chairman of Committees must table a motion to appoint a committee to consider the peerage claim and report to the House. Four members of the House shall be named of the committee, which shall sit with three holders of high judicial office who shall have the same speaking and voting rights as the members of the committee.”
In Standing Order 78, leave out “the Committee for Privileges and Conduct” and insert “a committee to hear the claim”
In Standing Order 80(3), leave out “the Committee for Privileges and Conduct” and insert “a committee for peerage claims”
In Standing Order 81, leave out “the Committee for Privileges and Conduct” and insert “a committee for the claim”.
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Bill [HL]
Tuesday 17th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 View all Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 2-R-I(Rev) Revised marshalled list for Report - (16 Mar 2020)
Lord McColl of Dulwich
“(1) Subject to subsections (1) and (2), either or both parties to a marriage may apply to the court to initiate the process for an order (a “divorce order”).(2) In the case of an application by both parties to the marriage under subsection (1)— (a) the application must be accompanied by a statement by the applicants that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, and(b) the court must—(i) take the statement given under subsection (2)(a) to be conclusive evidence that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, and(ii) make a divorce order which will dissolve the marriage.(3) In the case of an application under subsection (1) that is to proceed as an application by one party to the marriage only—(a) an application must be accompanied by an initial statement by the applicant of their intention to seek a conditional order on the basis that the marriage may have broken down;(b) a confirmation by the applicant under subsection (5)(a) that they wish the application to continue must be accompanied by a statement that the marriage has broken down irretrievably; and(c) the court dealing with an application made by one party under this subsection and subsection (5)(a) must—(i) take the statement given under subsection (3)(b) to be conclusive evidence that the marriage has broken down irretrievably, and(ii) make a divorce order which will dissolve the marriage.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment sets out different steps in the divorce process, depending upon whether the application is a joint application by both parties to the marriage, or an application by only one party.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 1 is a redrafted form of the amendment that I brought before the House in Committee. I have returned to this issue because, as I read and reflected on the Committee debate, I was not at all assured that my concerns had been addressed. In coming back to this issue, I make it clear that I will not be dividing the House on this amendment, but I hope this debate will provide an opportunity for the Minister to address my concerns. I put on record my sincere thanks to him for the useful meeting that we had yesterday to discuss this and my other amendment.
I will begin by defining the problems that the amendment is designed to address and will then explain how it deals with them. I welcome that the Bill allows people to make joint applications for divorce for the first time. For these couples, the divorce will come as no surprise. However, the negative impact of the Bill on respondents where there is no fault is profound.
Under the current system, in the absence of fault, the couple must have lived apart for two to five years before proceeding to divorce. Clearly, on this basis no one would claim to be surprised at the divorce application. In the case of the two-year separation, the divorce application must be by mutual consent, and anyone who claims to be shocked at receiving divorce papers after five years’ separation is not credible. Under the Bill, however, all this will change for the respondent in this no-fault context. One day, they could be thinking that their marriage is all right, and the next day they could be faced with a declaration of irretrievable breakdown and the fact that they could be divorced within six months or even sooner if they are not notified at the start of the reflection period. I am particularly concerned about the greater insecurity that this will inevitably bring to many marriages, and the attendant psychological cost. In case anyone was to think that this might be a very small number, I remind the House that the circumstances I am describing —namely, the two to five-year separation period—are used in around two-fifths of divorce petitions each year. That is around 40,000 divorces: 40,000 respondents who today must receive some warning, but who under the Bill need receive no warning at all.
There is all the difference in the world between a divorce where both parties agree and seek it together, and a divorce initiated by one party only, perhaps with the other party not even knowing. The Bill, however, deals with the two largely as if they are the same. That does not seem just or fair. My amendment seeks to address this presenting problem by requiring that where a divorce application is not made jointly by mutual agreement, a different approach is adopted. I propose a change to the wording in new Clause 1(1), which currently says that the applicant is applying for a divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown. I suggest instead that new Clause 1(1) refers only to the applicants initiating the divorce proceedings.
I then suggest a two-track scenario. Where there is a joint application, the initial application includes a statement saying that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. Where the application is by one party only, the applicant is required to make two statements. The first, on applying for a divorce, would state that the applicant’s intention was to apply for a conditional order, which they would have to do under subsection (5), on the basis that the marriage may have broken down. The statement of irretrievable breakdown would then accompany the application for a conditional order 20 weeks after the first application if the petitioner wished to proceed to the next stage.
There are two main rationales for my amendment. First, it means that someone who wants to end the marriage cannot suddenly drop a bombshell on his or her spouse that their marriage—which she or he may have thought was all right—has actually irretrievably broken down. The first move the petitioner can make is a declaration that he intends to apply for a conditional order on the basis that he thinks the marriage may have broken down, not that it has already broken down irretrievably. This has the effect of requiring him to treat his spouse with greater respect, in the sense that the statement he makes to her is not one that says emphatically “It is all over” such that there are no grounds upon which she can respond and seek to save the marriage.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote (CB)
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I continue to be concerned about the lack of regard for the respondent demonstrated in this legislation.
In the first instance, respondents lose their right to contest the divorce and thus, in an important sense, their voice. In the second instance, as the noble Lord has already said, respondents are severely disadvantaged in a no-fault context when compared with respondents in the same position under the current law, because the two to five-year warning of a statement of irretrievable breakdown is taken from them; they are exposed to a potential statement of irretrievable breakdown without any warning. In the third instance, respondents are not even afforded security about enjoying access to a 20-week reflection period. It is thus entirely possible that they will not be told about the divorce until the end of that period, and thus be confronted with not only a potentially out-of-the-blue statement of irretrievable breakdown but the possibility of being divorced in just seven weeks from first hearing about the divorce.
In the context of this assault on the rights and dignity of the respondent, Amendment 1 helps in two ways. First, rather than requiring the divorce process to begin with a statement of irretrievable breakdown, which makes it very hard for the respondent to respond because the petitioner is saying very emphatically “It is all over”, the initial statement proposed by Amendment 1 would create a context in which there can be a conversation and the respondent’s voice can be heard. Of course, this does not mean that the respondent will be able to change the mind of the petitioner should they wish to try to persuade them that their marriage is savable, but at least it provides them with a credible opportunity for doing so.
Secondly, the initial statement proposed by the amendment does not condemn the reflection period to likely failure by commencing with a statement that suggests, with great finality, that there is no way the marriage can be saved. It might be necessary to start a divorce process on the basis of a statement of irretrievable breakdown within a fault-based system, but if we are to realise the objectives set out by the family test assessment to use the no-fault system to create a basis from which one can foster conditions that better promote reconciliation, this is a terrible missed opportunity. It also misses out on the opportunity highlighted on page 164 of the Nuffield Foundation report that notification in a non-fault-based system
“would be more facilitative of reconciliation.”
I hope that the Government will support the amendment or come back with an alternative means of restoring dignity to the respondent and making the most of the new opportunities in a no-fault system to promote reconciliation.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I spent 50 years in family law and I have some experience of dealing with parents who are at odds with each other. I have seen the impact on their children. I am very relieved to hear that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for whom I have the greatest respect, does not wish to test the opinion of the House. I respect and understand his good intentions and those of others putting forward amendments today, but if they passed they would hinder rather than enhance the process of this excellent Bill.
Amendment 1 is opposed by family lawyers, many of whom have great experience of dealing in family cases. It assumes incorrectly that when the existing divorce process was not completed in some 50-odd cases out of about 300 it was due to reconciliation. I think we were told in Committee that only one of those was an attempted reconciliation. The others were procedural problems. There is no evidence to support the view that a period of reflection, suggested by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, would in fact create more reconciliation than starting with the application, as put forward by the Government.
For most divorcing spouses the petition does not come at the beginning of something going wrong. My experience certainly is that it comes towards the end, when efforts have been made on both sides to have reconciliation. It is a very serious step and one that is not taken lightly. I also have to say that it is very unlikely that the respondent is taken by surprise. He or she is almost certain to know that the marriage is not going well. I find it inconceivable that a speculative application could be made by somebody right out of the blue when the marriage appears to the other spouse to be working perfectly well.
If irretrievable breakdown is the ground of divorce, as, indeed, the Bill requires, the proposed amendment is entirely inconsistent with it, because that is the way the application would come before the court. Whatever you have to call it, the application is for a divorce at some point. The three-stage process would make it much more complicated and would probably be confusing for many people.
One particular group of people is not in fact taken into account, if the noble Lord, Lord McColl, will forgive me for saying so: spouses escaping abusive marriages. If there has to be this period before you can even apply for a divorce, the opportunities for intimidation, coercion and other behaviours against the escaping spouse—unless they go to a refuge—would mean that this measure would make life infinitely worse for them. The noble Lord has not referred to that group. Again, according to the research done by Exeter University and the Nuffield Foundation, people have said that it is time that the state respected and did not second-guess the decisions of parties to a failed marriage.
I am also quite surprised that the noble Lord did not refer to civil partnerships. Since civil partnerships now follow exactly the same rules as marriage under current legislation, this measure would put marriage in a completely different situation to civil partnerships. That must be unsatisfactory so I strongly oppose the amendment, but I am relieved to know that it will not go to a vote.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, I support what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said. Although I have absolute sympathy with the well-intentioned objectives of my noble friend Lord McColl, I fear that they will fall far short of what any practitioner can deliver.
Speaking from the coalface, when a person books an appointment with a divorce solicitor, it is often in absolute trepidation and recognition that they have failed. Sending that person away means, if I might say so, that we are getting into a situation like talaq, where you say, “I divorce you, I divorce you”, then the third time, you say, “Yes, you are divorced.” Putting down a warning in circumstances where there may be violence and it may have taken a great deal of courage to come to the conclusion that the marriage is over would, in my experience, just be delaying the evil day.
As we have seen in our recent politics with Brexit, as we are seeing now with coronavirus and as we see with marriage and its breakdown, uncertainty is a set of very disturbing circumstances, the innocent victims of which are children. Children need certainty. Often, when they know that their parents’ marriage is on the rocks, they are relieved to find some sort of consensus to sort out the problems that have been going on in their house for some time. Dignified separation without naming and shaming and blaming can only be to their advantage. I wonder how many of those who marry people look at two people whom they know are fundamentally incompatible and have the courage to say, “I will not marry you because I think that this will end in disaster.”
It takes only one party to get divorced, not two; one person can check out of the marriage and there is simply nothing that the other party can do to make them change their view. This amendment would delay what is in most circumstances an inevitable consequence. There is nothing to stop responsible practitioners suggesting that a couple try harder, go to mediation or have help, but to suggest that a practitioner or the law can keep together a marriage that has fundamentally failed is pie in the sky. The sooner the consequences of a fallout can be sorted, the better it is for everybody.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD)
My Lords, I associate myself totally with the wise and experienced words of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton. I can well remember our discussion in Committee about the petitioner “thinking” that the relationship “may” have irretrievably broken down. This amendment inserts a third stage into the process. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who is hugely experienced in the field of divorce, said, along with others, that in their experience, by the time someone files for divorce, it is not done lightly and their mind is made up. If there was a possibility that the marriage was retrievable, they would have explored it before filing.
I think that this step is unnecessary. The timeframes as set out in the Bill are appropriate, so adding another stage would not be helpful. Therefore, we will not support this amendment.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth (CB)
My Lords, I would suggest that there are two issues behind the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and I am not sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, have really addressed them. One is whether there should be a sort of extended time period—“I think the marriage may have broken down”—to allow for reconciliation, while the other is the situation where a woman is pretty certain that her marriage has broken down. She is living apart from her husband with her children, but she still has some hope. Then, out of the blue, a note comes through, perhaps rather late in the day, that her husband has actually petitioned for divorce.
I think that outside of this House there is quite a widespread worry about what the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has called the rights and the dignity of a person in that situation. I accept all the other arguments that have been put forward, but will the Government address the situation where something might come, if not as a total surprise then as rather a bitter blow that it should have reached this stage and the party has heard about it so late?
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has intimated that he will not be testing the opinion of the House on this matter, but nevertheless, I rise to support Amendment 1. There are some things worth saying in relation to this important amendment and on this very important issue.
The noble Lord listened carefully to the previous debate and his new amendment now seeks only to avoid use of the term “irretrievable breakdown”—nothing more, nothing less—at the start of a divorce application when it is made by one party to a marriage. Where the couple have decided by mutual agreement, and it is clear that they have discussed the matter in advance and come to a view, this amendment does not propose a different statement at the start of the procedure from that which is made on actually applying for the conditional order. This is positive for two reasons. First, it means that the amendment focuses on the particular group of people who are likely to be disadvantaged by this Bill: namely, the respondents in the case of a unilateral divorce application in the absence of fault.
As the noble Lord explained, under the current system, around 40% of divorces are made in the absence of fault through a prior period of separation of either two years in cases where there is agreement or five years in cases of disagreement. In the context of these divorces, at present the respondent gets at least two years’ warning before the statement of irretrievable breakdown can be made. Under the Bill, they could get no warning at all and they will also lose their right to contest the divorce, which is a double whammy, truncating their rights on two fronts simultaneously.
Before I talk about the important service that Amendment 1 provides in addressing these difficulties, I would like to comment briefly on them, and particularly on their political significance.
The noble Lord, Lord McColl, expressed his worry about the psychological impact of the heightened insecurity that the Bill will visit on some marriages. People in marriages today who judge that it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that their spouse might suggest divorce, although neither party has committed adultery or behaved unreasonably, know that, even if they were unable to persuade their spouse to change their mind, they could not have a declaration of irretrievable breakdown visited on them for at least two years. There is in this a certain security, which this Bill will remove for 40% of current divorces.
It seems strange that the Government should want to associate with such a proposal. Last year, before the general election, the Conservative think tank Onward published its seminal paper The Politics of Belonging, which suggested that if the party was to win the election it must seek to engage with “Workington Man”. One of the central arguments of the report is that, having for many years prioritised freedom, the public now attach greater importance to security. On the basis of its extensive polling, the report stated that,
“by a ratio of 2-to-1, voters want to live in a society that provides greater security not greater freedom.”
It is this realignment of focus away from being primarily about freedom to a far greater emphasis on security that causes the report to argue that what is needed now is the “politics of belonging”—greater togetherness rather than greater separation.
In this context, the Bill before us today, the practical impact of which is to emphasise greater freedom for the petitioner and greater insecurity for the respondent, seems strangely out of place. Amendment 1 restores some dignity and security to the respondent by ensuring that they will not be presented with a statement of irretrievable breakdown right at the start of the process, potentially as a bolt from the blue. This means that, while they will understand that their marriage has been put on notice, they will not be presented with a form of words suggesting that it is all over from the outset.
This has two benefits. First, it treats them more gently and with greater dignity than moving straight to a statement of irretrievable breakdown. Secondly, while not restoring to the respondent a right to contest the divorce, it restores to them the opportunity to have a voice. If you present them with a statement of irretrievable breakdown, you are effectively telling them that it is all over and preventing them having a voice. If, by contrast, they are told that the marriage is on notice and that in 20 weeks a statement of irretrievable breakdown will be made unless they can persuade their spouse that their relationship is worth saving, they will at least have an opportunity to respond constructively.
Another reason this amendment is very positive is that it helps the Government fulfil their stated objective to promote reconciliation in the divorce process. This is significant because, having recognised that the current law makes reconciliation harder, the family test assessment in the new law states:
“We want to create conditions for couples and parents to reconcile if they can.”
Under the current law, which is based on fault, one has to begin the divorce process with a declaration of irretrievable breakdown because it involves citing adultery or unreasonable behaviour.
However, in considering a new system where one does not need to prove fault, that is not necessary. We have the opportunity to bring forward new legislation and therein a new approach. Given the stated commitment to foster better conditions to promote reconciliation than we have at the moment, an obvious place to start is this amendment and its proposal not to make a statement of irretrievable breakdown until after the reflection period when applying for the conditional order.
On this point I note that the Nuffield report—which some have quoted selectively to justify not prioritising reconciliation during the divorce process—states that, under a system where one party is notified of the intention to divorce, as proposed by this Bill,
“there is also the possibility that notification would be more facilitative of reconciliation.”
In other words, we should recognise that, in moving to the new system, there is the potential for greater scope for reconciliation than under the current system, because of the notification system.
Finally, it seems that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has managed through the amendment to identify a means to use non-fault notification that is more facilitative of reconciliation. In this context, to reject the amendment because, up until this point, the divorce process had always started with a statement of irretrievable breakdown would be very odd, given that the whole point of this exercise is to change divorce law. I very much hope that the Government will not dismiss the amendment but give it proper consideration.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich and other noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. As my noble friend observed, the amendment would keep the existing ground of irretrievable breakdown at the start of the application only where the application was made by both spouses. Where the application was made by only one party, it would remove the ground of irretrievable breakdown, which has stood for 50 years, in favour of the novel concept of a ground that may or may not be the case.
I am aware that there has been a narrative of the divorce application coming as a shock to the respondent, but, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, observed in Committee, and repeated this afternoon,
“the evidence from the research is that the majority of people know perfectly well when a marriage has irretrievably broken down.”—[Official Report, 3/3/20; col. 532.]
They know when it has come to an end. The proposed amendment would hinder, not enhance, the process of divorce. Indeed, my noble and learned friend, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, observed in Committee that
“once you have applied, you have carried out the intent.”—[Official Report, 3/3/20; col. 535.]
That point was reflected in a number of observations made by the noble and learned Baroness this afternoon.
The Government remain firmly of the view that an application for divorce is precisely that: an application seeking the legal dissolution of the marriage by the court because it has broken down irretrievably. A divorce application cannot be a notice to the other party that there may be marital difficulties. That is not a proper use of the court process. The legal process of divorce is not a remedy for marital discord but a means to dissolve the legal ties at the end of a marriage. As I observed in response to the amendment to similar effect tabled by my noble friend Lord McColl in Committee, such an amendment would have the potentially perverse effect of encouraging speculative applications. These are not effects that the Government wish in any way to encourage.
The reality is that under the existing law, which allows only sole applications, the application is made on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of the marriage right at the start, and well before the court takes account of the evidence for fault or separation. There is no reason to change that. I accept that my noble friend Lord McColl wishes to allow for reconciliation where one spouse wishes to divorce and perhaps the other does not, but the Government’s conclusion is that to amend the law in this way would not achieve his purpose and would in fact send entirely the wrong signals to divorcing couples. It is in these circumstances that I invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in the debate. I have great respect for all of them. I have enormous respect for the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss—we have known each other for more than 70 years, so it is quite easy to. I thank everyone for taking part. I hear what the Minister said. I think that it will be taken up in another place with some enthusiasm. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Farmer
“(2) On an application for a divorce order the court must inquire, so far as it reasonably can, into—(a) the facts alleged by the applicant or applicants, and(b) if the application is by one party to the marriage only, any facts alleged by the respondent.(3) The court hearing an application for a divorce order must not hold that the marriage has broken down irretrievably unless the applicant or applicants satisfy the court of one or more of the facts described in subsection (3A), in which case it must make a divorce order.(3A) The facts referred to in subsection (3) are— (a) if the application is by both parties to the marriage, that the applicants have lived apart for a continuous period of at least one year immediately preceding the making of the application;(b) if the application is by one party to the marriage only—(i) that the respondent has behaved in such a way that the applicant cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent, including where the respondent has committed adultery;(ii) that the applicant and the respondent have lived apart for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the making of the application;(iii) that the respondent has deserted the applicant for a continuous period of at least two years immediately preceding the making of the application.”
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak also to the other amendments in this group. It is not at all the norm for me to table amendments that appear to strike at the heart of what the Government, on whose Benches I sit, are trying to achieve. It is not something that I relish in any way. However, I feel compelled to keep challenging the introduction of no-fault divorce in this country. This is, in fact, because I support the two key principles set out in the original consultation paper and do not believe that removing the ability to cite fault fulfils them.
Those principles are, first, that the decision to divorce continues to be a considered one, giving spouses the opportunity to change course, and, secondly, that spouses are not put through legal requirements that do not serve their or the state’s interests and can lead to ongoing conflict and poor outcomes for children.
I realise that the various Front-Bench justice spokespersons, many of whom are lawyers, are for this Bill. However, I have become aware that many Back-Benchers and even some Front-Benchers are not truly cognisant of its contents and implications. I have a great respect for the legal profession but it is deliberate and appropriate that this House welcomes and appreciates those from different backgrounds who can provide a wider view.
The purpose of all my amendments—2, 5A, 6A, which supersedes Amendment 6, and 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12—is to retain the good things in this Bill and reject the bad. I am referring to those elements which I do not think will serve the best interests of families in our country. They aim better to fulfil the laudable principles with which the Government embarked on divorce reform. My amendments will retain the option for both parties in the marriage or civil partnership to make a joint application for a divorce, judicial separation or dissolution. They will also retain the minimum time period before which a divorce or dissolution cannot be granted. I heard what my noble and learned friend Lord Keen said about many fault-based divorces taking less time than the six months currently proposed.
My amendments would also retain the ability in the current law to cite fault to obtain a divorce or dissolution and to contest a divorce. I know that this happens rarely and that only 2% of respondents state intention to defend, with fewer than half of these going through the formal process. I also know that the number contesting may be less than 1,000 every year and that many are resisting the particulars of unreasonable behaviour and other fault-based facts. However, some will be trying to keep their marriage vows alive by resisting being unilaterally divorced.
At least the current law enables them to mount that defence. The removal of this facility ushers in, de jure, unilateral divorce with the full approval of the state. This is justified on the dubious grounds that we already have unilateral divorce de facto. This is where a reluctant respondent, who might have much preferred to attempt reconciliation, is more or less forced to accept that their marriage is over when fault facts of dubious veracity are used to establish the ground for divorce. Would it not be better to curtail the motivation and ability of people to do this through the minimum time limits proposed in the Bill and by significantly reducing the separation periods with and without consent so that they more closely resemble the Scottish system? That is what my amendments would also achieve.
A couple could jointly apply after one year’s separation. There would then be another six months to run, during which time, one hopes, much progress could be made on real areas of conflict—finances and children. A sole applicant could apply after just two years’ separation. In 2015-16, only 6% of divorces in Scotland were fault based because of these other remedies.
I have already alluded to the support of noble and learned Members of this House for the more draconian measures proposed in the Bill, so I know what I am up against, and I have very rarely experienced in this House an argument that has changed people’s minds. I still want to take the time to explain why I believe that these amendments will more adequately fulfil the Government’s stated principles.
On the first principle—
“that the decision to divorce continues to be a considered one, giving spouses the opportunity to change course”—
how does a sole application leading to a divorce after a 20-week reflection period, plus six weeks, achieve this? Leaving aside the important issue of both parties having the full extent of that period, I simply ask noble Lords whether no-fault divorce really does allow for reflection.
If fault is discarded, people can simply go online, late at night, after what may have been a rather trivial or resolvable argument—or possibly too many drinks—and apply within minutes. The irretrievable breakdown of the marriage would, in effect, be proven by the impetuous completion of that form. As one mediator writing on the Family Law website expressed it:
“Our culture has changed, and we must be alive to the unalterable fact that our online world can eliminate vital processing and reflection time.”
To those who argue that online completion allows that already anyway, I say this. The need to cite a fault fact will in itself be a moment of pause, even a deterrent, for many who might be all too well aware when they are doing so that their spouse could counter-accuse them of far worse.
I have also been told that it is patronising to suggest that those who come through the door, particularly of our top lawyers, to arrange a divorce are not doing it with very careful consideration. For this cohort, I am in complete agreement that this move will have been well thought through, not least as there is often so much money and property at stake. However, there will be many who think that they have far less to lose, and who may have given the issue far less thought.
Again, I am aware of Professor Janet Walker’s research, cited by the Nuffield Foundation’s Finding Fault? report, in defence of the argument that divorce is rarely initiated lightly. The report states that the research showed that the decision to divorce is not taken lightly or impetuously. Indeed, it is a typically protracted decision, based on months, if not years, of painful and difficult consideration. However, once that decision has been reached, the parties need to move forward without lengthy delays. Professor Walker’s study was a valuable analysis of provisions made in Part 2 of the Family Law Act, which was repealed. She followed thousands of people who took part in the pilots of the information meetings that would have become mandatory once the Act was brought into force. These, however, were volunteers, who had actively put themselves forward, not only to attend the meetings but to take part in research. So, despite my sincere respect for Professor Walker, I am not at all convinced that her subjects can be treated as representative of the overall divorcing population, including in terms of the level of consideration they had given to the decision to divorce.
On the second principle—that spouses
“are not put through legal requirements which do not serve their or the state’s interests and which can lead to ongoing conflict and poorer outcomes for children”—
this Bill falls very far short. I agree that the current system could be improved, but if the proposed reforms were enacted, respondents would be defenceless, in every sense of the word, and many of these are already the more vulnerable party, in financial and other ways. How are their interests served?
The assumption in debates during the passage of this Bill, as we have heard again today from the noble and learned Baroness, appears to have been that the abuser is often the respondent—but the abuser might also be the applicant. This law might penalise many more women than men, given that women are 12% worse off financially after divorce, while men are more than 30% better off.
How are the state’s interests served by this bad law, which cheapens the commitment of marriage? I have already cited research that shows that unilateral divorce leads to fewer marriages, fewer remarriages and more cohabitation, precisely because it makes marriage more like cohabitation. Does the state really want the greater instability that more cohabitation will bring, and higher numbers of children growing up without both parents? How is conflict significantly reduced when most of it is either prior to the divorce procedure or separate from it, at the stages when issues of money and children are being resolved?
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I entirely understand the best intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, in putting forward this amendment, but my heart sinks to hear it. It is really an effort to rewrite the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, which we are trying very hard to get away from. I do not know whether the noble Lord understands—I hope he will forgive me for saying it like this—just what a farce the current divorce situation is. The majority of divorces are now completed on fault, and the fault has to be something that is important enough for the judge to sign off. Some judges sign off something which is very limited indeed, but if it is actually a fault of any significance, it upsets the respondent, and the respondent very often finds that he or she is being accused of things that have really not arisen during the marriage but are necessary for the current farcical situation to create a divorce. The exacerbation of the respondent inevitably has a marked effect on the children.
I have to say that Professor Liz Trinder, whom I know, is entirely independent. The report Finding Fault? is in line with lots of earlier research. In its comments on children, it is undoubtedly in line with the very strong evidence of endless consultant child and adolescent psychiatrists—and I know many of them. Over the years they have become increasingly concerned about the negative impact on children of the allegations of unreasonable behaviour that are to be found in the current legislation.
I am a patron of the Marriage Foundation, and the foundation is extremely keen that people should be reconciled. I have to say that I share that view; I must tell the House that I have been married for 61 years and I find it extremely sad when I meet members of my own family and other people I know who are divorcing. That for me is a tragedy. However, there is no shortage of people who wish to end their marriage. That is part of our English and Welsh law, and we have to go along with it.
Still, we must recognise that if this amendment were passed and only one party wanted to bring divorce proceedings, we would be back in the old situation, which is deplorable for children, and that would exacerbate the emotional trauma of the divorce process. I have to tell the House that it makes reconciliation very much less likely when allegations of behaviour are raised. Where they are not raised, it is a lot easier for people to talk to each other, but, if they are, it creates a very serious situation. I am very concerned that children should be protected from the behaviour of their parents. Children should be protected from the sort of allegations that could only seriously exacerbate the tragic situation for them when their parents separate.
Baroness Burt of Solihull
My Lords, these amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, would add a number of conditions or barriers that would mean that a statement of irretrievable breakdown would not be accepted unless the couple had lived apart for a specific time or there was a citation of unreasonable behaviour. The conditions look suspiciously like the existing damaging conditions that the Bill is trying to get away from—a point echoed by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in much more eloquent terms than I can manage. It sounds harsh to say this, and I have every respect for the noble Lord, but it is hard to conclude anything other than that these are wrecking amendments. This party supports the Bill and so we will not be supporting them.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia
My Lords, I wish to speak against the amendment. There is a practicality that is overlooked here, and that is the question of living separate and apart. It is not feasible financially or possible, particularly with children, for one party to up sticks and leave the matrimonial home; often this means returning to their parents and different schooling. It is just not viable.
The real problem with divorce is that it is now socially acceptable; there is no stigma on divorce. I believe passionately in marriage. I am also a patron of the Marriage Foundation, which supports this measure. In an earlier speech, my noble friend referred to the elite readers of the Times running a campaign to support the Bill. It was actually spearheaded by Sir Paul Coleridge, who is the head of the Marriage Foundation, because he believes the Bill is pro-marriage. It stops the agony when one party needs to exit a marriage. The amendment would effectively wreck a Bill that most practising lawyers support.
I will add that the very rich have something in common with the very poor: they are the least affected by divorce. So the people at the bottom of the scale are going to be no more inhibited from getting a divorce than those at the top.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Farmer and other noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I will speak to Amendment 2 and the other amendments in the group: 5A, 6, 6A, 7, 8, 9, 11 and 12. These amendments seek to retain the requirement on the court to inquire into any facts alleged by the applicant or indeed the respondent, and to be satisfied as to the facts alleged before holding that a marriage or civil partnership has broken down irretrievably. The exception would be that it would retain the approach under the Bill for joint applications.
With the greatest of respect, these amendments would drive a coach and horses through the Government’s measured and progressive Bill; the Government cannot accept them. They seek to maintain the status quo and deny any meaningful reform of the law—reform that is long overdue and which commands broad support in both Houses and beyond. Removing the use of blame in the legal process of divorce, dissolution and separation is a key objective of the Government. We know from the evidence that incentivising a spouse to make allegations about the other spouse at the outset of the legal process can simply worsen conflict. That conflict can then play out not only during the legal process of divorce but in any linked proceedings about financial matters or children.
In Committee, my noble friend said that much weight has been put on the evidence from research by the University of Exeter, funded by the Nuffield Foundation. He referred to the Finding Fault? study as
“a piece of grey literature … that … has not been peer reviewed.”—[Official Report, 3/3/2020; col. 553.]
and said that the reliance of the Government and, indeed, noble Lords, on this research was in his view surprising. He further noted that it was based on one study involving 81 interviews and an analysis of 300 divorces.
I am bound to say that the Government and many others find the evidence from this important research compelling. The Finding Fault? project, led by Professor Trinder, was peer-reviewed at application stage and scrutinised throughout by an expert advisory group, and the final report was reviewed by a senior academic and two members of the Nuffield research team. It has since been widely cited in academic family law textbooks. Indeed, I note that it has been referred to with approval by those with considerable experience in this area of the law, including my noble friend Lady Shackleton and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss.
I agree that that research has been influential. Its messages—that the current law increases conflict, encourages dishonesty and undermines the aims of the family justice system—are consistent with a body of evidence going back about 40 years, not least the Law Commission report of 1990, which led to the enactment, although not the implementation, of the Family Law Act 1996. The Finding Fault? study shows that the problems with fault-based divorce persist today. We cannot ignore that message.
Although the survey component of the study did find evidence of public support for retaining fault as part of the divorce law, this was not universal and indeed was inconsistent with other beliefs expressed by respondents—for example, that it is unfair to blame just one spouse for a marriage breakdown. The survey was only one component of the research, which also included interviews with people going through divorce, focus groups with lawyers, observation of the court scrutiny process, analysis of divorce court files and comparative analysis in other countries.
I appreciate and acknowledge the conviction of my noble friend and those who support his views that this Bill is bad for marriage, families and society, but I profoundly disagree. These reforms are measured, progressive and necessary. They are formulated on evidence that the current law works to fuel conflict, which is damaging for couples, parents and children. The law does not do what people think it does. It does not keep a party to a marriage in a relationship against their will. Marriage is a consensual union between two people. Unilateral divorce has been available under the current law for over 40 years. This Bill seeks to remove elements of the current law that can drive conflict. It does not and cannot make the painful decision to divorce any easier.
In light of this, I simply cannot agree with the terms of the amendment. We have, of course, listened to the concerns expressed about some provisions in the Bill. At this early stage, I would note this: I have committed the Government to work with the Family Procedure Rule Committee to address the issue of timely service on the respondent of the notice of proceedings by the applicant party. I have also tabled amendments to the Bill to make the delegated powers in Clauses 1 and 4, to amend the 20-week and six-week minimum periods under the Bill, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which will provide greater scrutiny of the measures. Finally, I have given a commitment that the Government will use the opportunity of amending court processes, including the online divorce service, to improve information about, and signposting to, important services such as marriage counselling and mediation. With those commitments in mind, I urge noble Lords to support the Bill in its present form and invite my noble friend to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Farmer
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate on my amendments. They backed up my argument that opinions do not change much in this House when you put forward a case. I thank the Minister for the commitments he just made.
It was said that these amendments go back to the dark ages. In a way, what I was saying when I spoke to them was that they line up very well with what is going on in Scotland, which seems to work very well. In Scotland, there are reduced time periods of one year and two years instead of two years and five years. I am not suggesting that we go back to 1973. The Minister also defended the Finding Fault? review from my criticisms. The process of peer review should be ruthlessly rigorous. It should involve at least two academics reading an anonymised script and aim to be as objective as possible. Other Nuffield Foundation research has been turned into peer-reviewed journal articles. I can give my noble friend at least one example: “Reforming family law—the case of cohabitation: ‘things may not work out as you expect’”, by Jo Miles, Fran Wasoff and Enid Mordaunt.
Ms Miles is on record as saying:
“Divorce law has not got anything to contribute; it is changes in society”
which have led to increased divorce. She is entitled to her opinion, but that is a contested view. The Nuffield Foundation did not ask someone with a different view who could have provided a profound challenge to its assumptions, methodology et cetera, but someone who was of the view that this legal change would not have an adverse effect on society. Unsurprisingly, the research assumes that divorce rates will be unaffected by the law. I just mention that in reply to the Minister.
In any event, I must join my noble friend Lord McColl in waiting to hear what the elected Members of the other place make of this. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Meyer
“(5A) For the purposes of subsection (5), “the start of proceedings” means—(a) in the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by both parties to the marriage, the date on which the application is lodged at the court under subsection (1), or(b) in the case of an application that is to proceed as an application by one party to the marriage only, the date when notice that the application for a divorce order has been lodged at the court has been served on the other party to the marriage.(5B) The court may abridge the 20 week period under subsection (5) if, on application, there is evidence that the respondent has engaged in deliberate evasion of service or other steps to delay materially the service of the application under subsection (1).(5C) The extent of the abridgement is at the discretion of the court and the court must take into account the date when the proceedings would have started had there been no such evasion or other material attempts to delay service by the respondent.”
Baroness Meyer (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 3 is tabled in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, who is following government advice by staying at home today.
The amendments in this group would tie the start of proceedings to service in the case of a sole petition divorce. Amendment 3 relates to marriages and Amendment 9A to civil partnerships. My noble friend Lord Farmer tabled a similar amendment in Committee. I am returning to the issue today because I believe the compromise offered by the Government does not go far enough. Proposed new Section 1(5) stipulates that 20 weeks must elapse between application and conditional order. This period gives couples a chance to reflect on the serious matter of divorce, plan for the future and consider whether their marriage can be saved.
As a nice aside, I must express my surprise at hearing several noble Lords imply in Committee that once the divorce process has started, there is no point attempting to save the marriage. I also gently remind the Minister that the government press release of 7 January said that the 20-week period is to
“provide a meaningful period of reflection and the chance to turn back”.
For the 20-week period to work, it is vital that both parties are aware that divorce proceedings have been initiated, but the wording of proposed new Section 1(5) leaves room for the respondent to be deliberately kept in the dark by the applicant. It ties the beginning of the 20-week notice period to “the start of proceedings”—that is, when notice is given to the court.
It is all too easy for a sole petitioner to avoid his or her obligation to give notice to the respondent by, for example, giving an out-of-date address or deliberately choosing a moment when the respondent is unreachable, maybe abroad. The question of whether the respondent is aware of the application becomes live only when the applicant asks the court to make the conditional order at the end of the 20 weeks. This means the respondent could be left unaware that the notice period has started, and the clock is running. They may not find out that the 20-week period has almost expired. That would surely defeat the entire purpose of the notice period: to encourage reflection. It could leave the respondent at a huge disadvantage.
It is more than possible that the applicant could start proceedings then leave the country with the children, in effect committing international parental child abduction. As noble Lords know, this subject is close to my heart. If the applicant flees to Germany, for example, it is possible to change the children’s place of residence in a matter of weeks, taking them out of the UK jurisdiction and into a foreign jurisdiction. Even if this does not happen, possession is nine-tenths of the law—as noble Lords are surely aware. Only 15% of abducted children are returned to their country of habitual residence under the terms of the Hague convention 1980. I raise this scenario because the Bill gives an unscrupulous applicant a great deal of power over the respondent. To summarise: on the eve of a conditional order, a respondent could find himself or herself confronted with a double fait accompli: divorce and the loss of the children.
The point was underlined last year by family law specialist David Hodson, in an article for a legal journal. He wrote:
“The intention of Parliament of divorce by notice over 26 weeks actually applies only to the applicant for the divorce. The recipient respondent will have less, perhaps much less and possibly even only a few weeks and yet have no opportunity to object. Any idea that there would be reflection and consideration—”
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I wonder whether the noble Baroness would allow me to make the point that in Amendment 3, proposed new subsection (5B) talks about
“evidence that the respondent has engaged in deliberate evasion of service or other steps to delay materially the service of the application”.
Nothing in this amendment deals with the applicant misbehaving.
Baroness Meyer
Maybe it is a failing in the amendment. It could be detrimental to both sides, but I am coming on to the other side as well. Mr Hodson described the current wording of the Bill as
“discriminatory, arbitrary and unfair. A process in law which means some parties to proceedings will have a dramatically different notice period than other respondents.”
The simple solution to the problem is to make the start of proceedings in the case of single applicants for divorce the date on which the application is served on the other party, rather than the date it is made by the petitioner. This was recommended in the Law Society briefing paper, which states:
“It is proper that a respondent to a divorce is given the full 26-week period of notice … If the notice period runs from the start of proceedings rather than the date of service, the respondent may receive the notice long after the start of proceedings, whether due to court delays, interference from the petitioner in delaying receipt by the respondent, the simple length of time of delivery if abroad, or other administrative reasons …We would recommend the Bill is amended to ensure that the notice period in applications by one party to a marriage only, would start from when the notice was received by the other party to the marriage. We believe it is vital that both parties each have a minimum of 26 weeks for the divorce to proceed under.”
In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, said that this would hand
“too much power to a respondent party who wishes to frustrate the divorce proceedings by avoiding or disputing service or delaying the entire process.”—[Official Report, 3/3/20; col. 582.]
He suggested that new rules and definitions of service should be explored by the Family Procedure Rule Committee, but there are two concerns about this approach. First, the principle is so important, and the potential for injustice so profound, that we cannot risk the Bill coming into force without this problem being solved first. To delegate this to the Family Procedure Rule Committee is to neglect the responsibility of this House to scrutinise and improve legislation. Secondly, on the point of a respondent who wishes to avoid or frustrate the divorce process, we accept the concerns of noble Lords. That is why these amendments give the court power to abridge and shorten the 20-week period if it arises that a respondent is attempting to frustrate the process.
I hope that, despite my bad reading, this demonstrates that concern about unco-operative respondents can be addressed, but we must also address the issue of unco-operative applicants. I beg to move.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, before I speak to Amendments 3 and 9A, I should tell your Lordships—in the unusual circumstances—that I certainly have a cough. I have had it since before Christmas; I have been to see my general practitioner, who says that I have a virus, but it is not “the virus”. I hope that noble Lords can be assured that I am not going to spread the coronavirus. I saw my GP and a consultant last week and have been checked out. I am sorry about my cough, but I cannot get rid of it.
What the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, has spoken about happens already, either by petitioners who give a false address or by respondents who make it impossible for the petition to continue. This goes on; I have heard from judges that they know it is going on. Sometimes divorces are completed without the respondent knowing. In other cases, there are divorces that cannot conclude because the respondent will not support it and just refuses to answer any questions or do anything that is relevant to the outcome of a divorce. I hope this is something that the Government will discuss with the President of the Family Division and the Family Procedure Rule Committee, because it is a serious matter. However, I do not think that it will be managed by this amendment.
I interrupted the noble Baroness, because I wanted her to realise that she has to deal with what is actually in the amendment: 26 weeks is not referred to in the amendment, and it deals only with respondents and not applicants. For all those reasons, I suggest to noble Lords that this amendment is flawed and cannot be supported.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
Even if it is the case that the wording of the amendment is not quite right, would the noble and learned Baroness in principle support this amendment? It seems to deal precisely with the situation which she outlined so eloquently, where both sides sometimes try to evade service. Would it not be important to have on the statute book a way of dealing with this issue?
Baroness Butler-Sloss
I understand what the noble and right reverend Lord says. The trouble is that I do not think having it in primary legislation will make it any easier for this issue to be resolved. This seems a matter for the Family Division to get on with, to see what it can do to try to deal with this. The Family Procedure Rules have to be obeyed; when I was a family judge, they were as important to me as primary legislation. I understand the point, but I do not think that it will make people behave any better if this is in primary legislation rather than in the rules.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia
To answer the question on the problem about service, this is regularly done when somebody is trying to evade service. You can go to the court and ask for an order for deemed service. There does not seem to be any problem in that; you just have to produce evidence that you have made your best endeavours to serve somebody, and if the court is satisfied that that has happened, service is deemed and the divorce can proceed.
Baroness Burt of Solihull
My Lords, I sympathise very strongly with this amendment, which as we have discussed deals with the vexed question of service. There is a balance to be struck where there is one applicant for divorce—in other words, it is not a joint application—between ensuring that the respondent has received adequate notification and that they are not able to frustrate the process by claiming not to have received notice. I am sure the House is very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, for her explanation of how that can be overcome. In meetings with the Minister, and in this Chamber, he has given assurances that the Family Division would make rules that strike the balance between sufficient notification and attempts to frustrate the process.
We accept the Government’s position that the arrangements for service are best left to the Family Procedure Rule Committee. We also accept that, increasingly, applications will be made online, in which case service is usually effected by the court. But we must also agree with the Government that provisions must be made for paper applications as well as online applications.
It is important that the respondent must be made aware of the proceedings as early as possible. The rules need to provide that a respondent cannot frustrate proceedings by trying to evade service, or by failing to acknowledge service. I would greatly appreciate further clarification from the Minister, and further assurances that this amendment will not be necessary.
Lord Keen of Elie
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, for moving the amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Curry, and other noble Lords for their contributions. We understand the concerns that part of the intention behind the Bill’s new minimum 20-week period between the start of proceedings and when the court can be asked to make the conditional order could be undermined if notice of the proceedings on the respondent party is substantially delayed. I provided assurances in Committee that a conditional order will not be made without satisfactory evidence of service. Of course the Bill does not provide for divorce or dissolution by 26 weeks’ notice; confirmation is required at both conditional and final order stages that the marriage or civil partnership should be brought to a legal end.
However, in this matter we have to be led by the evidence. Professor Trinder’s study of 300 undefended divorce case files found that no acknowledgement of service was returned by the respondent in 41 of the sample cases, which is about 13.7% of the total. If you were to extrapolate that nationally, that would amount to about 14,000 cases annually. Very few cases appeared to result from difficulty in locating the respondent; instead, the majority of the 41 non-returns appeared to reflect a decision by the respondent not to co-operate with the process, either because they were opposed to the divorce in principle or the reason given for it or simply because they wanted to make the process more difficult for the applicant. Resolution, the leading body in England and Wales representing over 6,000 family justice professionals, has also identified frustration of the proceedings by the respondent as the greater mischief.
I accept that in tabling his amendment the noble Lord, Lord Curry, was offering a constructive suggestion but that he recognises that a respondent may be deliberately evasive. However, the material effect of his amendment would apply to applications made by one spouse only when the 20-week period had started and the respondent had been served.
There is a difficulty here. The only fail-safe way of knowing that the respondent has been served is when the respondent returns to the court with the form acknowledging service, if indeed they return at all. In his amendment, the noble Lord sought to address this issue by giving the court the power to abridge the 20-week period between the start of proceedings and when it may make the conditional order if there is evidence that the respondent has sought to evade or delay service. The difficulty, as with the existing procedures for the court to grant deemed service or dispense with service in England and Wales, is the evidence that the court will require to be shown that the respondent should be aware of the application when in fact he refuses to return the acknowledgement of service, and therefore it makes the process of dispensation difficult. Indeed, such a process can be lengthy and requires separate applications to the court, which in turn can make it a complex process for applicants to navigate.
The amendment would place a further requirement on the applicant to apply to abridge the time of the 20-week period in such cases by providing evidence that the respondent has deliberately sought to evade service. Inviting an applicant to prove a negative is always going to be rather challenging, particularly in this sort of process. We have listened carefully to what has been said about this matter, both in debate and in the meetings that I have had with a number of your Lordships.
We consider that the right way to deal with this concern is to commit, as I committed at the previous stage, to work with the Family Procedure Rule Committee, which already has the relevant statutory powers to address the issue of service, and which has a statutory duty to consider whether to consult on rule changes. We are therefore inviting the Family Procedure Rule Committee to consider the matter when reviewing the rules required to implement the Bill, including a rule requiring service of the application within a specific period following the issuing of proceedings. I believe that this approach has drawn support from all sides of House, and I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
Everyone here recognises that there is a problem, and the most experienced lawyers among us have emphasised that. My question is simply: if we have been aware of this problem for so long, and the Family Procedure Rule Committee or whatever other body was appropriate did not deal with it at that time, what makes the Minister think it is going to deal with it better in future? Would it be better to have something very clear actually on the statute book, such as some government alteration of the amendment put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer?
Lord Keen of Elie
No, my Lords, it would not be appropriate to put this in primary legislation. To assuage such concerns as there may be, I can say that the President of the Family Law Division has already had this matter raised with him and has expressed a view. We have committed to make sure that the matter is brought before the Family Procedure Rule Committee, which is the appropriate body to address this point.
Baroness Meyer
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for responding to these amendments. Of course, I am very disappointed. As he made clear in Committee, the Family Procedure Rule Committee can be invited only to consider the matter. It might decide not to act, or the matter may get lost in the myriad other changes following this Bill. I recognise that there is little appetite for a vote, so I beg leave to withdraw my amendment but very much hope that our colleagues in the other place will take a view on this before the Bill completes its passage through Parliament.
Lord Keen of Elie
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, in moving Amendment 4, I shall speak also to Amendment 10 in my name. Essentially, Clause 1 provides for a minimum period of 20 weeks between the start of proceedings and when the court can be asked to make a conditional order of divorce. It further provides a delegated power to enable the Government, by statutory instrument, to shorten or lengthen this period, as well as the existing minimum period of six weeks, which will apply between the conditional order and the final order of divorce. Clause 4 similarly makes provision for the Lord Chancellor to change the prescribed periods in respect of civil partnership dissolution.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee questioned the purpose of these Henry VIII powers and recommended their omission from the Bill, or alternatively that they be made subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. At an earlier stage, the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Chakrabarti, spoke of their concern about the lack of clarity surrounding the circumstances in which the Government would seek to use these delegated powers. We have listened to those concerns; it is in the light of this that we move an amendment that will make these powers subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. I hope this reassures noble Lords that there will be proper scrutiny of these powers in the event that they are ever sought to be used. I beg to move.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, as the Minister has just outlined, these amendments will use the Lord Chancellor’s Henry VIII powers to change the period of time between the commencement of proceedings and the conditional order, as well as between the conditional order and the final order, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We are very pleased on this side of the House that the Government have listened to the debates and discussions earlier and moved forward, so we welcome these government amendments. They have been laid in response to the Committee amendments previously tabled by my colleague and noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, who unfortunately cannot be with us for the debate today. We warmly support the Bill. I have not spoken on previous amendments as the contributions—especially those from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton—have been eloquent and insightful, not to mention evidence-based, which is always nice to hear in your Lordships’ House.
I take this opportunity to remind your Lordships’ House again of the consequences of the decade-long underfunding of our justice system and how these cuts have affected family law in many ways, especially since legal aid was removed from divorce cases. This was, I believe, a terrible mistake. We are in many cases failing to protect abandoned people and children. The lack of access to lawyers results in inherently inadequate allocation of resources in the event of separation and divorce. As my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti recently highlighted, it seems perverse that, if the state seeks to take your children away, you have access to a lawyer but, if your ex-partner is depriving you of that contact, you do not have that support.
We can try to craft the most perfect divorce legislation but people must have access to early and consistent advice and representation. We urge the Minister to reflect further on the availability of legal aid.
Lord Keen of Elie
I note that the noble Lord supports the amendment and I hear what he says with regard to ancillary matters.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
“Information to be provided
The Lord Chancellor must ensure that individuals applying for a divorce order who have children under the age of 18 are provided with a concise statement of the main findings from the relevant social science disciplines about the impact of divorce on different aspects of a child’s wellbeing.”
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, in Committee we had a useful debate on the impact of the Bill on children. The amendment I moved on that occasion required that the best interests of children should be considered in the divorce process. In his response, the Minister said, among other things:
“I understand why some may regard it as important for the court to consider the impacts on children of the decision to divorce, but that ought not to be a matter for the divorce process. The decision to marry or divorce is an autonomous one. It is not for the law to stand in the way of one or both parties who no longer wish to be in a marriage. The legal process of divorce should focus only on ending the legal relationship between the adult parties. Issues that may arise from the divorce, such as disputed arrangements for children, can and are dealt with now under separate statutory provision.”—[Official Report, 3/3/20; col. 549.]
Taken as a whole, the Minister’s response made two main points. First, he claimed that while the decision to marry involved two people, the decision to divorce need involve only one person and is as such an “autonomous decision” that engages neither the spouse nor the children. This was not to say that the best interests of children were irrelevant but, rather, that they are engaged outside the legal process of divorce and protected through provisions such as those in the Children Acts. Secondly, he expressed the concern that the requirement to take into consideration the best interests of children could be used to prevent the divorce taking place if the divorce were deemed to be not in their best interests.
While it is not my intention to table any amendment that would prevent a couple who want to divorce from divorcing, I am deeply concerned about doing anything that authenticates an ethic of autonomous decision-making in family life. When two people marry and bring children into the world, they change the world through those children, who are very properly dependent on them throughout childhood. They use their autonomous choice to create a family unit of dependents and interdependence, in which anyone who is committed to the notion of responsibility must acknowledge that they say goodbye to autonomous decision-making, in the sense of decision-making based entirely on self, and engaging with the consequences for others only after the fact.
The thrust of government policy in seeking to fix “broken Britain” has been all along about helping fathers and mothers recognise that they must live up to their responsibilities, not escape them by falling into the ethic of autonomous decision-making. The hyper-individualism of the ethic of autonomous decision-making is the root cause of the broken Britain phenomenon, which the Conservative Party in opposition pledged itself to repair. In consequence, it makes no sense that, once in power, the Conservatives should instead give a shot in the arm to the hyper-individualism that they previously committed to curtail. In this context, rather than encouraging ethical autonomous decision-making, it is vital that divorce legislation in 2020, while not blocking the break-up of the family unit, should encourage adults with dependants to make decisions that are fully cognisant of the implications of those decisions on others, including their children.
This is absolutely relevant to the divorce process because it is one of decision-making. That is reflected in the three stages of the process as set out in the Government’s consultation paper, Reducing Family Conflict: the petition, the decree nisi and the decree absolute. The sense of the decision-making process negotiated through the first two stages is helpfully elucidated on page 32 of Reducing Family Conflict:
“Although it is the making of the petition that puts the marriage on notice, so to speak, it is only at the stage of the decree nisi that the marriage has, at least provisionally, been found by the court to have broken down irretrievably.”
The dictionary definition of putting in notice is,
“a formal announcement, notification, or warning, especially an announcement of one’s intention to withdraw from an agreement.”
The first part of the divorce process is therefore not set out in terms that suggest that the divorce is necessarily going to happen. We are looking at an indication of intention.
The provisional nature of that initial putting on notice period is further underlined by the designation of the 20-week period between initiating the petition and the application of the conditional order as the reflection period. It is during this reflection period that the Government have said on numerous occasions that they hope it might be possible to save a marriage. For example, in their response to the consultation process, the Government state on page 17:
“The law can, and should, have a role in providing couples with an opportunity to reflect on their momentous decision and pull back from the brink if they decide that reconciliation is achievable.”
In other words, at this stage we are not dealing with a process where decision-making is over.
In the context of the decision-making process facilitated within the legal process of divorce, it is very important that couples with children think about the impact that the divorce is likely, given the current social science research, to have on their children. In order to help them think this through, it is vital that they are empowered to make informed decisions through the provision by the Lord Chancellor of a
“concise, accessible statement of the main findings from the relevant social science discipline about the impact of divorce on different aspects of a child’s well-being.”
This is a modest but important amendment. It does not block divorce but simply seeks to empower a couple to make decisions about divorce that are informed by an awareness of the likely impact on their children.
I suggest that we cannot expend energy on seeking to block such a provision unless we want to risk being seen to prioritise the convenience of adults over the best interests of children in a way that I—and, I feel sure, many others—would find disturbing. I very much hope that the Government will accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I apologise for not having participated in this debate previously, but I trust it is in order to make a few remarks in relation to this amendment.
In 2002, when I was recently elected to the Commons, for whatever reason the Whips did not put me on a Select Committee—that is another story—so I created my own select committee in my constituency. I spent the best part of a year looking at heroin abuse in micro detail. The relevance and significance to this debate is in one of the extraordinary findings I made. There were around 600 heroin addicts living in the constituency. It was a fairly stable population and it was easy for me to gain access to them. I personally met, interviewed or researched—you could use all those terms accurately—around 300 of them, half the cohort, looking at what should be done to deal with their addiction but also at how they came to be addicted.
I came across the most extraordinary correlation. Of those 300, I found none—not a single one—who had not had major childhood trauma sometime in their teenage years. For some, it was reasonably well documented; it would be sexual or violent abuse in or outside the family that led them to heroin as their drug of choice. For others, though, it was a parental death or a messy separation. That correlation was absolutely uniform across the entire cohort; it varied between individuals, of course.
The conclusion I drew was that inability to cope with that major trauma led people into more dysfunctional behaviour and particularly into the choice of heroin as a comforting drug—the so-called cotton wool drug—which was the area I was building a particular expertise in. That has concentrated my mind and work for the nearly 20 years since, dealing with many such cases and the impact of separation on children.
I do not draw the same conclusions as the noble Baroness on how the law should be framed, because what I found in dealing with individuals in this situation was that the institution of marriage itself was not the problem or the issue; it was the circumstances in which they lived. Any kind of disputed, messy separation—whether a divorce or a less conventional way of living; I call it a quasi-separation—within an established family, or perhaps an established legal marriage that was itself dysfunctional and traumatic, could create the problem. In how we frame the law, the conclusion I drew at the time and put to your Lordships is therefore that a flexibility of approach that puts the children first is critical.
However, a structured approach in the law that overstructured the solution for the child would be counterproductive. The intent behind the noble Baroness’s amendment and the causation that she is putting forward are entirely endorsed, but I fear that the remedy is too constrictive in terms of the outcome for children and for how children will know that they are put first.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 13. It seeks simply to ensure that important information is available for divorcing couples so that they have the chance to think again about whether divorce is the best, or the only, way forward.
In Committee, I tabled an amendment that made it a duty to inform the couple of that information. The Minister argued then that it was too far down the road at that point, as the couple would have already started the process of obtaining a divorce. However, he thought that it would be possible for the necessary information to be made available on an official website, and this amendment simply seeks to ensure that that will indeed be the case. It therefore reads:
“It is the duty of a Minister of the Crown to ensure that those applying for a divorce order using the website of Her Majesty’s Courts & Tribunals Service have access to information about services related to relationship support, mediation, domestic abuse and related matters.”
Of course, that does not take into account those who apply for an order on paper, but it assumes that they will probably look at the court’s website at some point, and that is probably the best that can be done at this stage. Therefore, I very much hope that the Government will be able to accept this very simple amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle
My Lords, much of what I might wish to say about Amendments 5 and 13 has already been mentioned, so I will not repeat it. However, from these Benches I would like to express my warm support for the main thrust of both amendments and briefly reiterate three points.
First, in both amendments, those applying for a divorce are not compelled to do anything, but they are presented with information that might make a difference not only to what they do but to the way in which they do it.
Secondly, with regard to Amendment 5, almost everyone is agreed that the divorce of a child’s parents is one of the so-called ACEs, or adverse childhood experiences—we have just heard about one of those—that can significantly affect the subsequent flourishing of the child. It seems to make every sense to bring that to the attention of the parents, as well as the fact that children apparently often tend to do better even with fractious parents than they do after a divorce, although I fully acknowledge that cases of domestic abuse are a different matter.
Thirdly, as for being given access to information about mediation and marriage counselling, as we have been reminded, it might seem a little late in the day for that, and I noted the earlier comments of other noble Lords. However, as I understand them, the statistics suggest that as many as 2,500 relationships are currently rescued each year as a direct result of this sort of intervention. That is obviously important not only for the couples but for any children involved. Several noble Lords have already emphasised that point.
Both these amendments seem to be simply a matter of common sense and care for everyone who is caught up in the trauma of a divorce. They would enhance, rather than destroy, the Bill, and I very much hope that the Minister will regard them with the favour that they clearly deserve.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)
My Lords, the social science evidence is very clear that divorce has a negative—sometimes profoundly negative—impact on child development. Of course, there are occasions when divorce is absolutely in the best interests of children: when they need to be liberated from an abusive environment. In developing public policy, however, we must be careful that situations where divorce is the best outcome do not cause us to lose sight of the fact that, in most cases, it is best for children to remain living in an intact family home.
Under the current law, if someone is unfaithful to their spouse, they know that they will be at risk of receiving divorce papers. There is a sense in which the law is there to protect the faithful spouse from being abused by an unfaithful spouse. The new framework, however, seems to turn things on its head. A feckless husband and father, rather than being challenged by the law in his selfishness, is actually empowered by it, and in a way that enables him to demonstrate a cruel lack of regard for his spouse and children. He can have an affair and use the law to help him fulfil his objective of liberating himself from the family unit that constrains him, in order to pursue others. The law allows him to issue a statement of irretrievable breakdown with the option of being out of the marriage in six months.
What does this Bill do for the faithful spouse, the respondent, and, more importantly, their children? It means that people who have committed no fault, but who are being divorced, will lose the warning that they currently benefit from through the requirement for prior separation in the absence of fault. They will instead receive, out of the blue, a statement of irretrievable breakdown, a breakdown that is in no sense their fault, and find that marriage will end in six months, or significantly less if the petitioner sabotages the 20-week reflection period by not telling her that a petition has been lodged until part way through or at the end of the period.
The lack of actual regard for the respondent and children in the proposed law is concerning. I know that in 2011, when David Cameron, as Prime Minister, called for feckless runaway fathers to be shamed, he was not necessarily saying that couples should not divorce. His point was that fathers should take their responsibilities seriously. As well as challenging fathers not thoughtlessly and selfishly to walk out of marriages, he was challenging fathers not to turn their backs on their responsibilities after divorce. Notwithstanding that, however, it is very difficult to square the way that this legislation empowers a feckless father to walk out of his marriage on the basis that his decision is an autonomous one, without regard for the best interests of the children until after the decision to divorce has been made. In this context, at the very least we must think more about asking parents to process the divorce decision in the context of an awareness of what the social science evidence says about the best interests of their children.
In this regard, I set before your Lordships’ House two considerations. In the first instance, a divorce decision is not an autonomous decision, because it impacts both the spouse and the children. We should be encouraging not an autonomous decision but a responsible decision, one that has regard for the impact on others, especially the children.
In the second instance, the decision to divorce is located, to some significant degree, in the legal process of divorce, and is not a foregone conclusion from the outset. As the Government’s consultation, Reducing Family Conflict, makes plain on page 31, initiating the petition amounts to something that
“puts the marriage on notice”.
The application for the conditional order for the divorce is not actually made until after the 20-week period. This is called a reflection period, for the very good reason that it is a time for reflection, to aid the decision-making process in the context of which The Family Impact Test says:
“The legal process for divorce should seek to reduce acrimony and conflict, thereby helping couples and parents to look to the future rather than providing a mechanism that facilitates and encourages the attribution of blame for past events. We want to create conditions for couples and parents to reconcile if they can – and to move on as constructively as possible in the event that this is not possible.”
In other words, the Government are saying that the decision-making process is still taking place in the legal process of divorce during the reflection period. In this context, it seems absolutely right that, rather than encouraging people to make autonomous decisions about divorce in the legal process of divorce, we should be encouraging them to make responsible decisions about divorce—decisions that do not think just about themselves but about their children.
I believe that this amendment is eminently sensible. It does not block couples seeking divorce; it entitles couples to receive information. Quite what couples decide to do with the information is up to them. Perhaps it will make them resolve to work harder at their marriage and step back from divorce. Perhaps it will not change their decision at all, but it will impact the way in which they approach it and make them more alive to the need to provide special support for their children going forward.
The state, having played a role in recognising the marriage commitment through the law and conscious of the significant public policy benefits of marriage, has a responsibility, particularly to the children of the marriage, to make sure that it cannot be exited without reflection on the implications of doing so in the best interests of the children. I am therefore pleased to support the Amendment 5.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
My Lords, I start by reassuring the noble Baroness, Lady Meyer, that if the President of the Family Division has said he will do something, he will do it.
Turning to these two amendments, I have the greatest possible sympathy with the proposals in each of them, but I do not think it appropriate that either should be in primary legislation. I would like to see, side by side with the application online, a requirement for the applicant to read advice about dealing with the issues raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries; and equally, if not more important, to read something about what the children say about divorce’s impact on them. About 20 years ago, Michigan had the most wonderful video of children ranging from about six to 18. They talked about the impact of divorce on them, such as: guilt—wondering whether it was their fault; anger at one parent or sometimes both; frustration because they did not know what was going on; and so on. Children need to be informed about what is happening; they have a right to know. They are people, not just packages.
It is extremely important that this sort of information, together with the information the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate have set out today, be provided, along with asking whether the parents realise that the children generally love both of them—it is very rare that they do not—and that the impact will include their feeling that they are responsible for what has happened, for example. I would like an undertaking from the Minister that this information, which has to be easily available, will be provided. A link is not good enough, because people do not have to look at it. It should be side by side with the application and should be provided to any applicant with children; however, it is not an appropriate provision for primary legislation.
Baroness Meyer
My Lords, I fully support what the noble and learned Baroness says. Before I speak in support of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, I shall make one thing clear: I have never said that I would be in favour of forcing people to stay together if they have decided that the best way forward is to separate and divorce. On the contrary, as I said in my previous speech, I fully support the new clause which allows for divorce by mutual decision through a joint application. The problem lies elsewhere: in what are, for the moment, called “contested cases”.
Baroness Burt of Solihull
My Lords, we have gone round the houses a bit but the amendments in this group are about information to applicants. Amendment 5 would require the Lord Chancellor to ensure that information was provided to divorcing couples with children under 18 about the effects of divorce on children. I recall that we had a discussion in Committee about the impact of divorce on children, and I agree strongly that they are often victims in this. However, I think that most parents will be only too well aware of the effect of divorce on their children, and they do not split up a home lightly.
As in so many situations, the impact on the children will depend on how the situation is handled. Taking the sting out of divorce by removing any requirement for blame and taking out child arrangements and financial arrangements from the divorce itself will, I hope, help the inevitable split have a calmer, less traumatic effect on children. In the past, staying together for the sake of the children often produced more, not less, unhappiness and trauma for children and adults. A family today can look very different from the traditional model that prevailed years ago. To me, as long as there is security and love, that is the main thing.
Amendment 13 would require applicants to be provided with information about relationship support, mediation, domestic abuse and related matters. Again, we discussed this in Committee, and I tend to agree with one or two other noble Lords who said that by the time an application has been made, it is too late.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
My amendment says that this information should be on the website of the Courts & Tribunals Service, so that would not be too late; it would be when they were still exploring the possibility, not putting in an application. It would be there just as basic information. Surely there cannot be any objection to people finding out a few facts.
Baroness Burt of Solihull
I am very grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord, and I totally agree. I am just going on to talk about the information that we should be making available at all stages.
These services should be freely available to any couple experiencing difficulties in their relationship. Let us face it, the current situation with regard to Covid-19 can hardly be conducive to calm, happy families if they are all stuck in the same house together for weeks on end. I strongly agree that the Government should be funding the kinds of services mentioned in the amendment, particularly in the current circumstances, and several steps upstream before a decision is made to file. However, I also agree with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that this very valuable information does not need to be in primary legislation. I look forward to hearing details from the Minister about how full information will be provided outside the primary legislation. I would be very happy if he wanted to write to me and other speakers today about that issue; that would be good.
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP)
My Lords, I support Amendments 5 and 13. I believe that they bring before the House necessary advice and information that can be valuable to those considering divorce and its implications.
The reality of living in the real world today is that many of the foundational principles of a strong society are being rocked. We are seeing those who look upon marriage as being a lifelong contract before God being frowned upon, just the same as the life of the unborn child—they have no voice and no right to be heard. However, I believe that children ought to be given greater consideration. We are told, in the light of the virus that is striking fear into the hearts of many people across the world tonight, that we should remember to be considerate of others. It is not all about us. It is not all about me. Those considering divorce also need to think about that: “It is not all about me; it is also about my children.” The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, reminded us that children have a right to know—they are not just “packages”.
Let us take as an example a child in a home, where one member of that family unit suddenly receives the request for a quick divorce. They had no knowledge that it was happening, but they are also not told the fault; you are not allowed to know the fault or there is no reason for you to be told it—it is just a quickie divorce. What does the child believe? It is faced with “My family has been torn apart, but why is Daddy leaving the home?” or “Why is Mummy stepping out of the marriage?” Have they a right to be told? Is that to be brought out? We talk about anger; what will they feel when a parent just walks away in a matter of months? Anger, guilt, frustration—the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, mentioned those things. In actual fact the children cannot feel them, but they do not know why their family unit is no longer together, because they do not necessarily have to be given a reason why the family is being torn apart.
It is vital that we realise that yes, irretrievable breakdown is a reality, and we know that in fact there comes a situation where two people cannot live together and that their staying together would be worse for the children. However, we should provide every opportunity and every piece of information and advice to try to keep families together in a society that is already broken.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries, and other noble Lords for their contributions to this debate.
I recognise, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, that there is concern about the impact of divorce on children, both at the time of the divorce and in the future. No one pretends that it will ever be easy on children, even where the relationship between the parents has been traumatising to them in the course of the marriage. The noble Baroness’s amendment would commit the Government to summarise academic research about
“the impact of divorce on different aspects of a child’s wellbeing.”
Academic research will grow over time, and any concise statement of the main findings will be fluid and continually subject to review. Indeed, the findings of any academic research would then be questioned as to what evidence there was supporting it, what the nature of any cohort examined was, and whether the study was, for example, longitudinal. Any number of questions would arise in that context. However, even if a statement of the main findings of such research could be achieved concisely, we are not persuaded that pointing to academic research will affect people’s decision to divorce, which must be the ultimate intent of the amendment. For most people, the application to divorce will come after much reflection about what the future will hold without the other spouse, and it will include consideration of the children as well. We therefore do not consider it appropriate to accept this amendment, and I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw it.
I turn to Amendment 13, tabled by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Harries. He referred to this at an earlier stage of the Bill. I share, and understand, the spirit of the concerns he has expressed. It is right that all divorcing couples have opportunities to find out about support services and mediation. Where the Government’s view differs from the noble and right reverend Lord’s is that we see this as a practical, rather than a legislative, issue. I am happy to reassure noble Lords, and the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, that we will work hard to see what more can be done to improve the signposting of these services and information about them. That will require careful consideration, all the time thinking about the best places for couples to access the relevant information and to support them in making informed decisions once they have it. In particular, we will review the content on the GOV.UK website and check the ease with which people can navigate their way to services in their local areas. That website will likely be the first port of call for many people contemplating divorce, and at the point before they have decided even to seek advice from a lawyer. The information on GOV.UK therefore has the potential to be accessed before marital breakdown is, in a sense, irretrievable.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his assurances. I think the House would welcome it if, at Third Reading, he was able to spell out a bit more the kind of work that is being done and give a clear statement about where responsibility lies for ensuring that this happens. I presume it would be with the Ministry of Justice. What he said was welcome and a categorical assurance about that would reassure many people.
Lord Keen of Elie
I am much obliged to the noble and right reverend Lord. The responsibility would ultimately lie with the court service, which is an agency of the Ministry of Justice, to ensure that these processes do work in the way that I have indicated. I note what the noble and right reverend Lord said about further reassurance and I will take notice of that.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I am again pleased that we have had such a focused discussion on the implications of this legislation for children. We had an important one in Committee, but this was more widely spread. I am afraid that I am not particularly reassured by the response of the Minister—no doubt he would expect this—who does not even appear to think that this amendment is relevant to the Bill.
I very much hope that this debate will be read by Members of another place and that, when this Bill goes to their House, they will apply themselves to the task of seeking to factor into the divorce process a better consideration of the best interests of children than does the current draft. This is an important challenge if the Government are to have any chance of realising their objective of fixing broken Britain. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“Impact on marriage
Nothing in this Act changes the understanding of marriage as established by law.”
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
My Lords, I firmly support this Bill, but I can well understand the fears of those who worry that it will undermine the institution of marriage. I suspect that those fears are more widely shared by those outside the House than they have been expressed within it. The traditional understanding of marriage is well expressed in the Church of England service in which one person pledges themselves to another
“for better, for worse, for richer or poorer; in sickness and in health ... till death do us part.”
In the Book of Common Prayer this ends with the words:
“I give thee my troth”
and in the Alternative Service Book, “I make my vow.” I have always understood that the law of this country reflects that understanding of marriage. In the old days, apparently, register offices used to carry a notice that marriage according to the law of this country was—and here I adjust to take into account same-sex marriages—the union of one person with another, excluding all others, until death. This is borne out by Jowitt’s Dictionary of English Law, updated in August 2019, which states that it is
“the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others”
but again, taking account of the possibility of this being two persons of the same sex.
My concern, as expressed at Second Reading, is that this venerable understanding might be changed in some people’s minds because the present Bill allows divorce on the say-so of one person to the marriage that it is has irretrievably broken down. They might therefore come to think that marriage vows are a contract like any other, which one person could break if the partner to the contract failed to fulfil their obligations. But marriage vows, wherever they are made, in church or a secular space, are an unconditional commitment of the same character as the oath of loyalty made by your Lordships in this House. It is not a commitment made on the basis of certain conditions being kept—provided the partner does this, that or the other. It is a commitment, whatever happens, for life. Marriages do break down irreparably; if they do, a humane way of recognising this in law must be found—and I believe that the Bill does this. But it is important that the Bill does not lead people to think that it undermines the institution of marriage as an unconditional commitment for life.
My amendment does not spell out the legal definition of marriage. There is no need. All we need is an assurance in the Bill that, as the amendment proposes
“Nothing in this Act changes the understanding of marriage as established by law.”
I understand from the Public Bill Office that this kind of phraseology is quite a regular procedure. I very much hope that the Minister will accept this simple amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Keen of Elie
I thank the noble and right reverend Lord for moving his amendment. Of course, marriage is a contract. The statute law speaks of
“the persons contracting the marriage”
and sets out “the words of contract” when two people take each other as husband and wife. As with any contract, there are certain obligations, but how these obligations are spelled out has, of course, changed over the centuries. For example, it was at one time the duty at common law for a man to maintain his wife. That commitment, now gender neutral, is not explicit in the statute law, but it remains possible for either party to a marriage to apply to the court for financial provision—for reasonable maintenance—in cases of neglect, for example. Of course, it is the importance of obligations during the marriage that has led to the law providing for financial adjustment at the end of it.
But marriage is also much more than a contract. The statute does not spell that out—I suggest because it does not need to. It never needed to in the past and does not need to today. I venture that the importance of marriage to couples and to society is self-evident. Again, how that importance is expressed has changed over the centuries. In the rites of the Church of England, the wording of the marriage service in the 21st-century Common Worship differs from that in the 17th-century Book of Common Prayer. I am sure the noble and right reverend Lord would agree that the understanding of marriage is in essence the same, notwithstanding those changes. All that has really changed in the newer service book is that the expression of that commitment now has a different inflection, which more directly speaks to couples marrying today, rather than in the 17th century. All that is as it should be.
Our law provides only for how people enter into marriage, not what it is. I suggest that it is far better that our understanding of marriage derives not from law but from what people bring to it and the benefits our society recognises with regard to marriage. The understanding of marriage did not change when the Matrimonial Causes Act 1937 introduced new grounds for divorce, nor when the Divorce Reform Act 1969 replaced these with the single ground of irretrievable breakdown—and nor will it change with this Bill passing into law.
The noble and right reverend Lord’s amendment cannot serve any direct purpose. He suggests that it allows us to put matters on the record. In a sense, he asked for an assurance from government that marriage under the law is not simply a contract. As I stand at this Dispatch Box, I am more than happy to assure him that this Government believe that the vital institution of marriage is a strong symbol of wider society’s desire to celebrate a mutual commitment and that it is one of the things that binds society together and makes families what they are. We support marriage for all these reasons, and I hope that reassurance will be sufficient to persuade the noble and right reverend Lord to consider withdrawing this amendment.
Lord Harries of Pentregarth
I thank the Minister for his response, but he clearly does not share my concern that many people are worried about the Bill. Although I do not think it undermines the institution of marriage, a lot of people are worried that it does. I really cannot understand why the Government are unwilling to accept this very simple amendment. It does not go into the details of what marriage is. Whether it is a particular kind of contract or an unconditional obligation is neither here nor there. All my amendment says is that this Bill does not change the legal definition of marriage. I believe it would do the Government a great deal of good to put this little clause in the Bill, because it would reassure a lot of people who feel that this Bill undermines the traditional institution of marriage.
I hope that perhaps the Minister might be able to come back at Third Reading having thought again about this. It is not a controversial amendment; it does not go into the definition of marriage. It just says that the Bill does not change the legal definition of marriage—what could be less controversial than that? But it would go a long way to reassuring people. I very much hope the Government will think again about this, but meanwhile I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
“Report on the effect on children of divorce or dissolution in families with low conflict
(1) The Secretary of State must publish a report on the impact of divorce or dissolution on children of a marriage or civil partnership ending when there is either no conflict or low conflict between the parties.(2) The Secretary of State must lay the report under subsection (1) before both Houses of Parliament.”
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, in response to my amendment on children in Committee, the Minister said:
“Divorce, at least in terms of the legal process, is of limited duration”.—[Official Report, 3/3/20; col. 549.]
It may be seen in those terms by parents but I suggest to the Minister that that is not the case for children. He also suggested that I should review the family test for the Bill in response to the research evidence that I presented in Committee. I have done so and it seems largely to focus on reducing conflict between parents. The document refers to one specific study, which is described as highlighting the fact that
“frequent, intense, poorly resolved and child related interparental conflict adversely affects long-term emotional, behavioural, social, academic development, and future intergenerational/interpersonal relationship behaviours for”
children and young people.
Much has been made in this House of the damage done to children by warring parents staying together—I think that message will have reached the public loud and clear—and I am sure that in those situations children are not surprised to find their parents choosing to divorce. However, I am concerned that both our parliamentary debate and general public discourse have been less informed of the fact that where there is no conflict between parents, divorce can be more harmful to their children than their staying together. Children can face a divorce that comes out of nowhere.
I quoted extensively in Committee from research that highlighted this issue. I hope the House will also allow me to summarise that again. First, of those who split up, low-conflict families tare in the majority—that is, 60% compared to 9% high-conflict couples. Secondly, a 12-year longitudinal study found that children in low-conflict families had higher levels of well-being if their parents stayed together than if they divorced. The noble Lord, Lord Browne, quoted social scientist Elizabeth Marquardt, who said:
“The children of low-conflict couples fare worse after divorce because the divorce marks their first exposure to a serious problem. One day, without much warning, their world just falls apart.”
Thirdly, it is the new reality that children find themselves in that brings them stress after parents with low conflict split up—possibly in a new home, a new school and a new relationship with both parents as one moves away and the other takes on more responsibility.
My amendment does not say that parents must not divorce. Rather, it would require the Secretary of State to
“publish a report on the impact of divorce or dissolution on children of a marriage or civil partnership ending when there is either no conflict or low conflict between the parties.”
So far the Government have chosen to adopt the rather un-nuanced approach that conflict is always bad for children and that minimising it to the greatest possible extent is always good. They have not demonstrated any willingness to engage with the research that suggests that, first, while of course conflict is generally negative, there are occasions when a lack of conflict can make things even worse for children; and, secondly, that in a low-conflict context the interests of the children are best served by the marriage continuing. In that context, it makes sense that the Government should do more to encourage couples to fight for their marriage, rather than say, “It’s an autonomous decision” and go out of their way to remove obstacles to its termination.
In this context, I am moving this amendment because I want to ask the Lord Chancellor to engage formally with this research. The family test is inadequate because it does not do so. This is a major problem. There is a strong argument for saying that, until such time as the Lord Chancellor has engaged with this research, this legislation should proceed no further. I beg to move.
Lord Farmer
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 16. I have brought back this amendment on the need for an annual report on the impact of the Bill because I disagree with the Minister’s reasons for rejecting it in Committee.
As I said, we could have moved to a divorce system that more closely resembled that of Scotland, which has much to recommend it, given that it sees so few fault applications. However, the Government have chosen to undertake an uncharted course, to a system described as enabling possibly the fastest divorce in the world, certainly for recipients of an application. Therefore, it seems irresponsible not to keep very careful track of any changes in our divorce, dissolution and separation patterns which ensue from this very significant change, especially given the existing high rates of family breakdown in this country.
I mentioned in Committee that research on which the Government have relied to justify removing fault points to how this degrades the commitment of marriage. Professor Wolfers says that its benefits are reduced; therefore cohabitation, which is widely agreed to be a less stable relationship form, becomes more common. So this will, very likely, have a knock-on effect on the number of children who experience the breakdown of their parents’ relationship.
I disagree with the Minister that the requirement to report annually on the number of divorce applications, including by gender, is unnecessary, given that the data is already publicly available and published in the Family Court Statistics Quarterly. The point of reporting is to be accountable for changes in that data and to draw Parliament’s attention to it. If the Government are not convinced that the Act will have a detrimental effect on any of these patterns, they should have no qualms about reporting on it.
I also disagree that it would be unduly onerous for the courts service to collect income data, or unduly intrusive for the applicants to supply it. The collection of income data is easily achieved by including this in standard demographic data income bands, the completion of which would of course be voluntary. We are constantly told that data collection is important to the Government, to help understand why people make choices, and to help make forecasts for the future. Understanding how different income brackets are affected by a policy is therefore not unusual or shocking. It makes no sense to me that in this area the Government are so coy about asking people to give them this information.
In conclusion, there is an inconsistency in the Government’s approach to informing themselves when it comes to tracking the effects of this Bill, despite the heavy social costs of relationship failure and the ramifications across the whole of government. I encourage the Minister to see the constructive point of this amendment in helping the future outworking of this law.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 17 in my name. It seeks to address some confusion that emerged during debate in Committee. I will not press this amendment to a vote but I hope that, as a result of this debate, we may gain greater clarity about the place for reconciliation during the divorce process.
We have heard very mixed messages from the Government on their commitment to reconciliation in the divorce process. On the one hand, there have been repeated statements of interest in promoting it. I have found no fewer than 30 occasions where the Government have said that promoting reconciliation during divorce is part of the policy intention behind these reforms.
I would like to highlight a few of these statements. The initial consultation document from September 2018 stated:
“The reformed law should have two objectives: to make sure that the decision to divorce continues to be a considered one, and that spouses have an opportunity to change course”.
The Government’s response to the consultation in April last year stated:
“Sometimes, a marriage will still be reparable at the point at which one spouse seeks the divorce … But the law can—and should—have a role in providing couples with an opportunity to reflect on that momentous decision and to pull back from the brink if they decide that reconciliation is achievable.”
At Second Reading of the Bill in the other place in June last year, the then Justice Minister stated:
“The Government believe that the need to confirm to the court that it may make the conditional order, and to apply to the court for the final order, means that a divorce or dissolution is never automatic and that the decision to divorce is a considered one, with opportunities for a change of heart right up to the last moment.”—[Official Report, Commons, 25/6/19; col. 580.]
This is consistent with the family impact test assessment, which suggests that one of the strengths of the new system is the increased scope that it will provide for reconciliation. It states:
“The current law works against reconciliation by incentivising (in order to get a divorce more quickly) a spouse to make allegations about the other spouse’s conduct which can create conflict … The current law also offers little opportunity for reflection and conciliation, as the initial decree of divorce can come only a matter of weeks after the divorce proceedings have started.”
It then says that the Government want to exploit the new opportunities for reconciliation under a no-fault system, saying:
“We want to create conditions for couples and parents to reconcile if they can”.
Yet despite these repeated statements in support of reconciliation, and the suggestion that the scope of reconciliation will be enhanced in the no-fault system, there is little or no evidence of a political will to exploit this. On the contrary, there have instead been contradictory statements that reconciliation is not possible once the divorce process has started. I was concerned that, in response to my amendment in Committee, the Minister replied:
“The noble Lord expressed concern, as did others, that the Government’s statistics give the impression that a significant number of divorce petitions never reach decree absolute. There is, however, no evidence that these represent cases of reconciliation.”—[Official Report, 3/3/20; col. 537.]
Later in the proceedings, he said:
“I understand the desire of noble Lords to see that the marriage relationship can be supported, but it has to be supported at the right time. That is not at the point of an application for divorce on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown, which is why we do not consider that the Bill is the right vehicle for tackling the wider issues that lead to relationship breakdown.”—[Official Report, 3/3/20; col. 565.]
There seems to be some conflict between these two sets of statements, so I am probing the Government’s intention. If one believes that reconciliation, once divorce begins, is so unlikely that it makes no sense to prioritise it, then the statements in the consultation, consultation response, press releases, family impact assessment and at previous readings of this Bill all seem misplaced.
Lord Browne of Belmont
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment 15 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Howe. As I noted in my speech in Committee, in all our debates on the Bill we must not forget children. The Family Impact Test assessment affirms the Bill on the basis that it seeks to “reduce conflict”. However, while I fully understand the Government’s desire to reduce conflict in the divorce process, it is telling that the majority of couples who divorce are in low-conflict relationships.
The figure mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, is that 60% of couples that split are in low-conflict relationships. This research comes from Professor Spencer James of Brigham Young University. He states that these low-conflict couples are
“largely indistinguishable before they split from couples that remain together”.
These findings challenge the assumption that the majority of couples that split up are in constant conflict with one another, yet that assumption seems to underpin this legislation. James’s research comes from the UK’s largest household panel survey, Understanding Society. He found that only 9% of married couples in the United Kingdom who split could be described as high-conflict couples. He states:
“Both unhappiness and conflict are far less prevalent among couples who are about to split than one might reasonably expect.”
All of this is important when we return to research on the impact on children of family breakdown. Parents are more likely fall into poverty following separation. Therefore, they need much greater levels of state support. Some 60% of lone parents receive housing benefit, compared to just 10% of couple parents. Even when income and education are taken into account, studies find negative effects on children from divorce. One study, from Lee and McLanahan, looking at 2,952 mothers and children, revealed that instability especially affects children’s socioemotional development.
Yet the impact of divorce on children seems to depend on what came before. Children tend to do better if their parents exit a high-conflict relationship and worse if they exit a low-conflict one. As James notes in the research I mentioned earlier:
“This potentially counterintuitive finding in fact makes great sense. The break-up of a low conflict relationship comes largely out of the blue for the children. They are then left to conclude either that relationships are profoundly unpredictable or that they are somehow responsible. It’s easy to see how either of these conclusions can then undermine and sabotage their own future prospects of a loving committed relationship”.
This amendment would require the Government simply to look further into the impact of no or low-conflict divorce on children. It is a significant failing that the Family Impact Test assessment has not engaged with this. I think there will be a good deal of benefit in gaining greater understanding of why these couples divorce and therefore in investing more effort in helping them. If these married couples are saying they are relatively happy one year before divorce, what pushes them to make that decision? Understanding that would enable targeted support and help.
The research I have talked about should give us hope. If 60% of couples of are low-conflict and many of them are happy one year before they divorce, perhaps those marriages could be saved. Divorce is generally not in the best interests of the children of those families, so keeping them together would be a great benefit to them. I support Amendment 15.
Lord Morrow
My Lords, I wish to speak in support of Amendment 17, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I am aware that he does not intend to test the opinion of the House on it, but nevertheless I think there are some things that merit being said.
The noble Lord noted in Committee that there are no less than 27 references to reconciliation in the Government’s comments setting out their response to their consultation on divorce law reform. They include the statement that,
“the law can – and should – have a role in providing couples with an opportunity to reflect on that momentous decision and to pull back from the brink if they decide that reconciliation is achievable”.
If we look beyond that document there are plenty of other examples, including in the Family Impact Test assessment of this Bill, which states:
“The current law works against reconciliation by incentivising … a spouse to make allegations about the other spouse’s conduct which can create conflict. The alternative option which requires the couple to live apart for a substantial period of time can disincentivise efforts at reconciliation because the separation period can be affected if the couple try living together again. The current law also offers little opportunity for reflection and conciliation, as the initial decree of divorce can come only a matter of weeks after the divorce proceedings have started.”
In promoting a no-fault system, the Family Impact Test states:
“We want to create conditions for couples and parents to reconcile if they can”.
In this context, it seems to me that commissioning research on how reconciliation is best facilitated under the new regime proposed by the Bill compared to the fault-based system that we have now is vital. The Minister might be preparing to tell me that reconciliation rarely happens during the divorce process, as he did in Committee when he said that there was little evidence that divorces that do not proceed do so because the couple have reconciled. If the Government really think that, it seems completely contradictory to all their statements about reconciliation.
I hope the Minister will not try to square this circle by simply saying that the Government’s position is that while it is not worth prioritising reconciliation, of course they support reconciliation when it is possible. Multiple statements of commitment to the promotion of reconciliation in the Government’s response to the consultation, press releases and family test are such that it does not make sense for the Government then to say that, by the time the divorce process starts, it is too late for reconciliation.
I note that when the Minister suggested this argument in Committee, he cited in defence the Newcastle University study of the Family Law Act 1996 pilots. He told the House about the information meetings that were part of the Family Law Act 1996 and said:
“The purpose of that meeting included providing the parties with information about marriage counselling. Academic research into various models of information meetings found that they came too late to save marriages and tended to incline parties who were unsure towards divorce.”—[Official Report, 3/3/20; col. 564.]
He also implied elsewhere in Committee that the information meetings were not effective.
Lord Keen of Elie
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this part of the debate. I will speak to Amendments 15, 16 and 17.
Amendment 15 was moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, and would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of divorce or dissolution on children of a marriage or civil partnership ending
“when there is either no conflict”
as it is termed, “or low conflict”, as it is termed, “between the parties.”
It would require the publication of a report laid before Parliament on the impact on children of divorce or dissolution but it does not define what is meant in this context by “low conflict” and, for that matter, it does not define what would be meant by “no conflict” for this purpose. It is also not clear whether that could be achieved by pointing to existing academic research or whether the Government would need to conduct their own research, questioning parents during and after divorce about the nature of their relationship, or indeed questioning children, presumably only if of a suitable age, about their feelings and evaluating any impact on their life chances long into the future.
The very indefinite nature of such a report means that people who, on publication, would have wanted the report to have researched in one direction might find that it simply does not do so and does not assist them in that regard. Therefore, with great respect, we do not agree that the amendment would serve any useful purpose. It would not deter people from divorcing. Even if they read the report, they would be left considering their situation and that of their children, not that of a group of people who were the subject of research. For all those reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment,.
Amendment 16, tabled by my noble friend Lord Farmer, would require statistical reporting every year beyond that which the Ministry of Justice currently publishes. It would not require what was referred to in Committee as the “demographics” of the parties in geographic locations, but it would still require the income of spouses and civil partners for each divorce or dissolution application, as explicitly stated in the amendment.
As I observed in Committee, the number of divorce applications, along with the gender of applicants, is already publicly available and is published under the Family Court Statistics Quarterly. However, with regard to income, we continue to be of the firm view that, aside from the burden on the courts of collecting that data about income, it would be an unwarranted intrusion on application of what is, in any event, a difficult time. We simply do not consider that there is a case to compel applicants, or indeed respondents, to supply such information. Indeed, it could mislead people into thinking that the court considered income relevant to the grant of the divorce.
The court will only properly require information about income in separate proceedings for financial provision orders, and we see no reason to draw that into the divorce process, which, if I may say so, is the mechanical process of ending the marriage. It will also only properly require information about children in separate proceedings for children’s orders, and, as I have said before, we do not consider that that should be drawn into the process of ending the marriage. Therefore, again, I invite my noble friend not to press that amendment.
I turn to Amendment 17, in the name of my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich. The Government are clear that divorce must be a last resort, and that is why we are retaining the requirement for people to confirm the intention to divorce at two further stages beyond the original application. It is also why we are building in a minimum of 20 weeks before people can apply for the conditional order—the first pronouncement from the court that the marriage is capable of being dissolved.
Some have told us that it is at that point in the existing process—the decree from the court—that the reality of divorce sinks in. However, evidence points to the prospect of reconciliation being very low. No divorce process should be automatic but it is simply the means to bring to an end a marriage that is already no longer functional after attempts to revive it have essentially been exhausted. Under the current process, about three in five people seeking divorce make allegations about their spouse’s behaviour or adultery. Having to give and receive allegations of an intensely personal nature can only sever the relationship further. I do not see that the current process is particularly conducive to repairing the relationship, and at such a late stage.
This amendment would result in a report which I suspect would satisfy no one. Some people may want to see evidence for whether more or fewer couples reconcile after our reforms are implemented, but that will mean waiting years for the report so that any longer-term trend can be assessed. Other people may want to see comparisons between the existing divorce processes internationally, but they differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, whether or not they are based on fault, and of course some jurisdictions have a hybrid process. The report envisaged in this amendment would not put an end to differing views about the evidence. I would also note that there is a difference between what is termed “scope for reconciliation”—that is, the theoretical possibility—and whether couples actually reconcile.
The Government have taken account of peer-reviewed academic sources in developing the proposals in this Bill, as has been noted by some noble Lords, but we are not just beholden to their conclusions. We have also taken into account what was said when we consulted on our proposals. The matter of this amendment is one for academic study and I fear that it would be fruitless for the Government to undertake it. For these reasons, I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments in this group.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and I am not at all surprised that there is evidence which suggests that reducing conflict is a good thing for children. Indeed, it would be surprising if it did not, and certainly it is not my purpose to argue for more conflict.
The purpose of the amendment has been simply to point out that there is other important research which suggests that reducing conflict beyond a certain level is unhelpful. The family impact assessment does not engage with this research and nothing the Minister has said in his response suggests that the Government have done so; in fact, far from it. However, it is important that the findings of this research are taken seriously in framing the Bill, so I hope that the matter will be picked up and pursued in the other place. In the circumstances, however, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [HL]
Tuesday 17th March 2020
(4 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 View all Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, this Bill underpins the Government’s ambition to deliver a new framework on private international law which has real and tangible benefits for people and businesses in the United Kingdom.
Private international law is viewed by some as a technical and specialist area of law, but it is an essential one. Without private international law agreements, UK businesses, individuals and families would struggle to resolve the challenges they face when dealing with cross-border legal disputes. For example, these agreements can help small businesses which have been left out of pocket by a supplier based in another country to seek redress, or if a family relationship breaks down and one spouse moves abroad, they make it easier to sort out arrangements in the best interests of their children. These are sometimes difficult and challenging situations to resolve, but private international law provides a framework to do that for the benefit of all parties.
Of course, leaving the European Union does not halt cross-border trade, travel or family relationships that cross boundaries. These will endure and indeed grow in the years ahead, and where disputes arise, there continues to be a need for a framework to settle them in a clear, fair and predictable way. By helping to resolve cross-border disputes quickly, international agreements on the private international law framework help to reduce costs for UK businesses, individuals and families who become involved in them. These agreements also provide legal certainty for those travelling, trading or living abroad. They help avoid confusion by preventing multiple court cases taking place in different countries on the same subject and sometimes reaching different conclusions. They ensure that the decisions of United Kingdom courts and relevant competent authorities can be recognised and enforced in other jurisdictions. The Bill will allow us to implement these important and beneficial agreements in domestic law.
During our membership of the European Union, we helped build, develop and refine an advanced framework on private international law. Now that 31 January 2020 marks the first time in over 20 years that full competence in this area of law has returned to the UK, we must address it. Our task is to lead on building such a framework on a bigger scale in a global setting. We will begin by building on and cementing our role in international fora, such as the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and the International Institute for the Unification of Private International Law, with other global partners.
I turn briefly to the detail of the Bill, which has two main clauses. The first clause implements in domestic law three Hague conventions that the UK currently operates due to our previous membership of the EU. In other words, the EU is a signatory of those conventions on behalf of all its member states. We will become an independent contracting party to these conventions in our own right at the end of the current transition period. These three Hague conventions are widely supported by stakeholders in the legal and finance sectors and, I hope, by Members across this House. We need to ensure that these important conventions can continue to operate effectively in the future, so that businesses and individuals can continue to rely on their rules.
The first is the 1996 Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition and Enforcement and Co-operation in respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children, which aims to improve the protection of children in cross-border disputes. It deals with issues such as residence of, and contact with, children whose parents live in different countries. The second is the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, which aims to ensure the effectiveness of exclusive choice of court agreements between parties to international commercial transactions. These clauses are common, particularly in high-value commercial contracts. Thirdly, the 2007 Hague Convention on the International Recovery of Child Support and other Forms of Family Maintenance provides rules for the international recovery of child support and spousal maintenance.
The second clause creates a delegated power which allows the Government to implement other private international law agreements in domestic law in future via secondary legislation. I confirm that the Government intend to use this power to implement the Lugano Convention 2007, if our application to accede to that convention in our own right is accepted by our international partners, including the EU. This would provide clear, reciprocal rules on cross-border judicial co-operation in civil and commercial matters between the United Kingdom and all the parties to the convention, which include the EU. That would take effect beyond the transition period. However, we also want to use this power to implement other agreements that the United Kingdom may join, both now and in the future. We are already considering joining the Singapore convention of 2019, and the Hague Judgments Convention of 2019.
This power is both well defined and, I suggest, narrow. It only allows the Government to implement agreements in the limited field of private international law, which, as the Bill states, covers areas such as jurisdiction, applicable law, and the recognition and enforcement of judgments. For example, we could not use the Bill to implement an agreement designed to do anything other than facilitate the efficient resolution of cross-border disputes. All regulations implementing a new agreement will use the draft affirmative procedure. Furthermore, where the Government are inclined to enter into an international agreement on private international law, then, at the level of international law, that will still require full compliance with the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. There will, therefore, be parliamentary scrutiny of the international treaty itself before we seek to draw it down into domestic law by using the affirmative SI procedure.
In summary, the Bill enables us to remain at the forefront of promoting global co-operation in private international law, and it will be of significant assistance after the transition period for businesses, individuals and families. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, this is undoubtedly an important Bill. It may not attract much attention in your Lordships’ House but it nevertheless is important, as the Minister indicated in moving that it be read a second time. In the debate on the gracious Speech on 8 January, the Minister indicated that it is
“a Bill enabling us to operate agreements on private international law”
after the transition period following our departure from the European Union. He specifically mentioned agreements that
“can help to return home a child abducted by one of their parents, help two parents living in different countries to agree custody arrangements in the best interests of their children, or help a UK business to resolve issues with a supplier based abroad.”—[Official Report, 8/1/20; cols. 187-88.]
These are obviously vital for both family and commercial reasons. It is therefore important that we do not have any post-Brexit lacunae in our law.
I put my name on the speakers’ list to raise the specific issue of the Hague Convention 35, on the international protection of adults. It is the 11th convention listed in Annexe B to the Explanatory Notes on this Bill. I am grateful to the Minister and his Bill team for taking the time last week to discuss this with me. I will return to that.
As my noble friend Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames is understandably unable to be with us this evening, I confirm that my party is generally supportive of the Bill. But, as with all legislation, it is important that your Lordships’ House should scrutinise it properly. I sometimes think that is especially the case when we are dealing with a Bill generally thought to be a good thing; we must still give it proper scrutiny.
In its briefing to Peers, the Bar Council very much makes this point. In its concluding paragraph, it states:
“Private international law is at once both a highly technical field and one that is extremely important in regulating the lives of individuals and businesses when they cross borders. Never has there been a greater need to consult specialists in this field to ensure rigorous scrutiny and to produce a cogent and coherent strategy in this field.”
It is important that we bear that in mind. Indeed, I ask the Minister: in the drafting of the Bill, how much consultation took place with specialists in the area?
I have no doubt that there will be detailed scrutiny in Committee. I will just highlight one or two points. As is often the case, the issue of delegated powers requires highlighting. As I understand it, it is a basic rule of constitutional law that when treaties are made by virtue of the royal prerogative, the involvement of Parliament is nevertheless required to change the law, to confer rights on individuals or, indeed, to deprive them of rights. That is invariably done by way of primary legislation.
Clause 2 confers regulation-making powers on the appropriate national authorities
“for the purpose of, or in connection with, implementing any international agreement … so far as relating to private international law”.
Clause 2(7) defines “international agreement” as
“a convention, treaty or other agreement to which the United Kingdom is, or is expected to become, a party”.
In other words, primary legislation may not be required. It may be done by regulation sometime in the future. In a non-EU context, when did we last have an international agreement or treaty implemented without primary legislation? In his speech moving this Second Reading, the Minister mentioned the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act and indicated that that would nevertheless give Parliament a locus. It is important to recall that the 20th report of Session 2017-19 by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee—of which I had the privilege of being a member and of which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, was at the time a member—concluded:
“The current mechanisms available to Parliament to scrutinise treaties through CRAG are limited and flawed. Reform is required to enable Parliament to conduct effective scrutiny of the Government’s treaty actions, irrespective of the consequences of Brexit.”
I hope that when we come to scrutinise this, we will get some answers from the Government as to why they think CRaG is sufficient in circumstances where, in the past, it was all done through primary legislation. Indeed, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, will well remember from his time on the Constitution Committee, recurring themes are delegated powers and treaty making and parliamentary scrutiny, as in our report. These two come together in this Bill, and we will want to give careful attention to that.
I referred to Hague Convention 35, of 13 January 2000, on the international protection of adults. It is for the protection of vulnerable adults who, by reason of impairment or insufficiency of their personal faculties, are not in a position to protect their interests. The convention determines which court has jurisdiction to take protection measures, which law is to be applied in the circumstances and who may be a vulnerable person. It establishes a system of central authorities that should co-operate, locate vulnerable adults and give information on the status of vulnerable persons to other authorities. The smooth legal arrangements for matters covered by the Bill, which the noble and learned Lord referred to in his speech, must surely also apply to some very vulnerable people.
The convention has 17 signatories and has been ratified for 10 jurisdictions. I use the word “jurisdiction” advisedly: although the United Kingdom is a contracting party, the convention has been ratified only by the United Kingdom Government on behalf of Scotland, on 5 November 2003. That ratification followed on from Section 85 and Schedule 3 to the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. I declare a personal interest, because I was the Minister responsible for taking that legislation through the Scottish Parliament.
Since then, in Northern Ireland, there has been Schedule 9 to the Mental Capacity Act (Northern Ireland) 2016, which states that the convention will have effect in Northern Ireland—although there has not yet been ratification for Northern Ireland. In England and Wales, I understand that Schedule 3 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 makes some provision, but we have not had ratification in respect of England and Wales either. It may be argued that the procedures established by the 2005 Act mean that, in practice, courts in England and Wales, and in Northern Ireland, can recognise and enforce protective measures from other states, be they contracting parties or not. But most contracting states will recognise and enforce only protection measures from other contracting states. As an example, France, Germany or Switzerland will recognise and enforce protection measures from each other, and from Scotland, but not from England, Wales or Northern Ireland. Why should citizens in these parts of the United Kingdom not enjoy the advantages enjoyed by those habitually resident in, or closely connected to, Scotland?
I believe it is in the hands of the United Kingdom Government to rectify this. It may not require legislation if some of the procedures are already in place through the 2005 Act. However, I hope that the advantage might be taken in this Bill to move forward on this and implement the convention for England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
One final matter is the difficulty that can be experienced in relation to the recognition of protection measures within the United Kingdom. Ratification of Hague Convention 35 may not necessarily resolve that, as they remain internal matters among the jurisdictions within these islands. Schedule 6 to the Bill deals with regulations made under Clause 2 and refers to implementing or applying an international convention to a particular part of the United Kingdom. In that regard, the Bar Council said that if it were to be given effect in, say, Scotland, but not elsewhere in the United Kingdom, the question of whether to apply an international convention’s rules between parts of the United Kingdom would often be very difficult. Where it is to be applied, extensive amendments to that convention are often appropriate; an example is the provisions in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, which apply a substantially modified form of the European Union rules to instruct UK cases. The Bar Council is concerned that Schedule 6 does not provide sufficient safeguards in this respect, and considers that it should be amended to provide the requisite clarification. I would be interested if, in reply, the noble and learned Lord could say something about intra-United Kingdom recognition and indicate how some of the concerns raised by the Bar Council may be addressed.
In conclusion, some of the briefings and representations I received on notification of HC35 have highlighted numerous difficulties in the operation of the law in relation to powers of attorney and civil instruments, and more general issues on the rights of persons with disabilities. However, those are for another day. I believe that today there is an opportunity for the Government to commit themselves to taking a small step in the sphere of private international law which could be of benefit to an important section of our community.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, has had the courtesy to show me a draft of what he is going to say. In view of the fact that he will say everything that I would have thought of saying, and rather a lot more—and will do it rather better—I shall be brief. But I would like to say before he speaks that I agree with him. In particular, I agree that this is sensible legislation. We need to have these arrangements. But I have a particular reservation about vesting power in a Minister, using secondary legislation apparently to change the entire law of arbitration as it works in this country. That needs to be examined, and the noble and learned Lord will no doubt develop the point.
The reason I am speaking is of course because we are dealing with secondary legislation, and this is yet another example of proposed legislation that is not exactly regulation-lite—I spell that “lite” because I want to show your Lordships that I have even seen Diet Coke. This is not diet regulation. We have one clause, then a second clause which is simply a regulation-making power, then we have 66 pages, perhaps more—yes, we come to page 68—and then we find the mother and father of Schedule 6, which is more regulation-making powers. Dare I ask the Minister a question? It has been a long day, and he has had to listen to a lot of speeches. Is Schedule 6 tucked away because it is shy of showing its face? It could just as easily have been part of a major structure of the Bill, not a schedule. But that is a minor detail.
Schedule 2 is not so bad. It is certainly better than Schedule 6. As the Minister said in opening, it attracts, or would attract, the provisions of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act. However, as noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, just explained, the Constitution Committee took a view that that did not provide all the answers to everything. Therefore, we have a measure of parliamentary control over Section 2 and the use of the regulations there, not none, which is therefore rather better.
I have simple questions about Schedule 2. What will the powers be used for? Why are they needed if the powers in Clause 2 are as clear as they are and are subject to the controls which the Minister suggested? I want to know what possible thought the Minister has in mind about why we need a Henry VIII clause. “Has it just come off the computer? Let’s stick a Henry VIII clause in.” Amending primary legislation is precisely what Henry VIII clauses are about. The House has heard me on numerous occasions on this topic. I will not entertain the few of your Lordships who are here tonight about it, but I would like the Minister to see whether he could help us with it. Beyond that, I have no further observations to make. We need to be careful about how we run our legislation through regulatory mechanisms.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, I put my name down to speak in this debate, not about what the Bill addresses but about what it fails to address. In the field in which I operate—matrimonial law—many elements of it are swept up by Hague and Lugano. Sadly, divorce is not. At the moment, the first past the post principle works. When we leave the EU there will be an enormous vacuum, and there has been no direction to the judges or to the people who practise in this area as to what will happen.
The prediction among divorce lawyers is that, following self-imposed confinement, it is very likely that the divorce rate will rise. Our peak times are after long exposure during the summer holiday and over Christmas. One has only to imagine what it will be like when families are sealed in a property for a long period of time.
Added to this, no legislation has come to this House, or indeed to the other place, on premarital contracts, and there is a real division between how this country deals with them and how the rest of Europe deals with them. The incentive to get proceedings in this country with parallel proceedings in another country will be even greater than usual when people are restricted from moving to another country. When a petition is lodged in this country, how will our courts deal with it? Are we or are we not going to deal with first past the post? What will be necessary to avoid a tsunami of litigation is for there to be some certainty as to what we are going to do. I fully understand that we cannot commit the other 27 parties to Brussels II, but our courts need to know what is going to happen.
Lord Mance (CB)
My Lords, this is an area in which I have long been engaged as a practitioner, and I believe that I still have the honour of chairing the Lord Chancellor’s advisory committee on private international law—although, so far as I recall, we were not consulted on this Bill, nor on the 2018 regulations on private international law that until now have operated as the default on Brexit.
At the heart of this Bill is jurisdiction. Former practitioners such as I know that jurisdiction is commonly the most important preliminary issue in international litigation. The noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, referred to this in the context of divorce. I shall be referring to commercial litigation, but the same applies to other areas, including matrimonial disputes, children, insolvency and divorce. Any party wishing to avoid or delay liability or a judgment will seek the slowest or most amenable jurisdiction. To prevent this, it is common in commercial law to insist on an agreed forum for disputes—a choice of court or arbitration clause, often in favour of London.
London’s practitioners and courts have a reputation for the impeccable handling of complex disputes. It is part of the package of financial, business and trading facilities and activities that has made London a—if not the—world business centre. But what matters is that other courts and states recognise our jurisdiction. We can legislate domestically for all we are worth, but international recognition and enforcement of jurisdiction and judgments require in practice reciprocal international agreement.
The Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum notes that “key stakeholders” have consistently made clear the importance of the UK continuing to take a leading role internationally on private international law. The Minister has emphasised that it is essential for legal certainty to have a framework. The memorandum goes on to say that the UK
“will need to take steps to ensure continued participation in key PIL international law agreements”,
and that Brexit will allow the UK
“to agree ambitious new PIL frameworks with international partners all over the world”.
There is hyperbole in both statements. We are ceasing to participate in some key instruments with EU states, and the Bill is unspecific—to say the least—about the ambitious new frameworks with other world partners.
From the end of this year, the UK will cease to be party to what is probably—in fact, certainly—the most significant set of private international law measures in the world: the Brussels regime regulating jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments across EU states, and parallel measures such as the insolvency Regulation 2015/848 and the regulation on jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement in matrimonial and parental matters. The UK was itself a proponent of the successful recasting in 2012 of the first of those—the central Brussels regulation—to meet UK needs. As the Minister noted, we helped build these instruments.
The Government’s ambitions do not extend to repeating this existing framework, which has, over 35 years, attracted very considerable support in London as elsewhere. However, some form of substitute is now necessary, to apply as between the UK and EU states. In relation to children, there are, happily, the Hague conference conventions of 1996 and 2007—non-EU measures, which are referred to in the Bill—on which to fall back. In relation to commercial law, insolvency and divorce, there are no such parallels, although there are other measures focusing on commercial law, which are referred to in the Bill, to which I come.
The Bill is by its own lights a sensible measure, but its lights are rather dimmer than the halogen welcome given to it by the Explanatory Memorandum. I take first the Hague choice of court convention of 2005, which Clause 1(2) of the Bill paves the way to joining. That is an excellent instrument, again promoted by this country. In that, the committee that I chair had the privilege of playing a role but, absent specific declaration, it does not cover the very important area of asymmetric jurisdiction clauses. Many of the derivatives and banking clauses on which the City relies are asymmetric; in other words, they give one party but not the other, or others, a choice of jurisdiction. The better view is that the existing Brussels regime covers all choice of court clauses, whether they are asymmetric or not.
As a consequence of that, if you go to the website of the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, the first document you will see is headed “ISDA Amendment Agreement”, to change
“English Law to Irish or French Law”.
It provides the means to change the usual London jurisdiction clause in favour of Paris or Ireland. That is a measure of the current doubts about the future value of English jurisdiction clauses, which have been allowed to continue for some four years now to the detriment of London as a world centre.
A second problem about the Hague choice of court convention is that, even on the most optimistic reading, it covers only exclusive jurisdiction clauses agreed since l October 2015, when the EU first signed the UK up as a member state. In contrast, the 2012 Brussels regulation, which we have at present, applies to all proceedings begun since 10 January 2015; that is, proceedings begun rather than jurisdiction clauses agreed. But this will cease to apply to all proceedings begun after the end of this year. So, the position is that presently enforceable asymmetric jurisdiction clauses in favour of London will cease to be recognised at an international level by other EU states overnight on 31 December 2020. Indeed, all enforceable jurisdiction clauses, asymmetric or not, will cease to be recognised at an international level; they may, of course, be recognised at an overseas domestic level—that is quite a different matter. Until 19 June 2018, the UK’s position was that such clauses should be preserved, or grandfathered; that is, retain their current validity. This has gone. No doubt, even an additional glimmer of Court of Justice jurisdiction after the end of the year, however benign, was not acceptable.
A third problem with the Hague choice of court convention is that it contains a list of excluded topics, which is considerably longer than that in the Brussels regime. The excluded topics include, for example, personal injury, simple tort claims, immovable property and intellectual property claims.
I turn to the second instrument, which the Explanatory Memorandum and the Government’s paper on the future relationship evince enthusiasm for acceding to. As already mentioned, that is the Lugano Convention 2007; Clause 2 of the Bill would be used for that. The Lugano Convention corresponds to the main Brussels regulation before it was recast in 2012. As a result, it has severe defects. On the other hand, no doubt the great attraction, in the Government’s eyes, would be that the European Court of Justice would have no jurisdiction over it; there would be an obligation merely to take account of Court of Justice jurisprudence, not necessarily to agree with it.
On the other hand, the UK needs the consent of the other parties to join. There are four, three of which have welcomed the UK aboard. Switzerland, Iceland and Denmark all welcomed the UK aboard, but the last party—the EU, for its member states—is apparently silent, and there are rumours that it may not consent. Any clarity the Minister can give would be most welcome.
Even if we were to sign up, the un-recast, unreformed Lugano has significant weaknesses. First, its arbitration exclusion is less clear than the Brussels regime; again, that is important for London. Secondly, it is vulnerable to the famous “Italian torpedo”, whereby a London choice of court clause can be undermined by an entirely wrong or even abusive commencement of jurisdiction in some other court—the typical example being Italy. The aphorism comes from an Italian law professor, so I am not, I hope, in any way using unduly what is a well-quoted phrase. Lugano’s third defect is that it makes no provision for stay of proceedings in the face of prior litigation in a non-contracting state: in other words, you can agree on a New York choice of court clause, but Lugano will override it. That is an extraordinarily Eurocentric provision, which the recast Brussels regime avoids, largely. Can the Government say whether, having joined Lugano, they hope to follow the Brussels example, whereby the UK did have a big role, and recast the Lugano convention to cure these defects?
There is one other problem with signing up which the Government may have overlooked—again, I would welcome the Minister’s comments. If we sign up to Lugano, we are locked into its limitations, potentially precluding us from getting the advantages of the next instrument which the Government express an interest in joining: the 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. This is fairly hot off the press: it is mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum and, again, the UK played a significant role in its preparation in the Hague conference. Perhaps it is one of the “ambitious new” private international law frameworks which the Government hope to agree
“with international partners all over the world”.
The less hyperbolic reality is that it has at present only two member states, with which our most obvious affinity is purely alphabetical: Uruguay and Ukraine. Even according to the Hague conference website, they have only signed, not ratified.
Secondly, this instrument deals only with recognition and enforcement; it does not limit or define jurisdiction, as the Brussels regime and Lugano do. Nevertheless, it appears to have one particular advantage in relation to our former EU partners which Lugano does not. It should be noted that the EU has expressed interest in signing up to the 2019 convention. If it does and we do, the convention will go some way to avoiding the Italian torpedo, because it will enable the refusal of such recognition or enforcement of any judgment given in breach of a choice of court clause, whether exclusive or asymmetric. For example, if proceedings were commenced in Italy in breach of a choice of court clause pointing to London, the UK or any EU contracting state could refuse to recognise the judgment. That beneficial provision would go some way to evading the Italian torpedo and correcting the main defect of the Lugano convention. Under Lugano, EU and Lugano courts—including the UK if it joined Lugano—would have to recognise and enforce the Italian judgment, even though it was patently given in proceedings started in Italy in breach of a London choice of court clause.
The UK would lose the advantages of this beneficial provision if we signed up to Lugano before signing up to the 2019 Hague convention, because Article 23 of the latter states expressly that it does
“not affect the application by a Contracting State of a treaty that was concluded”
by that state prior to conclusion of the convention. I would be very glad to hear the Government’s thinking on this. On the face of it, the message is: festina lente—in other words, be very careful and do not sign up immediately to Lugano without thinking very hard about it. By all means, sign up to the Hague choice of court convention as soon as possible, but consider whether it may not be better to wait for the EU to sign up to the 2019 convention and sign up ourselves at least before any attempt to join Lugano.
There are one or two minor points, or at least more minor points, although I do not want to underestimate their importance, particularly relating to the width of the powers relating to delegated legislation, on which noble Lords have already spoken. Even taking into account the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act, providing for scrutiny of any international agreement, the powers of delegated legislation are of a width that is questionably wide. That refers among other things, but perhaps particularly, to the Henry VIII clause, which my noble and learned friend Lord Judge has referred to.
Of particular interest to me, I declare as a practising arbitrator, is the definition of “private international law” to include recognition or enforcement of foreign arbitral award. Private international law normally keeps court jurisdiction and arbitration separate. International arbitration awards are enforceable under the New York convention of 1958. Brexit should not affect the enforceability or recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards. The Bill seems quite an inappropriate place to give Ministers the power to make regulations about arbitration, even subject to affirmative approval.
I conclude by welcoming this opportunity to discuss openly in this House a subject of huge importance to the City and this country’s financial position. There has been a fear that it may have been too low down the Government’s agenda and the subject of too little attention. I hope this debate will have focused minds and that there will now be wide and open consultation on whatever future measures, ambitious or not, the Government may consider signing up to.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the Bill is clearly vital to the future of UK private international law, and we on this side of the House strongly support the principle of it. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti would normally be dealing with this Bill but unfortunately, she is self-isolating due to feeling unwell. I am sure Members of the House will join me in wishing her a speedy recovery—certainly, I hope, in time for Committee.
I too am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken. All my favourite lawyers are here, and I have to agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, that that has made my task a lot easier, because I can simply say that I totally agree with the contribution of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance. However, I will come on to some specifics in that regard.
The Bar Council brief, on which I am heavily relying, highlights that we are entering a major period of decision-making—a point amplified strongly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance—regarding the future of UK private international law, both nationally and internationally. It is clear that the Bill must be part of a wider government strategy, along with the ongoing negotiations at international level and the statutory instruments under the EU withdrawal Act. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, has been very clear about the sequencing of some of the things we need to address.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, said, these matters are both highly technical and of the utmost importance in regulating the lives of individuals and businesses, and he quoted the Bar Council’s preference. I too ask the Minister to confirm that the Government intend to consult the specialists and take on board the comments about adapting a strategy.
Part of the problem with this debate is what comes next—what the Government hope to agree with the EU during and after the transition period. When does the Minister foresee the 2019 Hague judgments convention being implemented? The Law Society expressed the hope that it will become a central part of future international, civil and commercial law co-operation. What action are the Government taking to ensure faster uptake of the convention by the EU?
Again, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance: at the end of the transition period, the wide body of EU legislation will cease to be applicable, contingent on reciprocal treatment by member states. Despite the number of international conventions included in private international law, there is still no international convention in many areas. The Minister referred to the Government’s stated intention to apply to join the 2007 Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments, which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, highlighted, would require the agreement of each EU member state. As he made clear, it remains unclear whether the European Union would consent to the United Kingdom joining as a separate contracting state.
The noble and learned Lord also raised the issue of sequencing, which is very important; the default rules of private international law applicable in the United Kingdom after exit day are particularly important.
I do not wish to repeat the contributions that have been made, but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and I have spent some considerable time on Henry VIII clauses when considering previous Bills, not least the sanctions Bill that we had to deal with as a consequence of leaving the EU. That was a simple Bill —it had only two or three clauses—but it certainly gave the Government huge Henry VIII powers, particularly the ability to create and impose new criminal offences. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti is concerned about those clauses and the power to create the offences that the Explanatory Notes appear to envisage. If that is the case, the affirmative resolution procedure does not provide sufficient parliamentary scrutiny. I understand that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report will be published later this week. I will read it with interest, because I am sure it will make a number of recommendations that we will want to consider in Committee.
We welcome the Bill and its principal objectives but we will seek clarification of several issues, including, as the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, said, future family law provisions.
Lord Keen of Elie
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I will take some of those points in turn. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, raised Hague Convention 35. Hague, unlike Lugano, for example, can be entered into by a state, but can be ratified and applied in respect of only one jurisdiction within the state. It so happens that Hague Convention 35 was implemented in respect of Scotland, but not of England and Wales, nor, I believe, Northern Ireland. I am not able to explain why it has been in abeyance for a number of years with respect to those other jurisdictions, but I can say that since the noble and learned Lord raised the point with me I have spoken to officials who are addressing that matter. Certainly, our recommendation would be that it should be applied in respect of England and Wales as well.
The noble and learned Lord asked when we last implemented an international treaty obligation without primary legislation. My stock response was going to be that we now have CRaG 2010, but he went on to criticise that. While I understand that some observations have been made about the sufficiency of CRaG, my response is that we now have primary legislation that requires parliamentary scrutiny in circumstances where we intend to enter into an international treaty. It is in that context that we use the affirmative procedure to draw down those obligations and apply them in domestic law. I venture that that is an acceptable mechanism, because it requires parliamentary scrutiny at the stage of international law. It allows parliamentary scrutiny at the stage of drawing it down into domestic law in accordance with the duality principle.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, adopted and advanced the submissions of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance—which shows courage and, indeed, prescience. He also asked why we refer to arbitration. We do not intend to intrude wholesale on the New York convention or other aspects of arbitration, but it might be that there will be bilateral or multilateral jurisdictional issues where a party wishes to refer to arbitration. If, at that stage in the negotiation, we consider that appropriate, albeit in a limited circumstance, we will want to have the power to proceed with such an agreement. However, we are conscious of the need to keep a dividing line between provisions with regard to arbitration that are generally addressed by wholly different conventions, such as the New York convention, as distinct from those that apply more generally in private international law. We are not endeavouring to cross any lines there.
Schedule 6 is where it is because that is where it should be. It is not hiding. I reassure the noble and learned Lord of that. With regard to Schedule 2, my understanding is that it reflects or replicates the text of the 1996 Hague Convention on child protection and is in that form for that reason.
A question was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, and others about why we have these Henry VIII powers to amend primary legislation. There may be circumstances in which we want to insert implementation provisions into existing primary legislation. I ask noble Lords to notice that that is exactly what we are doing with Clause 1, where we are putting the three Hague Conventions into the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982. It might be that we will want to use existing primary legislation and implement using existing primary legislation. That is why that power has been taken.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, gave a very detailed and reasoned distinction between the merits of the Brussels regime, in which we played a very prominent part, and the perhaps deficiencies, to use one term, or the less robust regime we find in Hague and even in Lugano, which essentially reflects Brussels rather than Brussels Ia and Brussels IIa. I have to notice that there are those differences. It is a consequence of us having left the EU on 31 January 2020 —it is as simple as that, is it not? I know the noble and learned Lord recognises that. We cannot be part of the Brussels regime now we have left the EU, and the Government have made it clear that they will not be subject to the jurisdiction of the ECJ.
Of course, if and when we become a party to Lugano, we will seek to move forward the Council of the Lugano Convention to address its equivalence because Lugano originally reflected Brussels I and Brussels II and it is yet to catch up, as it were, with Brussels Ia and Brussels IIa, but certainly if we were a party to it, we can see that we could drive the direction of travel.
That said, we have to be careful about when we engage in the Lugano process. We have made an application to the Council of the Lugano Convention. We have letters of support from the three existing Lugano states, but noble Lords are quite right to point out that we require the consent of the EU to become a party to the Lugano Convention. There are also questions about the way in which that will interrelate with the provisions of the 2019 Hague Convention, and we will have to look at that. Again, my understanding is that we were a material contributor to the development of the Council provision on the 2019 Hague Convention as well, so we are familiar with it, and we see its considerable benefit, all the more so if the EU were to become a contracting state to the 2019 convention.
However, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, is ahead of me. I thought only Uruguay had ratified so far, but he was able to add Ukraine.
Lord Keen of Elie
I apologise—it has signed but not ratified. As the noble and learned Lord will know, it takes a little time for signatures. There has to be a certain number of states signing to the convention and then ratification can take place. Clearly, we are conscious of that. The noble and learned Lord has highlighted a real issue, which is the care we must take in considering our position with regard to Lugano and with respect to the 2019 Hague Convention. If we were not conscious of that before, we are now, if I can put it that way. It may be that the Lord Chancellor’s consultative committee should have sat earlier.
I hope I have addressed the majority of the points that have been raised so far. There was one point the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, raised about intra-UK powers. We will have powers to implement an agreement intra-UK but clearly we would do so only after engagement with the devolved Administrations because the implementation of private international law is a devolved competence, albeit that entry into the treaty at the level of international law is a reserved competence. I reassure the noble and learned Lord that we would not do that without full consultation with the relevant parties.
I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Shackleton, is about to rise, but before she does so I shall just say that in the absence of Brussels and in the absence of provision in international law convention under Hague for certain matters, such as jurisdiction on divorce, we will fall back on our previous common-law position, which some will regard as less than entirely satisfactory, but it is a consequence of us having left the EU. I hope that that anticipates the intervention I was going to get.
Given the hour, I will rest my further submissions there. I look forward to further detailed discussion of these matters in Committee.