Written Statements

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Written Statements

Tuesday 24 March 2020

Departmental Contingency Liability: Coronavirus Interruption Loan Scheme

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Alok Sharma)]

I am tabling this statement for the benefit of hon. and right hon. Members to bring to their attention the details of the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11 March 2020.

The coronavirus business interruption loan scheme will be facilitated by the Government-owned British Business Bank and delivered through its delivery partners. Lenders will offer loans of up to £5 million to support small and medium-sized businesses with a turnover up to £45 million that are affected by the coronavirus outbreak. There will be no limit on the number and aggregate value of loans that can be made under the scheme.

The scheme is based on the British Business Bank’s existing Enterprise Finance Guarantee scheme, is available on a temporary basis and can be extended as required. The key parameters of the scheme are as follows:

The percentage of the remaining balance of each loan that is guaranteed by the Government will be increased to 80% (currently 75% of each EFG loan is guaranteed);

A cap on gross Government liability at the level of the lender’s whole CBILS portfolio of 75% of losses (currently the Government’s gross liability is capped at 20% of losses across the lender’s whole EFG portfolio);

A Government grant (the business interruption payment) will be provided for the benefit of businesses, equal to the fees and interest incurred on the facility for the first 12 months. The maximum grant payable is capped at a level that will allow a significant majority of businesses to be compensated in full. A lower cap applies to businesses in some sectors;

The lender must establish that the SME has a viable business proposition assessed according to its normal commercial lending criteria. However, where there are some concerns over the short-term business performance due to covid-19 impacts, provided the lender reasonably believes that the finance will help the business to ‘trade out’ of any short-term cashflow difficulty, then the business is considered eligible for the scheme; and

Subject to the lender’s policy, businesses can access CBILS loans up to a value of £250,000 without the lender undertaking an assessment of their security position (currently, only businesses that have been assessed by the lender as having insufficient security can access EFG loans).

The new scheme was launched on 23 March, will run for an initial period of six months, and will be extended as required. The Government will be subject to a greater contingent liability than is the case for the Enterprise Finance Guarantee, and I will be laying a departmental minute today containing a description of the liability undertaken.

For more information on this and other support for business, please go to: https://www.businesssupport.gov.uk/.

[HCWS177]

UK Parliamentary Boundaries

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)]

In the written statement of 19 March, “Postponement of electoral events” (HCWS174 and HLWS169), the Government outlined their proposals for urgent electoral legislation to postpone forthcoming elections as part of the wider steps to tackle the spread of the coronavirus.

Working to ensure the health and safety of the British public is the Government’s top priority. We still however have a responsibility to govern, plan for the future and ensure that where possible, essential parliamentary business continues and legal obligations are met.

The House of Commons may debate the Government’s policy stance on UK parliamentary boundaries on Friday 27 March, in light of the Private Members’ Bill tabled by the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Peter Bone).

I believe clearly setting out the Government’s emerging policy position would provide clarity for Parliament, the public and electoral administrators. Given this policy area is of direct relevance to the Commons, it is important that the first Chamber is properly informed.

This is also pertinent because at present, the Government are legally required to give effect to the recommendations from the Boundary Commissions as set out in their 2018 reports—including reducing the number of constituencies to 600. In this statement I lay out the Government’s thinking on this matter.

Need for equal and updated boundaries

The Conservative Government committed, in our 2019 manifesto, to delivering updated and equal UK parliamentary boundaries with the essential aim of making sure that every vote counts the same—a cornerstone of democracy.

The last boundary review to be implemented in England was based on data from 2000; the last to be implemented in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland used data from 2001-2003. In effect, our current constituencies reflect how the UK population was at the beginning of the century. Today’s youngest voters have been born since then: this disregards significant changes in demographics, house building and geographical migration.

The Government have also taken into account representations from colleagues on all sides of the House, and from the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee.

When parliamentary time allows, the Government are minded to bring forward primary legislation to set the framework for future boundary reviews, including the next review due to begin in early 2021. Such provisions would cover the number of constituencies, the frequency of reviews, the boundary review process, and the process by which those recommendations are brought into legal effect.

Maintaining 650 seats

Legislation currently provides that, on implementation of the 2018 boundary review recommendations, the number of constituencies in the UK shall be 600. The Government are minded to instead make provision for the number of parliamentary constituencies to remain at 650. In doing so, we would also remove the statutory obligation to implement the 2018 boundary review recommendations and the statutory obligation on the Government to make arrangements to review the reduction in constituencies to 600 by 30 November 2020.

Under current legislation the Boundary Commissions are required to report on their next review by October 2023. In order to meet this deadline they would have to begin that review in early 2021. Without changes to primary legislation, there would be a legal obligation for the Boundary Commissions to undertake that review on the basis of 600 constituencies.

This is a change in policy from the position previously legislated for under the coalition Government. Since that policy was established in the coalition agreement, the United Kingdom has now left the European Union. The UK Parliament will have a greater workload now we are taking back control and regaining our political and economic independence. It is therefore sensible for the number of parliamentary constituencies to remain at 650.

Electoral quota tolerance

The Boundary Commissions are generally required to propose constituencies whose electorates vary in size by no more than +/- 5% from the average (“The electoral quota”). The Government are not minded to amend this tolerance level which achieves equal and fair boundaries while allowing the Boundary Commissions the flexibility to take account of other factors, such as physical geographical features and local ties, subject to the overriding principle of equality in constituency size.

Equal representation

Updated and equal boundaries will ensure that every constituent nation in the United Kingdom has equal representation in the UK Parliament, and deliver parity of representation across the United Kingdom’s constituencies.

Under the existing legislation, passed in 2011, there are four protected constituencies where the electoral quota tolerance does not apply on account of their unique geography: Orkney and Shetland, Na h-Eileanan an lar, and two seats for the Isle of Wight. The Government are not minded to make changes to these protected constituencies, or to propose any more protected constituencies given the need to ensure equal representation.

Boundary review cycle

Under the current legislation, boundary reviews must take place every five years. As the Government also intend to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, future boundary reviews will inevitably be decoupled from the cycle of general elections. We need to strike a balance between regularly updated parliamentary constituencies and the disruption caused to local communities and their MPs by boundaries changing at every general election.

The Government are minded to consider that conducting boundary reviews every eight years strikes the right balance. An eight-year review cycle would generally allow for updated constituencies to be in place for two general elections before being reviewed in time for a third general election.

Implementing the recommendations of the independent Boundary Commissions

Currently, at the end of a boundary review, the Government lay the reports of the independent and impartial Boundary Commissions before Parliament. The recommendations contained in the reports are then brought into effect by way of an Order in Council that must be approved by Parliament by the affirmative procedure before it can be made.

The Government are minded to continue to provide that the reports are still laid before Parliament (by the Speaker who is Chair of the Boundary Commissions) but would change the means of bringing the Boundary Commissions’ recommendations into effect. The new recommended constituency boundaries will be brought into effect automatically by the Order in Council.

This change would provide certainty that the recommendations of the independent Boundary Commissions—developed through a robust and impartial process that is open to extensive consultation—would then be implemented without interference. Parliament, of course, would remain sovereign and can amend primary legislation as it sees fit.

Engagement with political parties

The Government are keen to establish the broad support of Parliament for such changes and will engage with the political parties represented in the UK Parliament on such proposals.

This will include engagement with the Parliamentary Parties Panel on the technical measures planned. These include provisions relating to the length of time the Boundary Commissions have to conduct their reviews within the boundary review cycle and the process involved in the reviews, such as public hearings and consultation. I hope there is scope for broad cross-party agreement on such improvements.

In due course, the Government hope that such reforms will strengthen democratic accountability of Parliament to the British people.

I hope this provides clarity on the Government’s policy intent over this Parliament. Of course, as stated above, the Government’s immediate legislative priority will be taking the necessary steps to protect the health and safety of the British public.

[HCWS183]

Notification of Contingent Liability

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)]

The Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) of the Bank of England decided at its meeting ending on 19 March to ask for an expansion in the maximum limit of purchases that may be undertaken by the asset purchase facility (APF). This will encompass up to £200 billion of further purchases of gilts and corporate bonds to support the economy through the disruption caused by covid-19.

In light of the evidence on the impact of covid-19 on the global and domestic economy, and conditions in the UK and international government bond markets, the MPC judged further asset purchases financed by the issuance of central bank reserves should be undertaken to enable the MPC to meet its statutory objectives. The MPC expects that purchases of corporate bonds will improve the availability of credit to UK companies and that further purchases of gilts will reduce borrowing costs, raise asset prices, affect expectations and confidence, and thereby support the economy. I have therefore authorised an increase in the total size of the APF of £200 billion. This will bring the maximum total size of the APF from £445 to £645 billion.

In line with the requirements in the MPC remit, the amendments to the APF that could affect the allocation of credit and pose risks to the Exchequer have been discussed with Treasury officials. The risk control framework previously agreed with the Treasury will remain in place, and HM Treasury will keep monitoring risks to public funds from the facility through regular risk oversight meetings and enhanced information sharing with the Bank.

There will continue to be an opportunity for the Treasury to provide views to the MPC on the design of the schemes within the APF, as they affect the Government’s broader economic objectives and may pose risks to the Exchequer.

The Government will continue to indemnify the Bank and the APF from any losses arising out of, or in connection with, the facility. If the liability is called, provision for any payment will be sought through the normal supply procedure.

A full departmental Minute has been laid in the House of Commons providing more detail on this contingent liability.

[HCWS184]

RAF Battle Honours: Operation TELIC (Post-war)

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)]

My noble Friend the Minister in the House of Lords (the right hon. Baroness Goldie DL) has made the following written ministerial statement.

On 10 October 2017, the Minister in the House of Lords made a written ministerial statement announcing the award of battle honours to squadrons of Her Majesty’s Royal Air Force, for their participation in Operation TELIC post-war consolidation and reconstruction phase during the period 1 May 2003-22 May 2011.

I am today announcing that Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve the award of a battle honour to one further squadron of Her Majesty’s Royal Air Force for their participation in Operation TELIC post-war consolidation and reconstruction phase during the period 1 May 2003-22 May 2011.

Battle honours may be “awarded to commemorate any notable battle, action or engagement in which aircrew or Royal Air Force regiment personnel played a memorable part”. There are two levels of battle honour within the Royal Air Force. The first is the award of a battle honour which recognises that a squadron played a notable and significant role in the campaign. The second, higher level confers the right to emblazon the battle honour on the standard itself. This ultimate accolade is reserved for those squadrons which are involved in direct confrontation with an enemy and demonstrate gallantry and spirit under fire.

In addition to the 27 battle honours and eight battle honours with the right to emblazon previously approved for squadron’s participation on Operation TELIC, one further operational flying squadron has been approved for the award of a battle honour.

RAF Battle Honours: Operations Vulcan and Barras

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)]

My noble Friend the Minister in the House of Lords (the right hon. Baroness Goldie DL) has made the following written ministerial statement.

I am today announcing that Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve the award of battle honours to squadrons of Her Majesty’s Royal Air Force, for their participation in Operation Vulcan (Bosnia) during the period August to September 1995 and Operation Barras (Sierra Leone) during the period August to September 2000.

Battle honours may be “awarded to commemorate any notable battle, action or engagement in which aircrew or Royal Air Force regiment personnel played a memorable part”. There are two levels of battle honour within the Royal Air Force. The first is the award of a battle honour which recognises that a squadron played a notable and significant role in the campaign. The second, higher level confers the right to emblazon the battle honour on the standard itself. This ultimate accolade of battle honours with emblazonment is reserved for those squadrons which are involved in direct confrontation with an enemy and demonstrate gallantry and spirit under fire.

The highest honour of battle honour with the right to emblazon has been awarded to two squadrons for their participation on Operation Vulcan.

The highest honour of battle honour with the right to emblazon has been awarded to one squadron for their participation on Operation Barras.

RAF Battle Honours for Operations in Afghanistan

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)]

My noble Friend the Minister in the House of Lords (the right hon. Baroness Goldie DL) has made the following written ministerial statement.

I am today announcing that Her Majesty The Queen has been graciously pleased to approve the award of battle honours to squadrons of Her Majesty’s Royal Air Force for their participation in operations in Afghanistan during the period 7 October 2001 to 31 December 2014.

Battle honours may be “awarded to commemorate any notable battle, action or engagement in which aircrew or Royal Air Force regiment personnel played a memorable part”. There are two levels of battle honour within the Royal Air Force. The first is the award of a battle honour which recognises that a squadron played a notable and significant role in the campaign. The second, higher level confers the right to emblazon the battle honour on the Standard itself. Battle honours with emblazonment are reserved for those squadrons which are involved in direct confrontation with an enemy and demonstrate gallantry and spirit under fire.

Six operational flying squadrons and nine Royal Air Force regiment squadrons were awarded the highest honour of a battle honour with the right to emblazon. Battle honours were approved for 26 operational flying squadrons for their participation in operations in Afghanistan.

Reserve Forces’ and Cadet Forces’ Associations: Annual Report

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)]

I am today publishing the report of the review of the reserve forces and cadets associations 2019.

The review’s purpose was to assess and challenge the continuing requirement, efficiency and good governance of the 13 RFCAs and, their joint committee, the council of RFCAs. The review was undertaken by the MOD, and an independent challenge panel was appointed to assure its robustness and impartiality. The review was conducted with the full participation of the RFCA community, and gathered evidence from a wide range of stakeholders across Government, Defence and the RFCAs’ customers at the national and regional levels. I would like to thank all those who contributed to the review.

The review concluded that the functions of the RFCAs remain valued and necessary and the RFCAs should continue in their role of key partner to Defence—a point made clear by the wide range of beneficiaries of the RFCAs’ work. The review makes a number of recommendations to strengthen the relationship between Defence and the RFCAs, ensuring the RFCAs are on a stable, sustainable footing to continue to deliver advocacy and support for reserves and cadets across the UK.

Defence is currently working with other Government Departments and the RFCAs to understand how best to implement the recommendations. This will be announced in due course.

The report will be placed in the Library of the House.

[HCWS178]

Media Matters

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)]

On 22 January 2020, DCMS informed the House that my predecessor had issued a public interest intervention notice (PIIN) in respect of the acquisition by Daily Mail and General Trust (DMGT) of JPI Media Publications Ltd, and thus the i newspaper.

The PIIN triggered the requirement for the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to report to me on jurisdictional and competition matters, and for Ofcom to report on the following media public interest consideration:

The need for, to the extent that it is reasonable and practicable, a sufficient plurality of views in newspapers in each market for newspapers in the United Kingdom or a part of the United Kingdom.

I received the CMA and Ofcom reports on by the deadline of 13 March and have today published these on the www.gov.uk website.

I accept the CMA’s findings that while it is, or may be, the case that a relevant merger situation has been created, the merger does not give rise to a realistic prospect of a substantial lessening of competition in any market.

I have also agreed with Ofcom that the merger does not raise concerns in relation to plurality of views in newspapers.

In light of this, and having considered representations submitted by interested parties in response to the PIIN, DCMS has written to the parties today confirming my decision not to refer the merger for a Phase 2 investigation.

The role of the Secretary of State in this process is quasi-judicial and procedures are in place to ensure that I act independently and have followed a process which is fair and impartial.

[HCWS182]

UK’s National Preventive Mechanism: Annual Report

Tuesday 24th March 2020 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)]

The United Nations optional protocol to the convention against torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (OPCAT), which the UK ratified in December 2003, requires states parties to establish a “national preventive mechanism” (NPM) to carry out visits to places of detention to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

The Government established the UK NPM in March 2009 (Hansard 31 March 2009, Vol. 490, Part No. 57, Column 56WS). The UK NPM is currently composed of 21 scrutiny bodies covering the whole of the UK.

Following previous practice, I have presented to Parliament the 10th NPM’s annual report (Command Paper CP 228). This report covers the period from 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2019. I commend the important work that the NPM has carried out over this period and the NPM’s independent role in safeguarding the human rights of detainees across the UK. I also note the NPM’s observations around prisons, children in detention, police custody, immigration detention and court custody. The Government are committed to making prisons places of safety and reform. We are investing an additional £2.75 billion to transform jails, with tough new security measures including x-ray body scanners, and creating 10,000 modern prison places to rehabilitate offenders. Our long-term ambition is to replace secure training centres and young offender institutions with secure schools, putting education, healthcare and purposeful activity at the heart of young offender rehabilitation.

[HCWS185]