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, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
I have regular discussions with the Executive on the protocol and wider matters, and I look forward to having further productive discussions with Ministers before the end of the transition period.
Colum Eastwood [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. But given the dismissive attitude of some in his Government on this particular issue, how can we in Northern Ireland have any confidence that he will faithfully implement the Northern Ireland protocol? Given all that is happening right now, is it not surely the time to begin to agree to a transition period extension so that we can finally get a proper agreement on Brexit, which is, in our view, impossible to do at this time?
Brandon Lewis
There is no reason why the European Commission should be requiring a permanent presence in Belfast to monitor the implementation of the protocol. We are focused on our determination to ensure that we fulfil all of our obligations to deliver on the protocol. The best way we can give certainty and confidence for business is to follow through and deliver on our promise to make sure that we leave and have everything in place at the end of December this year.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP)
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
The UK Government are backing businesses in Northern Ireland through UK-wide measures including the coronavirus job retention scheme and the self-employed income support scheme. In preparation for the end of the transition period, we are committed to implementing the protocol. That includes unfettered access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.
Dave Doogan [V]
The Secretary of State will already be aware of the vital cross-border trade and employment dynamics that existed pre-covid between counties such as Derry, Tyrone and Fermanagh and neighbouring County Donegal. What planning is taking place with the devolved Administration in Belfast and the Irish Government to ensure that the emergence from lockdown promotes an urgent regeneration of the crucial cross-border economy?
Brandon Lewis
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. We are very focused on the whole economy of Northern Ireland. In fact, one of the biggest and most financially well-supported growth deals in the whole of the United Kingdom is the one in Northern Ireland dealing with exactly these economic issues. I can assure him that I have regular meetings with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, and also co-chair a fortnightly meeting with the Republic of Ireland’s Tánaiste, to be sure that we take, where appropriate and proper, a joined-up approach.
Douglas Chapman [V]
The Secretary of State will value the importance of lifeline ferry services, and the news of potentially 1,000 job losses at P&O is devastating. What assessment has he made regarding the impact of a reduction or loss of the P&O Cairnryan to Larne service, and what discussions has he had with P&O and the trade unions on safeguarding this vital link between Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Brandon Lewis
I was pleased to be able to announce only a week or two ago the £17 million package that we put in place to protect the five ferry routes to ensure that we keep connectivity for Northern Ireland with the rest of the United Kingdom. I have had conversations with P&O and other ferry operators only in the past few days.
Rob Butler [V]
Just as in my constituency of Aylesbury, small businesses and the self-employed are a vital part of the economy in Northern Ireland. As we move to the next stage of the coronavirus crisis, how will my right hon. Friend ensure that they have all the guidance and support that they need to regain lost trade and to flourish once more?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a really good and important point. Throughout the crisis, both I and the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), have been in regular contact with businesses across Northern Ireland to ensure that we understand the pressures that they are facing, and to make sure that we can work with the Northern Ireland Executive to continue to focus on the economic recovery in the form that they need. He is quite right: wherever we are in the United Kingdom, including in Great Yarmouth, we have to make sure that we are focused on the small businesses that are often the heartbeat of our communities. We are also determined to make sure that we do that in partnership with the Northern Ireland Executive.
Mr Speaker
We go across to Louise Haigh, who is standing in as the temporary shadow Secretary of State, and wish Tony Lloyd well.
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Can I also send all our love and best wishes to my hon. Friend and predecessor, the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who continues to make a recovery from covid-19?
The Secretary of State will regret, as I do, the disrespectful way in which the devolved nations were cut out of the Prime Minister’s announcement on Sunday and the confusion that reigned across the UK as a result. Will he commit to ensuring that the Northern Ireland Executive are fully consulted and informed on the next phase of lockdown and future changes to messaging?
Brandon Lewis
I would like to offer the hon. Lady a warm welcome to her new role. I look forward to working with her for the benefit of the people of Northern Ireland. If you will indulge me briefly, Mr Speaker, I want to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who served in his post admirably for over two years and through three different Secretaries of State; I hope that the hon. Lady only deals with one Secretary of State in her time in office. I was hugely pleased to hear of his recovery, and I am glad that he has decided to continue to represent the people of Manchester as he recovers, as he has done over the last four decades.
We are working with the devolved authorities. They have Ministers sitting on all the committees that are discussing issues around how we deal with coronavirus, and all the devolved authorities were present and part of the decisions made at the Cobra meeting on Sunday, ahead of the Prime Minister’s announcement.
Louise Haigh
Thank you, Mr Speaker; that was a very quick promotion.
As the Secretary of State said, not only is co-ordination across the UK important, but the unique situation in Northern Ireland means that co-operation with the Republic of Ireland is equally important. Can he explain why those in Northern Ireland who hold an Irish passport, as is their right under the Good Friday agreement, are still unable to check their eligibility for the self-employed support scheme, and can he commit to urgently rectify that problem before the scheme starts to pay out?
Brandon Lewis
We are aware of that issue, and I hope to be able to outline exactly how we are dealing with it very soon. It is something we are aware of and looking to rectify.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) [V]
Further to the question from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh), it is also the case that Northern Ireland citizens who hold a Northern Ireland driving licence cannot use that document to verify their claim for support from the self-employed income support scheme. Clearly, that is entirely wrong. It means that self-employed people in my constituency are being disadvantaged and cannot make their claim or have it verified. Will the Secretary of State liaise with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the Treasury to ensure that Northern Ireland driving licences are an acceptable document for the purposes of verification for the self-employed scheme?
Brandon Lewis
Yes, I am happy to work with the right hon. Gentleman to see whether we can find a logical, sensible and swift solution to that challenge.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson
Can the Secretary of State advise us what additional funding he is seeking to support the Northern Ireland economy, as we hopefully emerge from lockdown over the next few weeks and months? He will be aware of the situation with our economy, as with the economy across the United Kingdom. We are all anxious to know what additional support might be available from the Treasury for the recovery of our economy in Northern Ireland.
Brandon Lewis
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. It is hugely important that we are ready, as we come out of lockdown, to not just recover from the economic situation with coronavirus but then turbocharge the economy across the United Kingdom, and particularly in Northern Ireland to see the economy flourish and grow. We have given £1.2 billion to the Northern Ireland Executive through the Barnett consequentials. That is on top of the UK-wide schemes, such as the job retention scheme. The Treasury and the Chancellor continue to look at everything we need to do to support businesses, people and every part of the United Kingdom as we come through this, and to ensure that we come out of it in a way that will allow our economy to re-flourish and grow in the future.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
With covid-19 consuming so much effort internationally, does the Secretary of State agree that the EU simply will not indulge further UK Government brinkmanship on transition? The resulting cliff edge will be a step too far for many Northern Irish businesses, so why are his Government pushing ahead with their reckless timetable, despite widespread support across the political divide for an extension?
Brandon Lewis
I do not recognise the hon. Lady’s reference to widespread support. The position of the British public, restated in December last year, is very clear—they want to see things done, so that we as a country can move forward. It is in both our interests and the EU’s interests to be ready to move forward in January 2021. The best certainty we can give business, which we are focused on, is unfettered access for Northern Ireland businesses to the rest of the UK, and we will do that through the Northern Ireland protocol.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
We are working closely with the devolved Administrations in our response to covid-19. As I have said, representatives from each Administration attend Cobra meetings, as well as the many detailed implementation groups that sit underneath the Cobra and Cabinet structure. The Tánaiste, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister and I also meet regularly, and we hope to do so again later this week. We agree that continued close contact and co-operation will rightly remain essential in the weeks and months ahead.
Stephen Doughty [V]
The contact tracing app that the UK Government are developing is apparently different from the one that the Irish Government are advocating, which may create significant difficulties not only on the island of Ireland but in relation to travel to and from the rest of the UK via, for example, Welsh, Scottish and English ports. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government on the proposed app, and what would he advise people in Northern Ireland to do?
Brandon Lewis
The app offers a huge opportunity to be an important part of our work as we come through covid-19 into exiting from this in a sensible and logical way and with awareness of how the virus has spread across the UK. It is important that people take part. I give a huge thank you to those who have been involved in work on the app.
I have been in conversations with the Irish Government —I spoke to the Tanaiste on this issue only a few days ago—as well as with the Northern Ireland Executive, to ensure that all our experts and chief medical officers are working together to ensure that we have a joined-up approach where practical, sensible and appropriate so that we get things working in a way that is good for the health of all the people of Ireland. I am focused on ensuring that the people of Northern Ireland get the best possible care.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
. We are working, and will continue to work, closely with all the devolved Administrations, who are fully committed to suppressing the virus across the UK. Our response to covid-19 is a collective national effort. The Executive are following a science led path, doing what is best for the people of Northern Ireland, recognising the overall approach that we are taking across the UK to fight this pandemic.
Marco Longhi [V]
Does my right hon. Friend agree with most people in Dudley and with me that we are stronger as one United Kingdom in responding to coronavirus? Will he let the House know whether the devolved Administration has improved outcomes for people in ways that we can share across the United Kingdom?
Brandon Lewis
My hon. Friend makes a good point. The short answer is, yes. This is a good example of how the United Kingdom has been stronger than any single part of it, so we are stronger together as a family. As I have said, we will continue to work closely with all the devolved Administrations. I remain in close contact with both the First and Deputy First Ministers of Northern Ireland to co-ordinate the response and share information and insights. That approach has been effective, allowing us to work together on issues of common concern, including the provision of personal protective equipment, while allowing plans to be tailored to ensure that they address the particular local situations that we all face.
Mark Logan [V]
Does the Secretary of State agree that whether in Bolton or Belfast our two time-tested institutions—the Union and the NHS—have exuded extraordinary heroism in the covid cataclysm that has swept the planet?
Brandon Lewis
Yes, and my hon. Friend’s language is spot on. We have all seen how the NHS has responded with heroism and agility. I thank all key workers across the United Kingdom for their professionalism and dedication to looking after people. We have seen fantastic co-operation between all political parties in Northern Ireland and across the UK, and the devolved Governments have worked together in a way that is good for all parts of the United Kingdom as we tackle this crisis.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
The Joint Committee met on 30 March and the Ireland/Northern Ireland Specialised Committee met on 30 April. The protocol has of course been part of those discussions. Our intention in implementing the protocol is to protect Northern Ireland’s place in our United Kingdom and cement the huge gains that we have all seen from the peace process. We believe that it will be necessary to support business and the wider population in understanding the protocol before it comes into effect.
Mr Harper [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. He knows—he confirmed earlier in these exchanges—that Northern Ireland businesses will continue to have unfettered access to the rest of the United Kingdom. The Prime Minister has made a commitment that we will not check goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. Can the Secretary of State set out a bit more detail for the House about the progress that has been made in implementing both those important commitments?
Brandon Lewis
My right hon. Friend is right. I want to put this in the clearest possible terms: Northern Ireland businesses will have unfettered access to the market of the United Kingdom and across GB. This is something, as he rightly points out, that many of my Cabinet colleagues and I have not just commented on publicly but about which we feel strongly. We look forward to delivering on that before the end of the year —we will deliver on that promise.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab) [V]
I heard what the Secretary of State said about the one-way unfettered access, but in 33 weeks Northern Ireland businesses will have to comply with EU customs and regulatory rules and two VAT systems. When will the Government let those businesses know exactly what they need to do to comply with the protocol in order to keep trading?
Brandon Lewis
We will ensure that businesses have plenty of time to be ready for January next year. One of the key parts of that is ensuring that we have unfettered access. We will not put borders down the Irish sea or anywhere else. Unfettered access is a hugely important part of respecting the Good Friday agreement, as well as the “New Decade, New Approach” deal. The best way for businesses to have fluidity of access to the market is to have unfettered access. That is what we are determined to deliver, and that is what we will do.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Brandon Lewis)
I recently published a written ministerial statement setting out the way forward on the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. We have begun engagement with the Northern Ireland parties, the Irish Government and other key stakeholders, with a firm focus on finding consensus on the detail of the proposals, which will allow us to move forward.
Sarah Jones [V]
The Victims’ Commissioner said:
“The aim of addressing the legacy of the past must be to build a better future”.
Why did the Secretary of State, in that spirit, not consult with key organisations such as the Commission for Victims and Survivors before publishing his statement on 18 March? Does he agree that victims must be at the heart of the proposal, and that any proposals must have their full support?
Brandon Lewis
Colleagues will appreciate that it was appropriate to lay the written ministerial statement before Parliament first. That is the process of how we work in this House, but I say to the hon. Lady that I have been engaging with victims groups, as has my Minister of State, and I will continue to do so. I have spoken directly to victims groups, which are an important part of the process. I gently say to the hon. Lady that the WMS very clearly references the importance of ensuring that we do the right thing for victims. They are absolutely at the heart of this, and it is important that they are.
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)
Mr Stephen Morgan (Portsmouth South) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
The UK Government and the Executive have committed to ensuring that those on the frontline in responding to covid-19 are provided with the critical PPE that they need to do their job safely. As part of our UK-wide approach, the Government have allocated around 5.5 million items of PPE to Northern Ireland, which in turn has sent 250,000 gowns to the rest of the UK.
Ian Lavery [V]
Earlier this week, Moy Park, which is the largest manufacturing employer in Northern Ireland, sadly experienced the tragic covid-19-related death of a valuable worker, meat packer, Unite member and human being. Everyone should expect to return home safely after a day’s work. Given what the Minister just said, is he happy with the adequacy of the supply of PPE from the UK to Northern Ireland? Perhaps people in Northern Ireland are not. Also, when will resources be provided to ensure that all frontline workers in high-risk sectors, such as poultry and meat processing, will finally be safe at work?
Mr Walker
First, let me say that every death from covid-19 is a tragedy for the individuals and their families, so let me pass on my condolences to the family involved in this particular case. Of course, PPE is an important part of the equation, as are proper social distancing guidelines, and it is important that businesses such as Moy Park follow the social distancing guidelines, as I am assured that they have been.
Mr Morgan [V]
Like those in other parts of the UK, including my constituency, care homes in Northern Ireland have been overlooked, with PPE not sufficiently reaching them. What discussions has the Minister had with the Northern Ireland Executive on the distribution of PPE to ensure that our most vulnerable and frontline workers are protected in this crisis?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The Northern Ireland Executive has been distributing PPE to the care home sector. Part of the 5.5 million items of PPE that the UK Government have been making available to Northern Ireland has been deployed in that sector, but it is an absolute priority that we continue to get a grip on the issue of care homes. I know that that is a priority for the Executive as well as for the UK Government.
Mr Speaker
I welcome back the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Simon Hoare.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
The recent events of covid-19 have underscored the fragility of international supply chains, certainly with regards to PPE, when international demand is very high. Would my hon. Friend undertake at the appropriate time to discuss with his counterparts in Scotland, Wales and Westminster the opportunity to grow this important area of our economy, thereby creating future jobs and enabling us to produce enough PPE in this country with a UK badge?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend, the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, makes an important point. Of course, it is vital that we work on the international procurement effort with the devolved Administrations, as we have been, but it is also essential that we maintain our domestic supply. I pay tribute to businesses in Northern Ireland, such as Denroy Plastics, which the Secretary of State spoke to yesterday, and O’Neills, which he visited just before the outbreak and which has switched over its production lines to producing vitally needed PPE and is making a huge contribution already.
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
The Government are committed to maintaining air connectivity between Great Britain and Northern Ireland during these unprecedented times. That is why we worked with the Executive to provide a £5.7 million financial support package to City of Derry and Belfast City Airports to ensure that services to and from London will continue.
Gareth Davies [V]
Does the Minister agree that the Government’s £5.7 million investment in maintaining air passenger flights is an important step in ensuring that that vital support link is maintained so that, post covid, we continue to strengthen the economic links between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom?
Mr Walker
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This support package is key to safeguarding vital connectivity, providing links to Northern Ireland’s key economic zones. As he knows, Northern Ireland benefits enormously from the Union with Great Britain, which is Northern Ireland’s main market for sales and tourism. We want to further strengthen these ties to support the movement of medical supplies and key workers and to assist with Northern Ireland’s economic recovery from this crisis.
Sammy Wilson [V]
Given the integration between the Northern Ireland economy and the GB economy, air connectivity is vital to any recovery plan out of this health crisis, yet it has practically stopped at present. Will the Minister commit first to continue support for our airports, including Belfast International, secondly to work towards the abolition of air passenger duty, which adds substantially to costs, and thirdly to give every encouragement to present airlines and prospective carriers to open routes quickly again?
Mr Walker
The hon. Gentleman makes some excellent points. It is vital that we continue to prioritise connectivity. As he knows, we stepped in where necessary to protect connectivity that might otherwise have been lost. Ministers agree that at this stage Belfast International is financially stable, but we will certainly keep that under review and continue to work closely with the Executive on all those issues.
Sarah Atherton (Wrexham) (Con)
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr Robin Walker)
The Government have, together with the Northern Ireland Executive, made available a financial package of up to £17 million to keep critical freight routes open between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. This reflects the huge importance of these connections and ensures essential goods, such as food and medicines, will continue to flow.
Sarah Atherton [V]
The Belfast-Liverpool ferry is vital to businesses in Wrexham. Does my hon. Friend agree that free-flowing trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain is of great benefit to the Union, which is why the Government’s success in keeping Northern Ireland part of the UK customs union is beneficial to us all?
Mr Walker
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. This package helps ensure that we keep freight capacity between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. The funding will help to maintain the flow of critical goods across the Irish Sea and throughout the Union. And yes this underlines the importance of keeping Northern Ireland part of the UK customs union, so that goods needed in Northern Ireland and Great Britain can continue to flow freely.
Virginia Crosbie [V]
The Government have acted swiftly to protect ferry services between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and I welcome the measures they have put in place. Many businesses here on Ynys Môn rely on goods coming to and from Northern Ireland and Liverpool. Will he continue to monitor the wider economic impact of services on north Wales, given its close proximity to Liverpool?
Mr Walker
Each route is integral to the supply of critical goods within the United Kingdom. Public service obligations are an established mechanism for supporting routes and are being used here to temporarily support routes affected by covid-19. The Government continue to engage closely with operators and ports on the Irish sea and we will continue to listen and take appropriate steps at the right time to protect critical supply routes, wherever they are.
Dr James Davies [V]
Can the Minister confirm that keeping these ferry routes open is sustaining the supply chain of food and medical supplies that are so vitally needed on both sides of the crossing, including in the Vale of Clwyd?
Mr Walker
Absolutely, yes, and I think the exchange of PPE that was referred to in earlier answers to questions is a good example of that, where both GB has benefited from those connections to Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland has benefited from those connections to Great Britain.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Yesterday was International Nurses’ Day and I know that the whole House would want to thank the nurses, and also the care staff and key workers, for their tireless work in responding to the covid-19 pandemic. Sadly, 144 NHS workers’ and 131 social care workers’ deaths have been reported as involving covid-19. Our thoughts are with their families and friends. Yesterday, this House learnt of the tragic death of Belly Mujinga—the fact that she was abused for doing her job is utterly appalling. My thoughts, and I am sure the thoughts of the whole House, are with her family.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Ruth Edwards [V]
Green investments generated the highest returns in the recovery from the 2008 financial crisis. As we restart our economy, will my right hon. Friend commit to prioritising investment in low-carbon infrastructure, such as the electric vehicle charge point network and renewable energy production, which will also help the UK to meet its net zero target by 2050?
The Prime Minister
Yes, and to encourage the take-up of electric vehicles, we are putting a further £1 billion into EV infrastructure across the country to prevent range anxiety for those who use EVs.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I join the Prime Minister in thanking our nurses and all those on the frontline, and send my condolences to all the families of those who have died of coronavirus, including Belly Mujinga, as the Prime Minister referenced—a ticket officer who we learnt this week died from covid-19 in awful circumstances.
In his speech on Sunday, the Prime Minister said that we need to rapidly reverse the awful epidemic in our care homes, but earlier this year, and until 12 March, the Government’s own official advice was—and I am quoting from it:
“It remains very unlikely that people receiving care in a care home…will become infected.”
Yesterday’s Office for National Statistics figures showed that at least 40% of all deaths from covid-19 were in care homes. Does the Prime Minister accept that the Government were too slow to protect people in care homes?
The Prime Minister
No, Mr Speaker, and it was not true that the advice said that—and actually, we brought the lockdown in care homes ahead of the general lockdown, and what we have seen is a concerted action plan to tackle what has unquestionably been an appalling epidemic in care homes, and a huge exercise in testing is going on—a further £600 million, I can announce today, for infection control in care homes. Yes, it is absolutely true that the number of casualties has been too high, but I can tell the House, as I told the right hon. and learned Gentleman last week and, indeed, this week, that the number of outbreaks is down and the number of fatalities in care homes is now well down. There is much more to do, but we are making progress.
Keir Starmer
I am surprised that the Prime Minister queries the advice of his own Government up until 12 March. I do, of course, welcome any fall in the recorded numbers, and he is right to reference that, but he must still recognise that the numbers are still very high.
This week, The Daily Telegraph carried the following quote from a cardiologist:
“We discharged known, suspected, and unknown cases into care homes which were unprepared, with no formal warning that the patients were infected, no testing available, and no PPE to prevent transmission. We actively seeded this into the very population that was most vulnerable.”
Does the Prime Minister accept that the cardiologist is right?
The Prime Minister
I have the utmost respect for all our medical professionals, who are doing an extraordinary job in very difficult circumstances. I can tell the House that the number of discharges from hospitals into care homes actually went down in March and April, and we had a system of testing people going into care homes. That testing is now being ramped up across all 15,000 care homes in this country.
Keir Starmer
I want to probe a little further the figures that the Prime Minister has given us. The Office for National Statistics records the average number of deaths in care homes each month. For the past five years, the average for April has been just over 8,000. This year, the number of deaths in care homes in April was a staggering 26,000. That is three times the average and an additional 18,000 deaths. Using the Government’s figures, only 8,000 are recorded as covid deaths, leaving 10,000 additional and unexplained care home deaths this April. I know that the Government must have looked into that, so can the Prime Minister give us the Government’s view on those unexplained deaths?
The Prime Minister
The coronavirus is an appalling disease which afflicts some groups far more than others—I think the whole country understands that—in particular the elderly, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to draw attention, as I have said, to the tragedy that has been taking place in care homes. The ONS is responsible for producing its data, and the Government have also produced data which shows not only that there has been, as I say, a terrible epidemic in care homes, but that since the care homes action plan began we are seeing an appreciable and substantial reduction not just in the number of outbreaks, but in the number of deaths. I stress to the House and to the country that solving the problem in care homes is going to be absolutely critical—getting the R down not just in care homes, but across the country—to our ability to move forward as a nation with the stepped programme that I announced on Sunday. We must fix it, and we will.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister says that solving the problem in care homes is crucial, but that can happen only if the numbers are understood, so I was disappointed that he does not have an answer to the pretty obvious question: what are those 10,000 unexplained deaths?
The overall figure for those who have died from covid-19 given by the Government at yesterday’s press conference was 32,692—each one a tragedy. For many weeks, the Government have compared the UK number against other countries. Last week, I showed the Prime Minister his own slide showing that the UK now has the highest death total in Europe and the second highest in the world. A version of the slide has been shown at the No. 10 press conference every day since 30 March—that is seven weeks. Yesterday, the Government stopped publishing the international comparison, and the slide has gone. Why?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows very well, the UK has been going through an unprecedented, once-in-a-century epidemic. He seeks to make comparisons with other countries that I am advised are premature, because the correct and final way of making these comparisons will be when we have all the excess death totals for all the relevant countries. We do not yet have that data. Now, I am not going to try to pretend to the House that the figures, when they are finally confirmed, are anything other than stark and deeply, deeply horrifying. This has been an appalling epidemic.
What I can tell the House is that we are getting those numbers down: the number of deaths is coming down; the number of hospital admissions is coming down. Thanks to the hard work of the British people in reducing the R and reducing the number of fatalities, we are now in a position to make some small, modest steps to begin to come out of some of the very restrictive measures that we have had. I think that people do understand what we are trying to do as a country. As for the international comparisons that the right hon. and learned Gentleman seeks to draw now, he will have to contain his impatience.
Keir Starmer
Well, I am baffled. It is not me seeking to draw the comparisons; these are the Government’s slides, which have been used for seven weeks to reassure the public. The problem with the Prime Minister’s answer is that it is pretty obvious that for seven weeks—when we did not have the highest number in Europe—the slides were used for comparison purposes, and as soon as we hit that unenviable place, they have been dropped. Last week the Prime Minister quoted, in defence, Professor Spiegelhalter. This is what Professor Spiegelhalter said at the weekend, and we need to think about it:
“we should…use other countries to try and learn why our numbers are high”.
Dropping the comparisons means dropping the learning, and that is the real risk.
Let me now ask the Prime Minister about the changes coming into effect today. A real concern for many people is childcare. I want to quote a mother of a young child. I apologise that the quotation is a little lengthy, but it reflects the queries that all Members of this House will have been getting. She says this: “As Boris said in his speech, people are encouraged to go back to work, meaning my partner, as he works in construction. My partner has explained to his boss this can’t happen because we’ve got no childcare. He also rang the nursery, but they’re not open. I work as well, but my boss is having none of it. I hope I can get some advice. Me and my partner have been so stressed all day.” What advice would the Prime Minister give her?
The Prime Minister
On the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s earlier point about not learning from other countries—nothing could be further from the truth. We are watching intently what is happening in other countries, and it is very notable that in some other countries where relaxations have been introduced, there are signs of the R going up again. That is a very clear warning to us not to proceed too fast or too recklessly. I hope that the country does understand that.
On the specific point, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman rightly raises, about people’s anxieties about going back to work when they do not have adequate childcare, I think that I was very clear—both with him and with the House earlier in the week—that in so far as people may not be able to go back to work because they do not have the childcare that they need, their employers must be understanding. As I said, it is clearly an impediment and a barrier to people’s ability to go back to work if they do not have childcare. I would be very happy to look at the specific case that he raises to see if there is anything more that we can do to shed light on the matter.
Keir Starmer
I am grateful to the Prime Minister for indicating that he will look into that particular case. It is, I think, one of very many.
The Prime Minister is asking the country to support decisions that will affect millions of lives. I recognise that these are not easy decisions; they are very difficult, balanced decisions that the Prime Minister and the Government have to make, and, after the confusion of the last few days, gaining public confidence in them is crucial. The Prime Minister says that his decisions were
“driven by the science, the data and public health”,
so, to give the public confidence in the decisions, can the Prime Minister commit to publishing the scientific advice on which they were based?
The Prime Minister
All Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies advice is published in due course, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows. Let me be absolutely clear with the House that SAGE, our scientists and our medical officers have been involved in every stage of preparing this strategy. I remind the House that what we are doing is entirely conditional and provisional. The UK has made a huge amount of progress.
The people of this country have worked incredibly hard to get the R down, and we cannot now go back to square one. We cannot risk a second outbreak, and we will do everything to avoid that.
Actually, when people look at what we are advocating as the way forward, the stepped process that we have set out, I think they can see exactly what we are trying to do as a country, and they can see that everybody is still required to obey the social distancing rules. The common sense of the British people got us through that first phase of this disease: I am absolutely confident that they will get us through the next as well.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend for what he does to champion the environment and the cause of reducing CO2 emissions. Alas, we have had to postpone the COP26 summit that was to have taken place, as he knows, in Glasgow at the end of this year. But our enthusiasm and determination to get to net zero by 2050 remains undiminished.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
May I begin by thanking all our nurses for their efforts in keeping us safe and looking after us, and applaud yesterday’s International Nurses Day?
Last week, the Prime Minister, in response to my questioning, noted the ability of the Governments of all four nations to come together and to deliver a very clear message for our people. Events on Sunday could not have been more disastrous from this Government. The Prime Minister has made confusion costly, devolved Administrations have been shut out, there is widespread confusion among the public and the Government have shown a total disregard for workers’ safety. Many, sadly, have seen the images of London buses being packed this morning. Will the Prime Minister accept that the clear message in Scotland is to stay home to protect the NHS and to save lives?
The Prime Minister
Indeed, the message throughout the country is, of course, that you should stay at home if you can, unless the specific circumstances that we have outlined apply. But I must say that I do not accept the leader of the SNP’s characterisation of the co-operation that we have had across all four nations. In my experience, it has been intense and it has been has been going on for days and days and weeks and weeks, and actually if we look at the totality of the measures that we are taking as a country, there is much more that unites us than divides us. We will go forward together.
Ian Blackford
The reality is that the Prime Minister has failed to deliver a clear message, and he did not address the point about London buses being packed this morning. The Prime Minister is threatening progress made against the spread of this virus by the general public who are following the advice to stay at home. The Prime Minister is putting workers’ safety at risk by calling on those who cannot work at home to go to their jobs without any guidance on health and safety.
Only last Monday, the Health Secretary launched the test and trace app trial. On Sunday, the Prime Minister appeared to leapfrog any success with that by announcing easing of restrictions. Before any lockdown easing and to avoid undermining the progress made so far, the Prime Minister must make sure that there are sufficient levels of testing available, and the ability to test, trace and isolate is fully in operation. Why is the Prime Minister throwing weeks of progress against the virus into jeopardy, undermining the work of our outstanding NHS?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman raises a point about London buses that is quite right, and I do not want to see crowding on mass-transit public transport in our capital or anywhere else. We are working actively with Transport for London to ensure that we have more capacity and discourage people from going to work during the peak, and that the operators, particularly TfL, lay on more tube trains in particular when they are necessary throughout the day. A huge amount of work is being done. We also want to see proper marshalling at stations to prevent crowded trains.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s point about test, track and trace, that is going to be a huge operation for the entire country. He should pay tribute to the work of all those hundreds of thousands of people who are now responsible for massively escalating our test, track and tracing operation. We now test more than virtually any other country in Europe. The rate of acceleration—the rate of increase—has been very sharp indeed, and we will go up to 200,000 by the end of the month. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the success of the programme is absolutely vital if we are to be able to move on to the second and third steps of our road map.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
As my right hon. Friend knows, it is this Government’s ambition to end rough sleeping by 2024. It is great to see the progress that has been made even in this very difficult time—as he says, 90% of rough sleepers are now in accommodation or have been offered accommodation. We will be investing considerable sums to make sure that we build the housing and address the social issues to tackle that problem for good.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD) [V]
I thank the Government for listening to representations from the Liberal Democrats and others on protecting jobs by extending the scheme yesterday. Will the Government now do the same for the self-employed? People such as cleaners, childminders, taxi drivers and hairdressers have all seen their incomes devastated and are only now able to apply for help for the past three months, but millions of these families now have no help in the future. Surely, self-employed people must have their support extended, too.
The Prime Minister
I admire the right hon. Gentleman’s brilliant attempt to take the credit from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for his extension of the coronavirus job retention scheme, which has been one of the most extraordinary features of this country’s—our collective—response to the crisis. The right hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the position of the self-employed; we are making sure that they get payments, over three months, of up to £7,500 as well.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend very much, and I agree with him, but whatever the defects of the Labour Government in Wales, my experience is that we have been working very well together across all the four nations and will continue to do so. My honest view is that all those who talk about confusion or mixed messages are grossly overstating the position. The common sense of the British people is shining through this argument. They can see where we want to go and where we need to go.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question. He actually nabbed me behind the Speaker’s Chair after he last put it to me. I can tell him that we estimate that 1.3 million British nationals have now been returned. I know that he would like the RAF to be more involved, but I can also tell him that we have put £75 million into a charter arrangement, and a whole range of airlines have signed up to it. We are doing everything that we can to bring people back as fast as we can.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The Prime Minister
As ever, I hear what my hon. Friend says about the Electoral Commission. What I can say is that, for the people who were investigated, I hope that all those who spent so much time, energy and effort drawing attention to their supposed guilt will now spend as much time and energy and ink and air time drawing attention to their genuine innocence.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman draws attention to a very important issue. We will make sure that nobody in this country, let alone asylum seekers, is ill-treated. I shall certainly be investigating the matter to which he refers, but am happy to write to him.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I am sorry that the wonderful festival at Hay-on-Wye has had to be postponed this year. I thank my hon. Friend for what she is doing to promote it, and I congratulate the organisers on their typical Welsh ingenuity in making the festival online, turning it into Hay-on-Wifi.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
As I have said, one of the most remarkable things about this crisis has been the way that the whole country has come together to deal with it. There has been a spirit of unity and sharing that we have not seen for a very long time. I do not think that a lot of people in this country want to see the Brexit argument reopened. They want to see it settled, they want to see it done, and that is what this Government intend to do.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
I have a picture at home of myself and William Hague aboard the Llangollen steam railway, I am proud to say. I congratulate the group on what they are doing to raise funds. I have no doubt that they have a glorious future ahead with my hon. Friend’s support.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent point. If he could send me details, we will be very happy to take up the case that he describes.
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) [V]
In Burton and Uttoxeter, and across the country, we have seen the incredible dedication of our NHS workers in dealing with covid-19—dedication that has tragically cost some their lives. What steps is the Prime Minister taking to ensure that the NHS is adhering to Public Health England calls to risk-assess black, Asian and minority ethnic staff on the frontline and where possible to make appropriate arrangements to move them to non-patient facing roles?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. I think I understood very clearly what she was saying. It is obvious from the data that coronavirus, as I said earlier, is falling disproportionately on certain groups, and not just the elderly. We need to examine exactly what is happening. We need to protect all the most vulnerable groups, and we will take steps to ensure that NHS staff and others are properly protected, advised and screened.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
The Prime Minister
I think the best and shortest answer I can give to the hon. Lady is that we totally understand the situation with aviation. Clearly, inadvertently this year the planet will greatly reduce its carbon dioxide emissions, and she is absolutely right that we need to entrench those gains. I do not want to see us going back to an era of the same type of emissions as we have had in the past. Aviation, like every other sector, must keep its carbon lower. We are certainly working on technological solutions to ensure that we can do that.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister join me in paying fulsome tribute to all the staff at Stepping Hill Hospital, particularly those caring for patients with covid-19? Does he recognise that many people have not been attending hospital as usual? How will he be assisting hospitals, such as Stepping Hill, in ensuring that my constituents can access healthcare as usual?
The Prime Minister
I thank my hon. Friend. One of the most important features of the way this country responded to the epidemic was that we did protect the NHS. We maintained capacity in the NHS throughout. Nobody went without a ventilator. There was space in intensive care units throughout the crisis, but we have a situation now, as he rightly says, where too many people are not going to hospital or the doctor to seek the treatment they need and deserve. I certainly encourage people with conditions that need medical treatment to go and get that treatment now. That will help us to reduce deaths this year and throughout the crisis.
Covid-19: School Reopening
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Layla Moran (Oxford West and Abingdon) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education if he will make a statement on his Department’s plans to reopen schools as part of the Government’s covid-19 recovery strategy.
Mr Speaker
I call the Secretary of State, who should speak for no more than three minutes.
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
Mr Speaker, I am grateful to you for granting this urgent question. We had requested to make a statement this week, but Members will understand that there are restrictions on the number of statements, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for the opportunity to answer questions today.
It is over seven weeks since we asked schools, colleges and childcare settings to close to all but vulnerable children and those of critical workers. This has been a huge ask of teachers and parents, but the greatest impact of all has fallen on children themselves. I am immensely grateful for the response of all those working in education, childcare and children’s social care, but we all know that the best place for children to be educated and to learn is in school, and it has always been my intention to get more of them back there as soon as the scientific advice allowed.
As the Prime Minister has confirmed, we are now past the peak of the virus, and he has set out a roadmap for the next phases of our recovery. If progress continues to be made, we expect that, from 1 June at the earliest, we will be able to begin a phased return to school, college and childcare for children in key transition years, alongside our priority groups. Primary schools will be asked to welcome back reception, year 1 and year 6 children in smaller class sizes. Nurseries and other early years providers, including childminders, will be able to begin welcoming back children of all ages. Secondary schools and colleges will be asked to provide face-to-face support for years 10 and 12, who are due to take key exams in the next year.
On Monday, my Department published initial guidance for settings on how to begin to prepare, and we will work with the sector leaders to develop this further in the coming weeks. This guidance sets out protective measures to minimise the risk of infection, including restricting class sizes and limiting mixing between groups. Crucially, all children and staff will have access to testing if they develop symptoms of coronavirus. This will enable a track-and-trace approach to be taken to any confirmed cases.
We continue to follow the best medical and scientific advice, and we believe that this phased return is the most sensible course of action to take. I know that it will be challenging, but I know that nursery school and college staff will do everything in their power to start welcoming our children back to continue their education.
Mr Speaker
I call Layla Moran, who is asked to speak for no more than two minutes.
Layla Moran [V]
We need to get our children back to school at the earliest opportunity. Every day that schools remain shut, the disadvantage gap widens and vulnerable children risk falling through the cracks. However, we should reopen schools only when we know it is safe. Given that we still do not know about transmissibility between children, can the Secretary of State reassure us that these decisions are based solely on public health? To what extent has getting parents back to work been the main driver?
What of teacher safety? The chief medical officer has said that there still needs to be a debate on that issue, so does the Secretary of State not think it irresponsible to publish plans and suggest timetables without disclosing all the scientific advice? Will he commit to publishing it today? Why were not all major teaching unions consulted on the specifics of the decision to make sure that it is workable? The guidance says that risk assessments should be carried out before schools open, and I welcome that. Will these be made public, as with businesses? When can we expect further guidance on travel?
If a school leader decides it is not safe to reopen, will the Secretary of State respect that? He says that reasonable endeavours must be made to deliver the curriculum. Will he now set out his expectations of that, given how varied it has been among schools so far? Can he clarify what “some face-to-face” contact for years 10 and 12 actually means? Will he guarantee that every child in all year groups who needs access to devices or the internet will get it, and when will we know about future exams?
Finally, it is obvious to anyone that children in reception and year 1 cannot socially distance. The Secretary of State says that the safety of children and staff is “our utmost priority”, so can he tell us, in plain English, what does he think “safe” actually means?
Gavin Williamson
I thank the hon. Lady for her questions; I am glad that she recognises the importance of ensuring that children are back getting their education in schools at the earliest possible moment. When we have medical and scientific advice saying that it is the right time to start bringing schools back in a phased and controlled manner, it seems only the right thing to do, and only the responsible thing to do, for many of the reasons that she has highlighted. In terms of pulling our guidance together, we have worked closely with all the teaching unions and headteachers’ unions and with the sector. Every week we have had the opportunity to meet them, and I have ensured that my officials have made time to sit down with them and talk about their issues and concerns. This is what has informed and developed the guidance that we have shared with schools.
In terms of the hierarchy of controls that we have developed to ensure that the risk of transmission of coronavirus is minimised within schools, we understood that the advice we needed to seek was not within the Department for Education but within Public Health England, and we have also been working with the scientific and medical advisers, who have been informing what the Government do every step of the way. That is why, when we created the hierarchy of controls about creating safe bubbles for children, teachers and support staff to work in, it was informed by them.
So why are we bringing schools back? The reason that we are bringing schools back is that we know that children benefit from being educated by their brilliant teachers in front of them. We recognise that children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are the ones who will suffer most if we do not bring schools back when we are able to do so. I am more than happy to share all the advice that we have received from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. SAGE regularly publishes its advice and when it is ready to do so, it will be sharing it again. We have also asked the scientific advisers to give briefings for the sector to ensure that it understands that the decisions that we are making to bring back children are based on the best interests of the children, including by ensuring that they do not miss out on something that is so precious: their education.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
I strongly welcome the approach that the Secretary of State is taking in getting children back to school in a phased way. I understand that schools will not officially be open in the summer, but given that close to 90% of vulnerable children are not in education, and that figures from the Sutton Trust suggest that at least 50% of pupils did not communicate with their teachers in the first week of April, will my right hon. Friend support the opening of summer schools over the holidays, to be staffed by volunteers, graduates and an army of retired teachers, to provide catch-up tuition to those children who have been left behind?
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to do everything we can to help children who will not have the benefit of returning to school before the summer holidays, and to support them to give them that extra boost to ensure that they are learning all the things that they want to learn. He is right to highlight the many thousands of volunteers who want to reach out to help our children to have the knowledge they will need to succeed in the future. We are looking closely at such schemes, and working with schools and with the sector to see how we can make them available. I very much value my right hon. Friend’s advice, insight and thoughts on this, and we are looking at how we can mobilise the schemes.
Mr Speaker
I call Rebecca Long Bailey, who is asked to speak for no more than two minutes.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
We all desperately want schools to reopen for the sake of children’s education and wellbeing, but the Secretary of State must appreciate that the guidance provided so far does not yet give the clear assurances over safety that are needed. Anxious shielding families, worried grandparents, teaching staff in fear—sadly, this sums up the theme of the past 48 hours. I hope that, to allay these concerns, he can address the following issues today.
Will the Secretary of State consider changing the focus of the plan so that, instead of asking schools to scramble to implement an unrealistic plan by a specific date, we ask them to plan to meet certain conditions that, when met, would signal that it was safe to open—a subtle but important distinction? Does he acknowledge that, due to the availability of staff and space, splitting classes while simultaneously providing remote learning is incredibly difficult, and will he work with schools to develop a realistic plan for social distancing? Has he modelled the impact of reopening schools on the infection rates, and will he publish that? Will he acknowledge that for younger year groups, social distancing will be virtually impossible and that the current guidance, sadly, gives the impression that those pupils and staff should just accept being exposed? With this in mind, will he rethink the position on PPE?
Finally, most schools break up for summer in mid-July; if the ambition is to get pupils back for a month, that means the whole school would need to be back less than two weeks after the priority years, so how does the Secretary of State expect schools to implement social distancing for the whole school when many heads say this is just impossible? If they do not, then what is the point of schools planning strict health and safety measures for two weeks only to abandon them? The Secretary of State repeatedly states that schools will open only when it is safe, and he referred to the scientific advice, which requires a return in a controlled manner; I do not see much of a controlled manner at the moment, so please will the Secretary of State work with the sector to get this right?
Gavin Williamson
Of course. The hon. Lady points out the importance of working with the sector, and that is what we will do at every step of the way, and that is what we have been doing. We recognise the importance of supporting the sector to make sure that, as children return to schools in a controlled and phased manner, we offer schools the maximum amount of support, recognise that every school is individual and unique in how we support them, and give them elements of flexibility so that they can make the transition from just providing an education setting for vulnerable children and children of critical workers. Expanding that in the limited way that we are proposing will require some elements of flexibility; schools and the sector will need that, and we will work with them to achieve it.
I have always been clear that we will give the sector as much notice as possible, and we have said that, if we are allowed, as seems likely, we would like to see schools opening from 1 June, giving them as much forward notice as possible in order for them to get ready. We think that is a responsible and sensible approach to a phased return. I slightly fear that if we were to ask the hon. Lady to pin down the date it would end up being about what would be the year rather than what would be the actual start date. But we do want to work with her; we want to work with the whole sector to make sure that this is a phased, sensible and controlled return to schools, because those who suffer most from schools not being open are the children who are so desperate to attend.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con) [V]
The guidance on the return of schools in the primary sector is very clear. May I ask my right hon. Friend to be very clear about the guidance for the secondary sector? For example, what does “face-to-face support” mean? Precisely which year groups will be able to return, and will that be on a voluntary basis, and does he agree that we need to provide maximum support for those taking GCSE and A-level exams both this year and next?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on the importance of supporting youngsters and children who are going to be facing GCSEs next year, as well as A-levels, BTECs and other qualifications in years 10 and 12. We are working with the sector, because we want all children in those year groups to have the opportunity to go into school and to speak with their teachers. We want their teachers to be able to make an assessment of the learning and support they will need over the following weeks as we approach the summer holidays, and to set the work at the right level so that children can benefit from learning through the six weeks of the summer holidays as well as in the weeks approaching the summer holidays. It is important to get those transition years back into schools, even if not for a full timetable, as that will be a first step in the right direction.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
Although young children seem to be less susceptible to covid-19, Professor Graham Medley told the Select Committee on Science and Technology:
“It is still not clear what the role of children is in transmission.”
So what new evidence does the Secretary of State have on the ability of children to transmit, and will he publish it? When the Scottish Government recently published detailed proposals for reopening schools, with a mixture of home and school learning, his colleague the First Secretary of State said that that would cause hospitals to be overwhelmed, so why is England considering this reckless full reopening of primary schools?
Finally, if the ambition is to bring all primary year groups back before the summer holidays, with a maximum of 15 pupils per class, where are the extra teachers going to come from? As most schools do not have rooms lying empty, where are the additional classrooms coming from? Will he reassure teachers and school staff that they will not be expected to make or provide their own personal protective equipment?
Gavin Williamson
Let me take the opportunity to thank the Scottish Deputy First Minister for the close work and collaboration we have had between ourselves over the past few months, as we have had to deal with this pandemic right across the United Kingdom. The hon. Lady would be asking searching questions of me if, when I am given the scientific and medical advice that it is the right time to be opening up schools, I were not taking up that opportunity. Understandably, SAGE does publish its advice. I have no doubt that it will be publishing the advice it has offered us on what we are doing, and obviously we would be more than happy to make that as freely available as possible.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that our approach to reopening schools is very much in line with that of other European countries? Members might expect a former Sports Minister to ask this, but I have not seen much about how we can ensure that schools can conduct their physical education duties, so will he be issuing specific guidance to ensure that schools can still put on PE classes, in a safe way?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend is right about the importance of PE for all children, whether they are at school or at home. We have been seeing some brilliant examples of children really being engaged in physical activity. We have issued guidance on how PE can be conducted, such as the safe use of equipment and having non-contact sports at this initial stage. We are keen to work with the sector to see how we can engage all young people in as much physical activity as possible.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
We know from the National Association of Head Teachers that headteachers have not been consulted on the proposed date of return, so when the Secretary of State says that the Government are working with the sector, that is partially but not completely true. Having 12 to 15 children socially distanced in a classroom is largely unrealistic. We know that children are more likely than adults to be asymptomatic if they contract covid-19, so what public health and medical evidence does he have that children will not spread the virus to other children, teachers, teaching assistants, and cleaning, catering and caring staff when they return to schools? Will he publish that evidence?
Gavin Williamson
As I have repeatedly said—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was listening to my earlier responses—SAGE does publish its evidence and the advice that we get, so, of course, that is in the public domain. At every stage, every week, I have been meeting union leaders, as well as other sector leaders, be it Ofsted or the Confederation of School Trusts, and I will continue to do so. We have shared our thinking widely on what we are hoping to do. We recognise that this is a challenging situation for everyone and that there are a lot of concerns. We want to work with all organisations, whether they be representative bodies of schools or unions, in order to get the best guidance to the workforce and to children and parents.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con) (V)
The vast majority of schools in North West Durham have remained open for the most vulnerable children. Will the Secretary of State join me in thanking the staff of those schools for their selfless actions throughout the global coronavirus pandemic? For the future, will my right hon. Friend reassure parents, teachers and the House that, despite the claims of some, the safety of pupils is the Government’s top priority? Will he confirm that in reaching that decision, he consulted the unions and school leaders, and that any children going back to school will be fully eligible for testing and tracing, as teachers are already?
Gavin Williamson
I very much join my hon. Friend in thanking those teachers and support staff who have done so much to keep schools open all the way through this period. It is important to remember that schools have remained open all the through the coronavirus pandemic.
My hon. Friend makes an important point about testing. We already have priority testing for all teachers and those who work in schools, if they have symptoms of coronavirus. That priority testing will be extended to all children who attend school if they are displaying symptoms, as well as to their families. We recognise how important test and trace is in beating this pandemic.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) (V)
First, my thanks to all the school staff in the City of Durham and across the country for their dedication throughout the pandemic. Education unions are clear: there can be no compromise on health and safety. The proposals are ill thought out and reckless. At best, they will create a sterile learning environment for young children, who will not understand why they are unable to interact with their friends. At worst, the proposals will set off a chain of new infections going back into the households of working people. How can it be right that without any scientific evidence, school staff and pupils have to accept lower safety standards than we expect queuing at Tesco?
Gavin Williamson
The only consideration behind this decision is what is in the best interests and for the welfare of children and those who work in schools. We all recognise the importance of children being able to return to schools. Sometimes, scaremongering—making people fear—is unfair and an unwelcome pressure on families, children and teachers alike.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) (V)
I commend the approach of minimising and mitigating the risk of the virus. Simultaneously, as well as the educational harm, I recognise the significantly negative health and wellbeing effects for children the longer they are away from school. Will the Secretary of State assure me that within the clear guidelines, headteachers will be afforded maximum flexibility to make this work for each school’s unique circumstances?
Gavin Williamson
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The impact on children is not just educational, from not being in school, but a health and welfare one. He is equally right about the need to ensure that schools have the flexibility to be able to work within the guidelines to make the proposals work for staff and for children.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab) (V)
In the Government guidance for educational and childcare settings, the section on “What the latest science tells us” states that
“children…have less severe symptoms than adults”
and
“are less likely to become unwell if infected with coronavirus”.
Is there is a danger that children might be infected but asymptomatic, in school and posing a serious risk to the health and safety of school staff, other children and their families?
I welcome the Secretary of State’s agreement to publish the scientific advice, but he must have heard loud and clear that heads, teachers, support staff and parents are really worried. How will he win their confidence that it is time for schools to reopen?
Gavin Williamson
At the heart of every step we take on schools returning is the safety and security of those who are in schools, whether it is a child, teacher, teaching assistant or any other support staff. That is why we are doing a phased return. We are ensuring that we take small steps forward and minimise the risk to all those who are attending schools and working within them.
James Cartlidge (South Suffolk) (Con) [V]
I very much welcome my right hon. Friend’s approach. Denmark reopened its primary schools on 15 April, and it has not seen a huge surge in infection. In fact, the country is moving to a new phase where it is reopening restaurants. Is he aware that yesterday, the BBC spoke to Dorte Lange, the vice-president of the Danish Union of Teachers, who was very positive about her country’s experience? Does he agree that our own teaching unions should speak to and engage with their Danish counterparts, to learn from their experience, so that when we get to the beginning of June, we can reopen our schools safely and successfully?
Gavin Williamson
My hon. Friend raises an important point about the international benchmarks that we can look towards. In reaching conclusions on how to bring about a phased return of schools, we looked at how it had been done in countries such as Denmark, the Netherlands and many others. We will see a mirroring of the approach taken in Denmark here in the United Kingdom. That is the right approach, because we have not seen a negative impact as a result of schools starting to return in Denmark. That confirms that our approach is the right approach, and I certainly hope that trade unions in this country will speak to trade unions in Denmark.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
My constituents repeatedly express frustration to me that the UK Government’s press conferences and briefings to the media do not make clear the distinction in policy on this between England and Wales, which is causing confusion and anxiety. Will the Secretary of State make it clear for the UK media and Welsh teachers and parents that the decision to reopen schools is for the Welsh Government, that schools will not reopen in Wales on 1 June and that they rightly will not do so until it is safe for children and teachers?
Gavin Williamson
I very much agree that this is a decision for the Welsh Government.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
How can my right hon. Friend reassure nervous parents and staff that 1 June is not too early for a phased return to school?
Gavin Williamson
We would not have made this decision to do a phased return to school if the scientific and medical advice had not been explicit that this is the right time to do it. We have stated that 1 June is the earliest date. If the situation changes, and if the scientific or medical advice change, obviously we will change the programme of that phased return. But we want to give schools, parents and children the opportunity and time to adjust and get ready to return to school.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister’s recent promise that England’s schools would be covid-secure prompted Chris Whitty, his chief medical officer, to say that there needs to be a “proper debate” about teachers’ safety as schools reopen. When will that proper debate take place, and what steps will be taken to ensure the safety of teachers and their pupils?
Gavin Williamson
We recognised right from the start the importance of ensuring the safety of all those in schools—not just children, but those who are teaching and supporting the education of children. That is why we put forward a whole set of guidance about how to minimise risk by reducing the number of children in classrooms, minimising contact between children and staggering the times that schools open. I would be happy to share our thinking with the Scottish Government, so that when they wish schools to return, they can hopefully benefit from the work we have been doing.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con) [V]
Wycombe and Buckinghamshire enjoy a diverse school system, including grammar schools. What consideration has my right hon. Friend given to the special situation of those grammar schools?
Gavin Williamson
This does present some additional challenges, especially with the consideration of the 11-plus in September. I know that it is a concern of my hon. Friend, and I have received representations from Conservative Members in Kent about their concerns. We will be looking at working with local authorities that have grammar school systems in their areas as to how best we can ensure that children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds are not disadvantaged as they look at taking the 11-plus in future.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab) [V]
We all, including me and my constituents, want our schools to reopen and our children’s education to continue, but Government guidance around the reopening of schools raises more questions than it answers. As a parent of two young children, I can attest to the difficulty of explaining social distancing, let alone getting the kids to practise it, and that is why so many parents fear sending their children to school. Will the Secretary of State revisit the guidance and commit to working with education unions and others to create a working plan for reopening our schools when the science indicates that it is safe to do so, and when doing so has the confidence of all those affected?
Gavin Williamson
We will continue to work with the whole sector to ensure that any changes or modifications that are required, in working with children and teachers in schools, are rapidly adopted. We recognise the importance of creating a safe bubble for children and teachers to operate in, which is why we have put out extensive guidance on how this is done. We have very much worked with Public Health England and the scientific community as to how to approach, in the best possible way, the return of schools, because children benefit from being in schools and they are losing out as a result of not being in schools.
Covid-19: Housing Market
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I call the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who should speak for no more than 10 minutes.
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
Moving home can be a life-changing moment for many among us. For young families spreading their wings after a new arrival, for young people leaving their parents’ home for the first time, or for working people changing towns or cities to start a new job, moving home means planting your roots; laying your foundations. A home is more than four walls and a roof—it is a sanctuary, a form of protection, and a link to your community.
We know that people’s homes are at the heart of their own personal stories, and throughout the course of this emergency, we have, by necessity, put many of those stories on hold, to protect our communities and to save lives. When the essential “Stay at home” message was announced, we changed the rules so that people could move home only if they thought it was “reasonably necessary”. For many people, this has put life on hold, with this most relevant and essential industry in a state of suspended animation. Over 450,000 sales have been stuck in the system, unable to be progressed—not to mention the substantial number of rentals that have not gone ahead. Every month, 300,000 tenancies come up for renewal, a proportion of which result in people moving home. The pressure to move has, for some, become acute, with profound legal, financial and health implications.
We made that decision in order to keep the country safe, but as we move into the next phase of our covid response and embark on our path to reopen, restart and renew the economy, we recognise the need to let people get back to living their lives. That is why today I am announcing a comprehensive, clear, and coherent plan to reopen the housing market and to restart the construction industry. With immediate effect, we are lifting the temporary freeze on home-moving, meaning that, as long as they are not shielding or self-isolating, anyone can move, any time and for any reason.
The industry is broad, and has many moving parts, so we want to be clear: each of the building blocks of the buying and selling process are now back in business, as long as it can be done safely. Here, then, is our plan for the reopening, restarting, and renewing of the housing market and the construction industry: estate agent offices can now reopen, removal companies can get moving again, surveyors, conveyancers and valuers can go back to work, and show homes on sites can reopen.
It is crucial that these changes happen safely and that we continue to tread with caution, to control the virus and to protect the public. This means that as these businesses reopen they will need to adapt their practices—for instance, with virtual viewings where possible and cleaning thoroughly after viewings and when moving. I have published detailed guidance, informed by public health advice, to explain how this can be achieved, building on the existing safer working guidance, with all parties observing hygiene measures and social distancing guidelines.
For each of the other elements that make up the wider construction industry—a sector that employs more than 2 million people—the same applies. If people are self-isolating or have coronavirus, they should of course not be moving or going back to work. All parties involved in home buying and selling should prioritise agreeing amicable arrangements to change move dates for individuals in this group.
This is the most radical restarting of an industry in the first phase of our national recovery road map. It was not an easy decision to make. With few, if any, transactions, there is no visibility and no precedent with which to accurately judge the state of the housing market, but I do know that in every economic recovery in modern British history the housing market has been key, so let me be clear to all who work in the sector, have started a business in it, have invested in it, or rely upon it: I am doing everything I can to help the industry bounce back.
A healthy housing market means more than buying and selling houses; it requires building them too, but covid-19 has had a profound impact on housebuilding, with activity on sites down by around 90% since this time last year. I am delighted to see so many construction companies back at work already, and I am pleased to be supporting their efforts by today announcing the launch of a safe working charter with the Home Builders Federation. Those working on site should feel confident that their essential jobs are also safe jobs.
I am taking further steps to support safe housebuilding by allowing more flexible working hours on construction sites, where appropriate and with local checks and balances. I am allowing sites to apply to extend their working hours, again with immediate effect. Varied start and finish times will make it easier for sites to observe social distancing, will take pressure off public transport, particularly in our core cities, and will keep Britain building.
The planning system, too, must be able to operate safely and efficiently during this time, which means, as with many other sectors, making more use of digital technology. I want the Planning Inspectorate to be at the forefront of this work—it is good to see the inspectorate now undertaking its first virtual hearings. I am asking it to make all hearings virtual within weeks. We are going to get the planning system going again and bring it into the digital age at the same time.
As we look to the future, we must remember that the prospects of Britain’s housing market is key to our economy: when this sector succeeds, we all succeed. This is what shapes our vision for the housing market: more homes, safer homes, homes of higher quality, more beautiful homes, homes of all types and tenures, for all people, rooted in and at the heart of their communities. Today, we reopen, restart and we renew the housing market and the construction industry to protect lives, save jobs and refresh and renew our economy.
Mr Speaker
I welcome Thangam Debbonaire to her new job. She has up to five minutes.
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) (Lab) [V]
Thank you Mr Speaker, and I thank the Secretary of State for an advance copy of his statement.
The Government said that they would do “whatever it takes” to get the country through the covid crisis and protect the most vulnerable. The Opposition want the Government to succeed. Lives, livelihoods and homes are on the line. In a spirit of constructive co-operation, we have scrutinised plans carefully and offered suggestions and challenges when appropriate, to try to help to bring down infections and the numbers of people who are infected or who are tragically dying, and to help people manage financially. Sometimes the Government have heeded our calls, sometimes not. I would like them to consider these.
Today’s announcement provides welcome news for some—and of course we all want new homes to be built —but it leaves more unanswered housing questions, which urgently need Government attention to keep people safe at work and at home, as we do not have community testing, a cure or a vaccine and there are still problems with personal protective equipment. What protection will there be for people who rent, if a landlord or an estate agent wants to show a prospective buyer or new tenant around? What will the Government do to help those trapped by the cladding and leasehold scandals at this time? What discussions have the Government had with the trade unions? There was no mention of that in the statement. What advice do the Government have for anyone who feels that their workplace or construction site is not safe?
This crisis has taught us that if anyone is struggling, we are all affected. The announcement focused on those who want to move home, but it ignored those who are at risk of being forced to do so. The Secretary of State talked about show homes, but not about people with no home. We have shown that when we work together we can virtually eliminate street homelessness in days. There must be no going back, but people in emergency accommodation face that. Will the Government work with councils and homelessness organisations on the issue of how to provide and pay for a “housing first” approach, so that we can end street homelessness for good this year?
The Secretary of State said that he knew that homes were sanctuaries, but there is no plan for what happens when the temporary ban on evictions ends. We need to prevent people from falling into arrears, so will the Government heed Labour’s calls to fill gaps in the financial support schemes? Will he guarantee that the local housing allowance will stay at 30% of market rent? Will he consider raising it further until the crisis eases?
People who are struggling with their rent are worried about what will happen when the ban lifts. The Government say that they are
“working with the Master of the Rolls to widen the existing ‘pre-action protocol’ on possession proceedings for Social Landlords, to include private renters and to strengthen its remit”.
That is not enough, so will the Secretary of State consider Labour’s proposal to halt section 8 evictions on the grounds of arrears caused by the lockdown?
In March, Ministers said that they would provide
“whatever funding is needed for councils to get through this and come out the other side”.
That pledge has been repeated by the Secretary of State. This week, however, he told the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that councils should not
“labour under a false impression”
that all costs would be reimbursed. Which is it? Will the Secretary of State honour his original commitment to councils?
The Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Luke Hall), appeared to require local authorities to provide accommodation for people with no recourse to public funds but without funding, leading to confusion and people being left out. Will the Secretary of State ensure that there is specific funding for housing people with no recourse to public funds?
Councils cannot borrow for revenue spending or run deficits. If they cannot balance the books they have to stop spending. They are currently £10 billion short—a fifth of council spending. They could close every library, leisure centre and children’s centre, turn off all the streetlights, and lock the gates to parks, and they would still be billions of pounds short. They would have to make cuts to social care and public health at this time. Will the Secretary of State ensure that councils are fully recompensed for housing and other costs in this crisis?
Finally, during the crisis we have all become aware of people in overcrowded, unsafe homes, who are unable to self-isolate and worried about the rent. We know how bad it is for mental and physical health when families have no outside space. The Secretary of State says that he wants “more homes, safer homes, and higher quality, more beautiful homes”, but he does not say how he will ensure that they are higher quality, or safe, or beautiful. He could have decided to invest in high-quality, safe, beautiful, socially owned, zero-carbon, truly affordable housing. That would capture the national spirit and turn it into building our future.
Instead, the Government have focused on private house sales and even today asked councils to allow developers to defer section 106, the community infra- structure levy, which is likely to reduce the numbers of new social and affordable homes. Will the Secretary of State please work with the Treasury, housing associations, local authorities and the building industry to invest in high-quality, truly affordable social housing?
Our broken housing system has been brutally exposed. Key workers we applaud each week live in poor housing. They have been left behind too long. We must not go back to business as usual. We must solve the housing crisis for all our heroes and for our country.
Robert Jenrick
I welcome the hon. Lady to her new role and look forward to working with her constructively in the weeks and months ahead. I am pleased that she supports the overwhelming direction of our statement today, and recognises the importance of the housing industry and construction in this country. She asked a number of questions and I will endeavour to answer as many as I can.
On the important question about building safety, I have been clear from the onset of the crisis that that work should continue. That was, in fact, opposed by many on the Opposition Benches, who said it was too risky, but it was the right decision to encourage ACM cladding and other essential building safety works to continue. I am pleased to say that it is now gradually starting to begin again. I welcome Mayors such as the Mayor of London, the Mayor of Greater Manchester and the Mayor of Birmingham coming together to support that in our combined pledge.
On rough sleeping, I pay tribute to everybody who has been involved in the tremendous national effort so far, bringing 90% of the people sleeping rough on our streets at the onset of the crisis into safer accommodation. Now, we are in the next phase of that challenge. I do not underestimate how difficult that will be, protecting those individuals while they remain in that accommodation during the lockdown and then preparing for them to move into more suitable long-term arrangements with the wraparound care that they need and deserve. That will be a true national effort involving charities, councils and businesses across the country.
With respect to renters, today’s announcement is very much about renters. Every month, 300,000 tenancies come up for renewal. Many of those individuals need or want to move house. Today will enable them to do just that and to do it safely, which is the most important consideration.
On the guidance I have published today, it sets out that physical viewings of homes, whether for sale or for rent, can go ahead, but those will need to be done in accordance with social distancing guidelines. In most cases, that will mean that the tenant or the homeowner will not be present in the property. They will be in the garden or will have gone out for their daily exercise. If they are in the home for whatever reason, they will be in a different room and ensuring that they are 2 metres apart from the individuals who are looking around the property. That is the right thing to do.
On the concern about people being evicted from their properties, as the hon. Lady knows we have changed the law to have a moratorium on evictions, so that no possession proceeding can continue. That will go up until June, at which point I, as Secretary of State, have the ability to extend that if we need to. We will be taking that decision very carefully. We will also be proceeding with the pre-action protocol, working with the Master of the Rolls to ensure that that provides an added degree of protection for those individuals. I do not support the Labour proposal, which is to encourage people not to pay rent and to build up potentially unmanageable degrees of debt, so that in six, nine or 12 months’ time, their credit rating would be shredded and they would be in a very difficult financial position. We are developing a much more credible plan to protect renters and to help to shield them through this crisis.
Finally, with respect to councils’ finances, I said we would stand behind councils and give them the funding that they need, and we are doing exactly that. Today, the Prime Minister has announced an extra £600 million, bringing the total investment in our councils to £3.8 billion in just two months.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con) [V]
The Secretary of State is right to talk about people living their lives. Most of the people going to new homes will be going to leasehold ones.
When will he, and we, act to ban the sale of leasehold and pre-sold houses? When can he announce actions for justice for leaseholders and lease renters who are stuck with excessive ground rents?
Can he advise residential landlords and smart developers that the financial games are over, and that the leasehold knowledge campaign and the all-party group on leasehold and commonhold reform are going to make sure that there is justice for leaseholders?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to the Father of the House for that question. I pay tribute, once again, to his campaigning over many years against rip-off practices in the leasehold sector. We are committed to bringing an end to those practices, to legislating to bring ground rents down to a peppercorn, and to ensuring that no new homes are built as leasehold properties except in the most exceptional of circumstances. We will shortly be bringing forward draft legislation for scrutiny. I am pleased that, in general, such practices have reduced enormously as a result of the Government’s firm stance and that of campaigners, including many Members across the House. I want to see that continue.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP) [V]
I, too, thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement—although I think I read most of it in the morning papers. I want to focus on the part announcing a “clear, coherent” plan. This is an issue that many of us have found, whether with his statement or the statement before it on education. The position in Scotland remains unchanged: people should protect the NHS, stay at home and save lives. This Government often announce big decisions without making it clear that they do not apply to people in Scotland. We in Scotland will take the decision about when to lift the lockdown based on science and when it is right to do so, so I would appreciate it if the UK Government would be more explicit in making it clear that this is for England only.
There are elements of this that I am puzzled by, particularly some of the restrictions that are being eased, because we are saying to people that they cannot see both their parents at the same time, but they can welcome two complete strangers into their home. It also does not make sense that kids cannot go out and have a kickabout with their friends in the next garden, but removal men can come into the house, potentially passing on the virus. Those are just two examples of how this does not necessarily stack up. From a messaging point of view, we have gone from saying on Saturday, “Stay at home, protect the NHS, and save lives,” to saying four days later, “You can traipse around any random stranger’s house.” Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to make it clear to people in Scotland that the message remains the same: “You should stay at home, protect the NHS and save lives”?
Robert Jenrick
I made it clear repeatedly in my statement that these arrangements apply to England. The Scottish Government will have to come to their own decision and be held accountable for it. With respect to social distancing, the guidelines are extremely clear, so I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman and others did not purposefully mislead in that respect. Removal men and women, agents and those visiting other people’s homes need to respect the social distancing guidelines, which means staying 2 metres apart and using protective equipment where appropriate, as we set out in the guidance. For residents, that means being out of the home, in the garden or in another room at the time of the viewing, so that they do not come into contact with those visiting the property. That approach has been fully signed off by Public Health England and all the medical and scientific experts.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for today’s welcome announcement that estate agents in Stafford can now reopen and that viewings can resume. Many of my constituents were in the house-buying process when covid-19 hit and will very much welcome this certainty. What steps will be taken to ensure that my constituents can undertake viewings safely and that estate agents can be sure that they are in line with the new Government guidance?
Robert Jenrick
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I am sure that thousands of people in Stafford, and across the country, will have been in a state of limbo and unable to move home. This announcement today will make a big difference to their lives and to the local economy in Staffordshire. With respect to the guidelines, they are clear, as I have already said, that people need to respect social distancing when in others’ properties. We are encouraging virtual viewings, which can be more sophisticated and may come at a cost, or can be as simple as the agent or homeowner producing a video on their smartphone and making it available to anyone interested in the property before they visit. With respect to show homes, we are strongly encouraging people to attend by appointment only to avoid unnecessary speculative visits.
Mr Speaker
We now go over to Sheffield to the Chair of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab) [V]
I welcome much of what the Government have proposed, particularly the help for private tenants. However, we should recognise that many tenants’ rent arrears will grow over time, causing problems not merely for them, but for small private landlords. Will the Secretary of State consider a scheme like the Spanish Government’s, which offers low-interest loans to tenants to help them to pay the rent and the landlords to receive it? As for the market for new housing, if demand for new homes falls, will he consider increasing grants to housing associations and councils so that they can help the construction industry keep going by building more social homes for rent?
Robert Jenrick
With respect to supporting the industry, today is too soon to judge with confidence the state of the housing market because there have been so few transactions in recent weeks. However, we stand ready to work with the industry and to help to guide it through what will undoubtedly be an extremely challenging period. We have announced some measures today—for example, enabling councils to defer CIL and section 106 payments. That does not mean that there will be an impact on social infrastructure or affordable homes in the longer term, but it does mean that small and medium-sized enterprise builders in particular can have a bit of breathing space in the weeks and months ahead, which is a critical lesson learnt from the last downturn in the market.
We are thinking carefully about what more we can do to protect renters. Of course, there are other Government schemes, such as the furlough scheme, which is now paying a proportion of millions of working people’s wages and helping to support them through this difficult period. The moratorium on evictions prevents possession proceedings in court at the present time, but we will need to think carefully about what to do when that comes to an end in June.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend knows that the construction industry is core to our economy’s success. Will he outline what steps the Government are taking to ensure that that important sector has the flexibility that it needs to operate safely and restart?
Robert Jenrick
Across the country, millions of people are employed in the construction industry. It is absolutely essential that we get them back to work, but we have to do so safely. Today’s charter, working with the house builders, will set out ways in which we believe that that can be done. Many of the country’s house builders have been working with us in recent weeks to put in place the protocols and site working practices that will be needed to protect those working people.
Today’s written ministerial statement, extending the work of sites, will also play its part. It will enable sites to stay open during the summer months, potentially to 9 pm in residential areas, and longer than that in areas where there are no neighbouring properties. This is to help the industry to catch up if it wants to and, above all, to help it to put in place the social distancing rules that it will need to operate sites safely and reduce pressure on public transport. I hope that all of us across the country, and our councils, will support that and ensure that it is implemented smoothly.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) [V]
May I press the Secretary of State on the issue of the cliff edge facing many in the privately rented sector? What action will the Government take to avoid mass homelessness as the moratorium on evictions lifts and we emerge from the covid-19 crisis?
Robert Jenrick
As I have already said, we have legislated to have a moratorium on evictions, which comes up for review in June. At that point, the Secretary of State has the power to extend it if necessary. We will take that judgment on the basis of the market at that time and the evidence we see in respect of how many individuals might be coming before the courts with eviction proceedings. We will consider what further steps might be necessary at the time.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. In order to provide the reassurance and clarity that my constituents in West Oxfordshire would like, will he confirm that although people can move whenever they like and removal firms are able to help, the Government do still ask and require that such activity is carried out safely?
Robert Jenrick
It is extremely important that removal firms across the country, many of which are small and medium-sized businesses, get back to work, and we have worked with them to produce guidelines that we believe will enable them to do so safely. We may do more work in the weeks and months ahead to learn from that. These businesses play a critical role in the industry.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
At the beginning of this crisis, the Secretary of State said “Everyone in”, and that he would fund councils to end homelessness. Since then, it has been suggested that that might not apply to those with no recourse to public funds. That is nonsense: the virus could not care less about someone’s migration status. Will the Secretary of State take this opportunity to clarify that when he said everybody he meant absolutely everybody, and that he will be providing funding to make sure this happens?
Robert Jenrick
I am extremely grateful for the work of local councils and charities in places such as Nottingham: they did an amazing job in bringing at least 90% of those individuals who were sleeping rough at the onset of the crisis into safer accommodation. In some parts of the country, the numbers of rough sleepers have now fallen to as low as one, two or three individuals. We believe that the success rate could even be as much as 98% so far, but the challenge is by no means complete and there is more work to do. We have said that the Government’s policy on no recourse to public funds has not changed, but councils do have flexibility, as they know, to support those individuals when there is a risk to life and serious concern. They should behave humanely and compassionately.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con) [V]
I welcome the statement. What advice does the new guidance offer for those following the chief medical officer’s advice to shield in their home?
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend raises a very important point that we cannot emphasise enough today. There will be individuals who are not advised to move home, except in the most unusual circumstances. The people we have asked to shield—those people who have extremely high levels of vulnerability to the virus, as identified by the chief medical officer—should continue to do so. They should stay at home and have as little face-to-face contact as possible. Now would not be the right time for them to move house. If they absolutely have to, they should take medical advice before doing so.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
This morning, I saw the Secretary of State’s social media posts on the easing of restrictions; every comment and reply from members of the public that I saw highlighted contradictions and inconsistencies. On top of that, a shocking YouGov poll found that only 30% of respondents believed that the UK Government’s instructions to stay alert were clear. That suggests that the Government have a major problem with communication. Does the Secretary of State think that the Government’s recent communications have been clear? Will he confirm, yet again, that this easing applies only in England?
Robert Jenrick
This is one of the most comprehensive, coherent and clear plans for any sector of the economy. We have worked with every part of the industry, from the removal companies, estate agents and letting agents to the surveyors, conveyancers and builders—you name it—to put in place the guidance that is needed, and it has all been published today on gov.uk. It has been hugely welcomed by people across the industry and the millions of people in England who want to move house and get on with their lives, as well as the 2.3 million people whose jobs depend on this critical industry.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend was dead right to say in his statement that we need to build homes before we can buy and sell them. What can he do to unlock the market in Hampshire, where a stand-off between Natural England and local authorities over nitrates in the Solent—a subject which the Secretary of State knows about—has had planners, developers, architects and investors tied in knots since long before covid-19? Perversely, it is encouraging greenfield development over brownfield.
Robert Jenrick
My hon. Friend and I have discussed this issue at length on a number of occasions, and he has been assiduous in campaigning to break this deadlock. It is extremely unfortunate that before the coronavirus crisis house building in the Solent area was essentially paused because of the issue he described. I have been working with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and Natural England to bring forward guidelines and to bring the parties together, because too many people’s livelihoods depend on this and we need to move forward. I hope that those guidelines are now available and will ensure that we continue to work with his local council and others to get the industry moving in the Solent area.
Mr Speaker
That’s all for now, folks. I will suspend the House for 15 minutes, until 1.53 pm.
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we start the business today, I should like to make a statement. Before I call the Leader of the House, I want to make some points that arise from the announcement last night about the likely duration of hybrid proceedings. My priority, and the priority of all I am sure, is to ensure that those on the estate are safe while business is facilitated. I am working with the parties and the Commission to ensure that this duty of care is taken seriously. Nothing in the announcement of the Leader of the House changes the position on social distancing in and around the Chamber and throughout the parliamentary estate—I think that we are all agreed that only changes to the guidance from Public Health England can actually do that. I may suspend sittings between items of business to allow safe access to, and exit from, the Chamber. I am also quite prepared to suspend a sitting if I believe that the safe number of hon. Members in the Chamber risks being exceeded. If physical Divisions replace remote Divisions, they will take much longer than usual—probably around 30 minutes and possibly up to an hour—to ensure that social distancing can be observed. Business is now resumed. Business Timings Remote division designation Business statement Up to 20 minutes None Agriculture Bill: Consideration Up to one hour and 55 minutes; suspension; up to one hour and 15 minutes from the resumption following the suspension Remote division Agriculture Bill: Third Reading Up to two hours and 15 minutes from the resumption following the suspension Remote division Committee on Standards No debate None Committee of Privileges No debate None
Business of the House (13 May)
Motion made,
That—
The following arrangements shall apply to today’s business:
At the conclusion of proceedings on Consideration of the Agriculture Bill the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to bring those proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with Standing Order No. 83E (Programme orders: conclusion of proceedings on consideration and up to and including third reading).
At the conclusion of the time allocated to the debate on the Third Reading of the Agriculture Bill the Speaker shall put the Question, That the Bill be now read the third time.—(James Morris.)
The Speaker declared the Question to be agreed to (Order (4), 22 April).
Business of the House
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees- Mogg)
Thank you for your statement, Mr Speaker. It is obviously important that the House maintains social distancing in accordance with the guidelines.
The business for the week commencing 18 May will include:
Monday 18 May—Second Reading of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill.
Tuesday 19 May—Motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Human Tissue (Permitted Material: Exceptions) (England) Regulations 2020, followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Victims and Witnesses (Scotland) Act 2014 (Consequential Modification) Order 2020, followed by motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Finance Bill.
Wednesday 20 May—Second Reading of the Trade Bill, followed by motion relating to the membership of the Liaison Committee.
Thursday 21 May—The House will not be sitting.
Friday 22 May—The House will not be sitting.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for next week’s business and you, Mr Speaker, for your statement. I must admit I was alarmed to hear the Leader of the House say yesterday that Parliament was going to return physically. He said yesterday that we could not ask people to return if we did not also return, but he fails to understand that we are working—we continue to work. Our casework has increased massively. We might not be in the Chamber but we are still dealing with our constituents, as we always are when we are not here.
The House must lead the way in protecting the health and wellbeing of everyone who works in Parliament by following public health advice to the letter. House staff have done an incredible job, as the Leader of the House knows, setting up a hybrid virtual Parliament that ensures scrutiny of the Government while limiting the number of staff and Members who have to be physically present on the estate. Can he please explain why Parliament would contradict the Government’s own health advice by returning to business as usual in early June and allowing only physical attendance, and contradict the Government’s advice that those who can work from home should do so?
Will the Leader of the House confirm what assessment has been done to ensure that Parliament’s move to physical-only attendance can be done in a way that fully complies with social distancing guidelines? What advice has he received from Public Health England? Will he share it with all the parties? Has it been discussed with you, Mr Speaker, the House authorities and the usual channels? Will he confirm that all the business next week will make use of the hybrid virtual Parliament?
Is this a preview of the Government’s future policy? If so, as a matter of urgency, can the Leader of the House arrange for the Government to make a full statement on Monday on their guidance for society as a whole for returning to work safely? He will know that probably one of the best things to do is to ask each workplace to undertake a risk assessment so that staff and employees come back in a phased return.
Let us remind ourselves that no one asked to stay at home. It is what the Government asked us to do in response to a pandemic, and everyone has listened and understood the message, which is why people must be kept safe. I am sorry to say that the Leader of the House has further confused the message: “stay at home”, “stay alert”—to what? —“work from home”, “come to work”, “come in on Monday”, “come in on Wednesday”. It’s like a Commons hokey-cokey. We can all pull together but only if the Government provide us with answers and do not contradict their own advice.
I am sure the Leader of the House will ensure there is a statement from the Health Secretary on testing in care homes, given that the number of deaths has now risen to over 40,000. It seems that no one knows whether the Department of Health and Social Care, the Care Quality Commission or Public Health England is in charge of testing. Who is in charge of testing? Test, trace and isolate—we need to get the first bit right. Some of my constituents have said they have not even got their test results after eight to nine weeks. Can we have an urgent statement on the crisis in testing and care homes?
Our councils have done what they have been asked to do to protect local communities, yet we hear from the Treasury that they may have to make further cuts—that the Treasury is not going to bail them out any more—but councils have been asked to keep their communities safe, so please can we have a statement to ensure they will not be financially penalised if they have done what they have been asked to do?
The Leader of the House has mentioned the Liaison Committee motion, which is up for debate next week. It seems that there is no compliance with equal opportunities. Are the Government really saying that only men we want can apply? Of the paid Committee Chairs, 26 are men, seven are women and none are from a black or ethnic minority background. Why do we not just let the Chairs of Committees decide, as they have always done?
At Foreign Office questions, there was no update on Nazanin, Anoush and Kylie—who is mentally in a difficult place. They need clemency, and it is International Day of Living Together in Peace on Saturday, so could we have an update?
Finally, I too want to thank our brilliant nurses—it was their day yesterday—many from around the world and some of whom have lost their lives looking after us. Some 70% of nurses who have died were from the BME community, as were 94% of doctors who have died. I hope the Government review will report soon. We send our heartfelt thanks to their families: they gave their lives for us.
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I completely concur with the right hon. Lady in what she says about those who are working for us and who have lost their lives during this terrible outbreak of the coronavirus, and the public service that is given by so many so courageously in going about their daily work?
I want to answer what the right hon. Lady says about Parliament, because what she says is important and fundamental to us as a democracy. The Government’s advice is clear: work from home if you can. As you have made clear, Mr Speaker, many members of the House staff will be able to continue to work from home, even with the House of Commons operating in physical form. Indeed, very few additional Clerks will need to be present on the premises, Members’ staff will be able to continue to work from home, and the overwhelming majority of the House community will be able to continue to work from home—the exception being Members of Parliament themselves. Why is that? It is because the Government’s advice is that if you need to go to work, you must go to work.
We see in this Parliament—in this House today—the ineffectiveness of scrutiny in comparison to when the House is operating in the normal way. We have no flexibility of questions. The questions are all listed in advance, with no ability for people to bob, to come in and to join in the debate; no cross-cutting of debate; and no ability to advance arguments or take them forward. We simply have a series of prepared statements made one after another. That is not the House of Commons doing its proper duty and playing its proper role of scrutiny of the Government.
Then there is the other side of it: where are the Bill Committees? How are Bills progressing? What is happening to the legislative agenda that the Government were elected on in December? Or do we just ignore our constituents, ignore the voters and not get on with a proper democratic parliamentary system? The idea that our democratic system is not an essential one—is not the lifeblood of our nation and is not how the Government are held to account at a time of crisis—is one that is surprising. It is extraordinary that it should be held by Opposition Members; that they should not wish to be here, challenging the Government and holding them to account; and that they wish to hide behind a veneer of virtual Parliament, so that legislation is not progressed with. We have heard it from the Scottish shadow spokesman, when he says that a virtual Parliament is a second-rate Parliament. He wants us all to be second rate, whereas I want us all to be first rate—to get back to being a proper Parliament because democracy is essential. What we do is essential. Holding the Government to account is essential and delivering on manifesto promises is also essential, and that is what I hope we shall be able to do after we come back from the Whitsun recess, in line with what is happening in other parts of the country.
The intention is for schools to go back: how can we say to our schoolchildren, “You’re safe going back”—some of them—but we are not? How can we hide away while schoolchildren are going back? Is that the right message to give to our constituents? Are we a people set apart, a special class who are exempt from what the rest of the country is doing? No, we are not. We are the leaders of our nation, and we have a responsibility. That responsibility falls on us to come back, but we can observe social distancing. We can look at the Chamber as it is set out. We can look at the Division Lobbies that have been arranged by you, Mr Speaker, to make sure that the Clerks are safe and that Members are safe. That is the right way for us to proceed, so that there is proper democratic scrutiny and legislation may be brought forward in accordance with the mandate that the British people gave us. Stay at home, work from home if you can. We in reality cannot and that is why we ought to be coming back.
Let me move on to some of the other points made by the right hon. Lady, in particular the situation of Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, which is a matter of concern to the whole House. I assure her that the Government are in contact with Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe and her family and will continue to make decisions in line with what we believe will produce the best outcomes. Without providing every detail of what the consular authorities are doing, obviously, Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe’s temporary release is a welcome step, but we remain extremely concerned about her welfare and that of all our dual nationals detained in Iran. We continue to raise all their cases at the most senior levels. We will continue to urge Iran to ensure that Mrs Zaghari-Ratcliffe receives any necessary medical care and that her treatment so far has clearly been unacceptable, including the lack of due process in the proceedings against her. It is important that Iran is held to account, and we urge the Iranian authorities to release her and allow her to come home.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con) [V]
Can we have a general debate on tourism and the movement of people? Due to the changes in guidance on unlimited travel to take exercise and enjoy open spaces, residents—particularly in tourism hotspots, where there are limited facilities open—have valid concerns about putting additional pressure on facilities and local hospitals. Like many MPs, I have had communications from constituents who are concerned about public health and putting their health at risk. I believe we need to revisit our distancing measures to ascertain how far people should be able to travel to take exercise and enjoy open public spaces. Can we have a debate on that issue, to ensure that we get some clarity?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I absolutely understand the vital role that the tourism industry plays in my hon. Friend’s particularly attractive constituency and his concerns that many people will want to go there. The Government’s guidance on second homes remains clear. Restrictions on travelling to exercise have eased, but it is not permitted to travel to a second home or to remain overnight in a holiday destination. As we ease restrictions, everyone must continue to follow the rules. As the recently published Command Paper states, the Government will announce easing measures for different parts of the country in line with the scientific advice. The Government’s objective is to return to our way of life as soon as possible, but it is vital that we do not waste the sacrifices that have already been made, and I understand why that is a particular concern to my hon. Friend.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
I should first make it clear that yesterday, when I questioned the wisdom of going ahead with next week’s recess, I was in no way suggesting that the staff of the House should not get the leave to which they are entitled. I was simply wondering whether, given the current emergency, it might be possible to do that without closing the business of the Chamber completely. If we are to go ahead with the recess, I would seek an assurance from the Leader of the House that there will be no dramatic changes in Government policy while the House is unable to question Ministers, and that if such a change is required, the House will be recalled to consider it.
The Leader of the House is extolling the fantasy that on 2 June, we can go back to the way things were without special procedures being in place. If he genuinely believes that, I have some specific questions. How can 650 Members of Parliament possibly work safely in a building of this size and lay-out? What should happen to those who are shielding and have received a letter from the chief medical officer? What should happen to Members who belong to one of the identified vulnerable groups? What procedures will apply in the light of a Member becoming symptomatic or being diagnosed as having the virus as a result of returning to this place? Should Members in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland ignore the advice of their respective Governments to work from home?
In my view, to try to force Members to return to this Parliament in person without those questions being answered is unbelievably reckless, and it will place Members, staff and the wider public at risk. It will also disenfranchise many. I asked the Leader of the House some weeks ago what exactly requires the physical presence of MPs in the Chamber and what aspects of our job cannot be done remotely. I have yet to receive an answer. Is it therefore the case that his decisions are motivated not by necessity but by personal preference?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Yesterday, as the hon. Gentleman crackled through the ether, he was hard to hear, and it was hard to be clear what he was saying. His complaint was that we in the Chamber had an unfair advantage over those who were remote. Today, it is unfair that we should be here in person at all, because we should all be as disadvantaged as he is by being here remotely. That is explanation in itself of why we need to come back: the Chamber does not operate properly when it is done on a remote basis.
On the numbers, the hon. Gentleman suggests that the acres of space at the Palace of Westminster are not large enough for 10%, if not less, of the people who work here on a daily basis. The Chamber is marked out for social distancing. We can get 50 people into this Chamber, which, it has to be said, is often as many as are here for an ordinary debate. It is only on high days and holidays and Prime Minister’s questions that the Chamber is bursting at the seams.
As you so rightly said in your statement, Mr Speaker, there is no change to the social distancing advice. There is no change to the advice to Members’ staff to continue to work from home. The numbers coming into this estate are a fraction of what they normally are, because we have no tours, we have no commercial banqueting and we do not have the thousands—sometimes, tens of thousands—of people who come in every day. We are just requiring MPs to do their job, because, as the hon. Gentleman eloquently pointed out in his electronic communication, their job cannot be done properly from a remote distance.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
The Backbench Business Committee has a number of outstanding older applications, but we also have significant demand for debates in Backbench business time on many different aspects of the Government’s response to the covid-19 pandemic. However, Members will want to hold those debates in an environment that is safe for House staff, their own necessary staff and themselves, with the logistics of getting there from all points of the compass safely and efficiently having been considered in a comprehensive and safety-conscious way.
The R rate—the reinfection rate—nationally is between 0.5 and 0.9. However, here in Gateshead, it is between 0.8 and 1.1, so we are not out of the woods. Verified cases per 100,000 in Gateshead are 478.5 per 100,000; in the right hon. Member’s constituency, they are less than a third of that. We are all in very different situations. We want to come back—but when it is safe to do so.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am always grateful to the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, and I understand it is difficult for his Committee at the moment, with no time available for his debates. However, the Standing Orders do provide a certain number of days each Session, and over the fullness of the Session the Government will obviously look to provide those.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly says, there are differences across the country, and that is why the Government are looking to have regional alterations, as necessary, to ensure that everybody is protected and kept safe. However, that requires people to follow the Government’s guidance and to remain alert.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I congratulate the Leader of the House on his speech at the beginning, which he would undoubtedly have made from the Back Benches and not just from the Front Benches. We do need to be back in this House, because we cannot do the job remotely. I cannot complain about the Government not communicating properly, because it is not possible when I am working virtually. Could the Leader of the House therefore ensure that we get back as physically as possible as soon as possible, and could we have a written statement next week? And one other thing: will the Leader of the House confirm that, in future, all new Government policy will be announced in this House first?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I said yesterday—carefully—that I did not expect to bring forward further virtual Parliament motions. It is important not to forget the word “expect”, because things could change. However, the current expectation is that we will be back physically after the Whitsun recess. I note my hon. Friend’s point on Government statements, which is, of course, in full accord with the ministerial code.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP) [V]
Thanks to you and all your staff, Mr Speaker, for what you do to make these sittings happen.
May I ask the Leader of the House to outline the proceedings on the Northern Ireland abortion legislation, which was pulled from the schedule for debate this week? Ever mindful of the legal opinion of the Attorney General for Northern Ireland, will he further undertake to press the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to allow the legislation to be debated in its proper home and proper place—the existing, functioning Northern Ireland Assembly?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He knows that we had to make the changes to the business this week because of the interest in the covid-19 debate. But he is also aware that there is a legal requirement to bring these regulations forward and have them debated. That is of course not a legal requirement for them to be passed by the House, which would be a different matter, and the House cannot be bound in that regard. The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was in the Chamber earlier. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to raise his questions with him directly, because what happens between this House and Stormont is going to be more a matter for him than for me.
Agriculture Bill
Wednesday 13th May 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 May 2020 - large font accessible version - (13 May 2020)
Mr Speaker
We now come to the remaining stages of the Agriculture Bill, designated for remote Divisions. My provisional determination is that remote Divisions will take place on any new clauses relating to agricultural imports on which a decision is called for, new clause 7, amendment 39 and Third Reading, and that the Question that Government amendments 20 to 22 be made will not be subject to a remote Division.
New Clause 1
Import of agricultural goods after IP completion day
“(1) After IP completion day, agricultural goods imported under a free trade agreement may be imported into the UK only if the standards to which those goods were produced were as high as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied under UK law relating to—
(a) animal welfare,
(b) protection of the environment,
(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and
(d) plant health.
(2) The Secretary of State must prepare a register of UK production standards, to be updated annually, to which goods imported under subsection (1) would have to adhere.
(3) ‘Agricultural goods’ for the purposes of this section, mean—
(a) any livestock within the meaning of section 1(5),
(b) any plants or seeds, within the meaning of section 22(6),
(c) any product derived from livestock, plants or seeds.
(4) ‘IP completion day’ has the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.”—(Simon Hoare.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—International trade agreements: agricultural and food products—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 that contains provisions relating to the importation of agricultural and food products into the UK unless they have first made a statement confirming that—
(a) the agreement contains an affirmation of the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under the World Trade Organisation Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, and
(b) any agricultural or food product imported into the UK under the agreement will have been produced or processed according to standards which are equivalent to, or which exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to—
(i) animal health and welfare,
(ii) plant health, and
(iii) environmental protection.
(2) A statement under subsection (1) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
(3) Before the first statement under subsection (1) may be made, the Secretary of State must by regulations specify—
(a) the process by which the Secretary of State will determine—
(i) that the standards to which any agricultural or food product imported into the UK under a trade agreement is produced or processed are equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to animal health and welfare, plant health and environmental protection, and
(ii) that the enforcement of standards in relation to any product under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i) is at least as effective as the enforcement of the equivalent domestic standards and regulations in the UK;
(b) the “relevant domestic standards and regulations” for the purposes of subsections (1)(b) and (3)(a)(i).
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending any regulations made under subsection (3).
(5) Regulations under subsection (3) or (4) shall be made under the affirmative procedure.
(6) In this section—
“international trade agreement” means—
(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—
(i) paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(ii) paragraph 7(a) of Article V of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, part of Annex 1B to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii);
“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
“World Trade Organisation Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement” means the agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time);
“WTO Agreement” means the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994.”
New clause 3—Groceries Code Adjudicator—
“The Adjudicator established by the Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013 shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with Part 3 of this Act.”
New clause 4—Agriculture: duty to promote exports—
“(1) The Secretary of State must take steps to increase opportunities for any person carrying on agriculture to export an agricultural product.
(2) Steps under subsection (1) may include measures to seek to secure the lifting of any—
(a) ban on export of an agricultural product,
(b) tariff or other form of barrier to trade,
(c) excessive regulation, or
(d) controls at national borders, local content rules or other barrier to entry for an agricultural product.
(3) The Secretary of State must, no later than twelve months after Royal Assent has been given to this Act, lay before each House of Parliament a report setting out measures taken under subsection (2) and the impact of such measures.
(4) The Secretary of State must within twelve months of laying a report under subsection (3), and once every calendar year thereafter, lay a report setting out measures taken under subsection (2), and the impact of such measures, in the period since the previous such report was laid.
(5) In this section—
“agricultural product” shall mean anything produced in the course of carrying on agriculture, and
“agriculture” shall have the meaning given in section 22(6) of this Act.”
New clause 5—Application of pesticides: limitation on use to protect human health—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for prohibiting the application of any pesticide for the purpose of agriculture near—
(a) any building used for habitation,
(b) any building or open space used for work or recreation, or
(c) any public or private building where members of the public may be present including, but not limited to, schools, nurseries, and hospitals.
(2) Regulations under this section may specify a minimum distance to be maintained during the application of any pesticide between the place of application and any place under subsection (1)(a) to (c).
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“agriculture” has the meaning given in section 15(6), and
“public building” includes any building used for the purposes of education.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would have the effect of protecting members of the public from hazardous health impacts arising from the application of chemical pesticides near buildings and spaces used by the public.
New clause 6—Import of agricultural goods after IP completion day (No. 2)—
“(1) After IP completion day, agricultural goods imported under a free trade agreement may be imported into the UK only if the standards to which those goods were produced were as high as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied under UK law relating to—
(a) animal health and welfare,
(b) protection of the environment,
(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and
(d) plant health.
(2) The Secretary of State must prepare a register of standards under UK law relating to—
(a) animal health and welfare,
(b) protection of the environment,
(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and
(d) plant health which must be met in the course of production of any imported agricultural goods.
(3) A register under subsection (2) must be updated within seven days of any amendment to any standard listed in the register.
(4) “Agricultural goods”, for the purposes of this section, means anything produced by a producer operating in one or more agricultural sectors listed in Schedule 1.
(5) “IP completion day” has the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.”
This new clause would set a requirement for imported agricultural goods to meet animal health and welfare, environmental, plant health, food safety and other standards which are at least as high as those which apply to UK produced agricultural goods.
New clause 7—Coronavirus emergency food plan—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of Royal Assent being given to this Act, prepare and lay before Parliament a document (a “coronavirus emergency food plan”) setting out measures to address the impact of coronavirus and coronavirus disease, and action taken in response, upon the supply of food.
(2) The coronavirus emergency food plan must assess and address—
(a) the matters listed in section 17(2);
(b) the following matters—
(i) the incidence of hunger, malnutrition and food poverty measured (a) nationally and (b) by local authority area;
(ii) the level of demand for emergency food aid and the adequacy of services to meet that demand;
(iii) the availability, distribution and affordability of nutritious and healthy food;
(iv) the ease of access to nutritious and healthy food across different socio-economic groups and communities;
(v) the functioning of the food supply chain, including stock levels of individual food items and any cross-border issues impacting upon the import and export of food; and
(vi) the level of any financial assistance provided by a public authority to farmers, growers and the fishing and fish processing sectors as a result of coronavirus or coronavirus disease.
(3) The plan may take account of information provided in response to a requirement under section 25 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (power to require information relating to food supply chains), subject to the restrictions on the use and disclosure of information set out in section 27 of that Act (restrictions on use and disclosure of information).
(4) In this section—
“coronavirus” means severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2;
“coronavirus disease” means COVID-19 (the official designation of the disease which can be caused by coronavirus);
“financial assistance” means assistance provided by way of grant, loan, guarantee or indemnity, and any other kind of financial assistance (actual or contingent).”
Member’s explanatory statement This new clause would require the Secretary of State lay before Parliament a coronavirus emergency food plan, within six months of Royal Assent.
New clause 8—Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity—
“(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to establish a regulatory framework relating to agricultural and horticultural activity for or in connection with the following purposes—
(a) the management of land or water in a way that protects or improves the environment;
(b) supporting agriculture and horticulture businesses in enabling public access to healthy food that is farmed in an environmentally sustainable way, including food produced through whole farm agroecological systems;
(c) public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland or woodland and better understanding of the environment;
(d) the management of land or water in a way that maintains, restores or enhances cultural or natural heritage;
(e) improving public health;
(f) the management of land, water or livestock in a way that mitigates or adapts to climate change;
(g) the management of land or water in a way that prevents, reduces or protects from environmental hazards;
(h) the protection or improvement of the health or welfare of livestock;
(i) the conservation of native livestock, native equines or genetic resources relating to any such animal;
(j) the protection or improvement of the health of plants;
(k) the conservation of plants grown or used in carrying on an agricultural, horticultural or forestry activity, their wild relatives or genetic resources relating to any such plant; and
(l) the protection or improvement of the quality of soil.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision about the standards to which activity for or in connection with all of the purposes in subsection (1) must conform.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may include provision about enforcement, which may (among other things) include provision—
(a) about the provision of information;
(b) conferring powers of entry;
(c) conferring powers of inspection, search and seizure;
(d) about the keeping of records;
(e) imposing monetary penalties;
(f) creating summary offences punishable with a fine (or a fine not exceeding an amount specified in the regulations, which must not exceed level 4 on the standard scale);
(g) about appeals;
(h) conferring functions (including functions involving the exercise of a discretion) on a person.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 30.
New clause 9—Duration of provision in relation to Northern Ireland—
“(1) Section 45 and Schedule 6 expire at the end of 2026.
(2) Regulations made under paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 6 (power to modify retained direct EU legislation relating to public market intervention and private storage aid) cease to have effect at the end of 2026 (so that any amendment made by them ceases to have effect and any enactment repealed by them is revived). But see subsections (4) and (5) for saving provision.
(3) Otherwise, subsection (1) does not affect the continuation in force or effect of any regulations made, or other thing done, by virtue of Schedule 6 before the end of 2026.
(4) Despite subsections (1) and (2), paragraph 7 of Schedule 6, and regulations made under paragraph 8(1) of that Schedule, continue to have effect in relation to any period which ends after the end of 2026 and for which DAERA is giving, or has agreed to give, financial assistance under paragraph 7 of Schedule 6.
(5) Subsection (2) does not affect the lawfulness of anything done in accordance with retained direct EU legislation as modified by regulations made under paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 6 before those regulations cease to have effect.
(6) DAERA may by regulations make transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with this section.
(7) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (6) includes provision modifying primary legislation, retained direct EU legislation or subordinate legislation.
(8) Regulations under this section which contain provision modifying primary legislation (with or without other provision) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.
(9) Other regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution procedure.”
This new clause is designed to introduce a sunset clause so that provisions relating to Northern Ireland are timebound, whilst allowing suitable time for the for the development of bespoke legislation within the next Assembly term and taking into account disruptions in future planning as a result of the Covid19 crisis.
New clause 10—International trade agreements covering agricultural goods: standards and approval—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unless the agreement meets the conditions in subsections (2) and (3).
(2) The condition in this subsection is that the agreement prohibits the importation into the United Kingdom of any agricultural product unless the standards to which that product was produced were as high as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied under UK law relating to—
(a) animal welfare,
(b) protection of the environment,
(c) employment rights, and
(d) food safety.
(3) The condition in this subsection is that—
(a) upon conclusion of the negotiations on the agreement, the text of any element of the agreement which concerns trade in agricultural products has been laid before Parliament,
(b) the House of Commons has approved by resolution a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown which approves the text of any element which concerns trade in agricultural products, and
(c) the House of Lords has debated a motion in the same terms as that approved by the House of Commons.
(4) A motion under subsection (3)(b) shall be framed in terms which permit amendment.
(5) For the purposes of this section—
“agriculture product” shall mean any product which falls within an agricultural sector listed in Schedule 1 or which is derived from any such product,
“international trade agreement” means—
(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—
(i) paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, part of Annex 1A to the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994 (the WTO Agreement) (as modified from time to time), or
(ii) paragraph 7(a) of Article V of the General Agreement on Trade in Services, part of Annex 1B to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii);
“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975.”
New clause 11—Mandatory labelling of animal products as to farming method—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations requiring meat, meat products, milk, milk products and egg products (including those produced intensively indoors) to be labelled as to the method of farming.
(2) The labelling required under subsection (1) shall be placed on the front outer surface of the packaging and shall be in easily visible and clearly legible type.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) shall (among other things) lay down—
(a) the labelling term to be used for each product;
(b) the conditions that must be met for the use of each labelling term.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may exclude from the labelling requirement products containing meat, meat products, milk, milk products or egg products where the total proportion by weight of one or more of these items in the product is less than fifteen percent.
(5) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make labelling regulations that require meat, meat products, milk and milk products, and egg products, including those which have been produced intensively, to be labelled as to farming method. Eggs are not included as legislation already requires eggs to be labelled as to farming method.
New clause 12—International trade agreements: agricultural and food products (No. 2)—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unless the agreement—
(a) includes an affirmation of the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement, and
(b) prohibits the importation into the United Kingdom of agricultural and food products in relation to which the relevant standards are lower than the relevant standards in the United Kingdom.
(2) In subsection (1)—
“international trade agreement” means—
(a) an agreement that is or was notifiable under—
(i) paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(ii) paragraph 7(a) of Article V of General Agreement on Trade in Services, part of Annex 1B to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in subparagraph (i) or (ii);
“Minister of the Crown” has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
“relevant standards” means standards relating to environmental protection, plant health and animal welfare applying in connection with the production of agricultural and food products;
“SPS Agreement” means the agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time);
“WTO Agreement” means the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994.”
New clause 14—Carbon emissions: net-zero and interim targets—
“(1) When considering the provision of financial assistance under sections 1(1) and 1(2) of this Act, the Secretary of State shall ensure that the likely impact of that funding is compatible with the achievement of any emissions reduction target set out in subsection (2) or (3).
(2) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to—
(a) set an emissions reduction target for the net UK carbon account for agriculture and related land use for the year 2050 which is at least 100% lower than the 1990 baseline, and
(b) ensure that the target is met.
(3) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, publish interim emissions reductions targets for agriculture and related land use that align with budgetary periods as they relate to carbon budgets.
(4) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to ensure that the net UK carbon account for agriculture and related land use for a budgetary period does not exceed any interim emissions reduction target published under subsection (3).
(5) The Secretary of State must, within twelve months of this Bill receiving Royal Assent, publish a statement of the policies to be delivered in order to meet the interim emissions reduction targets published under subsection (3).
(6) In this section—
(a) “net UK carbon account” shall have the meaning given in section 27 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(b) “budgetary periods” and “carbon budgets” shall have the meaning given in section 4 of the Climate Change Act 2008.”
This new clause would set a target of net-zero green-house gas emissions for agriculture and related land use in the UK by 2050 at the latest. It would place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish interim emissions reduction targets – and policy proposals to ensure those targets are met.
Amendment 26, in clause 1, page 2, line 9, at end insert—
“(aa) supporting agriculture and horticulture businesses in enabling public access to healthy food that is farmed in an environmentally sustainable way, including food produced through whole farm agroecological systems.”
This amendment would add to the purposes for which financial assistance can be given that of ensuring access to healthy food produced sustainably including through whole farm agroecological systems.
Amendment 27, page 2, line 13, at end insert—
“(ca) improving public health;”
This amendment would add “improving public health” to the list of purposes for financial assistance given under clause 1, with ‘improving public health’ defined in Amendment 29.
Amendment 3, page 2, leave out lines 19 and 20 and insert—
“(g) protecting or improving the management of landscapes and biodiversity through pasture-fed grazing livestock systems including the conservation of native livestock, native equines or genetic resources relating to any such animal;”
Amendment 2, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(k) protecting or improving the health, well-being and food security of citizens.”
Amendment 18, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(k) establishing and maintaining whole farm agroecological systems.”
Amendment 36, page 2, line 25, at end insert—
“(k) supporting upland landscapes and communities.”
Amendment 28, page 3, line 6, at end insert—
“‘environmentally sustainable way’ means in a way which employs factors and practices that contribute to the quality of environment on a long-term basis and avoids the depletion of natural resources.”
This amendment defines “environmentally sustainable way” for the purposes of clause 1(4) and Amendment 26.
Amendment 29, page 3, line 12, at end insert—
“‘improving public health’ includes—
(a) increasing the availability, affordability, diversity, quality and marketing of fruit, vegetables and pulses,
(b) reducing farm antibiotic and related veterinary product use, and antibiotic resistance in harmful micro-organisms, through improved animal health and welfare,
(c) providing support for farmers to diversify out of domestic production of foods where there may be reduced demand due to public concerns over issues such as health, environment, and animal welfare, and
(d) reducing harm from use of chemicals on farms, and reducing pesticide residues in food;”
See explanatory statement for Amendment 27.
Amendment 19, page 3, line 17, at end insert—
“‘whole farm agroecological systems’ include any whole enterprise system for farming or land management which is designed to produce food or fuel while delivering environmental and social benefits, and may include organic farming.”
Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 3, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) In every case such conditions shall include the following restrictions to the eligibility of a recipient of financial assistance—
(a) financial assistance may only be made to individuals or groups of individuals, natural or otherwise, operating land where the predominant use is agricultural as defined by section 96(1) of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; and
(b) financial assistance may only be made available to individuals or groups of individuals, natural or otherwise, who are—
(i) in occupation of or with rights of common over the land for which the financial assistance is being claimed;
(ii) taking the entrepreneurial risk for the decisions made in relation to the management of the land for which the financial assistance is being claimed; and
(iii) in day-to-day management control of the land for which the financial assistance has been claimed.”
Amendment 30, page 3, line 27, at end insert—
“(2A) Financial assistance may not be given to any person who is not compliant with standards set out in regulations made by the Secretary of State under section [Duty and regulations governing agricultural and horticultural activity].”
This amendment and NC8 provide a duty for the Secretary of State to set baseline regulatory standards governing agricultural and horticultural activity, which must be met by any recipient of financial assistance.
Amendment 17, page 3, line 33, at end insert—
“(4A) Financial assistance may only be given for or in connection with a purpose under section 1(1) or (2) if the owner of the relevant land takes the action described in subsection (4B).
(4B) The action is that the owner of the relevant land will not restrict access for any person on any inland waterway or lake which forms part of that land for the purposes of open-air recreation, if and so long as the person—
(a) exercises that right of access responsibly, and
(b) observes any restrictions which are imposed in—
(i) section 2 of,
(ii) Schedule 2 to, or
(iii) Chapter II of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
(4C) A person does not exercise a right of access responsibly if their conduct while exercising that right is not in accord with the provisions of any code of conduct issued under section 20 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
(4D) For the purposes of subsections (4A) and (4B), “relevant land” means land which includes the land or premises on which the activity for which financial assistance is given under section 1(1) or (2) of this Act takes place or is to take place and includes any inland waterway or lake.”
Amendment 42, in clause 3, page 4, line 18, at end insert—
“(e) development of a target or targets for the uptake of Integrated Pest Management based upon agroecological farming practices, including organic farming, and a robust system for monitoring progress towards such targets.”
This new amendment would enable the Secretary of State to set and monitor progress towards targets for the uptake of Integrated Pest Management based on agroecological farming practises, including for organic farming, in order to ensure that financial assistance granted under the Agriculture Bill is meeting its objectives in terms of environmental outcomes.
Amendment 5, in clause 4, page 5, line 14, at end insert—
“(d) set out the budgeted annual expenditure to be used to achieve each of the aforementioned strategic priorities for the plan period.”
Amendment 6, in clause 8, page 7, line 40, leave out “2021” and insert “2022”.
Amendment 1, in clause 16, page 12, line 42, at end insert—
“(ba) making provision for future contributions to existing rural socioeconomic schemes;”
This amendment would safeguard the availability of financial provisions to continue the socioeconomic programmes under Rural Development Programmes in the event of delays in the introduction of the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.
Amendment 23, in clause 17, page 14, line 20, leave out “five years” and insert “year”.
This amendment would make the Secretary of State’s report on food security annual instead of five-yearly.
Amendment 24, page 14, line 27, at end insert—
“(ba) food poverty and progress towards achievement of the UN Sustainable Development Goal on hunger, malnutrition and food poverty (SDG 2);”
This amendment would add food poverty and progress towards the achievement of UN Sustainable Development Goal 2 to the matters to be covered by the report.
Amendment 25, page 14, line 32, at end insert—
“(f) food insecurity.
(3) For the purposes of this section “food insecurity” means a person’s state in which consistent access to adequate food is limited by a lack of money and other resources at times during the year.
(4) Before laying a report under subsection (1) the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers, the relevant Northern Ireland department, and such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and
(b) have due regard to international best practice on food insecurity, including but not limited to the United States Household Food Security Survey.
(5) A report under subsection (1) must include—
(a) an assessment of trends in food insecurity, broken down by different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England, and
(b) a summary of actions to be taken in areas of high food insecurity by the UK Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government or the Northern Ireland Executive.
(6) In this section—
“parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland;
“regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”
This amendment would add food insecurity to the matters to be covered by the report.
Amendment 7, page 14, line 32, at end insert—
“(3) As part of the report, the Secretary of State must set out food security targets and specify and implement any actions required to ensure that those targets are met.”
Amendment 8, in clause 18, page 15, leave out lines 2 and 3 and insert—
“(a) there is an acute or chronic disturbance in agricultural markets or a serious threat of an acute or chronic disturbance in agricultural markets caused by economic or environmental factors, and”.
Amendment 31, in clause 27, page 23, line 15, leave out “a specified person” and insert “the Groceries Code Adjudicator”.
This amendment is intended to ensure that the role of regulating agricultural contracts is given to the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office.
Amendment 32, page 23, line 23, at end insert—
“(8A) The Groceries Code Adjudicator Act 2013 is amended, by inserting after section 2 (Arbitration)—
‘2A Fair dealing: determination of complaints alleging non-compliance
(1) If a complaint relating to alleged non-compliance is referred to the Adjudicator under section 27(8)(a) of the Agriculture Act 2020, the Adjudicator must determine the complaint.
(2) In determining any allegation of non-compliance under subsection (1), the Adjudicator must act in accordance with any regulations made under subsection (1) of section 27 of the Agriculture Act 2020 which make provision for investigation of complaints, imposition of penalties or a requirement to pay compensation, as specified by subsection (8) of section 27 of that Act.’”
This amendment would specify the process to be followed by the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office in determining a complaint made under the Agriculture Act 2020.
Amendment 33, page 23, line 25, after “any” insert “competent and appropriate”.
This amendment is intended to ensure that the role of regulating agricultural contracts is given to a body which is competent to undertake qualitative assessments; for example, the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office.
Amendment 34, page 23, line 26, after “provide for a” insert “competent and appropriate”.
This amendment is intended to ensure that the role of regulating agricultural contracts is given to a body which is competent to undertake qualitative assessments; for example, the Groceries Code Adjudicator’s office.
Amendment 38, in clause 33, page 30, line 44, at end insert—
“(2A) The scheme must be made by 1 April 2021.”
Amendment 39, in clause 42, page 38, line 28, leave out subsections (4) and (5).
Amendment 12, in schedule 3, page 50, line 15, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
Amendment 11, page 50, leave out lines 25 to 36 and insert—
“(3) A request falls within this subsection if—
(a) it is a request for—
(i) the landlord’s consent to a matter which under the terms of the tenancy requires such consent, or
(ii) a variation of the terms of the tenancy, or
(iii) the landlord’s consent to a matter which otherwise requires such consent.
(b) it is made for the purposes of—
(i) enabling the tenant to request or apply for relevant financial assistance or relevant financial assistance of a description specified in the regulations, or
(ii) complying with a statutory duty, or a statutory duty of a description specified in the regulations, applicable to the tenant, or
(iii) to secure either or both of the full and efficient farming of the holding or an environmental improvement, and”.
Amendment 13, page 51, line 34, at end insert
“, or
(d) a scheme of financial assistance in whatever form introduced by Welsh Ministers;”.
Amendment 16, page 54, line 20, at end insert—
“Succession on death of tenant
21A In section 35, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
‘(2) In sections 36 to 48 below (and in Part I of Schedule 6 to this Act)—
“close relative” of a deceased tenant means—
(a) the wife husband or civil partner of the deceased;
(b) a brother or sister of the deceased;
(c) a child of the deceased;
(d) a nephew or niece of the deceased;
(e) a grandchild of the deceased;
(f) any person (not within (b) or (c) or (d) or (e) above) who, in the case of any marriage or civil partnership or other cohabitation to which the deceased was a at any time a party, was treated by the deceased as a child of the family in relation to that marriage or civil partnership or other cohabitation;’”.
Amendment 15, page 54, line 20, at end insert—
“Succession on retirement of tenant
21B In section 49, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
‘(3) In this section and sections 50 to 58 below (and in Part I of Schedule 6 to this Act as applied by section 50(4))—
“close relative” of the retiring tenant means—
(a) the wife husband or civil partner of the retiring tenant;
(b) a brother or sister of the retiring tenant;
(c) a child of the retiring tenant;
(d) a nephew or niece of the retiring tenant;
(e) a grandchild of the retiring tenant;
(f) any person (not within (b) or (c) or (d) or (e) above) who, in the case of any marriage or civil partnership or other cohabitation to which the retiring tenant has been at any time a party, has been treated by the latter as a child of the family in relation to that marriage or civil partnership or other cohabitation;’”.
Amendment 14, page 54, line 24, at end insert—
“Termination of tenancies of 10 years or more
22A Before section 8 insert—
‘7A Termination of tenancies of 10 years or more
(1) Where a farm business tenancy has been granted for a fixed term of 10 years or more without any provision for the landlord to terminate the tenancy on a specific date or dates during the fixed term, the landlord may serve notice to quit on the tenant of the holding using the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 Schedule 3 Parts I and II in accordance with the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986 Schedule 4 and all Orders introduced as mentioned in that schedule in respect of the following cases—
(a) Case B
(b) Case D
(c) Case E
(d) Case F
(e) Case G
(2) In addition to any compensation required to be paid to the tenant by the landlord following the termination of a tenancy using Case B, the landlord shall pay additional compensation to the tenant at an amount equal to ten years’ rent of the holding or attributed to the part of the holding upon which notice to quit has been served at the rate at which rent was payable immediately before the termination of the tenancy.””
Amendment 10, page 55, line 19, at end insert—
“Requests for landlord’s consent or variation of terms
25A Before section 28 insert—
‘27A Disputes relating to requests for landlord’s consent or variation of terms
(1) The appropriate authority must by regulations make provision for the tenant of an agricultural holding to refer for arbitration under this Act a request made by the tenant to the landlord where—
(a) the request falls within subsection (3), and
(b) no agreement has been reached with the landlord on the request.
(2) The regulations may also provide that, where the tenant is given the right to refer a request to arbitration, the landlord and tenant may instead refer the request for third party determination under this Act.
(3) A request falls within this subsection if—
(a) it is a request for—
(i) the landlord’s consent to a matter which under the terms of the tenancy requires such consent, or
(ii) a variation of the terms of the tenancy, or
(iii) the landlord’s consent to a matter which otherwise requires such consent
(b) it is made for the purposes of—
(i) enabling the tenant to request or apply for relevant financial assistance or relevant financial assistance of a description specified in the regulations, or
(ii) complying with a statutory duty, or a statutory duty of a description specified in the regulations, applicable to the tenant, or
(iii) to secure either or both of the full and efficient farming of the holding or an environmental improvement, and
(c) it meets such other conditions (if any) as may be specified in the regulations.
(4) The regulations may provide for the arbitrator or third party on a reference made under the regulations, where the arbitrator or third party considers it reasonable and just (as between the landlord and tenant) to do so—
(a) to order the landlord to comply with the request (either in full or to the extent specified in the award or determination);
(b) to make any other award or determination permitted by the regulations.
(5) The regulations may (among other things) make provision—
(a) about conditions to be met before a reference may be made;
(b) about matters which an arbitrator or third party is to take into account when considering a reference;
(c) for regulating the conduct of arbitrations or third-party determinations;
(d) about the awards or determinations which may be made by the arbitrator or third party, which may include making an order for a variation in the rent of the holding or for the payment of compensation or costs;
(e) about the time at which, or the conditions subject to which, an award or determination may be expressed to take effect;
(f) for restricting a tenant’s ability to make subsequent references to arbitration where a reference to arbitration or third-party determination has already been made under the regulations in relation to the same tenancy.
(6) The provision covered by subsection (5)(e) includes, in the case of a request made for the purpose described in subsection (3)(b)(i)), conditions relating to the making of a successful application for assistance.
(7) In this section—
“appropriate authority” means—
(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State, and
(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers;
“relevant financial assistance” means financial assistance under—
(a) section 1 of the Agriculture Act 2020 (powers of Secretary of State to give financial assistance),
(b) section 19 of, or paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to, that Act (powers of Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to give financial assistance in exceptional market conditions), or
(c) a scheme of the sort mentioned in section 2(4) of that Act (third party schemes), or
(d) a scheme of financial assistance in whatever form introduced by Welsh Ministers;
“statutory duty” means a duty imposed by or under—
(a) an Act of Parliament;
(b) an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales;
(c) retained direct EU legislation.’”
Amendment 40, in schedule 4, page 56, line 21, at end insert—
“Pigmeat
Products falling within the table in Part XVII of Annex 1 of the CMO Regulation, but excluding any entry in the table for live animals”.
This amendment adds “pigmeat” to Schedule 4. Clause 35 enables the Secretary of State to establish marketing standards in relation to products that “fall within a sector listed in Schedule 4”. Sectors listed include beef and veal, poultry and poultrymeat, milk and milk products, and eggs and egg products, but not pigmeat.
Government amendments 20 to 22.
Amendment 9, in schedule 5, page 61, leave out lines 25 and 26 and insert—
“(a) there is an acute or chronic disturbance in agricultural markets or a serious threat of an acute or chronic disturbance in agricultural markets caused by economic or environmental factors, and”.
Amendment 37, in the title, line 17, after
“with the WTO Agreement on Agriculture;”
insert
“to require animal products to be labelled as to farming method;”.
This would amend the long title to enable the Bill to require the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring animal products to be labelled as to farming method.
I call Simon Hoare, who is asked to speak for no more than eight minutes.
Simon Hoare
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
As my hon. Friend the Minister knows, I welcome this Bill. It is the first piece of agricultural legislation to come before our country since 1947, and what a glorious opportunity it is to set out what is important to us both in what our policies should be and how we can help to shape and lead future thinking.
The events of the past few weeks have given our country pause for thought as we have evaluated what is important to us—what we value, what we stand for, who we are. While covid has presented that as an opportunity, this Bill does the same with regard to agriculture: what does a global Britain in a non-membership of the European Union world look like? Just as this country has been a trailblazer against female genital mutilation, modern slavery and the trade in ivory, so I believe we can be in our high standards that prevail in agriculture today with regard to animal welfare, food production, agricultural practices and environmental standards. So important are these issues that they were writ large in the Conservative party manifesto of only December last year. Every Minister—the Prime Minister, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary and others—when questioned on these important issues before, during and after the referendum campaign has asserted their absolute, cast-iron guaranteed support for them.
Our farmers and food producers work under those high standards of regulation willingly. They understand their importance and the consumer confidence that they bring. They understand that they add value to the provenance of our food and drink exports. I was therefore not very pleased to have to table new clause 1. The thrust that lies behind it says, in essence, that any food product imported into the United Kingdom under a free trade agreement should be raised to standards either equal to or greater than those that prevail within the UK, and that the Secretary of State should annually update a list of standards. That would not force countries that have entered into an FTA with us to change all their practices. It would simply be up to producers to work out if they were not hitting our standards and then, if they wished to access our lucrative markets, to change their practices in order so to do—the ordinary operation of the market.
My new clause is not about stymieing free trade agreements, and neither is that in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—we understand the huge potential benefits that can accrue from them. But this is not about firing the starting gun for a race to the bottom. There is no merit in deliberately setting out in Government policy the creation of an unlevel playing field. Food imports to this country would be cheap for no reason bar the fact that they were raised to lower standards. Anybody can look at a variety of websites and realise some of the pretty horrendous ways in which livestock is raised in a number of countries across the world. We should shun that and be a beacon for excellence and high standards.
Those cheap food imports would remain cheap only while there was a viable scale of domestic production to create some sort of viable competition. As soon as it was choked off or choked down—reduced to a scale no more than meeting the artisan market or a farmers’ market—those prices would start to rise, and we would have lost our agricultural sector. I represent the constituency of North Dorset, where agriculture and farming is absolutely pivotal. My manifesto in the 2015, 2017 and 2019 elections was very clear that I would speak up and stand up for farmers, understanding the importance that they play in our economy.
The new clause is not anti-free trade or anti-American, but pro our standards being a beacon and pro ensuring that there is a future for our agricultural sector and for our consumers to purchase securely and safely. The new clause has attracted support from across the House and from both wings of my party: people who voted to leave the European Union and people who voted to remain. Anybody trying to dress this up as some sort of closet attempt to remain within the European Union does so at grave peril.
The new clause is also supported by a host of radical crypto-anarchic organisations: the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds; the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; the Country Land and Business Association; the Soil Association; that well known anarchic group the Wildlife Trust; LEAF—Linking Environment and Farming; the Tenant Farmers Association; the National Farmers Union; and, worst of all, that Leninist organisation the Woodland Trust.
This is not a crypto-communist move against capitalism; it is about trying to create a level playing field. It is not a coercive approach to those who might enter a free trade agreement, but an invitation to meet our standards if they wish to trade. If one accepts that food production and food security are important, it would require an incredibly brave Minister of the Crown, and an incredibly brave Parliament, if our farmers came to us and said, “Look, we are just about on the brink. You will have to lower our standards and change our regulations in order to allow us to compete.” I do not want to see that, and nor does my party.
Our Prime Minister takes animal welfare very seriously, as do the Farming Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), and the Secretary of State. However, most countries in the world value their food production, value their food security, and seek out and adopt policies in order to ensure that they have a viable future. New clause 1 does just that, and I hope that either the Minister will be in a position to accept it this afternoon, or we will see what the House has to say about it later.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call the shadow Secretary of State, Luke Pollard, who is asked to speak for no more than eight minutes.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will speak to the amendments that stand in my name and that of the Leader of the Opposition. Food policy has been overlooked and sidelined in our politics for far too long. Empty shelves, crops underwater in flooded fields, food bank growth and the growing obesity crisis demand that it enjoys more of our focus in the next decade than it had in the last. I want to see a greater focus on the quality and resilience of the food that we eat and the quality of the air that we breathe. Our new focus on food is for life and not just for coronavirus.
I place on record my heartfelt thanks to all the food heroes—the hidden heroes—who have kept the nation fed throughout the coronavirus crisis. From the fishers and the farmers, the distributors and the drivers, the processers and the pickers, to the shelf stackers and the supermarket workers, these people are finally getting the recognition that they deserve as key workers. The pay, conditions, pensions, protections and political focus on them must now follow. In declaring my interest, may I remind the House that my little sister is one of those key workers, as a sheep farmer on her farm in Cornwall?
At the very heart of this debate today is a very simple question, which the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) mentioned in his opening remarks. What kind of country do we want to be—one where farm standards are a pawn in a trade deal with our values traded for market access, or a nation that says Britain is a force for good in the world and upholds our high standards for food grown locally and food imported alike? At a time of climate crisis, we must choose to rebuild a better, greener, more sustainable and fairer Britain than we had before.
The path ahead of us is uncertain, but we must learn the lessons of those who came before us. We must not trade away the values that make us British and make us proud to be British: high environmental standards in food production; decent pay for those who tend our fields—at least, they should be paid well; animal welfare standards that increase, not slide; and a determination that we will never, ever again be held hostage by our inability, by choice or natural cause, to feed ourselves.
The Agriculture Bill is not a trivial matter; nor is food production. The Bill will fundamentally change the system of farm support, so it deserves our attention. However, an Agriculture Bill without a focus on food is an odd beast. It almost entirely omits food, and therefore does not even begin to solve all the problems that the virus has both caused and revealed. I would wager that the Environment Secretary and the farming Minister did not have the whip hand in the timing of this Bill, and that it is down to Downing Street and its free marketeer agenda, seeking to see off a rebellion of Tory MPs rightly unhappy and uneasy about leaving the door open to imports of food produced to lower standards, that we are here today on a contentious piece of legislation in the middle of a national crisis.
The new clauses in the names of the Chairs of the two Select Committees—the hon. Members for North Dorset and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish)—and those in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and me all seek to do one very simple thing, which is to put Government promises into law. The promise from the Conservative manifesto says:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
These words are meaningless unless they are backed up by law. The amendments today reflect a cross-party concern that the promises of high standards will not be kept unless they appear in black and white in the Bill. The right place to deal with farm standards is a Bill about farming. Indeed, the Leader of the House has just said from the Dispatch Box that he is about delivering on the manifesto and that this is essential. I agree on this point: those standards are essential, and they must be delivered on in law.
I suspect the Minister will shortly say that the subjects of these amendments would best be dealt with in the Trade Bill. I disagree with her on that and, unfortunately, so do her own Government. It seems the Government’s trade team are arguing that the Trade Bill is actually not for setting up trade architecture. They argue that it is a continuity Bill for rolling over existing agreements that Britain is a party to as part of the EU, so we will need another trade Bill that has not been published, written or designed yet to deal with matters such as democratic oversight of trade deals. There is zero chance, as the Minister knows, of such a Bill appearing or passing before the 31 December deadline, so we come to the necessity of this issue being dealt with in this Bill, where it can be discussed and implemented ahead of the 31 December deadline. It must not be parked or lost in the long grass of future Bills that have not yet appeared.
These amendments are being opposed, to my mind, simply because they would make it harder to have a trade deal with nations for which lower food and farm standards are the norm. The inescapable truth of Ministers refusing to put these sensible amendments into law is that allowing British farmers to be undercut by cheap imported food is part of the Government’s plan, and it should not be. Labour has tabled the amendments because we will not allow British farmers to go out of business because they are being undercut by cheap imports that would be illegal if they were grown or produced in the UK.
There is no urban-rural divide on high farm standards or on animal health and welfare, no divide when it comes to wanting high environmental standards preserved and no divide between feeders and eaters when it comes to food safety and food quality. This Bill is, by and large, a reasonable Bill.
DEFRA officials and Ministers have worked hard to get the detail right, but the political handcuffs placed on the Environment Secretary and his Ministers to tie them to oppose these reasonable, sensible, necessary and essential amendments betray the bigger political agenda at play here. Both the Environment Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), who has responsibility for farming, have good agricultural pedigree, and I am reassured that those with experience are at the helm of the Department, but if orders are coming from the Department for International Trade, they have my sympathy for being caught in the invidious place of choosing between what is right and what they are told to do.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I now call Minister Victoria Prentis, who is asked to speak for no more than 15 minutes.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I should start by declaring my interest: my family has farmed on the Oxfordshire- Northamptonshire border for many years, and I am also a keen smallholder. This is a very important moment for agriculture in this country. This Bill is the first of its kind for more than 70 years and it will allow us to shape farming for the future. This Bill is about farmers, and sets out a framework policy for rewarding them as they produce food and provide public goods.
I thank all Members who have tabled amendments. I apologise if the hybrid nature of the debate prevents me from engaging fully with every point—it is not ideal. I am, however, reassured that the Bill has been thoroughly scrutinised by not one but two Public Bill Committees. I am keen to continue to engage with Members across the House as we develop the details of the policies. I must also record my thanks to those who have worked so hard to ensure that we have all been fed in these frightening times: farmers, manufacturers and retailers. They are food heroes, and they have worked together and struggled on despite workforce shortages and social distancing measures. I hope that a lasting legacy of this pandemic is that we all think a little more about where our food comes from.
The feeding the vulnerable taskforce, which I chair, has worked hard to ensure that those parts of society on whom this crisis falls the hardest can access food. On Friday, we announced £16 million of funding for food charities. Measures in this Bill would have been very useful two months ago. I commend in particular the powers in clauses 18 and 19, which would have made it easier and quicker to support farmers during these difficult times. Under Clause 17, for the first time, the Government will have a duty to take a regular, systematic view of our overall food security at least every five years, giving time to observe trends. That is not to say that we have to wait five years between reviews at all. The majority of data covered will, of course, be available between reports, and we certainly have no intention of waiting until the end of the five-year period to publish our first report. That report will, of course, take into account what we have learnt from the current pandemic.
This is a domestic Bill. It is not about trade. However, I have heard colleagues across the House—I am sure I will hear them again this afternoon—voice concerns about the effect of future trade agreements on UK agriculture. Some are concerned about a reduction in standards, particularly those for animal welfare. Others are concerned that there will not be a level playing field between our products and those coming from abroad.
Like the rest of my colleagues on this side of the House, I was elected on a very clear manifesto commitment—one that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has reiterated since—that in all our trade negotiations we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. This Government will stand firm in trade negotiations to ensure that any deals live up to the values of our farmers and consumers. We are keen to ensure that parliamentarians, consumers and businesses have access to the information they need on our trade negotiations. Trade talks with the US opened formally last Tuesday. Ahead of that, the Government set out the negotiating objectives and associated documents, and a similar process will be replicated in the coming months as we do the same for deals with Japan, Australia and New Zealand.
I am grateful for the continued contributions of the National Farmers Union and others who sit on our expert trade advisory group, which helped shape this trade policy and feeds straight into the negotiating team. I assure the House that we are actively exploring how to build on that industry participation.
I reassure colleagues that all food coming into this country will be required to meet existing import requirements. At the end of the transition period, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 will convert all EU standards into domestic law. That will include a ban on using artificial growth hormones in beef. Nothing apart from potable water may be used to clean chicken carcases, and any changes to those standards would have to come before this Parliament. We will be doing our own inspections to ensure that those import conditions are met.
While we all want to support British farmers, if passed, the well-meaning amendments would have unintended consequences. The supply of food would be significantly disrupted if goods that meet our current import standards were blocked. New clauses 1 and 2 would affect UK exports to countries with whom, as part of the EU, we currently have trade agreements. I am concerned that the extra conditions in the two new clauses could result in countries refusing to enter into continuity agreements. For example, accepting new clause 2 would risk whisky exports worth £578 million. Another example is the impact on potato exporters. Some 22% of potato exports went to countries with whom a continuity agreement has not yet been signed.
If the amendments were passed, an assessment of our current UK production standards, followed by an assessment of all relevant standards in a third country, followed by an assessment of how those compared with UK legislation and UK production standards would be required to make sure that any FTA complied with them. That would all have to be done by the end of December.
I understand that Members want to ensure safeguards for our farmers. However, I have serious concerns about the unintended consequences of the amendments for our producers and exporters. Our manifesto commitment is clear that the Government will support farmers and protect our standards. All the rules, regulations and robust processes are already in place for that.
On labelling, I am looking forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) on her labelling amendment. I understand that she will be championing consumer choice in the domestic market, which is very important. Other colleagues, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey), and my hon. Friends the Members for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall) and for West Dorset (Chris Loder), have asked us to explore whether labelling approaches could be used to differentiate products that meet domestic production standards from those that do not. This would include exploring mandatory labelling. Any scheme could not be devised until we have completed the transition period and would of course need to recognise World Trade Organisation obligations, but I assure Members from across the House that this is something we will consider closely and on which we are prepared to consult.
We all hope that UK food producers will benefit from increased export opportunities as we open up foreign markets. For example, in the last year, we have seen the lifting of a 20-year ban on the export of UK beef and lamb to Japan. Our “Food is GREAT” campaign targets consumer audiences abroad and is boosting global demand for our food and drink.
I turn now to amendments relating to financial assistance. I defy anyone to maintain that the common agricultural policy was good for either environmental protection or the productivity of British farming. It has held us back. It has paid those with more land more subsidy, regardless of what they did with it. It has favoured some parts of the industry over others. We are really keen that that changes now. We have an exciting opportunity to reset and plan for the future.
Passing the Bill will give farmers and land managers a clear direction. In England, it will enable us to deliver direct payments, simplified countryside stewardship schemes and productivity grants next year. I assure the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard) that that is why this Bill is top of the queue. The gradual seven-year transition will allow farmers and land managers time to prepare for the new environmental land management scheme, which is currently being tested. Upland farmers, for example, will be well placed to benefit from it. We will also create a UK shared prosperity fund to address the needs of rural businesses and communities. Delaying the start of the agricultural transition to 2022 would just delay the many benefits of moving away from direct payments. To provide reassurance again, for 80% of farmers, our maximum reductions for 2021 will be modest at under 5%.
Improving the health of our environment as set out in the “25 Year Environment Plan” is a priority. The measures in the Bill will help us to combat climate change, but the Bill is not the place for targets. Environmental land management will be critical in helping us to deliver against our legally binding target to achieve net zero emissions by 2050. We recognise that for these policies to be effective, they need to be properly funded. In our manifesto, we committed to maintain current agricultural spending for each year of this Parliament. Of course, this is a framework Bill, and this is only the beginning. I look forward to working with colleagues across the House and with groups such as the NFU to develop the policy that will flow from this legislation.
I turn now to amendments tabled on agroecological farming practices, and on reducing the use of pesticides. We are already testing how ELM can support farmers to take a whole-farm holistic approach. We have 50 tests and trials in progress, with many more planned before the national pilot starts in 2021. We are considering innovative solutions such as integrated pest management, which aims to reduce pesticide use on farms. We absolutely agree that pesticides should not be used where that use may harm human health, and we have a robust regulatory system in place to ensure that.
I turn now to the many benefits that the Bill will bring farmers in the devolved Administrations. Clause 33 tackles an unfairness in the red meat levy system and will allow the levy collected from animals that have crossed a border for slaughter to be returned to where the animals were reared. The levy boards are working very hard to devise a scheme, and our aim is to have one in place by April 2021. New Clause 9 is for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister to consider. I understand that he has no plans, at this stage, to introduce a sunset clause. The UK Government will continue to work closely with the devolved Administrations. I reiterate our commitment to consulting with the devolved Administrations on our proposals for regulations to be made under the WTO clauses.
I turn to the amendments on fairness and transparency in the supply chain. No decisions have yet been taken on the subject of the appropriate enforcement body. We are exploring options with the industry first before designing the enforcement regimes and appointing a regulator, but I will keep the House up to date on that.
I turn to the amendments on tenancies. Tenants should be able to benefit from our new payment policies, and we will continue to work closely with the industry—we had a large consultation last year—as we develop these policies further.
Finally, three minor technical Government amendments have been tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at the request of the Welsh Government. These are needed in order to bridge the gap until new powers are provided by Welsh legislation in the Senedd.
The Bill provides a framework for an exciting future for farming. It will ensure that those who produce our food are properly rewarded, and that farming efficiently and improving the environment will go hand in hand in the future. I very much look forward to working with colleagues across the House to develop the environmental land management policies, and to working out how they will work not only on the ground, but above and beneath it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Deidre Brock, who is asked to speak for no more than eight minutes.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP) [V]
I will speak to amendment 39, which is in my name.
This is a strange beast of a Bill—a hybrid that covers reserved and devolved competences, and a Lazarus that has had to rise again after that odd election in December. It now looks as if it will be the first UK Bill to be passed under the new hybrid procedures, and therefore the first UK legislation to be passed using electronic voting—so even Westminster can look a bit modern when it needs to. Perhaps electronic voting and other good developments might be retained after this pandemic is over.
Of course, the Bill is only needed because we are leaving the EU, so it is a case of cauterising a self-made wound. The Bill will pass because farmers—our food producers—need to be provided with the support they need to keep going. I will say it again, because it bears repeating: farmers are good stewards of the land; they take good care of it. It is, after all, one of their biggest assets, and it is essential to their ongoing businesses and livelihoods. Good farmers manage the land well and improve it.
I urge the Government to offer farmers more immediate support to help them get through this crisis, so that they can come out the other side with working farms and productive land. There might even be opportunities for them to use this time to innovate—to adapt their farming and business practices to a new model with an eye to future operations. We recently passed legislation that set up a new payment system. I do not see any reason why the Government should not use that to support farmers now.
We have a few choice selections on the amendment paper, and the SNP will be backing sensible improvements to the Bill. We support writing the need for high standards in imported foods into the legislation, and will be voting for that. It is of great concern to farmers, fishers and other food producers that any low-quality, mass-produced, low-price rubbish from elsewhere might be allowed to flood the market and squeeze them out. Our food producers have high-quality, high-standard and high-welfare products that provide consumers with excellent nutrition. We would be doing the food producers, the end consumers and the retailers a disservice if we allowed those high-quality products to be squeezed out by any low-quality products that have to be, for example, dipped in bleach to kill pathogens before they are dumped on the shelves. It is also a massive concern for consumers, who do not want to see their choices shut down by low-grade products.
Save our farmers, save our cooking and save our families. We must support continued high standards in animal welfare, plant hygiene and end product quality. Do not dump rubbish in our kitchens and on our plates. Let us have standards on imported food that are as high as the standards on food produced on these islands. I noted the Minister’s commitment in her speech to maintaining those standards, but I cannot understand why it is not on the face of the Bill. I look forward to her explaining that a little further later, because I am afraid that her explanations were not sufficient for me.
We also support the principles the shadow Secretary of State has written into new clause 7. Food poverty in these wealthy nations was always a disgrace, but the pandemic has brought that inequality and inhumanity into sharp relief. Action is needed to address that. I can only hope that the Government take that under advisement and look to extend the principle in the long term. People should not go hungry, or have to rely on charity to feed their children; decency and humanity are not too expensive.
Public Health Scotland looks at the effects of poverty on health, including food poverty, and analyses possible solutions as part of its work. I would imagine that Public Health England must be doing something similar, so the preparation for this would not be as big a task as it might seem, and Scotland might also offer a template you can adapt to serve England better. The “Fairer Scotland” action plan seeks to address gross inequalities. Recommendations from an independent working group on food poverty informed the creation of a fair food fund, which is now part of a larger fund investing in communities. A large lesson from that is that you cannot address food poverty properly unless you address poverty properly, and you have to roll back austerity fully if you are going to do that. You also need to ensure that there is nutritious and untainted food available, which brings us back to the principles underpinning the need to keep import standards high. There is not, however, a recognition of the devolved Governments in the amendment and it is a devolved competence, which leaves us unable to support it.
I turn now to the amendments we have lodged, including mine on import standards. I want to mention the timeous commencement of the proper operation of the red meat levy. I understand that the boards themselves are in agreement about the way forward and have been for some time, and it is incumbent upon the Government to accommodate the ambition they are showing by making sure that the machinery of the scheme is up to scratch and ready to rock ‘n’ roll as soon as possible. Scotland’s farmers have already waited far too long to get their money back so that their investments can support their businesses. I note the Minister’s commitment on this, but we will be continuing to press the Government on their commitment to April delivery.
The amendment I would like to put forward for a vote today is a bit technical. It is explained in some detail and at length in Holyrood’s Sewel memo, or legislative consent memorandum to give it the fancy title, if anyone needs the background, but it concerns the reporting to the WTO. My amendment 39 addresses the concerns in the Sewel memo and would remove the scheme that renders the devolved Administrations subject to the whims of the Secretary of State. It is surely a central principle of devolution that the devolved Administrations should be free to operate in devolved policy areas without interference from the UK Government. As the Bill currently stands, the power to determine how farming support is treated for the purposes of WTO reporting, and therefore the ceilings in each classification of support, are reserved to the UK Government rather than the devolved Administrations, which will still be tasked with providing the support to farmers. I must stress that this is a new reservation; it is a centralisation of function that does not currently exist, so I urge Members to support amendment 39 to remove that from the Bill.
I am conscious that we have a restricted timetable for these proceedings, so I will end my contribution there.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Thank you. I am now introducing a time limit of five minutes, and advise hon. Members speaking virtually to have a timing device visible.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate. Given covid-19, I want to pay my great tribute to all the health workers across the country, and also the food producers, farmers, deliverers and those who process the food to get it into our shops and to consumers. It has never been so important to have home production and good-quality food in this country. It is not only farmers and growers who want that; so do the supermarkets and other retailers and the consumers. We are all working together to deliver higher and higher standards, better welfare and better environmental conditions.
The whole raison d’être of the Bill is to move us in the direction of higher welfare and environmental standards, looking after our land and soils, holding back water and having better flood protection—all of this working together. But farming, and especially commercial farming, needs to be able to produce food and to do so competitively. As Government and Opposition Members have said, there has never been more of a need to deliver sustainable, good, affordable food in this country than there is today.
I very much support new clause 1 from my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and, naturally, new clause 2, which is in my name and the names of the EFRA Committee members. This is about having equivalence of production on imported food, so that it is WTO-compliant, and it is very much about getting very good trade deals in future. I want to see British lamb and more cheese go into America. I want to see everything being exported to America, and I am very happy to have imports from America in a new trade deal, but they cannot undercut our present production methods and animal welfare.
I will say this clearly to the Americans: if we look at American poultry production, we see that they use chlorine wash for about 25% or 30% of that—for the lower end of their production, where the chickens are more densely populated and there are much poorer welfare and environmental conditions—to literally clean it up so that is safe to eat, and of course, in doing that, they reduce the cost of production, but they also reduce the welfare of that poultry. I would say clearly to the Secretary of State for International Trade that she should spend her time going out and dealing with a trade deal that has equivalence and making sure that we export our very important animal and environmental welfare. And I would say to the Americans, “Why don’t you upgrade your production? Why don’t you reduce the density and population of your chickens? Why do you not reduce the amount of antibiotics that you are using, and then you will produce better chicken not only for America: it can also come into this country?”
Let us not be frightened of putting clauses into the Bill that protect us, with the great environmental and welfare standards that we want the whole Bill to have, and that farmers want to have. I think we all accept that the common agricultural policy has not been a huge success. Therefore, we can devise a better Agriculture—and food—Bill, and that is what we have to remember: agriculture is about food, and it has never been more important than now to have high-quality food. If I get the opportunity, I will most definitely push new clause 2 to a Division and I will most definitely support new clause 1. There are also Opposition new clauses that I am also prepared to look at, because I think we have to make this Bill good. It is no good being told, “Don’t put it in the Agriculture Bill; put it in the Trade Bill.” When we try to put it in the Trade Bill, it will be out of scope. We are being led down the garden path—we really are —and it is time for us to stand up and be counted.
I want great trade deals. I am not a little Englander who will defend our agriculture against all imports—quite the reverse. I think competition is good, but on a level playing field that allows us to produce great food and allows our consumers to have great food, and makes sure that we deliver good agriculture and environment for the future.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab) [V]
I would like to speak to amendments 23 to 25 and record my support for new clause 7. That I am speaking to these amendments should come as no surprise to the House since they are the contents of my Food Insecurity Bill.
Since 2017, I have been pleading with the Government to introduce a simple, cost-neutral measurement of food insecurity into the household surveys that they already conduct. Each time hunger is raised in this place, various Secretaries of State and Ministers have denigrated statistics from charities, researchers, food banks and colleagues, claiming that the figures are not robust enough or that the information is not reliable enough to inform Government policy. Denying the accuracy of the data or simply turning a blind eye allows them to pretend that the problem does not exist, but it does, and it is only by knowing the true scale of UK hunger that we can start to mitigate it.
When I introduced my Bill, the United Nations had estimated that 8 million people in the UK were food insecure—that is 8 million people who could not afford to eat and who did not know where their next meal was coming from. More than 2,000 food banks that we know of have become an embedded part of our welfare state and are the only port of call for those experiencing the harsh and unforgiving welfare state cultivated by this Government.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) (V)
It is a great pleasure to be called to speak in this debate. I draw attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I come from a long family of farmers, have interests in farming and food production, and represent a very successful rural constituency producing some of the finest food in the world, with absolutely top-class farmers and food producers.
I strongly welcome the Bill, and look forward to it going through today. It will free us from the constraints of the common agricultural policy, which held us back for many years—it will let us give freedom to farmers. When I was Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, time and again farmers said, “Get out of our hair!” The Bill will allow farmers to concentrate on what they are good at, which is producing food. I entirely echo the comments made by the Minister and others earlier in the debate about the tremendous efforts of farmers and food producers to cope with the extraordinary circumstances of corona.
The first thing I want to say is that there is no conflict between wanting to have freedom for farmers and wanting free trade around the world. I see a great opportunity for farming to benefit from any free trade deals. That is absolutely clear. There is a narrative out there that the sad price of free trade arrangements will be some sort of cost to the farming industry. I just do not buy that.
We have huge export opportunities—the Minister touched on exporting beef to the United States, which must be worth over £60 million over three years. When I was at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs we began to get beef on the bone back into Hong Kong, and there are enormous opportunities. For example, in the lamb industry, China and America are neck and neck as world leaders in lamb consumption. They each consume twice as much as France or Germany, so there are great opportunities for our exporters. Given the constraints we experienced under the common agricultural policy, I really see opportunities with new technologies—CRISPR gene editing and so on—to enable us to catch up.
There are some interesting figures from the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations. Against a metric of 1 in 1961, the EU is still producing a given amount of food at 0.55; we are at 0.43; the world is 0.29; and the world leader is 0.03. That is the lesson—if we free up agriculture, people can take advantage of the benefits of free trade and technology.
Turning to the new clauses, I take exception to the proposals from my hon. Friends the Members for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). We agree on many issues regarding oversight, but I do not agree with this. We already have high standards, and the Minister has made it clear that we are not going to reduce those standards. The new clauses are unenforceable. Let us take the great vexed issue of chlorinated chicken. As my hon. Friend for Tiverton and Honiton said, people do not use very much chlorine—they use pathogen reduction treatments, which have been cleared by the US, the EU authorities and by Codex Alimentarius. When we look at the regulations, we see that stocking densities are similar to those that pertain in Europe. The outcomes on health grounds are better. Americans eat roughly twice as much chicken as Europeans, and their outcomes on campylobacter and salmonella are significantly better.
What would we do if this condition went through? It would completely block any hope of a US free trade deal, with catastrophic consequences for large parts of our economy. Would we go after the individual chicken plant? Would we go after the state? Would we go after the whole US nation, which would come straight back and say, “Sorry guys, our product is healthier.” It would be much better if we resumed our full seat on the Codex Alimentarius Commission on food standards, on the OIE on animal welfare, which is important to many citizens, and on the international plant protection convention on plant health, working with allies and pushing to improve world standards.
When I was at DEFRA I went to New Zealand and was struck by the fact that, freed up, it had reduced massively the number of sheep but increased the volume of meat exporting while conforming to religion protocols for minorities. Everything that it exported to the middle east was stunned before slaughter. We talk about standards a lot. What goes on in many of our slaughterhouses does not bear inspection. I challenge Members to look at videos—or, better, go along—and they will be horrified when they see what many of our livestock go through. Much of this volume of material is not required by minorities—it is absolutely fine to provide it for them—but we could copy New Zealand. We could work with it at a high level, pushing for higher standards. I am afraid I do not support the amendments, but I do support the Bill.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson). First and foremost, I want to put on record my thanks to the local farming community in my constituency and to farming communities up and down the country, as they have been vital in helping to maintain the food supply to communities throughout the land in this crisis. Many farmers are anxious about their health, and are concerned about family members and the welfare of their workers. Too many farmers have unsold produce going to waste, as supply chains—restaurants, hotels, caterers and cafés—have had to close because of the crisis. Dairy farmers in my constituency have been hit particularly hard. I know that Members across the House have lobbied the Government to do whatever it takes to support those farmers, and I certainly welcome the announcement of a hardship fund as a step in the right direction. I look forward to the Minister’s response on that.
I want to highlight three areas of concern that need to be improved at this stage of the Bill. Importantly, the concerns are highlighted by those at the chalkface of our agricultural economy: the National Farmers Union, the custodians and users of our countryside, and the consumers of our British products. First, the Bill must ensure that specific provisions in future trade deals require agricultural imports to meet our environmental, animal welfare and food standards. I raised the matter with the previous Secretary of State, and I will raise it again with the current Secretary of State. As Members across the House have said today, that needs to be enshrined in law. British produce must be a global gold standard, and a race to the bottom will have serious consequences for our farmers, our health and our global reputation.
Secondly, the current national and international pandemic has shone a bright light on the importance of food security. While I welcome the fact that the Bill requires the Government to report on the state of the nation’s food security, the current timescale of every five years is too long. The National Farmers Union rightly argues that the Bill should be strengthened to include annual reports on food security, and there should be clear requirements relating to the degree of the nation’s food security derived from domestic production and a clear commitment to prevent any further decline in self-sufficiency.
Finally, as somebody who is keen to maximise access to our countryside, I welcome the provisions that would enable funding for farmers who support public access. However, that is by no means a guarantee that the payments will deliver new paths or make existing paths more accessible. What assurances can the Secretary of State give the House and my constituents that that will happen?
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con) [V]
It is a great pleasure to speak in this debate on such an important Bill—the first new Agriculture Bill in many years. I welcome the Bill and want to outline the key areas and then move on to amendments that would tighten and improve it.
The principle behind public moneys for public goods is sound, and it is excellent that animal health and welfare and environmental protection and management are clearly articulated as public goods. It is welcome that food production and security are recognised within the Bill, and that the Secretary of State is able to help support improving agricultural productivity. The covid-19 crisis has thrown into sharp relief the importance of food security and the need for the UK to be able to produce sustainable, local and accessible food for its population. The Bill’s requirement for the Secretary of State to produce a status report on food security every five years could perhaps be reviewed to make it more frequent. As we move to this new way of paying farmers, I stress the need for a smooth transition of payments so that there are no cliff edges. The Government have guaranteed the same level of payment over the duration of this Parliament, but it is important, as direct payments are phased out, that farmers are given the time and security to adapt to the new system.
Moving on to the amendments, as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee I am happy to support new clauses 1 and 2. As a vet, it will come as no surprise that I am passionate about animal health and welfare, and it is so important that we uphold our high standards. I was proud to stand in Penrith and The Border on a Conservative manifesto that said:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
These amendments to the Bill will ensure that any imports are equivalent to or, indeed, exceed our domestic standards. We can send out the message to our future trading partners that if they want to trade with us, they need to meet the standards that the people of the UK insist upon. That will benefit not only our own farmers and animals but, ultimately, farmers and animals around the world.
Now, some Members will say today that that will complicate trade deals, but I do not hold with that. In the Department for International Trade and the Foreign Office we have the best negotiators and diplomats in the world. In any negotiation there is give and take and, as has been seen with Brexit in recent months, anything can be achieved.
Provisions on animal welfare have been included in free trade agreements, such as those between the EU and Chile and South Korea, and in fact that led to improved slaughter standards in Chile—an important animal welfare improvement. Welfare at slaughter is only part of the story. Members will say that the WTO rules will guarantee welfare standards at slaughter, which is good, but we all know that much more needs to be considered earlier in an animal’s rearing and transport.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]
It is a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). I support much of what he said.
We support the spirit of the Bill, especially the movement to reward farmers for public goods. Today, the Government can introduce one of the most successful changes in agricultural policy in history. Equally, today could be remembered for one of the most catastrophic disasters. The principles are good, but the real value of the Bill will be determined in its implementation.
Farmers in Cumbria and throughout Britain could fall at the first hurdle if the Government insist on beginning the phase-out of the basic payment scheme from next January, long before its replacement is ready. Universal credit is the example of what happens when a good idea is introduced in a hasty, penny-pinching, cloth-eared way. I want to spare the Secretary of State the ignominy of being the person responsible for doing the same with the new environmental land-management scheme. Even more, I want to spare our farmers the hardship, spare our environment the damage and spare our people the loss of British food-producing capacity. In the end, it will cost less to do the right thing than it will to do it badly.
The Government’s plan is to remove 50% of basic payments by 2024, costing farmers 46% of their net income, yet the new scheme will be fully rolled out only by 2028. There are currently 89,000 basic payment claimants; how many of those farms do we expect to survive the long period during which their incomes are slashed before a replacement is ready? It is obvious that the disruption will be huge, undermining the good purposes of the Bill. We cannot care for our environment, guarantee food production and deliver public goods if, by 2028, we have allowed hundreds of farms to close by accident. The answer is a no-brainer: do not phase out basic payments until the environmental land-management schemes are ready. The Secretary of State must listen to farmers on this issue before it is too late.
The ultimate public good that farmers provide is, of course, food. Those empty shelves in March and the disruption to the supplies of imported food must be a wake-up call. Almost 50% of the food consumed in the UK is now imported, compared with 35% just 20 years ago. Successive Governments have contributed to us sleepwalking into a real problem when it comes to food security.
We will suffer a huge blow if the Bill fails to impose import standards, which is why I tabled new clause 10 and will support other amendments of similar intent. We must protect our British standards on food and food production. That will not be possible if Ministers allow the market to be flooded with food produced at a lower standard than we would tolerate here. Let us be clear: if Ministers will not accept amendments ensuring that Britain does not compromise these standards in trade deals, they are clearly saying to British farmers, “Please give us the freedom to sell you out in trade negotiations.” Britain has the best standards in the world, and they will be completely irrelevant if we allow Ministers to strike trade deals that lead to imported goods with lower production, animal welfare, environmental and labour standards.
For us in south Cumbria, the landscape of the lakes and the dales is a breathtaking public good—although, given that we have one of the oldest and most vulnerable populations in the country and the third highest covid infection rate, I strongly urge people not to rush to visit us here until it is safe to do so, at which point we will welcome them with open arms. These landscapes are of global significance. As a UNESCO world heritage site, they underpin, in normal times, an economy worth £3 billion a year. Their contribution to the heritage of our country, its economy and the nation’s wellbeing are astounding, and it is our farmers who are responsible for stewarding and maintaining those landscapes. Will Ministers commit to there being criteria within the environmental land management scheme for payments for aesthetic maintenance and for heritage, especially in the uplands?
Finally, I urge Ministers to ensure that the good principles of the Bill are reflected in wise and effective practicalities. I am convinced that this Bill will be seen as truly historic, but it is up to the Government to ensure that it is for the right reasons.
Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con) [V]
I start by drawing Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I want to speak in support of new clause 2, new clause 1 and amendment 6. Like other Members, I very much support the broad thrust of the Bill, which has been much improved over time. The revised text, which we debated on Second Reading in January, now recognises the importance of food production and food security, funding to support innovation and productivity improvements, and the proper financing of environmental provisions.
However, the laudable aims of the Bill will come to nothing if the Government do not secure fair terms of trade for UK producers. The new public money for public goods and innovation funding model has to be considered together with the Government’s broad trade policy. Having the right framework for British agriculture is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the future prosperity of the sector, which is why I warmly endorse the amendments proposed, which seek to provide a concrete guarantee on future import standards.
Our producers have worked and invested for decades to raise our standards, and that could easily be lost if they are set at a structural disadvantage by our allowing in a flood of low-quality imports produced with poorer animal welfare and environmental standards, which could ultimately cause economic damage to British agriculture and the social fabric of our rural communities. There is also the risk of environmental damage across the globe if the UK became more reliant on imported produce.
The climate change angle will be increasingly important. UK farmers have a key role to play in our progress towards the 2050 net zero carbon target, as British agriculture accounts for 9% of national emissions, but that opportunity could be wiped out if we allow the importing of food produced overseas in a far more carbon- intensive way—for instance, bringing in Brazilian beef grazed on former rainforest land.
I do not believe that these amendments would damage our ability to strike reasonable trade agreements, so I do not agree with what the Minister said at the start of the debate. The whole argument on standards in trade deals is not unique to this country. We should be looking to base much of our trade on the exchange of quality products. Trade deals should be about the desirable goods we can offer to overseas consumers, not just the market access that they can seek to gain from us. UK agriculture has a huge amount to offer in that regard, already earning the UK some £22 billion a year and representing 6% of overall exports.
I also strongly support the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), which would delay the start of the transition to the concept of public money for public goods from the basic payment scheme to 2022, rather than 2021. This would allow the transition to run more successfully and much more smoothly by giving producers more time to restructure their businesses in order to provide those all important public goods. Though DEFRA’s approach is evolutionary, as everyone has said so far, this is still a big shift for British agriculture, and I believe the Government want UK producers to make good decisions, not hasty ones, during the transition. They should therefore give them time.
The amendments I have touched on all have powerful arguments behind them in the best of times; for me, those arguments are substantially strengthened by the new landscape that coronavirus has created. The current situation demonstrates the value of maintaining a strong UK food sector, so that our national food security does not depend on long international supply chains, which have proven fragile in such periods. The outbreak has also showcased the importance of small-scale and regional supply chains that can be relied on for food and drink when all else fails.
I hope the Government will listen to the arguments behind the amendments, and I look forward to hearing their response.
Carla Lockhart (Upper Bann) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his work in progressing the Bill to this stage.
No Member needs reminding of the importance of a sustainable UK agriculture industry and of our own food security. Amid the covid-19 crisis, it is the UK’s farmers who are feeding the nation. We owe them not only our thanks for working day and night to provide us with food but a future that is economically viable, that ensures farmgate prices are fair and that supports them as they face growing challenges, be they market driven or environmental.
Agri-food is one of Northern Ireland’s greatest economic assets, sustaining approximately 100,000 jobs and bringing an added value of almost £1.5 billion to the Northern Ireland economy. That underpins our need to ensure a sustainable platform moving forward. We must protect those jobs and this cornerstone of our economy, and to do so we need to ensure that the Bill not only allows for the continuation of financial support for farmers but offers protection.
With those two core tenets in mind, my party and I broadly support new clauses 1, 2 and 6. We need to protect our farmers and consumers from cheap imports that do not meet the standards we demand of our farmers. The standards that British farmers work to come with significant cost implications. They ensure that our food is safe and our environment is safeguarded for future generations, while our animal welfare standards are exemplary. Speak to any British farmer: their desire is to maintain these standards—indeed, they want constantly to develop and innovate so that they always ensure that best practices are adopted. In our opinion, it is a major failure of the Bill that it does not enshrine standards for the future. We must not sacrifice these standards, which we demand of our own farmers, on the altar of free trade. That must be rectified.
I also wish to speak directly to the amendment tabled by my colleagues the hon. Members for North Down (Stephen Farry), for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna). I, like my colleagues, am a devolutionist. The Northern Ireland Assembly debated and agreed a legislative consent motion on 31 March. In that debate, my party colleague, Edwin Poots, Minister for Agriculture, stated that he did not support a sunset clause. That was the agreed will of the Northern Ireland Assembly.
With that in mind, and given the respect we ought to afford the devolution settlement on this and other matters, we will not be supporting the amendment. We do not believe the Northern Ireland Assembly requested it.
Indeed, adopting the amendment and imposing such a timeline could leave a legislative gap, leaving our Minister with no legal authority to issue agricultural support payments, which currently total some £300 million, to Northern Ireland farmers. Such a situation would spell disaster for our farmers, particularly in the context of challenging farm-gate prices.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con) [V]
Before I begin, may I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? The Agriculture Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape our farming sector for the better. I would like to spend the short time that I have discussing the proposed amendments on food imports and standards. I have given immense thought to these amendments over the last few days, but I have also been thinking back to just a few years ago when I was lucky enough to travel across the globe undertaking a research project specifically looking at the global ag sector, and the one thing that came across to me loud and clear above all else was just how small a dot the UK is considered to be by others on the world stage when it comes to influencing the global ag sector. I am also aware of our lack of any previous real penetration into global food markets. However, this country is now on an exciting new course, in which we can forge our new food export opportunities, and I believe that our agricultural industry can truly exert real influence on the global stage in promoting high animal welfare standards and ensuring that the high environmental bar that our farmers passionately adhere to is also met abroad.
As we consider the Bill, we need to look ahead to a new future. The question that I have been mulling over is: what is the best mechanism to ensure that our domestic agricultural industry thrives and is truly sustainable long into the future while also being able to show real leadership on the global stage by promoting abroad the high animal welfare, environmental and food safety standards for which we are recognised? We have a truly credible sector producing some of the finest food the world has to offer, and I want to see our farming industry thrive with food production at its heart. That means ensuring strong market opportunities, both here and abroad.
The phrasing of the amendments definitely seems attractive, and I totally agree that the aspirations behind them are profoundly correct, but if we included them in the Agriculture Bill, which represents domestic policy, would they be workable on the world stage and would they be enforceable? After seeking advice from my right hon. Friend the Environment Secretary, I have been informed that they do not adhere to the World Trade Organisation sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. Likewise, the wording of the amendments leads to uncertainty as to how the traceability measures would be enforced in countries abroad.
I reiterate that I am entirely in agreement with the aims of the proposed amendments—namely, to create a thriving domestic agricultural industry that it is not undercut by cheap foreign imports, while maintaining and promoting high animal welfare, environmental and food standards abroad. If the amendments are not workable through domestic policy, other mechanisms for achieving all those aims must be sought, rather than the inclusion of a blanket protectionist approach. That strategy could, in the long term as we go forth and emerge on the world stage, have unintended negative consequences for the long-term prosperity and sustainability of the British farming sector, as securing export markets for food produce may be harder to achieve. An early example of the opportunities that we have seen for British farmers is the lifting of the ban on UK beef exports by the US, creating a market for British farmers worth more than £66 million over the next five years.
As a country, we are on the cusp of opening up new and exciting export markets to our UK farmers. Such trade deals can be used to influence the world with our high animal welfare, environmental and food safety standards. Yesterday, we heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade issue from the Dispatch Box an explicit reassurance that we will not lower our food imports standards as a result of the ongoing US trade deal. Seeking further reassurance, I personally spoke to the Prime Minister this morning. He assured me that our strong animal welfare, environmental and food safety standards will not be compromised, and I accepted his reassurance. None the less, I look forward to seeing those reassurances being upheld.
Let us think big and long-term for our UK farmers by opening up opportunities and making sure that our UK sector is known internationally and not as a dot, which is what I found a few years ago.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab) [V]
This is an important piece of legislation. It has huge consequences for how we are going to feed our nation and protect our environment, and, as many colleagues have set out, there is a lot to support in it. However, my constituents have huge concerns that the Bill does not go far enough to ensure our high standards for food, animal welfare and protection of the environment and climate that we all value.
The Bill would not do enough to prevent imports of food that do not meet those high British standards, and it would be devastating news for British farmers, who would be left at risk of being undercut when they are doing the right thing to produce good quality food and to protect our environment. That would make a mockery of the value that we place on those standards. I urge the Government to listen to the concerns of the public and support Labour’s amendments today, which would enhance this Bill and provide important protections for British farmers and the standards that we all value.
I want to turn to food insecurity and the difficulties that some of the poorest families in my constituency are facing during this crisis—a crisis that has exacerbated the pressures that many people are already facing in trying to feed their families. The continuing problems with free school meal vouchers are now familiar to all of us, yet the Government have failed to get a grip on the problem. Just this morning, another school in my constituency contacted me to say that, again, its vouchers were late. Staff faced similar problems last week. They worked over the bank holiday weekend in their own time for the children who need that support. It is a common story across schools: far too many staff are listing endless problems in trying to use a system that is clearly not fit for purpose. When they try to make contact to address the problems, the helpline is permanently engaged and their emails go unanswered.
Although I know that we needed to put in place a system quickly to get food to those children, the decision not to put the contract out to tender was a poor one. I urge the Government to get a grip on this situation, because it is just unacceptable that children are being left to go hungry and families are being left without the most basic support to enable them to feed their own children. Across the board, too many people are falling through the gaps and are unable to access the food and supplies that they need. Much of that support is dependent on supermarkets—whether it is access to delivery slots or the pricing of their food. Analysis by the Office for National Statistics last month showed that the price of high-demand food and sanitary products has risen by 4.4% since the lockdown measures began. Will the Government put supermarkets on notice that any profiteering from this situation will not be tolerated?
I wish to finish by highlighting the need of kinship carers, too many of whom are finding access to food a challenge. These are people who have stepped up to do the right thing by the children they are raising, and they face unique challenges. Many kinship carers are elderly grandparents, often with long-term health conditions, raising children who have often experienced trauma and have health challenges of their own. The cross- party parliamentary taskforce on kinship care, which I chair, conducted some research into this group and has recommended that the Government work with supermarkets to ensure that kinship carers are included on the priority list for supermarket deliveries. Is that something that the Government can consider urgently?
In conclusion, we have a huge opportunity in this Bill to protect British farming, to maintain high food and environmental standards and to support the most vulnerable in our communities. Let us not waste it.
Daniel Kawczynski (Shrewsbury and Atcham) (Con)
The Minister, in her introductory remarks, referred to various provisions in the Bill that will devolve more power and responsibility to the Welsh Parliament. She also referred to her family’s long history of farming in Oxfordshire and other counties. I would like to explain to her how concerned I am by this moving of additional powers to the Welsh Parliament, because I represent a border community. As Cardiff and London move further and further apart, we have already seen huge additional complications and problems for our farmers on the border in dealing with sometimes highly different and contradictory legislation emanating from both Parliaments.
One classic example is the crisis that we are facing in Shropshire of bovine tuberculosis on an unprecedented scale. We killed 47 cows in Shropshire in 1997 as a result of bovine TB. Last year, it was more than 2,000. My farmers are going through a crisis of untold proportions. Some of my farmers have land on both sides of the border, and bovine tuberculosis unfortunately does not respect national frontiers, so the devolution process is very difficult for my farmers.
Secondly, my understanding of the Bill is that subsidies will end for English farmers in seven years’ time, but not for Welsh farmers. Again, that is a devolved matter. My question to the Minister is how my farmers, whether chicken or dairy farmers—or farmers of anything that we produce in Shropshire—are meant to compete against their Welsh friends and counterparts across the border when they still have the subsidies but we do not. That is a real concern to me.
I have come here specially today, in person rather than over the internet, to look the Minister in the eye and ask her to take these genuine concerns from border communities into consideration. I would like her to create a taskforce in her Department to look at and evaluate the impact on farmers who operate in border communities and to assess how they can remain competitive, and have a level and fair playing field, with this ongoing divergence between Cardiff and London.
I also wish to speak on new clause 1. interestingly, Robert Newbery, who represents the National Farmers Union in my constituency, and many others—including my association chairman, Dan Morris, who is a cattle farmer—are asking me to support my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. They rightly feel that we have some of the best standards not just in Europe but across the whole globe, and they want guarantees enshrined in law that there will be a level playing field.
I am always amazed by the amount of investment that our farmers have had to make in order to comply with these standards. It is absolutely mind-blowing. I spoke for 30 minutes today to Guy Davies, a farmer in Little Ness who produces 5 million chickens a year, and in addition uses the chicken manure to generate over 9 million kW of electricity, which can power up to 2,000 homes. He wants me to support the new clause.
In the little time that I have left, if the Minister wants me to back her rather than going with my hon. Friends, she really does need to explain when she winds up just what guarantees we will have to take back to the NFU and others who feel so very strongly on this matter. According to the president of the NFU, this is the most important Bill since 1947. It is a landmark Bill, and I would like to pay tribute to all the Shropshire farmers who contribute so much to my community.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab) [V]
I wholeheartedly support new clause 1 and the other amendments seeking the same outcome: that there should be no lowering of standards on food safety, the environment and animal welfare as a result of any future trade deals, no undercutting of British farmers and no race to the bottom. The hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) and I had more than a few differences of opinion when we first served on the Agriculture Bill Committee in the last Parliament—unlike him, I was allowed back for the second one too—but on this issue we are utterly on the same page. The same goes for the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), on whose Select Committee I served in the last Parliament. I thought that he made a very good speech.
As time is limited, all I will say is this: it has been made abundantly clear that no one—not the farmers, not the environmentalists, not the public, not the consumers and not even Tory MPs—trusts the Government’s verbal assurances on this. It is not enough for the Minister to say that it will not happen; we want it in writing, enshrined in law.
I also support amendments on better labelling, procurement, baseline regulation, and fairness and transparency in supply chains, and the Opposition amendment on food security, which calls for a statement to Parliament every year so that we can end the scandal of food poverty. During the current crisis, organisations such as Feeding Bristol have done a tremendous job in my home city, trying to ensure that everyone in lockdown can get the essential food supplies that they need, and that no one, including children who no longer attend school, goes hungry. The voluntary sector has been brilliant, but our children should not have to rely on charity.
I will focus on amendments 18 and 19, which are tabled in my name. I thank the Landworkers Alliance for its work with the all-party parliamentary group on agroecology, which I chair, and for all that it has done to promote the amendments. I have had many emails from constituents in recent days urging me to back my own amendments, which I am obviously more than happy to do. Agroecology is a cause whose time has come. This pandemic has brought home to many people how dysfunctional our relationship with the natural world has become, with overconsumption, unsustainable exploitation of natural resources, a food system that is broken, and birds and wildlife disappearing from our countryside and gardens.
I urge Members to read a recent report, “Feeding the Nation: How Nature Friendly Farmers are Responding to Covid-19”, which includes a quote from a farmer from Northern Ireland. He says:
“The current crisis provides people with time to reflect on the importance of food and farming to all humanity…Our food can only be sustainable and bountiful if it’s produced in harmony with the environment and wildlife.”
The Bill goes some way towards creating a better approach to farm subsidies and rewarding nature-friendly farmers. Despite being an ardent remainer, I will not shed a tear for us leaving the common agricultural policy. I broadly support the public money for public goods approach, but my concern is that it will allow farmers to cherry-pick.
What we need is a whole-farm system approach, so that across the farm, not just on the margins, farmers are using agroecological methods, focusing on getting the best from the whole landscape. Such measures include protecting soil health through no-till farming, which not only boosts food production but helps to sequester carbon; using integrated pest management rather than toxic pesticides; and protecting habitats and promoting biodiversity, so that we see a return of nesting birds, pollinators and beneficial insects to our countryside.
I will finish with another quote from a farmer in that nature-friendly farming report. He says:
“This crisis has made it very clear that we have lost the resilience in our food and farming system, with value being placed on ‘cheap’. This has led to degraded soils, diminishing wildlife and imports of lower food safety and farming standards. We need to shift back to a more sustainable, mixed farming system for resilience across the board.”
That is what my amendments seek to achieve, and I hope that the Government will listen.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con) [V]
While my constituency is primarily known as a former mining area, agriculture has always played an essential role in the local economy of Don Valley and continues to do so. Consequently, as the Government have confirmed that there will be no extension to the transition period, this Bill is more necessary than ever, and its passage today will provide farmers and many other individuals in my constituency with reassurance on several issues.
I appreciate that Members in all parts of the House are concerned about environmental sustainability in food production, as can be seen in the Opposition’s amendment 26. Yet this amendment is wholly unnecessary, as clause 1(4) already outlines that the provision of any financial assistance by the Secretary of State to agricultural businesses would have to take into account whether such assistance would encourage food production in an environmentally sustainable way. I am pleased with the addition of this requirement, as it will ensure that the often wasteful aspects of the common agricultural policy will become a thing of the past.
Furthermore, I am pleased that clause 17 will require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament at least once every five years on food security in the United Kingdom. This is particularly relevant at this moment in time. Like so many of my colleagues across the House, I have had dozens of concerned constituents email me about the lack of food in shops as a result of the panic buying that we unfortunately witnessed last month. Some were even scared that the UK would run out of food. Yet I am concerned that the Opposition’s new clause 4 would add such a large number of requirements to the Secretary of State’s reporting that the original purpose of clause 17 would be lost. I appreciate that the new clause is designed to encourage the consumption of healthy food, but clause 17(2)(e) already states that the data put forward by the Secretary of State will include statistics on
“food safety and consumer confidence in food.”
This would inevitably touch on aspects relating to the nutritional value of food and consumers’ confidence that the food available to them was healthy to consume.
This has been a robust debate and I have appreciated the diverse range of views that have been expressed across the House. I end simply by stating that this Bill has my full support and will ease some of my constituents’ environmental and food security concerns.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
This may be an agriculture Bill but it is also one of the most important environmental reforms in decades—a once-in-a-generation opportunity to change the way that land is managed in this country for the better.
Frankly, the dry phrase, “public money for public goods”, does not really convey the importance of what we are seeking to safeguard through clause 1 of this very important Bill: the air we breathe into our lungs every minute of the day; the precious soil that nurtures the crops that feed us; our rivers, streams and waterways; our hedgerows and wildflower meadows; our ancient woodlands and our rolling hills; the stunning country- side that is one of the greatest treasures of this United Kingdom we are lucky enough to call home. Of course, the “public goods” covered in the Bill also include the civilised and compassionate treatment of animals and the struggle to protect our planet from climate change.
To make a success of these reforms, we need, first, to give proper weight to food security. I was pleased to see this added to the Bill during my time as Secretary of State. Secondly, these reforms must be properly funded. I fought to secure a Conservative manifesto commitment that farm support would be maintained at current levels in every year of this Parliament. Bitter experience shows how hard it is to deliver change on this scale in the context of a shrinking budget.
Thirdly, we need sufficient time for a managed and orderly transition to ELM. If the Government want to stick to their seven-year timetable, I am afraid that we will need to see more detail very soon on how ELM will operate. Fourthly, in designing ELM we need to get the right balance between, on the one hand, ensuring that the schemes are widely accessed by farmers, including upland farmers, and can be delivered in practice; and, on the other hand, ensuring that significant, measurable, positive outcomes are delivered in relation to crucial public goods.
In this Bill, we are setting out on a path that has been closed to this Parliament for nearly half a century. Successive Governments have pushed CAP reform, but generally returned empty-handed from the Council tables in Brussels. Replacing the CAP means that we can deliver a better, brighter, greener future for farming in England, but we will not be able to realise that vision if we expose our farmers to unfettered competition from US imports produced to lower standards of animal welfare and environmental protection. We are already asking a great deal of farmers as we phase out basic payments. They will face even greater challenges if the negotiations with the EU do not initially deliver a free trade agreement. If we add in the complete liberalisation of trade with US producers, that would be a hit from which many livestock businesses would not survive. The aftershock would be felt in all four corners of our United Kingdom because of the centrality of livestock farming to communities in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and of course the north of England too.
The Conservatives were elected on a manifesto with commitments on animal welfare and the environment which are more far-reaching than any before in the long history of our party, but allowing unrestricted imports from jurisdictions with far weaker rules would mean offshoring carbon emissions and animal cruelty, not reducing them. If we are to keep our promises on the environment and on the decent treatment of animals, they must be reflected in our trade policy and in the Bill this afternoon.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Madam Deputy Speaker, I would have loved to have been with you this afternoon in the Chamber, but I am not allowed to be with you. I cannot look you in the eye, but I am here speaking up, I hope, for my constituency of Huddersfield, where we do have farms and farming. We are, of course, the centre for the great Syngenta, one of the leading agricultural science companies in the world. It used to be owned by my old employer, Imperial Chemical Industries—ICI. It is now owned by ChemChina, which is an arm of the Chinese Government.
Things are changing. What the Bill is about, and why I support the amendments that have been tabled, is getting the balance right, across parties, between having good-quality food for our constituents and our children to feed the people of this country and our need for a secure supply chain. Nothing has taught us more about supply chains than the recent coronavirus scandal and the terrible deaths that have been caused by it. The fact of the matter is that we have to have secure food supplies.
Only recently, there was a leaked document—I have to say from the Government side—that said, “Why do we need a farming sector any longer? Why don’t we do what we do with everything else and get the cheapest possible deal in the global supermarket?” That is not the answer. We now know that we must have not only a vibrant farming sector but one that is compatible with a highly skilled and well managed industry. It also needs to be compatible with a diverse and bountiful countryside in which species are not being eradicated and where industrial agriculture does not destroy habitat.
I believe that this is Hedgehog Awareness Week. That is no laughing matter. When I was a young person it was very common to see a hedgehog in a garden. They have almost been eliminated in our country, as have many bird species, through an industrialisation of agriculture about which we must all be wary.
It would be wrong in this debate not to say that farming is under threat from the unscrupulous practices of many of our supermarkets. Getting that relationship between farming, the retailer and the supermarkets is extremely important. It is easy to say that our farming is the best. Our farming, where it is good, is very good indeed, but it is not perfect. We have a lot to learn from experience around the world, and not only in terms of high science, good management, good skills training and paying people well who work on the land. The fact of the matter is that we have to get the balance right between all those competing goals.
I am not someone who gets carried away with campaigns, but I hate the fact that we are eliminating the lovely British badger. I believe that that is a wrong-headed, contrary to science campaign, and we should all deplore that.
There must be a right balance between the countryside, the environment and high-quality agriculture, as well as the opportunity for young people who want to become farmers to get hold of some land and get started. Very largely, the push for local authorities to sell off their land during the recent austerity has meant that many young farmers do not have that opportunity. There is much to go at beyond this Bill. Let us all do it together.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
As a parliamentary hedgehog champion, it is a pleasure to follow Huddersfield’s very own Mr Tiggy-Winkle, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).
I rise to speak to new clause 11 and amendment 37, tabled in my name and supported by colleagues, relating to the mandatory labelling of products with their farming method. Much of what we have heard already aims to put high animal welfare standards at the heart of this Bill. For the Committee stage, I tabled other amendments, including on labelling with the method of slaughter, but due to the truncated proceedings I can only raise one today, and trust that the Lords will consider others when the Bill passes to them. I hope the Government will be sympathetic to new clause 11 and amendment 37, given that they were first proposed in a previous incarnation of the Bill by the now noble Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park, who is responsible for this legislation when it continues its passage in the upper House. Knowing him as well as I do, I doubt very much that a red box has changed his deeply held beliefs on animal welfare.
I believe that, ultimately, consumers are best placed to drive improvement in animal welfare standards because consumer demands and changing behaviours force the agriculture and supermarket sector to adapt. The substantial shift away from caged to free-range eggs is testament to this. At present, more than half of egg production in the UK is free range, with more and more restaurants and supermarkets phasing out their use and sale of caged eggs as public demand changes. I would argue that the legislation that required eggs and egg packs to be labelled with the farming method has undoubtedly helped to accelerate this change and that extending it to other products simply follows.
I firmly believe, now we have left the EU and as we prepare to exit the transition period, that the Agriculture Bill, along with the Environment Bill, provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that British agricultural standards are the best in the world. We can and should go beyond the current European framework and set a new standard for animal welfare. Greatly improved labelling for farming methods can be the first step in improving the availability of more ethically sourced food for a changing consumer market.
My new clause and amendment require the Secretary of State to make regulations regarding the labelling of meat, milk and dairy products as to farming method. At present, consumer demand is being impeded by lack of clear information at point of sale about how meat and dairy products have been produced. Therefore, British consumers are largely in the dark.
Plenty of consumer research has been carried out that shows an obvious want among the British public for clearer labelling to identify the farm system used to produce the food that we put on our plates. I am not sure I have heard any good reason why we should not label better, so I am hoping that the Government will either accept the amendment, or reassure me that they agree with the principle and will bring it back in an acceptable form in the Lords. There is nothing to fear from clearer, better labelling, especially as we have heard in other areas of this debate about the desire to set a new global standard for our agriculture sector.
Finally, I commend the work that has been achieved by colleagues at DEFRA. I believe that this Bill will go a long way to improving standards in the UK, but I think we need to trust the consumer and allow consumers to have the information that will drive their decisions about what they purchase. I hope that the Minister will look at my new clause sympathetically and accept it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I shall now suspend the House for 15 minutes, returning at 4.20 pm.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC) [V]
I want to speak on three key themes that intertwine with the amendments and new clauses that we are considering: first, the need to protect domestic food supplies; secondly, the need for joint decision making over the new British state internal food market; and thirdly, trade policy as it will apply to agriculture.
On our economy and food supplies, the current pandemic has exposed long-ignored issues, including our dependence on imports. Now is the time to rethink, reset and rebuild our food supply from the ground up. The regrettable long-term withdrawal of both the British and Welsh Governments from food policy has allowed our food retail industry to become ever more concentrated, so that just four companies now control 70% of the UK food retail market. The oligopoly of several large food retailers has given them unprecedented power to dictate ever lower prices to farmers, continually sapping the financial health of domestic agriculture and expanding an ever wider trade imbalance that undermines our food security. In short, a complete U-turn is needed in agricultural policy to promote food production. Central to that should be the development of local processing capabilities, so that we can help to build a stronger local economy where people can buy local produce more directly.
Following the debate since the EU referendum, it is plainly obvious that the proponents of leaving the EU have given little thought to its consequences for the British state. My preferred policy would have been to remain in the single market post Brexit—a luxury available to the six counties of the north of Ireland, but not Wales—and then there would have been no need for me to make this point. However, in leaving the single market, a new internal market will need to be created for Scotland, Wales and England in order to facilitate the free movement of goods, not least agricultural products. I am sure that, as time goes by, businesses in my constituency and across Wales will start asking why they cannot have the same access to the European single market as Northern Ireland. However, I digress.
The key issue that faces us now is how the new Welsh, Scottish and English internal market will be governed and regulated. I have little doubt that, due to the centralising tendencies of Westminster, British Government Ministers believe that that will be a matter for them and them alone. I remind the British Government, however, that Wales and Scotland have moved a considerable way in recent decades, and the people of our respective countries will not take kindly to the sidelining of our national Governments and national Parliaments. After all, during the EU referendum, Brexiteers were promising Wales a “bonanza” of new powers. To avoid the destructive contradictions caused by Brexit, it is clear that the British state needs to be restructured. Joint decision making between those constituent parts of the British state within the new internal market would be an obvious way of creating some stability.
I turn to trade policy. There is a complete absence in the original Bill of any commitment or means of upholding Welsh and British farming production standards in international trade negotiations. As UK negotiators are reportedly finding out in their deliberations with the US, every one of the 50 states has the right to impose conditions in their trade deals, so as to protect their respective core economic interests.
Welsh agriculture is the bedrock of our food and drink industry, worth nearly £7.5 billion in 2018. A core component of that is overseas trade, particularly with our European friends and allies, where nearly three quarters of all Welsh food and drink exports were destined in 2018. This trade underpins the employment of over a quarter of a million people in Wales. Trade in foodstuffs is therefore a national strategic imperative for my country.
Unrestricted, cheap, poor-quality imports threaten to not only damage the immediate vitality and strength of our domestic food sector, but also pose wider challenges to our environment and our rural economy. As things stands when it comes to trade policy, Wallonia, a region of Belgium, will have more influence over European Union trade policy than Wales will have over UK trade policy. The checks and balances in the EU, the US and other trade blocs are not intended to create problems. They are there to ensure coherence to trade policy.
We are fully justified in our concern in Wales. The absurdity of current British Government trade policy means that trade negotiations with the US are given equal billing to those with the EU, despite their own figures indicating that it would take 60 deals with Trump to make up for what will be lost as a result of a botched Brexit transition phase. Again, Northern Ireland’s farmers will be protected as they will effectively remain in the EU customs union. The British Government seem to think they can leverage concessions from Europe by holding parallel talks, but President Macron, as usual, has completely outmanoeuvred the British Government by saying plainly that if the UK pursues a US deal and agrees to the importation of cheaper, lower-standard food, they can forget the trade deal with the EU.
In closing, my message to the British Government is this: stick as close to the EU as possible and create joint decision-making structures between Wales, Scotland and England over internal market and trade policy. I fear, though, that ideological zealotry will trump my advice. Diolch yn fawr.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con) [V]
I want to talk about new clause 1, which is in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare), and new clause 4, which has not been selected but was tabled by me. New clause 4 seeks to make the Secretary of State a trade champion for the British agricultural industry. Although the Department for International Trade is absolutely the lead Department on negotiating free trade deals and trade promotion, trade promotion is of course a whole-of-Government exercise. It is incumbent on every Department to ensure that they promote at all times the fantastic products that we want to export to the entire world. I want to put a marker down for the whole of Government that they must be there to promote British exports.
Turning to the specifics, new clause 4 looks at several issues, and we need to get deep into the weeds of what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural actually does when it comes to food exports. One of the most important parts of exporting and, indeed, importing food is ensuring that foodstuffs are of a sufficient quality. Irrespective of the market access and tariffs that we secure in a trade deal, every country needs to allocate a licence to ensure that any food product class is sufficiently safe for their own consumers. For example, when people want to export food to the UK, DEFRA, through the Food Standards Agency, will license imports of sanitary and phytosanitary products.
When we are trying to export products, it is important that DEFRA works hard with licensing agencies in other countries to ensure that the audit of our producers and the audit of our regulators are done in such a way as to ensure that those licences are expedited as much as possible. They can take three years to get done, but we need to be doing things far quicker. From time to time, we get a problem whereby licences will be withdrawn, and we saw that with British beef over the years after Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease—mad cow disease. It is only in the past few years that we have seen the French lift their ban on British beef and the Americans lift their bans on British beef and lamb, and that came decades after CJD was a problem. That is a second area where the Secretary of State at DEFRA must do everything they can to lift such bans to ensure that we get proper market access.
Furthermore, other countries have local laws that may create problems. A good example of that is Thailand, which has perfectly acceptable religious views on alcohol and requires that alcohol is not promoted on the bottle. However, if someone is trying to sell a bottle of 21-year-old malt whisky, the law could interpret that as being a promotion of the product, rather than just a statement of fact that it is a very good whisky. We managed to resolve that problem through the Department for International Trade, as it turned out, but the point is that we need to ensure that we try to break down those inadvertent barriers to entry at every level.
Although new clause 1 is incredibly well intentioned, and my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset stands up enthusiastically for the interests of farmers, I am afraid that it is rather misguided. Apart from anything else, it goes against the World Trade Organisation laws. In seeking to ensure that standards are maintained within the UK, it misses the point that standards are defined as outcomes not process. That is a problem as we particularly interested in outcomes. The process of ensuring that we have good animal welfare is laudable and important and quite extensive for our producers, but the outcome is ensuring that our consumers are not poisoned by food, which is an important point. I completely sympathise with the objectives of the new clause, which looks to help farmers, but it would end up setting a barrier for ourselves. We would introduce a process-based regulation, rather than an outcomes-based regulation under WTO terms. What we must do is support our farmers by promoting exports. We need the Secretary of State to report back on an annual basis, but we do not want to create other barriers, which new clause 1 would introduce.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green) [V]
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to my amendments this afternoon, and to support several others.
My new clause 5 would help to rectify the absence of anything in the Bill to cut pesticide use. This is a really serious omission, given the harm that pesticides cause to insect life, including bees and pollinators, and to other wildlife, as well as the risks to human health. New clause 5 would require the Secretary of State to take steps to protect members of the public from the hazardous health impacts of pesticide use—for example, by specifying a minimum distance between where a pesticide is being applied and public or residential buildings. We do not need to look hard to find evidence of the so-called insect apocalypse, and the serious risks of pesticides to humans and nature. Recently, a call from more than 70 scientists urged the phase-out of pesticides as a “no regrets” immediate step, stating:
“There is now a strong scientific consensus that the decline of insects, other arthropods and biodiversity as a whole, is a very real and serious threat that society must urgently address.”
On human health, pesticide cocktails are of particular concern, as they can be far more harmful than individual pesticides, yet our own regulatory system only assesses the safety of one chemical at a time. There is also the exposure of rural residents to pesticides applied to nearby farmland. The lack of anything on pesticides in the Bill is even more disturbing given the Government’s dubious stance on the precautionary principle: refusing to transfer it fully into UK law and refusing to legislate against the risks of a US trade deal undermining it.
My amendment 42 is on the sustainability and resilience of agriculture more widely. It complements amendments 18 and 19 on agroecology tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), which I strongly support. Amendment 42 would enable the Secretary of State to set and monitor progress towards targets for the uptake of integrated pest management based on agroecological practices, including organic farming. This would help to ensure that the catch-all clause on productivity payments does not undermine environmental objectives.
This week, a leaked copy of the EU 2030 biodiversity strategy revealed proposals for at least 25% of farmland to be organic, alongside a wider uptake of agroecological practices, a 50% reduction in pesticide use and cuts to mineral fertiliser use. On Second Reading, the then Secretary of State claimed that leaving the EU meant a greener future for British farming, where the UK would apparently do so much better for wildlife and the landscape. If that is to be reality and not just rhetoric, we need an Agriculture Bill that matches or goes further than the EU proposals on pesticides, agroecology and organic farming.
In response to covid-19, some argue that we should downplay nature and sustainability, and dial up food production. But that would risk doubling down on a food system that is contributing to what scientists last month called a
“perfect storm for the spillover of diseases from wildlife to people”.
One example is forest loss driven by rocketing demand for vast quantities of soya that is then fed to pigs and chickens, including in the UK. Agroecology is our route out of a dangerous dead-end debate that pitches food security, environmental protection and public health against each other. We can and must do much better than that.
Finally, my new clause 14 would go some way to fixing the Bill’s worrying lack of attention to the climate emergency. Having highlighted regulation as a gaping hole in the Bill on Second Reading, I strongly support new clause 8 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, and am pleased that it includes specific provisions on climate. New clause 14 would complement that by setting a target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions for agriculture and land use in the UK by 2050 at the latest. That is much too late in my view, but I hope that the Government will pick this up. It would also place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish interim emission-reduction targets, as well as policies to ensure that those targets are met.
The Committee on Climate Change has said that “strengthening the regulatory baseline” is an essential step that the Government must urgently deploy to meet climate goals, so I hope the Government will support not just specific climate targets for agriculture, as new clause 14 proposes, but rigorous policies to meet them that place equal emphasis on biodiversity and public health. The climate emergency is just one reason why Ministers must say no to business as usual and yes to a resilient, re-localised and regenerative food and farming system. My amendments would go some way towards putting those things at the heart of the Bill.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I wish to speak against new clause 1. A real issue needs to be dealt with: the high levels of regulation imposed on UK farming can and do add to increased costs for UK farmers. High standards can be an advantage in two ways: first, in what they say about the United Kingdom and our attitudes to animal welfare; and secondly, when it comes to exporting, when we can show to those who want to buy British agricultural produce that it is produced to very high standards—that was a huge advantage to me on a number of occasions when I was Secretary of State for International Trade.
The best way to help our farmers is to have a proper cross-governmental strategy to improve UK farming exports. The proposed changes do not deal with that particular problem, but they do create a number of others. There are three main unintended consequences: the first is the damage to our reputation for observing international treaty law; the second is that the proposals would damage our ability to conclude our current free trade agreements, and potentially future ones; and the third is that they make a mockery of our current negotiating position with the European Union.
First, the new clause is not compatible with WTO rules. Food safety and related issues are anchored in WTO law. Only the slaughter of animals is covered as a welfare issue in the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement. There is nothing that the Government will do to undermine food safety standards in this country, and to suggest otherwise is a complete red herring in this whole debate. It would be a fine start to Britain’s independent trade policy outside the European Union if we were to begin by finding ourselves in conflict with the very rules-based trading system that we believe to be necessary.
Secondly, the new clause would damage the chances of our completing our current free trade agreements. I can say from personal experience, in my discussions with the United States, that the US would walk were the proposals to become law in the United Kingdom, and it would be swiftly followed by others—the Australians, the New Zealanders and those involved in the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership would be unlikely to take kindly to it. They do not want the incorporation of UK rules to become a prerequisite to trading agreements with the United Kingdom.
There is an additional problem: it is about not just our current FTAs but our ability to conclude future FTAs with developing countries, which simply cannot afford to have the same level of animal welfare standards as we enjoy in a country as wealthy as the United Kingdom. It would be a great pity if, after all the work we have done to promote development, we unintentionally undermined it by agreeing to this change.
Thirdly, the new clause makes a mockery of what we are doing in our negotiation with the European Union. We are currently telling the European Union that we cannot accept the introduction of rules made outside our own country as a precondition of trade with the European Union—the so-called level-playing-field approach—but that is exactly what the new clause would do in relation to everybody else. I can imagine nothing that would bring greater joy to the bureaucrats of Brussels than the UK scuppering its free trade agreement with the United States on the basis that we were insisting on a level-playing-field agreement that we have categorically ruled out in our dealings with the European Union.
I wish to go slightly beyond the content of the proposals to the wider consequences. I worry about what some of the proposed changes say about the signals we would send as a country and our approach to free trade in general. It is worth pointing out—because almost no one seems to have noticed—that global trading volumes went negative in the fourth quarter of 2019. Before covid, global trade was on a downturn, with inevitable long-term economic consequences. Since 2010, the world’s wealthiest economies—the G20—have increased and increased the number of non-tariff barriers to trade: in 2010, they were operating around 300; by 2015, they were operating around 1,200.
There is a bit of environmental law here, a bit of consumer protection here and a bit of producer protection elsewhere. It all adds up to a silting up of the global trading system. Why does that matter? It matters because it risks the progress we have made in the past generation of taking a billion people out of abject poverty through global free trade. It is not morally acceptable for those countries that have done very well out of global trade to turn to the others that are still developing and pull the ladder up in front of them. We have benefited from a global open trading system. It is not only economically sensible, but morally the right thing to do to ensure that that free trade continues.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)[V]
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this Bill. I served on Bill Committee and I have been contacted by a huge number of constituents, so I am enthusiastic about ensuring that the Government listen to the suggestions put forward by the people most affected by this Bill. There are huge insecurities throughout agriculture right now, with it anticipating new opportunities and challenges arising from leaving the European Union. Parliament is having to consider the Bill without knowing what those challenges will be and what our future relationships with other countries will look like. These insecurities have been highlighted by the sector for some time, and covid-19 means that the public have more recently been faced with these insecurities and the issues relating to the resilience of our domestic food supply chain. Closed restaurants, empty supermarket shelves and restrictions on imported food were issues that did not enter the public’s mind until just a few weeks ago. We should use the experience of this crisis to guide policy to build future resilience for our food and environmental security.
Many farmers and businesses in the agricultural sector will be facing unexpected financial hardship because of covid-19. Having witnessed the fragility of our domestic supply chain, we must ensure that the Bill includes provisions to support the domestic industry throughout the rest of the crisis. We must also consider practices our industry and consumers may be exposed to if our domestic industry cannot sustain the food supply following this and we have to look more to outside sources. With new trading agreements yet to be made, now we have the perfect opportunity to ban unfair trading and unethical practices. The Bill should ensure that food imports are produced to the equivalent environmental, animal welfare and food safety standards as those required of producers in the UK. The Government should also ensure transparency in our future supply chain, so that consumers are able to make ethical decisions for themselves and that the UK agriculture sector is prioritised over international imports. British farmers must not be subject to a system where they are undercut by food produced to lower standards and then imported into the UK. British consumers must not be subject to food with lower nutritional value, unaware of how their food was farmed.
This Bill has an opportunity to have a positive impact on farmers, business, the wider public and the environment if we get it right. That is why I was pleased to see so many contributions to the Bill Committee and why it is important that we include suggestions that will mean that the Bill has much more of a wider impact. The Ramblers, Britain’s largest walking charity, has asked that this Bill includes a requirement for landowners in receipt of public funds to fulfil their legal duty to keep public rights of way. I am supporting that suggestion from Ramblers, so that my constituents have the opportunity to explore nature and have access to a free way to stay active. That is just one way in which the Bill can support farmers to support the wider public. After two months of lockdown, I am sure that all Members from across the House, and the UK public, can appreciate the importance of access to nature and nutritional food. We have pulled together as a country throughout the crisis, and we should use this momentum to continue to support one another.
I am pleased to be able to speak on the Bill, to support workers in the agriculture industry, who are important but often overlooked keyworkers in the crisis. It is essential that a future trade agreement protects British farmers and consumers, and that is why I support Labour’s amendment. I hope that the Government have heard the important contributions we have heard, and take the opportunity today to legislate to protect the UK agriculture sector, and make use of our suggestions, which will have a positive impact on the wider public.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con) [V]
Here in Wantage I can hear cows mooing as I speak, so the debate is relevant to my constituency.
Beginning with imports, it is fair to say that across Wantage and Didcot we have first-rate farming—Brimstone farm in the west of my constituency is one example. The food that is produced and the environment, agriculture and welfare standards are extremely high. A number of my farmers would like me to support some of the proposals that we are considering, particularly new clauses 1 and 2. I thought hard about that, and was pulled in that direction, but in the end I decided not to do so. Even if that provided short-term help—I am not sure that it would, even if it were compatible with World Trade Organisation rules, and I am not sure that that is the case—in the long term it would not help exports from the great farmers here and across the country. There is a five-year requirement to report on food security. That is a minimum requirement, but I hope that we will hear about food security much more regularly.
In my judgement, public money for public good, is one of the most exciting parts of the legislation. We will change entirely the system for paying farmers, and we will be able to do so in a way that helps to protect the environment. Farmers are the natural custodians of the environment, and measures that enable us to support them to improve air, soil and water quality as well as biodiversity are a hugely welcome development. Maybe—just maybe—it will help to reduce farmers’ average age, which is 60 at the moment. They find it difficult to persuade their children and grandchildren to take on their work. This may be a step to help encourage others to maintain the land for the great purposes that support our efforts on climate change. In future, some people may try to minimise the food production aspect. I hope that that does not happen, because that should not be regarded as a contrast to efforts on the environment. These are mutually beneficial things that we can do together in the Bill.
Turning to exports, I voted to leave the European Union, and was surprised to be told that that meant that I believed in a closed society, rather than an open one. On the contrary—I wanted an open society that was open to more than just the EU. I would like to see British products in countries around the world, and I hope that we will do everything that we can to ensure that that is the case. I think that there is an opportunity on food labelling at the end of the transition period, so that we can clearly define and consistently apply food labelling that demonstrates and signals to the world the high standards that we have in this country.
There is undoubtedly more that we can do to promote our exports. We have the “Food is GREAT” campaign. I hope that we turbo-boost that in the coming years. Finally, I want to make sure that we remember small farms, because this is a tremendous opportunity for our farms, and I hope that we will support them in their contracts and by promoting their goods, so that they too can benefit from this groundbreaking legislation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now go to Angus and Dave Doogan—[Interruption.] I beg your pardon. I am grateful to Members in the Chamber for correcting my mistake. We go to North Devon—[Interruption.] We go to North Down, and Stephen Farry.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; that was an interesting tour of the UK—from Scotland to the south-west and finally to Northern Ireland.
I want to speak primarily to new clause 9 in my name and those of the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) and others; to new clause 1, of which I am a co-sponsor; and to new clauses 2, 6 and 10, which are very similar.
By way of context, I stress the importance of the agri-food sector to the Northern Ireland economy. It represents about 10% of all activity, which is considerably higher than the UK average. Furthermore, the profile of agriculture and associated industry in Northern Ireland is different from that of the UK as a whole; we have a much higher profile of smaller farmers in particular. The Northern Ireland sector is based around quality rather than scale, and standards are critical and are a matter of pride to all stakeholders.
I passionately believe in an open and liberal international trading system, and we had that with our membership of the European Union and its trade deals with the rest of the world. Trade cannot be conceptualised in simplistic terms or around outmoded 19th-century economic thinking. Environmental, food safety, animal welfare and labour issues are now all vital considerations.
It is also important to acknowledge the unique situation in which Northern Ireland finds itself from the implementation of the Ireland-Northern Ireland protocol. That is of course the inevitable out-working of Brexit and in particular the decision of the UK Government to rule out a softer Brexit based around the customs union and single market, and therefore the ongoing need to ensure an open border on the island of Ireland and protection of the Good Friday agreement. Northern Ireland will consequently remain aligned to large aspects of EU regulation. Furthermore, there is ongoing uncertainty as to how Northern Ireland will interact with EU trade policy and also UK trade policy going forward, with the risk of being marginalised in both respects. Obviously, in the all-Ireland context, matters such as food safety and environmental considerations need to be aligned.
On the substance of new clause 9, I acknowledge that post Brexit there is a need for an initial UK-wide framework to provide breathing space in policy and payments, but there is a sunset clause in the Bill for some measures applying to Wales, and Scotland has already indicated its intention to shape its own policy. This Bill was conceived and drafted prior to the New Decade, New Approach agreement and the welcome restoration of devolution in Northern Ireland, but there is no sunset clause for the application of schedule 6 to Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland is therefore out of step with other devolved nations, yet, paradoxically, it is Northern Ireland that needs the greatest scope to shape policy to fit its particular circumstances, not least given that protocol.
The Bill provides for the local Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister to amend provisions by regulation, but most Members will appreciate the different processes and scope to enact them through primary legislation and regulation. Northern Ireland is at risk of losing the capacity of the much more rounded and participative process that comes from full legislative consideration. There is a broad range of farming and environmental stakeholders who deserve the opportunity to engage more fully in the development of policy.
In the Minister’s opening comments, she indicated that matters covered in new clause 9 were largely for the devolved AERA Minister. However, I have already explained the difference between action by regulation and by primary legislation. The hon. Member for Upper Bann (Carla Lockhart) stated that the local Minister was happy with the Bill and the Assembly had already passed a legislative consent motion, but that Minister was only one voice and his views are not representative of the majority of Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. The LCM was passed by the Assembly in anticipation that it could still pass its own bespoke legislation, and, importantly, the agriculture and environment Committee in the Assembly has expressed its support for a sunset clause.
Any sunset clause would run to 2026, which would provide ample time for local measures to be put in place; there would therefore be no risk. It would be a strange thing if the Northern Ireland Assembly did not want to shape policy in an area of its own competence.
Mr Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) (Con) [V]
I support the Bill overall. I think it is great for agriculture. It is a landmark Bill, and I thank my local National Farmers Union and local farmers for the engagement I have had with them over many months now.
I do, however, want to speak against new clauses 1 and 2, for which some NFU representatives have been encouraging MPs to vote. While there are good intentions—clearly I want to do what I can to support and help create opportunities for farmers up and down the country, including in south Somerset—the new clauses would in fact be damaging to their long-term interests and the long-term interests of the country. I will say a few things about the reasons for that and address some of the things that my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said. He said that he wanted us to be a beacon for standards around the world, and I agree with him, but I believe that we can champion higher standards much better if we are not a trade pariah, which we would be regarded as if we banned imports on a blanket basis, as the new clauses would effect. I am also, as is my hon. Friend, pro consumer safety, and it is important to understand that we will not be reducing import standards. We will have the Food Safety Agency to ensure that our products are safe and that our consumers are kept safe.
I am pro farmers’ opportunities, and we have a lot of scope to increase the work that the Government can do to help farmers to market their products and develop new innovative products. I understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is looking at a new grant scheme to help with some of that. There are also the opportunities from trade itself, which are large. My hon. Friend said that he was pro food security, and I also support such a thing, but part of that is about having diversified supply chains, and that is exactly what would be damaged by the new clauses, which could effectively create a blanket ban on imports at the whim of the Government or of a food safety agency. I do not think that is in our interests either.
The bottom line is that we are not going to let standards slide, as the shadow Minister said was his fear. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) made the point that our high standards are often a very good marketing feature for our export products around the rest of the world. Being able to do these deals around the rest of the world is critical. At the end of the day, the new clauses, if passed, would interfere with our ability to sign new trade deals and to roll over the existing ones that we have with the EU. It would put us outside of the scope of our WTO agreements, and we would be that trade pariah.
I will finish by saying a couple of things. My neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said that he wanted lots of US exports. That simply would not happen under a trade deal, as he said he wanted, if the new clauses were agreed, because there would not be a trade deal.
Finally I want to address my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson). He had heartening faith in our trade negotiators, and I agree that we have some great trade negotiators who will fight hard for us and for our farmers. I will do what I can to aid the negotiators in that process of fighting for farmers, but I am afraid that however good they are, if the new clauses passed into law their ability would not make any difference; there would simply be no trade deals with any other nation. With that, I thank all the farmers of south Somerset for their support through this process.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) [V]
I am happy to be able to make my observations on the Bill, its process and the material considerations at stake. As an MP representing a Scottish seat, I will necessarily keep my references confined to the narrow, yet vital, provisions that affect constituents in Angus and more widely in Scotland.
The Bill and its passage through Parliament afford us another example of the straining construct that the UK Parliament increasingly reveals itself to be. This is principally a Bill to provide legislative guidance, a regulatory framework and sector-specific support for English agriculture, yet here we are—MPs from all four nations of the United Kingdom—invested in its passage through this place. A far better proposition in recognising and respecting the devolved nature of agriculture would have been for the Government to table an English agriculture Bill under the EVEL—English votes for English laws—procedures so valued by Government Members, and a further agricultural co-operation Bill, which could have been agreed by consent with the devolved Administrations, with competencies over budgets, food standards, the single market in the UK, animal welfare, environmental protections, and crucially of course, trade, but that ship has well and truly sailed.
That being the case, I must turn to the provisions of the Bill, or in fact, the absence of a key provision that most concerns stakeholders in the agricultural sector: the standard of imported agricultural produce to the UK. Representatives of farming, consumer, environmental and animal welfare organisations across the United Kingdom have been crystal clear on this point. Parliament must take this opportunity to ensure that the Bill introduces vital safeguards for the maintenance of high standards of production on food imports, founded in statute, mandated by law and applying no more than that which is applied to producers of food in the domestic market.
During this period of unprecedented turmoil in our history, farmers and food producers have ensured that the cycle of food production has continued no matter what. That is the calibre of this industry and the people who work within it. We owe it to them in this context, and referencing the generations of food production before it, to ensure that our farmers are not undercut by lower standards of imports that result from some future trade policy.
This import standards issue is a matter of unparalleled concern within the industry, and moreover, it enjoys political support from across all parties in this House—a rare thing indeed. It is not a new issue either and it has been prevalent throughout the course of the Bill. Ministers have been asked many times by Members to consider it. What is concerning is that when I and other right hon. and hon. Members ask this question about standards of imports, we receive the same response from the Secretary of State as we did from his predecessor in the role, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers): that the Government are committed to high standards of production within the UK. That is a hollow and unconvincing yet very telling response to a question that nobody is asking, and it speaks to tension between the Department for International Trade and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that Members must circumvent today.
An early casualty, if we fail to act, will be the outstanding egg producers of these islands. It is a success story within food production that an industry that receives no subsidies provides countless farms with their egg cheque every month—so vital to the cashflow of seasonal enterprises such as farming. Yet, if the Bill fails to uphold their high standards of production on imports, they will face unparalleled if not insurmountable challenges in competing with foreign imports of egg products, dried and liquid, that could be produced to horrifically low animal welfare standards before ending up in unwitting consumers’ food products here. Scottish and UK farmers and producers are not asking for any special deal or to be protected from cheaper products of the same or higher standards. The industry in Scotland and across these islands is well able to compete on the world stage. All they are asking for is that the competition is fair and on a level playing field. For this reason, I will be voting to introduce this most basic of provisions to the Bill in the interests of consumers, environmental protection and animal welfare.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con) [V]
The Bill is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to shape the future of agriculture in the United Kingdom, including how we farm, how we feed people and how we make farming sustainable for this generation and the next. It also comes at a time when we are fundamentally reassessing our trading relationships across the world, and at a moment of crisis when expansion of our international trade is essential to our recovery and future prosperity. The Bill, as it stands, opens the door for our farmers to the opportunities for growth that international trade brings, and with that it goes some way to addressing the regional imbalance of opportunity and wealth that this Government and I want to focus on.
Farmers in my constituency and across the country already sell exports to Europe worth about £24 billion, and the Bill sets a template for expansion into other regions, which will mean that members of our farming community will be able to compete abroad as never before. They will sell more of what they already sell, and enter new markets so that they can sell more of the same products and new products too. To bring the narrative back to how extending British farming into global markets will directly boost growth, it is just simple maths that growth leads to more jobs, and with that, better jobs. Growth in trade will create new opportunities in places that may have been left behind. It will help to keep local talent at home and attract new talent from afar, and the levelling up of society in every region of Britain will take one more step forward.
I support the aspirations of farmers in Hertford and Stortford who want to sell into foreign markets, and I want farmers and consumers to be clear that I support their desire for the highest food and animal welfare standards, as do the Government. We are leaving the European Union and the CAP, and we must be able to negotiate and sign meaningful trade agreements. We must resist calls for the protectionism that will squander opportunity, and not try to force dynamic alignment from others with us in the UK. Apart from anything else, it was those rigid rules that played a large part in our vote—my vote—to leave the EU, so what message would we be sending if we tried to enforce them ourselves now?
Concerns around the safety and standards of food in the UK have been addressed in the Bill. The same stringent standards that we are all used to and wish to see upheld will still apply to meat sold here, including those that exclude chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef. I want to reassure farmers and consumers in Hertford and Stortford that I will always support the highest environmental standards and celebrate the fact that farmers are the custodians of our wonderful countryside. I support the highest standards of food production and animal welfare here and around the world. I also support a principle of clarity in food labelling, to enable consumers to make informed choices about what products they buy.
I will always champion our wonderful UK farmers, producers and products. I will support the Bill, as I am satisfied that our food standards and safety are protected, and I want to see farmers in my constituency benefit from different markets, more product opportunities and a greater distribution of wealth and opportunity across the country. This is an opportunity to renew British farming and add vigour to our global aspirations. It is an opportunity to secure more resilient food supply chains and set global standards for sustainability through international co-operation and leadership.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
What we should be doing in this Parliament is protecting our farmers, our food security, our food standards, our climate, our environment, our public health and our workers, but the Bill falls short on all those counts. The reality is that Britain is gripped by a once-in-100-years pandemic that has taken the lives of 33,000 people, yet this reckless Government refuse to extend the transition period in which we are required to get a deal with the EU, and indeed with the US. This puts all our interests at risk.
Members will know that something like 44% of our trade goes to the EU—in Wales three quarters of our food goes there—and that the United States is a very tough negotiator. It is interested in low-price, often substandard food that may be forced on us unless we ensure in this Bill that we secure the highest standards possible to limit what can be negotiated. The US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, has confirmed that chlorinated chicken must be part of a post-Brexit UK trade deal. We have heard talk about hormone-impregnated beef. Basically, we are at risk of importing food below the standards we currently enjoy and torpedoing the opportunity to have a meaningful EU trade deal, which is of much greater significance than the US trade deal—something like 60 times more. It is important that we ensure environmental standards are built into trade deals and into Bills such as this one. If we do not build those food and environmental standards into our law, and they are not subsequently in trade deals, then when we try to increase our environmental and food standards we will be taken to an international court by Trump and others, and we will be unable to move our standards upwards.
On climate change, there is great concern about nitrogen fertilisers producing nitrous oxide, a powerful greenhouse gas used in cattle feed for indoor intensive farming, particularly in the United States. We do not want that here. We should rule that out. We should put that into our trade deal and into the quality controls we put in the Bill. More trade further afield with the US will be bad for climate change in any case, and we know the US does not respect the Paris agreement. We need to use Bills such as this one to protect our food standards and ensure that those standards go into trade deals.
It is interesting that the Bill does not mention air quality, despite the fact that DEFRA argued that agriculture was a more important source of particulates for air pollution than diesel. We know that during the lockdown, PM2.5 and NOx have actually gone down: PM2.5 went down by 10% and NOx by 40%. We know that ammonia is a precursor of secondary particulate pollution; in other words, even though we are using our cars less, we still need to ask what we should do about delivering World Health Organisation standards, particularly as we now know there are significantly more covid deaths in areas with air pollution. That is a great big hole in the Agriculture Bill.
On migration, there are limits on the number of people who can come over here and pick our fruit and vegetables. The Agricultural Wages Board in Wales—it was abolished in England—should be extended to England to support rural workers’ wages. On protecting workers, it is critically important at this time that the workers in food production, abattoirs and food processing have proper PPE, testing and social distancing. We already know there are a massively disproportionate number of those people dying from covid. Again, the Government have neglected that situation.
In conclusion, we need to put food standards centre stage. I will be supporting the amendments. We need to ensure the EU deal is the right one, which means extending the transition period. We need to ensure that the environment and climate change are centre stage, and they need to be part of the trade deals. We need to protect our workers and all our interests in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I now call Daniel Zeichner to wind up for the Opposition and ask that he speaks for no more than eight minutes.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be able to continue to debate these vital issues with the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis). We had many hours in Committee.
This Bill has been a long time coming: almost two and half years since it was started, with three Secretaries of State and two Prime Ministers. It seems a world away from when it was launched back in October 2018. Some things have not changed, however. The climate crisis, finally properly recognised by this Parliament last year, remains more than pressing. There is much in this Bill on which we can all agree. We welcome the improvements on the first version, but, as the debate this afternoon has shown, we still think that there is room for improvement and that there are some fundamental points of disagreement.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I now call Minister Victoria Prentis to wind up for the Government. I ask that her speech lasts no more than 10 minutes.
Victoria Prentis
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I cannot tell you how much I have enjoyed the debate this afternoon. I do not think that that is just because it is my first time out of the house for some weeks. We have heard from passionate colleagues on both sides of the House—colleagues who are passionate about farming, food and food security. We have heard from distinguished former Secretaries of State. We have heard from farmers. We have heard from those from farming families. We have heard from many Members who represent farming constituencies. We have heard from a vet, and we have heard from a number of colleagues, some mentioned by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who love both food and food security. We also heard, indirectly, from the cows of Wantage.
I would like to take this opportunity to reassure Members that the Government understand the importance of agriculture to the nation. I know that British farmers are the best in the world. The Bill will ensure that they receive the support that they need to give us the food that we need and enjoy; to protect and enhance our beautiful rural landscape; and to ensure the health of the wider rural economy.
We have had a robust debate, which was well-intentioned on both sides. I need to reiterate at this point that there can be no question of sacrificing the UK livestock or other farming industries for the US trade deal. To the contrary, it is our view that a US trade deal is perfectly compatible with a thriving UK farming industry and very high standards. We have heard mention of the dreaded chlorine-washed chicken several times, and I would like to reassure the House that under existing regulations, which we will put into English law at the end of this year, chlorine-washed chicken is not allowed, and only a vote of this House can change that.
I think I also need to restate that the Government are willing to commit to a serious and rapid examination of what can be done through labelling, to reassure colleagues. It may well be that that would help colleagues to understand that we do intend to promote high standards and high welfare across the UK market. I agree that we must consider the case for consumer choice more fully when we look at this in some detail. I agreed earlier in the debate, and reiterate now, that we will consult on this at the end of the transition period. It is important that we look at how it would affect both the industry and consumers, and indeed retailers. I am keen to take that forward.
I thank my predecessor—now the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice)—for making the Agriculture Bill such a great piece of legislation. We will hear from him later, on Third Reading. I would like to gently tease the hon. Member for Cambridge about this. Isn’t it great that we have a Secretary of State who stands up for high standards of British farming; and isn’t it great that this framework Bill, and what has been said by our trade negotiating teams, and indeed by the Prime Minister and in the Conservative manifesto, again and again has reassured that champion for high standards in farming, who is behind this Bill, as I am sure he will tell us very shortly?
I am very grateful to the members of the Public Bill Committee for their diligent scrutiny. It is fair to say that this Bill has evolved, and indeed improved, during its passage through the House. I am so sorry that many of them have not been able to speak in this debate, but I think that given the hybrid nature of the proceedings we have had a pretty good go at discussing the issues that, as the hon. Member for Cambridge said, concerned the Committee.
I would like personally to thank especially our Parliamentary Private Secretaries to the Department. They have been towers of strength at a difficult time, when it is difficult to communicate with colleagues in a way that we would like to and are used to. I express my thanks and gratitude to all the civil servants who have worked on the Bill, especially Nathalie Sharman, the Bill manager, who is in the Box this afternoon.
I thank, more widely, those across the four nations who have worked hard on the Bill to get it to this stage. During the work that we have done in the taskforce for feeding the vulnerable over the past four months, we have worked very closely with my colleagues across the four nations, and I hope that we can continue with that spirit of co-operation as we take these policies forward.
I would also like to thank the Clerks and the House authorities for helping us to make history as the first Bill to be voted on using electronic voting. I hope I have not spoken too soon, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that it works!
This is, as we have said many times, a framework Bill. We have a long, long way to go, and many tests and trials, before the agricultural transition period comes to an end in 2028. I would like to reassure farmers that the Government will support them and ensure that consumers will continue to have access to great-quality British food to eat. We very much hope that that will mean consumers from all over the world.
Farming is more than a job. We must cherish the deep personal connection felt by those who farm the land to the soil and landscape they care for, and build upon it in the reforms that we make. This Bill gives us that framework for the future for farming and for our countryside outside the EU. It will allow us to reward public goods such as environmental improvements, it will support investment in technology and research to improve productivity, and it will help our farmers to produce the high-quality food that they are renowned for and that we all so enjoy eating. I commend this Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I now call Simon Hoare to wind up, and ask that his speech lasts no longer than two minutes.
Simon Hoare
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I, too, am grateful to all hon. and right hon. Members from across the House who have spoken in the debate. It has been of noteworthy interest that Members representing both rural and urban constituencies have spoken with knowledge and passion on this.
Let us be absolutely clear: this is the Bill to set out these priorities. In previous iterations, we were told that the previous Trade Bill was not the vehicle and the Agriculture Bill was not the vehicle—in which case, it seems that we are going to try to travel without any form of vehicle at all. That would be rather foolish, so this does need to be in the Bill to give certainty, to give power to the elbow of our negotiators, and to say that the British Parliament thinks that these issues are important and is prepared to stand by them.
That said, there is, as the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), said, much similarity between new clauses 1, 2 and 7. With the leave of the House, I will withdraw new clause 1, in order for the House to have the opportunity to vote on new clause 2. I think the merit of new clause 2 is that it is a Select Committee-authored amendment. I believe that when the other place comes to deal with the Bill, that will carry some weight in their deliberations. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 pm
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary to bring proceedings on consideration to a conclusion (Order, this day, and Standing Order No. 83E).
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I put the first Question, I confirm that the final determination is as follows. Remote Divisions will take place on new clause 2, new clause 7, amendment 39 and Third Reading. The Question, That Government amendments 20 to 22 be made, will not be subject to a remote Division.
New clause 2
International trade agreements: agricultural and food products
“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 that contains provisions relating to the importation of agricultural and food products into the UK unless they have first made a statement confirming that—
(a) the agreement contains an affirmation of the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under the World Trade Organisation Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement, and
(b) any agricultural or food product imported into the UK under the agreement will have been produced or processed according to standards which are equivalent to, or which exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to—
(i) animal health and welfare,
(ii) plant health, and
(iii) environmental protection.
(2) A statement under subsection (1) shall be laid before each House of Parliament.
(3) Before the first statement under subsection (1) may be made, the Secretary of State must by regulations specify—
(a) the process by which the Secretary of State will determine—
(i) that the standards to which any agricultural or food product imported into the UK under a trade agreement is produced or processed are equivalent to, or exceed, the relevant domestic standards and regulations in relation to animal health and welfare, plant health and environmental protection, and
(ii) that the enforcement of standards in relation to any product under sub-paragraph (3)(a)(i) is at least as effective as the enforcement of the equivalent domestic standards and regulations in the UK;
(b) the ‘relevant domestic standards and regulations’ for the purposes of subsections (1)(b) and (3)(a)(i).
(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations amending any regulations made under subsection (3).
(5) Regulations under subsection (3) or (4) shall be made under the affirmative procedure.
(6) In this section—
‘international trade agreement’ means—
an agreement that is or was notifiable under—
(i) paragraph 7(a) of Article XXIV of the General
Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, part of Annex 1A to the
WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(ii) paragraph 7(a) of Article V of the General Agreement on
Trade in Services, part of Annex 1B to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time), or
(b) an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than an agreement mentioned in sub-paragraph (i) or (ii);
‘Minister of the Crown’ has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975;
‘World Trade Organisation Sanitary and Phytosanitary Agreement’ means the agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time);
‘WTO Agreement’ means the agreement establishing the World Trade Organisation signed at Marrakesh on 15 April 1994.”—(Neil Parish.)
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
The House proceeded to a remote Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The remote voting period has now finished. I will announce the result of the Division on new clause 2 after the House has voted on new clause 7.
New Clause 7
Coronavirus emergency food plan
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of Royal Assent being given to this Act, prepare and lay before Parliament a document (a “coronavirus emergency food plan”) setting out measures to address the impact of coronavirus and coronavirus disease, and action taken in response, upon the supply of food.
(2) The coronavirus emergency food plan must assess and address—
(a) the matters listed in section 17(2);
(b) the following matters—
(i) the incidence of hunger, malnutrition and food poverty measured (a) nationally and (b) by local authority area;
(ii) the level of demand for emergency food aid and the adequacy of services to meet that demand;
(iii) the availability, distribution and affordability of nutritious and healthy food;
(iv) the ease of access to nutritious and healthy food across different socio-economic groups and communities;
(v) the functioning of the food supply chain, including stock levels of individual food items and any cross-border issues impacting upon the import and export of food; and
(vi) the level of any financial assistance provided by a public authority to farmers, growers and the fishing and fish processing sectors as a result of coronavirus or coronavirus disease.
(3) The plan may take account of information provided in response to a requirement under section 25 of the Coronavirus Act 2020 (power to require information relating to food supply chains), subject to the restrictions on the use and disclosure of information set out in section 27 of that Act (restrictions on use and disclosure of information).
(4) In this section—
“coronavirus” means severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2;
“coronavirus disease” means COVID-19 (the official designation of the disease which can be caused by coronavirus);
“financial assistance” means assistance provided by way of grant, loan, guarantee or indemnity, and any other kind of financial assistance (actual or contingent).”’—(Luke Pollard.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State lay before Parliament a coronavirus emergency food plan, within six months of Royal Assent.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
The House proceeded to a remote Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The remote voting period in respect of new clause 7 has now finished. I will declare the result shortly, probably after the next Division.
Remote Division result: New Clause 2
The House divided: - Ayes: 277 / Noes: 328 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I can now announce the result of the remote Division on new clause 2.
Question, That new clause 2 be added to the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I have been informed that a small number of Members have inadvertently cast their votes, by electronic means, in the opposite way to the one in which they intended to vote. I am informed that their use of technology was not quite as good as they felt it ought to be and that a few Members have made a mistake. There is no provision under the current temporary system by which a Member can change their vote once it has been cast, but I am satisfied that even if a small number of votes had been cast in a different way it does not affect the result of the Division.
Clause 42
Regulations under section 40: classification of domestic support and provision of information
Amendment proposed: 39, page 38, line 28, leave out subsections (4) and (5).—(Deidre Brock.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House proceeded to a remote Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The remote voting period in respect of amendment 39 has now finished. I will declare the result shortly.
Remote Division Result: New Clause 7
The House divided: - Ayes: 221 / Noes: 352 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I can now announce the result of the remote Division on new clause 7, which has just taken place.
Question, That new clause 7 be added to the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
As Government amendments 20 to 22 are not subject to a remote Division, I will collect the voices in the usual way, but it must be noted that the voices will not and cannot trigger a remote Division.
Schedule 5
Provision relating to Wales
Amendments made: 20, page 60, line 28, after “modify” insert
“any of the following legislation so far as it has effect in relation to Wales”.
This Amendment and Amendment 21 remove the limitations on the purposes for which the Welsh Ministers may modify the legislation listed. The changes mean that the powers of the Welsh Ministers, in relation to Wales, are the same as those of the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland, in relation to Northern Ireland.
Amendment 21, page 60, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 20.
Amendment 22, page 61, line 15, leave out
“negative resolution procedure (unless section 47(5) applies)”
and insert “affirmative resolution procedure”.—(Victoria Prentis.)
As the effect of Amendment 21 is to broaden the powers of the Welsh Ministers, this amendment provides for an exercise of the power to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Madam Deputy Speaker
As the next Question is contingent on the outcome of the remote Division that has just concluded, but the result of which we do not yet have, I have to suspend the House for a short time—about five minutes—while the report of the Division on amendment 39 is prepared.
Remote Division Result: Amendment 39
Wednesday 13th May 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 May 2020 - large font accessible version - (13 May 2020)
The House divided: - Ayes: 56 / Noes: 362 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I can now announce the result of the remote Division on amendment 39.
Question, That amendment 39 be made.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Secretary of State, who I am afraid has only two minutes to speak.
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I would like to acknowledge the work that has got us to this point. In particular, I would like to thank DEFRA officials, those who provided evidence and especially those Members who served on the Bill Committee. I am conscious that the restricted nature of the hybrid Parliament means that many of those Committee members have found it difficult to contribute to this stage of proceedings, but they all contributed comprehensively during earlier stages, and the points they raised have been heard.
The Government stood on a manifesto commitment to guarantee the current annual budget for farmers in every year of the new Parliament. Our farmers need stability, certainty and a smooth seven-year transition to adapt to our new policy of public money for public goods, and the Bill provides for that.
This is the second outing of this Bill. I was involved in the last Parliament at Committee stage for the first. We have made a number of changes since then, including strengthening parliamentary scrutiny with the requirement for a multi-annual plan; a strengthened duty around food security, with five-yearly reviews of food security; and a new clause on the importance of food production. Finally, I am conscious that animal welfare has been a big feature of the debate. The Government have a manifesto commitment that in all trade deals, they will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.
Luke Pollard
Labour will not allow farmers to go out of business to secure a trade deal with Donald Trump. It is unusual for any party to vote against Third Reading of a Bill, but we will vote against this Bill because the issue of farm standards for our food is not a technical one; it is fundamental to what kind of country we are. We support high standards for our British farmers, and we demand that all food imported into our country after our Brexit transition periods ends adheres to those same high standards that our British farmers have to adhere to.
Two hours and fifteen minutes having elapsed since the resumption of proceedings on consideration, the debate was interrupted (Order, this day).
Madam Deputy Speaker
Before I put the Question, I confirm that my final determination is that the Question should be decided by remote Division. There is therefore no need for me to collect the voices or for Members present in the Chamber to shout Aye or No.
Question put forthwith (Order, this day), That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House proceeded to a remote Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The remote voting period has now finished. I will announce the result of the Division shortly.
Business without Debate
Standards
Privileges
Madam Deputy Speaker
I shall now suspend the sitting while the report of the Division on Third Reading is prepared.
Remote Division Result: Agriculture Bill (Third Reading)
The House divided: - Ayes: 360 / Noes: 211 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I can now announce the result of the remote Division that has just taken place.
Question, That the Agriculture Bill be now read the Third time.
Adjournment
Written Statements
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Coronavirus Loan Schemes
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 changes we have made to the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme and the Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan Scheme so that more businesses can access the finance they need.
The Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme was launched on 23 March and is facilitated by the Government-owned British Business Bank and delivered through its delivery partners. Lenders 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.
The Coronavirus Large Business Interruption Loan Scheme was launched on 20 April. Lenders can offer loans of up to £50 million to support viable businesses with a turnover of £45 million and above that are affected by the coronavirus outbreak.
On 3 April we announced changes to the CBILS scheme. The first change was to the use of personal guarantees under the scheme. Since the launch of CBILS, lenders had been permitted, but not obliged, to require a personal guarantee from businesses for loans of any size provided through CBILS. Lenders were never and will never be permitted under any circumstances to use business directors’ or their families’ principal residence as security. We made changes to the use of personal guarantees through the scheme to provide further reassurance regarding personal assets during this difficult time.
The largest CBILS lenders had already confirmed, on a voluntary basis, that they would not require personal guarantees for CBILS loans under £250,000. The changes we made to the terms of the scheme mean that no lender will be permitted to require a personal guarantee for loans or other CBILS facilities under £250,000.
For CBILS loans over £250,000, lenders are still permitted to require a personal guarantee, although under no circumstances may they use primary personal residences for this. Upon launch, in the event of a default, lenders were previously expected to seek to recover the loss from business assets and then using any personal guarantees. Only when these had been exhausted were they permitted to claim the residual loss under the guarantee agreement. We made changes to these terms so that lenders may now only look to the personal guarantee for a maximum of 20% of the remaining debt before claiming 80% of the residual loss under the guarantee agreement.
The second change concerned the requirements businesses had to meet to access CBILS. At launch, CBILS was designed to support SMEs unable to secure finance on commercial terms. Because CBILS was only available to companies that could not otherwise secure a debt facility, it meant that preferable terms, such as the Government’s coverage of initial interest payments, were unavailable to those businesses that were able to secure facilities on commercial terms.
We therefore removed this requirement, meaning CBILS can now support lending to smaller businesses even where they could have secured a loan on commercial terms. This means that in addition to meeting company size and sectoral restrictions, the only other requirement for businesses is to be able to demonstrate they have been adversely affected by Covid-19 and for lenders to judge that the business is viable. This means that more businesses affected by the outbreak will be able to benefit from a CBILS facility and the Government’s 12-month business interruption payment and resulting lower initial repayments.
On 27 April, we announced further changes to the scheme. The cap on gross Government liability at the level of the lenders whole CBILS portfolio has now been removed. Previously the Government’s gross liability was capped at 75% of losses across the lender’s whole CBILS portfolio. Removing the portfolio cap therefore gives lenders an 80% guarantee across all CBILS lending. This change should provide further confidence to lenders to support the timely supply of finance to businesses.
We are also removing the ‘forward looking’ element of the viability test. The current economic uncertainty means that many businesses are having difficulties providing cashflow forecasts, which is slowing down some lending decisions. Allowing lenders to base lending decisions purely on an assessment of business liability pre Covid-19 removes the requirement for lenders to ask for evidence of future cashflow, thereby speeding up lending decisions.
Finally, charities and further education colleges need no longer show that at least 50% of their income comes from trading to be eligible for both CBILS and CLBILS loans. In practice, this requirement precluded a large number of organisations in these sectors from accessing support through these schemes, and its removal will support these organisations to access both schemes.
The removal of the portfolio cap increases the statutory contingent liability of the CBILS scheme, and I will be laying an updated departmental minute today containing a description of that revised liability undertaken. The other changes do not impact the statutory contingent liability of the CBILS scheme.
The removal of the requirement for at least 50% of the income of charities and further education colleges to come from trading to be eligible for CLBILS also does not impact the statutory contingent liability of the CLBILS scheme.
For more information on this and other support for business, please go to: https://www.businesssupport.gov.uk/.
[HCWS232]
Coronavirus-related Home Office Expenses
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Jesse Norman)
To support employees who are working from home and need to purchase home office equipment as a result of the coronavirus outbreak, a temporary tax exemption and national insurance disregard will come into effect to ensure that the expense will not attract tax and NICs liabilities where reimbursed by the employer. The expenditure must meet the following two conditions to be eligible for relief:
That equipment is obtained for the sole purpose of enabling the employee to work from home as a result of the coronavirus outbreak, and
The provision of the equipment would have been exempt from income tax if it had been provided directly to the employee by or on behalf of the employer (under section 316 of ITEPA).
The exemption is a temporary measure and will have effect from the day after the regulations come into force until the end of the tax year 2020-21.
HMRC will exercise its collection and management discretion and will not collect tax and NICs due on any reimbursed payments made from 16 March 2020 (the date the Government recommended working from home) to the date these regulations take effect.
This measure is being announced outside the normal fiscal process in order to ensure that employers and employees are able effectively to manage their working from home arrangements as soon as possible.
The Government will lay the statutory instruments to update these charges before the House in due course. A tax information and impact note (TIIN) will be published at: www.gov.uk/government/collections/tax-information- and-impact-notes-tiins.
[HCWS237]
Education and Childcare Settings
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
This week I have published guidance to set out how we will support early years, schools and colleges to welcome back more children from 1 June at the earliest.
It is over seven weeks since we asked schools, colleges, and childcare settings to allow only vulnerable children and those of critical workers to attend, and I encourage them to continue to take up this offer. This has been a huge ask of teachers, parents and children. I am immensely grateful for the response of all those working in education, childcare and children’s social care who have undoubtedly helped to support the NHS and save lives.
But we all know the best place for children to be educated is in school and it was always my intention to get them back there as soon as the scientific advice allowed.
As the Prime Minister has confirmed, we are now past the peak of the virus and he has set out a road map for the next phases of our recovery. If progress continues to be made we expect that, from 1 June at the earliest, we will be able to begin a phased return to school, college and childcare for children and young people in key transition years, alongside the priority groups currently eligible to attend:
Primary schools in England will be able to welcome back nursery, reception, year 1 and year 6 children, in smaller class sizes.
Nurseries and other early years providers, including childminders, will be able to begin welcoming back children of all ages.
Secondary schools and colleges will be able to provide some face-to-face support for year 10, year 12, and 16 to 19 college students who are due to take key exams and assessments next year.
I have published the following guidance to support education and childcare settings to prepare for these changes on gov.uk.
Actions for educational and childcare settings
Implementing protective measures in education childcare settings
Information for parents and carers
Initial planning framework
This guidance sets out protective measures that settings should put in place to reduce the risk of transmission. These include children and young people staying within their new, smaller, classes wherever possible and limiting contact between different groups. We have also set out a range of additional protective measures including frequent cleaning, encouraging good hand and respiratory hygiene, considering refreshing the timetable to limit movement and stagger break and lunchtimes, and using outdoor space.
Staff and pupils in all settings will be eligible for testing if they become ill with coronavirus symptoms, as will members of their households, to enable a track and trace approach to be taken in response to any confirmed cases.
We continue to follow the best medical and scientific advice and believe that this phased return is the most sensible course of action to take. We will only do this provided that the five key tests set by Government justify the changes at the time
We will also be updating our guidance for early years settings to confirm that paid childcare can be provided to the children of one household from today, Wednesday 13 May, including by childminders, who may choose to look after the children of one household if they are not already looking after vulnerable children or those of critical workers.
[HCWS236]
Covid-19: Construction Industry
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
“Our Plan to Rebuild: the UK Government’s COVID-19 recovery strategy” published by the Government on Monday 11 May makes clear that construction work can be undertaken across England providing sites are able to operate safely in line with the new covid-19 secure guidelines. A number of developers have already announced plans to restart work on sites.
In doing so, the Government recognise that the construction industry needs to be able to adapt its normal practices. As part of this, temporary extensions to working hours may be required on some sites to facilitate safe working and allow tasks to be completed where social distancing can be challenging. Longer working hours may also be needed to facilitate social distancing in the wider community, for instance by reducing pressure on public transport. It might be necessary to start work earlier in the day or work until later in the evenings.
However, many construction sites in England are subject to controls which restrict their hours of operation. These controls include planning conditions, which might directly restrict working hours or which might restrict working hours through a construction management plan. These conditions may be necessary, for example, to make the development acceptable to local residents and businesses who might otherwise suffer from traffic, noise and other local amenity issues.
The purpose of this written statement is to make it clear that, with immediate effect, local planning authorities should take a swift and positive approach to requests from developers and site operators for greater flexibility around construction site working hours. This is to ensure that, where appropriate, planning conditions are not a barrier to allowing developers the flexibility necessary to facilitate the safe operation of construction sites during the response to the covid-19 pandemic and to proceed at pace with work otherwise delayed as a result of covid-19.
The National Planning Policy Framework already emphasises that planning enforcement is a discretionary activity and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control.
Where only a short term or modest increase to working hours is required, local planning authorities should, having regard to the reason for the condition and to their legal obligations, not seek to undertake enforcement action.
Where developers require longer term or more significant changes to working hours, they should apply to the local planning authority to temporarily amend a condition or a construction management plan in the usual way. In doing so, it will be important for applicants to consider potential impacts and, where necessary, to put forward brief plans to manage concerns, drawing on existing good practice. In return, local planning authorities should respond speedily and sympathetically and engage positively with applicants to find solutions. Local authorities should prioritise these types of applications and give early clarity on the acceptability of extended hours to developers. They should ensure that decisions are issued quickly—with the aim of doing so within 10 working days.
In allowing greater flexibility, the Government recognise the need to mitigate the impact that any temporary relaxation of working hours could have on local residents and businesses. Requests to extend working hours should be proportionate and should not involve working on Sundays or bank holidays.
However, local authorities should not refuse requests to extend working hours until 9pm, Monday to Saturday without very compelling reasons for rejection. In some cases, such as in areas without residential properties, extending working hours beyond this, including allowing 24 hour working where appropriate, may be justified. In all cases, sympathetic site management should be demonstrated to mitigate local impacts and local authorities should show best endeavours to facilitate such requests.
Applications should only be refused where there are very compelling reasons such as significant impact on neighbouring businesses or uses which are particularly sensitive to noise, dust or vibration, which cannot be overcome through other mitigation, or where impacts on densely populated areas would be unreasonable.
Any temporary changes to construction working hours conditions granted by local planning authorities should not extend beyond 13 May 2021.
This statement covers England only. The need for the statement will be reviewed when the requirement for social distancing on construction sites diminishes.
[HCWS234]
Covid-19: Planning System and Virtual Working
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
The planning system has a vital role to play in enabling the delivery of housing and economic growth that will support the UK’s economic recovery. It is important that the system continues to operate effectively, ensuring that all those involved, including local authorities, the Planning Inspectorate, developers, statutory consultees, local communities and others can engage in the process while adhering to the Government’s guidance on social distancing.
This statement sets out the Government’s expectations for how the planning system should be operating during the covid-19 emergency. It applies to applications and appeals under the Town and Country Planning Act; development consent orders under the Planning Act 2008; the compulsory purchase order regime and to development plans, including neighbourhood plans and spatial development strategies.
The role of digital
Local planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate drive the planning process forward and should ensure that it continues to operate effectively to support economic recovery. Moving to digital events and processes will be critical. This means adapting to working virtually, including virtual hearings and events (such as using video-conferencing and/or telephone) and making documents available for inspection online. The Government expect everyone involved in the planning process to engage proactively.
The Government consider that the current legislative framework allows for virtual hearings. They are confident that processes can be put in place in the vast majority of cases to allow for the participation of all parties. The Government recognise that the method by which hearings and events are conducted is a matter for the Inspectorate, operating in accordance with its legal obligations, and they expect these arrangements to be made as the default method of operation in the vast majority of cases. The Government recognise that in exceptional circumstances it may not be fair to proceed virtually and that alternative arrangements may be needed. These alternative arrangements should be taken forward speedily, where possible, taking into account the Government’s guidance on social distancing.
The Government expect opportunities for virtual hearings and processes to be maximised. They will draw from current and emerging practice to inform policy and process in the longer term.
Virtual events
The Government fully support the Planning Inspectorate’s programme for moving to digital inquiries, hearings, meetings and other events. Digital events present opportunities to increase participation in planning processes which are important for local communities and will minimise the impacts of delays to planning decisions which might otherwise occur due to the requirements for social distancing.
The Inspectorate conducted the first digital hearing event on 11 May and will be quickly scaling up in relation to further virtual events during May and early June where this is consistent with fair participation. In doing so it will accommodate essential legal and procedural requirements. The Government expect events to be taking place virtually by mid-June, other than in exceptional circumstances.
The Government expect inspectors and examining authorities to take decisions about whether and how virtual events should proceed and to consider the practical measures needed to ensure fair participation.
The courts have led in demonstrating the successful use of technology to continue their work. Recognising that the use of technology to support virtual planning events may be challenging, the Government expect that appropriate measures are put in place by the Inspectorate to test the technology and ensure that it enables fair participation. It also expects the Inspectorate to identity those more exceptional circumstances where a virtual event may not be appropriate, making decisions about how to proceed based on the facts of each particular case.
Digital documentation
The effects of covid-19 mean that it is not always possible to access public buildings. As a result, access to planning documents by making them physically available for inspection at local libraries, council offices etc, is now not available. During these exceptional circumstances, the Government consider that online inspection of documents should be the default position across all planning regimes, and they are actively exploring all options to achieve this.
The Government recognise there are sections of the community with limited or no access to the internet and authorities and developers should take reasonable steps to ensure those without access are involved and consider alternative and creative ways to achieve this where possible. This could for example, include sending out documents by CD or USB stick where this meets the needs of those requesting such documents.
As restrictions are eased, planning authorities and others should integrate the range of methods that are available to them into their approaches to ensure all sections of the community are reached as thoroughly as is practically possible.
Site visits
Site visits, whether conducted by local authorities, planning inspectors or statutory consultees, are an important part of the process of considering development proposals and plans. Where site visits are required or necessary, they should be undertaken in line with the Government’s guidance on social distancing and safety requirements..
The Planning Inspectorate will be restarting site visits from mid-May. The Government support the Inspectorate’s determination to facilitate site visits. It will expect inspectors to use their judgement in deciding if a site visit is necessary or whether alternative approaches are acceptable, taking account of the particular circumstances.
Publicity and community engagement
The Government will introduce from tomorrow temporary regulations to supplement the existing statutory publicity arrangements for planning applications, listed building consent applications and environmental statements for EIA development.
Local planning authorities (and applicants of EIA development under the TCPA) now have the flexibility to take other reasonable steps to publicise applications if they cannot discharge the specific requirements for site notices, neighbour notifications or newspaper publicity. These steps will notify people who are likely to have an interest in the application and indicate where further information about it can be viewed online. These steps can include the use of social media and other electronic communications and must be proportionate to the scale and nature of the proposed development.
Guidance to accompany these regulations will also be published to highlight what alternative publicity local planning authorities could undertake. In particular, if local newspapers are not circulating in their area, authorities should seek to use local online news portals in the first instance.
In relation to development plans, the Government have issued additional planning guidance on reviewing and updating statements of community involvement and neighbourhood planning to support authorities and neighbourhood planning groups in engaging with their communities on their plans at this time.
Guidance and Advice
The Planning Inspectorate has published and regularly updates guidance on its work during the covid-19 social distancing measures, which can be viewed here: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-planning-inspectorate-guidance
[HCWS235]
Negotiations with Japan
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
Coronavirus is the biggest threat this country has faced in decades. The Government are doing all they can to protect business from the worst effects of coronavirus in the immediate term. We must take steps to support our economy, reduce impacts and provide opportunities for the future economic recovery.
More trade is essential if the UK is to overcome the unprecedented economic challenge posed by coronavirus. It can give us security at home and opportunities abroad—opening new markets for business, bringing investment, better jobs, higher wages and lower prices just as we need them most. At a time when protectionist barriers are on the rise, all countries need to work together to ensure long-term prosperity and international trade is central to this co-operation.
That is why we will use our voice as a new independent trading nation to champion free trade, fight protectionism and remove barriers at every opportunity. The Government’s ambition is to secure free trade agreements (FTAs) with countries covering 80% of UK trade within the next three years, to become a truly global Britain.
An enhanced FTA with Japan, the third largest economy in the world in 2018, represents significant opportunities throughout the economy, from agriculture to digital. It will also help us increase the resilience of our supply chains and the security of our whole economy as we diversify our trade.
A deal with Japan will be a driving force to maximise the UK’s advantage in the opportunities Asia Pacific affords. These bilateral negotiations are a logical first step to joining the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), given that Japan is CPTPP’s largest economy.
Japan is a developed economy with high standards and we are major investors in each other’s economies. Trade with Japan is integral to UK jobs and businesses. In 2018, around 9,500 VAT registered businesses exported £6 billion worth of goods to Japan, employing 2.4 million people. Around 6,700 VAT registered business, employing 2.5 million people, imported £10 billion worth of goods from Japan.
An enhanced FTA with Japan is therefore expected to deliver a significant and sustained long-term boost to every region in the UK. Our analysis shows that in the long run, the UK economy could benefit from a £1.5 billion boost, as the trade deal could increase trade flows between both countries by £15.2 billion. UK workers’ wages could increase by £800 million in the long run as a result of the deal.
Total annual tariff reductions on goods imports from Japan could be worth up to around £275 million per year in the long run. Some 59% of all Japanese goods imported into the UK and 44% of all UK goods exported into Japan are used in supply chains (average 2016-18). So as well as reducing the price of consumer goods, lower tariffs could also cut the costs of domestic production in both countries.
Removing trade barriers with Japan could deliver huge gains, both for the 8,000 UK small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) across the UK already exporting goods with Japan as well as those making plans to enter the Japanese market. For example, total annual tariff reductions on goods exports to Japan could be worth around £33 million per year in the long run.
The deal will also provide cutting edge provisions on digital trade that maximise opportunities for trade across all sectors of the economy, providing trust and stability for UK businesses, entrepreneurs and exporters. Such provisions will reduce trade barriers and make it easier for the SMEs already exporting goods to Japan. UK businesses will have the opportunity to lead on innovation, supporting the development of important emerging technologies, such as quantum computing. E-commerce and the creative industries will also benefit from the free flow of data and strong copyright provisions.
That is why today, the Department for International Trade is publishing a comprehensive document setting out the UK’s strategic approach to an enhanced FTA between the UK and Japan. We will be placing copies in the Libraries of both Houses. The document is set out in three parts:
The Government’s negotiating objectives for an enhanced FTA with Japan, using the existing EU-Japan economic partnership agreement as a basis.
The Government response to the call for input on trade negotiations with Japan, providing an overview of the responses received and setting out how these have fed into our policy development.
A scoping assessment providing a preliminary assessment of the potential long-term economic impacts of an enhanced FTA between the UK and Japan.
The objectives published today are informed by our call for input, which ran for six weeks between 20 September and 4 November 2019 and gave businesses, interest groups and members of the public the opportunity to highlight their priorities for a potential future agreement with Japan.
A deal with Japan will help us to deliver opportunity and unleash the potential of every part of our United Kingdom. Analysis in the scoping assessment shows a UK-Japan enhanced FTA could have a positive impact on every UK nation and region in the long run, with Scotland, the East Midlands and London expected to benefit the most.
We are engaging with the devolved Administrations, Crown dependencies and overseas territories to ensure that we develop an enhanced FTA that works for the whole of the UK.
Our negotiating objectives clearly set out our priorities for an ambitious and comprehensive agreement, which will build on our existing EPA to strengthen the economic relationship with one of our largest bilateral trading partners.
The Government are committed to transparency and we will continue to ensure that parliamentarians, UK citizens and businesses have access to the information they need on our trade negotiations.
[HCWS231]
M25 Junction 10/A3 Wisley Interchange
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Grant Shapps)
This statement concerns the development consent order application for the M25 junction 10/A3 Wisley interchange improvement made by Highways England under the Planning Act 2008, which had been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate on 19 June 2019.
Under section 98(1) of the Act the examining authority appointed to examine the application must complete its examination within six months. Under section 98(4) the examining authority must submit its recommendation report to the Secretary of State within three months of its completion of the examination. Under section 107(1) of the Act, following receipt of the examining authority’s recommendation report, the Secretary of State must decide whether to grant development consent within three months.
Sections 98(4) and 107(3) of the Act give the relevant Secretary of State power to set new deadlines in respect of the above which are later than the statutory maxima. For this application, the relevant Secretary of State is the Secretary of State for Transport. In exercising this power, the Secretary of State for Transport must, among other things, make a statement to Parliament announcing the new deadlines.
The examination for the M25 Junction 10 DCO began on 12 November 2019 and is due to close on 12 May 2020. The recommendation report would need to be sent to the Secretary of State on or before 12 August 2020. A decision in this case would therefore be made on or before 12 November 2020.
The deadline for the completion of the examination is to be extended to 12 July 2020 (an extension of two months) to enable examination hearings postponed in the light of Government advice concerning coronavirus (covid-19) to be rescheduled and held in a virtual forum. Consequently, the deadline for the examining authority to submit its recommendation report to the Secretary of State for Transport is amended to 12 October 2020 and the deadline for the Secretary of State for Transport to take his decision is amended to 12 January 2021.
The decision to extend the examination under the Planning Act 2008 regime is not taken lightly and reflects the exceptional public health circumstances the country finds itself in.
The decision to set new deadlines is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant development consent.
[HCWS233]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, Virtual Proceedings of the House of Lords will now begin. I remind Members that these proceedings are subject to parliamentary privilege and what we say is available to the public both in Hansard and to those listening and watching. Members’ microphones will initially be set to mute, and the broadcasting team will unmute their microphones shortly before we reach their place in the speakers’ list. When Members have finished speaking, their microphone will again be set to mute.
Virtual Proceedings on Oral Questions will now commence. I ask everyone to please keep their questions and answers as brief as possible, so that we can get through as many people on the list as we possibly can.
Universal Credit
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the benefit cap on the incomes of Universal Credit claimants following the increase in the Universal Credit standard allowance announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 20 March.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Stedman-Scott) (Con)
My Lords, we monitor the impact of the benefit cap policy and publish these findings every three months. The latest available statistics were published last week, on 7 May, and reflect the position as at February this year. The next publication, scheduled for 6 August, will reflect the current position and the impact of the increases awarded from April of this year.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, welcome as the increase is, many thousands will not benefit because of the cap, which is already causing real hardship and unfairness, as demonstrated by the Work and Pensions Committee, yet it is not realistic or safe at present to expect people to seek work or reduce housing costs to avoid it. Will the Government now listen to anti-poverty and faith groups, the IFS and others, and urgently fulfil their statutory duty to review the cap and suspend it, or, if operationally easier, raise it significantly?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I must be very clear that it is not the Government’s intention to change the current level of the benefit cap. What I want to point out is that claimants may benefit from a nine-month grace period, where their universal credit will not be capped, if they have a sustained work record. Exemptions will also continue to apply for the most vulnerable claimants who are entitled to disability benefits and carer benefits. I finish my answer by saying that the Government have quickly and effectively introduced £7 billion-worth of measures that benefit those facing the most severe financial disruption.
Baroness Couttie (Con)
Many people who have recently found themselves made redundant as a result of the Covid-19 crisis will be struggling on universal credit. Some of these people will have decided to isolate with vulnerable loved ones to provide them with the care that they need to be protected from the disease. This can lead to added expense. Will the Government consider removing the benefit cap for such people?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
Claimants who receive certain benefits for caring or for a severe disability or health condition will not have their benefits capped. This ensures that the most vulnerable people are protected. Universal credit households are exempt from the cap if the household earnings are at least £604 each month. Households may also be exempt for a period of nine months, if they have a sustained work history.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, advances for universal credit claimants have to be repaid when claimants finally receive their benefits—after at least five weeks, and often very much longer than that. But their benefits will be well below subsistence level, due in part to the benefits cap, but also to the two-child limit, and to very tough rent and council tax rules. Could any Minister maintain their mental health in these circumstances? I absolutely could not—and I mean that. Will the Minister plead with her colleagues for urgent further changes—I understand that some have been made—to protect the mental health of universal credit claimants?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
The noble Baroness makes an excellent point: these are very difficult times. People are struggling in all sorts of ways, and we are mindful of the impact of mental health issues. I am afraid that I am unable to make any commitments around the points that the noble Baroness made, but I will say that, in these very difficult times, nobody has to wait five weeks. Since 16 March, we have issued 700,000 advances, and the majority have received their money within 72 hours.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, can I bring the Minister back to the point made by my noble friend Lady Lister? The Government’s argument for the benefit cap was that you can always escape it by just going and getting a job or moving to a cheaper house. But that is simply not possible at the moment. The Minister says that the Government are not going to lift the cap. Given the demand from the IFS and over 50 organisations, and given the Commons Library estimates that an extra 18,000 families are being drawn into the benefit cap as a result of the Government’s actions, can she tell the House not merely that they will not do it but why they will not do it?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I draw the noble Baroness’s attention to the fact that, in a repeated Oral Statement and at Oral Questions, the Secretary of State was absolutely clear that this benefit will not be changed. I agree with her that things are very difficult at the moment. That is why we have tried to be as flexible as we can by introducing this £7 billion package which gets to the people who are in the most difficult group, removing the minimum income floor, increasing UC, pausing deductions for historic debts, introducing statutory sick pay from day one and increasing working tax credits from over £1,000 to £3,000. I cannot give her any other answer than that, but I can make a commitment to take her question back to the department and again ask what she and others would like me to ask.
Baroness Janke (LD)
Is the Minister aware that 85% of those who have had benefits capped are single parents, many of whom have lost jobs through the current crisis? To ease the severe hardship these families are suffering, will the Government at least consider suspending the benefits cap pending a future review?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
The benefit cap is reviewed once in every Parliament. The Secretary of State will do this, although I cannot tell noble Lords when. Until that happens, I am not aware of any intention or plan by the Government to remove the cap.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I thank the noble Baroness for again highlighting how the benefit cap is trapping families in poverty. In light of the report published last week by the Church of England and CPAG which estimates that around 60,000 more families will be affected by the two-child limit due to Covid-19, what assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the impact of this limit on families who have made a new universal credit claim since the lockdown?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I will need to go back to the department and ask whether an assessment has been made. I am mindful of the recent Child Poverty Action Group report and was grateful to receive an advance copy. My officials are carefully considering this, and I hope to be able to write to the Child Poverty Action Group and the Church of England this week to cover the point that the right reverend Prelate just made.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, I point out that, as far as I am aware, Labour is not committed to ending the benefit cap; let us start by saying that. It seems that we can never do enough, but would the Minister agree to look very carefully at the situation as it unfolds and confirm that, where we can make minor adjustments, we will? But we have to realise that there is a limit to the amount of money we can spend.
Baroness Stedman-Scott
My noble friend makes a very valid point. These days are very difficult and the situation is fast-changing. We are reviewing and considering things on a daily basis. There is nothing at all in our plan that aims to make life worse for people; in fact, it is quite the opposite. When noble Lords look at what we have done, we have moved quickly and effectively to try to bring additional resource and support into the system.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
My Lords, one of the drivers of food bank usage identified by Feeding Britain—I declare an interest—is the monthly sums deducted from universal credit to repay advance payments. The Chancellor’s plans to lower the rate of deductions and extend the repayment period are not due to take effect for another 18 months. Would the department not consider bringing them forward immediately for existing claimants and replacing advance payments with targeted grants for all new claimants from now on?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I advise all noble Lords that there is no plan to convert advances to grants. I must be clear about that, although I know that it is not what people want to hear. However, I will take the point back to the department and see whether there is any movement, and I will give a written response to the noble Baroness.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
Given that, because of Covid, we are in all likelihood entering a period of much higher unemployment when it will be more difficult for people to get a job, does the Minister agree that there is a case for a review of universal credit and suspending the benefit cap until such a review has taken place?
Baroness Stedman-Scott
I think that I have answered the questions about the benefit cap and reviewing benefits quite adequately during the course of the Question. I agree that these are very challenging times. We have launched a job help website and an employer help website. We will turn every stone to ensure that we help people back to work as quickly as possible.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has, regrettably, elapsed.
Syria
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cox
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the humanitarian situation in Syria; and what steps they are taking to initiate the lifting of sanctions on that country.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, after years of conflict, Covid-19 poses a particularly significant threat in Syria. The United Kingdom is working closely with the United Nations and partners to adapt our humanitarian response. We are also supporting the UN-led political process, which the Syrian regime must engage with seriously for sanctions to be lifted. EU sanctions, which we continue to apply during the transition period, are carefully targeted on specific sectors and individuals—[Inaudible].
Baroness Cox (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he acknowledge that UK-backed sanctions make it impossible for many civilians to obtain food, medicines and life-saving medical equipment, causing widespread avoidable suffering and death, gravely exacerbated by coronavirus? As the UN’s special rapporteur emphasises, it is undisputed that sanctions do
“contribute to a worsening of the humanitarian situation”.
Will the Minister therefore agree to accept advice from UN experts, who emphasise that it is now
“a matter of humanitarian and practical urgency to lift … economic sanctions immediately”?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The United Kingdom ranks among the leading donors to the humanitarian aid to Syria. The noble Baroness mentioned sanctions—[Inaudible]—specifically targeted on the Assad regime and businesspeople related to it. Importantly, on the issue of supporting ordinary Syrians, food and medical supplies used for humanitarian purposes are not subject to these particular sanctions, as the noble Baroness will know.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, nearly 10 years on since the Syrian conflict started, hundreds of thousands of people have lost their lives and their loved ones. Some 8 million are internally displaced and 6 million are languishing mostly in refugee camps. The Conscience Movement, a women-led organisation based in Istanbul, says that 10,000 women remain imprisoned by the Syrian Government. While I acknowledge that sanctions cause humanitarian catastrophe, what representation can the Minister and our Government make to the international community to ensure the urgent release of these women, who often face rape and torture, prior to any consideration of lifting sanctions?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Baroness raises an important point on the issue of sanctions and that during conflict that women—[Inaudible]. We are appalled by the acts of the Syrian regime, often at the cost of its own citizens. I assure the noble Baroness that we are talking—[Inaudible]—ensuring that the advice—[Inaudible]—Syrian regime to act.
Lord McInnes of Kilwinning (Con)
My Lords, only this week, Amnesty International published a report outlining the attacks the Assad regime and its allies have unleashed on humanitarian and non-military targets in Idlib since May last year until February this year. Surely this underlines why sanctions must continue until there is an agreed political settlement and requires us to ensure that our humanitarian aid continues to be funnelled through NGOs in Syria.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The situation in Idlib is desperate, but, again, the UK has been at the forefront, providing £118 million of support to the suffering people in Idlib. Most recently, an RAF jet delivered more than 37,000 tonnes of aid. We are prioritising Idlib, but I agree with my noble friend that the sanctions must still apply until such time—[Inaudible.]
Lord Hylton (CB)
The Minister will know that I was in Syria each year from 2015 to 2017. Does he agree that, even then, sanctions were doing more harm to ordinary Syrians than to their Government? Will he now argue for their removal, first, on health and medical goods; secondly, on food; and, thirdly, on reconstruction materials?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lords asks about sanctions; I believe that I have answered this in part already. The sanctions do not apply to—[Inaudible.]
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
Minister, there is something seriously wrong with your sound production, but we will go on.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I agree with the Minister that no one should be able to act with impunity, and that includes agents of the Assad regime. Certainly, the NGO experience of distributing through a Damascus hub suggests that lifting sanctions would not change the situation for millions of Syrians in the north. Can the Minister update us on what his efforts are achieving in keeping aid corridors open through renewal of UN Resolution 2504?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord raises an important point on Resolution 2504. Most recently, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had a call with the Minister about the importance of keeping those corridors open. We hope that not only will this happen but that we will be able to open up additional humanitarian corridors.
Baroness Northover (LD)
Will the Government consider time-limited sanctions relief for Syria to permit international transactions and supplies and to make the health of the civilian population a priority?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I have already made clear the Government’s position on sanctions, which is taken together with our EU colleagues. These will not be lifted until such time as we see meaningful engagement from the Assad regime.
Baroness Hodgson of Abinger (Con)
My Lords, I understand that Turkey and Turkish-backed forces have cut water supplies several times to some 460,000 people in the Al-Hasakah Governorate in north-east Syria, exacerbating the situation there and putting many people, especially children, at enormous risk. Can my noble friend the Minister encourage the Government to use all available means to persuade the Turkish Government that water flow must be restored?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
Turkey is an ally and a member of NATO. I assure my noble friend that we continue to make representations about the importance—[Inaudible.]
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, this is not a question about sanctions as a whole, but their application to food and medicine. The Minister said—if I understood him correctly on this line—that sanctions do not apply to food and medicine. However, in practice, financial sanctions are impeding the purchase of food and medicine. Will the Minister undertake to look into that and make sure that they are not accidently preventing supply of such materials to ordinary Syrians?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
As I have already made clear, our sanctions regime applies specifically to ensure that humanitarian support—[Inaudible]—can be taken forward and ordinary citizens receive this. I take note of what the noble Lord has said, but we are very clear—[Inaudible].
Lord West of Spithead (Lab)
My Lords, civil wars are very bloody and unpleasant. There is no doubt that, as they come towards the end game, they get more bloody and unpleasant. There are no good guys in terms of the fighting in these wars; both sides always behave appallingly. Do the UK Government really think that a future with the bulk of Syria run by the Assad Government, with a tiny enclave run by disparate groups of jihadis—many of whom are as bad as Daesh—would be stable moving forward? Would it not be better to stop sanctions and try to come alongside the Assad Government and influence it in a way that we wish to influence it?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
We have been very clear on the issue of the Assad regime; it is now very much a matter—[Inaudible].
The Lord Speaker
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. I apologise for the reproduction and clarity of the Minister’s replies.
Covid-19: Sports
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Caine
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what support they are making available for sports affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lord Caine (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and draw attention to my interests in the register.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, the Government recognise the impact that Covid-19 is having on the sports sector. We continue to engage with sporting organisations to understand how it is affecting them and to provide support. The Chancellor has already announced a host of measures to help businesses, with £330 billion of government-backed guaranteed loans as well as the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme. In addition, our national sports council, Sport England, has announced £210 million of funding to help sport and physical activity organisations to deal with the short and long-term effects of the pandemic.
Lord Caine
I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply. As she will be aware, few, if any, sports are embedded within communities quite like rugby league, particularly here in the north of England. On behalf of the entire rugby league family, I therefore thank the Government for recognising the special place that our great sport has in society through the vital support package that was announced on 1 May. I commend also the work of the Rugby Football League. What discussions are now taking place on a road map to allow the season to resume—it has in fact only just begun—behind closed doors at first, beginning with allowing players to start training?
Baroness Barran
I take this opportunity to thank my noble friend for the work that he has done in this area. I recognise the role that rugby league plays in communities, having visited the Castleford Tigers ladies team training—I think he is a Leeds Rhinos fan, but we can agree on the impact. In addition to the guidance published on Monday on how to ease lockdown and resume training for different sports, officials are convening with medical officers to share best practice and planning, looking at a safe return to training. That is obviously a first step to returning to fixtures. We know that rugby league will work within this and the public health guidance that goes with it.
Lord Pendry (Lab)
My Lords, it is obvious that many sports are affected at a higher level because of this crisis. However, I want to emphasise the problems facing many lower football league clubs, many of which are in danger of extinction. On a positive note, it is pleasing to know that at the Football Foundation, of which I am president, has come together with its partners, the FA, the Government and Sport England, to launch a new pitch preparation fund consisting of £10 million of financial support for struggling clubs at the lower level. Can the Minister assure the House that, although that is a healthy beginning, it will continue to be a focus for further assistance, recognising that these clubs are very often the hub of social activities within the communities in which they reside?
Baroness Barran
We absolutely recognise that clubs are an integral part of the country and of communities around them. Officials and Ministers are regularly engaging to understand and collaborate with clubs to make sure that we can support them through this extraordinarily difficult time.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, under Project Restart, the Premier League is considering returning by 12 June. However, can the Minister say what the Government are planning to help less wealthy clubs outside the Premier League which want to emerge from this fight as victors, not victims?
Baroness Barran
I have already explained some of the funding which has been provided across a range of sport. We very much welcomed the move by the Premier League to advance £125 million to the English Football League and the National League. All plans that are being developed need to be in line with public health guidance, but we hear the urgency in the noble Lord’s question.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s decision regarding support for sporting activities. They are vital for the mind as well as the body. Tracing and tracking will be as important as ever. Can the Minister consider encouraging people to keep a daily diary on everyone they meet and everywhere they go so that, should they fall ill with Covid-19, that would be a simple, cheap, easy way to trace it?
Baroness Barran
I completely agree with my noble friend on the importance of sport and exercise for one’s mental as well as physical health. I welcome her suggestion and will share it with ministerial colleagues.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, do the Government agree that to benefit from sport, people have to be encouraged back in at grass-roots level? Will the Government give us an assurance that they will make sure that everybody knows when it is safe for children and those in the junior ranks to start attending practice sessions and training, and that this information will be made available through all normal media channels?
Baroness Barran
The noble Lord makes an extremely good point about communication and making sure that children hear about the opportunities available for them, so I will take that point back. I also draw his attention to the recent announcement that the Community Emergency Fund has been increased from £20 million to £35 million; that supports just the sorts of organisations to which he refers.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
I welcome Sport England’s excellent set of initiatives. However, does the Minister agree that waiting until the forthcoming spending review—potentially this autumn—to learn about UK Sport funding for teams for Tokyo’s Olympics next year is too long a period of uncertainty for our Olympic and Paralympic athletes, and that it casts further doubt and shadows over selection processes?
Baroness Barran
I understand my noble friend’s interest in getting clarity as quickly as possible. I can only reiterate that officials and Ministers are working very closely with all those involved to make sure that we have the strongest possible case to put on their behalf at the spending review.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, in terms of the physical demands and the reliance on specialist training conditions, professional dancers are effectively elite athletes engaged in a team sport and, like athletes, they will need a significant period of training before they are fully match fit and ready to perform. Can the Minister tell the House what discussions are taking place about support for this sector, and about the safe return to training of professional dancers who, like athletes, contribute so much to our global reputation and sense of national pride?
Baroness Barran
I will need to write to the noble Baroness about the specifics of what engagement there has been with elite dance. Our clear aim is to set out a series of principles that will allow a return to safe training for all those engaged in elite and grass-roots sports.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
I should record my interest in the Lords’ register in relation to Scottish Athletics and the Commonwealth Games (Scotland) Endowment Fund. I would like to ask the Minister about those Scottish, Welsh, English and Northern Irish athletes either training or based in the different nations who are on UK performance funding. Will full discussions be held with the devolved Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to ensure that all UK high-performance athletes have the same access to a return to coaching, medical facilities and training, although obviously in conditions of safe social distancing, over the coming weeks?
Baroness Barran
My honourable friend the Minister for Sport is co-ordinating those conversations but, again, I will raise the importance of this issue with him.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, sadly, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We come now to the fourth Oral Question. Please keep contributions reasonably short.
Economy: Bank of England Forecasts
Lord Lamont of Lerwick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the forecasts for the economy included in the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Report and Interim Financial Stability Report, published on 7 May.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Bank of England has specific statutory responsibilities for monetary policy and financial stability, as well as operational independence from the Government to carry out those responsibilities. The Monetary Policy Committee has constructed an illustrative economic scenario based on a set of stylised assumptions to inform its policy decisions. Given the committee’s operational independence, the Government seek to avoid commenting on its assessments and monetary policy decisions.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. The Governor of the Bank of England, commenting on the MPC report, said that it would not be until the end of next summer that the economy would fully come back. Given that that sombre assessment was based on the assumption in the report that social distancing would be phased out between June and September, do the Government recognise that there are whole sectors of the economy—hospitality, accounting for 10% of the labour force; airlines and transport—that simply cannot operate profitably with social distancing? While we all understand why social distancing is necessary now, do the Government also recognise the awkward truth that we will not get back to where we were with a full recovery unless, as the MPC report assumes, we find at the appropriate time a way for social distancing to be phased out so that it does not become part of the so-called new normal?
Baroness Penn
In setting out this week their road map for the easing of the lockdown, the Government have stated that step 3 would not take place any earlier than 4 July. We will seek to reopen some of the remaining businesses, particularly those in hospitality and leisure, by finding ways for them to do so safely. However, we acknowledge that this will be difficult for some businesses. We will continue to be guided by the science and we will target economic support based on how we progress with the phased reopening.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, in the course of the Government’s efforts to mitigate the collapse of demand in the economy with their furloughing system and so forth, which I thoroughly approve of, they are accumulating a lot of debt. Before this crisis, we were fast approaching a level of public debt at 90% of GDP, which is unprecedentedly high. At the time of the collapse of Lehman Brothers 12 years ago, by comparison, we had a 60% public debt to GDP ratio, so with each crisis we are reducing our freedom of manoeuvre and our scope for absorbing shocks in the future. Against that background, do the Government have a notion of the maximum debt ratio which ought to be acceptable and which they can use as a discipline in planning the fiscal deficit in future? If so, will they say what that is?
Baroness Penn
The Government have set out their fiscal rules and continue to abide by them. With this pandemic, we face unprecedented economic circumstances. Our focus at the moment is on protecting health and jobs, and supporting businesses. As the OBR has made clear, the cost of inaction would be far higher.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister explain how the V-shaped economic recovery contemplated by the OBR and the Bank of England is consistent with the collapse in global trade and growing protectionist sentiment? How do the Government square the UK’s need to grow exports with their calls for favouring British companies, extensive onshoring and shorter supply chains?
Baroness Penn
The Bank of England and the OBR have made it clear that what they have produced are scenarios rather than forecasts. The Bank of England’s scenario certainly took into account the effect of this pandemic on levels of global trade.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, the Bank’s report makes it clear that the construction sector has been hard-hit by the lockdown. It is vital to revive it, since it generates activity across the economy. Given that we have learned that regulators can, under public pressure to respond to the crisis, greatly accelerate their normal decision-making processes without sacrificing standards, will the Government urge all planning authorities to speed up decision-making on planning applications immediately so that we can get Britain building again?
Baroness Penn
We are keen that all planning decisions are made in a timely way. Construction is one of the sectors where we have provided Covid-secure guidance to allow people to get back to work, safe in the knowledge that they will be returning to safe workplaces.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I draw attention to my declared interests. Economic and population health modelling has suggested that regular, routine and repeated testing for the SARS-CoV2 virus of the entire population, rather than just symptomatic individuals and their contacts, could facilitate mass labour participation and the necessary consumer behaviour required to maximise economic activity ahead of widespread vaccination. What assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of this approach?
Baroness Penn
The Government are clear that “test, track, trace, isolate” will be a core part of the next phase of our response. We will seek to do this in different ways, and to learn lessons from previous pandemics and approaches in other countries. For example, we are using asymptomatic testing in health and care home settings to help reduce the spread of this disease.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, both the Bank of England and the OBR have forecast that unemployment will double to 2 million, highlighting the severe impact this crisis is having on those not covered by the Government’s job retention schemes. Will the Minister therefore commit to improving the generosity of universal credit and consider introducing the active labour market policies seen in other countries, including job search support and job guarantees for the young?
Baroness Penn
The Government have already improved the generosity of universal credit by £20 a week and raised the value of the local housing allowance. The best thing that we can do in getting people back to work is to get the virus under control and allow the economy to be open. We will of course continue to keep under review any further measures that we need to support people who have, sadly, lost their job during this crisis.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, once the lockdown has been eased, the trillions of pounds invested globally in economic recovery packages will have a significant impact on the Paris climate goals. A very recent study in the Oxford Review of Economic Policy on choices for this investment shows categorically that what is good for the economy is also good for lower emissions. Will the Government give thought to making green economic stimulus a central plank of the UK-led COP 26?
Baroness Penn
We are very keen to have a green recovery which uses the Government’s policies in working towards economic growth but which also supports our commitment to net zero by 2050.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, pursuing the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, one of the—[Inaudible]—about the scale and speed of recovery. It said that growth could hit 15% for 2021 as a whole. Does the Minister not agree that inducing excessive optimism about the speed of the recovery has its own risks, and does she agree with the former Chancellor, Sajid Javid, who said today that a— [Inaudible]—unlikely?
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
I am afraid that we got only part of your question. Minister, can you make something of that?
Baroness Penn
I will attempt to do so. In terms of optimism, or otherwise, about the speed of the recovery, the OBR’s and Bank of England’s scenarios are not those of the Government. We do not make our own economic forecasts. I would also point out that they are scenarios rather than forecasts, and the Bank of England said that the risk in its scenario was probably more on the downside. The Government are focused on providing support now for jobs and businesses so that they are protected during this time and so that we can recover as quickly and as safely as possible.
Lord Marland (Con)
My Lords, we welcome the positive report by the Bank of England—it has not always been so positive. However, we must be mindful that it did not take into account the extension of the furlough scheme until October and its total cost of £100 billion. Would my noble friend the Minister like to comment on that and perhaps ask the Bank of England to revise its estimation, given the changes to the government handouts that have just happened?
Baroness Penn
I believe that the Bank’s scenario took into account the gradual unwinding of the lockdown and of the support schemes matched to it, completed by the end of quarter 3. However, the Bank makes its own decisions about any scenarios or forecasts that it produces to inform its own decision-making and policy-making.
The Lord Speaker
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. I apologise to the two Members who were unable to get in but I thank all noble Lords. That concludes the Virtual Proceedings on Oral Questions. The Virtual Proceedings will resume at 12.30 pm and, until then, stand adjourned.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
My Lords, Virtual Proceedings of the House of Lords will now resume. I remind Members that these proceedings are subject to parliamentary privilege and what we say is available to the public both in Hansard and to those listening and watching. Members’ microphones will initially be set to mute, and the broadcasting team will unmute their microphones shortly before we reach their place in the speakers’ list. When Members finish speaking, their microphone will again be set to mute.
The Virtual Proceedings on the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will now commence. This is a time-limited debate. The time limit is one and a half hours.
Motor Vehicles (Tests) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser
To move that the Virtual Proceedings do consider the Motor Vehicles (Tests) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020.
Relevant document: 11th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, this is a take note Motion. I am not opposed to the principle of the regulations, which introduce a one-off, six-month exclusion from the requirement for light vehicles to hold a valid MoT test certificate, but I have a number of points and questions to raise with the Government.
To start, what were the key factors behind these regulations? The Explanatory Memorandum states that
“given the widespread impact of COVID-19 there are likely to be local difficulties in obtaining testing imminently, with more widespread difficulties as the pandemic develops.”
That suggests that the basis of the regulations is an assumption, rather than hard evidence, about local and more widespread difficulties.
The Explanatory Memorandum goes on to state that without the regulations
“many people may have to unlawfully use their vehicle without an MOT, to reach work or do essential shopping, which is a particular concern for vulnerable people”
and:
“The lack of a valid MOT may also mean that vehicles cannot be taxed and using a vehicle unlawfully may also invalidate insurance cover.”
These last two points depend on the accuracy of the assumption that Covid-19 has led to difficulties in obtaining testing. However, I hope the Government can confirm that they have ensured that the DVLA has updated its records and systems so that people in the six-month exemption period will not have problems renewing their car tax or over insurance cover.
Returning to the point about difficulties of obtaining testing, which would presumably be caused by garages being closed or short-staffed due to the incidence of Covid-19, my local garage was shut for three weeks in April, but it then reopened, since after another month there might not have been a business left at all. The Government did not say that garages had to close. Indeed, they encouraged them to remain open, and I assume they have issued appropriate advice on maintaining social distancing at work for garage mechanics.
There are 23,500 test stations, and in normal times there is a surplus of capacity, according to the Explanatory Memorandum. Can the Government say what that level of spare capacity in normal times actually is? What is the maximum number of MoT tests on vehicles covered by these regulations that can be carried out per six months in a normal year compared with the number actually carried out per six months in a normal year? How many MoT tests on light vehicles covered by these regulations were carried out in the four weeks prior to the announcement of the lockdown, and what was the maximum number of MoT tests that could have been carried out in the four weeks prior to the announcement of the lockdown? By how much has the maximum capacity for testing been reduced so far during this pandemic, and what do the Government estimate that maximum capacity to be at present?
Presumably the Government wish to see the terms of these regulations, with their one-off, six-month exemption from an MoT test, brought to an end as soon as possible. If the principal reason for these regulations is concern about present testing capacity, the Government must surely have their finger on the pulse of changes in the maximum available testing capacity.
The continuation of these regulations ought surely to be reconsidered as soon as the required level of testing capacity is available. Unless the Government are going to argue that the MoT test is actually somewhat unnecessary—in which case, why do we have it in the first place?—there must be potential safety issues in allowing light vehicles that would not pass their next scheduled MoT test to remain on the road for a further six months. It is not good enough for the Government simply to say, as they do in the Explanatory Memorandum, that
“vehicle users are still required by the Road Traffic Act 1988 … to ensure vehicles are in good working order.”
There will apparently be millions of light vehicles on the road that would have failed their scheduled MoT test had it taken place. The Explanatory Memorandum says that around 16.6 million relevant MoTs are due to expire over the first six months of these regulations. It also says that 29% of those tested, around 4.9 million vehicles, would have received a dangerous or major MoT failure over the same six-month period. That is then shrugged off in the Explanatory Memorandum with the statement that
“however the maintenance requirements and low risk of incidents occurring from vehicle defects mitigates this risk”,
followed by
“but, the risk remains low during the ‘stay at home’ rules as trips are made for essential purposes only.”
Three days ago, that position changed. Rather than stay at home, we are now told by the Government to “stay alert”, which I suppose is pretty good advice for all road users and pedestrians with 4.9 million vehicles that would have failed their MoT with a dangerous or major failure allowed on the roads under the six-month exemption.
I recognise that a decisive majority of road accidents or incidents are the result of human error rather than vehicle defects, though it would be surprising if a vehicle defect did not increase the likelihood of human error, but nevertheless the six-month exemption increases the likelihood of accidents or incidents due to vehicle defects. An impact assessment would have addressed that point, but there is no impact assessment due to lack of time. What, then, is the Government’s estimate of the increase in the number of incidents due to, in whole or in part, vehicle defects that would have been picked up in an MoT test, but were not, as a result of the six-month MoT test exemption?
I also understand that vehicles are being sold on the basis of up to six months still left on the MoT when that period is the six-month exemption, and does not mean—as implied—that the vehicle passed an MoT test between six months and up to a maximum of a year ago.
The DVSA has separately issued certificates of temporary exemption from the requirement to hold a test certificate for goods vehicles and public service vehicles. What is the MoT failure rate for these vehicles, and how many such vehicles were due an MoT test in the six months to the end of this September? Returning to the non-existent impact assessment, will the Government now produce one, since impact assessments often provide helpful and illuminating information not otherwise readily available?
The importance of MoT tests in the present situation has also been further emphasised by the Government’s announcement on Sunday that they are actively encouraging people to return to work if they cannot work at home, and that they should avoid travelling by public transport if they can travel by other means, including by car. In other words, the Government are now encouraging people to use their cars rather than public transport—perhaps the first Government ever to do that. People are also now being told they can use their cars to drive as far as they like to an outdoor space.
In other words, one of the key risks to which I referred a few moments ago—of 4.9 million vehicles that would have received a dangerous or major MoT failure over the six months to the end of this September being on the road—is no longer being mitigated to the same extent by the “stay at home” rules, under which trips are made for essential purposes only.
The Government say:
“This instrument is being introduced to address the ongoing pandemic and will be revoked if it no longer serves a useful purpose.”
Do they envisage revoking the regulations early, taking into account that there would be a backlog of MoT tests to be carried out for a few months as well as the normal number of such tests? I have heard it suggested that 20% of garages may not survive the pandemic as viable businesses. Do the Government have any estimates of how many of the 23,500 testing centres may not survive the present situation, and the impact this could have on testing capacity?
Do the Government have any figures for the percentage of eligible people who already could have availed themselves of the six-month test extension facility for light vehicles and who have done so by not having their MoT test done by their scheduled date, as opposed to the percentage who could already have availed themselves of the facility but have chosen not to do so, perhaps preferring to have the assurance that their vehicle is not one of the 29% that would have received a “dangerous” or “major” MoT failure? The answer to that question must also be a factor in determining when the testing capacity exists to enable the order to be revoked, and a return to a situation where MoT tests are undertaken at the time laid down.
Six-month MoT test extensions will start to terminate at the end of September. Are there any circumstances under which the Government would continue that extension period beyond the six months, or will vehicles that have had that six-month exemption definitely be required to pass an MoT test after then in order to be driven lawfully on our roads?
I hope the Government will be able to provide the answers, today or subsequently, to all the questions I have raised. We must by now have a clearer picture of the situation in respect of testing capacity. If the Government can provide the evidence that it is insufficient, the order should continue, but when the evidence indicates the testing capacity is available, then the Government should seriously consider revoking this order, since deferring the need for an annual MoT test by six months or 50% must represent a potentially significant road safety issue. I beg to move.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for raising this issue, but I think that the order is a sensible precaution. I believe that the Minister and her department are operating magnificently. For instance, last week she and her officials sorted out a problem I had raised about abnormal load movements within 24 hours from start to finish.
It is important to recognise that having an MoT testing regime is not just about the direct safety benefit of detecting vehicle faults but much more about keeping our vehicle fleet operating at a very high standard, without a race to the bottom under economic pressures. Also more important nowadays is minimising environmental harm by means of emission testing. The good news is that the standard of our private car and commercial vehicle fleet is far higher than it was a few decades ago. I have a somewhat technical interest to declare, in that I currently operate a heavy goods vehicle exclusively under an order made under Section 44 of RTA 1988, but might want to operate it under C&U rules. Lack of goods vehicle testing capacity may cause me some inconvenience at some point in the future.
In effect, the order extends an existing MoT certificate but does not allow a vehicle to be operated without a recent certificate at all. That is fine for cars, but not necessarily for goods vehicles. There may be sound reasons why it is necessary to bring a goods vehicle back into operation; for instance, after a significant overhaul or refurbishment. I understand that the Minister has the power to relax testing requirements for an individual vehicle, but officials are using it only sparingly, for vehicles involved in combating the coronavirus, but not generally, even for reliable operators. Before noble Lords get too excited about my suggestion, I point out that goods vehicle operators are already obliged to inspect their vehicles for safety about every six weeks, so my proposal would have a limited adverse effect on road safety.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, it is unfortunate that after many years of encouraging the use of public transport and attempts to reduce traffic congestion and use of fuel, and to improve air quality, the Government are now having to encourage limited use of cars again. The legal requirement for cars to be given MoT tests is not without reason, so there must be safety implications arising from their suspension. A number of cars that will be driven during the exemption period would have failed their test.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked many important questions. In particular, can the Minister confirm how many cars would normally have failed an MoT in a six-month period, allowing an estimate to be made of how many cars being driven over the spring and summer might have failed this test? What steps are the Government taking to encourage motorists to follow advice from sources such as the AA and the RAC about keeping their cars safe and roadworthy? What efforts are they making to advise motorists to check the condition and pressure of their car tyres, their vehicle’s oil levels and coolants and the functioning of their windscreen wipers and lights before they resume driving?
The role of the rescue services is important at this time, especially in supporting key workers travelling to their essential jobs. Perhaps it is time to thank organisations such as the AA and the RAC which are offering to rescue any NHS worker who needs their help without charge.
How are the Government liaising with the insurance companies over the consequences of suspending the operation of MoT testing? Some insurance companies may be in a healthy financial position, as they claim full premiums from motorists even when people are driving a lot less and presumably making fewer claims. Are the Government advising these companies that they should not cancel someone’s insurance cover simply because their car has not had an MoT during this period, as lawyers advise they may be able to do? Are they advising motorists that they should notify their insurance companies if they do not obtain an MoT when it would normally be due? Finally, are they talking to car manufacturers and dealers about whether a lack of an MoT, if due in this period, may invalidate warranties?
Much is being decided in haste during this crisis and I ask therefore that issues such as those in this order be kept under careful review and that the suspension of testing will be ended as soon as is practicable.
The Earl of Erroll (CB)
My Lords, I agree that this is a very practical and sensible relaxation of the rules, which will help keep people able to work as the lockdown is eased. Without it, there would have been more hardship than we would have wished, probably among the less well off, who are less able to afford newer vehicles.
However, as others have said, safety is extremely important and it may be worth the Government putting out messages on public television or whatever about what defects would certainly be prosecuted by the police if you get stopped. Exemption from an MoT does not mean that you are allowed to drive a dangerous car. For instance, damaged tyres are critical. I have noticed very occasionally that the inside wall of the tyre may be damaged, and that gets picked up only at the MoT because not many of us like crawling under our car regularly just to check. If it has not been serviced for a while, it can go unnoticed.
Brake pads are important; yes, lights can come up on the dashboard, but I am not sure that everyone understands them. However, if the noise should alert people, maybe these messages should be put out publicly. Wiper blades, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, are very important in bad weather —or even in good weather when your windscreen gets clogged up with flies and you have to use the windscreen washers. Some basic messages on things such as that should be promulgated, because we do not want unsafe cars on the road.
I am not sure what exactly qualifies as essential services, but garages and small car servicing shops should be treated as essential. The people who sell the parts and things that we need should also be treated as essential; I think that they already are.
If one wants an MoT before the new deadline—this may be a very good way of getting a car checked anyway—presumably that journey would be regarded as important enough to qualify under the rules for essential journeys or for getting to work. It would be useful to have that clarification.
I also hope that it will be possible for the DVLA to send out reminders to vehicle owners when the new deadline for their car is due because a lot of people will have the wrong date in their reminders and diaries.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is fair to say that these regulations represented a practical, proportionate intervention at that stage of the crisis, not least for our front-line workers to whom we owe an enduring debt of gratitude.
However, since the guidance has changed materially, I have some questions for my noble friend the Minister. What impact has this had on small businesses, not least those garages that employ five people or fewer? In the light of these changes, does it not make sense for the regulations to be reviewed on a weekly, perhaps even fortnightly, basis? What data are the Government collecting on vehicles on the road? For example, how many are being stopped, how many are being taken off the road and how many fines are being issued? How has the risk addressed in the regulations been balanced against the other risks that it inevitably brings to bear? I am particularly concerned about the situation for taxis and private hire cars. Are the Government looking at this issue?
The guidance has changed materially as of Sunday evening, as we saw this morning. As JM Keynes put it, “When the facts change, I change”. Should the regulations be under review in that context? This morning, we saw that the traffic on the roads has increased materially, as guided by government. Does my noble friend agree that we need to ensure not only that passengers in those cars are safe, in terms of reducing their Covid risk, but that the vehicles in which they travel are safe for them, for other road users, for pedestrians and for us all?
Lord Carrington of Fulham (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register.
We understand perfectly the reasons for these regulations. At this time, it is important that we remove as many burdens from people as possible and ensure that no one is forced into contact with others if it can be avoided. However, I wish to point out a couple of problems. I support the regulations but we will need to get MoT stations back to normal operation as soon as possible.
My first point concerns safety. It goes without saying that maintaining mechanical and emissions standards for motor vehicles is safety-critical for all road users and for reducing air pollution, which has been one of the few benefits of the present crisis. MoT testing stations play a vital part in this. They are not there to catch the crook or wide boy who wants to drive unsafe vehicles on the road, although they have a part to play here. The overwhelming majority of vehicles that fail their MoT do so because they have faults that their owners were unaware of. For instance, a six-month delay in getting an MoT test means that some faults, for example in brakes that were fine 18 months before at the last test, are now dangerous. The MoT test is set up to ensure that the brake pads are thick enough to last for 12 months of normal usage of that vehicle— 18 months may remove that safety margin.
The second issue concerns the nature of MoT stations themselves. Outside Northern Ireland, they are overwhelmingly small businesses set up as small independent garages specialising in MoTs. They are sometimes part of repair garages, because the repair garage is fed from the work generated by the MoT testing. If you find that your car has failed the MoT on something minor such as a faulty brake light, it is often convenient for the vehicle owner to get a quote from the garage doing the MoT and get the MoT done quickly on the spot if the price is right.
By delaying MoTs for six months, we take out six months cash flow from these small businesses; many will not survive, regardless of government loans and furlough schemes. This could lead to a shortage of MoT stations in future, which are not easily replaced because of the technical skills required to carry out MoTs and the licensing to ensure that they are carried out correctly. While this regulation solves our pressing problems at this time, the shorter the time that MoTs are delayed the better, for the sake of us all and of the small businesses involved.
Lord Berkeley (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Rosser for the opportunity to debate these regulations. The MoT is an essential safety requirement for those who use the road. You can just as easily kill somebody by having a defective car that has failed an MoT as you can with the coronavirus, so the whole regulation needs to be put into perspective. Like my noble friend Lord Rosser, I ask the Minister to explain what exactly is the reason for this. Is it because the testers have too much work doing something else or because the DVLA is not ready to process the information?
As other noble Lords have said, there are something like 23,000 testing centres in this country. I decided to see how easy it would be to get an MoT test this morning. I googled “MoT test” and managed to book a service with a mythical car—I do not drive or own a car—an XJ12, petrol, 2010 model, for two weeks’ time on 22 May. There are probably many other testing centres that would have taken my booking so I cannot quite see the problem of lack of testing facilities—if, indeed, that is the problem.
A period of several weeks or months of not driving one’s car can create an equally serious problem, as other noble Lords have said. One can now drive from London to Cornwall and back in a day; you cannot spend the night anywhere, but you can drive. That is the kind of situation where latent defects in vehicles could pop up.
The other issue I would like to raise with the Minister is that of attributable accidents. In other words, if you have not bothered, frankly, to have an MoT test, you are exempt because of these regulations, and you have an accident where somebody is badly hurt or killed, who is to blame? I would blame the Government for bringing in unsafe regulations when they were not necessary. The Minister will probably have a much better answer to absolve the Government but, after all, somebody will have to pay compensation and that seems very unfair.
Finally, the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and others have mentioned the problem of PSVs and HGVs, which are not covered by these regulations. As the noble Earl said, they are mostly run by professionals, but there are bad apples in every industry, including PSVs, HGVs and all types of cars and vans. The problem with the bigger vehicles is that they can cause much more damage when they have an accident. Can the Minister explain whether similar regulations have been brought in to absolve PSVs and HGVs from such tests for six months, and with what justification?
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I will concentrate on two specific issues: revocation of the SI and the connected effect on the business of MoT test centres.
As it stands, the SI has an effect until 30 September 2021. There is no sunset clause, as explained in paragraph 14.2 of the Explanatory Memorandum. The explanation provided is that
“it is not appropriate to provide for a review of this instrument as it will cease to have effect after a short and fixed period of time.”
Paragraph 7.6 of the EM tells us that this instrument
“will be revoked if it no longer serves a useful purpose.”
I want to press the Minister to consider whether 18 months is a short period. Given all the shifts in the Government’s approach to the pandemic, as restrictions are lifted or amended, surely it would have been sensible to build in a different approach in Regulation 2(3). If, as we all hope, we can take steps to return to a sense of normal road activity by the end of the year, surely a review clause would be more appropriate. The alternative, as laid out in paragraph 14.1 of the Explanatory Memorandum, is a new instrument to be laid before Parliament. That process would itself extend the intention of revocation by a month or two.
The case for this review clause is strengthened by paragraph 7.4 of the EM, which informs us that the purpose of the instrument is to
“enable drivers to continue to travel for a purpose permitted by law, such as purchasing essential food and medicine”.
We are discussing an SI when the regulations on lawful driving have already been changed. In England people can now drive to places where they wish to exercise, such as beaches or the countryside, but I suggest that they do not come over the border into Wales because they could be fined under laws the Welsh Government have put in place.
The effect of these regulations in England is that people are now free to travel on the roads in their cars; it is just the purpose of their end destination that is defined. If changes proceed at this frequency, the case for a more flexible approach to revocation is strengthened.
Public safety needs to be maintained above all. In 2018-19, 10 million vehicles—nearly a third—failed the MoT test. Nearly one in 10 failed with a dangerous fault, the most serious grade in the three-tier MoT system. Of the 30.5 million MoT tests taken, 10 million cars failed, 2.8 million of those for dangerous faults.
The Explanatory Memorandum tells us that there is spare capacity in local MoT testing stations. Many are one-person operations, making social distancing possible. I urge the Minister to reflect on improving the revocation mechanism to ensure that we do not endanger the public with dangerous cars on our roads.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I welcome the debate on the regulations. There is no doubt that motor vehicle regulations that enabled the three or four-year testing of vehicles’ roadworthiness have been an important step in improving the standard of vehicles over the last 40 years. They have been an important boost to our economy—to garages, mechanics and the new, evolving car industry—but there is no doubt that coronavirus has changed our landscape in every possible sector.
As the noble Lord, Lord German, said, these motor vehicle regulations have also contributed to safety on our roads. The test certificates are required for taxation and car insurance purposes. In Northern Ireland—where other issues existed because of faulty lifting gear, in whose replacement the Minister invested a considerable amount of money—they have been extended for one year. In fact, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham, said, those motor vehicle testing centres are now coronavirus testing centres; this is a different situation from that in GB.
I would like the Minister to provide answers to several questions that are common to these regulations. Is she confident that the backlog in vehicle testing will be addressed whenever the regulations are revoked? Is she confident that the problems with the roadworthiness of cars will not accumulate and therefore cause road safety issues? Is she satisfied, given the possible files on such cars due for MoTs, that they will remain roadworthy for the next six months?
There is another issue, which I have raised with the Minister. Small garages depend for their throughput of work on people bringing cars up to standard. They have lost that work at this time, as severe restrictions are in place because of Covid. Can the Minister give some thought to how such businesses could be assisted in the short term? They will be impacted by the economic downturn which will ensue. There is also a case for vehicle owners to have personal responsibility for looking after the standard and roadworthiness of their cars; it is a dual responsibility. Finally, is it time to review the actual system—the duration or eligibility criteria—for motor vehicle testing regulations and go for three, four or maybe five years?
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister and the Department for Transport on bringing forward these regulations. It is a very sensible thing to do. I should declare a personal interest in that my MoT is due to run out at the end of May; or rather, my car’s MoT is due to run out then. According to the NHS, my personal MoT ran out years ago.
I am one of those who would not be able to go out to get an MoT without these regulations, so the six-month extension is sensible and it should give enough time to get an MoT. Let us face it, if we are still in lockdown in six months’ time then God help us; we will not need MoTs since we will be back to the era of the horse and cart. However, will my noble friend keep this under review and, if necessary, speak to the Communities and Local Government department with a view to extending garage opening hours, possibly with Sunday working? I suspect that, as most noble Lords have said, most garages and MoT centres will go flat out to clear any backlog but if a bottleneck occurs, extending garage opening hours might be a solution.
The other point I wish to raise is more concerning. We all know that insurance companies will use any excuse not to pay up. I worry that if a vehicle is involved in an accident, the insurance company will refuse to pay because the car did not have an MoT even though there is the six-month extension. I can imagine a scenario where a vehicle is involved in a collision—from a minor one to one involving loss of life—and the reason for that accident is traced to something such as a faulty or worn steering wheel rod. The insurance company could argue that if the car had had an MoT after 12 months, this fault would have been found and that the accident occurred only because the 12-month period had been exceeded. That is a hypothetical example; no doubt motoring experts could find better ones. Will my noble friend assure me, and all other motorists, that insurance will cover completely all possible accidents occurring after the 12-month period and be valid over the 18-month period?
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Rosser for tabling this debate, which has allowed some interesting points to be made and questions raised. I can understand the decision to extend MoTs during the lockdown. However, we are now encouraging people who can work safely to go back to work. Do the Government therefore have any plans to change these MoT exemptions?
As we begin to transition out of the lockdown, a cause of concern for us all is a second wave of the pandemic. If we find ourselves in another lockdown in the autumn, will the Government look at extending MoT expiry dates again? If so, when will that decision need to be made? I know that some trade bodies for garages were disappointed and wanted a much shorter MoT extension. Do the Government plan to conduct an assessment of the impact of that decision on garages, MoT centres and motorists before making any further recommendations?
Like many noble Lords, I want to raise the issue of insurance. With more than 1 million cars failing their MoTs each year, there are undoubtedly cars on the road during the extension period that would have failed their MoT. I know that the Government have said that car owners must ensure that their cars are safe and roadworthy, and although they have a responsibility to do that, they are not mechanics. Given that, can the noble Baroness say what conversations the Government have had with the Association of British Insurers about the issue of roadworthiness for vehicles with extended MoTs being a factor in insurance claims? What plans do the Government have to provide guidance for motorists on making their cars roadworthy during this time?
Finally, vehicles that are parked on a public highway without an MoT can be reported, and therefore car owners can be fined. If a car’s MoT was due just before the end of March 2020 but the owner is self-isolating, staying at home or at home because they are clinically vulnerable, they are at risk of getting a fine. Filling in a Statutory Off Road Notification would be the last thing on their mind—even if they realised that they had to do it. What conversations have the Government had with the police to ensure that those who are self-isolating are not penalised for not having an MoT if it was due just before 30 March 2020? I look forward to the noble Baroness’s reply.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD)
I note that the government website states:
“Vehicles whose MOT certificate had expired by more than 12 months at the time of application for a new test are not eligible for a TEC … These vehicles should not be driven on public roads.”
As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, has just said, that means that if the MoT ran out just before the lockdown, the car cannot be used on a public road. Do the Government have any idea of how many cars are being driven around on public roads with no TEC or MoT certificates? Are the owners going to be reported or prosecuted? I also note that heavy duty vehicles are being given only a three-month exemption, not six months. Do the Government have any plans to revise the guidelines to bring all transport vehicle testing in line?
In a previous life, I owned and drove a black cab as well as my own car, a private hire vehicle, a minibus and, as a PSV driver, even coaches. The testing of every one of those vehicles was rigorous and regular to ensure the safety of all passengers, which is as it should be. But from my memory, almost 40% of those vehicles failed on their first visit to the test centre. The noble Earl, Lord Erroll, was quite right to say that tracking and tyres are major defects that are picked up only on MoT certificate testing. People do not get under their cars with mirrors to look at the sides of their tyres. Also, vehicles which have been left standing for months on end will have flat spots. If someone gets in their car and drives at speed, the tyres will be more at risk.
One of my other concerns is the present licensing laws for private hire vehicles. For instance, operators can get a licence in one part of the country and operate in another. In Stockport, we have private hire operators working from as far away as Wolverhampton and Rossendale. These vehicles are not the responsibility of Stockport Metropolitan Borough Council because the original licensing authorities are responsible for finding out whether such vehicles have been tested. Many older people are still using taxis and private hire cars to get to hospital and to go shopping. These vehicles need to be serviced and maintained safely. Can the Minister assure me that mechanisms are in place to ensure public safety, as we come out of lockdown more and more, and that all forms of transport testing, from car to coach hire, are in place to protect the public?
As MoT stations come online more, why can they not test earlier and the six-month limit be brought forward to provide testing earlier for key workers? It could be argued that taxi and private hire drivers are key workers, so they should be able to get early testing.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I recognise and support the Government’s rationale in bringing forward this change. The last thing that we want is to unnecessarily criminalise any driver or inadvertently leave people doubly locked in at home because they cannot use their vehicle, for example, to get to a doctor’s surgery or to pick up a prescription. I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that, without this change, some people would be discriminated against.
Therefore, I support the change, but I think that the Government should be looking at things beyond it. They have, rightly, encouraged and allowed bicycle repair shops to open. Although I am fully in favour of the maximum number of people shifting to using bicycles, in some parts of the country that would be rather a full-time occupation for people as they tried to get to work and to get around for their business. I would like the Government to give out a stronger message that garages can be open for business and that, where possible, they should be.
For some of us, this is the perfect time to arrange for an MoT to be done. I would be quite happy for the six-month period to be brought forward and to allow MoTs to be carried out earlier, because garages can employ caution and use safety measures. Using myself as an example, I could drive my car to a garage for an MoT and would be happy to leave it there for a week. I could walk home, then walk back to pick it up. Not only would that allow social distancing and no human contact, but it would allow the car to remain in isolation for, say, three or four days before it was touched by the garage.
The nation’s productivity could be damaged if we built up a bottleneck in the future, meaning that people had to disrupt their working lives to get an MoT carried out. Therefore, in addition to this measure, I urge the Government to provide encouragement to bicycle repair businesses, as they have done, to encourage garages to open and, where possible, to encourage people to use them and get their MoTs done.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Rosser for tabling this take-note Motion. It has enabled us to look at an important issue and to hear responses to questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Vere.
I support the extension but, as with much that the Government have done to address the Covid-19 pandemic, the communication has let them down. Therefore, my first question to the noble Baroness is: what can she say about the communication side and what lessons has she learned?
The purpose of the MoT is that, three years after buying a new car and then every year after that, you will get a professional to look at the car and certify that it is roadworthy. A car’s roadworthiness is a prime consideration for insurance companies. Can the noble Baroness tell the House what discussions she or her officials have had on this matter with the Association of British Insurers? Maybe the change brought in by this measure will not mean that your insurance is automatically invalidated, but it must raise questions if you are involved in an accident. Can she confirm what data is held on the DVLA’s motor insurance database, and has this data been updated to take account of the decision to grant this extension? Has she or her officials ensured that no driver will have a problem in getting their car insurance renewed as a result of the extension?
My noble friend Lord Rosser raised a number of serious points regarding the risk of an increase in the number of accidents due to a number of vehicles with serious or major defects that would have failed an MoT being on the road in an unroadworthy condition. I look forward to the noble Baroness responding carefully to the points raised by my noble friend. If a response cannot be given today, perhaps a detailed letter can be circulated to all speakers in this debate. What is the noble Baroness’s estimate of the time it will take to get the backlog of tests completed when this extension is ended?
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington of Fulham, about the risks to small businesses in Great Britain which do the testing and, often, the repairs to the vehicle that has just failed. I have done that myself when I have owned a car that has failed the MoT test: I have asked the garage that the car was at to do the repairs to bring the vehicle up to standard. It is convenient for the car owner; it is part of the business model of the garage; and it has qualified staff doing the tests and the work on the vehicle to bring it up to standard. What assessment have the Government made of the risks to businesses in those cases?
I thank all those who have taken part in this debate and look forward to the response of the Minister.
Baroness Randerson (LD)
I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for seeking this opportunity to debate this SI. Along with many noble Lords who have spoken today, I acknowledge the emergency situation in which the Government introduced this legislation, when the House was not sitting and with no opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny. However, we are now a couple of months on and have experienced, we hope, the peak of the virus. Indeed, the Government are urging England to go back to work. Therefore, we are looking at this SI with a degree of hindsight. I hope that the Minister will agree that the timescale envisaged by it goes beyond what was needed to solve a short-term problem.
In my experience, MoT garages are not the most crowded of workplaces; indeed, some are effectively one-man businesses. Appointments are made by customers, so social distancing is not a great problem. Therefore, garage staff are presumably now back at work. The need for this SI stems from the instruction to the public—that is, vehicle owners—to stay at home. However, on Sunday night, the Prime Minister changed that instruction for England, as several noble Lords have noted. So is this SI still needed at all?
I want to ask the Minister about the dates to which this SI applies. The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that the scheme for exemptions applies only to vehicles for which an MoT test was due on or after 30 March. If your MoT was due on 29 March, for instance, and you did not get it, then you are not entitled to the waiver. Yet the lockdown was announced on 23 March. Why this hiatus of a week? I know of a driver whose MoT was due on 26 March, but her garage shut immediately on 23 March when the lockdown was announced. She was unable to get her MoT. When she needs to drive again, this gap will cause her problems. What should she do? Can the Minister explain why the SI does not date from the start of the lockdown?
I hope that the Government will move to revoke this SI as soon as possible, as paragraph 7.6 of the Explanatory Memorandum sets out, because the sudden withdrawal of MoT business has had a big financial impact, particularly on small garages which rely on MoTs and subsequent repairs. It has had a knock-on effect on welding businesses, for instance. Many noble Lords have raised this point.
Almost one in three vehicles taken for testing fails to such an extent that it is classed as dangerous or as having major faults. I accept that there has been a low risk of breakdowns et cetera during the lockdown, but we are already past that period in England. The statistics I cited indicate that the MoT exists for good safety reasons. As the Explanatory Memorandum points out, some 16.5 million MoTs will expire in the next six months.
I want to ask about the exemption granted to goods vehicles and public service vehicles under the Secretary of State’s powers. What are the terms of this and how long will it last? Buses often carry children, for instance, and we owe a special responsibility to them, and to their parents, that they travel in safety. The commercial reality is that both bus companies and haulage companies have suffered badly in the last eight weeks. It is an obvious financial saving for them if they do not have to pay for an MoT, but it is important that that financial saving does not stretch to failing to keep vehicles up to high safety standards.
The Explanatory Memorandum says that there will still be a legal obligation on motorists, hauliers and bus operators to ensure that their vehicle is safe, but there is no mechanism for enforcement built into this SI. I fear that the only enforcement will come after the accident, when the police inspect the wreckage and charge the driver with having an unsafe vehicle.
Throughout my comments, I have referred to England specifically, but the territorial extent of this SI includes Scotland and Wales, as the noble Lord, Lord German, has already pointed out. It has been well rehearsed over the last few days that the three Governments have now diverged in their advice on working and travelling. How will this divergence be reflected in the Government’s approach to this issue? Above all, I seek an assurance that the devolved Governments will be fully consulted as and when changes are made.
This has been a remarkably unanimous debate, in that most noble Lords have made it absolutely clear that they support the purpose of the SI but believe that its extent, in terms of time, is probably now too lengthy and too specific.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, made very important points about insurance and warranties. I ask the Minister to respond specifically to those legal questions and to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, about blame after an accident.
I look forward to the Minister’s reply. I accept, as do other noble Lords, that the SI was a sensible solution to a short-term problem for worried motorists, but I believe the Government should ensure that it remains short term.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for providing the opportunity to consider these regulations and to probe the Government’s intentions around vehicle testing for light vehicles, known as the MoT. The testing of HGVs and public service vehicles, such as buses, is covered in other regulations, but I will try to touch on these if I have time, and if not I will write.
The MoT market consists of a network of around 23,500 privately owned and operated test stations. Many of these garages combine both MoT testing and maintenance and repair work, as was noted by my noble friend Lord Carrington.
As the outbreak of Covid took hold, it became clear that temporary changes would need to be made to the MoT testing regime. The reasons were threefold. Prior to 23 March, the date on which the Government announced the lockdown, there was a noticeable drop of about 10% in the number of cars brought in for testing. This suggested that drivers did not want to risk infection. By then, elderly people certainly could have been choosing not to use their cars. Furthermore, the Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency, the DVSA, which oversees MoT testing, started receiving reports of vehicle dealerships, MoT testing stations and repair garages closing or reducing staff numbers. Drivers also noted that they were unable to get tests. Finally, on 23 March, the Government issued “Stay at home” guidance, which specified essential travel. Getting an MoT was not regarded as essential travel.
We recognised that, although car use would fall dramatically, most people would still need their car for short essential journeys, and key workers, particularly in the NHS and the care sector, would still need to get to work. We also recognised the ongoing need for roadworthy light vehicles, so that home deliveries of food could continue, for example.
There is also the issue of those not using their car at all. They of course have the option to make a statutory declaration when it is not in use on the road, but that is feasible only for those who will not use their car at all and have an off-road place to store it. For those who must use their car very infrequently or have to park their car on the road, the vehicle must have an MoT, so this action helps them too.
With around 8.3 million vehicles due for a test over a three-month period—about 92,000 a day—the department took the decision to reduce the risk of people being exposed to Covid-19 and enable them to comply with the stay-at-home guidance by introducing the changes under these regulations. Our actions, including discussions with insurers, also avoided difficulties with insurance policies, some of which required MoT tests to remain valid. The effect of the changes is that all light vehicles due to be examined between 30 March 2020 and 29 March 2021—a one-year period—are or will be excluded from the requirement to hold a test certificate for six months. The duration, namely to the end of September 2021, was set to cover the potential extent of the outbreak, as we saw it then—it is great to have hindsight—plus a grace period, which would allow the testing industry to recover and ensure that it is not immediately overwhelmed by a bow wave of cars coming to be tested.
Our decision to extend the MoT validity of affected vehicles by six months was taken after very careful consideration. We balanced the need to provide a sufficiently long extension to deal with the immediate impact of the epidemic with the need to avoid an unnecessary impact on road safety. We felt that the six-month period was appropriate; it is unlikely to change in the current circumstances. The duration of the changes remains under review and, if no longer required, this instrument will be amended to bring forward the last day on which a six-month exclusion can begin. A six-month exclusion that has already begun will not be curtailed. I repeat: we are looking at bringing forward the date for the period under which one gets this extension, but that decision has not been taken for the moment.
On tax and insurance, vehicle excise duty remains due on those vehicles eligible for this extension. The DVSA is updating its records as these extensions are added to people’s vehicle records and is then feeding this information through to the DVLA, which collects excise duty. Once that has been updated on the DVLA system, anyone can tax their vehicle as normal. We consulted the insurance industry when we were drafting this legislation. It should be noted that the Association of British Insurers said:
“In this unprecedented situation, insurers will not penalise you if you can’t get an MOT. Safety is paramount so check your brakes, tyres and lights before driving.”
The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, mentioned fines. The department has been in touch with the police and the DVLA and they have reassured us that they will take a pragmatic approach to enforcement during this time. No one wants to see fines levied on vulnerable people who are simply unable to drive their car at this time.
In the event that a vehicle is involved in an accident—an important point raised by my noble friend Lord Blencathra—the attribution would be to a vehicle being unroadworthy rather than not having an MoT. This is very important: the vehicle would be unroadworthy; it is not simply the fact that it did not have an MoT. A vehicle may become unroadworthy at any time, even if you have an MoT, so it is vital that drivers fulfil their legal responsibility that their vehicle is safe to drive, whether or not it has been tested.
As I have noted, even though many vehicles will be excluded from the requirement to hold a test certificate during this period, users are required under the Road Traffic Act to ensure that vehicles are in good working order. An MoT covers only certain things and is not the same as taking your car for a full service down at the garage. Drivers can be prosecuted if their vehicles are found to be in an unsafe condition when driving on the road.
The department has estimated that over the six-month period covered by the exclusion, approximately 29% of vehicles would have received a “dangerous” or “major” MoT failure. However, this increased risk is significantly mitigated by the reduction in trips; the current data shows a 58% drop in the amount of traffic on the roads. Although traffic is increasing at this time, particularly given the changes to government guidance, we expect a continued depression versus pre-Covid levels. I reassure noble Lords that, in the current environment, if one chose to get an MoT to get a car roadworthy for essential journeys, that in itself would be an essential journey.
Road safety is incredibly important to all of us. That is why the roadworthiness caveat exists in the regulations and why the Government have urged garages to remain open where possible. We are actively encouraging garages to remain open because we want to make sure that there are places for people to go to get their essential maintenance and repairs carried out.
Furthermore, the DVSA has issued guidance to drivers on what to do to keep a car safe and roadworthy. We are of course in regular contact with the AA and the RAC. Those organisations are repeating and reiterating these messages about getting cars on the road and getting your car back on the road when it has not been driven for a period.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, asked why 30 March. We were working at pace, as I am sure noble Lords will understand. Given that regulations could not be made retrospectively and we had to have a certain date from which they would be valid, that date necessarily had to be the short period after the imposition of the lockdown because the regulations had to be drafted and laid in Parliament. There had to be due process. There are vehicles whose MoT fell due before 30 March. These vehicles cannot have their MoT extended because it is not available to us using existing legislative routes. This is a second reason why the Government have urged garages to remain open where possible and we are very pleased that around 60% have done so, although some have a significant reduction in capacity.
MoT testing is still taking place and it is possible to find somewhere to get your car tested if it needs to be. The DVSA has published guidance on how to conduct tests while adhering to social distancing measures. As some noble Lords pointed out, some centres have just one person working there and certainly often fewer than five. It is possible to continue to carry out tests. Other measures recommended by the DVSA include enhanced cleaning, using contactless payment where possible and not issuing a paper copy of the MoT certificate, which can be printed or downloaded at a separate time. Our records indicate that the overall testing levels for vehicles with tests due before 30 March were normal, so we believe that there is no significant change in the levels of compliance.
Many noble Lords noted that these changes are quite significant. We recognise that. They were made following extensive consideration and consultation, required by the Road Traffic Act 1988. We consulted a wide range of different organisations, including the AA and the RAC, the Association of British Insurers, the Independent Garage Association and the SMMT, which represents new car manufacturers, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rennard. We consulted all these organisations and 15 responses were received, which expressed broad support for the proposals. As raised by noble Lords today, concerns included the financial impact of the proposals on the testing industry, as well as difficulties relating to the reintroduction of testing. We recognise that there will be challenges and we will have to overcome them.
The Government have consulted and continue to engage with the devolved Administrations, as requested by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, primarily on a day-to-day basis at official level on these matters, but Ministers in my department have ministerial-level discussions with them. Vehicle testing in Northern Ireland is devolved and Northern Ireland has taken its own approach, as noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, by exempting both light and heavy vehicles for 12 months outright.
Given the urgency of the situation, we were not able to undertake a formal impact assessment. However, we did a proportionate analysis, looking at the impacts on things such as the ability of key workers to be able to get to work if they do not have an MOT, the road safety implications, effects on congestion, and financial losses to both the DVSA and garages. The financial impact on businesses has been estimated to be significant, possibly around £650 million, and a loss to DVSA will need to be considered.
Tests are going on at the moment. We are looking at 20% to 25% of normal test levels—the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, shared his success in booking one, so I am pleased that that there is availability out there. Some 60% of garages are open, and we believe that that number will continue to rise. It looks like between 75% and 80% of people are taking advantage of the extension.
We recognise the financial impact on garages, and the Government have done an enormous amount to support businesses during these difficult times. There is the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme, which garages can use, and the coronavirus bounce- back loan will be particularly suitable for some of these smaller businesses. Given that financial support, we anticipate that there will be no issue with a significant reduction in capacity in MoT testing stations as we pull out of the current crisis.
As regards pulling out of this crisis, the situation is being kept under review. The regulations may be revoked or altered, and we will bring back further proposals to the House. However, we will absolutely make sure that we do not reintroduce the MoT test unless it can be conducted safely, with the least possible risk to people’s health, both MoT staff and those going in for the tests. We will also make sure that there is capacity within the sector. At the moment, on average, an MoT tester does only nine tests a week, so we believe that there is significant capacity within the system.
I am aware that I have now run out of time, and I have not covered HGV and PSV testing, which is separate to the regulations under consideration today. With the forbearance of noble Lords, I would therefore like to write in more detail and will also cover matters that I have not been able to consider—for example, the details around taxis and PHVs and how that interacts with local authorities and taxi licensing, and so on.
At times like these it is important that legislation is enacted quickly, in this case to protect the health of drivers and those working in garages. I am extremely grateful for the input of all noble Lords today, and these deliberations will be taken into account as we consider future changes.
Lord Rosser
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has been useful, and I thank the Minister for her response, which certainly provided answers to a number of the issues that have been raised. Obviously, I do not intend to proceed any further on this Motion.
Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Bill [HL]
Wednesday 13th May 2020
(4 years, 7 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 Amendment Paper: HL Bill 101-I Marshalled list for Virtual Committee - (7 May 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, this Virtual Committee will now begin. I remind Members that these proceedings are subject to parliamentary privilege and what we say is available to the public both in Hansard and to those listening and watching.
I shall begin by setting out how these proceedings will work. This Virtual Committee will operate as far as possible like a Grand Committee. A participants’ list for today’s proceedings has been published. I also have lists of Members who have put their names to the amendments, or expressed an interest in speaking, in each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed in my brief, which Members should have received. Members’ microphones will be muted by the broadcasters except when I call a Member to speak and whenever a Question is put, so interventions during speeches are not possible and uncalled speakers will not be heard.
During the debate on each group I will invite Members to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. Debate will take place on the lead amendment in each group only; the groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. Whenever I put the Question, all Members’ microphones will be opened until I give the result. Members should be aware that any sound made at that point may be broadcast. If a Member intends to say “Not content” to an amendment, it will greatly assist the Chair if they make this clear when speaking on the group. As in Grand Committee, it takes unanimity to amend the Bill, so if a single voice says “Not content”, an amendment is negatived, and if a single voice says “Content”, a clause stands part.
I shall now put the Question that Clause 1 stand part of the Bill. All microphones will be open until I give the result.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 1. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. It would be helpful if anyone intending to say “Not content” when the Question is put made that clear in debate. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill in this Committee; this Committee cannot divide.
Clause 2: Implementation of other agreements on private international law
Amendment 1
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
“( ) The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, implementing the Convention on Jurisdiction and the Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters signed at Lugano on 30th October 2007 (the “2007 Lugano Convention”), in the event that the United Kingdom becomes a party to the Convention in its own right.”
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)
My Lords, the effect of the three amendments in this group—Amendments 1, 4 and 5—is that the power in Clause 2 which allows a Minister by regulations to change the law of the United Kingdom to reflect an international treaty on private international law that the country has entered into would be restricted to the Lugano convention only.
It is perhaps sensible if, in addressing the three amendments in this first group, I set out the context, in effect, of most of my amendments in Committee. Clause 1 introduces into the domestic law of the UK the content of three private international law treaties: one dealing with the abduction of children from one country to another; one dealing with the enforcement of child support and family maintenance orders; and one dealing with commercial agreements where a choice of court clause is specified in the agreement. The effect of bringing these three conventions into UK law is that the terms of those conventions become part of our domestic law and are what our courts then give effect to as part of the law. For example, the Hague abduction treaty means that where a couple bring up a child in one country, where there is custody with one parent, and that child is abducted by the other parent to another country—for example, the UK—then, according to that convention, the UK courts, as a matter of domestic law, should return the child to its normal place of residence and should refuse to do so only if there is fear for the child’s safety.
These private international law agreements change the law of the country as a result of agreements that the Executive have entered into. We on these Benches have no objection to those three treaties being brought into domestic law—this is a piece of primary legislation—but we have very considerable objections to Clause 2, and our primary position is that it should not stand part of the Bill. It allows the Government to change the law of the country by delegated legislation, even by changing primary legislation, to give effect to agreements that they have entered into in private international law.
Our objections are, in effect, threefold. First, as a matter of constitutional propriety, this is wrong. It is wrong that there should be such little accountability by Parliament in respect of potentially very significant changes in the law. In support of that principled constitutional objection, I have the support of the Constitution Committee, which is chaired by my noble friend Lady Taylor, the Delegated Powers Committee, which is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, and the chair of the Treaties Sub-Committee, my noble and learned friend Lord Goldsmith. All see this as a matter of constitutional impropriety.
In the face of that unanimity of view about what is a constitutionally improper thing to do, what is the Government’s justification for doing this? I have scanned carefully the two speeches by the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General for Scotland, Lord Keen of Elie, at Second Reading about why this move is justifiable. He gave no general explanation in either speech. He acknowledged in his opening speech that there might be an issue about the Lugano convention, which deals with the jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments between, among other things, members of the European Union. He said that we might end up in a situation where we want to join the Lugano convention, that we have to do it before the end of the transition period, and that we would negotiate it only at the very end of the period. He said that because of those exceptional circumstances there should be power to join the Lugano convention by delegated legislation.
For that reason—and that is the only example given —we have tabled, by way of probing amendments, Amendments 1, 4 and 5, which restrict the power to the Lugano Convention because of those special circumstances. There is a live debate about whether the UK should join the Lugano Convention, and in his speech at Second Reading the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, set out the shortcomings of the convention.
My preference is that we delete Clause 2 altogether and that, if the Government of the day join an international convention that has effects on our domestic law, that should be approved only by primary legislation. It is said that private international law is a “narrow” and “specialist” topic. The complex rules surrounding it can be both narrow and technical, but they deal with hugely important issues that affect everybody, such as family life, consumer, personal injury and international trade issues. That the law is complex does not mean that the issues covered are not of real significance.
I invite noble Lords to consider whether they wish to restrict Clause 2 only to the Lugano Convention, but that is in the wider context of urging them not to allow the Government this wholly inappropriate power, never used previously and for which no proper justification has been given. I beg to move.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I support the observations so powerfully made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I too am concerned about the width of Clause 2. My concern arises from the discussions and conclusions of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, serving under the distinguished chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said, the committee concluded that Clause 2 raises matters of considerable constitutional concern. The concern is that, with the exception of EU law—from which we are in the process of extracting ourselves—it is a fundamental principle of our constitution that international agreements can change the content of our domestic law only if and when they are given force by an Act of Parliament. The Constitution Committee saw no justification for the change that Clause 2 would introduce—that is, to confer on Ministers a power to achieve such a result by statutory instrument.
We recognise that many of the international agreements to which Clause 2 would apply are technical in nature and that their text cannot be changed after negotiations have concluded; nevertheless, we think there is no justification for allowing our law to be changed by statutory instrument without the need for full parliamentary debate. Clause 2 will allow not just for the implementation of the text of the international agreement but for “consequential, supplementary, incidental” provisions. It will allow Ministers to create new criminal offences by statutory instrument. These are matters requiring detailed scrutiny of a Bill through the various stages of the parliamentary process, during which amendments can be debated and, if necessary, divided on. Members of the Constitution Committee are concerned to maintain ministerial accountability to Parliament. This is not emergency legislation; it is a proposal for a permanent shift in power to the Executive.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am sympathetic to the context set out so eloquently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
At the outset, I seek clarification on a question similar to that put by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. As the Deputy Speaker set out, it appears that we can debate only those amendments that form the first amendment of each group and that we are unable to have clause stand part debates. If my understanding is correct, does that mean that we cannot debate and subsequently vote on a clause stand part debate, as the thrust of Amendment 1 seemingly seeks the ability to do? It would be helpful to have that clarification.
As has been expressed so far, it appears that the purpose behind Clause 2 relates to the Lugano convention. Does it have implications for the Brussels II recast, if not also for the Brussels I recast convention? I entirely endorse the comments that have already been made about the importance of the Lugano convention, particularly to those in the UK who wish to obtain judgments and orders in the UK but also to those across the EU 27. This gives individual citizens and businesses the right to make concrete their desire to ensure that judgments obtained anywhere in Europe will remain readily enforceable in the UK and the EU 27. It facilitates trade and a level playing field and affects inward investment in the whole of Europe. It avoids competing jurisdictions, which I think we all want to avoid, and is central to protecting workers’ rights and consumer protection under insurance policies, which I hope we are all signed up to.
I have some short questions for my noble and learned friend in the context of Amendment 1 and the original Clause 2. What steps is he taking to enforce the terms that are similar to the Brussels II recast convention to give them effect? Have they been set in motion? What stage are we at with the EU 27 regarding matrimonial matters?
I understand, as set out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, that we are leaving agreement to join the Lugano convention until the 11th hour of the 11th day—literally right on the deadline of our leaving the European Union and terminating the transitional arrangements. Why are we leaving it so late in the day? Have soundings already been taken as to the likelihood of the EU and EFTA member states agreeing our application to join the Lugano convention, for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord? On balance, I would say that Lugano was a good thing to join.
Do the original Clause 2 and the Bill as currently drafted intend to give effect to not just the Lugano convention but the Brussels II recast convention? Can my noble and learned friend confirm my understanding that we would not in any way be conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Justice of the European Union but only giving weight to the relevant decisions, as we are currently obliged to do under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and common law?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
It may help the noble Baroness if I answer the procedural question she put at the beginning of her speech. It is possible for the Virtual Committee to debate every clause stand part question—indeed, each clause has to be stood part in this procedure—but it is not possible to vote on that at this stage. If that will be required at a later stage, voting can take place. I hope that she finds that helpful.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, as I understand it, the amendments in this group have two aims: to curb the overbroad power to implement relevant international agreements by regulation, and to signal in primary legislation that there is no objection to giving the force of law to the Lugano convention. I support the first, which is furthered by other groups of amendments, and am sympathetic to the second. However, for the reasons given by my noble and learned friend Lord Mance at Second Reading on the interrelationship between Lugano and the 2019 Hague Convention, there seems to be a question of whether we should sign up immediately to Lugano, even if the EU gives its consent, which is perhaps not a given. I would welcome the Minister’s considered comments on that.
It was good to hear the Minister say at Second Reading that the United Kingdom, should we become a party to Lugano, could drive for its amendment so as to incorporate into it the material improvements that as an EU member state we did so much to help deliver in the form of the recast Brussels regulation. Speaking as a practitioner—I declare an interest as a practising barrister—and as a former member of the EU Justice Sub-Committee, with some awareness in both capacities of the defects of the Lugano convention, I suggest that we not only could do so but should do so.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, the arguments put forward by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer seem utterly compelling and are supported not only by every speaker in this debate so far but also by the Constitution Committee, chaired, as he said, by my noble friend Lady Taylor.
My aim in speaking is not to contribute to the specific discussion on the amendment, though I think it is overwhelming, but to comment on the Virtual Proceedings, because understanding what happens in this Committee will be hugely important to how we take forward both the Virtual Proceedings and hybrid proceedings afterwards. I hope that I can be permitted to comment on what is happening, as I will at later stages of our discussions, because this will be so important to the Procedure Committee in deciding how to take forward our proceedings hereafter. Of course, the noble Lords and the officials doing that will read the record; it is important to have in Hansard what is happening at these key stages.
I want to make three points that have occurred to me already. First, it is not clear to people taking part in these proceedings who exactly is in the Committee. At the moment I can see only a handful of faces. After the Deputy Speaker calls people to speak, they suddenly appear from nowhere on my screen. It is very pleasant to see them appearing but it is not at all clear who will appear next. I cannot see the Minister at all; I assume that he is in the Committee, but that is not evident on the screen. My second key point is that is it a bit haphazard as to whether people can be followed, depending on the quality of audio and visual equipment.
Thirdly, I flag up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, about Report. My understanding is that it will be possible to table amendments exactly as tabled in Committee on Report, because we cannot vote in Committee—a hugely important point. In the discussion in the Chamber last week about how Report would be handled, the Leader of the House and my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition gave an almost categorical undertaking that we would not have Report until we had a hybrid House, so that it is possible for Members to participate in the Chamber and we can have the usual cut and thrust that we have in the Chamber, particularly when we are dealing with legislation and technical points.
I simply make the point that, from my observation of proceedings so far, it is essential that Report takes place in the Chamber and we should not have Report for this highly important Bill until it is possible to have the hybrid proceedings in operation.
Lord Mance (CB)
My Lords, I support the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick. At Second Reading, I described this Bill as, by its own lights, a sensible measure, but said that its lights were rather dimmer than the halogen welcome given to it by the Explanatory Notes. I took some issue with Clause 2. The reality is that we are grasping in the half-light for whatever instruments we can find to replace the full toolkit of the Brussels regulations—including I and II, to which the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, referred—which were in existence when we were members of the EU. This has been apparent ever since the House of Lords European Union Committee’s 17th Report of Session 2016-17, Brexit: Justice for Families, Individuals and Businesses?
In some areas, such as divorce jurisdiction, there seems to be simply no substitute in sight. In others, Clause 1 identifies three limited instruments, each in its own right very sensible. The second, the Hague choice of court convention, would protect the exclusive choice of court clauses in favour of UK courts, which are so important to the United Kingdom’s financial and business markets. The protection would be increased if the UK also signed up to the 2019 Hague Convention, which my noble friend Lord Anderson referred to and the Explanatory Notes mention as a possibility.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to the objection to Clause 2 standing part of the Bill, to be moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, for all the reasons that he gave, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and others. That will be addressed in more detail in group 6, later today.
As has been said, this amendment is a limited version of the removal of Clause 2, permitting the Lugano convention to be implemented. Indeed, the Lugano convention was cited at Second Reading by the Minister as a reason for taking this power to implement international conventions by regulation. He confirmed at Second Reading the Government’s intention to implement the Lugano convention.
In the Government’s response to the report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the Minister claimed that the urgency of implementing Lugano is such that it could not be done in time for the end of the transition period. He is supported in that by the briefing of the Bar Council for this Committee stage, which wants to see the convention implemented as part of domestic law before the end of the transition period. Indeed, it mounts a powerful argument for that. However, I am not convinced.
For my part, I would prefer to see Clause 2 removed in its entirety, because there should be no reason why the Government cannot lay primary legislation before the House before implementing Lugano. Even given the difficulties of Virtual Proceedings and the hybrid Parliament, provided that we could vote, it could be done. That would be the correct way to do it, and it would allow for proper and informed debate on the Lugano convention, which, at the moment, we are to be denied.
At Second Reading, as he has today, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, stressed the importance of the English choice of jurisdiction clauses in commercial contracts of many types to the status of London as a legal centre and to the status and recognition of English commercial law, which contributes not just to London lawyers but to London’s centrality to the global commercial system. The recognition and enforcement of English jurisdiction clauses is under threat as a result of our leaving the European Union and losing the protection of the 2012 Brussels recast regulation.
As the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, the problem—along with other problems with the Lugano convention, to which he has drawn attention, both at Second Reading and today—is that that convention does not replicate Brussels recast, in a number of ways. He has drawn attention to the “Italian torpedo”, whereby a choice of court clause can be overridden by subsequent litigation commenced in defiance of an English jurisdiction clause. He has also drawn attention to the advantage of the 2019 Hague Convention, coupled with the 2019 choice of court convention, to which we could sign up. The particular relevant advantage is that, under the 2019 convention, courts may refuse to recognise a judgment given in a contracting state if that judgment breaches a choice of court clause. If we sign up to Lugano as it stands then, even if we later signed up to the 2019 Hague Convention, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, pointed out, Lugano would trump that protection.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. I shall of course speak to each of the amendments, Amendments 1, 4 and 5. When taken together, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, observed, they have the effect of restricting the power to implement international private law agreements contained in Clause 2 in the 2007 Lugano Convention. But they not only limit the power of the United Kingdom to implement private international law agreements in this way, they also restrict our ability to mirror any such arrangements as between the United Kingdom’s different legal jurisdictions, and indeed as between the United Kingdom and the Crown dependencies and overseas territories.
Of course we accept, as we have previously, that the most pressing need for the power is in relation to the Lugano convention itself. Our application to rejoin the convention as an independent contracting party was made on 8 April—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
We appear to have lost the noble and learned Lord the Minister. Is he still with us?
Lord Keen of Elie
I think that I am coming back. I apologise, but something happened on the computer.
We have made the application and it is hoped that, subject to agreement, we will be able to rejoin the Lugano convention from the end of the transition period.
I will pause to notice some of the observations made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, with reference to Brussels Ia and IIa restated. My noble friend asked in a number of ways what steps we are taking with regard to what she termed the Brussels convention and what progress is being made on that matter. I think we have to remind ourselves that Brussels Ia and IIa do not form an international convention; they are internal instruments of the EU to which you may be a party only if you are a member of the EU. We of course have the transition period during which we enjoy the benefits of Brussels Ia and IIa until the end of the year, but there is no basis on which we can be members of Brussels, as was suggested, after the end of the transition period. That is why we are concerned to apply for membership of Lugano.
With regard to a number of the observations made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, of course I readily acknowledge that Lugano is not as well developed in a number of respects as the Brussels Ia and IIa restated provisions. We are well aware of that. We would hope to advance Lugano once we are a member, but we have to acknowledge that it is not on a par with Brussels Ia and IIa.
However, Lugano is not the only potential use of the power in Clause 2. For instance, Amendment 1 would prevent us joining two other private international law agreements on which the Government are currently considering their position. They are the Singapore convention on mediation and the Hague judgments convention of 2019. I will return to the latter in a moment because it has been mentioned before.
With regard to the Singapore convention, I have shared with noble Lords a copy of an exemplar statutory instrument to demonstrate the sorts of agreements that we may wish to implement under the Clause 2 power. While the final decision on joining that convention is still to be taken, I invite noble Lords to look at that exemplar statutory instrument when considering the ways this power might be used. The instrument contains what are, essentially, technical implementing regulations for a treaty agreed at the level of international law. The choice for this House and the other place at the point of implementation is about not the specific provisions of an agreement, but whether to approve the United Kingdom’s implementation of the whole agreement in domestic law.
Beyond those two examples of private international law agreements which already exist, and which the UK is considering joining, we are actively engaged in work through the Hague conference to develop rules on jurisdiction in international civil and commercial cases. The global arena of private international law is constantly developing. We have been active in it in the past, and hope and intend to take a leading role in the future.
Restricting the scope of the Clause 2 power in the way envisaged by this amendment would, I suggest, prevent the United Kingdom implementing any future agreements in a timely manner. That would in turn delay the benefit of those agreements to citizens and businesses. I regard that as an unsatisfactory position, given that in many cases there is considerable advantage to be gained from such international co-operation in the area of private international law. It would also mean that primary legislation will be needed to insert into a schedule to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 the text of the United Kingdom’s declarations and reservations in relation to the 2005 Hague Convention and the 2007 Hague Convention, in the absence of which the terms of the United Kingdom’s accession to those agreements will be far less accessible to users.
I also point out that it will mean that the definition of “relevant international agreement”, as used in subsections (2) and (3), and presently defined in subsection (7) by cross-reference back to subsection (1), will be unclear. That term is also used in Schedule 6 and defined by cross-reference back to Clause 2. In addition, the way that Amendment 1 has been drafted would not in practice allow us to make implementing regulations in advance of becoming a contracting party but only after joining. In that respect, I venture that it is defectively drafted because, essentially, one has to take these things in a particular order.
I turn to Amendment 4. As drafted, Clause 2(2) allows the terms of an international agreement, subject to suitable modifications, to be applied between United Kingdom jurisdictions: for example, between England and Scotland. Amendment 4 seeks to restrict this power to allow for only the Lugano convention to be applied in this way. International agreements on private international law would not ordinarily apply between the United Kingdom’s three jurisdictions because such agreements apply only between contracting parties and it is the United Kingdom Government, not their separate jurisdictions, who join international agreements. Although the relationship between the different parts of the union are perhaps far deeper than they are between foreign jurisdictions and ourselves, it often means that the rules between different UK jurisdictions need to be detailed and bespoke. Applying the same rules between United Kingdom jurisdictions that we apply with foreign jurisdictions will, not invariably but very often, be desirable. For example, it could reduce the number of sets of rules that courts need to apply in cases raising cross-border issues, making them more efficient and easier for courts, lawyers and litigants to understand. It would also mean that intra-UK private international law rules are at least as effective and up to date as the rules applied between the United Kingdom and foreign jurisdictions. Clause 2(2) allows for such keeping pace but would be exercised only if the relevant jurisdictions agree that it is beneficial to do so.
These sorts of arrangements are not without precedent. All three UK jurisdictions already apply rules that mirror the EU Brussels 1A regulation on jurisdiction for cross-border cases and much of the EU maintenance regulation as between themselves. The fact that, thanks to Schedule 4 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, a modified version of the Brussels 1A rules is applied to cases between Scotland, Northern Ireland and England and Wales means that there might be limited prima facie rationale for suggesting that we replace this with the application of the rules under the Lugano convention. The rules are already substantially similar.
However, in addition, the amendment that I referred to has an altogether more significant deficiency. By limiting the intra-UK application of private international law agreements to the Lugano convention, the amendment may well result in the perverse situation in which the intra-UK rules are out of step, out of date and less effective than those governing the relationship between all three of these jurisdictions and a foreign jurisdiction. If the amendment were accepted, separate primary legislation would be needed to achieve this, potentially resulting in the intra-UK rules being less effective and less comprehensive than the rules that we apply with foreign jurisdictions until such primary legislation was passed.
Perhaps I may give an example. If the United Kingdom decided in future to join a new private international law agreement dealing with cross-border cases regarding children, the inability to implement that agreement between the UK’s jurisdictions at the same time as implementing an agreement between the UK and foreign jurisdictions could lead to families finding it more difficult to resolve disputes where parents live in, say, Northern Ireland and England than where one parent lives in the United Kingdom and the other in a foreign country. That would be a very strange outcome.
Amendment 5 has an effect similar to that of Amendment 4 in that it seeks to restrict the ability, under the Clause 2 power, for the United Kingdom to enter into arrangements with the Crown dependencies and overseas territories that mirror, subject to suitable modifications, the provisions of a private international law agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party. As I explained in relation to Amendment 4, the UK Government are the contracting party to international agreements on private international law. As such, these agreements would not ordinarily apply as between the United Kingdom and one of the Crown dependencies or overseas territories.
However, as with the relationships between the different legal jurisdictions of the UK, applying the same rules between the UK and the Crown dependencies and overseas territories that we apply with foreign jurisdictions will sometimes be desirable. It can ensure that the relationships between the various members of the wider UK family can be at least as effective and up to date as those applied between the United Kingdom and foreign jurisdictions. Clause 2(3), as presently drafted, allows for such keeping pace but only if the relevant territorial Government agree that it is beneficial to do so.
I submit that this builds on a significant body of precedent. Both the Administration of Justice Act 1920 and the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933 enable the Government, via Order in Council, to recognise and enforce civil and commercial judgments from the Crown dependencies and overseas territories where reciprocal arrangements have been entered into with them. Furthermore, Section 39 of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 enables the Government, by Order in Council, to apply a modified version of the Brussels 1968 convention between the United Kingdom and a Crown dependency or overseas territory. Indeed, an order was made in respect of Gibraltar in 1997 to do exactly that: applying a modified version of this convention to relations between the UK and Gibraltar—an arrangement that sustains to this day.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, the following noble Lords indicated a wish to speak after the Minister: the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames. I shall call them in that order and ask the Minister to respond to each of them in turn.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
I had not intended to intervene at this stage. However, since this, is or ought to be, very similar to Committee if we were sitting in the Chamber, I hope that Members will understand why I do so. It is not to deal with questions that the Minister raised about Crown dependencies and overseas territories—although he answered the question that I had intended to ask later on, on other amendments, so that will shorten the debate later—nor indeed about the different jurisdictions within the United Kingdom. Again, that will be dealt with in subsequent amendments and I can come back to that during that debate.
I want to say two things. First, I agree totally with what my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said; that will surprise neither him nor the Minister. Secondly, the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Pannick, made important points, which the Minister just touched on. As the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, said, we should note the significance of this being the first Committee stage of a Bill that we have held virtually. It is very important that we see that it operates properly.
As it happens, two members of the Procedure Committee are in this debate: the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, and me. At the committee’s last meeting, we asked for a report on the workings of this Committee stage—that is, how it will proceed. At its next meeting, the committee will discuss the procedure for virtual voting. If my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer hopes to divide the House on Report, as he indicated—I hope that he will—that cannot be done without virtual voting. It would be improper and unconstitutional for that to take place. My noble friend Lord Adonis should be reassured by that.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will treat this Committee stage just as he treats Committee stages on the Floor of the House—that is, take account of what has been said, be prepared for a challenge on these issues on Report and bear all this is mind before bringing the Bill in its present form back on Report. I hope he takes note of that.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I of course am listening to the contributions made to the debate in Committee and will take account of the observations that have been made. I make no comment on the procedural issues that the noble Lord raised.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his full answer to the concerns that were raised. Perhaps I misunderstood his response, but I think that the thrust of the interventions of noble Lords—nearly to a man and a woman—was that it is inappropriate to seek to put into UK law by delegated secondary legislation a new treaty that the Minister and the Government seek to sign. The thrust of the remarks was that it should require primary legislation. Have I misunderstood my noble and learned friend on that point? Why are the Government resisting the usual procedure of agreeing to implement anything that has been agreed by the Government by way of international treaty through primary legislation?
Lord Keen of Elie
First, let me make it clear that I do not accept that it is an invariable constitutional practice that the implementation in domestic law of an international law treaty is undertaken by way of primary legislation only. Secondly, when it comes to the implementation of a treaty that has been entered into at the level of international law, the purpose of drawing it down into domestic law is either to accept it into domestic law or not to accept it into domestic law. There is no scope for amending the terms of the treaty that has already been entered into. Therefore, the use of the affirmative statutory instrument procedure is considered appropriate. It gives this House and the other place ample opportunity to debate whether they should draw down the treaty obligations into domestic law. There is, essentially, no real scope for amendment; therefore, we consider the affirmative procedure perfectly adequate for that purpose.
Lord Mance
I have just a few points to raise with the Minister. At one point, he said that the first amendment would prevent us joining two other measures, the Singapore mediation convention and the 2019 Hague Convention. It is too easy to slip into that sort of language. What he really means is that it would prevent us joining those measures without proper parliamentary scrutiny by primary legislation.
In response to the Minister’s last point, yes or no can be a very important question, even if you cannot amend an international treaty once it is made; Lugano is a classic example. It is a difficult decision, as has been illustrated. It is also very easy to say that we would be prevented from implementing future measures in a timely manner, but there is no real evidence for that at all.
The Minister took various rather minor—if I may call them that— drafting points on, for example, the definition of related international instruments and ancillary provisions. Those would all be sorted out if the principle of the first four amendments was accepted.
On that principle, the Minister also took various points about the intra-UK relationship, suggesting that Amendments 4 and 5 raised complexity. As I see it, those amendments are perfectly simple. They ensure that the general power marches in tandem with the specific power to legislate Lugano into the intra-UK jurisdictional relationships and interrelationships with overseas territories. They are “keeping pace” amendments and there is nothing inconsistent or complicated about them.
As to the 1920 and 1933 Acts, I pointed out in my previous remarks that they are quite different, minor and limited measures relating to recognition of superior court judgments overseas, coming either from UK overseas territories or from territories with which we have reciprocal arrangements. Those judgments would have been recognised as common law by action on the judgments, which would operate as an estoppel in any event, so they are minor amendments.
It is true that the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act contained some provisions for delegated legislation in respect of, for example, Gibraltar. However, it was a piece of primary UK legislation in the first place, and it is no doubt a tribute to the quality of the UK Parliament’s consideration of that legislation if overseas territories are willing to accept that they should be legislated for on a delegated basis.
Lord Keen of Elie
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, for his further observations. I simply notice this: for the last 20 years, Parliament has had no oversight of the drawing down of these obligations into domestic law because it has been an EU competence. That has not led to any dramatic constitutional issue, as far as I am aware.
In the meantime, however, we have introduced CRaG, which means that the entering into a treaty at the level of international law is now subject to scrutiny by Parliament. After that scrutiny, the Executive can enter into the relevant treaty. Then, when it is drawn down into domestic law, the affirmative statutory instrument procedure ensures that both Houses of Parliament have an opportunity to scrutinise and debate this. There is no difficulty about that; it is the outcome that matters.
However, I notice the noble and learned Lord’s observation that there is little that can be done by way of amendment at that stage. That is why we would suggest that the affirmative procedure was a perfectly adequate mechanism, as distinct from primary legislation.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, before I call the noble Lord, Lord Marks, I should say that the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Pannick, have indicated their wish to speak after the Minister. I shall call them in that order after the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, I was not suggesting—and neither, I believe, was the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh—that we can stay in Brussels recast or rejoin it after the end of the transition period. I was merely regretting the loss of the benefits of Brussels recast and pointing out that Lugano, if we joined it after the transition period ended, would not offer us comparable benefits. Apart from conceding that point, the Minister has not addressed the points made—notably by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance—that joining Lugano may be undesirable, and that we are deprived of the opportunity of debating that in the context of primary legislation. That, I think, is a point that he needs to address.
Lord Keen of Elie
On that point, of course I accept that Lugano does not go as far as Brussels Ia and IIa—Brussels restated. We are all well aware of that. As regards the interplay between Lugano and the Hague Convention 2019, one has to bear in mind that Hague has not been signed or acceded to by the EU. We do not know if or when it may intend to do so. Indeed, it is noteworthy that it took the EU 10 years to sign and accede to the Hague Convention 2005. On the other hand, Lugano is there and available as a convention. A number of noble and learned Lords have acknowledged its importance in the context of private international law. Therefore, it is appropriate that we proceed with Lugano at this stage.
Lord Adonis
I took the Minister’s response to my noble friend Lord Foulkes to mean that he did not recognise the constitutional doctrine that international treaties could take effect in UK law only by primary legislation. I took him to speak of “recent precedents”. Can he tell the Committee what those recent precedents are?
Lord Keen of Elie
I mentioned them earlier in my observations with regard to the 1920 and 1933 Acts, which, by Order in Council—not even a statutory instrument—can draw these matters down into domestic law.
Lord Pannick
An important part of the Minister’s argument is that an affirmative procedure suffices because all that Parliament is doing is approving, or not approving, an international agreement which cannot be amended. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, has already made the point that this may involve very detailed and important policy questions. Can the Minister comment on a further point that, in any event, Clause 2 confers power on the Minister, not only to make regulations for the purpose of implementing the international agreement but in connection with implementation? He will know that implementing legislation often includes provisions which may be of some importance, which are not mandated by the international agreements but arise from them.
There may be discretionary decisions to be taken—for example, in relation to the creation of criminal offences. Therefore, I put to the Minister that it is not good enough to say that all Parliament is doing is implementing an international agreement which has already been negotiated and agreed. There are policy decisions that the statutory instrument will contain, and primary legislation is required so that Parliament can debate these policy choices in a proper, effective way and, if necessary, seek to amend the provisions, which are distinct from those contained within the agreement itself.
Lord Keen of Elie
There may of course be incidental policy issues that arise when we come to draw down into domestic law an obligation, or obligations, undertaken at the level of international law. Clearly, in circumstances where there were policy choices to be made, a Government would consult upon those matters to bring forward policy choices that were acceptable to stakeholders. If they were not acceptable to Parliament, even after consultation, Parliament would not pass the affirmative SI in question. I do not accept that it is necessary in each and every instance to bring forward primary legislation for this purpose. In those exceptional cases where there may be consequential issues to be addressed, clearly they will be addressed at policy level. They will be consulted upon and the matter brought forward. The Government will not bring forward a policy proposal for an incidental measure without realising that Parliament would be prepared to accept it. That would be a pointless exercise.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
This very interesting debate has raised, in effect, two substantial questions: as a matter of principle should there be the Clause 2 power at all and, if not, should we nevertheless make an exception for the Lugano convention?
First of all, should there be this power at all? In a speech that might be described as a Scottish smokescreen —because it dealt primarily with drafting issues and issues about the dependent territories and, important as those are, did not really address the principle at all—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, gave one line to justify this unprecedented power. He said that not having this power under Clause 2 would prevent implementation of any international treaty “in a timely manner”. I forgive the noble and learned Lord for putting it in such wide terms and assume he means private international law treaties only. With respect, what he says is plainly wrong.
The noble and learned Lord was given the opportunity on two occasions to provide evidence that it would prevent the implementation of private international law treaties in a timely manner, once before the Delegated Powers Committee of this House and once before the Constitution Committee. The Delegated Powers Committee said that the Ministry of Justice
“offers no empirical evidence that delay has been caused to stakeholders by late implementation of private international law agreements … The argument from delay, apart from involving unsubstantiated assertion, might justify dispensing with Acts of Parliament in other areas where governments need to legislate quickly.”
It rejected it on grounds of lack of evidence and on grounds of principle.
The Constitution Committee also looked at the very same assertion made to it, and said:
“However, the Government offers no evidence to support this argument. The UK has become a party to only 13 Hague Conventions over the course of nearly 60 years. In respect of some of the Conventions the UK has signed, full ratification and implementation has taken years to complete. The Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults … was ratified for Scotland in 2003 but has not been ratified for England and Wales or for Northern Ireland … While there may or may not be an increase in the number of PIL agreements that are made in the coming years, there is nothing to suggest that PIL agreements will be produced at a rate that would preclude implementing them via primary legislation, nor that there are exceptional circumstances so urgent that resort to a fast-track bill would be impossible. It is therefore difficult to give weight to the Government’s argument that reputational damage will result from not having the power.”
Anybody who has looked at this in detail thinks the Minister’s argument is rubbish. It is not surprising that he never mentioned it at Second Reading.
The Minister then cited occasions when it has been done before, in particular two primary Acts of Parliament: the Administration of Justice Act 1920 and the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933. Reading those is worth while. The 1920 Act refers to a provision whereby a judgment obtained in one dominion can be enforced in other dominions as long as the dominion passes a power to agree to that. The 1920 Act—the 1933 Act is the same, but not in respect of the Empire—says that if another country agrees to this convention, we can add the name of that dominion or country to the list, having approved the convention by primary legislation. The idea that those two Acts give support to the proposition that we can now import wholesale into our domestic law every international treaty we enter into is absolute nonsense. They provide no sort of precedent at all. I really hope the Minister has noted that every single person who spoke took the view that Clause 2 was inappropriate.
As far as Lugano is concerned, I thought the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, were powerful. I do not know whether they are right or wrong, but they illustrate that we need a proper debate about Lugano: we cannot just import Lugano into our law by secondary legislation. Our debates about Lugano today—which, as one speaker identified, were not answered by the Minister; we never debated Lugano, we simply debated the principle of whether Lugano could be an exception to the deletion of Clause 2—illustrate that this very important convention, about which two views prevail, should be the subject of primary legislation. Of course, I will come back to this on Report.
The important point that was made about procedure, and which is worth emphasising, is that we cannot change a Bill unless there is consent, or as a result of a Division which agrees to change that Bill. It means that we cannot proceed with legislation until we have the ability to divide on legislation, whether remotely or in person. We cannot get to the next stage of this Bill until we have the power to divide. With the permission of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 2. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. It would be helpful if anyone intending to say “Not content” when the Question is put made that clear in the debate. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill in this Committee: this Committee cannot divide.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that Clause 2 shall apply only to those international agreements that exclusively relate to private international law.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I shall try to deal with this group very quickly. It illustrates the width and uncertainty of the power given in Clause 2. Clause 2(1) states:
“The appropriate national authority may make regulations for the purpose of, or in connection with, implementing any international agreement, as it has effect from time to time, so far as relating”.
As I understand it, if there is a treaty that relates partly to private international law and partly to other things, the Government can use regulations to implement the part that relates to private international law and make any regulations relating to that. For legal certainty, it would be much more appropriate if this power could be used only if the agreement it covers relates exclusively to private international law. That is what Amendment 2 does.
The next amendment in the group is Amendment 6. Clause 2(5) states:
“Regulations under this section may include provision about … legal aid.”
For reasons that are completely mysterious, provisions about legal aid can be made under a Bill on private international law. There should not be power under this Bill to deal with legal aid. If the Government want to make provisions about legal aid that might relate to the consequences of a private international law agreement, they should be made under legal aid legislation, not under this Bill.
Line 22 of page 3 of the Bill allows the Government, by regulation, to introduce changes to our domestic law in respect of not only agreements that have been entered into but of agreements to which we are expected to become a party. That would mean that if the Government reasonably believe they are about to sign something they can pass legislation that gives effect to it. What happens if we do not sign it? I suggest that we restrict the power to where the United Kingdom is a party to such an agreement. It would not cause a problem in relation to time. We normally sign and become a party before ratification, so the amendment would not cause any difficulties.
Amendments 10, 11, 12 and 13 would restrict the definition of private international law in a variety of ways. Currently, the definition of private international law in the Bill is not an inclusive definition but states what private international law includes but not exclusively. It says that it includes
“jurisdiction and applicable law … recognition and enforcement in one country or territory of … a judgment, order or arbitral award … an agreement, decision or authentic instrument determining or otherwise relating to rights and obligations”
and “co-operation between … countries”. First, for legal certainty reasons it should not be a definition that includes only some examples and nothing else. It should relate only to those for the purposes of legal certainty. Secondly, it should not deal with arbitral awards because if it does it will be stamping on the toes of other bits of legislation. Thirdly, when the Bill refers to
“an agreement, decision or authentic instrument determining or otherwise relating to rights and obligations”
that covers practically everything. It needs to be restricted.
The final amendment in this group relates to Clause 2(8), which allows model laws to be introduced. Model law is where a number of countries agree, for example on insolvency, that certain principles should be agreed across borders to apply to that area of law. There is no reciprocal requirement for each country to introduce the model law and it is for each country to decide how it implements a model law. Clause 2(8) would allow, for example, the UK to introduce by statutory instrument wholesale changes to our insolvency law, even though there was no reciprocity with other countries. It would be a door that opened a range of legislation on insolvency simply because some of the provisions included model laws. It is wholly inappropriate that this should be in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
My Lords, those of us who are less than happy with Clause 2 have three options: restricting it to Lugano, as we have just debated; voting to remove it altogether, as both the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the Constitution Committee have recommended; or voting to trim its scope in a variety of respects, as the amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, in this and the following group seek to achieve. I welcome the amendments in this group, essentially for the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, which there is no point in my repeating.
However, Amendment 16, which would remove the reference to model laws, is particularly important for two reasons. First, as the noble and learned Lord said, model laws are not international conventions but, as expressed by the Bar Council, collections of soft law provisions which often need to be modified substantially before being given effect in domestic law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, illustrated that very well with the example of insolvency. Secondly, model laws are not subject to the provisions of CRaG and cannot benefit from such “limited and flawed” comfort—in the words of the Constitution Committee from April 2019, repeated today by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance —as may be given by the operation of its mechanisms.
That said, I incline to think that these amendments, even viewed collectively, are insufficient to meet the substantial constitutional concerns that the Constitution Committee identified in its recent report on this Bill, concerns which to my mind the Minister has not yet allayed, for example with his remarks on timing and reputational damage. That is a matter for the debate on whether Clause 2 should stand part, on which I see that a good deal of firepower has been virtually assembled and which I do not seek to pre-empt or express a final view on at this stage.
Finally, I think we all want to acknowledge the enormous efforts made by the staff of the House to ensure that debates on legislation such as this can take place in a coherent manner. I hope that I do not tempt the fates by saying that. However, I echo the comments of my noble friend Lord Pannick and the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, that voting on the Bill must be possible, by whatever means, when it is brought back on Report. I am grateful for the reassuring words of the Minister on that, but I would be even more grateful if he would upgrade his reassurance into an undertaking, which I think he indicated it was not.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab)
My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, for drawing my attention to the impressive eighth report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, of which he is a member, and the Minister’s reply.
Any expertise I acquired in the course of my academic education in Cambridge has, I fear, slipped away. I am glad that, as a law officer, I was not particularly troubled by questions of private international law, in stark contrast to public international issues such as advising on Kosovo, Iraq, Sierra Leone, the United Nations and elsewhere. My remarks are addressed to Amendment 16 but equally apply to a lot of issues I would have raised on the stand part debate, and therefore I may be excused from repeating them when we come to that issue as the same questions arise.
Having examined the evidence in the two documents, surely the preferred course is a matter of judgment. I leave on one side the hugely impressive technical arguments we have heard during this debate. The issue is this: does one depart from the practice of 100 years of the need for primary legislation to implement a treaty or does one bow to the urgency and the apparent narrow window to implement the application of the Lugano convention before the end of the transition period? Other examples have been cited, but I do not expect that they have the same urgency as that.
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, mentioned the hearing of the Justice Sub-Committee, which I used to chair, in which some rather fundamental concerns were raised about Lugano in the course of the evidence, particularly regarding family matters.
The Minister believes that proceeding by statutory instrument is necessary to implement agreements in a timely manner. That is the issue he puts before us today. The question that concerns me is, while there might be a discrete argument for dealing with issues in the way proposed during the transition period, has it occurred to Her Majesty’s Government that it might be more acceptable to put forward a much narrower clause to deal with a specific mischief such as Lugano? I agree with the spirit of the remarks made by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer.
It would be better if we had something much narrower to deal with the specific issue than the rather wide power that is now being granted to the Government. That certainly would have the attraction of being more proportionate. Failing that, my submission would be to delete Clause 2 altogether. That really would meet the harm that has been ventilated so ably in the course the debate.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, does not wish to contribute at this point. I therefore move on to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance.
Lord Mance
My Lords, as has been pointed out, these amendments illustrate the width of the delegated power proposed. They really matter only if Amendments 1, 4 and 5 fail and Clause 2 remains in the Bill unaltered. I basically agree with all my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said and will add some comments on only some of the amendments.
On Amendment 10—replacing “includes” with “means”—Clauses 2(7) contains a quite exhaustive definition. “Includes” suggests that it is not exhaustive and that there are further things to be covered. To suggest that the definition is only partial in that way is a recipe for future doubt and argument.
Amendment 2 aims to rephrase the power
“so far as relating to private international law”
to read so far as
“that agreement exclusively relates to”
private international law. In his letter responding to the Delegated Powers Committee’s report, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, pointed out that the Warsaw convention, governing the responsibility of international aviation carriers, and the CMR convention —he described it as the Geneva convention, but it is better known as the CMR convention—governing the liability of international road carriers each contain an individual provision relating to private international law. He went on to say that
“importantly, only those individual provisions could have been implemented under the clause 2 power in the Bill.”
That statement illustrates the reason for this amendment, because if that is how this Bill is or may be interpreted, it certainly needs amendment. It is wholly inappropriate to use this Bill to cherry pick a provision about jurisdiction, for example, or recognition of judgments out of a composite scheme, and to suggest that the Bill enables such a provision to be enacted without any context.
Take either convention. The jurisdiction provisions—who can be sued and where—make sense only in the light of the provisions regarding who can claim and who is liable. To require a consignor or consignee of goods, whether by air or by road, to sue in a particular country without incorporating the provisions that create the cause of action, and provide against whom the cause of action is, would be completely to misunderstand the scheme of such conventions. They are conceived as a composite package. Take the CMR convention—the acronym is French, but it deals with transport. The concept of a contract for the carriage of goods by road is fundamental to the operation of that convention, but it is an artificial one which may be satisfied by status and activities, such as taking over goods and the consignment note, rather than on ordinary contractual principles. If you incorporated the jurisdictional provisions, you would not incorporate the liability provisions—the two do not make sense separated.
The insertion of the words “exclusively relates to” in Clause 2(1) would ensure that it is only pure private international law agreement matters that can attract the use of the general delegated power, if that remains at all in Clause 2.
Turning to Amendment 3, I declare a potential interest as a practising arbitrator, in view of the definition in the Bill of private international law to include recognition and enforcement of an “arbitral award”.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, for information, Amendment 3 is in the next group of amendments. In this group we have Amendments 2, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 16. I hope that that is helpful.
Lord Mance
Yes, it is very helpful. Have I started addressing Amendment 3 by mistake? I certainly did not intend to. I want to address Amendment 11, which seeks to include the words “or arbitral award” in the definition of private international law.
As I said, I declare an interest as an arbitrator. Perhaps I might mention that, although I may not speak on this, I chair the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Private International Law, which is referred to later, in proposed Amendment 20. I assure the Committee that that committee had nothing to do with that amendment.
To go back to arbitral awards, the recognition of arbitration clauses and the enforcement of arbitral awards are matters governed by special international agreements, most notably the highly successful 1958 New York convention and the 1966 International Centre for the Settlement of Investment Disputes convention, also known as the World Bank convention. The current Brussels regime, the Lugano convention, the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements and the 2019 Hague Convention are all extremely careful to exclude arbitration expressly. But this definition for some reason includes it. One of the virtues of the 2012 recast of Brussels 1 was to reinforce that exclusion still further. London is a world centre of arbitration, and there would be concern about any suggested intervention by delegated legislation.
The inclusion of a reference to an “arbitral award” is therefore inappropriate and will arouse concern. It will also raise the further question: if arbitral awards are within private international law, what about international agreements on the jurisdiction of arbitrators? Is the word “jurisdiction” in Clause 2(7)(a) to be interpreted as enabling delegated legislation about arbitral jurisdiction?
The response at Second Reading from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, was not comforting. He said:
“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 … issues where a party wishes to refer to arbitration … we will want to have the power to proceed with such an agreement.”—[Official Report, 17/3/20; col. 1451.]
On the face of it, that suggests that, so far as the Government have any clear conception of why these words are there, they would cover jurisdictional issues—in other words, issues about where a party wishes to refer to arbitration and not just the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards. That is an unwise and unnecessary indication of possible future interference by international agreement and delegated legislation in one of this country’s more successful export activities.
Surely the better approach is: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If, at the international level, the New York or ICSID convention is supplemented, their domestic implementation should be by primary legislation, as it currently is under the Arbitration Act 1996 and the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966.
Finally, on Amendment 16, I endorse what has been said by my noble friend Lord Anderson and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. Admirable though they may be, model laws do not have the same status as international agreements and frequently need close attention before domestic implementation.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, in his letter of 19 April in response to the report of the Delegated Powers Committee, the Minister said:
“The Committee’s Report implies that the power in clause 2 of the Bill would allow the Government to implement agreements on any aspect of private law with a foreign element, rather than merely agreements on the much narrower subject area of private international law, as defined by clause 2(7) of the Bill. … It will not be possible for matters outside of the areas indicated by the definition of ‘private international law’ in clause 2(7) to be implemented using the power.”
The Minister echoed what was set out in paragraph 7 of the Explanatory Notes, which state:
“PIL agreements cover a discrete area of law that is narrowly defined.”
One would therefore have expected that the interpretation of Clause 2(7) to be narrowly defined, but as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, pointed out, there is a width and uncertainty about these provisions that really do not follow the expressions being used.
For example, the definition clause for “international agreement”, which Amendment 9 deals with, includes,
“an agreement to which the UK is, or is expected to become, a party.”
What does that mean? Does that mean that legislation will be brought forward under these provisions and regulations brought forward in respect of an agreement to which we are not a party? As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, pointed out, what happens if the agreement is not ultimately made and the negotiations fall through? We would then, presumably, have regulations on the statute book dealing with an agreement to which we were not a party.
The definition of “private international law” is also contained in that same subsection, and Amendments 10, 12 and 13 demonstrate the loose wording that is used in case anything has been missed. That is rather typical of the drafting of the legislation. It is so drafted that anything can be bought in and the door is kept open. For example, it includes “rules and other provisions”, and there is to be co-operation in relation to the
“service of documents, taking of evidence and other procedures”
not defined. Paragraph (c)(ii) deals with
“anything within paragraphs (a) and (b).”
It is so loose and ill-defined.
So the purpose of the amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is to define the scope of regulation-making powers of the Bill so that the regulations should be confined exclusively to the field of private international law. Any provisions that trespass into any other territory could not be incorporated into domestic law by these regulations. I wholly support what he says about that.
I also support what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Manse, on arbitral awards and model laws.
But I am interested in Amendment 6. Perhaps the Minister will share his thoughts about any proposed regulations concerning legal aid. What proceedings in the field of private international law does he envisage? To what is this directed? Would these be additional provisions to existing legal aid regulations? Would there be more hoops or fewer? Would there be more generous or less generous provision, and in what fields?
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I begin with Amendment 2, which as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, noted, would seek to limit the scope of the Clause 2 power to implement agreements to those that relate exclusively to private international law, whereas of course in its present form of drafting it is clearly intended to extend to the implementation of private international law provisions in wider agreements. In previous correspondence, as noted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, I referred, as an example, to the jurisdiction of the provisions of the 1961 Warsaw Convention, which is concerned with international carriage by air. The point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, was: why would you seek a power to implement such a private international law provision outwith the wider terms of the relevant international agreement? There may be some force in that point. It is one that I would like to consider further, and I will do so before we reach Report.
Amendment 6, which was just referred to by noble Lords, seeks to remove legal aid from the scope of the matters about which Clause 2 regulations can make provision. In the light of the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, perhaps I should explain that the Bill as presently drafted does not expressly include legal aid in the scope of the definition of private international law. However, under Clause 2(5)(c), it allows for regulations that implement or apply a private international law agreement to make provision for legal aid. This would mean that, where a private international law agreement to which the UK chose to become a party included obligations in relation to legal aid, those could be given domestic effect through Clause 2 regulations.
The reason for that approach to the matter of private international law and legal aid in the Bill is that, although there is some doubt about whether legal aid is typically encompassed in the scope of what is referred to as private international law as generally understood by practitioners and academics, there are circumstances in which a private international law agreement could contain specific legal aid provisions. This normally arises, as one might expect, in the field of family law. For example, there is a requirement in the 1980 Hague Convention on international child abduction for a contracting state to apply the same legal aid rules to citizens of, and persons habitually resident in, other contracting states in matters covered by the convention as it would to its own citizens and residents. It is therefore the Government’s view that, should similar conventions arise in the future providing for critical cross-border co-operation in matters of private international law, it would be unfortunate if there were to be a delay in people benefiting from the provisions of such an important convention.
Where a private international law agreement imposes requirements relating to legal aid that go beyond the sorts of areas for which the United Kingdom Government currently provide such funding domestically, we would need to think very carefully before proceeding. However, the normal process of consultation during the development of, and before taking the international steps to join, a convention of this nature would provide an opportunity for consideration of any legal aid implications.
In short, the amendment would create unhelpful doubt around whether the Clause 2 power could be used to implement a private international law agreement that included provisions relating to legal aid, and indeed it might even render that impossible.
Amendment 9 seeks to restrict the Clause 2 power to implement in domestic law only the private international law agreements to which the UK is already a contracting party and nothing further. It will not be possible for the Government to take the final steps necessary under international law for the United Kingdom to become bound by a new agreement in this area, such as depositing an instrument of ratification, because, in order to do that, the necessary implementing legislation must already have been made and, as a result of this amendment, it would need a different legislative vehicle.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The extraordinary tedium of that answer should not detract from the enormity of what the Minister has just said. He basically said “I can’t really give you a definition in the Bill of a private international law agreement but we, the Government, will know it when we see it. Yes, it’s true that we’re taking power to do things that nobody really wants us to do, but generally we won’t do it—and if we were thinking of doing it, we’d consult first.” That was in relation to arbitral awards. In relation to model laws, he was saying, “It did occur to us that this looked like quite a convenient power for us to have, so could we have it?”
My answer is that this debate illustrates what a danger Clause 2 constitutes. I also look with real scepticism at the suggestion that the Government would consult, when they did not consult the Lord Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Private International Law, chaired by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, at all on the network of private international law instruments they introduced in the light of us leaving the European Union; they did not consult at all on this constitutionally unacceptable Bill. Although it was very hard for us to listen to that speech, it was quite an important one. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I think it timely that we should now adjourn until 5.15 pm. That means that broadcasting will stop. Noble Lords may leave their device and turn off their microphone and camera, but please do not close the call or shut down. We will resume proceedings and broadcast at 5.15 pm.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the Virtual Committee will now resume. We come to the group beginning with Amendment 3. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. It would be helpful if anyone intending to say “Not content” when the Question is put made that clear in the debate. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill in this Committee, which cannot divide.
Amendment 3
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, we have adumbrated many of the same points over and over, because they keep coming up again and again, so I will try to restrict my remarks on these amendments to essentially only new points. This group of amendments effectively deletes the Government’s regulation-making power where the regulations in effect intend to say how an international treaty shall apply either as between Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland—within the United Kingdom—or as between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man, any of the Channel Islands or a British Overseas Territory.
The effect of my amendment is that the Clause 2 power cannot be used where it is proposed to apply an international convention between the parts of the UK; to apply an international convention between the UK and a relevant territory; or to amend, extend, adapt or revoke any declaration made at the time of ratification. It is wholly wrong that any of these things should be done by regulation as opposed to primary legislation. I use these amendments simply to indicate the width of the power being sought. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD)
My Lords, I will make two preliminary points. The first echoes what has been said in many of our proceedings so far this afternoon. Perhaps not surprisingly, as a member of the Constitution Committee, I do not think that Clause 2 should be in the Bill, for all the reasons already outlined both in committee reports and by a number of your Lordships in debates on earlier groups. I have not yet been persuaded or heard any argument to the contrary, so my primary position is that Clause 2 should not be there.
The second point is that, where these amendments relate to jurisdictions within the United Kingdom, it is a question not of whether it should be done but of how. In his response to the first group of amendments, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, gave some good reasons why, as a matter of public policy, there should be certainty in the arrangements, for argument’s sake, for enforcing a Scottish court’s order in England, as there would be for enforcing an English court’s orders in France. Therefore, it is a question not of whether there is merit in having some kind of intra-UK arrangements but rather of how it should be done.
During Second Reading I reflected briefly on this and referred to the briefing from the Bar Council. It is perhaps worth going back to it and reminding ourselves what it said in relation to the provisions in Schedule 6:
“The question, however, whether to apply an international convention’s rules between parts of the United Kingdom is often a very difficult one. Where it is to be applied, extensive amendments to that convention are often appropriate, (an example being the provisions in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, which apply a substantially modified form of the European Union rules to intra-United Kingdom 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 endorse that. It is not a question about whether it should be done. We have heard that, for example, in the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 there were requirements to amend or change the rules for intra-UK cases.
It is also important to note that we are giving powers to the national authorities—not just the United Kingdom Parliament but to Scottish Ministers and Northern Ireland Assembly Ministers. As far as I can see—I stand to be corrected if I have not noticed something —these regulations would be brought in without any consultation between the different Administrations. There is no doubt that private international law is a devolved matter as far as the Scottish Parliament is concerned, but negotiating international treaties does not affect the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, and it seems to make some sense that there should be some negotiation, or at least consultation and discussion among the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, before regulations are brought forward. As far as I can see, neither Clause 2(2) nor Schedule 6 makes any provision for that.
My position is that it is not a question about whether it is right and proper that there should be intra-UK arrangements but rather that what is proposed in the Bill does not provide adequate safeguards about how that should be done.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, the question raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness is about how legislation should be made regulating implementation between jurisdictions within the UK and between the UK and other relevant territories. It seems to me that Clause 2(2) and (3) and Schedule 6 infringe the principles of devolution, particularly in the lack of provision for consultation with Scotland and Northern Ireland, as he pointed out. They also infringe the autonomy of the other relevant territories. For those reasons it seems to me that, in addition to the general reasons about the width of Clause 2 and the points already made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, we will support amendments such as these on Report.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, as with the previous groups of amendments, the underlying theme is that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill, but we have to look at these amendments in the context that it does stand part. They would therefore limit the power conferred by that clause—that context is important.
When discussing Amendments 4 and 5, I pointed out that, in the context I have just described, they in turn would result in an unacceptable restriction of the power in Clause 2 and would mean that co-operation on private international law matters between different parts of the United Kingdom family would be significantly less well developed than it is between the United Kingdom and international partners. As a matter of policy, we see no way to justify such a position. Why, for example, should two parties in London and Edinburgh have less legal certainty about the way in which their dispute will be resolved than if the dispute was between parties based in London and Paris or New York? Of course, the point is then made that it is not a question of whether, but how. If you are able to have this regulatory-making power under Clause 2 with regard to foreign jurisdictions, why not intra-UK?
If, as suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, the concern is the power being perceived as risking imposing a position on Scotland, Northern Ireland, the Crown dependencies or overseas territories without consultation or consent, I would seek to assuage those concerns. Such arrangements under the power would require the agreement of all the relevant Administrations—the United Kingdom Government and the Government of the relevant devolved Administration, Crown dependency or overseas territory. Indeed, such a measure would be considered only after the Government had consulted appropriately with relevant stakeholders, and the statutory instrument to give effect to such a “mirroring” provision—that is what it would be—would still be subject to the scrutiny of the affirmative procedure, as I noted before.
There are examples where such mirroring-type relationships already apply. We apply a modified version of the terms of the 1968 Brussels Convention, an instrument that was the forerunner to Brussels I and the recast Brussels IA regulation, between the United Kingdom and Gibraltar. That works perfectly well. Therefore, assuming Clause 2 stands part of the Bill, we do not see any reason why it should be amended in the way suggested.
I now turn to Amendment 18, which would in turn require fresh primary legislation if the UK wished to amend or revoke, at a later date, any declarations it chose to make when it first implemented a new international agreement. This would mean, for example, that if, in implementing the 2005 Hague Convention, the Government decided to replicate the current EU declaration in regard to certain insurance contracts being out of scope of the convention and then wished to review that decision later, primary legislation would be required to implement that change.
Our policy intention is to replicate the current EU declaration in relation to the exclusion of certain insurance contracts when we accede to the 2005 Hague Convention later this year, because this is how the convention rules currently apply here and, given the tight timeframe between now and the end of the transition period, it makes sense to maintain the status quo and then review in the longer term. Under the proposed amendment, if we wished to change our position following that review, we would have to wait for a primary legislative vehicle to give effect to that change. In our view, that would simply create undue delay on a matter which could be addressed through secondary legislation without losing any of the desired scrutiny. It is in these circumstances that I respectfully ask the noble and learned Lord not to press his amendments.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
One speaker has indicated that they wish to come in on the amendment.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, I note what the Minister said about fears that something might be imposed on Scotland or Northern Ireland, but as I read it, Scotland or Northern Ireland could actually impose something on England. He then went on to say that there would of course be discussion, negotiation and consultation. If that is the case, why does it not say so on the face of the Bill? Would he be minded to give further thought to these provisions and how they are drafted to secure some degree of consultation, which does not, I would argue, detract in any way from the devolution settlement?
Lord Keen of Elie
Let me be clear: I do not accept the underlying premise of the noble and learned Lord’s argument. However, I am perfectly content to look at this before the next stage of the Bill in order that I can, again, reassure him of the position. There is no intent here to proceed to regulatory-making power without the consent of the relevant devolved Administration. That would be wholly inappropriate, and I accept the noble and learned Lord’s observation that it would conflict with the devolved settlement. However, I am perfectly willing to look at this again.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
The Minister remorselessly misses the point over a period of time. The purpose of the amendment is to ask the question: is it right that you can have a different private international law settlement as between the two countries or as between the United Kingdom and the other territories? Should that be decided upon by a Minister without primary legislation? The way the Minister answers that is to say, “You have to assume that it’s got to be done by secondary legislation”, which does not deal at all with the point. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 7. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. It would be helpful if anyone intending to say “Not content” when the question is put made that clear in the debate. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill in this Committee, which cannot divide.
Amendment 7
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the next in the name of Lord Foulkes are to explore whether conflict might arise as to whether it is the responsibility of Scottish Ministers or of the Secretary of State in consultation with Scottish Ministers.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
It is appropriate that these amendments follow those we have just been discussing, 3 and 18. I am pleased that four very distinguished lawyers will participate in this debate, as well as the Minister, who is an equally distinguished lawyer. I should explain that I am not a lawyer—although, mind you, that will become blindingly obvious during the course of what I have to say. These are very much probing amendments. I, like the vast majority of members of this Committee, hope that we will not have Clause 2. However, if we have it, we will need some clarification. I will therefore confine myself just to some questions for the Minister.
On the question of the appropriate national authority, in the Bill there are two different options in relation to Scotland. First, there is approval by Scottish Ministers—it would be for the Scottish Government to decide—or approval by the Secretary of State with the consent of Scottish Ministers. Will the Minister explain the difference between the two? How is it decided which of these two is appropriate, and who decides whether it should be approved by Scottish Ministers or by the Secretary of State with their approval? Will it be clear which treaties are UK treaties, dealt with by UK legislation, or by Scottish legislation? Of course, this applies equally to Northern Ireland, although my amendments do not apply to that. Does the Minister envisage that there might be a dispute between the devolved Governments and the United Kingdom Government? We have seen a few of those recently, sadly. If so, how would the question of who would be responsible for resolving the disputes be resolved?
Secondly, are there likely to be any cross-border elements that apply both to Scotland and to England and Wales in this case, and if so, how would they be dealt with? For example, could custody of children create any difficulties? We have seen the problems regarding people moving over the border to deal with or to avoid custody being taken by one parent or the other. Could that create difficulties?
Thirdly, English law and Scots law are different with regard to issues such as power of attorney. Could power of attorney which was dealt with in one jurisdiction be different and not applicable in another jurisdiction, and would that create problems?
Fourthly, on global contract law, which, again, is one of the treaties and part of the Bill, is there an issue of which jurisdiction might settle any dispute? If so, would this go to the English or Scottish court? How would the dispute be decided, and by whom?
Finally, this Bill requires a legislative consent Motion of the Scottish Parliament. I understand that that Motion has been lodged. When does the Minister expect it to be dealt with, and does he envisage that there will be any problem? Those are my questions for the Minister. I look forward to his replies, and to the interventions of distinguished lawyers, including, in particular, two Scots lawyers of great distinction. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, has said, it is welcome that we have this opportunity to probe. In his Explanatory Statement, which appeared next to this amendment on the Marshalled List, the noble Lord said that it was
“to explore whether conflict might arise as to whether it is the responsibility of Scottish Ministers or of the Secretary of State in consultation with Scottish Ministers.”
But, as he indicated in his remarks just now, that is not actually in the Bill, which speaks of
“the Secretary of State acting with the consent of the Scottish Ministers”.
That is a crucial difference.
There is no doubt that negotiating or joining an international agreement on private international law is a reserved matter for the Government of the United Kingdom as a sovereign state. Equally, there is no doubt that private international law is a devolved matter. Section 126(4)(a) of the Scotland Act makes that expressly clear. Therefore, the implementation of these agreements is within the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
It is right, therefore, that Scottish Ministers should be one of the appropriate national authorities. Equally, there will be occasions—perhaps a number of occasions —when it makes sense for the United Kingdom Secretary of State to make regulations with respect to the whole of the United Kingdom with the consent of Scottish Ministers. In paragraph 8 of their legislative consent memorandum, the Scottish Government draw attention to this fact:
“In 2018, the Scottish Ministers (with the approval of the Scottish Parliament) consented to two UK statutory instruments … including devolved material relating to the 2005 and 2007 Hague Conventions.”
So there is a very recent precedent for regulations to be made in the sphere of private international law. It has been done by a United Kingdom statutory instrument, but with consent not just in the case of Scottish Ministers but with the approval of the Scottish Parliament. These are often pragmatic matters, but the fact that it requires consent means that the UK Government cannot override the Scottish Parliament. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes asked whether the legislative consent Motion has been passed; I checked yesterday—I do not think it has. But paragraph 19 of the Scottish Government’s memorandum says:
“The Bill is drafted to respect the devolution position: the Scottish Ministers make provision for implementation in Scotland with UK Ministers only being able to do so with the consent of the Scottish Ministers. Legislation in this area has in the past been taken forward on a UK basis and it may be convenient for it to be so in the future so the Scottish Government recommends this approach.”
There is one final matter which is not really germane to the terms and text of the amendments but I shall be grateful if the Minister is able to respond. Given that the implementation can be a matter for the Scottish Government, what engagement is he aware of with Scottish Government officials in some of the negotiations on these private international law agreements? For example, two agreements are referred to in paragraph 53 of the Explanatory Notes of the 2019 Singapore agreement and the 2019 Hague Convention. Is the Minister aware of any engagement or involvement by Scottish Government officials? Quite clearly, if the next step is implementation, it is important that Scotland is a party to these negotiations, albeit at the end of the day, as responsibility for joining these international agreements rests with the United Kingdom.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, explained in his introduction that these are probing amendments, and I hope that the Minister will understand my remarks in that context. I would like to speak to both amendments but my main focus is on Amendment 8, which seeks to leave out sub-paragraph (ii) in Clause 2(7)(b)—that is, the reference to the Secretary of State acting with the consent of Scottish Ministers. However, anything that I might say now is without prejudice to my support for the notice given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, and others of their opposition to the clause standing part of the Bill at all.
I have three points to make. The first reinforces what others have already said. It is important to know which of these authorities is expected to exercise the powers referred to in this clause. That is because if it is the Scottish Ministers, paragraph 4 of Schedule 6 applies and the regulation has to be laid before the Scottish Parliament as a Scottish statutory instrument under Section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010. If it is the Secretary of State, it comes under paragraph 2 of Schedule 6 as a statutory instrument in this Parliament and the Scottish Parliament will have no say in the matter at all. The word “or”, which lies between those two alternatives, gives no guidance as to which of them, or in what circumstances, it is to be. My first question, following what others have said is: why is that?
This clause is about implementation and application—implementation in Clause 2(1) and application as between the relevant jurisdictions in Clause 2(2). I think that I could understand the position if the Bill said that implementation in Clause 2(1) was a matter for Scottish Ministers and application as between the jurisdictions was a matter for the Secretary of State with the consent of Scottish Ministers, but that is not how the Bill stands at the moment.
For example, on implementation, if one were considering the UK acceding to the Lugano convention, about which so much has already been said, it would seem that nothing more is needed to implement it into Scots law as an instrument as the instance of Scottish Ministers. One can look again at the illustrative statutory instrument—the Singapore convention, which the Minister attached to his helpful letter of 5 May. It gives the force of law to that convention in England and Wales. If the same were to be done for Scotland, surely that would be a matter for the Scottish Ministers alone. Therefore, in the context of implementation, what part has the Secretary of State to play at all?
My second point concerns whether the reference to the Secretary of State is consistent with the Scotland Act 1998. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to that Act provides that international relations are reserved matters, but paragraph 7(2) states that paragraph 7(1) does not apply to
“observing and implementing international obligations”
or
“assisting Ministers of the Crown in relation to any matter to which”
paragraph 7(1) applies. Therefore, the matters dealt with in paragraph 7(2) are devolved, as indeed is private international law itself, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, has pointed out.
This clause is about implementation and application, and it would seem to fall squarely within paragraph 7(2). I should have thought that that reinforces the point that these should be matters for Scottish Ministers only. Section 53 of the Scotland Act provides for a general transfer of functions exercisable by a Minister of the Crown to the Scottish Ministers. That reinforces my query as to what function the Secretary of State has in this matter at all.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I am of course speaking as a Welshman. We have a very limited interest in the provisions being discussed, but I have some questions. Since the time of Henry VIII, who has a great deal to answer for, the jurisdiction of England and Wales has been merged. Only in very recent years has there been a suggestion that Wales should have its separate jurisdiction. We are one of the three jurisdictions that will be subject to the Bill’s provisions; we go along with England. I would like to know whether there is any prospect of consultation with Welsh Ministers about what provisions are being brought into effect, because private international law covers such a wide range of things. It has particular relevance to family life in Wales as much as anywhere else. Will there be any consultation? If so, what will it be?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
I simply underline the points made by my noble friend Lord Foulkes and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Hope. As far as my noble friend Lord Foulkes is concerned, the purpose of these amendments is to probe; as far as I am concerned, they illustrate the lack of thought that has gone into Clause 2. They simply underline the sense that there should not be a Clause 2.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, for tabling what he very candidly pointed out were probing amendments. I am also obliged to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, who drew on his experience of the devolved Administrations and was able to outline the position in this matter. I will come in a moment to address the questions raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in the context of these provisions.
As the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, pointed out, two authorities are identified in this part of the Bill that might proceed to implement matters of private international law in Scotland. That is consistent with legislation in other areas. The Secretary of State might decide, with the consent of the Scottish Ministers, to make UK-wide provision for implementation. That is why he is one of the identified national authorities, because there are circumstances in which the Scottish Ministers would be entirely content for there to be UK-wide provision.
Alternatively, if that is not the case, Scottish Ministers may themselves then proceed as a national authority to implement the matter in domestic law. That is because, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, pointed out, the position is that—I am sorry, something came up on another phone and rather distracted me—the implementation of private international law is a devolved issue under the Scotland Act, so allowance is made for both provisions.
As regards this Bill, an LCM was discussed between officials. The Scottish Ministers have recommended that such an LCM should be provided, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, pointed out the terms of the recommendation that Scottish Ministers have made to the Scottish Parliament with regard to this matter. Indeed, there was prior discussion about these proposals last year, when the Lord Chancellor, for example, was in communication with the Scottish Government on matters of the convention. Perhaps I can clarify this by reference to the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. The Secretary of State may be a national authority with the consent of Scottish Ministers because Scottish Ministers may, as sometimes happens, wish to see UK-wide regulations made here for implementation. Alternatively, as the national authority, they may choose to do that for themselves. The Secretary of State clearly does have the power to do that because under the Scotland Act there is the power to legislate for the entirety of the United Kingdom as regards the implementation of a matter that is otherwise within the devolved competences, so that does not raise an issue either.
With regard to the matter of whether or when it would be one national authority or the other, that is simply a matter that will be discussed, as it is in other contexts, between the United Kingdom Government and Scottish Ministers. If Scottish Ministers are content that the UK Government should legislate UK-wide on this matter, that will happen. If they are content for that to be done, then Scottish Ministers will deal with the matter. The Secretary of State cannot deal with the matter without the consent of Scottish Ministers, so I hope that that puts minds at rest in this regard.
As regards the identification of the Secretary of State as an authority and the reference, for example, in the Scotland Act to a Minister of the Crown, I accept that the reference in this Bill is more limited. Because I cannot answer immediately, I will consider why it was thought appropriate to limit it to the Secretary of State as opposed to the wider reference to a Minister of the Crown. But I will look at that to see whether there is an issue there that needs to be addressed.
As regards consultation on the implementation of international treaties, that is not an issue, but as regards entering into international treaties, that is of course a reserved matter. I recognise that it is appropriate that Scottish Ministers and others should be consulted on these matters for their interests when they arise. I do not understand that to be a difficulty in this context, nor a matter that would require express provisions in the terms of this Bill.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, for his probing amendment and I hope that I have been able to put minds at rest as regards why there are two identified national authorities for the purposes of Clause 2. In the event that Clause 2 stands, these are appropriate alternative mechanisms for the implementation of these provisions.
One final matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, was the issue of contract, but of course, where you have a contract, it will have a choice of jurisdiction and a choice of law. If the contract has Scotland as a choice of jurisdiction and Scots law as the choice of law, that will be binding if we have a situation in which, for instance, the Lugano provision applies. I hope that that answers the query in so far as I have understood it.
I cannot give a precise date for the provision of the LCM, but as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, himself indicated, Scottish Ministers have recommended the granting of an LCM, and it is not anticipated that there will be any difficulty. With that, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
As no further speakers have indicated that they wish to intervene on this amendment, I call Lord Foulkes.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
I apologise for jumping in a little prematurely.
This has been a very useful debate and the Minister has answered a number of my questions. It is awfully useful that he is taking away the third point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, about Ministers of the Crown. But the debate has highlighted that there is a difference of opinion between the noble and learned Lords, Lord Wallace and Lord Hope, on the one side, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, on the other. Now, it is not unusual to find different opinions among two or three lawyers, but it highlights that there may be a problem around whether this is to be dealt with by the Secretary of State, after consultation with and the permission of Scottish Ministers, or directly by Scottish Ministers. I hope that is something that can be looked at further.
Nevertheless, in the light of the explanations given, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 14. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. It would be helpful if anyone intending to say “Not content” when the Question is put makes that clear in the debate. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill in this Committee. This Committee cannot be divided.
Amendment 14
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the next in the name of Lord Foulkes are to explore any issues regarding how this Bill might impact on the constitutional position of the Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories in relation to the United Kingdom.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, this brings me to another of my special interests, and one that I have been pursuing for some time. Amendments 14 and 15 concern the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands—namely Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney and Sark—and the dependent territories. I will not mention all of the dependent territories, because those such as the Falklands are not quite so relevant in this context, but they include Gibraltar, the Cayman Islands, Turks and Caicos, the British Virgin Islands and Bermuda. I mention those particularly and not by chance, because many are well known as tax havens and the offshore basis for companies whose principal trade and activities are elsewhere, and not on those islands.
My first question is this. In an earlier intervention, the Minister indicated that there has been consultation with the islands’ authorities, and that they had approved the provisions in the Bill. But with whom were these consultations? Were they with just the governor, or were they with the directly elected councils and parliaments of the various overseas territories and Crown dependencies? It is important that the elected representatives were involved in these discussions. Secondly, what response has there been? I understand from what the Minister said that the islands have all agreed, but was that agreement conditional in any way?
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I have nothing to add to the points succinctly made by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for what I understand are, again, probing amendments. As I perhaps explained, the Crown dependencies and overseas territories have a constitutional relationship with the United Kingdom whereby the United Kingdom is responsible for their foreign relations. This means that the Crown dependencies and overseas territories do not generally themselves join international agreements, including agreements in the area of private international law, which we are concerned with here. Instead, an agreement that applies in the United Kingdom can usually be extended to apply also in a Crown dependency or overseas territory. We work with those Crown dependencies and overseas territories to determine where and when they would wish to have a private international law agreement apply between them and other contracting parties. The scope of the United Kingdom’s ratification of that agreement is then extended to them. This means that multilateral agreements extended to the Crown dependencies and overseas territories apply only between those jurisdictions on the one hand and the other contracting parties on the other, but not between the Crown dependencies and overseas territories and the UK. To apply the agreement with the UK, there needs to be a separate mirroring arrangement, as it is sometimes termed. I referred to that in responding to earlier amendments.
The general power within Clause 2(3) allows the United Kingdom to maintain and develop a private international law framework with the Crown dependencies and overseas territories as well as with foreign partners. That is the intent here.
The noble Lord asked about consultation. There was consultation, not with the governors of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories, but with each attorney-general and their officials. My understanding is that they were entirely content with the way in which these provisions are extended to the benefit of the Crown dependencies and overseas territories.
The noble Lord raised the question of entrustment. It does not directly arise in this context, but entrustment is where the United Kingdom essentially consents to a Crown dependency, for example, entering into an agreement at the level of international law. That can sometimes happen where, for example, a Crown dependency wants a reciprocal agreement with a foreign partner.
The behaviour of the overseas territories is monitored by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and there are instances in which, for the purposes of good governance, the United Kingdom will intervene in the affairs of an overseas territory. The noble Lord himself gave an example in respect of the Turks and Caicos Islands where that has been done.
As regards the choice of court or arbitration that the noble Lord referred to, in so far as I understand his point, I would respond that it is up to parties to a private contract to determine how their disputes, if any, will be resolved. For that purpose, the parties can choose a law or legal system to apply to their private contract and the jurisdiction in which their disputes will be resolved. That is an issue that arises only in the context of their private contract and in the context of what we are dealing with here, which is private international law. At the level of private international law, we are concerned with the way in which other jurisdictions respect that law, respect the choice of jurisdiction and, indeed, then respect the judgment of that jurisdiction when it comes to enforcement.
I hope that answers the points raised by the noble Lord. I thank him for the probing amendments, but I invite him to withdraw Amendment 14.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I am not aware that any other noble Lords have expressed a wish to speak after the Minister, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock
My Lords, I am really very grateful to the Minister for a helpful reply; he has dealt with each of the points that I raised very properly and helpfully. This is an issue that I feel strongly about generally and will need to pursue in another context in the light of that. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. It would be helpful if anyone intending to say “Not content” when the question is put made that clear during debate. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill in this Committee; this Committee cannot divide.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton
My Lords, I believe that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill. We have discussed these matters at considerable length today. I simply make the point that it will be constitutionally unprecedented if we end up in a situation where the Government have complete power in relation to private international law agreements in the future, not only to implement the changes to domestic law that are required by secondary legislation but to make regulations that relate to those agreements or connect with them, which goes very much wider than the terms of the agreement itself.
We have discussed considerably today the justification for this unprecedented power and it has been demonstrated —mainly on the question about timely implementation—not to withstand any degree of examination. I feel strongly that the House should reject Clause 2; we cannot do it in this Committee but, when the time comes, we should vote to remove it from the Bill. I think it is a separate debate as to whether there should be a special power in relation to Lugano, but this provision gives unlimited power for an unlimited time to introduce the consequences of international agreements into our domestic law with no primary legislation.
One final point, which has been made by the Constitution Committee, is that the consequence of doing this by secondary legislation is that it can be challenged in the courts and set aside by the courts on the grounds of judicial review. So not only is it constitutionally inappropriate, not only will it damage the quality of our private international law, but it will lead to legal uncertainty. Actions will be brought in court but set aside. I will invite the House on Report not to allow this provision to stand part. There is unanimity in this Committee with the exception—the plucky exception—of the Minister in that respect.
Lord Pannick
My Lords, I agree with the observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. I gave my reasons earlier for thinking that Clause 2 should not stand part and I shall not repeat them. I shall add just one further point. There has been discussion this afternoon, particularly from the noble Lords, Lord Adonis and Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, about the disadvantages of Virtual Proceedings, disadvantages notwithstanding the exceptional efforts made by the clerks and the staff, for which we are all very grateful, to ensure that these Virtual Proceedings can take place. The additional disadvantage that I want to mention—additional to those who have already been identified—arises from the correct observation of the noble and learned Lord that the Minister stands alone on this subject; all other speakers have explained why Clause 2 is objectionable.
The point is that if we were on the Floor of the House, the Minister would not just hear and see those who are speaking; he would see and hear expressions of disapproval from all around the House, including from his own Benches; he would sense the degree of concern that there undoubtedly is about the constitutional implications of Clause 2. This debate has highlighted those concerns, but I hope the Minister will understand that there is a very widespread concern around the House, not just from those who have spoken today but from those who would be present in Committee were normal proceedings to apply. By their presence and their body language, other Members of the Committee would indicate their profound concern. I hope he will take all that into account before Report.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)
I am in a slightly different position from many noble Lords because I joined this Committee sitting simply because of the strong feeling on the Constitution Committee, which I chair, that Clause 2 should not be part of the Bill. I am not a lawyer, so I have listened to the last nearly four hours with great interest. I knew that this was a complex area; having listened to all that has been said I think it even more incredible that the Government are actually suggesting that issues of this kind should be decided simply on their say-so and by secondary legislation. I cannot comment on the details and complexities of Lugano or anything else, but I have heard qualified senior lawyers talking about this, and anyone who has heard that would be convinced that there should be proper parliamentary consideration of all these issues before the Government are allowed to take any direct action. It is simply wrong, I think, that these matters will be determined by secondary legislation.
The Constitution Committee was unanimous in its view: we do not divide on party lines anyway, but it was not a difficult discussion, because members of the committee thought it was blindingly obvious that Clause 2 should not be part of the Bill.
We did, of course, have another thought at the back of our minds. That is the fact that we have been increasingly concerned, over many years, by the way in which the Government have used—or maybe abused—secondary legislation. We have seen an increase in the powers taken through secondary legislation. It is a question of not just the number of SIs but their content. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred earlier to some of the consequences that might arise from this situation in the creation of new criminal offences if Clause 2 remains. We have seen new criminal offences created by SIs produced by the Government. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, will speak later; I am sure that he will emphasise this very significantly.
Put simply, the Constitution Committee thinks it wrong that international agreements should be dealt with by the Government through secondary legislation. I certainly hope that either the Government will think again about this or that this clause can be taken out on Report. I share the concerns expressed by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, my noble friend Lord Adonis and others about the procedure whereby we cannot vote at this time and express our opinion properly. However, I urge the Government to consider absolutely all that has been said today and realise that it is not good for parliamentary democracy and accountability for Clause 2 to remain part of the Bill.
Lord Judge (CB)
During the rehearsal for this afternoon, I was asked to say my piece, and I used two words. I said, “Henry VIII”. Just in case it was not apparent to anybody who heard me say that,I was trying to convey, as I did on 17 March, when the rather claustrophobic shades of the pandemic were closing in on us, that the Bill unnecessarily invests excessive power in the Executive and does so by secondary—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, the Committee is having some problem in hearing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and I wonder whether his connection is stable.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
Perhaps start again, or perhaps go at least two sentences back.
Lord Judge
I will try again. On Henry VIII, I was trying to convey that the Bill unnecessarily invests excessive powers—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
Lord Judge, I am afraid that there is a problem with your connection. I suggest that we move to the next speaker and hope to come back to the noble and learned Lord at the end of the list, by which I hope his connection will be better. If that is acceptable, I ask the broadcasters to please unmute the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith.
Lord Goldsmith (Lab)
My Lords, I was looking forward to hearing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and saying that I agree entirely with what he said. I still imagine that I will agree with him, even if he has to come in a little later in the debate.
I start by declaring two interests. The first is as a practising lawyer whose practice includes international, commercial and public law cases, so some of the things discussed today affect the practice that I carry on. The second, and more important for present purposes, is that I am the recently appointed chairman of your Lordships’ EU Sub-Committee on International Agreements. It is in that capacity that I put my name forward to speak today.
My focus is on Clause 2. I have not spoken in any of the other debates that have taken place but, for all the reasons powerfully advanced by my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton, my noble friend Lady Taylor of Bolton and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick —and in the future, no doubt, by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—I see this as a very unusual and constitutionally unprecedented thing. I could not improve on the speeches made already, including those of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, in an earlier debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich.
However, I want to deal with one aspect in my capacity as chairman of the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee. It has authorised me to write to my noble friend Lady Taylor expressing its agreement with the conclusion that the Constitution Committee had reached in its report and concurring with its opinion that the clause, if it goes through, would reduce parliamentary scrutiny of international agreements inappropriately.
It is not an answer, as my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer has rightly said, to say that this is dealing purely with technical things. I know from experience that, although they may be technical, they are matters of great moment and matters of great importance both to the people who are making agreements and to this country. It is common for lawyers to be asked to advise which law should be put into an agreement or which law should govern any disputes that have to be dealt with, and the Bill would affect that.
As I understand it, two principal answers have been given about why the Government say this is appropriate. One is that all agreements will have been subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and that is the bit on which I particularly want to focus. The problem with that is that, as the Constitution Committee said,
“current mechanisms available to Parliament to scrutinise treaties through CRAG are limited and flawed”.
That is particularly so because of the gaps in the CRaG coverage—some of them have been mentioned today, such as model law—and the timing of CRaG means that an agreement will have been concluded by the time, strictly speaking, that the CRaG processes come into effect.
I shall quote one paragraph, paragraph 19, from the Constitution Committee’s report on CRaG, Parliamentary Scrutiny of Treaties. Professor David Howarth from the University of Cambridge observed:
“From the Whitehall point of view, everything is perfect. The whole process is under the control of Ministers. Parliament does not really get a look-in until after signature and, even after signature, the CRAG processes are very difficult for anyone to operate, especially in the Commons where the Government controls the agenda.”
That is the problem with CRaG.
The committee which I am honoured to chair may be an important part of the response to that lack of scrutinising ability. We are only in the foothills of our work, and we do not yet know how well this will work. Quite a lot will depend on how the Government engage with us and with Parliament more generally. I hope that they will wholeheartedly engage not only once an agreement has been concluded but at earlier stages. I know there is some disappointment already that, for example, the amendments made by this House to the previous Trade Bill have not found a place in the current incarnation of the Trade Bill.
Some assurances have been given in the context of the conclusion of trade agreements. Dr Fox made some important statements about the consultation and engagement that will take place. In its paper Public Consultation on Trade Negotiations with the United States, the DIT repeated the assurances that it gave. For example, paragraph 39 of that report repeats commitments made in its earlier paper, including,
“confirmation that at the start of negotiations, the Government will publish its Outline Approach, which will include our negotiating objectives, and an accompanying Scoping Assessment, setting out the potential economic impacts of any agreement.”
The second argument perhaps put forward is that the issue will be only yes or no and therefore the affirmative procedure, as proposed in the Bill, will be enough. I am not persuaded by that argument. It will often not be a question of yes or no. For example, there are treaties which contain options for the member states, such as powers to derogate from particular provisions. Under this binary approach to approval or engagement by Parliament, how will those treaties be considered? Or there may be methods of implementation which are available under the agreement. But more fundamental is the fact that if there is a power to amend that could strengthen the hand of the Government in negotiations, and there is some evidence that in some countries where scrutiny is not limited to yes or no, that is the case.
It seems inevitable that unless the Government drop this, as many noble Lords are urging them to do, this will come back on Report. If in doing so, the Government intend to rely upon the argument about the effect of parliamentary scrutiny under CRaG, they will need to give a very clear explanation of how they will engage with Parliament and the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee so that we can see the reality of what parliamentary scrutiny of the negotiation and conclusion of agreements will be. I look forward to those explanations being given, and in the meantime I support the amendment.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I am not a lawyer, but I care about democracy and I care very much that if the Government make promises, they should actually deliver on them. Clause 2 is a case of the Government reneging on promises made only last year. I voice my concern about Clause 2, which would allow Ministers to subjugate our national law to international agreements and the jurisdiction of foreign courts, with minimal parliamentary scrutiny from people such as noble Lords, who actually know what they are talking about.
Last year, the Government promised us that we would take back control of our laws and our courts; there was no caveat that we would then delegate our laws to international organisations with nothing more than a tick-box exercise by Parliament. The clause gives far too much power to international trade organisations and allows model laws to be imposed on us at the whim of a trade Minister.
I am also concerned that this measure would be better addressed in the Trade Bill, so that we could develop a comprehensive and coherent system of scrutiny for agreements relating to international trade. Otherwise, we end up with different scrutiny arrangements for trade agreements and the private international law agreements that might go alongside them. Will the Minister please explain how this clause fits with the Government’s promise of Parliament taking back control of our laws and courts? I look forward to Report and the vote that I am positive will happen.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
Two questions arise when laws are made by secondary legislation: is there democratic legitimacy and has there been proper scrutiny? If private international law raised simply technical issues, that might be less important. But as has been said so often today, private international law raises a wide of range of matters; in particular, family law issues, where basic human rights are frequently involved.
On parliamentary scrutiny, the Minister referred to the ample opportunity for debate in the affirmative procedure. We all know about the affirmative procedure. It is a yes/no question, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, pointed out a moment ago. The matters before the House cannot be amended and frequently, nothing happens as a result of any Motion that may be moved in opposition. If it is Her Majesty’s Opposition’s policy not to vote in favour of a fatal amendment, the whole process is completely nugatory. I have heard Labour Whips tell their members not to vote in the case of a fatal amendment simply for that reason alone. Their turn will come.
The affirmative procedure is not in any way proper parliamentary scrutiny. Scrutiny under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 has proved to be a non-event. It has already been quoted, but I will do so again: the Constitution Committee referred to that procedure being “limited and flawed” and indeed never properly applied.
It could be said that you can have democratic legitimacy providing there is direct participation in the legislative process by means of consultation. It is very noticeable that in this Bill there is no provision for consultation. Schedule 6 is devoid of any mention of it. That gives an opportunity for those affected by legislation directly to influence its content. Consultation is not everything: it has its problems. There are issues, for example, about the quality of the consultation document. That document may not reach the hands of everybody who is affected. The choice of who gets the document will be with the Government. Organisations or individuals may not have the time or the skills to deal with it. Strong groups who are well organised may have a disproportionate influence in the consultation process. It is of course useless, unless the Government are prepared to take the views of the consultees into account.
Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)
My Lords, I agree that Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill. Under our normal procedure for Committee in the Chamber, I would have been able to come in earlier when I saw how widely the debates on previous groups were ranging. However, with the rigidity of Virtual Proceedings, I was unable to do so.
I underscore the points made by all noble Lords, all of whom—except the Minister—have objected to Clause 2. This clause is constitutionally offensive on a variety of grounds. The issues that arise in private international law are many, varied and important. They may be complex and technical, but they are not obscure or trivial. In family disputes, questions of divorce, child custody and child maintenance can cause great anguish to all concerned. By definition, if a commercial dispute comes to court, it is of great importance to the parties involved.
What is Parliament for? Our responsibility is not simply to wave through significant new legislation, but to scrutinise it and satisfy ourselves on behalf of the people of our country that it is appropriate. That can be done only through the processes of primary legislation. It cannot be done through our procedures for regulations. Even my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer’s super-affirmative procedure would not be satisfactory. The Minister has suggested that these regulation-making procedures provide ample opportunity, but they do not because there is no scope for amendment and scrutiny is still relatively perfunctory compared to the lengthy process of primary legislation.
Hitherto, new private international law has been incorporated into our domestic law by way of primary legislation. The Minister disputed that, but he was unable to give us convincing examples of when that had not happened. What we are seeing is part of an objectionable behaviour pattern on the part of the Government. They seek to evade full parliamentary scrutiny and arrogate power to themselves to save themselves inconvenience.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, was about to discourse on the matter of Henry VIII powers—I hope he will. We see egregious Henry VIII powers in this Bill, including an open-ended power to implement any future international agreement, even if it overthrows existing primary legislation. We see the deployment of those innocent-sounding but weasel words "in connection with", "consequential" or "supplementary" legislation, which would enable this Government to smuggle in very significant legislative changes in an arbitrary fashion.
Clause 2(5)(a) and Schedule 6, concerning enforcement powers, would allow the creation of new criminal offences, the extension of existing ones or increases in the penalties applying to them. Again and again, your Lordships’ House has said that is not an acceptable practice on the part of the Government when legislating. We see in Clause 2(5)(b) the Government taking a cavalier approach to questions of data protection, which are extremely sensitive and important matters in this era of surveillance capitalism and in the context of measures being taken to protect us against a pandemic.
At Clause 2(5)(c) a power to alter the regime for legal aid without scrutiny is brought in. This too is a super-sensitive policy and legal area, as we know from the history of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, in consequence of which, I am sorry to say, the Government forfeited the trust of Parliament, the people and the legal profession.
The Government’s justifications for taking these open-ended, wide-ranging powers in Clause 2 are specious. They suggest that there may be an urgent need to legislate; we have had a significant discussion about the Lugano convention. The intervention by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mance, made it very clear that, while there may be urgency for us as a country to resolve whether or not we wish to participate in the Lugano convention, that is certainly not something to be dealt with by statutory instrument. It will possibly need to be dealt with by fast-track legislation, though again we should always be wary of that. There is certainly no case for allowing it to go through under the terms of this law.
It is almost comic to see the Government plead that they will be eager to implement Hague conventions. Let me gently remind the Minister that successive Governments of this country took 63 years to legislate to implement in our domestic law the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. It did not get on to the statute book until 2017; despite endless pressure from Parliament, successive Governments refused to make time to legislate for it.
The Government make the case that, as there is little or no scope to amend international agreements, scrutiny by Parliament would be otiose. However, it is for Parliament to determine on principle whether or not to adopt important new legislation. If it decides that it is appropriate, it is again for Parliament to determine the manner in which that legislation is to be implemented in the specific circumstances of the United Kingdom—what we might refer to as the vernacular of implementation.
The Minister conceded that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 would not permit scrutiny of model laws, but he went on to say that model laws are a very important area of law. Surely, therefore, we need something beyond the zero scrutiny that CRaG would permit. The point has just been made by the noble Lord who spoke previously that statutory instruments fail to provide the same legal certainty as primary legislation. Recourse can be had to the provisions of the Human Rights Act and it may always be possible that what is legislated by way of statutory instrument can subsequently be modified and superseded by the development of the common law.
The Minister sought to assuage the anxieties of some of us that the provisions in the Bill would ride somewhat roughshod over devolution and fail to respect the status and responsibilities of the devolved Administrations. He gave some satisfaction in what he said about Scotland, but I think no satisfaction to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, or myself about how the provisions affect Wales. Of course, in Wales there is no provision for co-decision by Ministers in the devolved territory as there is in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Finally, the Minister, in pleading with us to be reassured, pointed out that, up until now and for a long period, the adoption of private international laws had been a matter for European Union competence. But we have just spent four years in a political convulsion to establish the right to make our own laws in our own Parliament, accountable to our own people, and for Parliament not to be obliged to rubber-stamp obscure deals made on our behalf by people who are not accountable. We have sought in all the agonising political disputes of the last four years to re-establish not executive absolutism but parliamentary governance. Having gone to all this trouble, we cannot accept the provisions of this legislation. Clause 2 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, this matter has been so fully covered by the speeches already made that I have little to add other than my full support for what has been said. I hope very much that we may be able to hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, before the Minister speaks.
I do, however, wish to emphasise two points. First, I refer to what I said in support of Amendments 7 and 8 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes of Cumnock. The lack of clarity about whether it is the Scottish Ministers or the Secretary of State who are to exercise the powers referred to in Clause 2(1) and Clause 2 (2) is surely an indication, among others, that this Bill is seeking to do too much. The umbrella phrase “any international agreement”—I stress the word “any”—indicates that it is intended to catch a wide variety of international transactions and model laws relating to private international law. At present, with the possible exception of Lugano, we have very little idea of what they might be. It seems likely, however, that they will not be many. The pressure on Parliament, if we were to proceed by way of public Bills and not statutory instruments, would be quite limited. It is therefore hard to see why we are having to go down this road at all.
Secondly, there is no sunset clause in the Bill. I could understand it, although I would not like it, if the Bill were designed to deal only with measures that needed to be enforced before the end of the implementation period or shortly afterwards. But without such a clause, the Bill is entirely open-ended; committing all international agreements and model laws to the statutory instruments procedure, as a permanent feature of our laws whatever they may be, seems to me to be a hostage to fortune.
Lord Adonis
It is very clear that the Committee is overwhelmingly against the Government on Clause 2, although we hope that the Minister will reflect further before Report. Assuming that the Government stick to Clause 2 on Report, it is clear that the House will want to debate it further and, probably, divide on it.
I turn to the procedural issues that are raised thereby. First, although we pay tribute to the officials and the remarkable technical team who have managed our proceedings—and done so, I would say, to the efficiency limits of the technology available—our reflection on the last few hours is that it has been patchy at best. We have not been able to hear in this debate from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, one of our most distinguished Members, and I could barely hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, another of our distinguished colleagues, when he was speaking earlier. I do not think we would find it acceptable in any other circumstances to proceed to a vote or a decision of the House while key Members were being silenced and were unable to participate in the debate.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, referred earlier to the interchange between Members, which of course is necessarily reduced when we are online, but perhaps I may also draw attention to something that has become very clear in this debate. We need to separate the ability to vote online from the process of debate that leads to votes. Clearly, we cannot have a Report stage until it is possible to have a reliable system of voting online. I hope that our colleagues on the Procedure Committee—I think that my noble friend Lord Foulkes, who is here, is one, as well as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge—will bring to the attention of the committee an issue that has become very clear in this debate: the big divorce between the ability to participate online, which is extremely restricted, and the engagement of the House as a whole.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
: My Lords, I am hoping to call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, in a second, but, before doing so, I should say that after the noble and learned Lord I intend to call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, whose contribution we were not able to hear earlier. I understand that his connection is now properly established. I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. Is he with us? I think we must assume that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris, will not be joining us at this time. Is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, available?
Lord Judge
Good. Do you mind if I ask whether you heard anything that I said when I started last time?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
In the interest of making sure that everybody hears everything that the noble and learned Lord has to say, perhaps I may suggest that he starts again from the top. I think that would be preferable to trying to start in the middle.
Lord Judge
I thank the Deputy Chairman very much. I apologise to those who have already heard me say this but, when I was tested at the rehearsal to make sure that my machine was working and I was well plugged in, my only response was “Henry VIII”. It was a wonderfully short speech. Effectively, it said what I wanted to say. However, just in case anybody does not know what I meant, I was intending to convey my view of the Bill, as I did on 17 March at Second Reading, when the awful, claustrophobic shades of the pandemic were closing in on us. Having listened to the debate and read the report of the Constitution Committee, I summarised my view of the Bill by saying that it unnecessarily vests excessive power in the Executive by means of secondary, not primary, legislation. It is a very simple principle and it is wrong. At the time, I submitted to the House in what I hope was my characteristic way—understated—that it was not exactly regulation-light.
The result of reading the report and listening to today’s debate—I do not wish to add to the many wonderful contributions that have been made—is that I can be less circumspect this time: this Bill is now heavy. It is overweight with regulation.
Why can we not be realistic about what the affirmative process actually does? It is not a means of controlling the Government. When, in 2015, a go was had at trying to stop a Conservative Government using Labour Government legislation to achieve £4.5 billion-worth of change to fiscal issues, it was apparently regarded as a constitutional outrage. That is us. As far as the Commons is concerned, unless something has happened very recently, it is 1979 since it rejected an affirmative resolution. That suggests that if we are honest with ourselves, the affirmative resolution process, even the super-affirmative, is not nearly as good as every Government of any colour always says it is supposed to be.
The fact of the matter, although I cannot identify a particular Henry VIII clause here save and except the usual ones about amending and getting rid of primary legislation, is that, from his underworld, Henry VIII has hacked into departmental computers. Alternatively, he has been inserted—resurrected and put into departmental computers. We must be very careful about attaching so much weight to the use of secondary legislation that might affect individuals’, companies’ and organisations’ rights. That is really all I want to say at this stage. I will say something about the regulations relating to the creation of criminal offences, but I support the concerns that have been expressed all round. Thank you very much for helping me to get that through, Deputy Chairman.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
We were very glad to have your contribution.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames
My Lords, for some years I had the privilege of serving on the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lady Thomas of Winchester. That committee has increasingly come to stand as a crucial protector of the role of Parliament, alongside the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, whom I was delighted we were able to hear. The committee has acted in attempting to limit the Executive improperly taking powers for government Ministers to change the law by delegated legislation in significant ways and ways for which delegated legislation has never in the past been deemed appropriate.
The committee usually expresses itself, or certainly has until recent years, in circumspect terms and the Government have traditionally accepted its recommendations. The committee has left it to the House to implement its recommendations if the Government do not agree to do so. The clarity and decisiveness of the recommendation in paragraph 15 of the committee’s report on this occasion is anything but circumspect. The conclusion speaks for itself:
“We are of the view that clause 2 represents an inappropriate delegation of power and we recommend that it should be removed from the face of the Bill.”
The committee is forcefully supported by the report of the Constitution Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, from whom we have heard, and includes the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, from whom we have also heard. Paragraph 19 of that report contains the kernel of its conclusion:
“We are not persuaded by the arguments the Government has made in support of this power. If the balance between the executive and Parliament is to be altered in respect of international agreements, it should be in favour of greater parliamentary scrutiny and not more executive power.”
Another important point made by the Constitution Committee, mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, is that delegated legislation is amenable to judicial review so that future regulations implementing international treaties could be the subject of challenge. It is entirely right that delegated legislation, which involves an exercise of executive power of itself, should be capable of being challenged as unlawful.
However, it would be a highly undesirable consequence of the Bill if, when enacted, the lawfulness of conventions entered into by the United Kingdom Government as a matter of our domestic law could not be guaranteed to our international convention partners until such challenges were determined.
I also agree with the point made by the Constitution Committee, my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, that the CraG procedure is at present inadequate and ineffective as an instrument of parliamentary scrutiny.
In the light of all that, can the Minister say whether, given the Constitution Committee’s report published on 4 May, he is prepared to go away and reconsider his extremely negative response, dated 17 April, to the Delegated Powers Committee’s report? I ask, because if these important committees of your Lordships’ House are going to be routinely ignored by government, parliamentary democracy is entering treacherous territory, in which the conventional boundaries between executive power and parliamentary sovereignty are roughly and unceremoniously shifted by the failure of government to adhere to well-established, valuable and principled conventions.
The central point is this. As it stands, the Bill involves moving a whole area of legislation—that of implementing private international law treaties in domestic law—from Parliament to the Executive. That is a dangerous extension and an unwelcome trend—noted by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor—in our constitutional arrangements from parliamentary democracy to government by an overmighty Executive. If it is private international law agreements this year, what might follow next year? This House has rightly sought to resist the trend, which is dangerous and must be stopped. As parliamentarians, and respecting the traditional role of this House as a guardian of the constitution, we have a responsibility to stop it.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I thank noble Lords and noble and learned Lords for their contribution to this part of the debate. Since the commencement of this Committee, the matter of whether Clause 2 should stand part of the Bill has in a sense been the elephant in the virtual Chamber—or perhaps the virtual elephant in the Chamber. I therefore do not intend to rehearse or repeat the arguments that have been made repeatedly in Committee. However, I want to make it clear that the Government regard the powers in Clause 2 as essential to achieving their objective to build up the United Kingdom’s position in private international law, not only in the immediate future but in years to come.
Of course, there is one particularly pertinent example of our ambition; namely, our ambition to accede to the 2007 Lugano Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, and the desire—indeed, the need—to do that before the end of the transition period. It would be gravely unfortunate if a gap was to emerge between the end of the transition period, when we continue to look to the Brussels I and IIa regime, and the application of the 2007 Lugano Convention. We are concerned that that should be avoided.
Briefly, first, we consider that the proposal in Clause 2 is not only essential but proportionate. International law agreements are generally uncontroversial and technical in nature, and the detailed content of the private international law agreements to which the Bill will apply will already be determined at the international level; they are by their very nature clear and precise in their terms.
Earl of Devon (CB)
I understood that I would get an opportunity to speak before the Minister rather than after him, as I have been on the list for the past few days, but I shall proceed none the less with what I was going to say. At the risk of flogging rather a dead horse at this stage, I wish to add that while I support the basic aims of the Bill, I do not support Clause 2.
Private international law and our membership of the Hague and other global jurisdiction and enforcement conventions are an essential part of our global standing and our ability to welcome and to home families from overseas. They are essential particularly to the professional and legal services markets in which we are world leaders. I note my interests in the register, and particularly my work as a dual-qualified, cross-border litigator, whose practice touches variously on this area.
I shall not speak at length because pretty much all the issues have been addressed in some detail. However, I thought that your Lordships might appreciate some stories from the front line. Unlike many of our eminent jurists in the Lords, I am currently active in this space and spent 10 years as a litigator in California, as a California-qualified litigator, in which capacity I advised often on jurisdiction clauses and dispute resolution provisions.
For the most part, the most popular forum for these was the courts of England and Wales, irrespective of the parties—typically, one of them was an American party, but we dealt with parties from all around the world. There were plenty of reasons for this, not least the English language, our time zones, our excellent legal services, our use of the common law and precedent, the independence of our judiciary, and the broad membership we have of cross-border conventions, such as those under consideration in the Bill.
Finally, and perhaps most important, is the rule of law—particularly the transparent, thorough and long-established legislative process by which our laws are passed. This is the reason that England and Wales is so often chosen as the preferred third-party forum for jurisdiction and dispute resolution clauses. That is directly threatened by Clause 2. Indeed, by seeking to short-circuit the long-standing practice of passing treaties by primary legislation, the Government are in danger of undermining one of the most important pillars that supports the UK’s pre-eminence in the provision of dispute resolution services in the global market.
I note that the US-UK trade negotiations started recently. Can the Minister give us any indication as to whether the subject of private international law has been raised within that forum? Is any pressure being brought to bear on the UK Government to align their cross-border enforcement and jurisdiction regime towards that of the US, which obviously takes a very particular line in these matters? We know, for example, that the current US Administration disfavour cross-border co-operation. I understand that in recent rounds of Hague conference negotiations, the US has become increasingly reluctant to engage. It is taking a back seat while burgeoning economies, such as China, are increasingly engaged.
Finally, before we reach Report on this crucial Bill, we must have either mastered virtual voting or returned to a normal practice. This is too important an issue to slip through at such a procedurally challenging time. I appreciate your Lordships’ indulgence.
Lord Keen of Elie
As regards the UK-US negotiations, I say only that I am not in a position to comment on how far they have gone, or on whether they have engaged the issue of private international law at all.
Lord Adonis
Perhaps I may add to my earlier contribution to the Committee, since it looks as if we will vote on this issue on Report. We are all agreed that it is a hugely important constitutional issue.
The House of Commons, which has been conducting its first online votes this afternoon, has descended into complete chaos on its latest vote. I can report to the Committee that on what was, I think, the third vote it held—after its Members had had an opportunity to get to know the system—there were 22 Tory rebels, including the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak, who accidentally voted the wrong way. The Deputy Speaker, Eleanor Laing, pointed out that some MPs are struggling with the new electronic voting system but, she added, there was no need to rerun the vote because there was a majority of 51 for the Government.
I will point out two things for the benefit of our colleagues on the Procedure Committee. First, there is no natural government majority in the House of Lords, so how are we to know whether people have voted the wrong way accidentally? The constitution of our country could be rewritten because people did not understand the system of voting. Secondly, although I have the highest regard for all our colleagues in the House, if Members of the House of Commons are struggling with the new electronic voting system, it is fair to say that some colleagues in our House may also struggle with that new system.
I see not just a flashing orange light but a flashing red light about moving to electronic voting at any early stage in our proceeding, and certainly on a matter as grave and serious as this. If this were to be our first vote and it descended into chaos, as in the House of Commons, nobody could say that we were not warned.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, has made a number of extremely telling and important points. We are clearly in a situation where we must ensure either that we have an entirely reliable voting system in the upper Chamber, or alternatively a clear and telling government majority. I suspect that it is more likely that we will seek to secure the former.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, I shall now put the question that Clause 2 stand part of the Bill; all microphones will be opened until I give the result. As many as are of that opinion shall say “Content”.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, it takes unanimity to amend the Bill. If a single voice says “Content”, the clause stands part. The Contents have it.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this may be a convenient moment for the Virtual Committee to adjourn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, the Virtual Committee stands adjourned.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, the Virtual Proceedings on the Statement will now commence. Please note that it has been agreed in the usual channels to dispense with the reading of the Statement itself, and we will proceed immediately to questions from the Opposition Front Bench.
Covid-19: Business
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab)
My Lords, we do not underestimate the challenges of lifting the lockdown that has been in place since 23 March 2020. It is in all our interests for it to happen safely and we recognise that there are difficult decisions confronting the Government and the businesses that have to adapt to these unprecedented circumstances.
We are pleased to note that the Government have talked widely to stakeholders, unions, industry bodies and the devolved Administrations about their plans for the removal of the lockdown. I hope that this commitment to solidarity in what has often been a contested area of public life is a harbinger of a commitment to work together on all aspects of industrial life, not just what is required to beat this pandemic.
I have three main questions for the Minister. First, surely the acid test for the five-point plan, across the eight workplace settings identified in the Statement, is whether ordinary working people who cannot work from home will have sufficient protection when they commute to and from their workplace, and in the workplace itself, from the measures announced yesterday. The Statement says:
“First, people should work from home if they can … For those who cannot work from home and whose workplace has not been told to close, our message is clear: they should go to work.”
What have the Government put in place for those who have followed this instruction and returned to work? Can the Minister confirm that there is to be no new legislation for this? Absent that, existing statute and common law means that employers have a duty to assess the risk of workers being exposed to Covid-19 and to implement ways of reducing that risk. In practice, we are told that this will require changes in working practices—screens, barriers, floor markings, signage, hand sanitisers, face masks and potentially a whole range of other interventions. In larger companies the outcome of this assessment has to be shared with employees, although there may well be a case for making this mandatory for all but the smallest premises.
We accept that much of the advice published yesterday is sensible and may be effective in reducing the risk of infection, but does the Minister accept that it will take time to procure and set up, and does he have advice for employees who have serious concerns about whether their workplaces are safe now and will be during the period while the physical adaptations and changes in working practice are being undertaken? Who will decide whether workplaces are safe now and in the future? The answer seems to be the Health and Safety Executive, established under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, and reliance on the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1992, as amended. Can the Minster confirm that this is the statutory provision that the Government are relying on and can he set out for us today the sanctions and penalties for employers who do not comply?
Secondly, can the Minister expand on the scientific advice that underpins this policy? As I understand it, the reproduction rate of the disease—the R number—is currently between 0.5 and 0.9. Given the large variation in the range given, can he explain precisely how this number has been calculated and give us a sense of the confidence limits that presumably must apply to it? More importantly, if we are going to rely on the R number, can he tell us when and how frequently information about R is going to be published and, in particular, what value of R would trigger the Government to review and possibly reverse the instruction to people to “go to work”? Is it when R is greater than 1.0? What R values will be specified before further lockdown relaxation stages can take place?
Finally, the recent ONS figures for sectoral mortality show that men working in the lowest skilled occupations had the highest rate of death involving Covid-19, with security guards having one of the highest rates. Men and women working in social care, a group that includes care workers and home carers, both had significantly raised rates of death involving Covid-19. There are also ethnicity and regional variations of significance. Does the Minister agree with me that these figures suggest that there may be a need to refine the measures recently introduced and that a case exists to go further, so that those currently carrying the highest risks of dying from Covid-19 have better protections from catching the disease in their workplace?
Lord Fox (LD)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, and I wholeheartedly thank his department for adding a considerable degree of clarity to the shambles that we were treated to on Sunday. In bagging the “Countryfile” slot last weekend, the Prime Minister may have notched up high ratings, but did the Government really want 27 million people to witness him waffling on about non-specifics? For people to return to work requires confidence. Employees need to know that their employer is doing the right thing, and businesses need to know what they must do to keep employees safe. The Government, particularly the Prime Minister, set the foundations for that confidence. As one businessperson said to me this week, the way this has been sprung on people is ridiculous and shows no understanding of or regard for safety at work.
When these guidelines were published, they were very helpful, and the Statement notes that they have been broadly welcomed by the working world. However, the phasing should have included the drafting process and time for companies to start risk assessments and consult their staff and workers. Only then should the Government have announced a return to work.
I turn to some specifics. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, has ably approached the important issue of employee rights, and I endorse his comments. To avoid duplication, I shall probe the position of employers more deeply. Quite rightly, the guidance does not supersede any current legal obligations relating to employers’ health and safety practices. However, it is clear that coronavirus exposes businesses to additional risk beyond their experience. As the guidance states, each business will need to translate the guidelines into specific actions that it will need to take, and there are a great many variables. What is the formal process for checking that a business has translated the guidelines correctly? What constitutes an acceptable risk assessment? Should it be conducted in house or always by an independent third party? For example, can a business request an HSE audit to validate its approach? If it does, who would pay for it? In short, what constitutes sufficient due diligence?
It also seems that the complexity of supply chains has been hard to capture in the documentation. For example, a manufacturing business has many dozens of suppliers. For a tier 1 business to reopen, all those supply chain businesses have to reopen too, and they get smaller as the chain gets longer. The risk assessment process is even more onerous for smaller SMEs, so can the Minister tell us how the department will support SMEs to get back to work? For example, will the Government consider setting up a free service for SMEs to help them draw up their risk assessments? In the event that an employee falls ill and blames the company, who is liable? Have the management acted properly? What about insurance? We have seen problems with business interruption insurance. Have Her Majesty’s Government spoken with the insurance industry? Are compliant employers covered by their current insurance? In the event that the worst happens, how do employers demonstrate that they have done enough to avoid prosecution?
That takes us to the Health and Safety Executive. My noble friend Lord Newby spoke of the need financially to bolster the HSE, and we welcome the extra £14 million for its budget, but does the Minister agree that this sum is piffling compared to the cuts of £100 million or so that that organisation has experienced over the past decade? In the debate yesterday, the Leader of the House was asked whether the HSE is fit for purpose, and I do not think she responded, so I will rephrase that question and break it down. By how much does the HSE need to grow to do this job? What needs to change for it to take on this extra challenge? What is the timeline? When will it be ready to do this new job, and does it have the management capacity to do it? We must remember that, under Brexit, the HSE is already taking on other new, important functions.
Finally, I heard nothing about how the manufacturing and construction sectors will be supported with testing. As it stands, businesses that are deemed critical get particular access to testing. This week’s published advice talks about isolation in the event of an outbreak in manufacturing and construction firms, but what about testing? Can the Minister please acknowledge this challenge? Can he please undertake to deliver sufficient support on testing so that employees of these companies can really be kept safe? This is going to prove to be a really important issue. In the end, the Government need to do everything possible to ensure that back to work does not become back to square one.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their questions, of which there were a number. I will endeavour to answer as many as possible.
On return to work, reducing pressure on the transport system is one reason we are encouraging everyone to work from home if they can. Where this is not possible, we are encouraging people to avoid rush hour to help maintain social distancing. We are also encouraging people to walk and cycle where they can and have recently announced a £250 million emergency active travel fund, the first stage of a £2 billion investment.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about the new legislation. I can confirm that the guidance is non-statutory and does not change the obligations relating to health and safety, employment or equalities. Currently, employers have a duty under UK law to protect the health and safety of their workers and other people who might be affected by their business. This includes considering the risks that Covid-19 represents. Currently open businesses should review their risk assessments in line with the new guidance and introduce any additional measures they consider reasonably practicable to mitigate the identified effects of the new virus.
On non-compliance, where the HSE identifies employers who are not taking action to comply with the relevant legislation and guidance that control public health risks, it can consider a range of enforcement actions. Health and safety legislation is enforced by the Health and Safety Executive, the Health and Safety Executive for Northern Ireland and local authorities. If the enforcing authority finds that an employer is not taking action to properly manage workplace risks, a range of actions are open to it, including offering specific advice and issuing enforcement notices. An enforcement notice is a legal document that requires an employer to take action as required, creates a legally binding requirement and can ultimately lead to prosecution.
The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, asked about the R-number. I will give him a scientific answer: if R is below one, on average each infected person will infect fewer than one other person. The number of new infections will fall over time. The lower the number, the faster new infections will fall. Where R is above one, the number of new infections is accelerating; the higher the number, the faster the virus spreads through the population. SAGE assessed that at the beginning of the epidemic R was between 2.7 and 3. Currently, it says that it is between 0.5 and 0.9, meaning that the number of infected people is falling. As our priority is to protect the public and save lives, we will ensure that any adjustments are compatible with the five tests. The information on R is published twice weekly on the website of the Medical Research Council Biostatistics Unit.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Fox, who asked me whether we are confident that the HSE and local authorities have enough resources to enforce this. Yes, we are. As I said in the Statement, we have announced an additional £14 million for the HSE for extra call centre staff, inspectors and equipment. Government will resource local authorities as necessary, as we understand more about the workload that Covid-19 entails for them.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
We now come to the 30 minutes allocated for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that we can call the maximum number of speakers.
Baroness Verma (Con)
Can my noble friend confirm that businesses in multioccupancy properties where business rates are shared among the businesses and added to the rental agreement are able to access business grants through local authorities? Many businesses I have spoken to have said that they have not been able to do that so far. If not, what is available and how quickly can they access it? Like all businesses, they are having to make adjustments for safe working, and this all comes at a cost.
Lord Callanan
I thank my noble friend for her question. We have announced a package of support to help businesses with their ongoing business costs in recognition of the disruption caused. This package includes the small business grant fund, specifically for hereditaments in England that were eligible for relief on 11 March under the small business rates relief fund. The funding is to support small and rural businesses which are ratepayers on a property, as these businesses are more likely to have ongoing fixed costs during this period. Unfortunately, businesses that were not eligible for percentage SBRR relief on 11 March are excluded.
Nevertheless, there are other new measures to provide support to those businesses, including CBILS, deferral of the next quarter of back-payments for firms until the end of June, representing a £30 billion injection into the economy, and a new fast-track finance scheme providing loans with a 100% government guarantee. In addition, there is also the bounce-back loan scheme, which will ensure that the smallest businesses can access loans in a matter of days. We are working currently with local authorities to try to make sure that this support is delivered as fast as possible.
Baroness Drake (Lab)
My Lords, the Government have to transition out of lockdown through a precarious route that protects people’s health, rebuilds the economy and phases down the exceptional measures. The manner of that journey and the impact on different communities is of huge national interest and requires consensus within Parliament and across the devolved and local governments, which in turn will drive greater public and business confidence. The transition out of the job retention scheme, for example, could, depending on how it is handled, trigger widespread redundancies and business closures. What further initiatives will the Government take to build and to hold a consensus with Parliament and the devolved and local governments on how these national interests can best be met? Because at points they are currently not. Can we have greater clarity on how and when they will share their plans going forward on the phasing down of current emergency financial measures and their replacement with the second-wave support package so that people can understand the consequences and plan?
Lord Callanan
The noble Baroness makes a number of good points. We are endeavouring to work with other political parties. The Opposition have been consulted on many measures; of course, the devolved Administrations are present in many of the meetings at which these decisions are taken; similarly, we regularly host conference calls with local authorities to try to communicate information as much as possible. Ultimately, she makes a very good point, and we will endeavour to proceed with the maximum consensus possible.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I cannot see any reference in the guidance on working safely, or the FAQs, to the arts and entertainment sector. This is a really badly hit but massive contributor to our culture and economy. Surely, if house viewings can restart, musicians and other creative artists, many of whom are suffering real financial hardship, can be given a clear indication about when they will be able to return safely to work, rehearsal, performing and recording. If estate agencies can open for business, why not museums and galleries and certain other arts and entertainment facilities? What guidance do the Government have on this? Can the Minister pledge that creative workers, along with live performance venues, will be financially supported for as long as necessary?
Lord Callanan
The noble Lord makes a very good point. I can tell him that earlier today we announced five new ministerial-led task forces that have been set up to develop plans for how and when currently closed sectors can reopen safely following the publication of the UK’s road map. This includes a DCMS-led task force considering some of the sectors he refers to: recreation and leisure, including tourism; culture; heritage; libraries and entertainment. As part of this scientific-led approach, each task force will work across government and engage with key stakeholders to ensure that the guidelines are developed and that those sectors can reopen as quickly as possible.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl)
Does the Minister accept that, in the social distancing measures they have given for business, the 2-metres distance is not necessarily a measure that is recommended by the World Health Organization? The WHO recommends only 1 metre, and other countries have differing metrics—1 metre, 1.5 metres and so on. Does he accept that it is fairly onerous for businesses, some of which just do not have the capacity to keep that kind of distance? Will the Government review it as practice evolves and as the rate of R starts coming down?
Lord Callanan
Of course, we are always reviewing these measures and acting on scientific advice. I think we all have to accept that that scientific advice will evolve as the knowledge of the virus increases. The noble Baroness, as she usually does, makes an important point: these are things that we keep under constant review, so that we can get the country back to work as quickly as possible.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, one of the good things that has come out of this crisis has been the way in which people work together and in particular the contribution of the trade union movement to working with the Government. I know that the unions welcome the positive attitude of the Government. I would like a reassurance, which I am sure that the Minister will be happy to give, that they will continue to work with the unions. As these measures wind down, of course there will be a lot of detailed points, but where responsible trade unionism and a listening Government come together, I hope that we can continue to have the good relations that we have had up until now. I welcome the Minister being able to confirm that the good relations with the trade union movement will continue.
Lord Callanan
I am indeed happy to confirm to my noble friend that we are very happy to work with all responsible trade unions, and we included them in developing this guidance and we are happy with the many constructive contributions that we receive. We continue to work with them on developing sensible guidance for business that gives UK workers the utmost confidence that they can return to work safely. Of course, we will always consider any new, sensible suggestions.
The Deputy Speaker
Lord Hendy. Lord Hendy? We do not have Lord Hendy, so I call Lord Bilimoria.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, we are grateful to the Government and the Chancellor for all the help for business, including the extension of the job retention scheme until October. However, the Statement on workplace guidance makes no mention of testing at all, and today it is almost two months since the director-general of the WHO said, “Test, test, test”, and the Prime Minister has said that there is now a target of reaching 200,000 tests a day by the end of this month. Will the Minister tell us whether companies and businesses have access to testing for their workforces so that employees can be tested when they go to work? They can then have the confidence if they have a negative test that they can work knowing that they are healthy, and their colleagues and consumers can also have that confidence. Is testing available widely to employers and businesses now?
Lord Callanan
The noble Lord makes a very valid point. Our priority remains that testing patients to inform their clinical diagnosis is extremely important. We are also offering tests to all essential workers, including NHS and social care workers with symptoms, anyone over 65 with symptoms, anyone with symptoms whose work cannot be done from home and anyone who has symptoms of coronavirus and lives with any of those identified above. Yes, testing is extremely important. The Prime Minister has addressed that we have a strategy that we are working towards.
Baroness Pidding (Con)
At the beginning of the coronavirus crisis and the introduction of lockdown, in many communities throughout the country, especially in our villages, it is our small local businesses such as independent bakers, greengrocers and butchers who provide essential services. They have really stepped up to the challenge, often working extraordinarily long hours and having to make significant adaptations to their working practices to ensure a safe environment for both staff and customers. In the coming weeks, we hope to see people attracted back to our towns and high streets as we move towards the gradual reopening of retail outlets. That is of course hugely welcome. However, will my noble friend join me in urging the public not to forget those small community businesses that were such a lifeline, and still are, and repay them with their continued patronage?
Lord Callanan
My Lords, as always, I am very happy to join my noble friend in paying tribute to the many small community businesses up and down the country that play such an important part in our community life, and our message to them is a simple one. We will stand by them. We have announced an unprecedented range of measures to help them get through this extremely difficult and challenging period. The bounce-back loans scheme, which I am sure my noble friend is aware of, is a 100% government-backed loan scheme for small businesses. Any business will be able to borrow between £2,000 and £25,000 and have access to that cash, literally, within days. Those loans will be interest-free for the first 12 months. Businesses can apply online in a short and simple form. I totally agree with my noble friend that we need to stand by these businesses.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD)
My Lords, in the present circumstances it is clear that many businesses —particularly small ones, as has been mentioned—are desperate to avoid liquidation or bankruptcy, with employees in turn equally desperate to keep their jobs. In those circumstances, how can we be confident that both will not be tempted to cut corners?
Lord Callanan
That is why we have put in place such a strong enforcement regime. We have given extra resources to the Health and Safety Executive and local authorities to help them enforce these demands. Ultimately, it is a matter of trusting in the many sensible, established companies up and down the country to do the right thing for their employees. Most companies are endeavouring to do that; it is in their interests, and that is why they are successful. We will not hesitate to take enforcement action against the small minority that do not.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, the only way we will recover is to grow our way out of this mess and create new wealth. Does my noble friend accept that the Government’s overwhelming priority is to get business back to work? To do that, our firms will need as much certainty as we can possibly give them. Does he agree that the suggestions we heard in the debate yesterday that the trade deal with our friends in the EU should be delayed—perhaps by up to two years—is, frankly, delusional? How can we expect employers and employees to do their job if they do not know what the rules will be for years to come? There are no easy options, but does he not agree that endless delay is the daftest option of all?
Lord Callanan
My noble friend is tempting me to go back to my previous role on Brexit. Of course, we will approach the negotiations constructively. I am sure he will be delighted to know that our position has not changed. We will not agree to any of the EU’s demands to give up our rights as an independent state. We are committed to getting a deal by the end of the year and will not extend the transition period.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, as the Government try to navigate a gradual return to work for millions, I am sure the Minister will agree with the central importance of the need to dovetail the financial ambition of winding down the furlough scheme with the public health ambition to protect workers going back to their workplaces. In particular, I know there are worries that the Government will with one hand reduce support for furloughed workers sometime after the end of June and, with the other, demand workplace health and safety conditions that make a return to normal work impossible. I am thinking of establishments such as smaller cafés and restaurants and small entertainment venues. Can the Minister assure those businesses that the end of furloughing will be conducted in a co-ordinated, sector-specific and company-specific way, to ensure that some firms do not have a situation in which the Treasury expects a return to work while BEIS and the Health and Safety Executive make such a return impossible?
Lord Callanan
We have extended the scheme significantly to support firms through the transition out of lockdown. We are doing right by them and expect those firms to do right by their staff. As the economy gradually reopens, it is fair that firms begin to pick up some of the cost of their workers’ salaries, but we will of course want to do this in a specific and phased way to make sure that these businesses can manage to survive and trade their way back to success.
The Deputy Speaker
After the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, I will call the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. I call the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, yesterday the Ulster Bank published a report showing that for the first three months of this year there was a contraction in business activity put down to coronavirus. Can the Minister describe the work that the Government, working with the Northern Ireland Executive, will now do to assist private sector businesses in Northern Ireland to survive the pandemic and to ensure that they can continue with some form of financial and economic activity?
Lord Callanan
My Lords, as the virus of course does not respect borders or boundaries, we will continue to work very closely with all the devolved Administrations, including the Northern Ireland Executive, to support consistency for employers and a four-nation approach to kick-starting the UK economy. As I set out in previous answers, we have announced a range of unprecedented measures to support the UK economy.
Lord Hendy (Lab)
My Lords, each of the eight guidance notes published on Monday advises:
“Workplaces should not encourage the precautionary use of … PPE to protect against COVID-19 outside clinical settings”.
That advice is surely contrary to the clear statutory duty set out in the Personal Protective Equipment at Work Regulations 1992 to provide PPE to any employee in respect of whom risk has not been eliminated by other measures. The importance of this duty is magnified in the light of the Office for National Statistics report to which my noble friend Lord Stevenson referred, which identifies various occupations at an increased risk of death from Covid-19. Will the Minister indicate whether the guidance might be reconsidered in each of these eight notes?
Lord Callanan
Where workers already wear PPE for protection against non-Covid risks such as dust, they should of course continue to wear this. In relation to Covid-19 specifically, we have worked very closely with the medical community to develop this guidance and we will of course be guided by the science so that we do not put lives at risk in future.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, when I saw that there was to be a Statement on business, I hoped it would include further guidance on the financing of business. While I congratulate the Government on their immediate and world-beating assistance to companies through debt, it is not the long-term answer. Does the Minister agree that the next step in helping businesses will be to help them repay the debt and that, to do that, they will need equity funding? First, will he tell me what steps will be taken for modest amounts of equity to be invested in SMEs? Secondly—I draw your Lordships’ attention to my registered interests—can he tell me what the Government will do to help those companies that struggle not with raising money on public markets but with the costs of being on a public market, exacerbated by MiFID II and enormous regulation? This has meant that those markets are now shrinking, which will consequently make it difficult for UK plc to raise the equity it will need to flourish.
Lord Callanan
As usual, my noble friend raises very good points. I point him towards the future fund, which will be launched this month and will provide convertible loans ranging from £125,000 to £5 million to UK-based companies, subject to at least equal match funding from private investors. These convertible loans may be a suitable option for many businesses that rely on equity investment and are unable to access the CBILS. These companies will be vital in ensuring that the UK retains its world-leading position in science, innovation and technology.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I assure the Minister that I am very supportive of trying to overcome the challenge of persuading people to go back to work without ending up with gross pollution and congestion. However, in light of the interview that the Secretary of State for Transport undertook this morning on Radio 4, what advice are the Government giving to employers who find that their staff are refused access to public transport, whose consequent late or non-arrival at work puts their jobs in jeopardy?
Lord Callanan
Of course, we want employers to be as flexible as possible and to consider, for instance, staggering arrival and departure times from work to enable people to avoid peak times wherever possible. As I said, we are also encouraging people to walk and cycle wherever they can; we recently announced a £250 million emergency active travel fund to help with that. Ultimately, it will require both employees and employers to work together to take into account each other’s needs and to use common sense.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
Given the decision of the devolved Administrations to maintain their guidance to stay at home and to limit the return to work, will the Government carefully monitor the path of the virus across the UK? If there is significant variation in the incidence of cases or deaths between England and the rest of the UK, will the Government revise the guidance in their documents? Can the Minister give an assurance that workers, companies and, indeed, Governments in the devolved Administration areas, or indeed anywhere in the United Kingdom, will not be penalised for maintaining a cautious approach which might prevent a second spike?
Lord Callanan
Of course, we keep these matters under constant review. It is not our intention to penalise anyone. We want to continue to work together with the devolved Administrations in all parts of our United Kingdom.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
Given the costs of the commendable measures taken by the Government to protect jobs, can my noble friend the Minister tell the House whether the Government will consider raising some of the funding for the job retention schemes by issuing specially targeted pension-fund gilts, for example, which pension schemes could use to better match their liabilities, and for which they have significant funding?
Lord Callanan
My Lords, the Prime Minister has said that we will do whatever it takes to win the fight against the pandemic. My noble friend has made an interesting suggestion, which I will certainly pass on to the Treasury, but the PM has declared to businesses and workers that we will stand by them. As I have said in previous answers, we have announced an unprecedented range of support measures for businesses, such as CBILS and the bounce-back loan scheme.
The Earl of Caithness (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as in the register. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister and the Government on the clear, detailed advice that has come out in the last 48 hours.
I would like to ask my noble friend about estate agency. Given that this poses a considerable extra burden on people, with estate agents, surveyors et cetera coming to their houses, and given that we know there have been a number of rogue agents breaking the Government’s current laws, does he agree that there is an urgency to appoint a regulator of property agents with power to act against rogue agents? They now pose an extra threat to people who are in fear of this disease?
Lord Callanan
Since the lockdown restrictions were implemented in March, more than 450,000 people have been unable to progress their plans to move house. All buyers and renters will now be able to complete purchases and view properties in person, and estate agents, conveyancers and removal firms can return to work—while, of course, following the appropriate social distancing guidelines. If employees have concerns about their employers’ compliance they can raise them, ultimately, with the HSE or their local authority.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, the country is well aware of the front-line contribution of our diverse communities during the present crisis. A disproportionate number have lost their lives. The Minister mentioned in the Statement that the Government consulted approximately 250 stakeholders in their preparation of the guidance notes. What consultations have taken place with key black and ethnic minority organisations? Has the Minister consulted catering organisations on their dietary requirements at the present time?
Lord Callanan
The noble Lord makes a good point. The number of ethnic minority communities that seem to be adversely affected by this virus is indeed very concerning. I can confirm that we have, of course, fulfilled our equality duties within the guidance. We have had this subject constantly at the forefront of our minds as we formulated this guidance. We have consulted widely across all business and industry.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as set out in the register. Does the Minister recognise that many millions of the self-employed in SMEs will not benefit from the Government’s generous furlough scheme and, in many instances, cannot yet go back to work? Will the Minister at least commit the Government to extending the self-employed income support scheme until the end of October?
Lord Callanan
I thank the noble Lord for his question. As I have said in response to earlier questions, we keep these schemes under constant monitoring and assessment. We are always open to modifying or extending them if it proves necessary.
Baroness Hooper (Con)
My Lords, in the international context, can my noble friend tell us what consideration is being given to helping firms and businesses whose trade depends on imports and exports? For example, is there any special advice relating to transport, particularly given the crisis in air transport? Are British embassies overseas being fully kept up to speed on all developments and requirements in this area, because this is also important and relevant to small and medium-sized enterprises?
Lord Callanan
The noble Baroness makes some very good points. In my view, it is essential that all businesses experiencing increased costs and disrupted cash flow as a result of the virus are supported. The FCO is working to monitor closely coronavirus throughout the world and we are using our diplomatic network to do our utmost to help all British companies.
Lord Flight (Con)
It looks as though the most important long-term change resulting from the coronavirus crisis will be a huge increase in the number of people working from home, which will in turn have other big economic effects. The Government’s five key pieces of guidance refer to working from home as only a good thing; the main territory not so far addressed is the personal tax implications of millions of people working from home. Will the Government stick with the existing tax laws or introduce a simplified standard tax deal relating to their premises for those who work from home?
Lord Callanan
My noble friend makes a very good point. I agree that this crisis will result in a long-term increase in the number of people working from home. When an employee must work from home, for example because of the crisis, the employer can pay them a small amount per week, free from income tax and national insurance contributions, to cover additional costs such as heating and power. Alternatively, of course, they can reimburse their actual expenditure. I will certainly ensure that my noble friend’s comments are passed on to the Treasury for consideration for any future tax changes.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, that concludes the questions on the Statement. I thank all noble Lords for their concise questions and the Minister for his concise answers. The Virtual Proceedings will now adjourn until a convenient point after 8 pm for the Urgent Question repeat.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, the Virtual Proceedings on the repeat of the Urgent Question will now commence. I will call the Statement and the Minister will repeat the Statement in the usual way. There will then be 10 minutes for questions, led by the Opposition Front Bench. The Minister will respond to each question in turn. I will call each Back-Bench Member on the speakers’ list to ask a question and the Minister will answer. I ask noble Lords to ask brief questions and to give brief answers so that as many noble Lords as possible can be called. Each speaker’s microphone will be unmuted prior to asking a question and returned to mute once their question has finished.
Covid-19: Economic Package
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office and the Treasury (Lord Agnew of Oulton) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question given yesterday in the other place by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as follows:
“Mr Speaker, the Government’s economic plan is one of the most comprehensive in the world. We have provided billions of pounds of grants and loans for businesses, tens of billions of pounds of deferred taxes, income protection for millions of the self-employed, and a strengthened safety net to protect millions of the most vulnerable people. These schemes speak to my and this Conservative Government’s values. We believe in the dignity of work and we are doing everything we can to protect people currently unable to work.
Yesterday, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister set out our plan for the next phase of the public health response, and today I can confirm the next stage of our job retention scheme. This scheme has been a world-leading economic intervention, supporting livelihoods and protecting futures. Seven and a half million jobs have been furloughed—jobs that we could have lost if we had not acted. Nearly 1 million businesses would have closed shop.
As we reopen the economy, we will need to support people back to work. We will do so in a measured way. I can announce that the job retention scheme will be extended for four months, until the end of October. By that point, we will have provided eight months of support to British people and businesses. Until the end of July, there will be no changes whatever, and from August to October the scheme will continue for all sectors and regions of the UK but with greater flexibility to support the transition back to work. Employers currently using the scheme will be able to bring employees back part-time. To change their incentives, we will ask employers to start sharing with the Government the cost of paying people’s salaries.
Detailed guidance will follow by the end of May, but I want to assure people today of one thing that will not change: workers will, through the combined efforts of the Government and employers, continue to receive the same level of overall support as they do now, at 80% of their current salary, up to £2,500.
I am extending the scheme because I will not give up on the people who rely on it. Our message today is simple. We stood behind Britain’s workers and businesses as we came into this crisis and we will stand behind them as we come through the other side.”
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for repeating the Chancellor’s Statement. We welcome the extension of the job retention scheme, the additional flexibility provided and the fact that the Chancellor has listened to concerns by maintaining a level of support at 80%. Advanced briefing to the media suggested that people need to be “weaned off” state support. I hope the Minister shares my concerns about the use of such language and agrees that nobody ever wanted to find themselves in this situation. The amount that firms will be asked to contribute must avoid triggering further redundancies, so could the Minister confirm when employers will be required to start making contributions, whether these contributions will be phased in and what level of contribution they will be asked to pay?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, all the details that the noble Lord has asked about are being worked out at the moment. That is why we will not be able to announce the full details until the end of this month. However, as was set out in my right honourable friend’s Statement yesterday, our overriding priority is to protect jobs in this country and to protect businesses. A balance needs to be struck to achieve those two things.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, I have just three very quick questions for the Minister. First, will the Self-employment Income Support Scheme also be extended in the same way that the furlough scheme is being extended for those who have been in employment, which is obviously a vital decision? Secondly, in the light of leaked Treasury documents today, will he confirm or deny that the Government are looking at a two-year pay freeze in the public sector to deal with what will be an extremely high deficit, estimated at £337 billion this year? Lastly, he will be aware that alternate funders are finally getting accredited to participate in the Government’s Covid schemes, but many banks are now cornering the market because only they can access cheap money from the Bank of England. Will the Government level the playing field and open up the Bank of England’s term funding scheme to all accredited funders and do so rapidly to limit the damage?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, the newly announced Self-employed Income Support Scheme, which opened today, will be kept open as long as it is needed. That is what we have said all along: we will do what is needed. We need to see how successful it is and how many people it gets to. I am not aware of any advanced thinking on a pay freeze on the public sector or any other measures. As my right honourable friend said yesterday, it is too early for us to be looking at these measures. We need to get through this stage of the crisis. On the noble Baroness’s third question, we have been increasing the number of lenders available on all schemes since they opened. I am sure that this will continue.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I remind all noble Lords to please ask brief questions.
Lord Marland (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my various business interests listed in the House of Lords register. I start by complimenting the Chancellor and his team. I am sure all noble Lords would like to thank my noble friend the Minister for his tireless efforts throughout this horrendous crisis. The programme of support for business has been far better than that in 2008. The pressure on banks, for example, to perform has been a very good thing and the furlough scheme has been an act of near genius. I also applaud the new scheme for the self-employed, launched today, which the Minister touched on a moment ago. Perhaps he can advise noble Lords of the applications received to date.
I urge caution, however, in announcing an extension to the furlough scheme until October. That will not only cost us £100 billion but will, I am afraid, support many businesses that were ailing before this crisis. I am also aware of a number of profitable and productive businesses that will continue to use it when they have strong enough balance sheets to support their activities without government support. Will the Minister assure us that steps are being taken to prevent malpractice?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I thank my noble friend for his supportive comments. The self-employment income support scheme opened today at 8 am, and by lunchtime we had had 110,000 applications, worth in aggregate some £360 million. HMRC has undertaken to do everything possible to get payments out within the next six working days.
On my noble friend’s other point about the furlough scheme being too generous, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has said, if we do not take these sorts of measures, the cost to our country and our society will be even greater. However, we will be vigilant to ensure that the scheme is not abused.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
While the measures announced are welcome, does the Minister agree that more fine-tuning will be needed in the coming months to meet the needs of different parts of the country and different economies, for a fair and balanced recovery?
Will the Minister find ways of adding to the well-deserved clapping of hands for low-paid members of the NHS and staff in care homes with some degree of monetary reward, to emphasise how much their dedication —often at real risk to their own health—means to us all?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
I assure the noble Lord that we are aware of the regional differences that will emerge in the aftermath of this crisis. It is worth reminding the House that the furlough scheme, for example, applies across all devolved regions.
On his comments on health sector and social care workers, I add my congratulations on, and respect for, the huge amount that they have done. We cannot at this stage commit to any future payments, because, as I mentioned, we will have an enormous financial hill to climb at the end of this crisis. However, I recognise the great work that they have done.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
The extension of the JRS is extremely welcome. Here in the north-east, we have a worryingly high infection rate and among the highest average death rates per capita. Will Her Majesty’s Government consider taking a regional approach to phasing out the JRS, ensuring that the economic and social needs of each region are reflected adequately in the Government’s ongoing support?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
To answer the right reverend Prelate’s question, what we have always done through this crisis over the past few months is take a flexible approach and respond as events confront us. If we see that different regions are suffering more than others, we will, of course, look on that as sympathetically as we can.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
Could my noble friend explain in more detail what the Chancellor meant when he said he would ask employers to share with the Government the cost of paying people’s salaries under the furlough scheme from August? In spite of what he said, I hope he can give us an idea of some of the thinking going on. For many reasons, I support the aim of weaning people off government support, but businesses need to quantify this extra cost very soon to determine their route ahead.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
In response to my noble friend, unfortunately I cannot give any more information at the moment, but businesses will be made aware within the next 10 days to two weeks.
Lord Desai (Lab)
Will the Minister bear in mind that, given the prospect of higher unemployment for a long time, universal credit and other arrangements will have to be enhanced for a considerable period? Have the Government budgeted for an increase in unemployment benefit and universal credit?
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, we have improved the terms of universal credit since this crisis began by increasing payments by £20 a week. We have seen 1.6 million claims since the beginning of the crisis, and all new and existing claimants will benefit from the increased generosity of these payments.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD)
Given that the Government have clearly not finalised the scheme as they cannot tell business how much they will contribute, will the Minister ensure that his colleagues take account of two figures that might cause perverse consequences? One is that individuals who need to be shielded and therefore cannot work, even if the business has work for them, are currently eligible for the furlough scheme. Clearly it is important that that continues, but it would be unreasonable and perverse if businesses found that they were financially advantaged by putting those people on statutory sick pay or even making them redundant when they cannot work. Businesses are being asked to support people in that situation, and it is important that they are fully protected on the furlough scheme cost. Similarly, there are businesses and charities that are not allowed to open by the Government and may still not be allowed to open. If they are not allowed to take people into employment, surely it is right that they should be fully covered for the cost of the furlough scheme, for the risk is that these businesses, which are bleeding money, will be forced to make people redundant.
Lord Agnew of Oulton
My Lords, my right honourable friend in his Statement yesterday extended the existing terms of the furlough scheme until the end of July. I think we will have better knowledge of the disease and our ability to contain it by then, but I take on board the noble Lord’s comments and I will take them back to my colleagues in the Treasury.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, the time allotted for the Statement is now up. Today’s Virtual Proceedings are complete and are adjourned. Good night.