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
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
I regularly attend cross-Government meetings, which include the devolved Administrations, to discuss how to minimise the impact of covid-19. There is a high level of co-operation between all Administrations and there will continue to be. We are committed to a UK-wide approach, as we have been from the start.
Allan Dorans [V]
What justification does the Secretary of State have for ignoring the Scottish Government guidelines to stay home, protect the NHS and save lives, by undertaking an almost 700-mile round trip to Westminster when he could safely have worked from home today virtually? What kind of message does that send to the Scottish people? Will the Secretary of State be self-isolating on his return to his constituency?
Mr Jack
To be absolutely clear, first, as the hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), has made clear, Members of Parliament are key workers. More importantly, as a Cabinet Minister and a Secretary of State, it is right that I should be here in the Chamber so that I can be properly scrutinised and answer these questions. I came down at the weekend and travelled on a train very safely. I will return safely and I will be isolating myself when I do, but that is solely because I go back to family. I do not see why we cannot have proper scrutiny of Parliament when we have the virtual proceedings, which work for some, but for me it is absolutely about being here, being scrutinised and being at the Dispatch Box.
Chris Law [V]
At last week’s Scottish Affairs Committee sitting, the Secretary of State made the welcome admission that the Prime Minister’s announcement on exiting lockdown did cause confusion, given that the advice applied only to England. The crystal-clear message in Scotland remains to stay at home, protect the NHS and save lives. In that same spirit, will the Secretary of State accept that prematurely ending the modern ways in which we are currently working in Parliament would disregard Scotland’s clear public health guidance, increase infection in our communities and put our constituents at risk by forcing people to travel hundreds of miles back and forth to London?
Mr Jack
I have already given the answer on the first point. On the messaging, the messaging in Scotland is different to that in England, which is fine, but the “stay alert” message in England is that people should stay at home and work from home if they can work from home, but if they cannot, they can go to work. That is very clear. In going to work, they stay alert, wash their hands and socially distance themselves—they do all those things. If Scottish Members of Parliament do not want to come back to be scrutinised or to scrutinise Ministers, that will be a matter for them, but at some point we will have to move to a stage where Parliament is operating on a virtual and covid-safe basis, and that is exactly as it should be.
Mr Speaker
I welcome the shadow Secretary of State for the first of his two questions from the Front Bench.
Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)
That is very kind of you, Mr Speaker; thank you very much indeed.
The Secretary of State will be aware of the February outbreak of covid-19 at an international Nike conference in central Edinburgh. In a catastrophic error of judgment, the Scottish Government decided that the Scottish public would not be informed, despite that being contrary to Scottish public health legislation. The public could have helped with the tracing and used their own common sense, as the Prime Minister has said, to make choices about attending large events and gatherings. A BBC documentary reported that a lockdown then could have saved 2,000 Scottish lives. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether the UK Government were informed; why the public were not told, given the subsequent disinfecting and closure of Nike outlets all over the UK; and how many UK lives could have been saved as a result?
Mr Jack
I welcome the hon. Gentleman back to his rightful place on the Opposition Front Bench. I fear he spent far too long in the wilderness that was the previous regime’s Back Benches. That said, I must pay tribute to his predecessor, the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), who I am pleased is making good progress in recovering from a very nasty bout of coronavirus.
On the shadow Secretary of State’s question, I believe that maximum transparency is important when it comes to matters of public health, because it is important that we treat the public as adults. To that end, I wish to make it clear that the Scottish Government informed Public Health England—an agency, as Members know—of one case of covid-19 on 2 March and two further cases on 4 March. I should also make it absolutely clear at the Dispatch Box that the chief medical officers of the four nations agreed, before there were any confirmed cases, that each Administration would announce their own cases and take their own decisions about what was appropriate to release and when they released it, so it is a matter for the Scottish Government and how they handled it.
Ian Murray
I accept that response from the Secretary of State, but the UK Government did have a responsibility, given that Nike outlets across the United Kingdom were closed and disinfected.
I thank the Secretary of State for his welcome and for what he said about my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), whom I spoke to shortly after being appointed; he is back and fit, with his old sense of humour—he has not lost that, thankfully. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) and I will work closely with the Government when they agree with us, but we will be a ferocious Opposition when we disagree. We should work collaboratively when we agree, but we will be ferocious when we do not.
In advance of a vaccine, the only way to ease lockdown measures is to test, trace, track and isolate. The key to that process is mass testing. Given that the UK Government consistently fail to hit their 100,000 a day target, and Scotland has one of the worst testing rates in the whole world, we need mobilisation of both Governments to have testing centres everywhere—mobile, workplace, home testing, in airports and so on—to make this strategy work. A “go it alone” policy, encouraged by the Prime Minister’s clumsy announcements, is counterproductive. What work is going on across both Governments to ensure not only that the capacity of testing is exponentially increased, but that there is a system in place for effectively testing and retesting the majority of the population, starting in our care homes?
Mr Jack
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. The testing capacity in Scotland is 12,000 tests a day. On Monday, they only used 4,559 of those. That is a matter for the Scottish Government, because health is devolved, and they determine what tests are undertaken. I want to make it clear that the UK Government have funded for the Scottish Government five operating drive-through test centres in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, Inverness and Perth. The Ministry of Defence is operating 30 pop-up units across Scotland. Again, they can go at the behest of the Scottish Government. There is plenty of capacity there. It is not being used. It should have been used more in care homes; I agree with him on that. There is a firm line between the Scottish Government being cautious and being slow, when in fact, they could be less cautious about easing the lockdown if they had been a lot quicker on testing.
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (SNP) [V]
I welcome the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray), to his position. Given that England has decided to ease lockdown measures earlier than the other three nations of the UK, can the Secretary of State give assurances that the citizens of the devolved nations will still have access to the UK furlough scheme for as long as lockdown must continue in the devolved nations?
Mhairi Black
If this Parliament insists on following a policy of England’s way or no way and does not leave any leeway for the devolved nations, will the Secretary of State, as Scotland’s representative in Government, lobby the Prime Minister for the devolution of the fiscal powers necessary for the Scottish Government to implement their own furlough scheme?
Mr Jack
This is not the time for the Scottish fiscal framework to be opened up and looked at again. The UK Government have given huge support to the whole United Kingdom through the furlough scheme, the self-employed scheme, the bounce-back loans and the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme. There has been a huge package of measures to keep money in people’s pockets and to keep the economy as strong as it can be when we return to something near normal. Have I argued Scotland’s case? Yes, I have. We have an extension coming on 1 August, running to 31 October. I hope that we can get people back to work over that period and get the economy up and running, to save people’s livelihoods. While we are very focused on saving people’s lives, we must remember that after that comes saving their livelihoods.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
It is so disappointing to see the Secretary of State and his “better together” shadow in the House of Commons in London today. Their Government are telling them to stay at home and not to travel unnecessarily, but there they are in the House of Commons today. The Secretary of State is right that virtual proceedings allow Scottish Members of Parliament to work from home, so why are the Government pulling the plug on the virtual proceedings today? He is the voice of Scots in the Cabinet. What is he doing to ensure that Scots’ voices continue to be heard in the House of Commons on behalf of our constituents and to allow us to do our work?
Mr Jack
The hon. Gentleman might be jumping the gun on that, because discussions are ongoing between the Whips Office and the House authorities. I want to make it clear to him that we are not going to put anyone at risk. However, we have to recognise that if we are asking schools to go back and the public to go back to work, we should lead by example, and we should return to a covid-safe—I emphasise that: covid-safe—working environment.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
Higher Education in Scotland is, for the most part, a devolved responsibility. However, the UK Government very much recognise the difficulties faced by students, staff, and institutions across the UK, and we are working closely with the sector. The Department for Education has been engaging closely with ministerial and official colleagues in Scotland to discuss a range of higher education areas affected by the covid-19 outbreak.
Jerome Mayhew [V]
Further and higher education needs to adapt to the long-term consequences of covid-19 in much the same way as our schools and other public services do. Although the crisis has taught us how well long-distance learning can be employed, will my right hon. Friend agree to discuss with the Scottish Government how such lessons can be implemented in the future to provide valuable education and, importantly, value for money for undergraduates and postgraduates?
Mr Jack
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Department for Education has been engaging closely with ministerial and official colleagues in Scotland to discuss a range of higher education areas that are affected by covid-19. I am also pleased to say that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Moray (Douglas Ross), is meeting Universities Scotland’s funding policy group later this week.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Scotland’s 19 universities are not immune to the financial hardship caused by the pandemic. They currently face immediate in-year losses of £72 million, and Universities Scotland anticipates that 18 of Scotland’s 19 universities will go on to report deficits in this financial year. May I press the Secretary of State further on what work he will do as part of a UK Government working with the Scottish Government to ensure that any detrimental impact to universities across Scotland is dealt with and that universities are supported and helped in relation to the pandemic?
Mr Jack
Funnily enough, I have spoken to the Education Secretary on that very subject. The UK Government are providing considerable funds to support research by Scottish universities, as indeed they do for other universities in the UK. Regarding the shortfall for universities, which I believe has been highlighted, I am told that that is largely due to the policy of the Scottish Government over the past 10 years of giving free tuition to Scottish nationals and charging English students and overseas students more. I have to say that that element of the budget is, and always has been, devolved and it is absolutely the responsibility of the Scottish Government to rectify that problem.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alister Jack)
I have regular discussions with all my Cabinet colleagues on the covid-19 outbreak, including on the co-ordination of a UK-wide response. The Government are absolutely committed to a UK-wide approach and we will continue to work together with the devolved Administrations to ensure a co-ordinated approach across the UK, while respecting the devolution settlements.
Alexander Stafford [V]
Because of the actions taken by this UK Government, the Scottish Government will receive more than £3.7 billion in extra Barnett funding to help deal with the covid-19 outbreak. Does my right hon. Friend believe that this demonstrates the importance of tackling the pandemic as one United Kingdom, and that it is in the best interests of all four nations to work together as we emerge from this crisis?
John Stevenson [V]
In places such as Carlisle and south Scotland, we have a substantial amount of cross-border activity, including travel to work. Does the Minister agree that it would be far better to have a UK-wide policy on movement rather than having the Scottish Government causing unnecessary confusion, which does not help people in this part of the country?
Craig Whittaker [V]
As we know, different parts of the United Kingdom are experiencing this pandemic at different rates, so it is right to be flexible and to move at different speeds, as we have seen. But will my right hon. Friend confirm that he remains fully committed to working constructively with the Scottish Government, so that we can, as he says, get through this crisis together as one United Kingdom?
Dr James Davies [V]
Does the Secretary of State agree with Adam Marshall, director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, has said:
“We need to see the whole of the UK moving together—the alternative for business is additional confusion and cost. Avoiding divergence for the sake of politics is important.”
Does the Secretary of State agree?
Mr Speaker
I do not know if the Secretary of State could hear that—if not, we will move on.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Douglas Ross)
The decision on a revised date for COP26 in 2021 will be taken by the COP Bureau of the United Nations framework convention on climate change, in co-operation with the UK and Italy.
Barry Gardiner
As a man born and bred in Glasgow, I welcome the fact that COP26 is going to be hosted there. However, the original plan included a proposal to house 30,000 delegates in cruise liners docked in the Clyde. Not only was that ludicrously expensive, but the pollution from the diesel from those vessels would have sent entirely the wrong message from the COP. What assurance can the Minister give that more suitable accommodation is now being prepared?
Douglas Ross
Clearly, decisions will continue to be taken on COP26 when it is rescheduled. The point about the 30,000 delegates is important, because that will make COP26 in Glasgow—a UK-secured summit—the biggest-ever summit, delegate-wise, in the United Kingdom, and that is something we should celebrate. We will continue to work on the valuable point that the hon. Gentleman has made. Glasgow will be ready to host this outstanding international conference.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Douglas Ross)
I am pleased to confirm that we have agreed a city or growth deal for each of Scotland’s seven city regions. We have also agreed, or are in the process of agreeing, growth deals for Ayrshire, Borderlands, Argyll and Bute, Falkirk, the Islands, and my own home area of Moray. Together, this will mean that a city or growth deal will be part of every area of Scotland.
Andrew Griffith [V]
I thank my hon. Friend for his reply and for his Department’s excellent work in delivering these growth deals for Scotland. But does he agree that we now need a growth deal for the whole United Kingdom based on free enterprise, an export boost from new free trade deals, and locking in some of the productivity gains we have made during this crisis on a transition to a more digital and cashless economy?
Douglas Ross
I do agree that as we come out of this pandemic we have to ensure that steps are taken to protect and restore people’s livelihoods, which are clearly at the forefront of everyone’s minds at the moment, because a strong economy is the best way to protect jobs and fund vital services that are required. I am certain that city and growth deals in Scotland and across the UK will play their part in helping to achieve this.
Mr Speaker
Sam Tarry has withdrawn, so we go to the substantive question from Jacob Young.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Douglas Ross)
In my role in the Scotland Office, along with the Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth, there is regular UK Government engagement with the Oil and Gas Authority and with the wider industry to discuss the significant levels of Government support available to it as part of our unprecedented package of support to business.
Jacob Young [V]
This is an extremely difficult and uncertain time for oil and gas companies in Scotland and across the UK. I am sure my hon. Friend shares my concern about the impact this uncertainty is having on thousands of people who work in the sector, so will he outline what support is available to British oil and gas workers, and will he work with the sector to prevent job losses during this pandemic?
Douglas Ross
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. This is an issue that has been raised in my own constituency. People in Moray travel around the world working in the oil industry. Clearly, the coronavirus job retention scheme is open to the oil and gas industry. Oil and Gas UK has reported that about 30% of respondents to its recent business survey said that they were successful in securing that funding. I would encourage others to look at that as an option to protect their workforce.
Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Douglas Ross)
I have regular discussions with the Minister for the Cabinet Office and the Scotland Office is in regular dialogue with Scottish Government Minsters to ensure that the most effective measures are put in place in all parts of the United Kingdom. Throughout the covid-19 outbreak, we have been committed to a four-nations approach.
Alison McGovern [V]
From the Secretary of State’s comments earlier, we know that the Government accept that coronavirus will affect different places differently. What discussions has the Minister been having with other Ministers about getting an official, sub-regional transmission rate—a sub-regional R rate—for the whole United Kingdom to enable authorities in different parts of the country to respond in the way that helps them locally?
Douglas Ross
There have been ongoing discussions about this. As the Secretary of State said—indeed, the Prime Minister included it in the UK Government document—not only will different nations of the United Kingdom come out of the pandemic at different rates, but different regions of England may also come out of the pandemic at different rates. It is right that this Government are committed to supporting everyone, no matter where they live, to have the best chances to come out of coronavirus and its effects. We will continue to do that as a Government, in dialogue and constructive discussion with the devolved Administrations.
Grahame Morris [V]
Is the Minister aware of a survey by the charity Radiotherapy4Life, which says that there may be between 2,500 and 7,000 avoidable cancer deaths in Scotland as a result of deferred treatments for cancer patients as a consequence of the NHS focusing on the covid-19 response? Will he work with his counterparts in the four nations to put the case to prioritise advanced radiotherapy by seeking to increase funding, and to remove bureaucratic barriers and restrictions to modernising radiotherapy and encouraging the use of advanced radiotherapy?
Douglas Ross
The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. We have to make it clear in Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland that our NHS remains open. That message has been loud and clear. Cancer patients should be aware that we will do everything we can across the four nations of the United Kingdom to get the treatment they need and deserve, but the ultimate message is, yes, coronavirus has an impact on our NHS. Because of the actions of the Government and the public, we have been able to suppress the covid outbreak to ensure that we have not breached capacity, but we cannot allow important medical matters to go untreated for too much longer. That message is heard loud and clear throughout the Government.
Steve McCabe [V]
When the Prime Minister ditched “Stay at Home” for “Stay Alert”, he did not appear to have been too alert to the fact that the other three nations were not with him. Is it not time to re-establish the four-nation approach as soon as possible?
Douglas Ross
I think we have seen a slight divergence in some areas, but together the four nations continue to work strongly in lockstep to ensure that we can beat coronavirus and save not only lives, but livelihoods. I am encouraged that Scotland will shortly announce similar measures to the rest of the United Kingdom to release some of the restrictions that are in place, but it is important that these decisions are taken in the devolved Administrations where public health is devolved to the respective Governments.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Douglas Ross)
The UK Government are working tirelessly to procure PPE both internationally and domestically for UK-wide distribution. This is in addition to the Scottish Government’s own procurement processes. We are working with the devolved Administrations to ensure that the different parts of the UK do not compete against one another in the international market, and that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office can make a single approach to foreign Governments.
Bill Esterson [V]
The lack of PPE is a scandal. It is part of the reason for the high mortality rate in care homes across the UK. What discussions has the Minister had with the Scottish Government to ensure that nations are not competing against one another for the vital PPE that our essential frontline workers need?
Douglas Ross
As I said in my opening remarks, the UK Government are committed to ensuring that we work as a United Kingdom, and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has taken a lead on this issue to ensure that that can happen. I have had regular discussions with Donald Macaskill of Scottish Care about PPE, but also about the outstanding work that our care workers are doing in care homes and around the community across Scotland and the whole of the United Kingdom; they deserve our praise for what they are doing.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Ind)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Douglas Ross)
We are working closely with the devolved nations to ensure that supplies of PPE, both domestic and imported, are distributed equally across the four nations. As I mentioned in my previous response, we are also working to ensure that different parts of the UK do not compete against one other when procuring PPE internationally.
Neale Hanvey [V]
Despite the England-only designation of some PPE imports, the grassroots medical association EveryDoctor has been collating a range of data on PPE availability, and anecdotal evidence suggests that the Scottish Government’s system of procurement and distribution of PPE for Scotland’s NHS has been more efficient and effective from its perspective than that experienced by frontline medical staff in the English NHS. Can the Minister advise the House of what discussions he has had—
Douglas Ross
I have had regular discussions with the Scottish Government about procuring PPE. Of course, it was the Scottish Government who had a delivery into Prestwick airport of PPE that was not properly labelled, which sat in the airport unable to get out into the care homes to protect the people we needed it to get to. The four nations across the United Kingdom continue to prioritise this issue. It is important for our NHS workers, our careworkers and Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
One hundred and eighty-one NHS and 131 social care workers’ deaths have sadly been reported involving covid-19. I know that the thoughts of the whole House are with their families and friends.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my meetings in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Claudia Webbe [V]
The Government keep saying that this virus does not discriminate, but that is not true. Office for National Statistics figures show that black people, African and African Caribbean people are four times more likely to die from covid-19. The figure is also disproportionately high for Bangladeshi, Pakistani or Indian communities. What is the Prime Minister going to do now about this,- and will he act now to ensure that African, Asian and minority ethnic communities in Leicester East and across the country are supported in the next phase of this virus?
The Prime Minister
Yes. As the hon. Lady may know, we are looking at all the comorbidities associated with the coronavirus and all the reasons why people might be disproportionately affected. A rapid review is now being conducted by Professor Fenton, who will report at the end of the month about particularly vulnerable groups. We will take steps to ensure that they are protected where that is appropriate.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on his imagination and his plan for a new railway. It is entirely in keeping with our infrastructure revolution, and I can assure him that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be getting back to him. I note that Nexus has already identified several possible extensions of the Tyne and Wear Metro scheme, which may be of advantage to his constituents.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
Last Friday, the Health Secretary said:
“Right from the start we’ve tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.”
That caused quite a reaction. Yesterday, it was flatly contradicted by the chief executive of Care England. He was giving evidence to the Select Committee on Health and Social Care, and he said that we should have been focusing on care homes from the start and that despite what is being said, there were cases of people who either did not have a covid status or were symptomatic who were discharged into our care homes. The Government advice from 2 to 15 April was:
“Negative tests are not required prior to transfers/admissions into”
care homes. What is protective about that?
The Prime Minister
As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows full well—of course he is right to draw attention to what has happened in our care homes, and we mourn the loss of every victim—no one was discharged into a care home this year without the express authorisation of a clinician, and they have the interests of those patients at heart. As I said to him last week—he does not seem to have remembered—actually, the number of patients discharged from hospitals into care homes was 40% down in March on January. The guidance was changed to reflect the change in the epidemic, and that guidance was made available to care homes—and, of course, since the care homes action plan began, we have seen a sharp reduction in the number of deaths in care homes. Indeed, since I last stood before the House, the number of deaths in care homes has come down by 31%. I think he should pay tribute to all those who have helped to fight that epidemic across the NHS and across our local services.
Keir Starmer
I think the Prime Minister rather missed the point. The question was whether people were tested going back into care homes. The chief executive of Care England says that because they were not, people who had no covid-19 status or who were symptomatic were discharged into care homes. That is a very serious issue that requires an answer.
Yesterday, the chief executive of Care England, in his evidence, was also asked when routine testing would start in care homes. This is the answer he gave yesterday: “I think the short answer is that we’ve had the announcement, but what we haven’t had is delivery, and we are not really clear when that will arrive.” This is the chief executive of Care England in his evidence. Even the Government’s Command Paper, published last week and introduced by the Prime Minister to this House, says within it—[Interruption.] The Health Secretary says, “He’s wrong.” I am quoting the Government’s paper. It says that
“every care home for the over 65s will have been offered testing for residents and staff”
by 6 June.
That is from the Prime Minister’s Command Paper. That is over two weeks away. What is causing the continued delay in routine testing in our care homes?
The Prime Minister
I am afraid the right hon. and learned Gentleman is simply in ignorance of the facts. The reality is that already 125,000 care home staff have been tested, 118,000—[Interruption.] Perhaps he did know that. One hundred and eighteen thousand care home workers have been tested, and we are absolutely confident that we will be able to increase our testing, not just in care homes but across the whole of the community. Thanks to the hard work of my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary and his teams, we will get up to 200,000 tests in this country by the end of this month. The right hon. and learned Gentleman may know this—perhaps it is one of those international comparisons he hesitates to make—but actually this country is now testing more than virtually any other country in Europe.
Keir Starmer
Again, the question was when would routine testing start, and the chief executive of Care England, who knows what he is talking about, gave evidence yesterday that it has not. [Interruption.] If the Prime Minister is disputing the evidence to the Select Committee, that is his own business. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Secretary of State for Health, please. I do not mind you advising the Prime Minister, but you do not need to advise the Opposition during this. [Interruption.] Sorry, do you want to leave the Chamber? We are at maximum numbers. If you want to give way to somebody else, I am more than happy.
Keir Starmer
To assure the Prime Minister, I am not expressing my own view; I am putting to him the evidence of experts to Committees yesterday.
Testing was referred to by the Prime Minister. That on its own is obviously not enough. What is needed is testing, tracing and isolation. At yesterday’s press conference, the deputy chief scientific adviser said that we could draw particular lessons from Germany and South Korea, which have both had intensive testing and tracing. The number of covid-19 deaths in Germany stands at around 8,000. In South Korea, it is under 300. In contrast, in the United Kingdom, despite 2 million tests having been carried out, there has been no effective tracing in place since 12 March, when tracing was abandoned. That is nearly 10 weeks in a critical period without effective tracing. That is a huge hole in our defences, isn’t it, Prime Minister?
The Prime Minister
I must say that I find it peculiar, because I have given the right hon. and learned Gentleman repeated briefings on this matter. He is perfectly aware of the situation in the UK as regards testing and tracing in early March. It has been explained many times to him and to the House. I think his feigned ignorance does not come very well. However, I can tell him that today I am confident that we will have a test and trace operation that will enable us, if all the other conditions are satisfied—it is entirely provisional—to make progress. I can also tell him that we have already recruited 24,000 trackers, and by 1 June we will have 25,000. They will be capable of tracking the contacts of 10,000 new cases a day. To understand the importance of that statistic, I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that today the new cases stand at 2,400. We are making vast progress in testing and tracing and I have great confidence that by 1 June, we will have a system that will help us greatly to defeat this disease and move the country forward. I therefore hope that he will abandon his slightly negative tone and support it.
Keir Starmer
Thirty-four thousand deaths is negative. Of course I am going to ask about that, and quite right too. The Prime Minister says “feigned ignorance”, but he knows that for 10 weeks there has been no tracing, unlike in Germany and South Korea. Tracing is critical—there is no getting away from that. The Prime Minister knows it is vital—he made a great deal of it in his speech to the nation Sunday week ago. He said,
“we cannot move forward unless we satisfy”
the tests that he has set, one of which is a “world-beating” test and trace system. World-beating. Leaving aside the rhetoric—“effective” will do—there now appears to be some doubt about when the system will be ready. This is the last Prime Minister’s questions for two weeks. Can the Prime Minister indicate that an effective test, trace and isolate system will be in place by 1 June—Monday week?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to be in the unhappy position of having rehearsed his third or fourth question but not listened to my previous answer, brilliant forensic mind though he has. He has heard that we have growing confidence that we will have a test, track and trace operation that will be world-beating, and yes, it will be in place by 1 June.
To repeat the figures, since the right hon. and learned Gentleman has invited me to do so, there will be 25,000 trackers, who will be able to cope with 10,000 new cases a day. That is very important because currently new cases are running at about 2,500 a day. They will be able to trace the contacts of those new cases and stop the disease spreading. I hope very much, notwithstanding the occasional difficulty of these exchanges—and I totally appreciate the role that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has to fulfil—that he will support us as we go forward, that he will be positive about the test, track and trace operation and that we can work together to use it to take our country forward. That is what the people of this country want to see.
Keir Starmer
I am very happy to work with the Prime Minister on that. He knows that from our previous exchanges.
Every Thursday, we go out and clap for our carers. Many of them are risking their lives for the sake of all of us. Does the Prime Minister think it is right that careworkers coming from abroad and working on our frontline should have to pay a surcharge of hundreds, sometimes thousands of pounds to use the NHS themselves?
The Prime Minister
I have thought a great deal about this, and I accept and understand the difficulties faced by our amazing NHS staff. Like the right hon. and learned Gentleman, I have been a personal beneficiary of carers who have come from abroad and frankly saved my life. I know exactly the importance of what he asks. On the other hand, we must look at the realities. This is a great national service—it is a national institution—that needs funding, and those contributions help us to raise about £900 million. It is very difficult in the current circumstances to find alternative sources, so with great respect for the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s point, I think it is the right way forward.
Keir Starmer
I am disappointed, because the Prime Minister knows how raw this is. The fee in question, the immigration health surcharge, is currently £400 a year. From October, that goes up to £624 a year. For a careworker on the national living wage, that will require working for 70 hours to pay off the fee.
The Doctors Association and a number of medical groups wrote to the Home Secretary this week, and they set it out this way:
“At a time when we are mourning colleagues, your steadfast refusal to reconsider the deeply unfair immigration health surcharge is a gross insult to all”—
of us—
“who are serving this country at its time of greatest need.”
We agree, and Labour will table amendments to the immigration Bill to exempt NHS and careworkers from this charge. Can I urge the Prime Minister to reconsider his view as we go through this crisis?
The Prime Minister
I have given my answer, but what I will say is that I think that it is important that we support our NHS and that we invest massively in our NHS. This Government—this one nation Conservative Government—are determined to invest more in our NHS than at any time in modern memory. We have already begun that, and we will want to see our fantastic frontline workers paid properly. That is, I think, the best way forward. I want to see our NHS staff paid properly, our NHS supported and I want to continue our programme not just of building 40 more hospitals, but recruiting 50,000 more nurses and investing hugely in our NHS, and I believe that will be warmly welcomed across the whole of our establishment of our fantastic NHS.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
Indeed, I can, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Hyndburn and Haslingden will indeed continue to receive funding for their town centres—indeed, the high streets taskforce will be increasing that support—in addition to 118 km of safe new green cycleways thanks to the Lancashire local growth fund, for which I know she has also campaigned.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
Our thoughts this morning are with the communities in India and Bangladesh dealing with the landfall of super cyclone Amphan. I am sure the Government will be monitoring the situation and will seek to give all necessary support.
Every week, members of this Government applaud our truly heroic NHS and care staff, who have been on the frontline of this pandemic, regardless of whether they were born here or elsewhere. Indeed, the Prime Minister has thanked the nurses who cared for him, who were from New Zealand and from Portugal. The UK has the highest number of deaths in Europe, and without their sacrifice, we would be facing something much worse. I know the Leader of the Opposition has already asked the Prime Minister about overseas careworkers, but on Monday the Prime Minister ordered his MPs to vote for an immigration Bill that defines many in the NHS and care sector as low-skilled workers. Given their sacrifice, is the Prime Minister not embarrassed that this is how his Government choose to treat NHS and care workers?
The Prime Minister
This is a Government who value immensely the work of everybody in our national health service and our careworkers across the whole community. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that the reason for having an immigration Bill of the kind that we are is not to keep out people who can help in our NHS; on the contrary, we want an immigration system that works for the people of this country and works for our NHS. I think what the people of this country want to see is an immigration system where we control it, we understand it and we are able to direct it according to the needs of our NHS and the needs of our economy, and that is what we are putting in place.
I know it is rejected by the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), and indeed by the right hon. Gentleman himself, but it is the right way forward.
Ian Blackford
The harsh reality is that the Prime Minister does not even pay NHS and care staff the real living wage and wants to block many of them from working here at all. We need an immigration system that is fit for purpose. The Home Secretary and the Prime Minister seem hell-bent on implementing a purely ideological immigration policy with no basis in fairness or economics. The Government have talked about giving back to our NHS and care staff. It is time for him to deliver. People migrating to these nations and choosing to work in our NHS and care sector must have the Government’s cruel NHS surcharge removed immediately. Will he make that pledge today, or will he clap on Thursday, hoping that no one really notices that he is giving with one hand and raking it in with the other?
The Prime Minister
First, the right hon. Gentleman mentions the living wage. This is the party and Government who instituted the living wage and have just increased it by a massive amount. Secondly, this is the party that is putting £34 billion into the NHS—the biggest investment in modern times—and believe me we will continue with that investment. He talks about discriminatory policies at the border. The logic of his policy is to have a border at Berwick.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con) [V]
The Defence Select Committee heard recently that France is conducting a root-and-branch review of its defence supply chain following concerns that China is buying up defence-related companies that are going bust during the pandemic. Does my right hon. Friend think it might be wise to consider doing the same thing here in addition to rowing back from his plans to allow Huawei to roll out 5G?
The Prime Minister
I am sure there is a legal term for imputing to me a policy that I have not yet announced, but my hon. Friend is right to be concerned about the buying up of UK technology now by countries that may have ulterior motives, and we are certainly introducing measures to protect our technological base. He will be hearing a lot more about that in the next few weeks.
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) (SDLP) [V]
In Ireland, both jurisdictions are working hard to organise contact tracing on a north-south basis, but the Prime Minister’s obsession with avoiding a Brexit transition extension means we risk crashing out without a data-sharing framework, which will critically undermine our ability to protect people from covid-19. When will he put the lives of people in our community above petty, narrow Brexiteer politics?
The Prime Minister
I must respectfully disagree with the hon. Gentleman. We are working very closely not just with our colleagues in the Government in Northern Ireland but with our colleagues in Dublin. I had a very good conversation with Leo Varadkar the other day and we saw eye to eye on the way forward. There is a huge amount shared between the UK and Ireland, and it will continue to be so.
Caroline Ansell (Eastbourne) (Con) [V]
As a stunning coastal destination built on hospitality and tourism sectors hard hit by the impact of the virus, Eastbourne is none the less looking to bounce back when it is safe to do so and is part of work on a covid-secure kitemark to inspire public confidence. Does my right hon. Friend see merit in this, and when the coast is clear, will he visit?
The Prime Minister
I am sure the coast is always clear in Eastbourne. I will do my utmost to get there as soon as I can within the social distancing rules that we must all observe. We will look at the kitemark idea. The best I can say is that my hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for Eastbourne and its attractions, and I look forward to supporting her in any way I can.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Actually, I think that the hon. Lady has an extremely important point, and I have taken dramatic action, even before a reshuffle. The two most important appointments that we have made recently, after Lord Deighton doing the personal protective equipment, was Dido. One of the reasons we are making such fast progress, I think, now on test and trace is that Dido Harding has come on board, and Kate Bingham is leading the national effort to co-ordinate our search for a vaccine with other countries.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
I am very grateful for my right hon. Friend’s hard work, and in particular, his commitment to doing whatever it takes to help people to make ends meet during this pandemic, but in West Dorset I have many constituents who were employed before 19 March who are not eligible to be furloughed under the job retention scheme—particularly those who have changed jobs. Will he look at this area again to see, please, what he can do to help those who have slipped through the net and those who have no financial support at this time?
The Prime Minister
Yes. We have pushed back the cut-off date in order to help people, but we are also looking to support people who are in difficulties with some temporary measures on welfare, as he knows—the significant £1,040 increase in universal credit standard allowance and the working tax credit basic element. If there are particularly hard cases, and there will be hard cases, I say what I have said before to the House: I am happy to take them up on my hon. Friend’s behalf.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
All I can say is, no, I will not, and I think that the Secretary of State for Scotland does an admirable job.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con) [V]
My constituent, Elizabeth Gull, has proposed the creation of a medal for NHS workers and others to recognise their distinguished service in their work against coronavirus. I think that this idea has merit. Will my right hon. Friend consider a medal or other accolade in the fullness of time for those who have gone above and beyond in the last few months?
The Prime Minister
As I am sure the whole House can imagine, we are indeed looking at the excellent suggestion made by my hon. Friend’s constituent, Elizabeth. We are thinking how to recognise the work of healthcare staff, carers and many others, and we are engaging with staff and employers at the present time.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
Perhaps I can just say that I continue to be very happy with the level of co-operation, in spite of what we sometimes hear in this Chamber, between the Governments of all four nations, particularly Scotland. I just remind the hon. Lady, of course, that Scotland has benefited from about £1 billion of coronavirus funding in the last period and will get about £3 billion overall, which is perhaps a material consideration on which she might like to reflect.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
Unemployment in the under-24 age group has already doubled in Telford compared with this time last year, and it is clear that the aftermath of the pandemic will hit our young people hardest, with disruption to education and training, as well as job losses. I know that my right hon. Friend is passionate about opportunities for young people, particularly in areas such as Telford, which has suffered disproportionately in previous recessions. Will he ensure that the recovery strategy focuses on young people and equipping them with the skills they need to survive in a post-pandemic economy and, indeed, thrive in the longer term?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak up for the young people of Telford and their immense potential, and that is why we will be supporting her and them with a new national skills fund worth £2.5 billion, so that young people can be at the very forefront of our effort to come out of this epidemic.
Mr Speaker
That is the end of PMQs. Before the urgent question, I should say that I plan to allow a statement by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster on the UK’s approach to Northern Ireland protocol as part of the scrutiny proceedings. I will allow less time for the urgent question and the business statement as a consequence.
We now come to the urgent question to the Leader of the House. I will end the urgent question at 12.55. I call the Leader of the House, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, to answer the urgent question from Alistair Carmichael. The Leader of the House should speak for no more than three minutes.
Conduct of Business After the Whitsun Recess
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD) [V]
(Urgent question): To ask the Leader of the House if he will make a statement on the conduct of business after the Whitsun recess and if he will bring forward the necessary motions to continue the online participation of Members in the business of the House.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
Mr Speaker, may I first recognise your commitment to ensuring that the House operates as fully as it can while adhering to guidance from Public Health England? Your dedication and that of the House Clerks and digital team has been instrumental in establishing the hybrid proceedings that allowed us to return after Easter but as you have always agreed, the present arrangements were only ever envisaged as temporary, because they fundamentally restrict the House’s ability to perform its functions fully. Complaints about our debates becoming stilted, scripted affairs are one thing, but the impact on legislative scrutiny is another.
Under the hybrid proceedings, the time this House is able to spend debating legislation faces being cut by around two thirds. I am sure all Members will agree that each and every one of the 36 Bills put forward by the Government in the Queen’s Speech deserves the proper level of scrutiny. We have to recognise that if we persist with the present arrangements, it will become harder to make progress in a timely fashion. That is why, in line with Government advice for those who cannot do their jobs from home, I am asking Members to return to their place of work after Whitsun.
We will not be returning to the crowded, bustling Chamber of old. We will be observing social distancing. As a member of the House of Commons Commission, I was reassured yesterday by the progress being made in making the parliamentary estate a covid-19 secure workplace. That work has been expertly led by Marianne Cwynarski, the head of governance and central services, and I particularly commend her for her efforts in ensuring that staff already coming in to work in the Palace have the support they need.
Only yesterday, Mr Speaker, you organised the test of a new system for Divisions that will ensure Members can vote while remaining 6 feet apart. We will minimise the number of other passholders on the estate, strongly encouraging MPs’ staff and others to continue working from home. We will continue to work closely together in consultation with Members across the House, not least the Select Committee on Procedure, on the appropriate next steps.
We will need to understand from the House authorities where adaptations can be implemented, as the Procedure Committee itself acknowledges is key, without prejudice to the House’s ability to carry out its business effectively. At the same time, we will want to ensure that any steps taken are in line with the Government’s advice to the country at large.
I will consider the Procedure Committee’s views very carefully and keep these issues under review, but I would finally like to reassure those Members with underlying health conditions who have been told to shield or are receiving specific Government advice about their health that we are working with the House authorities to see how they can continue to contribute to proceedings within the House.
Mr Speaker
I will now call Alistair Carmichael, who is asked to speak for no more than two minutes.
Mr Carmichael
Thank you for allowing this urgent question, Mr Speaker. I do not want this debate today to be all about Members of Parliament. Let us remember what has brought us to this point. Yesterday, the number of recorded deaths from covid-19 reached 35,341—a rise of 545 from the day before. Today, the Government’s response to that is to insist that Members of Parliament should undertake non-essential journeys—in my case, that is almost the entire length of this country—to stay in second homes. When that was done by leading Government advisers, it led to their resignation. If ever there was a case of do as I say and not as I do, then this is it.
None of us is blind to the inadequacies of online scrutiny. Like many Members I find it stilted and artificial, but if it is a choice between that, and putting the safety of Members, their families and the staff of the House at risk, that is no choice at all. This system should end only when it is safe to do so—and safe for all Members, not just those who live within driving distance of Westminster.
As trade union representatives explained to the Commission yesterday, the House of Commons is supported by approximately 3,000 employees. Is the Leader of the House really satisfied that we can bring MPs back from 2 June while discharging our duty of care towards those staff? How many staff will be able to return to work without risk to themselves or those with whom they live?
It is widely reported that the motivation for this over-hasty return is to get a support pack behind the Prime Minister on Wednesday afternoons. Today, it has even been reported that yesterday, the Leader of the House suggested to the Commons Commission that to get more MPs in, perspex screens should be installed between the Benches and between Members—someone has obviously told him how things are being done in Tesco these days. In recent weeks we have demonstrated that the business of this House can be done from behind a screen, as we do right now, but it is from behind a computer screen, not a screen of perspex, the only purpose of which would be to shield the Government from scrutiny and the Prime Minister from ridicule. The Leader of the House must think again.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The point made by the right hon. Gentleman about Prime Minister’s questions is fundamentally trivial and beneath him, and therefore I shall ignore it. I am very sorry that he does not think that proper scrutiny of the Government is an essential task in a democracy. I think that is an extraordinary position for a former member of a Government, and a leading figure in the Liberal party—if it has leading figures—to take. Democratic accountability is fundamental to how our system works.
The right hon. Gentleman, from his eyrie in the Shetland Islands, tells us that a remote system does not work well enough. He then says that we should none the less continue with it. As Members of Parliament, I think we have a duty to return to doing our work thoroughly, properly, and effectively, and that is what we will do, in line with Government advice and the five tests, and by ensuring a safe working environment. I reiterate my thanks to Marianne Cwynarski for what she has done. People working in the House, employees of the House, are able to work safely, and the numbers expected to come in are not thought likely to rise significantly when the House returns after Whitsun.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), and you, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question. Last week the Leader of the House gave a fantastic performance about democracy and parliamentary sovereignty, but it was all style and no substance. If this was not so serious, I would have nominated him for a BAFTA.
We have had a joint Commission with the other place, and at a Commission meeting we had a briefing from Public Health England. Before his unilateral declaration that the Government will not renew the temporary hybrid proceedings, did the Leader of the House hold a discussion with Public Health England? What was its advice, and will he publish it?
May I correct the Leader of the House again? He keeps saying that if others are going to work, the Government expect us to go to work, but we are at work. We are at work at all times. The Government’s own advice is that those who can work from home should do so—that is still the Government’s advice, on grounds of working and travelling safely. Will he confirm that he is not contradicting Government advice, and will he say how Members are expected to travel down when there is a reduced service?
Everyone knows someone who has been a victim of this disease, including those who have not just suffered from it, but who have died. This is not a bounce-back virus, as the Prime Minister said; it is not about the survival of the fittest. We have a diverse workforce in our community here, which we encourage. What risk assessment has the Leader of the House asked to be made, to ensure that Members, and the extra House staff required for return, can return safely? Will he confirm that on returning to physical-only proceedings, proper social distancing measures will have been worked out and will be sustainable in the Chamber? What was the extra waiting time for voting at the practice voting?
This is not a battle of “Government good; everyone else bad”, or of “shirkers versus workers” as some Ministers have said. This is about Parliament about being a good model employer. We need a phased return, so as not to overpower the NHS or House staff, and where everyone can be safe.
Finally, can the Leader of the House confirm that the parliamentary estate is covid-free? Does he agree with the scientific advice that it is about observed levels of infection and not a fixed date?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Most of those questions were actually answered at the Commission meeting—the right hon. Lady is a member—that we had on Tuesday. Unfortunately, because of a dodgy connection, we could hardly hear her during the proceedings of the Commission and perhaps she could not hear all the points that were made.
We had reassurance from the House authorities that, yes, this will be a covid-19-secure workplace by the time we come back after the Whitsun recess; that a risk assessment has been carried by the parliamentary authorities; and that enormous steps are being taken to help and to assist parliamentary staff. What is the House doing? Well, there is extra cleaning going on. The same mechanisms will be used to clean pads as are used on the London Underground to try and ensure there is safety there; the congestion charge is being paid for members of staff so that they can drive to work and the Abingdon car park is being made available. Considerable steps have been made by the House authorities, as the right hon. Lady knows, to ensure that it is safe to work here.
Is this in line with Government advice? Yes, of course it is. The key question for right hon. and hon. Members to ask themselves is: do they think that proper scrutiny and proper legislative processes are essential? If they are, we need to be here. If they are not, they can work remotely. It seems to me, unquestionably, that those proper processes are an essential part of our country functioning. Therefore, we cannot do our jobs properly from home and therefore that is in line with the Government’s advice.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con) [V]
I would like to thank my right hon. Friend for the work being done to ensure that Parliament is a safe working environment for all. Does he agree that while we have had to improvise due to the unprecedented situation we find ourselves in, we cannot effectively do our jobs from home? We should lead by example when asking the country to return to work. We could improvise further in Westminster, for example by taking advantage of more of the space available to enable more of us to participate fully and safely.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Government’s advice is clear: work from home if you can. But what I and many others have increasingly realised is that this House cannot work effectively without meeting physically. Take last week for example: no debates on secondary legislation; no Public Bill Committees; no Delegated Legislation Committees. Compare that to a fairly standard and not particularly busy physical sitting week, such as the week commencing 2 March. That week the Commons considered the stages of four Bills instead of one and nine statutory instruments instead of none. In addition to Chamber time, the House held seven Delegated Legislation Committees and four Public Bill Committee sittings. I therefore very much welcome my hon. Friend’s valuable point that MPs’ work is absolutely essential and that we cannot do it from home.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
The position taken by the Leader of the House is reckless, cavalier and downright dangerous. Surely it is his job to make sure that elected Members can represent the views of their constituents, yet he now proposes to force Members to make a choice between standing up for those who elected them and putting their own health and the health of others at risk. The Leader of the House talks of an ancient right to enter Parliament, but what good is that right if it cannot be executed without endangering the lives of one’s family and constituents? Switching off the computer and barring Members from participating online will reduce the ability of Members of Parliament to scrutinise the Government. It is simply Orwellian to pretend that it will enhance it. Moreover, this will not affect everyone equally. Those who are older and suffer ill health will be disproportionately affected, as will those who live farthest away. Has he undertaken an equalities assessment of this proposal, and does he think that removing the existing arrangements is compatible with the laws of equality of treatment of persons in the United Kingdom?
Mr Rees-Mogg
May I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to the remarks I made some moments ago when I said that I would like to reassure those Members with underlying health conditions who have been told to shield or who are receiving specific Government advice about their health that we are working with the House authorities to see how they can continue to contribute to proceedings within the House? We recognise the importance of that, but we also recognise the need for business to continue. I understand that the Parliament in Holyrood is still meeting, although with a third of Members turning up and moving all over Scotland to get there, so I slightly think that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
If the Leader of the House thinks that this is safe, he is trying to kid everyone but he is fooling no one. This is about those Members of Parliament who have underlying health conditions, those over 70 who absolutely should not be going anywhere, those of us who have family members with underlying health conditions and those of our staff who face the same challenges. With so many Members with underlying health conditions, of that age or with family members who are at risk, how on earth can this possibly be right or democratic, and how can our constituents possibly be represented properly?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think the issue is that members of staff of MPs do not need to come in. They clearly can carry on working from home. There is no change there, and numbers coming on to the estate will be limited. What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that we are facing exactly the same issues as other workplaces where working from home is not good enough. These are not unique to us. We are in the same situation as the rest of the nation, and we should not think that Members of Parliament are some special priestly caste who must be treated differently. We should stand with our own constituents.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con) [V]
I welcome the comments of the Leader of the House. It is clear to me that although the House authorities have done a fantastic job in seeing us through the last few weeks, this is not a sustainable way to run Parliament in the future. May I seek my right hon. Friend’s reassurance that this model, which some people seem to think can be a model for the future, will not now be applied to projects such as restoration and renewal, which, in my view, would again create a situation in which Parliament simply could not function properly?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has experience as a former Leader of the House and knows and understands how this place ought to work. The measures that we are using currently are a remarkable achievement by the House authorities in a very particular circumstance, and it is very unlikely that this way of operating would be suitable to other circumstances.
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab) [V]
Just like our communities, this House is made up of people with a range of different situations who are following Government advice and Public Health England advice and shielding or self-isolating or who have childcare or elder care responsibilities arising from these unique covid circumstances, yet they are continuing to represent their constituents although they cannot be here in person. Will the Leader of the House tell us what arrangements will be in place to ensure that all Members can continue to take part fully in the work of Parliament, in person or virtually?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The point that the hon. Lady makes is a serious one, and it is being considered by my office and by the House more generally. Discussions will continue over Whitsun to try to work out how those people who are receiving specific medical advice or being instructed to shield may be helped to participate in proceedings once we return, and how the technology may work with regard to that, but the importance of the point is one that we understand.
Kate Griffiths (Burton) (Con) [V]
I welcome the commitment from the Leader of the House to ensure that those Members who are vulnerable will not be disadvantaged and will be able to continue to represent their constituents in the House. Can he confirm that these arrangements will also be available to Members who, like many working parents, rely on grandparents who might be in the vulnerable category to supplement their childcare and therefore cannot travel to Westminster at this time?
Mr Rees-Mogg
We are listening to the representations that people are making about the difficulties that they face with regard to attending the House. The Procedure Committee has looked at a number of these issues and written to you, Mr Speaker, about the return to physical proceedings, and I have had representations from a number of Members.
The reality is that Parliament is most effective when it meets physically. The hybrid parliamentary proceedings have allowed only a small proportion of Parliament’s functionality to take place. As we have seen in this sitting, with Members being cut off, the hybrid proceedings have limited Members’ ability to represent their constituencies across the country. What we will do is to return physically in a way that is advised, and properly orchestrated and organised, in accordance with the recommendations from the Government and, indeed, from the House of Commons authorities.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)[V]
I am grateful to be called in this urgent question. I am thankful to the Leader of the House, because I know that he recognises that we all have an equal duty to represent our constituents, but the travel to and from Westminster is not equal for us all. Indeed, taking a plane from Belfast is not as socially distant as we would like. I ask the Leader of the House to consider the issue that will be most vexatious and difficult to solve, which is voting. I ask him whether remote voting can continue, given that the ability to travel between Westminster and Northern Ireland is severely constrained, with less than two planes per day from Northern Ireland to London when ordinarily there would have been more than 20.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The issue with voting, as you have made clear, Mr Speaker, is that we can run one system or the other. The two systems are not compatible. We are looking to have a physical return of the House, and therefore to have physical voting. I think that is an important way of getting back to being a normal Parliament, with all the benefits that come from having physical voting.
Mr Speaker
We will now try to reconnect Karen Bradley, Chair of the Procedure Committee.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker; I am audio only, I am afraid. I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. I firmly believe, as Chair of the Procedure Committee, that the House should be allowed to have its say on these changes. It is important that an opportunity is provided for the House to do that.
Will the Leader of the House reflect on the resolution that the House passed on 21 April, which stays in place while Public Health England advice remains, and which allows for both virtual participation and parity of treatment for all Members? Is the Leader of the House intending to amend or rescind that resolution, or does he believe that it no longer applies?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank my right hon. Friend for the invaluable work that she and her Committee have been doing, and for the suggestions that they have made about how we can make the hybrid work and how we can get back to a real Parliament. We see in her absence the difficulties with a hybrid Parliament. I am glad that the technology was able to reconnect her, in voice only, but being here in the flesh does have advantages.
The motion of the House stands, but to allow it to be effective it requires subsidiary motions that will lapse. Of course, the Government take motions of the House very seriously and wish to ensure that their details are reflected in the way the House operates, although sometimes these are matters more for Mr Speaker than for the Leader of the House.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) [V]
I am pleased that the Leader of the House has announced that measures will be considered to protect MPs who have been shielding or carrying out caring responsibilities for vulnerable family members who are at high risk of coronavirus. Will we be advised on what the new measures will be before people decide whether they can come back early?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I will continue, as will others across the House, to listen to and reflect on the views of hon. and right hon. Members from across the House. Yesterday afternoon, the Procedure Committee wrote to me and the Speaker to set out its views on how we should return to physical proceedings. I welcomed the opportunity for further discussions with the Committee on Monday, and I am grateful for its work. I have also had representations from many other Members. This is a work in progress to finalise the details. Any changes in our procedures will need to be made by a motion in this House, and those cannot be made until the House meets again, so the assumption must be that we continue as we usually continue until such time as, or if, anything changes.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP) [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker. Across Scotland, we are dissuading people from travelling large distances, for fear of spreading the virus further and overloading rural communities. Does the Leader of the House understand that there are real concerns, beyond threatening the safety of MPs, that by removing votes unless we are physically present and insisting we return to that place we will undoubtedly undermine the public safety message, which has been key to preventing covid from spreading even more widely in our communities?
Mr Rees-Mogg
What is being proposed for the House is completely in line with what is being proposed by the Government generally; it is a question of working through the five tests and of those who can go back to work, because they cannot work effectively from home, being encouraged to go back to work. We are in the same situation as everybody else. Measures are being taken, have been taken and will continue to be taken to ensure that coming to the House of Commons is as safe as it possibly can be.
Business of the House
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I will now call the Leader of the House to make a business statement, which I will run until 1.20 pm.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 1 June will include:
Monday 1 June—The House will not be sitting.
Tuesday 2 June—Second reading of the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill.
Wednesday 3 June—Consideration of a business of the House motion, followed by all stages of the Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill.
Thursday 4 June—Remaining stages of the Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Bill [Lords], followed by debate on a motion relating to the EU’s mandate for negotiating a new partnership with the UK.
Friday 5 June—The House will not be sitting.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business statement. There we are, we are sitting up until Thursday with a hybrid, virtual Parliament, so it can be done. First, will he ensure that the Government make a statement on the guidance on people returning to work here safely on the first day back? The advice from the scientists is that lockdown should not be eased until track and trace is in place and that we should look at the observed levels of infection, not just at the fixed date. Does he agree that even the testing has not been got right and that the Government have extended it? Can he say whether there are enough home tests for the House and whether enough masks will be available? At this point, I, too, want to pay tribute to Marianne Cwynarski and everybody on the House staff, who have worked so hard to keep us safe.
Like us, following the Leader of the House’s outburst last week, which came with no consultation, what our teachers want is a discussion and time to prepare. They have been given a confused message, because the British Medical Association has said that the children are not safe to go back. Let us remember that teachers have been at work looking after our children now—they have been looking after key workers’ children—and they are the best people to say whether they are ready or not. The Government cannot compare this country to Denmark, because Denmark has not had as many deaths as we have had here. So what advice have the Government given teachers, particularly on the inflammatory disease affecting children? Given that a poll of almost 30,000 members of the NASUWT found that just 5% said that the schools were safe to return and 81% of parents said that they do not want to send their children back, may we have an urgent statement from the Education Secretary when we return on the evidence that it was safe for children to return? I say that given that a member of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies told the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee that the decision on schools was “political” and not based on science.
On Monday, we voted on the Second Reading of the immigration Bill, which contains swathes of Henry VIII powers. As the Leader of the House is a believer in parliamentary sovereignty and parliamentary democracy, does he think that is appropriate? Will he guarantee that Government time will be given to debate any statutory instruments that are prayed against by the Opposition? We clap our care workers into the NHS, but with this immigration Bill the Government are, in effect, clapping them out of the country.
A constituent of mine is the general manager of an SME—small and medium-sized enterprise—employing 65 people. Indirectly, they support the NHS, the Nightingale hospitals, manufacturing valuable items that people need quickly. They had a five-week wait, and their bank refused them a loan—just 20%—though they are a profitable company. They and many other businesses are struggling to find a way to stay open. If I forward details to the Leader of the House, will he take that up with the Chancellor, please?
Last week I asked about dentists. Will the right hon. Gentleman follow that up with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care? It was mentioned in the House on Monday, but we did not get a response. The regulatory body has been checking on personal protective equipment for dentists returning—again, small businesses hoping to help our country return to normal. There is an issue about their PPE. Will he ensure that major PPE companies fast-track the powered air-filtered PPE face masks particular to dentistry? We have not had an answer to that. Dentists could get back to work to protect our constituents, some of whom are having to pull out their own teeth.
I thank the Leader of the House for his response last week on Nazanin and Anoush. It was very helpful. Will he make sure that the Foreign Secretary ensures that all British citizens abroad are able to get consular visits and advice? No one is asking for a fanfare when the ambassador visits, but we want Nazanin, Anoush and Kylie to be visited. At this time, they deserve clemency, and the Leader of the House knows that this is an important day for them. I remind all hon. Members to light a candle for them all today.
Finally, Mr Speaker, it is National Epilepsy Week. I thank you for your statement on Mental Health Awareness Week, which was very helpful. Let us hope that we can all encourage everyone to look out for each other.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I completely endorse what the right hon. Lady said about Epilepsy Week and mental health: we do indeed need to look out for each other, particularly at a time of lockdown, when many people are suffering, and loneliness is a particular and difficult problem, especially for people who are shielding and must take particular care. That is obviously at the forefront of the Government’s mind.
With regard to Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe, consular work continues, but it is not always best to argue this on the Floor of the House, if the right hon. Lady will forgive me for not giving more details on this occasion.
To come to the more politically controversial issues, on the guidance for Members coming back, they know what the national guidance is—the guidance provided for people returning to work, on how they should try to come back to work, what the procedures are and how they should try to distance themselves socially. Members who are already here will see in the House how much marking out has been done to help people to stick to the guidelines.
The work done with members of staff has been exemplary. It is reassuring to know that the numbers of House staff expected back with MPs returning after Whitsun is not expected to change significantly from the number currently coming in to facilitate the hybrid Parliament. The burden on our staff is not the burden; the burden is on us as Members of Parliament and therefore it is one that we should undertake, because we are like the rest of the country in these circumstances.
The right hon. Lady asked questions about schools and wants a statement from the Secretary of State for Education. He responded to an urgent question last week. I hope it is not indiscreet of me to say, but he was himself very keen to make a statement, although the scheduling did not allow for that. He is keen to report to Parliament, and to keep Parliament up to date. There is, however, a real issue with the widening attainment gap, with schools not being open. That is why it is important for schools to open—if they can—in accordance with the five tests that the Government have set out.
With regard to praying against SIs, most Henry VIII powers are subject to affirmative SIs, rather than negative SIs, and are therefore automatically subject to a process in the House. The general policy of the Government, however, as of many previous Governments, is that when SIs are prayed against by the official Opposition, usually, if it is a reasonable prayer, debating time will be found. That is an important constitutional matter, but it is also why we need a physical Parliament back because there would not be any time for praying against statutory instruments if we were not back. I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for making my argument about the essential need for Parliament’s returning reasonably soon.
I am obviously sorry to hear about the difficulties that the right hon. Lady’s constituent is facing. I would point out that £11.1 billion is being paid out in furlough money and £7.5 billion in loans backed to 80% by the Government. That is major support for industry, and I think the Chancellor has done a quite phenomenal amount in getting support to businesses, but I would happily take up the specific case with the right hon. Lady, and likewise for the dentists in her constituency. I cannot claim to be an expert on the type of PPE that she is referring to, but I am sure there are people in Government who are and who can get her a proper response.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con) [V]
During this lockdown, we have seen numerous cases of broadcast media interviewing people in a manner that suggests they are independent experts, whereas they are in fact partisan political activists. That, of course, culminated in the notorious “Panorama” programme last month, but there are many other examples. Can we therefore have a debate on the guidelines that broadcasters are meant to use in order to provide their viewers with an informed picture of what they are actually watching?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has written to the BBC asking for an explanation of that “Panorama” programme, which seemed to have Communists in the background giving advice on how the programme was structured. I did not realise there were any Communists left in this country, but the BBC managed to dredge them up. He is absolutely right to ask for a for a debate—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) heckles, Mr Speaker. It is so unlike her; she is normally so ladylike and does not heckle. I would say that yes, it is a free country, but the BBC is obliged to be impartial. It has charter obligations. The issue regarding debates is that when the House is back in real form, there will be more opportunity and more time for debates, which I hope will satisfy many hon. and right hon. Members.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
Let me take up where I left off 25 minutes ago. I have still not had an answer on whether the Leader of the House believes his proposals for Parliament’s return are compatible with the equalities legislation of the United Kingdom, and I would like him to comment on that matter. I also have two further points, Mr Speaker.
First, we are told that Public Health England will again inspect the building during recess and advise on whether and how business can be conducted safely. What happens if Public Health England says that that cannot happen? Do the Government then intend to override the public health advice given by their own agency? Would it not have been more sensible to make these decisions after rather than before determining whether they can be implemented safely, or is this a case of wishful thinking taking the place of evidence-based policy? If the advice is that the number of hon. Members must be restricted, on what basis will the Government determine who can attend and who cannot?
Finally, I turn to the question of remote voting. While everyone can see that online participation in debates is not ideal, although it is better than no participation at all, that is not the case with online voting. The process is simple and secure. This is not an abstract or theoretical question: the system is there. It works. Why on earth switch it off when there is no need to do so? It is accepted that voting cannot be the same as it used to be, with hon. Members crammed into Lobbies, queuing to give their name to a Clerk. I know that a physical vote has been trialled; indeed, I have seen the pictures, and I think once the public see how that is proposed, we will be in danger of exposing this Parliament to even greater ridicule. So why is the Leader prepared to go to any lengths, it seems, no matter how ridiculous, not to continue with the system that is already in place and that works?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman is, of course, a separatist, and he gives the game away when he refers to “even greater ridicule”, because he does not wish this Parliament to be the Parliament of the United Kingdom. He wants to separate himself from it and therefore uses every opportunity to ridicule it, which I am not sure is entirely helpful or reflects the views of the majority of Members.
As regards remote voting, there was a very clear undertaking that it would be temporary. The consensus reached within the House to allow the hybrid Parliament was based on consent, on the basis of it being temporary. If people want to make an argument for the longer term about remote voting, they are absolutely entitled to do so, and no doubt the Procedure Committee will look at it, but that is an argument for another day. I would be acting in bad faith if I did not deliver on the commitment to those who never wanted remote voting in the first place that it will stop at the point at which we return to a physical Parliament.
As regards how numbers will be kept down, there is a well tried and tested pairing system, and discussions are going on between the Whips. I expect that any Member who is concerned about coming here will not have to attend or will not be whipped to attend.
With regard to Public Health England, Mr Speaker, you and the spokesman for the Commission are probably better placed to answer these questions, but Public Health England has been involved in many discussions. The House authorities have liaised very closely with PHE throughout the whole process. That is why these markings are down on the floor. That is why, Mr Speaker, your plan for effectively a roll-call Division is being tested—it worked rather well yesterday—rather than using the Division Lobbies. That is on advice, which is being followed, and we are acting in line with other businesses that are planning to come back to work. Finally, as regards the hon. Gentleman’s question on whether we are obeying the law, of course the House of Commons and Her Majesty’s Government are obeying the law.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con) [V]
My right hon. Friend was undoubtedly correct in his answer to the shadow Leader of the House a moment ago when he said that the Government’s support for employment, business and industry has been extraordinary and hugely impressive, especially the retail, leisure and hospitality industries. However, many companies that supply those industries are not covered by those provisions, which risks risking the future of those industries, because they are experiencing difficulties. Can we have a debate in Government time on the future of the UK hospitality and leisure industries and the companies that supply them?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s reference to the support the Government have given. I really think that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has managed to be stunningly innovative in providing support for businesses in a way that, historically, is not what Finance Ministers across the world manage to do. His achievement is of historic proportions, and I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said. As regards a debate in Government time on the hospitality industry, that is one of the great virtues of our coming back to a physical House—there will be more opportunity for debates, and we will have to see whether such a debate can be slotted in or will fit into any of the other discussions that will be taking place.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
Welcome to a very warm and sunny Gateshead. I note from the Leader of the House’s statement that a general debate on Thursday 4 June has been facilitated. The members of the Backbench Business Committee and applicant Back-Bench Members across the House will be disappointed to learn that there is no place for any Backbench business debates if the House returns in the first week of June. In particular, there are many aspects of the Government’s response to the coronavirus pandemic that Members across the House wish to see aired, with answers to concerns and questions gained from Ministers. Could the Leader of the House facilitate that as soon as possible? Could he confirm that, if we return on 2 June, Select Committees—one of which I sit on—will still be meeting virtually, so I will have to travel 300 miles to attend Select Committee meetings virtually from my office in Westminster?
Mr Rees-Mogg
If the hon. Gentleman’s background is anything to go by, the sun is very bright in Gateshead—almost blindingly so. On the last point, the motion for Select Committees runs until 30 June and is then renewable at your discretion, Mr Speaker; that is therefore a matter for you, and it would be wrong of me to trespass on your prerogatives. [Interruption.] I am being heckled by Mr Speaker!
As regards the debate on 4 June and the motion put forward in relation to the European negotiations, there is a statutory obligation on the Government to provide time for that, so it is not like a Backbench business debate. However, I have a great deal of sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman says. I understand that there is a widespread demand for a wide range of Backbench business debates, as we see in these sessions every week, and once we get back to normal, there will be more opportunity to ensure that we get back to complete normal, rather than semi-normal.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con) [V]
I thank the Leader of the House for the reassurances he has given on safety so that Parliament is able to return physically as soon as possible. Areas of the country such as Stoke-on-Trent, where we need to level up our economy, could be hit hard by the impacts of coronavirus, so may we please have a debate in Government time on continuing and redoubling the levelling up agenda, so that we see investment into areas that have historically missed out?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful for the points made by my hon. Friend from, I assume, his wonderful constituency, which I visited for a Conservative tea last year, when we were still able to move throughout the country. There is serious economic disruption as a result of coronavirus and, as the Office for Budget Responsibility has outlined, without the package of unprecedented measures, the impact would be much worse. Councils have been given £3.2 billion of extra money and there is a further £2.6 billion in deferred business rate payments coming from central Government, but I agree with my hon. Friend entirely that we have to think of ways in which to grow the economy of our whole nation. I encourage him to speak to the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, but I add once again that once we are back normally there will be the opportunity to have these important debates.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab) [V]
Hull’s proud status as a maritime city is at risk of being tarnished because of the damaging actions by P&O Ferries, which appears to be using the covid-19 crisis to replace UK seafarers with exploited Filipino workers who are paid much less and forced to work much longer hours, putting at risk the safety of everybody aboard the ferry. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) has raised this issue before, and the situation is now even more urgent. May we please have a statement in the House from the maritime Minister on how the Government are going to protect UK seafarers’ jobs?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This issue has indeed been raised in the House before and is something that the Government are aware of. I will take it up with the Department for Transport so that a fuller answer can be prepared for the hon. Lady.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
I am sure the Leader of the House will have seen the sad news today of potentially thousands of redundancies at Rolls-Royce’s Derby plant. In the light of the large amount of redundancies that might keep happening, will he be able to find time for a debate on how we can best support people to find new work after this crisis is over?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend raises a point that will affect many of us in many constituencies. As the Chancellor explained to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, the effect of the coronavirus is of the greatest seriousness and depth, and the Government and Parliament will want to consider and debate very carefully how we recover from it. Of course, I reiterate that once we are back normally, there will be so much more time for debate.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
May we have a statement on the importance of having a disability-inclusive covid-19 response? It is Mental Health Awareness Week, and a letter written to the Prime Minister by the all-party group on disability, which I chair, has been co-signed by 101 parliamentarians from both Houses. The letter advises that people with disabilities need additional support at this time. Many are lonely, anxious and isolated. This is an urgent matter that the House should address.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I absolutely accept that it is a very important issue and that support for people with disabilities is crucial. The Government have a good record of supporting people with disabilities over the past few years, and that is something we will continue. The instance of covid-19 is a further reason to remember and to help people with disabilities.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con) [V]
May I appeal to the Government for a statement on the plight of people, many approaching retirement, with endowment mortgages that are due to mature in the middle of this covid crisis? Such a statement would give the Government the opportunity to urge companies such as the Prudential to extend the maturation date until normality returns and the yield enables people’s mortgages to be cleared in the usual way.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to refer to people with endowments and the difficulty that they face. Having spent a lifetime—before politics intervened—in financial services, I can say that there is never an obviously right time to redeem investments, so the difficulty would be the Government intervening and setting a new time and that time not necessarily being any better than the existing time. I think that my giving financial advice from the Dispatch Box would be singularly unwise, but I will take up his point with the Treasury.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Leader of the House has said that MPs being in Parliament will enable proper scrutiny. If that return to Parliament has to be physical, can he tell us what provision will be made for MPs and their staff who have childcare or caring responsibilities? I know that he is not a fan of the nanny state, but not all of us have nannies.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Not all have six children, either, which I am very lucky and fortunate to have. I absolutely understand, therefore, child caring responsibilities—all my children are quite young. The nursery in the House of Commons is open. Members of Parliament are key workers and therefore schools are available in England for their children. As regards MPs’ staff, they do not need to come back to Parliament. Speaking for my own staff, they are working extremely well and extremely hard from home. This is the first time that I have ever had the opportunity to thank them publicly for the remarkable work that they do for my constituents in North East Somerset. I am sure that many feel the same about their parliamentary staff, and they do not need to come back to the parliamentary estate.
Northern Ireland Protocol: UK Approach
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
I will run this statement until 1.50 pm. I call Michael Gove, who should speak for no more than eight minutes.
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s approach to implementing the Northern Ireland protocol as part of the withdrawal agreement with the European Union.
The protocol exists to ensure that the progress that the people of Northern Ireland have made in the 22 years since the Belfast/Good Friday agreement is secured into the future. The Belfast agreement is built on the principle of consent. It was ratified by referendums in both Northern Ireland and Ireland, and the agreement is crystal clear that any change in the constitutional position of Northern Ireland within the United Kingdom can come only if the majority in Northern Ireland consent to any change.
The vital importance of consent is recognised in the provision for any alignment in the protocol to be disapplied if Northern Ireland’s political representatives conclude that it is no longer desirable. Embedding that recognition of consent in the protocol was intrinsic to its acceptance by the Government. Therefore, for the protocol to work, it must respect the needs of all Northern Ireland’s people, respect the fact that Northern Ireland is an integral part of the customs territory of the UK, and respect the need to bear as lightly as possible on the everyday life of Northern Ireland.
Although there will be some new administrative requirements in the protocol, these electronic processes will be streamlined and simplified to the maximum extent. As the European Commissioner’s own negotiator, Michel Barnier, has spelled out, the protocol’s procedures must be as easy as possible and not too burdensome, in particular for smaller businesses. As is so often the case, but not always, Monsieur Barnier is right. The economy of Northern Ireland is heavily dependent on small and medium-sized enterprises. Subjecting traders to unnecessary and disproportionate burdens, particularly as we wrestle with the economic consequences of covid-19, would not serve the interests of the people of Northern Ireland, for whom the protocol was designed. The protocol text itself is explicit that implementation should impact as little as possible on the everyday life of communities.
In that context, it is important for us all to recall that the clear majority of Northern Ireland’s trade is with the rest of the United Kingdom, so safeguarding the free flow of goods within the UK’s internal market is of critical importance to Northern Ireland’s economy and people.
Today, we are publishing a Command Paper that outlines how the protocol can be implemented in a way that would protect the interests of the people and the economy of Northern Ireland, ensure the effective working of the UK’s internal market, and also provide appropriate protection for the EU single market, as well as upholding the rights of all Northern Ireland’s citizens. Delivering on these proposals will require close working with the Northern Ireland Executive, underscoring once again the significance of the restoration of the Stormont institutions in January. I would like to put on record my gratitude for the constructive approach that has been shown by Northern Ireland politicians, including by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, as well as by hon. Members from across this House.
There are four steps we will take to ensure the protocol is implemented effectively. First, we will deliver unfettered access for NI producers to the whole of the UK market. Northern Ireland to Great Britain goods movements should take place as they do now. There should not be export declarations or any other processes as goods leave NI for GB, and we will deliver on unfettered access for Northern Ireland goods through legislation by the end of this year.
Secondly, we will ensure that there are no tariffs on goods remaining within the UK customs territory. In order to ensure that internal UK trade qualifies for tariff-free status, there will need to be declarations on goods as they move from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, but these systems will be electronic and administered by UK authorities. It will be for our authorities to determine any processes that are required, using the latest technology, risk and compliance techniques to keep these to an absolute minimum.
That will also allow us to deliver on our third key proposal, which is that implementation of the protocol will not involve new customs infrastructure. We acknowledge, however, as we have always done, that on agrifood and live animal movements, it makes sense to protect supply chains and the disease-free status of the island of Ireland, as has been the case since the 19th century. That will mean some expansion of existing infrastructure to provide for some additional new processes for the agriculture and food sector, but these processes will build on what already happens at ports such as Larne and Belfast, and we will work with the EU to keep these checks to a minimum, reflecting the high standards we see right across the UK. There is no such case, however, for new customs infrastructure, and as such there will not be any.
Fourthly, we will guarantee that Northern Ireland businesses will benefit from the lower tariffs that we deliver through new free trade agreements with third countries. This ensures that Northern Ireland businesses will be able to enjoy the full benefits of the unique access that they have to the UK and EU markets.
These four commitments will ensure that, as we implement the protocol, we give full effect to the requirements in its text to recognise Northern Ireland’s place in the UK and in its customs territory. As we take the work of implementation forward, we will continue to work closely with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, with Northern Ireland MPs from across parties, and with the business community and farming groups that have provided such valuable feedback for our approach.
Of course, we have already guaranteed, in the “New Decade, New Approach” deal, that the Northern Ireland Executive have a seat at the table in any meeting where Northern Ireland is being discussed and the Irish Government are present. Alongside that, there will be a new business engagement forum to exchange proposals, concerns and feedback from across the community on how best to maximise the free flow of trade, and we will ensure that those discussions sit at the heart of our thinking.
We recognise that there will be a wide range of voices and responses to our Command Paper. We will listen to these respectfully while we continue to put our own case with conviction at the Joint Committee. Our approach will of course continue to be informed by extensive engagement with businesses, politicians and individuals right across communities in Northern Ireland. We stand ready to work with the EU in a spirit of collaboration and co-operation so that a positive new chapter can open for Northern Ireland and its people in every community, and it is in that spirit that I commend this statement to the House.
Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of his statement and the Command Paper.
During the election campaign, the Prime Minister told Northern Irish businesses that if they were asked to fill in any extra paperwork, they should call him personally and
“I will direct them to throw that form in the bin”.
On 22 January, when the Prime Minister was asked in this House whether that meant unfettered access between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland and Great Britain, he said: “Emphatically it does.” But today, for the first time, the Command Paper states that there will be “some new administrative requirements”.
Checks on animals and agrifood will be a significant escalation of what currently takes place and will mean a border management system that is quite new in terms of its scope and scale. The document published today states that we will need to
“expand some existing entry points…to provide for proportionate additional controls.”
Will the Minister confirm what proportion of animal and agrifood products he expects will require additional physical checks? Will those checks take place at ports in Northern Ireland? Physical checks require a product to be taken off the lorry, opened, inspected, tested and quarantined until deemed legitimate. That is quite a burden. Can the Minister confirm that there will be physical checks, or, indeed, that there definitely will not be physical checks?
The document published today states that
“some new administrative process for traders,”
including
“electronic import declaration requirements, and safety and security information, for goods entering Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK”
will apply.
This is no small matter. Import declarations can require 40 separate data points, and Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has estimated that each declaration for shipment will cost between £14 and £56. Can the Minister confirm the number of checks and the costs of those checks to businesses? For the 1.8 million goods vehicles that crossed from Great Britain into Northern Ireland last year, that certainly adds up.
On tariffs, the Government have previously promised that there would be no tariffs on goods traded either way between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Indeed, they have said that there will be no tariffs, fees or charges or quantitative restrictions. But today, for the first time, the Government have accepted that there will be tariffs on goods entering Northern Ireland. The Command Paper says that
“goods ultimately entering Ireland…or at clear and substantial risk of doing so, will face tariffs.”
So can the Minister say who will be levying or administering those tariffs, what “clear risk” means, and who will define it? Could tariffs be applied and later reimbursed, and if so, what would the timetable for that be? The Command Paper says:
“We will produce full guidance to business and third parties before the end of the transition period.”
That does not give much time for businesses to prepare for what could be quite profound changes.
The Minister says that goods moving from Great Britain do not need to be checked because the majority will remain in the UK. This is a hugely important point. Indeed, 70% of goods that flow from Great Britain are destined for the high street. I hope that a way forward can be found so that those goods can move freely. However, the Command Paper accepts that
“some new administrative process for traders, notably new electronic import declaration requirements, and safety and security information, for goods entering Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK”
will apply. So can the Minister confirm that that will include rules of origin checks, safety and security checks and import declarations, and if so, where and how will those checks take place? There is no mention in the document published today of a trusted trader scheme, which is surely essential for ensuring the free flow of goods without tariffs from Great Britain into Northern Ireland that we all want to see.
We welcome this statement, but it does expose the broken promises made by the Prime Minister. Today, for the first time, there has been an admission that there will be additional checks and that there will be tariffs on goods at risk of entering the single market. Even now, many fear that the Government are not willing to admit the full extent of those. We have seven months to get this right, and we must.
Michael Gove
I am grateful for the welcome that the hon. Lady gives to the approach that we are taking, and grateful also for her commitment and her party’s commitment to supporting the implementation of the protocol in a way that safeguards the gains of the Good Friday agreement.
The hon. Lady says that as a result of the implementation of the protocol there will inevitably be checks on not just animals but agri-food products, but, as she is aware, those checks already exist for live animals. Checks are already carried out in the port of Larne and the port of Belfast. We will of course exercise any new checks on agri-food products in a proportionate way, but in doing so we imagine that the proportion of goods that will need to be checked will be very minimal. Of course, because of the very, very high standards that we will maintain in this country on SPS—sanitary and phytosanitary—matters, people can have absolute confidence that the quality of goods that are being placed on the Northern Ireland market is of the highest level.
The hon. Lady asked about the cost of the checks. We will be working with HMRC in order to ensure that the checks are as light-touch as possible and integrated, for example, into the operation of VAT returns and other processes with which businesses are already familiar. We are confident that Northern Ireland’s businesses and HMRC can work collaboratively in the course of the remaining seven months before the transition period ends in order to have a system that is operational, light-touch, effective and unobtrusive.
The hon. Lady makes a point about tariffs. Of course, tariffs would apply only in the case of there being a zero-tariff, zero-quota free trade agreement with the European Union. The European Union is committed in the political declaration to securing such a zero-tariff, zero-quota arrangement, in which case the provisions in the protocol for the remittance of tariffs would not be required. I refer her to paragraph 27 of the Command Paper, which makes it clear that if it were the case that there were no agreement and that tariffs did have to be levied, the Government would
“make full use of the provisions in the Protocol giving us the powers to waive and/or reimburse tariffs on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland, even where they are classified as ‘at risk’ of entering the EU market.”
So there would be no additional costs for businesses.
The approach that we have taken, as the hon. Lady knows, is designed to ensure the maximum level of security for the businesses of Northern Ireland. If the protocol is implemented in line with our approach, that means that they will have unfettered access to the rest of the UK’s internal market and also free access to the EU’s single market. That is a great prize and one that I believe all businesses in Northern Ireland would want us to help them to grasp.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con) [V]
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his statement. Will he confirm that, as from 1 January 2021, Northern Ireland —that is, a part of the United Kingdom—will be required to abide by EU regulations on certain goods until at least 2024 and potentially indefinitely?
Michael Gove
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for her question. Let me take this opportunity to pay tribute to her for her work during her time as Prime Minister to ensure that the position of Northern Ireland could be secured within the United Kingdom even as we left the European Union. It is the case that there will be EU regulations and aspects of the acquis that will apply in Northern Ireland until 2024, but of course she draws attention to a very important point. If the workings of the protocol are viewed by the people and parties of Northern Ireland as onerous, too much, intrusive and unacceptable, they have the opportunity to vote them down in 2024. That is why it is so important that we design an approach that can continue to command consent.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Pete Wishart, who has 90 seconds.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
Ninety seconds? Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Today, we seem to be presented with another episode of Schrödinger’s border—one that is both there and not quite there, all dependent on what side of the EU negotiations a person happens to be on. UK Ministers have repeatedly said that there will be no border or any checks down the Irish Sea. We now know that that is not exactly the case, as we heard in the last response. From the very beginning, the possibility of that was crystal clear given what is in the withdrawal agreement and the need for a level playing field between the EU and Northern Ireland. We all know that there will be customs checks between the rest of the UK and Northern Ireland, so why do the UK Government not just acknowledge that fact? The EU has said that there must be the introduction of customs procedures and formalities in Northern Ireland for all goods traded between Northern Ireland and Great Britain.
There have been no discussions about this with the Scottish Government, even though we will be placed at a competitive disadvantage with Northern Ireland because of these arrangements. We would give our national right hand to have the arrangements and competitive advantage that Northern Ireland will have, so why can we not get some of this if Northern Ireland does not want it?
These negotiations need skill, guile and dexterity, and I think we have seen again today a Government who are singularly not up to it.
Michael Gove
Skill, guile and dexterity are all virtues that we associate with the hon. Gentleman, so if he wants to join the Government negotiation team, he would be more than welcome on board. The point about customs infrastructure and customs checks is a misunderstanding on his part. We want to ensure, as he recognises in his question, that the people and businesses of Northern Ireland have the opportunity to benefit both from their secure position within the United Kingdom and access to the EU market. Northern Ireland’s history, its traditions and its geography put it in a unique position, but the proposal that we put forward today means that there is no need for new customs infrastructure and at the same time Northern Ireland stays within the customs territory of the United Kingdom. I know that the hon. Gentleman is an enthusiast for border posts and would want to have them not just at Belfast but at Berwick, but my own view is that our United Kingdom is better off without them.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con) [V]
If we are correct to presume that any paperwork will be digital, can my right hon. Friend assure me that there will be compatibility between the IT systems of HMRC and those of the European Union in order to ensure that that system can work swiftly and smoothly? He mentioned consultation in his statement. We have been hearing in the Select Committee inquiry on this important issue of precious little engagement with the business community by his Department. May I urge him to sharpen his pencil and engage with the community to ensure that it is understood and that his Department understands that most businesses are mostly focused on dealing with covid and trying to survive?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We have very little time, so I would encourage right hon. and hon. Members to ask short questions and obviously the Minister to give short answers.
Michael Gove
We will of course work to make sure that IT systems are efficient and compatible and consult with business. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a business roundtable this afternoon. Engagement with Northern Ireland’s citizens and its many small and medium-sized enterprises is critical to making everything work.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab) [V]
We all hope there will be an exit agreement with the EU, but if there is not, how will the Government stop goods, such as cars made in the EU, which in those circumstances would attract a 10% tariff, from entering Great Britain tariff-free via Northern Ireland? The right hon. Gentleman has told the House that goods would have unfettered access moving from Northern Ireland to GB. Would there in fact have to be checks if people tried to do that?
Michael Gove
We will have market surveillance, and if people try to break the law, they will face the consequences.
Mr William Wragg (Hazel Grove) (Con) [V]
The way the UK and the EU seek to address “Ireland’s unique geographic situation” in the negotiations could have constitutional and practical implications for Northern Ireland’s status within the UK. Could my right hon. Friend reassure me that he can square that circle, or is it, on the current trajectory of the talks, an impossible objective?
Michael Gove
That circle can be squared using an exercise of what I believe in the EU is known as variable geometry. The truth of course is that Northern Ireland’s position within the UK is constitutionally secure and unchanged.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP) [V]
The Minister will be aware that we voted against the withdrawal agreement because of the Northern Ireland protocol, but we welcome the clarity that this statement brings—that Northern Ireland will remain part of the UK customs territory, that there will be no new customs infrastructure, that there will be no tariffs on goods flowing between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and that Northern Ireland businesses will have unfettered access to the Great Britain market. Will the Minister and his team continue to work with us and the business community in Northern Ireland to ensure that these matters are taken forward and that Northern Ireland remains an integral part of the UK single market?
Michael Gove
Yes, we absolutely will. Our whole approach is about making sure that the protocol, which of course was unwelcome in many quarters in Northern Ireland, is implemented now that it is law, but in a way that goes with the grain of Northern Ireland opinion and reflects the interests of Northern Ireland’s peoples, whom the right hon. Gentleman so eloquently defends.
Mr Owen Paterson (North Shropshire) (Con) [V]
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement confirming Northern Ireland’s continued position as an integral part of the United Kingdom and customs territory and that he will deliver on the apparently contradictory demands of the protocol, which requires that the single market be respected and its integrity not damaged. The Alternative Arrangements Commission came up with very sensible suggestions that would conform with these requirements and square the circle through the use of enhanced authorised economic operators. Will he work with leading companies that ship goods across the Irish sea in both directions to set up trials in the next few weeks so that by the autumn, whether we have a free trade agreement or not, we are in a position to present the EU with a practical solution to ensure continued unfettered trade across the Irish sea in both directions?
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend, who was a brilliant Northern Ireland Secretary as well as a brilliant Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is absolutely right. Building up the capacity of authorised economic operators and other trusted traders can make the protocol and the economy of Northern Ireland work better.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
The Minister has finally confirmed that there will be a large increase in the amount of red tape and therefore the costs to consumers and businesses in Northern Ireland. Although I welcome latterly from the Minister language around commitment to the Good Friday agreement, I do not believe the rhetoric in the statement reflects the uniqueness of the place. Does he accept that every divergence and further political choice that his Government choose to make in pursuit of castles in the air—trade deals with the United States—increase the checks required in the Irish sea and that the only way to ensure that there is no fettering and barriers to trade is to soften Brexit?
Michael Gove
No, I do not accept that. The primacy of the interests of Northern Ireland’s businesses and indeed the primacy of Northern Ireland’s people is at the heart of our approach to implementing the protocol. The Good Friday agreement depends on consent across Northern Ireland, from Unionist, from nationalist and from non-aligned individuals. We want to ensure that their interests come first through the light-touch approach that we propose.
Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
I welcome the Command Paper, but we now, as my right hon. Friend has said, need quickly to reassure the Unionist grassroots on their fears about the exact nature of the processes referred to, and nationalist and non-aligned voters who have serious concerns about leaving the EU. Above all, on business, I am not sure that we have got seven months. Businesses in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the UK, have got their backs against the wall with covid. Please, please will my right hon. Friend use all his energy to work with them on exactly what they will need and a constructive approach with the EU to getting a practical solution?
Michael Gove
Yes. I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend—we would not have able to make progress in this way if it had not been for him and the “New Decade, New Approach” document, which he was responsible for bringing to life in the Northern Ireland Executive, which he helped restore. He is absolutely right: we have got to get cracking. That is why I hope that we will have positive engagement from the EU as well as the positive engagement that we will have with Northern Ireland’s businesses.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
Last November, the Prime Minister told Northern Irish business leaders that there would be no forms, no checks, no barriers of any kind. He said that he would recommend that any such forms be put in the bin. Of course, the Secretary of State’s paper today does refer to new administrative processes and acknowledges the potential for them to be disproportionately burdensome. Does he therefore appreciate that the need for clarity on what the Government actually mean and how it might be implemented is yet another reason why we must have an extension to the transition period?
Michael Gove
I do not think we need an extension to make the processes work. We just need good will on all sides.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con) [V]
The arrangements that my right hon. Friend has described are potentially good news for businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland and a great opportunity but may I press him on what he describes as very minimal checks? Does he mean the 4% of imports that are currently checked coming into the United Kingdom and the 1% that are physically checked? Does he mean more or less than that? Clearly, the European Union thinks that substantial checks will be required, presumably exceeding those levels, because it is setting up a bureaucracy in Belfast to cope with it.
Michael Gove
My right hon. Friend makes a very good point about the number of checks that are currently required as goods move into the United Kingdom, often from jurisdictions that do not have such high SPS standards as we uphold. We will continue to have high SPS standards, so the proportion of physical checks required is almost certain to be fewer than are currently required for goods coming from outside.
Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP) [V]
The withdrawal agreement and its separate arrangements for Northern Ireland will always be offensive to Unionists, regardless of what allowances the Government try to make. Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that at least any of these arrangements will be totally in the control of the UK Government and not the EU, and that the Government will resist all attempts by the EU and the European Court of Justice to dictate how business regulations and human rights laws should be applied in Northern Ireland?
Michael Gove
The right hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It is the case that it is for the UK Government to be responsible for the application and delivery of the protocol. We are one customs territory; we are one United Kingdom; and it is in that spirit that we have said to the EU that we do not think it is a good idea for it to establish a new mission in Belfast because, again, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, that would be seen by many in Northern Ireland as unnecessary and not in keeping with the spirit of the Belfast agreement.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
When I was in business in the 1990s, exporting all over the world, I just wanted to know what the rules were, then I would comply with them and then sell my goods. Could the Secretary of State assure the House that the rules will be made available to businesses in Northern Ireland at the earliest possible opportunity? Then they will get on with doing business.
Michael Gove
Yes, we will apply a principle that I know my hon. Friend will recognise, which is KISS—keep it simple, sonny.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD) [V]
Twice this year, I have come to Northern Ireland oral questions and asked both the Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland the same question: will there be checks? Twice I was told no, but now the Minister today is saying, yes, there will be checks in some form. Will his colleagues come to the House to correct the record and also to detail their assessment of the financial impact such checks are likely to have on the Northern Ireland economy?
Michael Gove
There will not be any customs infrastructure and there will not, save in the specific example of agrifoods and products of animal origin, be the requirement for physical checks of the kind about which I believe the hon. Member has expressed concern. It will be the case that we will implement these principles in a way that has the lightest possible touch, so that Northern Ireland’s businesses—wrestling with covid-19—have the brightest possible future.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab) [V]
The Prime Minister’s advice to Northern Ireland when he last visited was to throw any border forms “in the bin”. Does this remain the Government’s advice, and does this apply in a no-deal Brexit scenario?
Michael Gove
The whole point of the protocol is that it is part of the withdrawal agreement. We cannot have a no-deal scenario because the withdrawal agreement is a deal. However, in a spirit of generosity, I know what the hon. Member means: if we have an Australian-style trading relationship rather than a Canadian-style one, will the protocol apply? The protocol exists for just such an eventuality. As for bins, there will be no need for forms, because it will all be done electronically.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) [V]
I welcome the insertion of “substantial” to the test of whether goods are at risk of further transit into the European Union. Will the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster indicate how realistic he thinks it is that the Commission will agree to that insertion, and will he give us a progress report on the pragmatic development of what is considered to be a good at risk of further transit?
Michael Gove
The hon. Gentleman knows that the majority of Northern Ireland’s trade is with the UK, a smaller proportion is with the Republic of Ireland and the amount of produce that goes from GB, through NI and into Ireland is very, very small, so we are taking a risk-based approach. We are saying to the European Commission, “We know that you want to safeguard the gains that Northern Ireland has made in the last 22 years, and one of the best ways to do that is to recognise that, in the same way as Chairman Mao said that the kingdom of heaven was upheld by both men and women, so the Belfast agreement depends on the support of both nationalists and Unionists.”
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the interests of Northern Ireland will always be as important as those of the rest of the United Kingdom?
Michael Gove
Yes. I think it was Margaret Thatcher who said that Northern Ireland was “as British as Finchley”, and that has always been my view. It is of course the case that the Belfast agreement recognises the particular history, traditions, geography and conflict that has existed in Northern Ireland, but the people of Northern Ireland have decided and voted consistently to remain part of the United Kingdom, and I celebrate that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
That concludes scrutiny proceedings. I suspend the House for five minutes—until 1.58 pm.
Business of the House
The House divided: - Ayes: 350 / Noes: 258 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We come now to the motion on business of the House. Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of the shadow Leader of the House. The reference in the motion to the statement that has already taken place is superseded, but this does not affect the remainder of the timings. This item of business is debatable. My provisional determination is that there will be a remote Division on the motion. I propose to call only the Leader of the House to move the motion, the shadow Leader of the House, the Chair of the Procedure Committee and the Scottish National party spokesperson. I will ask each of them to speak for no more than two minutes. I call the Leader of the House to move the motion. Business Timings Remote division designation Statement: The UK’s approach to the Northern Ireland Protocol 30 minutes from the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order None Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill No debate (Standing Order No. 57) None Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill No debate (Standing Order No. 57) None Trade Bill: Second Reading Up to two hours and 15 minutes from the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; suspension; up to three hours and 30 minutes from the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order Remote division Trade Bill: Programme No debate (Standing Order No. 83A(7)) Remote division Trade Bill: Money No debate (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)) Remote division Liaison (Membership) Up to four hours and 30 minutes from the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order Remote division
Motion made,
That—
(1) The following arrangements shall apply to today’s business:
At the conclusion of each debate, the Speaker shall put the Question on each of the motions on the Order Paper relating to the business listed in the table for that debate.—(Mr Rees-Mogg.)
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought you were going to offer me the Leader of the House’s two minutes.
The coronavirus crisis has created unique challenges for this House and how it conducts its business, and the House has risen to those challenges. To manage the way the House works, we have come together, and all three parties have approved Business of the House motions, as happened on every previous occasion. That consensus allowed the business of the House to continue smoothly, yet for some reason the Government now seem to be hell-bent on breaking that consensus, bringing the hybrid virtual Parliament to an end by any means. The Government are preventing the House from having the opportunity to debate the continuation of the hybrid virtual Parliament, and remote voting procedures. Instead, they are unilaterally deciding to let the orders that cover the virtual Parliament expire without debate.
Will the Leader of the House explain why the Government are so unwilling to let the House express a view on the continuation of the hybrid virtual Parliament? Does he recognise that there is no evidence from Public Health England that it is safe to return to Parliament in the numbers that the Government intend? How will social distancing be maintained in the Chamber? Will he confirm reports in The Times today that he is keen to install perspex boxes in the Chamber to double the number of Conservative MPs behind the Prime Minister during Prime Minister’s questions, harnessing Churchill who said that there must be
“a sense of crowd and urgency”—[Official Report, 28 October 1943; Vol. 393, c. 404.]
in the Chamber? How long does the Leader of the House estimate that a socially distant division will take? Is it true that it will take longer than the remote voting system we currently use?
We are not back to normal—only on Monday, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care added a new symptom to the list. This House has a duty to lead by example, and the Government’s advice is that those who can work from home should do so. Parliament has developed a successful system to ensure scrutiny of the Government and the passing of legislation, while working remotely and keeping people safe in the middle of a pandemic. The Government have not provided an honest explanation for why they want to end the hybrid virtual Parliament. They are determined not to allow Parliament to register its dissatisfaction with the Government’s decision, but simply to let hybrid proceedings expire without consulting the House.
The House has a right and a duty to decide proceedings after a debate and a vote, just as we did on 21 April. The Government should follow their own advice and retain the hybrid Parliament, and remote voting, until such time as there are robust safeguards in place, backed by medical evidence, and in consultation with Opposition parties and the House authorities, and with assurances that everyone on the estate can be safe.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Karen Bradley, Chair of the Procedure Committee, who I think is audio only. You have no more than two minutes.
Karen Bradley (Staffordshire Moorlands) (Con) [V]
I am afraid I am audio only, having had a broadband failure. I will not repeat much of what has already been said, but as Chair of the Procedure Committee, I ask the Government to take great care in reviewing the Committee’s recommendations. We have written to the Speaker, and we will produce a short report on this matter, and ask the Government to consider it. As I said during the urgent question, this is a matter for the House. The House must be in agreement with the way that it conducts business. You, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Speaker are servants of the House, and we must do what the House asks us to do. I ask the Leader of the House to please reflect on that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Tommy Sheppard to speak for no more than two minutes.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
I wish to endorse and amplify the comments of the shadow Leader of the House. This is undoubtedly the greatest crisis that our world has faced in our lifetimes, and we know that the threat to our health, our society, and our economy is unprecedented. That is why Opposition Members have refused to make political capital out of the Government’s handling of the crisis, and we have sought to achieve consensus wherever we can.
Nowhere has that been more apparent than in discussions about how Parliament itself should operate. We have worked cross-party to make things work as best we can, using technology to allow remote participation—until now. I object to this agenda, because there is nothing on it to extend or modify these procedures—nothing at all. They are simply to be scrapped.
The Government seem determined to force things back to the way they used to be. They cannot and will not answer myriad questions. Can Parliament come back safely? What about Members who are sick or vulnerable? How will numbers be limited? Should we ignore public health advice? Most of all, what essential functions cannot be undertaken remotely? Those questions should be answered before remote engagement is scrapped, not after.
Unable to get us to agree, the Government have thrown their toys out of the pram. This is bizarre behaviour. It would be daft in normal times, but it seems absurd in the midst of a public health emergency, especially as none of us knows what might happen in the next two weeks. My question to the Leader of the House, to which I hope he will respond, is this: will he give an assurance to Opposition parties that he will consult and seek to agree how Parliament should operate after the recess, and will he be prepared to revise his current opinion that all remote working should be abandoned if it can be demonstrated that a solely physical meeting of Parliament presents unacceptable risks to Members’ staff and the public?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
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”. The question is, as on the Order Paper. The Question falls to be decided by a remote Division. The Clerk will now initiate the Division on MemberHub. The remote voting period is now open. Members are invited to record their votes using the remote voting system. They will have 15 minutes to record their votes. I will make an announcement when the remote voting period has ended.
Question put.
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. I shall suspend the House for five minutes, until 2.26 pm, and will announce the result when the House resumes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I can now announce the result of the remote division that has just taken place.
Question put,
That the Business of the House (20 May) motion be agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Four further items of business today are designated for remote Division. My provisional determination is that remote Divisions will take place on the Second Reading of the Trade Bill, a reasoned amendment, if selected, and an amendment selected to the motion on the Liaison Committee. The provisional determination is that the following will not be the subject of a remote Division: the programme and money motions for the Trade Bill and the main motion on the Liaison Committee.
Bills Presented
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Alok Sharma, supported by The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Elizabeth Truss, Secretary Thérèse Coffey, Secretary George Eustice, Secretary Robert Jenrick, Secretary Grant Shapps, Secretary Brandon Lewis, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary Oliver Dowden and John Glen, presented a Bill to make provision about companies and other entities in financial difficulty; and to make temporary changes to the law relating to the governance and regulation of companies and other entities.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time 2 June 2020, and to be printed (Bill 128) with explanatory notes (Bill 128-EN).
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Robert Buckland, supported by The Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Priti Patel, Secretary Ben Wallace, the Attorney General, James Brokenshire, Lucy Frazer, Kit Malthouse, Alex Chalk and Chris Philp, presented a Bill to make provision about the sentencing of offenders convicted of terrorism offences, of offences with a terrorist connection or of certain other offences; to make other provision in relation to terrorism; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time 2 June 2020, and to be printed (Bill 129) with explanatory notes (Bill 129-EN).
Trade Bill
Wednesday 20th May 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Trade Bill 2019-21 View all Trade Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The House divided: - Ayes: 262 / Noes: 352 - Question accordingly negatived.
The House divided: - Ayes: 355 / Noes: 254 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I must inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the reasoned amendment in the name of Keir Starmer. I call Secretary Elizabeth Truss to move the Second Reading. The Secretary of State is asked to speak for no more than 15 minutes.
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Coronavirus is the biggest threat this country has faced in decades. All over the world we see its devastating impact. We will do whatever it takes to support United Kingdom businesses to continue trading, with our network of 350 advisers across the country and trade commissioners across the world.
This crisis highlights just how important it is to keep trade flowing and supply chains open, so that we can all have the essential supplies we need. It is free and open trade that has ensured that we have food on our table and access to vital personal protective equipment and medication. At meetings with my fellow G20 Trade Ministers, I have continually called for a united global response, tariff cuts on key supplies and reform of the World Trade Organisation. Although it is unfortunate that some countries have resorted to protectionism, many have sought to liberalise in the face of this crisis. In particular, I have been working with colleagues such as Australia, New Zealand and Singapore to highlight the importance of keeping trade flowing.
Free trade and resilient supply chains will be crucial to the global economic recovery as the crisis passes. Time after time, history has shown us that free trade makes us more prosperous, while protectionism results only in poverty, especially for the worst off. Britain has a proud history as a global leader and advocate of free trade. The bold and principled decision of Sir Robert Peel to take on the power of the wealthy producers and repeal the corn laws in 1846 ushered in an unprecedented era of free trade that saw ordinary people in Britain benefit from more varied and cheaper food, helping to grow our cities and power forward the world’s first industrial revolution.
I see a real opportunity again for industrial areas across Britain as we become an independent trading nation. By cutting tariffs and reducing export red tape, our great British businesses will be able to sell more goods around the world. British steel, ceramics and textiles are some of the world’s best, but all too often they are subject to high tariffs and barriers. Those industries are already looking forward to the opportunities that future trade deals will bring.
The US imposes tariffs of 25% on steel; removing them would boost our domestic industries. As my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Holly Mumby-Croft) knows, that will particularly benefit areas such as Yorkshire and the Humber, which account for more than a third of our iron and steel exports to the United States. Indeed, just this week UK Steel said:
“A new UK/US Free Trade Agreement would provide a significant boost to our trade to this high-value market, create a global-competitive advantage for UK steel producers, and open up valuable new market opportunities.”
Our farmers and food producers stand to gain from a trade deal with the US. The US is the world’s second largest importer of lamb, but current restrictions mean that British producers are kept out. We can also grow, for example, our malting barley exports from Scotland and the east of England.
The tech trade will benefit from a US free trade agreement through cutting-edge provisions on digital and data. Telecoms and tech have more than doubled in the past decade, and an ambitious FTA could see those exports grow further.
While free trade provides opportunities, protectionism would harm farmers, tech entrepreneurs and steel manufacturers. We have already seen this before: in 1930, the Smoot-Hawley Act raised US tariffs on more than 20,000 imported goods, resulting in retaliation from other nations and the deepening and prolonging of the depression. As President Reagan said in 1985:
“Protectionism almost always ends up making the protected industry weaker and less able to compete against foreign imports…Instead of protectionism, we should call it destructionism. It destroys jobs, weakens our industries, harms exports, costs billions of dollars to consumers, and damages our overall economy.”
We have a golden opportunity to make sure that our recovery is export led and high value—a recovery that will see our industrial heartlands create more high-quality and high-paying jobs across all sectors. Free trade does not just benefit us here in Britain; it benefits the world. Since the end of the cold war, free trade has lifted a billion people out of extreme poverty. For want of a better word, free trade is good. It is those benefits that underpin our Government’s approach: free and fair trade fit for the modern world.
Let me turn to the contents of the Bill. We can have fair trade only if it is free trade. The Bill will embed market access for British companies by enabling the UK to join the WTO’s Government procurement agreement as an independent member. This will provide businesses with continued access to the extraordinary opportunities of the global procurement market, worth some £1.3 trillion a year. The GPA is an agreement between 20 parties that mutually opens up Government procurement. We have already seen in the UK the way that competition drives up quality while keeping prices low. The GPA keeps suppliers competitive and provides them with opportunities overseas. It is a driver of growth, not a threat to our economy. The idea that we can, or even should, do everything domestically is not desirable or practical in this increasingly interconnected world. Instead, we should be making sure that we have resilient supply chains through a more diverse range of partners. We will be an international champion for free and fair competition in the coming months and years through our discussions at the WTO, the G20 and bilaterally. We will urge other countries not to heed that false, but enticing, call for protectionism.
Let me be clear to the House: the GPA sets out rules for how public procurement covered by the agreement is carried out. As an independent member, we are free to decide what procurement is covered under the agreement. The UK’s GPA coverage does not and will not apply to the procurement of UK health services. Our NHS is not on the table.
We are also committed to continuing our trade with existing partners that have agreements through the EU, such as South Korea and Chile. To date, we have signed 20 such trade agreements representing 48 countries, and others are still under negotiation. This accounts for £110 billion of UK trade in 2018, which represents 74% of continuity trade. People said that we would not be able to roll over these agreements—well, they were wrong, and we will be signing more in the coming months. This work is part of securing the Government’s aim to have 80% of UK trade covered by free trade agreements in the next three years.
We are also looking to new partners. Negotiations with the US and Japan are kicking off. We are prioritising signing FTAs with Australia and New Zealand and accession to the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership, otherwise known as the CPTPP. With the UK global tariff now published, there will be an increased incentive for other countries to come to the table to maintain or improve upon their preferential terms and conditions. Fundamentally, free trade is humanitarian and we will maintain preferential margins for developing countries, helping businesses lift millions out of poverty. As a Government, we have committed to going further than the EU has in terms of trade for development, and we are looking at reducing or removing tariffs where the UK does not produce goods and getting rid of cliff edges in current tariff schedules.
That brings me to the second part of our approach: fair trade. The Bill will help establish the independent trade remedies authority, which will help protect British businesses against injury caused by unfair trading practices such as dumping or subsidy, or unforeseen import surges. I tell the House that while free trade has no stauncher friend than this Government, unfair trading practices that hold back British businesses will have no worse enemy. We will fight against state-owned enterprises that use public money to subsidise their goods and Governments who support the lobbying of these under-priced products into the UK market.
Excellent UK industries such as ceramics and steel—represented ably by my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton), for Redcar (Jacob Young) and for Scunthorpe—should not face unfair trade. The TRA will be responsible for investigating claims of unfair trading practices based on the evidence available. It will then make impartial representations to Ministers.
The TRA’s impartiality is vital. Decisions on trade remedies cases can have a material impact on business and financial markets. This Bill will allow us to create an independent body to carry out objective investigations in which businesses can have full confidence. In developing our own trade policy for the first time in almost 50 years, we will use technology to ensure that our trade agreements are fit for the modern world. Therefore, this Bill will give the Government powers to collect and share the trade data that will help our independent trade policy. This will make it easier for our trade policy to reflect the interests of businesses across the UK.
Let me assure the House that this Bill is a continuity Bill. It cannot be used to implement any trade agreement between the UK and the EU itself, nor can it be used to implement an agreement with a country that did not have a trade agreement with the EU before exit day, such as the United States of America. The Bill can be used only to transition the 40 free trade agreements that the EU had signed with third countries by exit day, and these powers are subject to a five-year sunset clause to ensure that we can maintain the operability of transitioned agreements beyond the end of the transition period. Any extension of this five-year period will require explicit consent of both this House and the other place.
We face a period of unprecedented economic challenge. It is vital that we do not just maintain the current global trading system, but make it better. That means diversifying our trade and supporting those businesses that export. Exports, be they software or steel, cars or ceramics, barley or beef, will underpin our recovery. This Bill will ensure continued access to existing markets by letting us implement trade agreements with partner countries that previously applied under the EU. It will secure continued access for UK businesses to the £1.3 trillion global public procurement market. It establishes the independent body in the Trade Remedies Authority to give our great British businesses the protection they need from unfair trade practices. Trade will be fair as well as free. By adopting a cutting-edge digital first approach, we will be able to give businesses the best possible support.
As we recover from the economic shock of the coronavirus crisis, providing certainty and predictability in our trading arrangements will be vital to securing the interests of businesses and consumers. We will unleash the potential and level up every region and nation of our United Kingdom. Now is the time for this House to speak out against protectionism. It is time for us to embrace the opportunities that free trade and an export-led recovery will bring. I commend this Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I now call the shadow Secretary of State, Emily Thornberry, to move her reasoned amendment, and she has 10 minutes in which to speak.
Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House recognises that upon leaving the European Union, the UK will need effective legislation to implement agreements with partner countries corresponding to international trade agreements of the European Union in place before the UK’s exit, to implement procurement obligations arising from the UK becoming a member of the Government Procurement Agreement in its own right, to set out the basis of a Trade Remedies Authority to deliver the new UK trade remedies framework, and to establish the powers for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to collect and disclose data on goods and services exporters; but declines to give a Second Reading to the Trade Bill because it fails to set out proper procedures for Parliamentary consultation, scrutiny, debate and approval of future international trade agreements, fails to protect the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty in respect of the implementation of international trade agreements previously negotiated by the European Union and in respect of changes to existing government procurement regulations arising from the UK’s or other countries’ accession to the Government Procurement Agreement, fails to establish sufficient scrutiny procedures to replace those that have pertained while the UK has been a member of the European Union, fails to guarantee that the UK’s current high standards and rights will be protected in future trade agreements, and fails to render the Trade Remedies Authority answerable to Parliament or representative of the full range of stakeholders who should be included in its membership.
In moving this amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, I am conscious that, for many of us, there will be a strong sense of déjà vu: the personnel may have changed, but we have all been here before, with the same Bill, the same amendment, and the same arguments. For once, the Government are correct when they say that nothing has changed. The inescapable truth remains that this Trade Bill, as it currently stands, is a massive missed opportunity for the Government, for this Parliament and for our country.
For the past five decades, our trade policies have been set at European level. Indeed, there is not a single Member of this House who was in Parliament the last time the UK set its own trade policies, so, like it or not, this Bill carries an historic significance, and that is what I want to address today. Is this Bill, in its current form, fit to rise to its historic challenge? After five decades, in which we have seen tremendous upheaval in our global economy, does the Bill provide the legislative framework and the bold and far-reaching vision that we need to underpin Britain’s trade policies for several years to come? After five decades, does the Bill ensure that issues such as climate change and human rights, which were barely a consideration the last time the UK set its own trade policies, are now at the heart of our decision-making and central to our relationships overseas? And after five decades, does the Bill give a proper voice to the devolved Administrations, who did not even exist back then, and to all other private, public and civic-sector bodies whose ideas and insights constantly improve our policy-making and remind us that Whitehall does not know best? Finally, after five decades, does this Bill restore full sovereignty to Parliament over Britain’s trade policies, especially when it comes to the formulation, scrutiny and approval of new trade agreements? Those are the questions I asked myself. As I will explain, the answer that came back, on every front, was a resounding no—even worse, a warning cry that far from restoring the powers of Parliament when it comes to trade policy, this Bill erodes them to nothing.
Let me begin with the first question, namely whether this Bill gives us a legislative framework and a bold new vision for decades of trade policy to come. Here we find ourselves in the strange position of having Ministers themselves tell us that the answer is no. They say that there is nothing of significance in this legislation, and that it is simply a continuity Bill that is designed to maintain the status quo beyond 31 December. I will come back to whether that is right, especially in respect of new trade agreements, but one thing is for sure: there is no bold, long-term vision in this Bill. There is no great legislative framework for the future, and when it comes to the UK shaping its own trade policy after five long decades, this Bill certainly was not worth the wait.
That brings us to the second question, namely to what extent the Bill reflects the necessary and welcome widening of Britain’s trade policy objectives over five decades, and the extent to which it puts at the heart of our future trade agreements the issues of climate change, environmental protection, human rights, workers’ rights, sustainable development and gender equality. Again, we should all be ashamed to say that the answer is: not at all.
I will take just one of those issues, namely human rights. It is disappointing enough that the Government are failing to make it a key priority in negotiating new trade agreements, but what is truly damaging is the Government’s willingness to omit from their rolled-over trade agreements the human rights clauses that are now mandatory in all deals with the EU. If the Government want to refute that, the Minister of State has a simple task when he closes the debate later. He should guarantee that the rolled-over trade agreements that the Government are still trying to negotiate before 31 December with Cameroon and Egypt will both contain clauses enabling the UK to terminate the agreements if those countries continue their horrendous abuse of human rights. Will he ensure that the same policy applies to Turkey, Singapore, South Sudan and every other country with whom we are in negotiation?
The third question was whether the Bill marks a decisive break with the “Whitehall knows best” attitudes that dominated policy making five decades ago, and instead paves the way for Britain’s new trade policies to be formed in a transparent and inclusive way, for example by consulting the elected representatives of our regions and devolved Administrations, benefiting from the expertise of our development and environmental non-governmental organisations, or listening to the concerns of British businesses and their employees. Again, the answer, sadly, is no.
We see that most starkly when it comes to the Bill’s proposals for the membership of the trade remedies authority. That will be a vital body with a vital task, but it will have no guaranteed representation from the UK’s industry bodies and trade unions—the representatives of the people most affected by the unfair practices that the TRA is supposed to prevent. No wonder there are such concerns and suspicions that the Government’s true agenda for the TRA is not to defend Britain against underpriced imports, but somehow to balance the damage they do to domestic producers against the perceived benefits for domestic consumers. That is not the job of the trade remedies authority. That is why we instead need there to be proper representation on the board for the businesses and workers that it has been set up to defend, and why we need the TRA to be accountable to Parliament rather than Government.
That brings me to the final question, which is of the greatest immediate significance: whether, after five decades, this Bill succeeds in restoring parliamentary sovereignty over our country’s trade policies or whether, in fact, the opposite is true, as Members here and in the other place—all formidably led by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner)—have consistently said over the past two and a half years.
Let us take an example. The Secretary of State is a fan, it would seem, of the Government procurement agreement. As my colleagues have pointed out in the past, no matter how much we agree with the GPA, it is still incredible that the UK can accede to the GPA and MPs have no practical means to stop it; that the UK’s coverage schedules can be sent to the WTO and MPs have no opportunity to approve them; and that changes can be made in the future to the UK’s commitment under the GPA, and MPs will have less chance to scrutinise them than we did when Brussels was in charge and the European Scrutiny Committee was in place. So in an area such as Government procurement, the Bill does not advance parliamentary sovereignty—it does not even leave us standing still. The Bill takes us backwards.
Let us look at a more contentious area: new trade agreements. The Government have tried to convince us that, because the Bill only seeks to provide the basis to roll over existing agreements, we do not have to worry about the almost complete absence of accompanying parliamentary scrutiny or approval. But the reality is that in many cases there are or will be major differences between the UK’s third country agreement and the EU equivalent it is opposed to replicate.
Let us look at some of the examples we have seen. We have agreements with five countries in a trade bloc where the UK only covers three. We have EU agreements with mandatory clauses on human rights that the UK has agreed to drop. We have an EU agreement with Turkey based on a customs union, which the UK has explicitly rejected. We have an EU agreement with Japan, which both the Secretary of State and her Japanese counterpart have said our bilateral deal should go beyond, and that will doubtless be true of the Canada deal as well.
In short, we will end up with several major new trade deals all significantly different from their EU equivalents, but all subject to the same minimal amount of parliamentary scrutiny and approval, as proposed in the Trade Bill. That is not a restoration of parliamentary sovereignty. That is not anywhere near the gold standard of parliamentary consultation, scrutiny and approval of trade deals that we see in Australia or the United States. That is not therefore what I would call taking back control.
In conclusion, I believe that this Trade Bill offers a historic opportunity, but that opportunity has so far been missed. Instead of a bold, strategic vision for the future of our trade policy, we have a stopgap piece of legislation that even Ministers are trying to talk down. Instead of issues such as climate change and human rights being put at the heart of our trade policy, they have been ignored or consciously dropped. Instead of opening our trade policy to the expertise of others, the Government are denying them even a seat at the table. And instead of restoring Parliament’s sovereignty over trade policy, this Bill leaves MPs even more powerless than before. That is why I urge colleagues on both sides of the House to support the Opposition’s amendment. After five decades, let us spend the time and effort we need to get this historic Bill right.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
I will not go over the detailed points in relation to the Bill so eloquently made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—I have to say that I recognised some of the phraseology in her arguments—but I want to deal with the context in which it is being brought forward.
During the long gestation of the Bill, a lot has changed. Not only have we had the covid crisis, which will have a fundamental effect on the global economy, but in 2019 we saw the culmination of many of the predictions that were made by the Department for International Trade. We predicted that we would see first a slowdown in the growth of global trade and then potentially a contraction of global trade itself. We watched through 2019 the WTO make predictions on global trade growth, down from 2.8% to 2.2% and 1.4%. It finally came in at 0.7%. The key element was that it contracted in Q4, which has generally in history presaged a downturn in the global economy.
That happened for a number of reasons. The US-China trade dispute had a general effect on global trade, and in particular we saw the shortening of global supply chains, as people sought to onshore and shorten global supply chains by minimising the import of intermediate goods. We saw the inevitable consequence of the trend over the decade of the G20 countries applying more and more non-tariff barriers to trade—quadrupling them in the first half of this decade—and they all matter. A bit of consumer protection here, a bit of environmental protection there and a bit of producer protection here are all justifiable in themselves, but they all add up. They have all resulted in a silting up of the global trading system, and the skies over the global trading system are now darkening with those chickens coming home to roost.
Why does it matter? It matters because a free and open trading system has been our route to the reduction in global poverty, with more than 1 billion people taken out of abject poverty in just one generation. There is another reason it matters, which is that access to prosperity, political stability and security are part of the same continuum. It is unthinkable that the wealthiest countries in the world should pull up the ladder behind us, stopping developing countries gaining access to the same levels of prosperity. It is absurd to believe that we can do that without seeing disruption in global security. If we deny people access to prosperity, do not be surprised if we see more mass migration and more radicalisation. We need to understand that we cannot separate the concepts. Those who wish to introduce protectionism into the global economy will have to bear the consequences of the actions they are currently embarked upon.
I want to see us, through this Bill and beyond, doing more on global trade liberalisation. Going back to where we were pre-covid will not be enough, because global trade was contracting. I was a proud Brexiteer, but I have never been a little Englander. My objection to the European Union in the era of globalisation was not the absurd notion that it was foreign, but that it was not foreign enough. It did not have global aspirations that were in tune with what we as a country wanted to see. Post covid, all the challenges we face together will be bigger, and we will have to work with all those who believe in free trade to put them right.
The UK exports 30% of our GDP. Germany exports 48% of its GDP, and OECD data shows that the trade slowdown has hit the European Union hardest of all in the global economy, with exports from the EU contracting by 1.8% in the third quarter of 2019, even before global trade itself contracted. That is the scale of the challenge that we face.
The Government’s proposed tariff regime reform is to be hugely welcomed, although it could be even more liberal yet. The new FTAs and the roll-over agreements allowed through the Bill are also to be welcomed. Those who put obstacles, political and otherwise, in the way of both the roll-over agreements and the new FTAs through largely pointless and irrelevant arguments need to understand the consequences to the wider global economy, as well as to our domestic prosperity, of doing so.
My right hon. Friend was right when she talked about the bigger picture and how we must champion World Trade Organisation reform. Without it, we will be unable to maintain the rules-based system, which is already substantially under threat. The alternative to a rules-based system is the survival of the strongest, and that will have the biggest impact on the poorest countries. This is an area where we can give a lead as a country not only economically, but morally.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Stewart Hosie, who has seven minutes.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP) [V]
May I start by agreeing with the Secretary of State that it is absolutely vital that we keep trade open and recognise the importance of the supply chain, and that it is absolutely essential that we stand against protectionism? We need to do that, because right now there are three main threats to trade. The first is self-evidently from the covid crisis, which the World Trade Organisation has suggested might cause a fall in global trade of something in the order of 13% to 32%. That is a substantial reduction, no matter where on the scale one looks. The second is the impact of Brexit. Assessments suggest that the UK could lose a substantial chunk of its global trade. The third is the more systemic problem that the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), the ex-Trade Secretary, was speaking about, which is the continued implementation of new and the continuation of existing trade restriction measures, with tariffs valuing somewhere around $1.6 trillion in force.
I am not confident that those problems will be resolved any time soon, not least because there is as yet no cure for coronavirus and restrictions of one sort or another may well remain in force for some considerable time, because of the highly publicised lack of progress on the Brexit negotiations, and also, sadly, because of the absence of a functioning World Trade Organisation appellate body. This Trade Bill does not address any of those matters, other than perhaps at the margins, by trying to roll over and maintain the trade the UK has with third countries via membership of the EU and thereby minimise the losses from Brexit.
The Bill does do a number of other things, as the Secretary of State set out. It creates procurement obligations arising from membership of the GPA—the agreement on Government procurement; it creates the Trade Remedies Authority; and it gives powers to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to collect and share data. However, it is not without its problems. Let me deal with the powers relating to the devolved Administrations first. The previous Trade Bill, which was under consideration in the previous Parliament, contained provision for regulation-making powers to be available to the UK Government within areas of devolved competence. That Bill also contained a provision that prohibited devolved Administrations from using powers to modify retained direct EU legislation or anything that was retained EU law by virtue of section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) 2018 Act in ways that would be inconsistent with any modifications made by the UK Government, even in devolved areas. As a result, the Scottish Government could not consent to that, and that view was shared by the Scottish Parliament Finance and Constitution Committee.
That Trade Bill did not complete its passage and fell, and the good news is that those provisions have been removed from this reintroduced Trade Bill. However, there remains no statutory obligation for the UK Government to consult or seek the consent of Scottish Ministers before exercising the powers they have in devolved areas. However, during the partial passage of the previous Trade Bill, the UK Government made a commitment to avoid using the powers in the Bill in devolved areas without consulting and ideally obtaining the consent of Scottish Ministers. The then Minister of State at the Department for International Trade, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), subsequently restated those commitments in his letter to Ivan McKee, the Scottish Trade Minister, on 18 March, and I hope that the Minister we hear from today will restate these non-legislative commitments.
The Bill is not without its problems, and they do not relate simply to the devolved Administrations. It allows the UK Government to modify retained direct principal EU law, and it appears to me that there are no legislative limits on such modifications. The second problem is the description of an “international trade agreement” in clause 2(2)(b), which states that it may be
“an international agreement that mainly relates to trade, other than a free trade agreement.”
As we know, modern agreements are as much about regulation, standards, conformance, dispute resolution or food safety as they are about quotas and tariffs. Many people will uncomfortable that Ministers can modify existing agreements in the way in which this Bill permits, particularly without scrutiny and consent.
That leads me to the fundamental problem with the Bill. The absence of parliamentary scrutiny and a parliamentary vote on significant changes or modifications, or, indeed, in the future, on new trade deals as may be envisaged by the Government, is a huge problem. Modern democracies need to have full scrutiny of trade agreements, from the scope of the negotiating mandate right through to implementation. That is absent from this Bill, as is any provision for scrutiny other than through the voluntary scrutiny proposed by the Government in the Command Paper published in the previous Parliament, to which I will return briefly at the end of my speech.
These issues also highlight the absence of any formal input into trade deals or significant modification of existing ones by the devolved Administrations—a problem replicated in the membership of the Trade Remedies Authority, where no formal ability exists for the devolved Administrations to propose or nominate a member with expertise in regionally or nationally significant trade.
I shall turn briefly to the Command Paper that was published in 2019 and covered the previous Trade Bill. Does it still apply? Does the commitment to publishing our negotiating objectives and scoping assessments still exist? Even if it does, does the Minister recognise that that still does not give Parliament or the devolved Administrations any role in approving them? Is it still the intention of the UK Government to provide sensitive information to a scrutiny Committee? Would that be the Select Committee on International Trade, which is ably chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil)? If it is, will any papers provided be publishable, or will they be restricted? If they are restricted, that will still leave Members of Parliament, exporting businesses and other interested third parties none the wiser about the Government’s real intentions. I am conscious of the limited time, Madam Deputy Speaker, so let me end simply by saying—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I ask the hon. Gentleman to bring his remarks to a close. I thank him for his contribution, but we must move on. I am now introducing a time limit of five minutes, and I advise hon. Members who are speaking virtually to have a timing device visible.
Mr Jonathan Djanogly (Huntingdon) (Con) [V]
Now that we have left the EU, it seems that 20 continuity agreements have been signed with some 48 countries and that a further 20 have been negotiated, so will the Minister confirm whether there are any countries that do not wish to deal with us at the current time? It seems that Canada and Japan are refusing to be rolled over, so to speak, and want to start negotiating from scratch, so should we not now treat these unsigned countries as new FTAs, rather than including them in this EU roll-over package? Does not clause 2 in effect represent a moment of time that has now passed? In that regard, I think we should take this opportunity to recognise the friendly and co-operative attitude of those countries, such as Switzerland, Israel and Georgia, that did sign up before Brexit.
I understand the need for statutory instruments to be used to effect these roll-overs, but will the Minister confirm that, for the most part, they will be transcribed into our laws by the withdrawal Act, and that these SIs are effectively intended to deal with deal variations? The problem that we debated on the Trade Bill two years ago was that the statutory instruments’ scope could be so wide that they could be used as a Henry VIII provision for anything to do with the roll-over countries other than tariffs. Indeed, I cannot see how it is possible that they could not be used as part of a deal to issue visas, say, in return for trade access, or indeed to add on military or intelligence provisions. I believe that this could apply to amendments made to these deals for five years, even after they have been initially concluded. For instance, I do not see that there is any level of deviation from the EU deals with such counties that would necessitate a Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process. This situation led to no little disquiet last time this Bill came around, and the Government eventually came up with amendments that have now only partly been readopted.
When the Bill was debated two years ago, the first change that was made was to make the SIs affirmative. That has been retained, which is welcome. The second change was to have a three-year sunset period, and that has now been changed to five years, which seems unnecessary. The third change was to have reports produced by the Minister before the first SI, setting out all the proposed changes. In practice, this is sensible in that it will assist scrutiny and also provide a framework if there are multiple SIs. The Minister advised me that he was supportive of using reports, but he did not think they needed to be legislated for. Parliament might like to look at that again.
The fourth change was to provide that these reports should be laid 10 sitting days in advance of the first SI. This would allow comment to be made before the SI was laid, which would be more effective from a scrutiny point of view. Ministers have suggested that this procedure will be used to tie up loose ends or legislate for trade-related variations, but they will appreciate that we as legislators need to scrutinise this legislation with an eye on what it could be used for.
When the Trade Bill was debated two years ago, Parliament was promised a new FTA scrutiny regime, yet we have not put that in place, despite trade talks with the US starting. Now that Brexit has happened, the Commons has lost its European standing Committee, which reviewed the EU’s monitoring and negotiation of trade agreements. No equivalent Committee has been formed to replace it, and we have obviously lost the scrutiny previously provided by the EU itself. Keep in mind that the European Parliament’s consent to a new treaty is needed, in a way that does not happen in the UK, where there is no obligation to inform or consult Parliament, no structures for reviewing treaties, and no debate or approval needed prior to signature. There is only the CRAG process to delay ratification, which, in its April 2019 report on scrutiny of treaties, the Lords Constitution Committee described as “anachronistic and inadequate”.
I am not calling for an end to the prerogative power to agree treaties—although we need to appreciate that many pressure groups are—nor am I calling for Parliament to be able to amend draft treaties as the US Senate can, but I am calling for a proper process whereby policy objectives of treaty negotiations are published at the outset and treaty rounds are reported on. If Parliament is not to get a veto, at least CRAG should be reformed. I suggest that should include a new Commons treaty Committee and extending CRAG debates and presentation periods so that they are made more user-friendly. Brexit should involve more UK scrutiny of FTAs, not less.
Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP) [V]
As we all know, this is a reheated Trade Bill. Sometimes a meal can be all the better for the reheating—it can be better the following day—but sadly, despite all the advice and help that was given on the Trade Bill in the last Parliament, that has not come to be this time. It remains much a dog’s breakfast, with great criticism attached to it and much under-delivery on what is required.
The Bill essentially has two strands to it: the roll-over of free trade agreements and the creation of the TRA. Before we go too far on the roll-over, we almost have to take a step back. If we are indeed looking to roll over EU trade agreements that currently affect us, are we not just admitting that the EU has done quite a good job of arranging trade agreements—so much so that we want to copy them to the letter?
In fact, when we go to copy some of the trade agreements, we find we cannot replicate them. I remember raising in Committee the trade agreement with South Korea, which states that, in the automotive sector, if motor vehicles have 55% local content, the tariff can be exported. Alas, the UK alone cannot do that. The EU can do that—it has a 500 million-odd population and consumers, and the parts come from all parts of its manufacturing base—but the UK cannot take advantage of a rolled-over EU-Korea deal the way it is written at the moment. There are many things lacking at that stage.
On the Trade Remedies Authority, again, much advice has been given about what could happen and what is not happening, and it is a shame that the Government are not listening and refuse to listen to many people. There are many concerns, particularly in the ceramics trade. The TRA was set going on a wing and a prayer. We could have had Brexit long ago, and the reality is that the UK was not prepared. It still is not prepared.
We do not have the scrutiny in place. We do not have the scrutiny that my Committee called for in the last Parliament for the devolved Parliaments, but even if we take a Westminster-centric view of this, we do not have the scrutiny for parliamentarians at Westminster either. Again, the Government have missed the opportunity to get this right, and that is a huge pity. It could have been enshrined in the legislation. It is not enshrined. The opportunity has been missed.
There was an opportunity to avoid the pitfalls of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The European Union and many others have learned that trade negotiations conducted in secret do not get very far and that the population will eventually rebel, as was seen with TTIP. People have learned, but sadly it seems that the UK Government have not learned from that or, indeed, from the passage of their own Bill, which fell at the last parliamentary election, back in December.
NHS procurement should be taken care of. Wearing my constituency hat, a lot of constituents have written to me with concerns about the NHS—about making sure that there are NHS-specific carve-outs, that there is no negative listing affecting the NHS, that there are no standstill clauses, that the NHS is immune from the investor-state dispute settlement possibilities, and that there is no Americanisation of our drug situation in the United Kingdom. Particularly at this point, when the NHS is fighting coronavirus, but at all times in fact, it is incumbent on Parliament and the Government to back the NHS and make sure it is safe and protected.
The Secretary of State mentioned the USA trade deal. We have to take a step back and look at exactly what has been achieved, or the Government have tried to achieve. The USA trade deal will add only about 0.2% to the UK’s GDP, compared with the 6% that will probably be lost after Brexit—about one thirtieth of that. Given that America represents a quarter of the world’s GDP, even a trade deal with every country in the world will not make up the huge gap left by Brexit.
Finally, the Secretary of State began by saying she would do whatever it took to keep Britain trading, as she put it. Surely, at this point, “doing whatever it takes” would include staying away from this disastrously ruinous Brexit, or, at the very least, having the humility to postpone it during the pandemic. This hell-for-leather approach of going for the cliff edge this December is not what business needs at this time, or what the population needs. It is not what any of us needs at this time. If the Government are still too proud to realise that Brexit is a mistake, they should at least delay it, perhaps for one or two centuries.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) [V]
It is my great privilege to follow my friend and Chair of the International Trade Committee in this incredibly important debate. The Leader of the House said earlier that these proceedings sometimes appear stilted and scripted when done remotely. It is my challenge over the next five minutes to prove him wrong.
In my part of Lancashire, international trade is critical for jobs and prosperity. I am host to fabulous, world-class companies, such as BAE Systems and Westinghouse, the nuclear fuels manufacturer, and smaller companies such as Tangerine Holdings. The Bill is very much about the whole nature of international trade—getting that right and building a framework that will stand the test of time—and that is one reason I support its Second Reading today.
It is also my privilege to serve as one of the Government’s trade envoys. Indeed, the Secretary of State, in her opening remarks, referred to Chile as an example of one of the 48 countries with which a continuity agreement has been put in place. I would say to her that some of my other countries, through the Andean trade continuity agreements, such as Peru and Colombia, also have arrangements to ensure a smooth transition when the UK eventually leaves the EU at the end of this year.
T hat has not happened by chance. Those agreements are in place because of the dedication and hard work of people in the Department, not just in London, but especially in post. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the men and women, many of whom are nationals of the countries they represent, who work tirelessly and understand the nature of their countries in a way that is sometimes difficult to comprehend from London. Their dedication and hard work have got us to where we are today. That sometimes gets missed.
We also have to recognise that the Trade Bill is only part of the picture. Measures such as the many double taxation agreements—there is one in place with one of my countries, Colombia—are really important to ensuring a smooth transition and the financial flows that will come from trade. The Government have been working very hard on that in the last couple of years, but there is still more work to be done in other key markets across the globe.
There has been much fixation in recent years on trade deals, but they are only part of the picture; much of this is about a smooth transition from the EU arrangements to what comes next. If we are unable in this House to demonstrate to our key countries and partners across the globe that we can pass a piece of legislation, why on earth should we be asking our officials and trade envoys to make representations to senators and presidents to get agreements in place so that when we leave we can have that smooth transition? I therefore urge the House to get behind the Bill and to give it a Second Reading unamended.
I would like to take this opportunity, however, to challenge the Government on how we plan to use some of the data-collection powers in the Bill. For example, I would like to see some of the data sharing in HMRC to be used to reshape and rescope bodies such as UK Export Finance, because in all of my key markets we only ever reach a tiny percentage of the credit facilities that we say are available. Given that London is the global capital of fancy credit mechanisms, I urge the Minister—it is great to see him in his rightful place—to use some of the expertise in the City and to challenge whether UK Export Finance needs to be given the opportunity to evolve in order to take advantage of some of the real opportunities that are out there.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I have followed your example and set a timer, so in my closing seconds let me just say that free trade is important, not just as a sign of national prestige, but because it creates jobs and generates the wealth to pay for public services at home and, more importantly, abroad. At a time of rising unemployment, my goodness, we need free trade more than ever, so I will be supporting this Bill in its passage through Parliament.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab) [V]
According to research from the Harvard Kennedy School’s Growth Lab, British exports have been declining, concentrating into a smaller number of products and acting as a drag on our economic growth. Remarkably, in the past decade the UK has added only two new export products, and, perhaps embarrassingly, our main new export has been bovine, sheep and goat fat. I declare my interest as an amateur vegan, but I suggest that an economy that is as complex and capable as ours really ought to have done better.
We know that economic growth can be driven by export diversification, but to do that we need an active industrial strategy that works with the market to make clear what we actually want to achieve while investing in workers with the skills to do it. Some colleagues will say, “Ah, but it was the European Union’s job, and now that we are taking back control, it will be much better and the Bill will help us do that.” I would respectfully compare the UK’s record to, for example, that of France, which is, of course, a member of the European Union. During the same timeframe in which the UK majored on bovine, sheep and goat fats, and added around $2 per capita, with a total UK market of $104 million, France has managed to add 10 new projects, creating a new $1.9 billion market and growing GDP per capita by $28. It has therefore been a question of intent and ability, not a question of power.
Based on current capacity, the UK has a pretty good spread of manufacturing capabilities, from chemicals and machinery to automotive, gas turbines and aerospace, but the bulk of our goods-based growth has come from aerospace and automotive, whose capacity relies on European supply chains. Based on current Brexit negotiations, those supply chains are at risk, as well as under added pressure from the pandemic. The Government have largely relied on services-based growth in our economy, which of course is an important part of what we do as a country, but they took their eye off the ball in respect of British manufacturing, resulting in a weaker and more exposed market for goods, exports and economic growth.
That is the context for this Bill, because the questions that we are considering today have been with us in one form or another for the past four years. Most of the provisions in front of us today first came before the House a few months after I was elected in 2017. By any measure, this legislation has taken too long. The priorities given force in the Bill, and which even now run through all the arguments on trade made by those on the Treasury Bench, are the same arguments we have heard over the period of trading inadequacy that I have just set out. The economy is in recession and we are on the cusp of a once-in-a-century collapse in output. The key test is whether the Government are committed to bringing back British manufacturing as a core component of the British economy.
In closing, I would like to ask the Minister to answer a number of questions when summing up the debate. First, will he set out for the House whether Parliament will be given the right to full and transparent scrutiny of the trade negotiations, and confirm whether that will be by a new or existing Committee of this House? As a former member of the European Scrutiny Committee, I note that we had such a function when the European Union was negotiating trade deals, but that does not seem to be replicated in the Bill.
Secondly, local government leaders are in the process of setting out recovery plans post pandemic. What conversations is the Department having with city leaders to ensure that those leaders on the ground have input into decisions made in Whitehall?
Thirdly, Ministers have long said, whether in Brexit or trade debates, that the Government will stand by their commitment to human rights, workers’ rights and environmental protections, but this Bill does not mention climate change or workers’ rights at all. Britain has an opportunity to set the global expectation on these issues. I would like to understand why the Government have not included such provisions. There is a significant opportunity to couple climate diplomacy with export opportunities as we work to help other countries to transition to net zero. I hope the Minister will confirm that these opportunities are also being considered by the Department.
As an anti-modern slavery champion for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I have seen first hand the risks of global supply chains that do not have adequate protections and transparency built in. No work or business in the UK wants to be associated with illegal trafficking and exploitation of some of the most vulnerable people on the planet. I hope the Minister can set out how the Government intend to ensure that these protections are included in all future trade deals.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con) [V]
You do not need to pay to trade: I welcome the policy behind this legislation and the Bill itself, which makes it very clear that the United Kingdom wishes to be a positive trade partner with as many countries around the world as would like a free trade agreement with us. This Bill ensures that we can carry across the FTAs that the EU has with a range of countries that naturally fall to transit to us as well as to it. Many of us were told that we were wrong when we argued that during the referendum and afterwards, but the Government have proved us right in that of course those countries wish to roll over those agreements. In one or two cases, they wish to go considerably further than the agreements we already have. I welcome the Government’s positive response to that to see what more can be added so that we can have a better deal as we leave the European Union than we had when we were in it.
We must see the policy background to this Bill as including the most important letter written this week by our trade negotiator to Mr Barnier about the parallel negotiations for a possible UK-EU free trade agreement. It is an admirably lucid letter which makes it very clear that, just as in this Bill, we are not sacrificing our fish, offering special payments or agreeing to accept the laws of other countries in order to create a free trade agreement with them, and neither should we do so in the case of the European Union. We voted very clearly to leave the single market and to leave the customs union. Many of us who voted that way strongly believed then, and believe even more so today, that we want a free trade-based agreement with the European Union if that is also its wish, but we would rather trade with it under WTO rules and the excellent new tariff we have set out for external trade if it wishes instead to claim that we need to be some kind of surrogate member taking its laws, paying its bills and accepting many of its views on matters like our fish resources.
It is more likely that we will get a free trade agreement from a reluctant European Union just before the deadline at the end of the year if we have made great progress in negotiating free trade deals elsewhere. That is why the Government are absolutely right to respond very positively to the United States of America, to Japan, to Australia, to New Zealand and to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. In each of those cases, the counter-party is very willing. In each of those cases, there are precedents for good agreements between other parts of the world and those countries, and we can build on those and our own models for a positive free trade arrangement.
The EU will see how relatively easy it is to make such progress with those countries we have agreements with. When we were in the EU, the EU had not got round to having agreements with some of those countries—big countries such as the United States of America. When we are outside the EU, that will make the EU even keener to want to have a free trade agreement with us. Rather reluctantly, it will have to admit that it has been making a mistake over these past years in trying to make our exit so protracted and so difficult, and claiming that you do need to pay for trade.
I will vote for the Bill as vindication that, of course, many countries wish to trade with us on as free a basis as possible. I will vote for it as part of a much bigger package of a free trade loving United Kingdom driving a free trade agenda around the world. I will vote for it because it sends a clear message to the European Union that it is negotiating in the wrong way and running the danger of ending up without a free trade agreement that is rather more in its interests than ours, given the asymmetry of our trade.
Free trade is a good way to promote prosperity. It is even more vital now we need to recover our economies from the covid-19 crisis. I urge the EU to understand that and to co-operate sensibly, just as I give the Government full support to press ahead in negotiating deals with all those great countries and regions of the world that think Britain is a hugely important future partner, and where we see fast-growing trade that can enrich both sides.
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) (Lab/Co-op)
Several of my hon. Friends have made the point that current parliamentary procedure is totally inadequate if we are to scrutinise properly and have proper parliamentary oversight of trade deals negotiated by the Government. We are, of course, supportive of mechanisms that will enable the UK to transition from being a member of the EU so that we can enter into our own trade agreements and into international trade conventions through organisations such as the WTO. This Bill, however, does nothing to promote transparency or that proper scrutiny that this House and the country deserve. Therefore, I, and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends will not support the Bill.
The fact that the Bill is being pushed through in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic means that the importance that would normally be attached to such legislation is being overlooked. The current life-and-death crisis, which has been exacerbated by this Government’s bad management, is totally overshadowing it. The crisis not only overshadows this Bill, but will overshadow much of the legislation that will pass through this House in the coming weeks and months. In addition, the inevitable negative economic impact of a Brexit cliff edge, following the end of the EU exit transition period, can easily be pinned on the coronavirus crisis.
The Bill will lead to trade deals that will have huge implications for our economy and our global alliances well into the future. At the moment, the current and planned continuity trade talks between the UK and the EU are taking place at the same time as preliminary discussions between the UK and United States. The crisis provides perfect cover from view, so those discussions can happen with little scrutiny by this House and little attention from the media to inform the public.
As much as I would like to see a good trade deal with the EU, I am not one of those arguing for an extension of the transitional period. If I thought that the Government wanted anything that looked like a good trade deal with the EU, an extension would probably be a good idea, but I do not think they do. Many Conservative Back Benchers and some of those on the Government Front Bench do not want a deal with the EU and would be quite happy to throw their lot in with any trade deal with the United States—the right hon. Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) is among them.
If the Conservative party wanted a good EU trade deal, it could have had an agreement with the Labour party last year when we were debating our EU exit, and the path would have been set—but the Government did not want that. Now, of course, in the Government’s proposals for a comprehensive free trade agreement with the EU, they are asking for many of the benefits of EU membership without the costs that that membership brings. Having said that, there will still be a large divorce bill running into billions of euros for the UK to cough up, and the clock is still ticking. My bet is that any agreement on trade with the EU will be a fig leaf to hide the embarrassment of the years of discussion and negotiation.
The elephant in the room is, and always was, the United States and what the current President wants for the future. I ask myself, “Why are there two sets of trade discussions—UK-EU and UK-US—going on at the same time?” The Secretary of State for International Trade may claim that the fact that the discussions with the EU are already under way might give the UK some leverage to get better terms from the US in specific areas but, in a likely no-deal outcome or the fig-leaf agreement that I mentioned earlier, any discussions seem extremely unlikely.
In addition, for the moment, the US under President Trump will probably seek only a preliminary agreement that he can wave around for re-election purposes in November. However, if Trump wins again, he will demand that the UK has minimal trading arrangements with the EU and that the UK conforms with US norms through mutual recognition agreements, replacing EU regulations on goods, services and agricultural products, for example. This Bill is leading the UK down the slippery slope of a Government who are becoming less accountable to Parliament and the people of this country, trade relations that are not in the best interests of the people of this country and an economic future over which we have less and less control.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]
I wish to speak in support of the Bill, but also to address the importance of scrutiny by Parliament of digital trade provisions in proposed future UK trading agreements. This is a vital and fast-moving sector that is very important to the British economy. Technology touches almost all aspects of our national life, as indeed these proceedings themselves make clear.
One of the most important new trade agreements being negotiated right now is the one with the United States, but we need to make sure that the digital trade provisions of a deal do not impact on other areas of domestic law, in particular our ability to legislate to create new responsibilities for large social media companies to act against harmful content online. The example of the recently negotiated trade deal between the USA, Canada and Mexico, which I understand is the basis for the start of the American approach to negotiations with the UK, shows how the danger can lie in the detail of these agreements.
The agreement states that the signatories shall not
“adopt or maintain measures that treat a supplier or user of an interactive computer service as an information content provider in determining liability for harms related to information stored, processed, transmitted, distributed, or made available by the service, except to the extent the supplier or user has, in whole or in part, created, or developed the information.”
What that means, in short, is that while a social media platform can be used to disseminate harmful content, and indeed the algorithms of that platform could be used to promote it, the liability lies solely with the person who created that content, and it could be impossible to identify that person, except perhaps through data held by the social media platform they have used. In this context, the harmful content being shared on social media could include a wide range of dangerous material from content that promotes fraud, violent conduct, self-harm, cyber-bullying or unlawful interference in elections. This provision was included in the US-Canada-Mexico trade agreement, despite opposition from prominent members of the United States Congress, including the Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, and Senators Mark Warner and Ted Cruz.
The provision is based on the provisions in US law known as section 230 of the US Communications Decency Act. Section 230 provides broad unconditional immunity to internet platforms from civil liability for unlawful third-party content they distribute. This sweeping immunity gives internet-based entities an unnecessary and unfair commercial advantage over various law-abiding bricks-and-mortar businesses and content creators. Section 230 immunity is unconditional. The platform can even be designed to attract illegal or harmful content, to know about that illegal or harmful content, have a role in generating and editing it, actively increase its reach and refuse to do anything about it, profit from it and help hide the identity of third-party lawbreakers, and still not be civilly liable.
The grant of immunity for online services under section 230 was supposed to be in exchange for the act of voluntary filtering in a proactive and effective way, yet we all know that there are constant complaints about the failure of major tech companies to act as swiftly as we would like to see against content that could cause harm to others. If such a provision were required in the UK-US trade agreement, it would severely limit our ability to tackle online harms, as we would be prevented from creating legal liabilities, or to tackle companies failing in their duty of care to act against harmful content.
This prompts the question whether international trade agreements should be used to fix such important matters of domestic policy. There is growing cross-party consensus on that point in the US Congress as well. In the UK, these should always be matters on which Parliament has the last word. Indeed, in America, those who have advocated the inclusion of section 230 provisions in trade agreements, do so knowing that they will make it harder for them to be removed in US law itself. The Secretary of State for International Trade has assured me that the Government will not accept trade agreements that would limit the scope of Parliament to legislate to create responsibilities to act against harmful content online. I agree with her that that should be our priority, but we need to understand that that will require a different approach to the negotiations on digital trade from that which was followed by Canada with America. We should not include the provisions based on section 230 in a UK-US trade agreement.
Having trade agreements for digital services, data and technology with other major markets around the world is greatly in our national interest, but we need to make sure that they give us the freedom to act against known harms and the freedom to enforce standards designed to protect the public interest, just as we would seek to do in any other industry.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
It is a great privilege to take part in this debate. This Bill and this policy area will be one of the most important for my rural constituency of Montgomeryshire. Trade with the outside world and continuing trade with the EU is incredibly important to my agricultural community, as it is to other services and to manufacturing goods.
At the outset, I would like to welcome the 20 continuity trade agreements we have already rolled over. I would very much welcome an update from the Minister on the remaining, with an honest assessment of trade treaties, perhaps with Canada and other countries. I would also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to David Frost, Sir Tim Barrow and the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology in Brussels for their continuing work. People talk about a lack of scrutiny, but it took me less than 20 seconds to check the update on that particular treaty, check the draft legal texts that are published on the website and read the most recent correspondence from David Frost to his counterparts. I cannot see a treaty being dealt with in so much light as that one currently is.
I want to focus my contribution on agriculture under the scope of the Bill and on trade policy going forward. We have not done trade policy directly as a Parliament, as a Government or as a country for some 40 years. We devolved or evolved or passed that power over to the European Union. Any Member or person in the United Kingdom who wants to hold up the European Union as a body one would want to replicate in terms of scrutiny obviously has not been participating in public discourse over the past five years.
I welcome much of what is in the Bill, but I seek reassurances on agriculture in particular. We produce high quality produce in this country and we are proud of our exports. We are proud of what our farmers are doing in the current covid-19 crisis to supply our domestic suppliers. I think public discourse on food supply is changing. Public discourse is changing on the robustness and the resilience of our supply networks. We have seen first-hand, through the work of the International Trade Committee, what has happened to some trade deals when national Governments have looked at their domestic supplies of pharmaceuticals and food stuffs during this crisis. We need to be very mindful of that as we put new trade deals in place.
Trade is vital for carcase balancing, the ability to sell cuts that the UK market does not want, and for dealing with demand shocks and seasonal issues. Trade is hugely important to my farmers, but I feel that because this subject has been dealt with in the European Union over the past 40 years there is a lot of misinformation. There is not a great deal of clarity on trade policy or how trade deals are put together. I implore the Minister and the Government to put in place some kind of communication package to explain what it means now that we have these important powers and what it means to be negotiating with the world as UK plc.
Last week there was a conflation of import standards with domestic standards and tariffs. It was hugely complicated and hugely frustrating to deal with that conflation of information. In a domestic Bill dealing with import standards, and sanitary and phytosanitary issues on top of that, we need to be clear with our constituents and our businesses what standards we are talking about and what impact the deals will have on our agricultural communities. I implore the Minister not just to engage with the farming unions—the Farmers’ Union of Wales and the NFU Cymru in my case; and I know the Minister has been on Zoom with them this week—but to build a relationship directly with farming communities, too. The unions of course conduct a great political campaign to promote their members’ views, but we need to engage directly. The unions of course conduct a great political campaign to promote their members’ views, but we need to engage directly.
We must maintain our import standards. I very much welcome the Minister’s public commitments, made at the Dispatch Box, to maintain the bans on chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-injected beef. We must be clear that those import standards are staying and that we have the back of the agricultural community in this country. While we look at the resilience of our supply chains and the great opportunities that new trade deals with the outside world present, we must reassure and earn trust. Minister, I have to report back that, in the agricultural community, mainly because of misinformation and miscommunication, we are looking to you to earn that trust and make us some great deals.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Trade Bill is a bad Bill. It is bad because it fails to establish a proper framework whereby Parliament can scrutinise, ratify and implement all future international trade treaties; because it creates one of the weakest trade remedy authorities in the world, and because it pretends that it is necessary to roll over our existing agreements with third countries through the EU. So necessary is the measure that the Minister will have great difficulty when summing up in explaining how the Government have managed to roll over the majority of them before the Bill has passed into law. This is legislative prestidigitation of the highest order. The Government say that they need the Bill to do what they proudly boast they have already succeeded in doing without it. The truth is that the Bill is about the Government’s abrogating to themselves all future power in relation to trade agreements, freed from the inconvenient scrutiny of Parliament.
The procedure for ratifying international agreements is set out in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010—CRAGA. It stipulates that any treaty need only be laid before Parliament for 21 sitting days. If there is no vote against it during that period, it passes into law. But the Government decide Parliament’s business and can simply arrange that no vote takes place. When CRAGA was introduced, a huge number of democratic scrutiny processes were in place through the European Union. There was the European Council’s negotiation mandate and formal consultation procedures. The Committee on International Trade—the INTA Committee —scrutinised treaties before passing them to the European Parliament to vote on. Treaties then came to the European Scrutiny Committee in the Commons for further examination before the CRAGA process ratified them. Under the Bill, all that is left is the rubber stamp of CRAGA. All other layers are gone. The Bill should try to replace those layers. It cannot be right that there is no democratic oversight whatsoever of trade agreements.
Members of Parliament may disagree about whether an agreement will benefit jobs or adequately protect standards, but they should have at least the right to debate those matters and hold the Government to account. The Bill denies us that right. This is not Parliament taking back control, but Government snatching it from Parliament. That is why I believe the Bill is dangerous.
Let me remind Conservative Members of what they claimed to be fighting for at the last general election. They said that sovereignty meant not accepting the rulings of supranational courts such as the European Court of Justice. Do they therefore agree with us that the use of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms in future trade agreements should be ruled out in any form? They give higher rights to foreign investors than to our own domestic companies, allowing them to sue our Government in private courts for policy decisions that have an impact on their potential profits. So much for gaining freedom from a supranational court.
Conservative Members said that Britain had to be free to chart its own future in the world. Do they therefore agree that negative lists of services should be banned? It is impossible to specify in a list a service that has not yet been invented. The negative list process would stop the UK Government making a decision about how such services should be provided in future. So much for making our own way in the world.
Conservative Members said that they would safeguard our domestic environmental protections, food safety regulations and animal welfare laws, but simply keeping our regulations for our farmers here does not protect them in a free trade agreement. Allowing the importation of goods produced elsewhere to lower standards will undermine our producers and lead to a race to the bottom—so much for safeguarding our food and welfare standards.
The Government said they would not sell off the NHS, and of course they cannot. The NHS is not an entity that can be sold, but free trade agreements can contain an innocuous-sounding provision about the restructuring of pharmaceutical pricing models. That is the way to undermine the health service—by downgrading our bulk purchasing power against big pharma companies. So much for the NHS being “safe” in their hands.
Finally, does it follow that if this Bill is enacted, by necessity we will end up with all these measures? No, it does not. It does mean, however, that if they exist in any proposed FDA, Parliament will have no means of stopping that. This debate is about more than trade; it is about the balance of power between Parliament and the Executive. It is about the sovereignty of Parliament—something that every Tory who will vote for this obnoxious Bill swore in their manifesto to defend.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am afraid we cannot hear Richard Graham at the moment, so I will now call Robert Courts.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con) [V]
It is an honour to speak in this debate and to participate in the detail of the Bill with my colleagues from the International Trade Committee. I am pleased that so many of them are taking part in this debate. Free and open trade has created the world in which we live—a world that is open, prosperous, and inventive. One of the greatest prizes to be seized by any Government is the ability to carry out an independent trade policy, which is what we are doing today.
Why does trade matter in the first place? It is pretty straightforward. Exporters and their supply chains are responsible for millions of jobs in the UK. Countries whose economies are open have higher productivity, because of competitive pressures and greater specialisation. Analysis by the Department for International Trade suggests that businesses that export goods are around 21% more productive than their non-exporting counterparts. Those exporters provide a larger proportion of UK manufacturing and labour productivity growth.
However, we can do so much better that we currently do. That same survey data suggests that 250,000 to 350,000 UK businesses have tradeable goods and services, but do not currently trade internationally. When we couple that with the undoubted, unquestionable benefit of the UK brand, which has fans from North America to China and everywhere in between, this is an opportunity for each and every one of us throughout the country. When we consider the potential benefits of a US trade deal alone, and the possibility of bilateral trade increasing by more than £15 billion, increasing wages by £1.8 billion and benefiting every area of the country, we see the extraordinary prize that lies before us. All that is before we even start to consider the exponential growth that is likely to come from the developing world in the next 10 to 20 years.
It is foolish to see trade as some game of numbers that is reduced to statistics. People have traded together since one cave dweller traded food for tools in the dim and distant past, and what trade starts, friendships continue. Whether it was Bastiat, or someone else, who said that when goods do not trek across borders, soldiers will, the essence of that remains true, as is its flipside. Trade helps people to understand each other and get to know something of the way that other societies work. That must be delivered through an independent trade policy—one that applies our priorities to our country, and does not let somebody else’s priorities be applied for us.
Those who say that the Bill does not make provision for high standards must know that this is not the place for that; this Bill sets the framework for the conversations that are to come. In any event, the Government have been crystal clear about our ambitions for the future. As the Prime Minister said in his speech on 3 February,
“we will not accept any diminution in food hygiene or animal welfare standards… We are not leaving the EU to undermine European standards. We will not engage in any kind of dumping, whether commercial, social or environmental.”
However, having high standards is not the same thing as letting others set them for us, or seeking to control the way that others regulate their industries. If, in any event, we want to set trade defences, barriers or tariffs, we will need the Trade Remedies Authority that is set out in the Bill.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that those who object to the Bill as it stands are those who object to free trade in general and wish to cling to the old-fashioned protectionist agenda that was defeated in this country more than 100 years ago. Protectionism will always have an appeal for those who wish to protect vested interests, but we should be clear: history makes it clear that protectionism leaves everybody the poorer, and the poorest worse of all. That is all the clearer when we look at the impact of the current crisis. Exporters and their supply chains are responsible for millions of jobs in the UK. With unemployment rising during the crisis, job creation with exporters afterwards will be more important than ever, and we must have the flexibility to make our own measures for our own markets. Only by having that flexibility can we ensure that Britain’s economy is successfully refreshed.
As we look to ensure that we have what we need to protect us for the future—PPE, medicines and other things —it is natural to wish to turn inwards, to protect we have and to keep more for ourselves, and to ensure that we in our island can look after ourselves. In some ways, that is an understandable impulse, but not in the area of trade. Not only is it morally wrong to retreat behind a protectionist barrier wall by which the developing world is excluded—we would pay the consequences for that behaviour in any event—but it is against our own interests. We cannot make everything ourselves and we cannot make everything well. We should concentrate on what we are good at—high-tech industries, for example—and look elsewhere at where others can better help us and we can help them, too.
It is keeping open global trade routes that has enabled us to be fed, to buy PPE and to secure essential medication from all across the globe. Free trade is not just an economic opportunity, but the openness of the system itself provides a vital defence. We must seek to diversify our supply chains, because in that way we can improve our resilience to withstand future challenges and ensure that we reduce our reliance on countries—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his speech, but we have to move on now to Paul Girvan—[Interruption.] We will come back to Paul Girvan, and will move on to Marco Longhi.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
The Trade Bill we are discussing today is a framework that allows us to continue to trade as a nation state with those countries who already have a trade agreement with the EU. It enables UK service providers to seek out business in Government procurement markets worth £1.3 trillion, and reshores from the EU those protections available under WTO rules to support British business against unfair trading activities under the new trade remedies authority.
Why is that important? It means that we will harpoon yet again the ill cited arguments that we will crash out and fall off a cliff edge through Brexit. It means that we can seek out new business, and it means that we can finally take effective action ourselves against rogue nations who do not respect international trading conventions. Let us remind ourselves of the EU’s impotence when China dumped its excess steel on our markets, and the jobs it cost us here in the UK.
It is an undisputed fact that open markets and free trade generate wealth and our new-found and hard-won ability to seek out new markets will grow our economy. Covid-19 has brought about a global tendency towards protectionism, which we know has the opposite effect. We must not be drawn into this trap at any cost, as we shall be poorer for it. However, what covid-19 has shown is that for all their rhetoric, the EU’s institutions fail to respond effectively, if at all, and its constituent members immediately behaved as a collection of nation states. They offered a shallow apology to the Italian people for leaving them to their own devices while protecting their own. I must ask, was that not entirely predictable? That begs the question of how, as a nation at this historic junction, we consider the strategic implications of a future crisis. Should we be more self-reliant in key areas such as energy, food and medicines? Many large corporates are now reshoring as they understand the total cost of outsourced activities, including problems with quality control, the cost of unreliable supply chains and the carbon footprint of products, just to name a few. That is why I was delighted to hear about our investment to produce 70 million masks in the UK and create around 450 jobs at the same time. It is about taking a risk-based approach and understanding the total cost-benefit arguments of decisions that we take in the key areas that affect our national resilience.
Globalisation is here to stay. As we harness the great opportunities presented to us by Brexit and FTAs, our biggest challenge is how we do so. The area that I represent in Dudley and the many areas that my new colleagues represent have not always benefited. Globalisation has seen benefits, but also a race to the bottom with a low-wage economy in traditional manufacturing and the loss of jobs in the sector. Buying a pair of boots for a few pounds less is not a huge benefit if there is not a job to go to.
Analysis shows that there are between 250,000 and 350,000 businesses that currently do not export but could. My plea is that we target those businesses, with a special focus on those in the midlands, with determination, enthusiasm and strategic focus, and at real pace, so that we can add value and bring new jobs to these areas while we also minimise the devastating impact of covid-19 on local economies and people’s lives.
Paul Girvan (South Antrim) (DUP) [V]
It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) and to have an opportunity to talk about the Bill, which is a road map to the UK and Northern Ireland’s future trading relationship with the rest of the world. It is important that we uphold and protect the good standards that we have set.
The Bill is focused on five main areas: procurement and the GPA; trade agreements; the formation of a trade remedies authority; information collecting, mainly in respect of HMRC; and data sharing. I want to focus mainly on what will affect Northern Ireland, which has a large proportion of exports, with 17% of all Northern Ireland sales going out of the country—sales worth £6.2 billion in 2018-19.
Two of our main sectors are machinery and transport: machinery makes up £3.2 billion of our total, and food, agriculture and the export of live animals make up £1.5 billion. I agree with the comments by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) about agri-food, which we have to protect. We must ensure that we maintain the standards that have been fought for and achieved, and that we implement them as much as we can in any future agreements. We have a fantastic farming and agri-food industry in Northern Ireland. We have fought hard to ensure that our industry is sustainable, and we want to ensure that it is there for the future.
The pharmaceutical industry plays a big role in Northern Ireland. In my constituency we have Randox, and elsewhere in Northern Ireland we have Almac and Norbrook Laboratories. All are working hard during this covid-19 crisis. They have an offer to the rest of the world that we have to maintain.
We have a great wealth of talent in our tech industry. It was recently announced that 65 jobs are to be created in Northern Ireland at the American firm Cygilant. We have to ensure that we have opportunities to uphold. I am a free marketeer, but I do believe that we have to protect those industries that are currently struggling and make sure that they have every opportunity to be included in trade deals.
The previous Bill fell in 2019 as a result of the Westminster election. As we did not have a Northern Ireland Assembly in place at that stage, we had no input from the Northern Ireland Executive in relation to what should or should not be included in that Bill. We have an opportunity to ensure that all areas of the United Kingdom are represented on the new body, the TRA, that will be set up. All regions of the United Kingdom and the devolved areas should be represented on it. I am asking for an assurance that when deals are put forward, they apply in full to Northern Ireland, are fully accessible to businesses and trade from Northern Ireland and will be for the benefit of all. This Bill is an opportunity for us to take back trade certainty and to take back control within our own Parliament and we will support it. I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate this afternoon.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
We can now go back to Richard Graham.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con) [V]
I hope you can hear me better this time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to join this debate.
As our debate across the country widens gradually from how to protect our citizens’ health to how to protect their jobs, this Trade Bill is important. Some 30% of our GDP comes directly from our exports, and they in turn generate many of the jobs of all of our constituents. This is especially true in high-value manufacturing and engineering, cyber and services, in all of which there are some great examples clustered around my constituency of Gloucester.
This Bill, which provides the infrastructure for our own trading agreements with the Government procurement and the Trade Remedies Agency, is part of our plan to put our exporters in a position not just to recover but to grow again. Alongside the talks with the EU being handled through the Cabinet Office, and those by the Department of International Trade with the US, Australasia and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, this Bill highlights some of the Government’s strategy to take this forward.
I support all the goals mentioned in the Bill, but at the same time we should be honest about the risks. Global trade is currently in decline. Nationalism and protectionism are on the rise. The backdrop is not as benign as it was for an overall expansion of our trade, growth of exports and expansion of jobs in exporting businesses. We clearly do need to finish the agreements with our allies, such as Singapore, Canada and Japan, with which agreements did already exist. Trying to negotiate separate agreements with separate teams simultaneously with both the US and the EU is high-wire trade diplomacy. I wish our ministerial teams and all the negotiators all good fortune in taking these forward successfully. I believe that many of these things will go down to the wire, and our teams should play tough. They should stick with the game, and we need their success.
It is also worth highlighting the opportunities from the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is an important accession opportunity rather than an FTA. Even though there is some overlap, we should not forget the importance of the 10 members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. TPP is not a complete substitute for continuing to grow our business with ASEAN in terms both of exports and bilateral investment. The way in which investment from the Philippines, to pick one small example, has turned around the fortunes of the Glaswegian Scottish whisky blender Whyte and Mackay is a strong case in point when it comes to the advantages of inward investment.
May I encourage the Secretary of State, the Minister who in his place and their teams to focus strongly, as we go forward, on the Continent of Asia both for greater market access through economic dialogues, as well as on FTAs and the TPP, recognising that most of its agricultural commodities and handicrafts are completely complementary to rather than competitive with our own output. Our services, for example those providing health insurance for millions across south-east Asia, are hugely beneficial for those countries as well as for our businesses. Ultimately, that is why this Bill is so important: it is an opportunity not only for us but for our trading partners, and we are right to strongly make the case as to why free trade does matter across the world.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I shall now suspend the House until 4.24 pm.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We go now to Belfast South and Claire Hanna.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We in the Social Democratic and Labour party have put on record our concerns about the concept of upending the trade environment for businesses, particularly while many are in the fight of their lives against covid, as well as our scepticism about the possibility of negotiating this deal in just seven months, given the social distancing and travel restrictions on us all.
We have another few objections to the content of this Bill. The first concerns democratic oversight and the Bill’s failure to uphold basic principles of scrutiny and oversight, including around delegated powers. When Brexit was fought for on the basis of powers for this Parliament, it seems bizarre that MPs would vote to hand those powers to the Government unchecked to allow them to negotiate and sign, with incomplete scrutiny, trade deals that could have a massive effect on many aspects of our lives. Trade is a reserved matter, and this has particular implications for those of us in devolved regions where the powers may very well cut across devolved matters.
Our second objection relates to the protection of the national health service. The Bill fails to provide cover for that, despite numerous invitations to the Government to do so. The Government may say that the national health service is not for sale, but many people feel that actions in the medium and recent past make that unlikely to be true. Many have pointed out that we had applause for the national health service just last Thursday, but on Monday of this week a Bill was introduced that will seriously hamper the ability to provide health and social care services. Leaked papers from last year make very clear—if they were not already—the US’s interests in a trade deal, namely further access to NHS contracts and data. If the Government want people to believe that that will be off limits, they need to legislate specifically for that.
We also have serious concerns about the environmental ramifications of the approach set out in the Bill, which we do not think is compatible with an acknowledgment of our obligations to address climate change and improve resilience. The Bill should be underpinned by binding high environmental standards and non-regression provisions, but it is not. If done badly, these trade deals risk a race to the bottom on environmental protections and standards, as well as labour protections and standards. The fact that the Government rebuffed attempts to introduce standards via the Agriculture Bill will convince many people that the Government are not serious about such protections.
That leads me on to farming. Farmers in Northern Ireland and, I would imagine, elsewhere were dismayed by the Government’s failure to accept reasonable amendments to the Agriculture Bill. That leaves farming and many other sectors facing an uncertain future. That is particularly true for farmers in Northern Ireland—I am sure it is the same in many other regions—who trade and market on the basis of exceptionally high standards. They now fear that they will face competition from products of low and, indeed, unknown standards.
I want to finish with some questions that I hope the Secretary of State will address in her wind-up. One is about the trade arrangements that we currently enjoy with other territories—I think there are 74. How many of those arrangements have been rolled over to date, given that we require them all to be so within a matter of months? Does she anticipate that any countries that have rolled over, or that have indicated a willingness to do so, will seek to renegotiate in the light of the tariff schedule that was published yesterday? Does she acknowledge that every differential between the UK and the EU tariff schedules adds to the list of goods at risk in the Northern Ireland protocol and offers incentives for smuggling? Does she believe that that is yet another unfortunate consequence that people in Northern Ireland have to deal with, despite having rejected Brexit at every turn?
Finally, the Secretary of State has pointed out in the past that Northern Ireland will have UK tariffs applied—and lower, if that is negotiated with partners—but if any future arrangements require changes to regulatory practices and areas that are covered by the Northern Ireland protocol, will those arrangements have a carve-out for Northern Ireland?
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con) [V]
It has been almost four years since the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union. For the majority of that time, my constituents have been wondering what this would mean for them, their families and their businesses. Much has been made of the negatives in the last few years. What might go wrong? What markets are being lost? What standards are being lowered, and so on?
Today, of course, we find ourselves in a state of flux. The year 2020 has taken an unexpected turn and has altered the world in such a way that we are currently not sure what our normal is. Our coastal and rural communities are understandably nervous about what their future will look like. I understand those concerns completely, but the Bill offers a glimpse of life in the future, and for this we must be optimistic. With this Bill, global markets are a step closer to being opened up to Truro and Falmouth, the whole of Cornwall and the entire United Kingdom.
Figures suggest that a free trade agreement with the US, for example, could potentially boost the economy in the south-west by £284 million in the long term. One business in my constituency that might benefit from this is a copywriting agency based in Penrhyn. It works for tech companies around the world, including the likes of Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle and Salesforce, and around 35% of its business is from overseas. Two of the biggest clients are now based in the US, and it received funding last year from the Department for International Trade to travel to Boston to develop stronger relationships with one of its clients, a global software firm. Another company, also based in Penrhyn, uses precision 3D laser scanners to offer a safe and highly efficient surveying service to a wide range of industries. Founded 10 years ago as a 3D mining surveying company, it has branched out and offers surveying for yachts, vessels and other architectural design, with work being explored in the Balkans and on the African continent. These are just two examples of businesses in my constituency where I hope future open markets will be of greater advantage. There are many such businesses in Cornwall that can springboard once tariffs and red tape are reduced.
To support the dairy industry, food and drink and small businesses, the FTA could allow changes to tariffs for key exports such as dairy, which are currently as high as 25%. It could also see protection and growth for the region’s famous local exports. The south-west already exports £3.7 million-worth of drinks to the US, and a deal could help to build those exports and maintain effective protection for food and drink names to reflect their geographical origins, such as Cornish cider and, of course, Cornish pasties.
Last week, we voted to ensure that the Agriculture Bill moved to the next stage of its progress through Parliament. The House will remember that there were two amendments regarding the protection of food standards. I voted with the Government because I felt that this was not a discussion that should disrupt an otherwise fantastic piece of legislation. However, it is an important issue and one that Cornish farmers and I feel very strongly about.
Many farmers in my constituency are concerned that opening up the markets to imports from the US, in particular, could unfairly disadvantage them. However, managed correctly, I strongly believe that the UK agricultural sector will greatly benefit from a UK-US trade deal. There are clear opportunities for agricultural exports, of course. Currently, the average tariff on Cornish cheese, for example, is around 17%, which means that US consumers must pay more, so our quality produce is often priced out of the market.
However, on the tricky subject of food imports, I believe that the Government need to consider open, clear and obvious labelling—I am a big labelling fan and I am becoming a labelling nerd. I really want to see the Government working with food and agricultural industries to ensure that consumers can really see what they are buying. In my heady days as a new MP, all the way back at the beginning of the year, the Secretary of State made encouraging noises about better labelling, and that, for me, is key. When purchasing fresh meat, we see that our labelling has got much better. I, for one, always look to see that a chicken is free range and British. I am reassured by that, as I know that our free range chickens are, on the whole, happy chickens. However, someone buying a chicken korma ready meal, for example, will see no indication of where that chicken started its life or of whether it was content with its lot.
In closing, we must trust the British people to do the right thing, and we must give them all the information they need to make the correct decisions. Most people want to support British farmers, and reward their hard work and high animal welfare standards. The Government have a responsibility to make that as easy as possible; it is not protectionism—it is trust. It is about trusting our farmers and farming industry to carry on being the best—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady has exceeded her five minutes.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con) [V]
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, as it represents a major step forward in the UK’s journey to reclaim its role as the independent, global trading nation we all want it to be, delivering on a pledge I made to my constituents and the Government made to the country. Burnley has been a beneficiary of free trade: our largest employers include Safran Nacelles, of France, and Paradigm Precision, of the United States, and only a few weeks ago, Ultimate Visual Solutions, a local business, worked with the Department for International Trade to secure its first order in Vietnam—I am sure it will be the first of many.
Sadly, however, our area has lost jobs in recent weeks. Lancashire is the fourth largest manufacturing cluster for aerospace in the world, and that is one of the most global of sectors, in terms of both the supply chain and the customers it serves. The sector has been hit hard, and our challenge is to make sure that free and fair trade helps to spur our recovery on, getting the hundreds of thousands of businesses that do not currently export exporting, and generating economic growth and the jobs that go with it. I am committed to doing everything I can to make sure that is the case in Burnley. I was particularly pleased to hear the Secretary of State mention the textiles industry, as anyone who knows Burnley well will know that it was once the centre of global textiles and continues to have a thriving industry, which I know can reclaim that title once again.
For international trade to work, we need to ensure we have a safety mechanism—a way of dealing with those countries that say they trade freely but seek advantage through anti-competitive means. The proposal in this Bill for a Trade Remedies Authority is therefore welcome. That body will need to have the teeth required to deal with subsidies, dumping and any other measures used to distort the market.
As we take this step again towards being an independent, global trading nation, it is right that we also consider why trade is important, and not just why we are supporting it. The simple truth remains that free trade creates free people; it has done more to lift people out of poverty than any other measure, and it continues to drive global economic growth. That is why the UK initially joined what was then the European Economic Community; we saw, and continue to see, the benefits of striking trade relationships with like-minded countries. Having left the EU, it is important for us to look at the agreements struck on our behalf over the past 40 years to identify whether to carry them over. This Bill allows us to do that. I congratulate the Secretary of State and the whole departmental team for the way in which they have done this; 48 of these agreements are ready to be rolled over, securing more than £110 billion-worth of trade.
I have heard some people criticise the way in which the Government are planning to roll over some of the agreements, including the one with Japan, as though trying to be more ambitious, liberalising more trade and securing thousands more jobs in the UK were, in some way, a bad thing. The message from the House in this debate should be clear: the Government have our full support in trying to strike the best trade deals. We should roll them over where we can, where it is in our interests, but we should also build on them where we can, getting the best for Britain, because as we emerge on to the world stage of trade, we should be the leading light. I welcome the Government’s transparency as to where they seek to do that. Last week, we got full sight of the negotiation objectives for the UK-Japanese negotiations, just as we have done in respect of the US ones. The Secretary of State has made herself available to all colleagues on many occasions to discuss the UK-US free trade agreement, and I am sure that similar time will be made available to discuss the Japanese negotiations. Committing to using the affirmative procedure for any secondary legislation required to implement these continuity agreements ensures that there is ample time for debate in both Houses.
We also need to ensure that our trade agreements—those that are getting rolled over and those we negotiate in the future—are fit for the 21st century. Where we can negotiate new deals that allow UK technology companies to operate globally, including through innovative regulatory mechanisms such as the FinTech bridge, we should do so. Chapters on that, along with those on SMEs, will allow our businesses not just in Burnley but beyond to scale up rapidly in the global market, delivering the economy of the future.
I warmly welcome the Bill. It puts the UK back on the global trading map with an independent trade remedies body, and it provides the mechanism needed to roll over and expand existing trade agreements. For that reason, I look forward to voting for the Bill later.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD) [V]
The Liberal Democrats will be voting against the Second Reading of the Trade Bill. It denies the British people the same rights that they enjoyed as members of the European Union, including the right to scrutinise and properly debate the terms on which we will trade with the rest of the world. When we were represented by Members of the European Parliament, we enjoyed that right. Our representatives were required to vote on all draft trade deals before they could be ratified. There is not enough time today to go over the old debate on whether or not the UK is better off as part of a single trading bloc—Members will surely be in no doubt about my own views on that issue—but it is inconsistent to have secured the right for the UK to negotiate its own trade deals, only to promptly shut the British people out of all discussions about them.
What would our constituents wish us to prioritise if they were allowed a say? They would want to know that goods coming into our country were produced to the same quality standards as the domestically produced goods they will compete with; that any food coming from abroad was farmed with sufficient regard to animal welfare; and that consumers were protected from shoddy or unsafe goods. They would want to know that the workers producing those goods in other countries had the same rights as UK workers, and to know that cheaper prices for imported goods were not achieved at the cost of employee welfare. They would also want to resist a race to the bottom by business owners who argue that maintaining employment standards in this country makes them uncompetitive. They would want to know that the UK and our international trade partners were pushing forward towards the goal of achieving net zero carbon, and that we could not accept goods into our domestic market that were produced with environmental standards that where any lower than those of goods produced here.
The Government wish to preserve the Union, but we know that they are happy for part of the United Kingdom to trade under different terms from the other nations to meet their political objectives. What else will this Government trade away if they are left unscrutinised? Our counterparts in trade negotiations will have to have their deals endorsed by their legislatures. The US deal will need to be ratified by Congress. Its negotiators will know what will and will not get through Congress, and they will use that as a negotiating position. We will not have the same negotiating strength, as our counterparts will know that we do not have to defer to Parliament. It will be much easier for the UK to yield than it will be for the US, and how tempting will that be, if the Government prize a quick political win over uninteresting detail that nobody can scrutinise?
The International Trade Secretary is surely aware that the significance of tariff barriers is declining as the significance of non-tariff barriers increases. Those non-tariff barriers can be complex and shifting and require difficult choices. Do we prioritise cheaper goods over the fight against climate change? Do we open up foreign markets to our exports at the risk of bolstering a regime that does not respect human rights? These questions should be debated on the Floor of the House so that the public have a full understanding of the decisions that are being made on their behalf.
This country is a very different place from the one that last negotiated its own trade agreements. We have a far wider range of consumer goods available to us, and many of us have sufficient income to be able to make discerning choices about which ones we will purchase. We are better informed than we ever were, and we use that information to guide our buying choices. Consumers are using their buying power to demand and achieve significant improvements in the ethical and environmental production of the goods they purchase. Why should the British people not being able to influence how that same power is exercised on their behalf on a national basis in the global marketplace?
To oppose the Bill is not to endorse protectionism, as some Members on the Government Benches have implied. It is simply to state that the Bill does not seek to realise fully all the opportunities that building our own trade policy represents. It robs the British people of rights they have enjoyed for 50 years and it weakens our negotiating position on future trade deals.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Over the past three months, our primary focus has been coronavirus and the challenge we face on a national and local level. It is right that we have spent a huge amount of time, effort and focus on coronavirus. At the same time, if we do not prepare as parliamentarians for the future beyond coronavirus, whenever that terrible disease eventually moves on, and if we do not spend time thinking through how we reshape the world and take advantage of the opportunities that will come, we are not doing our jobs adequately.
One of the big jobs is ensuring that we have the right foreign policy, trade policy and international trade policy. That is why I welcome the opportunity to debate this Bill. I do not share the criticisms from Members that we are not giving the Bill adequate scrutiny or that now is not the time to make these decisions. I do not claim to be an expert in international trade, but in some ways, we do not need to be experts in international trade to welcome a Bill that, at its heart, perpetuates the principle that I hope most people in this place stand for: free trade.
Free trade is one of those principles and ideologies that is not much talked about other than as a negative, but actually, it has significantly improved our lot domestically over many centuries. Vitally, it has also improved the lot of so many people across the world, ensuring that so many people are lifted out of poverty and giving us so many opportunities. Yet Members on the Opposition Benches focus on the challenges or disadvantages of it.
We as parliamentarians suffer the quagmire—the fog—of special interest groups, who are perpetually rent-seeking when it comes to these Bills. We suffer the white noise of groups such as 38 Degrees who seek to spam us in ways that misinterpret and offer misinformation about the reality of what we are trying to do.
It is free trade that has partly been responsible for the reduction in absolute poverty by more than half since 1990. It is free trade that contributed to the magnificent growth of economies around the world, such as those in South Korea and Germany, out of the ruins of war 50 or 60 years ago. We should stand up for the opportunities that free trade offers.
This is not a paean to free trade on just a principled or conceptual basis. Free trade presents demonstrable opportunities for people in my constituency and constituencies across the country. It supports jobs in places like Clay Cross, where people go to work every day in highly skilled factories to export goods across the world. It supports entrepreneurs who see new opportunities and new markets around the world for their ideas, so that they can grow their businesses in places like Dronfield and Eckington. Bluntly, it supports us all in our old age, because we put money into pensions that grow by investing in companies that use free trade to satisfy demand, move goods around the world and ensure that, ultimately, people get the things they need. I do not just support free trade from a principled perspective; I support it because it helps North East Derbyshire and every single other constituency in this country.
We also need to support free trade and Bills such as this because of the opportunities that will come in the next few decades. We will have to get over the challenges caused by coronavirus in the next few years. Opening up markets, seeking to obtain deals across the world and seeking to roll over, as the Bill does, existing deals and enhance them where possible are exactly the kind of opportunities we need to take as we rebuild our country after the grave difficulties that were so unexpected in the last three months or so.
Free trade does not mean a free-for-all. It means the opportunity to build fair and equitable trade for all of us. Ultimately, free trade and the legislative framework that supports it give us and our constituents the opportunity to build better lives and to offer that to people across the world. It is something I celebrate, and I hope that the majority of people in this House do the same.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
There is a great deal of public concern about the Bill before us today, because it fails to provide for effective parliamentary scrutiny in future trade agreements. In effect, the Government will have free rein to do what they like in signing trade agreements with countries around the world, including countries that do not have the same level of environmental protections, food safety and animal welfare regulations that we currently have. Free trade agreements can have an impact on our labour standards, and on the ability of our public services to operate in the public sector. That has profound implications for the quality of all our lives, and for our democracy.
Before the current covid-19 crisis, large sections of the public had become aware of the privatisation of the national health service which has been going on under this and previous Conservative Governments. The Bill fails to protect the future of the NHS, since it does nothing to prevent trade deals from being done behind closed doors without proper parliamentary scrutiny.
The Health and Social Care Act 2012, introduced by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government, brought in complex changes, undermining our national health service as a public service delivered by public sector employees. The abolition of the student nurse bursary seemed designed to erode further the public sector ethos of our NHS. Yet, despite this onslaught from the Government, today we see doctors, nurses and other NHS workers putting their all into serving all of us as our country goes through the most terrible of public health emergencies. It is humbling and we owe them an immense debt of gratitude for their outstanding dedication. In this context, it is all the more important that those of us in Parliament and in this place stand up for the NHS and fight to protect it. I believe that the Bill fails to protect the future of our national health service.
The British Medical Association has been quite clear that the Bill should stipulate that the health and social care sectors are excluded from the scope of all future trade agreements to ensure that the NHS can be publicly funded, publicly provided and publicly accountable. It is also quite clear that the Bill should rule out investor protection and dispute resolution mechanisms, to ensure that foreign private companies cannot sue the UK Government for legitimate public procurement and regulatory decisions, and that protections should be included in the Bill to ensure that NHS price control mechanisms are maintained so that patients have access to essential and life-changing medicines.
I am very concerned that, while our fantastic NHS workers are doing everything they can to tackle covid-19 and provide care and support to anyone who needs it, the Government are seeking to pass a Bill that does nothing to enable elected representatives meaningfully to scrutinise trade deals to protect the NHS. The Trade Justice Movement has said:
“The current processes are fundamentally undemocratic: Parliament has no guaranteed say on trade deals, and the government is not required to be transparent before or during trade negotiations.”
At the last general election, the Conservative party manifesto promised:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
Yet, the National Farmers Union has highlighted the absence of any provisions to safeguard the high farming production standards in the context of the international trade negotiations. Compassion in World Farming has quite rightly said that any new trade agreements must not undermine UK standards for animal welfare, food safety or environmental protections, and that they must protect UK farmers from imports produced to standards lower than those in the UK.
During the transition period following the UK’s exit from the European Union, trade remedies are dealt with by the EU. At the end of the transition period, we need our own trade remedies authority to investigate alleged unfair practices. However, the new trade remedies authority provided for in the Bill lacks the independence, parliamentary oversight and accountability needed to ensure that it will operate transparently and fairly when investigating and challenging practices that distort competition against UK producers in breach of international trade rules. There is no provision for ensuring a voice on the trade remedies authority for industry bodies or trade unions, and there is no proposed mechanism for their ongoing consultation on trade practices affecting the competitiveness of UK industries or the employment of workers therein.
To conclude, the Bill fails to make provision for meaningful and effective parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals and gives the Government immense powers to turn back the clock on safety standards in the food we eat, the products we buy, our employment rights and the way in which public services are delivered. It threatens the future of the NHS by leaving it exposed to greatly increased privatisation—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The hon. Lady has exceeded her five-minute limit.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con) [V]
This is an important Bill for global Britain, and important too for our local manufacturers, not least in Stoke-on-Trent. As a passionate supporter of free trade, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate, not only as the Member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent Central—an urban constituency with many excellent exporting businesses—but as a former small business owner who traded with many nations and sold products internationally for UK markets.
Covid-19 is having a profound effect on world trade. We will not know the full impact for some time, but we do know that free and fair trade—the global movement of goods and materials—has been key to fighting this terrible virus. We all expect a vaccine, regardless of where it is first successfully developed, to be shared with the global community. Crucially, flexibility, wherever possible, is being demonstrated in the most extraordinarily creative ways by our domestic producers. After the pandemic, we will be able to embrace in full the exciting opportunity of free and fair trade.
Fair trade means rules-based trade. I welcome and am encouraged by the willingness of the Department to retain trade remedies against the outrageous practice of dumping, particularly of ceramic wares and especially by China. It is precisely because our manufacturers are not competing on a level, rules-based playing field that we need to keep tariffs on many ceramic goods. Our producers do not expect special favours, but they do expect safeguards against special favours being granted elsewhere.
Free trade can lead to fierce competition, but this should not necessarily be regarded as negative. Under normal circumstances, world-class firms like Portmeirion, Wade Ceramics and Emma Bridgewater in my constituency are more than up to the challenge of producing the very best products in the global market, leading consumer trends, creating sales opportunities, and attracting investment. Indeed, in much of the quality ceramics markets globally, we are the fierce competition. The prospect of a trade deal with America that feeds the huge US demand for British ceramics is a real and positive one. I know that both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the US ambassador are particularly keen to seize the opportunity of feeding the US appetite for British ceramics.
But we are not currently in normal circumstances. The return to work is slow, and the new practices will take time to adjust to. The Trade Remedies Authority needs to be alert to the problems of rule-breaking and watch rogue actors, as we will be in Stoke-on-Trent. We hope that the Government take the lead by ensuring that “Made in Stoke-on-Trent” is emblazoned as a back-stamp on every piece of tableware they procure and that Potteries pottery is in use in our embassies and high commissions across the globe. Indeed, I hope that the Department will seriously look at housing a trade adviser in Stoke-on-Trent, hopefully at a purpose-built ceramics park and centre for international research into advanced ceramics manufacture. We are determined to keep Stoke-on-Trent as the world capital of ceramics, at the cutting edge of advanced manufacturing and traditional table and ornamental ware.
I welcome the clarity on the global tariff and support this Bill as a key step in realising the opportunities for global Britain.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con) [V]
Free trade is vital for Britain to have a robust economy, so I welcome the fact that this new Trade Bill gives Britain the opportunity to write a new chapter in our trading history. Free trade provides an environment that encourages fair competition, leading to greater specialisation and increased innovation.
Over 250,000 UK businesses have tradeable goods and services but do not currently trade internationally. This represents millions of pounds and thousands of jobs that the British economy is missing out on. I have been speaking to Staffordshire County Council and the Department for International Trade to encourage more Stafford-based businesses, both big and small, to explore further exporting opportunities. I welcome this Bill because it sets out a framework for a truly global Britain.
We are all aware of the devastating impact that coronavirus is having across our communities, from the tragic loss of life to the long-term impact that it is having on our economy and my constituents’ quality of life. I fully support the wide range of measures that the Government have introduced to tackle coronavirus and the unprecedented lengths that the Chancellor has gone to in protecting the economy and supporting people’s jobs.
In my roundtable with members of the Staffordshire chamber of commerce last week, I was therefore disappointed to hear that jobs across Staffordshire may be at risk. Trade provides a beacon of hope for the future of our economy, and it is imperative that every link in the supply chain is encouraged to grow. Just as coronavirus has demonstrated in such a devastating way how closely we are all connected, it is global co-operation that will be vital to defeating this deadly virus, so we must use the lessons learned from this pandemic to foster more collaboration between nations.
I welcome the fact that the Government have been working with the World Trade Organisation and the Commonwealth to champion a liberal free trading agenda across the world and to support developing countries in maintaining the benefits of trade for their economies and populations, which is all the more important now that the Commonwealth Heads of Government summit in Kigali, which was scheduled for June—I had planned to attend—has now been postponed.
If I may focus for a moment on Africa, our two-way trade has enormous value—a total of £35.1 billion of goods and services in 2018, according to the Office for National Statistics—creating sustainable jobs both at home and abroad. I was pleased that our Prime Minister seized this opportunity by hosting the inaugural Africa investment summit in London earlier this year, where he promised to renew our economic partnership with Africa, which contains some of the fastest growing economies in the world.
Let me explain how trade with Africa directly affects my constituency in the west midlands. Last summer, I visited a Fairtrade co-operative cocoa farm in central Ghana. I saw for myself the jobs that the farm provides, especially for women and the families they support. Not only is it a great Fairtrade initiative, but the beans are used to produce chocolate that is transported throughout the world, including chocolate found in my supermarkets here in Stafford and across the UK. It was concerning to hear that Ghana’s cocoa industry is now facing a $1 billion shortfall in revenue, with devastating consequences for the farmers I met last summer.
African countries are facing a dual crisis with the impact of coronavirus on their populations and the global economic slowdown, which threatens to undo the hard-fought economic gains of the past 25 years. It is vital that Britain has the opportunity to create its own trade policy that strikes the right balance between encouraging imports of goods that we need and incentivising manufacturing and production on home soil to sell in Britain and export around the world.
I welcome the fact that the Trade Bill will work hand in hand with a number of other measures, such as the UK global tariff, to usher in a new era of trade. The UK is removing tariffs from goods that it does not produce and that come from developing countries—cotton yarn, for example, is going from 4% to 0%—and at the same time backing British agriculture by applying tariffs on other goods. The Prime Minister has pledged that the UK will be the foremost champion of free trade in the world. I hope that the Trade Bill will boost British goods and ensure that we can encourage others to trade out of poverty.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab) [V]
I wish to focus my remarks on what the Bill and the Government’s trade policy means for human rights around the world in terms of our existing obligations and our commitment as a country to stand up against human rights abuses wherever they take place.
When striking trade deals across the world, many nations use trade to influence human rights policy, yet there is concern that, faced with the need to strike quick deals to demonstrate success in the aftermath of Brexit, the Government will water down human rights protections, particularly when China, India and Russia—all countries with a poor record on human rights—rank within the UK’s top 25 export and import markets.
China’s deliberate evasion of human rights is well known, with the mass detention, torture and mistreatment of the Uyghur Muslims in particular, along with controls on their daily lives. Russia is also notorious for its weak human rights record, lack of accountability for those in public office and widespread torture and persecution.
While any abuse of human rights is abhorrent and must be challenged, the Indian Government’s human rights abuses in Indian-occupied Kashmir—well-documented by several human rights organisations, including the United Nations—is particularly important for my constituents in relation to any trade deals with India. As we speak, the region is now almost 10 months into a brutal lockdown that has seen cities, towns and villages placed under what is in effect a siege, with food, water and medicines restricted from entering and civilians restricted from leaving. This lockdown has also seen communications cut on an unprecedented scale, which has prevented any spread of information and left security forces even more unaccountable. With a need for reliable information to restrict the spread of coronavirus, this electronic curfew causes yet more harm.
Sadly, this experience is nothing new for the sons and daughters of Kashmir. They are routinely subjected to persecution, discrimination and heavy-handed tactics by Indian security forces, with a disproportionate use of force, including the indiscriminate firing of live ammunition and the routine use of pellet guns that have left hundreds of Kashmiris, including children, blind for life. That is to say nothing of the repressive control measures, rapes, tortures and indiscriminate detentions that take place across the region at the hands of the security forces. What is scandalous is that those committing these human rights abuses are immune from prosecution under the Indian Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act, rendering them in effect untouchable, despite their crimes.
The Indian Government also continue to deny the Kashmiris their right to self-determination, as was mandated by a United Nations Security Council resolution that is now well over 70 years old. There is no prospect any time soon of the vote that will allow them to shape their own destiny, particularly following the illegal decision to revoke articles 370 and 35A. In effect, that decision repeals what little autonomy Kashmir held in its position as a disputed territory at the heart of an unresolved conflict. What the Indian Government are doing in Indian-occupied Kashmir is vile and abhorrent, and it must be called out and challenged.
We cannot let our desire for trade allow us to ignore this. The Government must not be afraid to put human rights and high standards before trade, especially when it concerns those nations, such as India, with whom we share strong historical, cultural and social ties. In this region in particular, we have both a historical and moral duty, and as is the case with all human rights abuses, it is an international issue, not a domestic one or a bilateral one, that we cannot and must not ignore.
With time not permitting me to speak longer, let me say in conclusion that while this Bill allows the UK to pursue new trade deals, it must not pursue a new approach on human rights or overturn years of hard work in pursuit of a quick deal that turns a blind eye to human rights abuses, human suffering, the abuse of workers or the watering down of environmental protections. Instead, it must commit to strengthening our human rights commitments and to ensuring that any future trade deal incorporates the highest standards on human rights. At the very least, this means an end to the detention camps in China and to the persecution, discrimination and injustice in Kashmir, with the repeal of the special powers Act and a free, fair and independent plebiscite for Kashmiris to decide their own future, in line with the United Nations resolutions that this House has an absolute duty to uphold.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The last speaker from the Back Benches is Fay Jones.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con) [V]
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is an honour to have been called to speak in this debate, and to be called last.
The Bill before us today is one of continuity, which during these uncertain times will provide reassurance to many of the hard-working rural businesses in my constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire. The Bill builds on two manifesto commitments on which I was elected: to protect the national health service and to protect our farmers from substandard imports. Trade is the cornerstone of our economy, and ensuring that stability is maintained as we leave the transition period is paramount. With our exit from the European Union, there has never been a better time to broaden our horizons and to seek opportunities as an independent trading nation.
Constituents have contacted me recently to voice their concerns about the Bill and the fact that the national health service could be vulnerable to privatisation when the UK joins the Government procurement agreement in its own right. I am certain that it will come as great reassurance that the Bill makes it clear that the UK’s GPA coverage does not and will not apply to the procurement of UK healthcare services.
Every day we are reminded of the overwhelming importance of our national health service and the services that it provides, and I want to take this opportunity to thank all those working on the frontline, particularly in Brecon and Radnorshire. I am glad that no part of the Bill will change the way in which we deliver our healthcare provision in the UK. It is clear that the NHS will remain a public service that is free at the point of use, paid for by taxation and fundamentally working for the benefit of the public.
Brecon and Radnorshire is home to some of the greatest farmers in the country—arguably some of the best in Europe. This morning I had the pleasure of talking to the young farmers clubs of Brecknock and Radnor—or rather, they did most of the talking. Representing a constituency that revolves around farming, I want to ensure that those young farmers have a bright and prosperous future. Their high-quality produce is more than a tradeable commodity; it is a source of deep pride, to them and to me. Their commitment to the highest standards of animal welfare and food production is very inspiring and should be championed at every opportunity, especially as we deliver on signing new and ambitious trading agreements around the world.
I firmly welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring that we will not compromise on our standards when pursuing future trade deals, as that would inevitably lead to a decline in our prized agriculture sector—something that I cannot accept. I wholeheartedly echo the comments of my neighbour and hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), who called for greater engagement with the farming community on the Bill. I know that the Minister will give consideration to that. I am grateful that the Secretary of State confirmed yesterday that she is happy to visit one of the seven livestock markets in my constituency, and I look forward to welcoming her as soon as possible.
With the creation of a new independent body, the trade remedies authority, businesses and producers in the UK can have confidence that as we secure the benefits of global free trade, we can simultaneously provide a safety net for our domestic industries. As our trade remedies are currently maintained by the European Union, it is imperative that the authority has the necessary powers to protect UK producers against unfair trading practices such as unfair subsidies and dumping, and I wholeheartedly support those aims.
The Bill will ensure that we are able to roll over our current trading arrangements. Now, as an independent nation, we have the chance to reaffirm and expand our agreements. We are limited only by our ambition. Rural mid-Wales needs every opportunity to trade our produce and services around the world. Driving jobs and economic growth through international trade is crucial and a priority of this Government, but I urge Ministers to give rural entrepreneurs as much of a fighting chance as their urban counterparts. Our message is clear: an independent Britain will be open for business, and across Brecon and Radnorshire we are willing and eager to play our part.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now go to Bill Esterson to wind up the debate for the Opposition.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
Labour believes in free and fair trade. International trade will play a vital role in how we recover from the biggest economic shock since the second world war, but we cannot return to a system of unscrutinised trade deals that open the door to lower living standards and higher carbon emissions. The Bill should provide a framework for trade policy, create a trade remedies regime that works for the whole country and give people the confidence that trade deals will be properly scrutinised by MPs and civil society, but it does very few, if any, of those things.
International trade agreements have the potential to undermine our public services, favouring foreign multinationals eyeing up our NHS, for example. They can be used to undermine workers’ rights here and abroad, and to damage food safety and animal welfare. They can prevent action to tackle the climate emergency. That is why there is so much concern about the Bill and why the lack of scrutiny envisaged under it is wrong—wrong for the agreements covered by the Bill and wrong because of the precedent it sets for future trade agreements, such as that with the United States. My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) was one of a number of Members who expressed similar concerns. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain) called for human rights to be strengthened, and not ignored, as part of trade negotiations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) gave an excellent analysis of the case for investment in our manufacturing base, which of course requires a trade remedy system that acts in the long-term interest of manufacturers and does not give equivalent importance to temporary consumer gains from unfairly subsidised imports. In fact, the hon. Members for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) gave perfect examples of what can go wrong when low prices for consumers are put first, only to see workers in domestic manufacturing lose their jobs.
The hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) was right when he said that trade agreements are about much more than trade. He also highlighted the lack of engagement with the devolved Administrations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) did an excellent job of scrutinising the Bill last time around, as the then shadow Secretary of State. His description today of the weakness of the trade remedies system and what he called the Government’s view of Parliament as “an inconvenience” was again an excellent analysis of all that is wrong with what he called “this disastrous Bill”.
In last week’s Agriculture Bill, the Government blocked attempts to lock in food standards, and environmental and animal welfare protections. In a framework for international trade, rights and standards should include those proposed last week—not just food safety standards, but standards that do not deliver an unfair advantage from the cheaper production that results from insanitary conditions for livestock and often the use of GM foods to boost yields. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said that he was told last week that those were matters for the Trade Bill—perhaps the Minister will tell us whether that is true.
On continuity agreements, we told the Government what would happen when they tabled a similar Trade Bill to that in the last Parliament. We said then, and we say again now, that the new agreements need to be properly scrutinised by Parliament, by the devolved nations and by civil society. Twenty of the existing deals remain to be signed. Why? Because the third countries want better deals—deals that need proper scrutiny, the scrutiny so far absent from the 20 deals that have been signed already.
What is proposed is undemocratic. While we were part of the EU, the European Parliament carried out scrutiny and voted on new trade agreements. That scrutiny process has been deleted with nothing in its place. I hope that the Minister for Trade Policy, the right hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), will take note that his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) quoted promises of a new scrutiny regime made by this Government. He called for more scrutiny, not less.
My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Sir Mark Hendrick) made similar comments, and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) made the same point in the context of the way in which trade is a reserved matter with the potential to cut across delegated powers in the nations of the UK.
Labour believes that MPs should have unrestricted access to negotiating texts as they are formulated, with the power to analyse those texts with the technical experts of their choice. As the House of Lords European Union Committee has warned mere “accountability after the fact” for Government negotiators does not represent “a sufficient basis for” meaningful “parliamentary scrutiny”. The devolved Governments, employers and unions should also be fully engaged.
When the Minister responds in a moment, will he tell me whether he has considered how the proposed parliamentary scrutiny and approval of trade deals in the UK compares with that in Australia, which the Secretary of State in her speech said was a model of free trade? While he is about it, will he tell us about the systems in the United States, in New Zealand and in other similar democracies? Finally, I ask him what the Government have to fear about emulating the level of consultation, evaluation and affirmation of trade deals that we see in those countries.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call the Minister, whom I ask to take no more than seven minutes, please.
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
It is a pleasure to respond to what has proved to be a spirited and well-informed debate. The Bill provides us with the opportunity to come together to shape a piece of legislation that will underpin and enable our country’s prosperity in the years to come up. Members from all significant parties and parts of the UK made valuable and considered contributions this afternoon.
The House will be aware that I was the Minister responsible for taking the Trade Bill through Committee during the previous Parliament—as alluded to by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner)—in my previous role in the Department for International Trade, so I stress that I am a continuity Minister for a continuity Bill. Nevertheless, my involvement in this latest Bill has been limited until relatively recently, so I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), who has done great service in engaging in constructive dialogue with colleagues from across the UK, as well as with key Opposition figures in both this Chamber and the other place, to bring the Bill back to Parliament.
Members have raised a number of important issues; I will try to answer as many of their questions as possible in the short time available. I am happy to write to Members to follow up on any further points, if any Members feel that to be necessary. I will also be holding a virtual “open door” session for all MPs on 4 June, when I can answer any further questions that they may have.
Before I turn to the issues, let me remind the House of the purpose of the Bill: it will enable the UK to implement our obligations in the trade agreements that we have signed and will sign with countries that already had trade agreements with the EU at the point at which the UK left the EU, on 31 January 2020. It will also enable us to implement our obligations under the WTO agreement on Government procurement, create the Trade Remedies Authority, and enable us to have data-sharing powers to assist in trade.
Let me respond to some of the individual points made. We welcome the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) back to the Dispatch Box. Most extraordinarily, she said that the Bill was “not worth the wait”. She should try telling that to UK companies that are already participating in the $1.3 trillion global procurement market as a result of the GPA. She should try saying “not worth the wait” about the £207 billion-worth of UK trade with those countries with which we are signing continuity agreements. She should try telling that to those companies and jobs that depend on a strong trade-defence regime in this country to protect against unfair trading practices. The Bill is well worth the wait.
The right hon. Lady asked about human rights; none of the 20 agreements signed so far contains any weakening of human rights commitments. There was no termination clause in underlying EU agreements, which is all we are seeking to replicate in the Bill. All the continuity agreements that the UK has signed so far have been laid before Parliament under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process—a process that the right hon. Lady voted for, when she was a Labour Member of Parliament, supporting her Government of the time.
Let me turn to some of the other points raised. It was fantastic to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox) talking about trade, welcoming the UK global tariff and discussing WTO reform, the rules- based system and his continuing interest in the WTO.
My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) asked whether any countries did not want a deal with us; the answer to that is no. I am happy to meet him again, as I did during the progress of the previous Trade Bill, to discuss his other points.
My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) made an important point about the US section 230 and how it is dealt with in the United States-Mexico-Canada agreement. I know he has had repeated assurances from the Secretary of State but, again, I am happy to meet him to discuss these issues. We heard an excellent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), talking about high-quality produce in rural Wales. It is worth pointing out that, although it is not covered in this Bill, the prospective US free trade agreement is a great opportunity for farmers in his constituency to be able to sell Welsh lamb into the US for the first time, and a great opportunity for Welsh cheese.
We also heard excellent speeches in support of free and global trade from my hon. Friends the Members for Witney (Robert Courts), for Stafford (Theo Clarke), for North East Derbyshire (Lee Rowley), for Burnley (Antony Higginbotham), for Dudley North (Marco Longhi) and for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory). We heard from the hon. Member for South Antrim (Paul Girvan), who wants Northern Ireland to benefit from all UK trade deals. That is absolutely clear in the withdrawal agreement and it is one of our commitments. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Claire Hanna) asked how many have already been rolled over. The answer is 20.
We heard from two of our brilliant trade envoys. My hon. Friends the Members for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Fylde (Mark Menzies) asked about trade with Latin America, CPTPP and ASEAN. Those are all vital. We heard important points from my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones) about important industries in their constituencies. The hon. Members for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and for Sefton Central (Bill Esterson) gave continuity speeches for a continuity Bill.
Finally, this Bill is a pragmatic first step in the Government’s independent trade policy, ensuring stability now while building a bridge to the outward-looking, internationalist, truly global Britain that we envisage for our future. I urge hon. Members to reject the amendment and I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I must now conclude the debate and put the questions in accordance with the order of today. Before I put the question, I confirm that Mr Speaker’s final determination is that remote Divisions will take place on the reasoned amendment and on Second Reading. There is therefore no need for me to collect the voices or for Members present in the Chamber to shout aye or no. I remind the House that the first vote is on the reasoned amendment, in the name of Keir Starmer. The question is that the amendment be made, and it falls to be decided by a remote Division. The Clerk will now initiate the Division on MemberHub.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The remote voting period has now finished. I will announce the result of the Division shortly. As the next question is contingent on the outcome of this Division, I will suspend the House for five minutes.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I can now announce the result of the remote Division.
Question, That the amendment be made.
Madam Deputy Speaker
We now come to the Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time. The Question falls to be decided by a remote Division. The Clerk will now initiate the Division on MemberHub.
Question put.
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 shortly. As the next Question is contingent on the outcome of that Division, I suspend the House for three minutes.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I can now announce the result of the remote Division that has just taken place.
Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The announcement was made to the House earlier this afternoon regarding the provisional determination that a remote Division would not take place on the following questions relating to the programme motion and money resolution. That is also the final determination.
TRADE BILL (PROGRAMME)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Trade Bill:
Committal
The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
(2) Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 25 June 2020.
(3) The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
Proceedings on Consideration and up to and including third Reading
(4) Proceedings on Consideration and any proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.
(5) Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and up to and including Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed. —(Iain Stewart.)
Question agreed to.
TRADE BILL (MONEY)
Queen’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Trade Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown, government department or other public authority under or by virtue of the Act.—(Iain Stewart.)
Question agreed to.
Liaison (Membership)
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The House divided: - Ayes: 262 / Noes: 323 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now come to the motion on the membership of the Liaison Committee. Mr Speaker has selected amendment (a) in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman). The provisional determination is that a remote Division will take place on the amendment if it is moved. The provisional determination is that a remote Division will not take place on the main motion, as amended or not, as the case may be. I call the Leader of the House, Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg, to move the motion, and I ask that he speak for no more than four minutes.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I beg to move,
That –
(1) With effect for the current Parliament, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of select committees), the Members elected by the House or otherwise chosen to be chairs of each of the select committees listed in paragraph (2) shall be a member of the Liaison Committee;
(2) The committees to which paragraph (1) applies are:
Administration;
Backbench Business;
Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy;
Defence;
Digital, Culture, Media and Sport;
Education;
Environmental Audit;
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs;
European Scrutiny;
European Statutory Instruments;
Finance;
Foreign Affairs;
Future Relationship with the European Union;
Health and Social Care;
Home Affairs;
Housing, Communities and Local Government;
Joint Committee on Human Rights (the chair being a Member of this House);
International Development;
International Trade;
Justice;
Northern Ireland Affairs;
Petitions;
Procedure;
Privileges (the chair not being the chair of the Committee on Standards);
Public Accounts;
Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs;
Regulatory Reform;
Science and Technology;
Scottish Affairs;
Selection;
Standards;
Statutory Instruments;
Transport;
Treasury;
Welsh Affairs;
Women and Equalities, and
Work and Pensions;
(3) Sir Bernard Jenkin shall also be a member, and the chair, of the Liaison Committee.
I thought you were going to say, “Without hesitation, deviation or repetition,” in honour of the late and much- lamented Nicholas Parsons, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the whole House will welcome this debate. There has been an unfortunate delay in setting up the Liaison Committee, a situation that I seek to resolve so that the Committee can start its work this Session.
The House will be aware that this motion was objected to, and that we have since needed to delay bringing the motion back until such time as we could consider it properly, including having the ability to divide on the matter if needed. This motion establishes the Liaison Committee, a long-standing Committee of this House. The Committee brings together the Chairmen of Select Committees to an important forum, which takes evidence from the Prime Minister on matters of public policy and supports the House to scrutinise legislation and other policy proposals. The Government look forward to continuing their constructive working relationship with the Committee, particularly on issues such as pre-legislative scrutiny of Government Bills.
The motion specifies the membership of the Liaison Committee, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) should chair the Committee. As he is an experienced and respected former Select Committee Chairman, I would hope that he carries the support of the whole House to take on this role. It is my opinion that my hon. Friend has significant relevant experience in this area, in view of his previous experience chairing the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee and his long career as a Member of this House. Since his election in 1992, he has never viewed himself as a vassal of the Whips, and I am sure that Ministers who appeared before my hon. Friend in his previous role as a Committee Chairman can attest to his independence and thoroughness in robustly holding the Government to account.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman will not interrupt.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I turn to the amendment in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and others. It seeks to limit the eligibility of those who can chair the Committee to existing Select Committee Chairs. The Government have chosen to put forward a distinguished Member to chair the Liaison Committee. It is for the House to decide—extending the degree of democracy—whether it agrees the Government’s motion and thereby approves my hon. Friend’s appointment. In this way, the motion is the most democratic way of providing a mandate for the Chairman of the Liaison Committee.
It is worth noting that it has not always been the case that the Committee has elected its own Chairman from among the ranks of Select Committee Chairs. In fact, as recently as 2010, when the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham was Leader of the House, a Member who was not a pre-existing Select Committee Chairman was the Liaison Committee Chairman, in accordance with an earlier, similar motion agreed by the House.
The Government respect the work of the Select Committees of this House and their independence in holding the Government to account. Today’s motion will allow the Liaison Committee to begin its work. As is right, the House can now decide whether the motion is agreeable, including whether the chairmanship be taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex. I hope we can achieve a resolution today and allow the Liaison Committee to begin its important work in scrutinising the Government and supporting other Committees in this House. I commend this motion to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Thank you. We have a very short time left for this debate, so I must ask that every speaker now takes no more than three minutes. I call Valerie Vaz, who is asked to speak for no more than three minutes.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for putting forward the motion. We support the setting up of the Select Committee but we do not support paragraph (3), and I will speak in favour of amendment (a) standing in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and others. There are three reasons. First, on composition, “Erskine May” says:
“The Liaison Committee…comprises the Chairs of all the principal select committees.”
In their helpful book, “How Parliament Works”, Rogers and Walters confirm that on various pages. There are references to the Liaison Committee being made up of the Chairs of all the Select Committees. Page 216 of our Standing Orders, on rules and procedures of the House, states what is in order in the membership of the Select Committee, and it does not mention a spare person. Does the Leader of the House really think that we should abide by all the other rules but not that one?
That brings me to my second point, which is Standing Order No. 145 on the work of the Liaison Committee, which says that it considers general matters in relation to the work of the Select Committees, chooses the reports on estimates days, and considers other work of Select Committees and how they function. Can the Leader of the House say how a person who is not currently a Chair of a Select Committee can carry out that work?
Most importantly, being the Chair of a Select Committee carries great responsibilities. There are duties, responsibilities, and most of all, accountability to other members of the Committee. The proposed nominee has none of that. This also says to Chairs of Select Committees: “You were elected by the House but you are not good enough, so the Government will appoint a Chair. Your say does not matter, and, by the way, we will tell you who it is. No one else need apply—the Government have picked their man.” Previously, there has been cross-party support for Chairs of Select Committees. I think that the £16,000, approximately, that is going to be paid to this Chair could be put to better use: perhaps it could go towards hiring an apprentice.
The Leader of the House talked about democracy. This is not democracy; it is autocracy. It offends against precedent, it offends against what is the right thing to do, and it offends against everything this House stands for. I support the amendment.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
The Liaison Committee is the only Committee that directly holds the Prime Minister to account, and accountability is all the more critical during the current crisis. If the House appoints me as Chair this evening, my first priority will be securing a date to take evidence from the Prime Minister as soon as possible—and Parliament is entitled to insist on this.
The Liaison Committee exists only to support and strengthen the other Committees, particularly when they are the only means of full scrutiny of the Government at this time. Individual Committees can only scrutinise their Departments, but in this crisis I have been giving thought to how the Liaison Committee can strengthen whole-of-Government scrutiny. It is in areas requiring cross-departmental co-operation where failures have been causing most public concern. Policy on care homes spans Health and Local Government. The reopening of schools is Education-led but it must work with the Treasury, Health and Local Government. Quarantining of international travellers is a Transport lead, but working alongside Home Office, Health, Business and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Health is relying on other Departments for the recruiting of trackers and tracers. Most importantly, the strategy for leaving the lockdown covers every Department. Scrutinising cross-cutting programmes is now vital, and the Liaison Committee could take a pivotal and unique role in this.
I appreciate others’ concerns in this debate, but if the House so decides I will serve as Chair independently and impartially. I am grateful to many in all parts of the House, including my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, for not doubting me in that. I have no wish except to serve this House and the Committee. Committees require Ministers and officials to be open, to bring out truth and to increase understanding within Government, as well as more widely. This is the only way to promote learning and improvement, and this principle will be my guide.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
I also wish to support the amendment. It is a fundamental tenet of democratic systems that the legislature should be separate from the Executive. Our role as an elected Chamber should be to make laws and scrutinise how the Government implement them. Our ability to do that depends upon having people who will speak out with independent mind and be prepared to criticise the Government, even when they might be in the same party.
Our Select Committee system is not perfect, but time and again, Committee reports have held the Government to account and even led to a change in policy. To their credit, these reports have often been fronted by Chairs who belong to the same party as the Government. This process is built upon Committees and their Chairs being appointed by Parliament—by elected Members— rather than by the Government. Put bluntly, if someone owes their position to an appointment by the Government of the day, they will be unlikely to be as forthright in their criticism of that Government. Few people bite the hand that feeds them.
The Leader of the House’s proposal will fundamentally change the relationship between Parliament and Government. This has nothing to do with the individual concerned, but everything to do with how he is appointed. If this goes through and the Committee is led by a Government placement, it effectively means that they will be marking their own homework.
Many Parliaments have an Executive—in mainland Europe, it is commonly called a bureau—that can act when Parliament is in recess or otherwise unable to meet. We do not, and I wonder whether our experience of the current emergency should lead us to conclude that we might have been better prepared if we had. Some will feel that the Liaison Committee might fulfil that role, but if anyone hopes that the Committee might act as some sort of interlocutor between Parliament and Government, this proposal will fatally compromise that ambition. A body led by a Government appointee who relies upon not distressing the Government in order to keep that job cannot and will not speak up for a critical or inquisitive Parliament.
Earlier today, we considered the Government’s proposals to abandon any facility for Members to take part in parliamentary proceedings remotely during the current health emergency. Agreeing to that was a mistake that we will come to regret. Preventing MPs from working from home will reduce, not enhance, their ability to scrutinise the Government. It will effectively disbar and discriminate against those who are sick or vulnerable, and it will force others to choose between representing their constituents or putting their health and the health of others at risk.
There is a pattern emerging here. It shows a Government trying to mute criticism by procedural means, a Government running scared of accountability, and it is not a good look. This proposal should be rejected and the Liaison Committee should be allowed to get to work and elect a Chair from among its members, all of whom have been elected by and are accountable to this Chamber. To do otherwise—
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard). I think he has missed the point. What the Leader of the House has done has created a very powerful figure, who will scrutinise the Government. He will be on the “Today” programme, Adam Boulton, and he will be listed as Chairman of the Liaison Committee.
I would have preferred the Chairman to have been elected by the whole House, but the idea that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) is some patsy—well, as the Leader of the House said in his opening remarks, he is no vassal of the Whips, so that sold it to me immediately. I doubt there is anyone in this Chamber who does not think that my hon. Friend should be in the Cabinet, and that the reason he has not been in this or any other Cabinet is that he has stood up for Parliament. We can go back to him being a Maastricht rebel, House of Lords reform or him trying to do something with the civil service, and, of course, he was one of the very first MPs to support Vote Leave.
I absolutely think he is the right man for the job—[Interruption.] They scoff on the Opposition Benches—[Interruption.] You cannot believe that. Anyone knows that he will do a great job and I am looking forward to him developing the position. I will not support the amendment because it would maintain the status quo, and of course the Leader of the House is trying to increase scrutiny. As we have started to talk about this, the Chief Whip has wandered into the Chamber. He may be saying to the Leader of the House, “What on earth have you let loose?” Well, I think that he has let loose parliamentary democracy.
This Leader of the House is a very good one, but he has all the problems of a Leader of the House; he sits in the Government and has to support the Government line, even when it is nonsense—that is obviously very rare, Chief Whip, but on occasion. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex, as Chair of the Liaison Committee, will be able to put Parliament first. As he develops the role, I hope that he will start to support the Back Benchers. [Interruption.] The shadow Leader of the House says from a sedentary position, “What about an election?” We are having the election. Nobody on the Opposition Benches proposed a different name, which they could have done; and they did not do so because they knew that they would have lost.
I really hope that this motion is carried tonight, and I congratulate the Leader of the House on stepping up scrutiny in the House.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab) [V]
I beg to move amendment (a), leave out paragraph (3) and insert—
“(3) The chair of the Liaison Committee shall be a current chair of a Select Committee.”.
This amendment stands in my name and the names of many other Members of this House.
It would have been best if today we could have been agreeing to set up the Liaison Committee to take scrutiny into the heart of Government. As the Government make thousands of decisions that are literally a matter of life and death, the challenge and transparency afforded by scrutiny is important as never before. Better scrutiny means better decisions, and we all need the Government to be the best they can be right now. But instead of agreeing, we have the Government undermining the Liaison Committee at the very time they are setting it up, by imposing the Chair.
It should not be for the Government to decide the terms by which they are accountable; that should be for Parliament. Why are the Government doing this? A confident Government would have nothing to fear from robust, independent scrutiny. This move will weaken Parliament, but, even more, it is a sign of weakness from the Government. When Labour was in government and I was Leader of the House, we brought in secret ballots for Select Committee Chairs precisely in order to liberate them from control by the Whips and the dead hand of patronage. This Government imposition turns the clock back to the bad old days.
The Leader of the House is supposed to be the Leader of the House as a whole, but he can spare us the pretence that this is somehow the will of the House—that this is somehow extending democracy. There is only one name to vote for today, chosen by the Government, and there is no secret ballot. For the first time, we could end up having a Chair of the Liaison Committee who has the support of only one party in the House—the governing party. Although it is House business, Government Whips have been at work to such an extent that many on their own Back Benchers do not even realise that it is actually a free vote. I hope that Members will vote for my amendment. If the Government succeed in defeating it, it will be a bad day for the House for sure, but it will be a shameful day for the Government.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The right hon. and learned Lady has moved her amendment, so the question is that the amendment be made, and because of the shortage of time, I have to ask the Leader of the House to conclude the debate.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Within this House, one always knows that it is a weak argument when it is overstated, and I have to say that I have never heard a more overstated argument than that which we have received from the Opposition Benches.
The idea that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) is not one of most independent-minded Members of this House is patently absurd. He has stood up for this House, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has pointed out, throughout his parliamentary career. One of the threads running through the career of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex is that he has stood up for the interests of the House of Commons, be that in ensuring that the sovereignty of the House of Commons and of Parliament generally is maintained, or ensuring that the House of Commons was not overwhelmed by a shift of power to the House of Lords. He has held Ministers to account, and I am glad that the Chief Whip has come into the Chamber because my hon. Friend has been the bane of the life of Chief Whips since he was elected in 1992. It is therefore well known that he will be independent minded.
I also think it is peculiar to suggest that a vote of the whole House is less democratic than a vote of the clique within the House. That obviously cannot be true. Allowing the whole House to vote is the most democratic form we have. In this House, we boldly express our opinion publicly so that our voters know precisely what we think. We do not need to hide away in the shadows. We are happy to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex is the right person for this job and that is why he has support.
I would say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Tommy Sheppard) that constitutionally he does not fully appreciate how the system works. The Executive and the legislature have a symbiotic relationship. The Executive is drawn from the legislature. We are not like the United States, where there is no interconnection. Therefore, we always have in this House, and always have done going back into the mists of time, a relationship between the Executive and legislature, but that does not mean that the votes of the legislature are not democratic votes. They clearly and self-evidently are.
Moving on to the amendment and why I oppose it on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, it is very straightforward. We are widening democracy, widening scrutiny and allowing the whole House to come to a decision on who should chair the Liaison Committee. We are taking away that decision, admittedly, from a smaller group to give it to a larger group, which is the proper thing to be doing.
Nobody, not one person who has spoken today, has suggested that my hon. Friend is anything other than impartial—[Interruption.] I hear various chunterings from the Opposition Benches. The principle of the House deciding is the most ancient principle of the House of Commons. That is the right way for us to do it. We decide by our vote. That is the art of democracy and this is the right procedure to be using to ensure that happens. [Interruption.] Oh, we have a chunter, “There’s only one candidate.” Did anybody else decide to amend the motion to suggest another candidate? Perhaps Opposition Members do not know how the procedures of Parliament work. May I give them a little bit of advice? If they are ever in any doubt as to how the procedures of the House work, there are many able, hard-working and thoughtful Clerks who will give them advice and they can work out how to put down amendments, but no other name came forward. Nobody else had any confidence in any other Member to do this job, which I know will be done extraordinarily well by my hon. Friend.
I happen to know that actually the Government have appointed someone who will be so independent-minded that if anyone thinks that he will be an easy ride, that person is mistaken. I commend the motion unamended to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I must now conclude the debate and put the question in accordance with the Order of today. Before I put the question, I confirm that Mr Speaker’s final determination is that the question on the amendment 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. The question is that the amendment be made. The question falls to be decided by a remote Division and the Clerk will know initiate the Division on MemberHub.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The remote voting period has now finished. I will announce the result of the Division shortly. I will suspend the House for five minutes until the result can be announced.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I can now announce the result of the remote Division.
Question, That the amendment be made.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I put the question on the motion on Liaison Committee membership, as on the Order Paper, I remind Members that Mr Speaker’s provisional determination was that the question will not be decided by a remote Division. That is also the final determination.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Adjournment
Ministerial Correction
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Health and Social Care
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Ministerial CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matt Hancock
Fifthly, we have increased the social care workforce during this crisis and provided more support. Altogether, this is an unprecedented level of support for the social care system. I thank colleagues across social care for their hard work.
[Official Report, 19 May 2020, Vol. 676, c. 492.]
Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock):
An error has been identified in my response. The correct wording should have been:
Matt Hancock
Fifthly, we are increasing the social care workforce during this crisis and have provided more support. Altogether, this is an unprecedented level of support for the social care system. I thank colleagues across social care for their hard work.
Written Statements
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
European (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
I am today laying before Parliament a report, “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks: 26 December 2019 to 25 March 2020”. I am laying this report because it is a legal requirement under the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 for quarterly reports to be made to Parliament on the progress of the work to develop common frameworks. The report is available on www.gov.uk and details the progress made between the UK Government and devolved Administrations regarding the development of common frameworks. This report details progress made during the seventh three-month reporting period, and sets out that no ‘freezing’ regulations have been brought forward under section 12 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act. A copy of the “The European Union (Withdrawal) Act and Common Frameworks: 26 December 2019 to 25 March 2020” report has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The publication of the report reflects the Government’s continued commitment to transparency.
Attachments can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questionsanswers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-05-20/HCWS250/ .
[HCWS250]
Chemical Weapons Convention: Declaration of Protective Programme for 2019
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for the Armed Forces (James Heappey)
My noble Friend the Minister in the House of Lords (the right hon. Baroness Goldie DL) has made the following written statement:
The UK’s chemical protection programme is designed to protect against the use of chemical weapons. Such a programme is permitted by the Chemical Weapons Convention, with which the United Kingdom is fully compliant. Under the terms of the convention, we are required to provide information annually to the organisation for the prohibition of chemical weapons. In accordance with the Government’s commitment to openness, I am placing in the Library of the House a copy of the summary that has been provided to the organisation outlining the UK’s chemical protection programme in 2019.
Attachments can be viewed at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-statements/Commons/2020-05-20/HCWS248
[HCWS248]
In-orbit Research Satellites: Contingent Liability
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Defence Procurement (Jeremy Quin)
I am today laying a Departmental Minute to advise that the Ministry of Defence has received approval from Her Majesty’s Treasury to recognise a new contingent liability associated with the operation of satellites conducting in-orbit research by the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory (Dstl).
The departmental minute describes the contingent liability that the Ministry of Defence (MOD) will hold as part of its space science and technology programme.
Dstl has installed a ground station at its Portsdown West site, which will contribute to supporting space research activities, upskilling civilian and military personnel in satellite mission operations, and task its first research satellites for the Ministry of Defence. Through this programme, MOD will develop the skills and capability to achieve its strategic objectives in the space domain.
The contingent liability will last the duration of Dstl’s operation of the satellites and will come into effect if a satellite collision was caused via Dstl operation. Mitigations are in place against risks to minimise likelihood and impact which are deemed to be 0.001-0.01%. Her Majesty’s Treasury has approved a value of up to £500 million for the contingent liability to cover the maximum estimated damage cost resulting from a collision. The MOD will note the liability in its accounts May 2020.
Attachments can be viewed online at:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questionsanswers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-05-20/HCWS249/ .
[HCWS249]
Rebalancing of Covid Support Force
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Ben Wallace)
In late March, as the Government stepped up their response to the global pandemic, the Ministry of Defence (MOD) established the covid support force (CSF), in anticipation of a sharp increase in requests for military assistance to the civilian authorities (MACA).
Approximately 20,000 personnel, with appropriate planning, logistical, and medical expertise, were grouped within the CSF and held at higher readiness, alongside forward-based aviation assets, to ensure Defence could respond wherever and whenever needed across the United Kingdom.
Since then the CSF has played a key role throughout the national response. On any given day approximately 4,000 are “deployed” supporting other Departments and organisations. Many thousands more service personnel and civil servants are contributing to the response through their routine employment within defence medical services, defence science and technology laboratories, defence equipment and support, and various military headquarters. Together they have answered 162 MACA requests, from patient recovery in the Orkney Islands to logistical support in the Channel Islands.
Some of this has been highly visible, such as helping to build Nightingale hospitals, delivering PPE to hospitals and local resilience forums, and operating mobile testing units. However, much of it has been out of sight from the public: whether supporting national-level strategy formation in DHSC and MHCLG; countering disinformation with the Cabinet Office, procuring PPE and medical equipment; or mentoring and liaising within local resilience forums, and their devolved equivalents, as they react to the complex and varied situations in their local communities.
Those situations are currently improving, due to the public’s adherence to lockdown measures and the ability of other Government Departments to maintain essential services. As a result, the demand for CSF support has stabilised and it has not been necessary to deploy most of those personnel currently held at higher readiness.
It is appropriate that the MOD’S contribution and force posture are tailored to the evolving situation, so it can both respond to covid-19 and continue fulfilling other critical defence outputs.
This rebalancing is conditions-based and conducted in consultation with other Government Departments; assessing how many personnel are required to fulfil current CSF tasks and respond to all future requests, including those requiring uplifts in personnel.
That total is currently determined to be 7,500 personnel and it is now prudent to release the remainder of the CSF—otherwise held indefinitely at higher readiness—so they can return to other tasks and preparations for future operations.
Additionally, 2,000 of the reservists who volunteered for mobilisation but are no longer required to fulfil MACA tasks, are now being engaged about the processes for demobilisation with a view to mitigating the impact both to them and their employers. They are testament to the nation’s resolve in this crisis and we are grateful for their enduring commitment.
The crisis is not over, so the CSF will continue assisting civilian authorities wherever required and no personnel—regular or reserve—will be withdrawn from tasks while the demand remains. Likewise, Defence’s wider contributions to the covid-19 response, to the routine functioning of Government, and to the prosperity and wellbeing of society, all remain unaltered.
Defence is much more than its equipment and uniformed personnel. It is a community of public servants committing brains, brawn, and heart to ensure the nation’s defence and resilience. That community will continue to support our colleagues in health and social care, providing however many people are required, for as long it takes, to help them defeat this virus.
[HCWS251]
Queens’ Birthday Honours List
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
I would like to update Parliament on the Government’s plans for recognising the extraordinary contributions being made by so many in response to coronavirus (covid-19)—and the forthcoming publication of Her Majesty The Queen’s Birthday Honours List.
There is, understandably, huge appetite across the country to say thank you to all those on the frontline, within our communities and in our public services, who are supporting the nation through these unprecedented times.
The Government are clear that there will be a range of opportunities to mark the contributions of so many—but this must come at the appropriate time. Our current priority—and that of the front line services—remains tackling the current public health emergency.
I want to provide assurance today, however, that the moment to mark so many extraordinary actions will not be lost.
The honours system recognises exceptional contributions made across every part of the UK and will play a key role in demonstrating the nation’s gratitude to all those involved in the response. In this context, The Queen has graciously agreed that the birthday honours list, due to be published in June, should be postponed until the autumn. This step will allow us to ensure that the list, agreed before this public health emergency developed, reflects the covid-19 effort, and comes at a time when we can properly celebrate the achievements of all those included.
We anticipate that covid-19 recognition will happen across future honours lists, reflecting the on-going work being done by so many. To ensure we are capturing contributions from across the country I would encourage the public to put forward nominations for those they know are going above and beyond, which they can do through www.gov.uk. These cases will be considered by the independent honours committees across a range of future honours lists.
Colonel Tom Moore, recently celebrating his 100th birthday, has become synonymous with the spirit of the current collective national effort. I have, exceptionally, recommended to The Queen that he be awarded a knighthood, in recognition of his extraordinary fundraising achievements, and as a signal of the kind of contributions we will want to mark in the months to come.
Further work is underway to identify the most appropriate ways and opportunities for the nation to express its gratitude and respect. The Government will make a further statement to the House in due course.
[HCWS246]
Manston Airport: Reopening and Development
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
I have been asked by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State (Grant Shapps, MP), to make this written statement. This statement concerns the application of 17 July 2018 made by RiverOak Strategic Partners Ltd (“the Applicant”) under the Planning Act 2008 for the proposed reopening and development of Manston Airport in Kent.
Under sub-section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make his decision within three months of receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under sub-section 107(3) to extend the deadline and make a statement to the House of Parliament announcing the new deadline.
The Secretary of State received the examining authority’s report on the Manston Airport development consent order application on 18 October 2019 and, following an earlier extension of four months, the current deadline for a decision is 18 May 2020.
The deadline for the decision is now to be extended to 10 July 2020 to enable further work to be carried out before determination of the application.
The decision to set a new deadline is without prejudice to the decision on whether to grant development consent.
[HCWS247]
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 that 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. The Virtual Proceedings on Oral Questions will now commence. I ask everyone please to keep questions and answers as brief as possible so that we can fit in as many on the list as possible.
Covid-19: Refugee Camps
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the response of international institutions to the impact of COVID-19 on refugee camps.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, I am deeply concerned about Covid-19’s impact on refugees. The United Kingdom is at the forefront of the response and we have pushed to ensure that vulnerable groups, including refugees, are factored into international plans. We are working closely with international partners to provide dedicated support in refugee camps, including hand-washing stations and isolation and treatment centres. Partners are rigorously assessed before they receive funding, with robust checks and measures to ensure that they are delivering effectively.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, the head of the UN Refugee Agency warned earlier this week that Covid cases appear to be multiplying fast in Yemen. Almost 10 million people are one step away from famine and half the country’s health facilities have been destroyed. Can the Minister detail what we are doing in the UN and with allies to urgently support the people of Yemen?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very important point. We have been at the forefront—he will be aware of the £744 million of UK aid funding which we have committed thus far to global efforts to combat the outbreak of Covid-19, split across three areas: building resilience in vulnerable countries, finding a vaccine and supporting the economic response. We are working with a raft of UN agencies, including the World Health Organization and UNICEF, as well as UNFPA and UNHCR, to support refugees specifically.
The Archbishop of Canterbury
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the Global Humanitarian Response Plan published by the UN and updated this month, which emphasises
“The importance of involving and supporting local organizations … given the key role they are playing in this crisis.”
In all areas where the world’s 70 million displaced people gather, faith groups and especially churches are often the only remaining organisations with reach from grass roots to leaders, but they are often ignored by international and relief agencies. In many cases, shortage of money and logistics hamper food distribution. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that faith-based local groups are fully involved by all international agencies in all aspects of relief, reconciliation and moral and spiritual support?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, what the most reverend Primate said resonates with me. I am a strong believer in the role of faith groups, particularly in the response to Covid. Specifically, we have, for example, allocated £55 million to established agencies such as the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, as well as £20 million to international NGOs including Christian Aid. I share with noble Lords that I shall be convening a meeting of aid agencies working within the faith sector, to see what we can do in a more co-ordinated way across the world in our response to Covid-19, which will directly include faith leaders as well.
Lord Sheikh (Con)
My Lords, I commend the Government on their commitment to provide £744 million to combat Covid-19 globally. I refer to the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan, which I have visited. It is the largest refugee camp in the Middle East, housing nearly 80,000 Syrian refugees. It is a well-run camp and several international institutions are providing help and support. Following the pandemic, there has been lockdown in the camp. Conditions are being controlled but the camp needs additional help. The UK Government have agreed to provide £55 million in aid for refugees in Jordan for a period of three years. Can my noble friend the Minister confirm that aid will be continued, and that refugees in Jordan will have a share of the £744 million?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, my noble friend is right to raise the issue of the camps—not just the Zaatari camp in Jordan, which I too have visited, but elsewhere in the world. Of course, measures such as social distancing cannot apply in those camps, so we have been applying practical measures such as hand-washing and sanitation facilities. I confirm that we will continue to support refugees across the world, including in our work with the Jordanian Government to support refugees from the Syrian conflict.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, I know that the Minister is well aware that 5.6 million Palestinian refugees are among those most at risk. Of course, this is mainly because of congestion, so what are the Government doing to respond to the $93.4 million appeal from UNRWA—UNRWA often gets left out of this scene—to make up the shortfall left by the United States?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, of course we are aware specifically of the plight of the Palestinian refugees. The noble Earl will be aware that the United Kingdom has increased its support for UNRWA, and we continue to support that agency for the vital support it provides to Palestinian refugees.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware of the “Panorama” programme earlier this week showing the conditions in some of the Greek refugee camps. He will have seen that, for example, in Moria, social distancing is impossible: if the virus were to get into that camp it would be unstoppable. The implications would be disastrous for the people in the camp, but equally disastrous for Greece and the rest of Europe, because it would spread from that camp further afield, so it is in our interest to help them. There are very few washing facilities there, and no social distancing is possible.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right to raise the issue of Greece. The UK is one of the world’s leading refugee resettlement states, resettling more refugees than any country in Europe. Specifically, we are offering Greece technical support to meet the challenges it currently faces and we regularly liaise with Greece on the challenges and burdens it is currently having to endure in relation to refugees within the country.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, given that cross-border aid delivery to Syria remains the most viable option for getting vital humanitarian aid into the north-west of the country, will the Government do all they can to urge members of the UN Security Council to reinsert the Iraq-Syria crossing at Yaroubiya as a named border crossing when Resolution 2504 comes up for renewal in July?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
I can assure the noble Baroness and all noble Lords of our commitment to Resolution 2504 and the need for an extension of the humanitarian corridors that currently operate in the north-west of the country.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, according to UNHCR, we need to pay urgent attention to the protection of refugee, displaced and stateless women and girls during this pandemic. They are among those most at risk: doors should not be left open to abusers and no efforts should be spared to help women surviving abuse and violence. What specific steps are the UK Government taking to ensure that refugee women and girls in camps do not become victims of abuse at this time?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My noble friend is quite right to raise this issue. I recently engaged in a virtual call with Pramila Patten, the SRSG on preventing sexual violence in conflict for the UN. I will be having further discussions on this to ensure that we give maximum support to girls and women who suffer because of conflict—and the Covid crisis brings this into focus.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, will the Minister pay tribute to the work of Translators Without Borders, which DfID helps to support? Its work with Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, for example, found that older women have very limited access to information about Covid-19. It provides support in 89 languages, has produced a multilingual glossary on Covid to help health workers and monitors social media in multiple languages to eliminate fake or inaccurate data—work that no other international organisation undertakes. Will the Minister look positively at TWB’s need for more funding to leverage language technology to meet the needs of refugees?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I fully align with the sentiments of the noble Baroness and of course I will look at all future funding requests.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, thousands of asylum seekers, potential refugees, are now unaccounted for in Libya, following hundreds being returned to the shore and many detention camps being closed as a result of Covid-19. Will the UK actively support safe, direct humanitarian evacuation corridors out of Libya in order to ensure the protection of the most vulnerable at this most difficult time?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the noble Lord highlights an important issue around Libya and the conflict that continues to engulf the country. We are of course working with international partners to see what we can do in-country to reach a political settlement, as well as to provide support for the vulnerable, including refugees, in the country.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. We now come to the second Oral Question, from the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill.
Inheritance Tax
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the amount of inheritance tax paid, and (2) the measures being taken to avoid paying any such tax; and what plans they have, if any, to ensure that inheritance tax is paid promptly.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, from our latest estimates, inheritance tax receipts for 2019-20 totalled £5.1 billion. HMRC has a duty to collect the correct taxes as laid down by Parliament, and it carries out compliance checks into inheritance tax returns to ensure that customers pay the right amount. Inheritance tax is payable within six months of the date of death and must be paid before probate is granted and the assets in the deceased’s estate are distributed.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. She refers to the UK’s total annual £5 billion inheritance tax, which is paid only by the wealthy and the middle-class, who have less ability and wealth to avoid death duties by imaginative and creative tax plans. Virtually no IHT is paid by the very wealthy in the UK. Tax planning is sensible, tax evasion is illegal, but creative tax avoidance is also unacceptable. The Office of Tax Simplification was asked to review the tax. Can the Minister tell us about its recommendations and the Government’s response to them, in particular on how to curb the creative tax industry and those who use it?
Baroness Penn
My Lords, the Government thank the Office of Tax Simplification for the work it has done; they are looking at the results of its two reports very carefully. I reassure the noble Lord that since 2011, inheritance tax and trusts have been brought into the disclosure of tax avoidance schemes—DOTAS—regime, which means that any new and innovative inheritance tax avoidance scheme involving transfers into trust must be disclosed to HMRC, and gives the Government powers to take any enforcement actions necessary.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab)
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, said, the very wealthiest are just not paying their share of inheritance tax. In 2016, estates worth £2 million to £3 million paid only 20% rather than the 40% required. Estates worth over £10 million paid on average just 10%. With Exchequer revenue to be at a premium in the years ahead, will the Government urgently examine the closure of the myriad loopholes available to the very wealthiest; for example, through the extensive use of transfers to trust?
Baroness Penn
My Lords, I point out that in 2018-19, inheritance tax receipts were at a record high, and 70% of inheritance tax comes from estates valued at £1 million or more. I believe that the noble Lord is referring to certain exemptions that come under agricultural and business property. While we recognise that there are some concerns, the policy intention behind those exemptions is to allow family farms and businesses to be passed on without having to be broken up to pay inheritance tax. We think that that is an important aim.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD)
The APPG on Inheritance and Intergenerational Fairness has recommended replacing inheritance tax with a 10% flat rate gift tax payable on both lifetime and death transfers. Would that not be a good way of getting rid of this hated tax with its complex exemptions and avoidance, and potentially bring forward economic demand benefits?
Baroness Penn
My Lords, the Government keep the tax system under review and any changes made are taken in consideration of economic competitiveness, levelling up growth across the UK and their impact on individuals and businesses. However, I am not aware of any active consideration of the APPG’s proposals.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, IHT is an iniquitous tax and the noble Lords, Lord Palmer and Lord Wood, have a point, although full disclosure of any schemes has to be made in box K of IHT 100. Will my noble friend the Minister consider taking a look at the two major loopholes? The first is the definition of “business” within BPR and the second is the exemption for non-doms of non-UK assets?
Baroness Penn
My Lords, under the definition of businesses, certain criteria must be met in order to qualify for the exemption. It is restricted to trading businesses which provide goods and services and is not available to those dealing either wholly or mainly with securities, stocks, shares or land.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that we are well overdue for a transformation of our tax system across the piece? We need a public debate led by the Government on this. Only after that could we truly say who should pay and how they should pay it. Will she take this suggestion back to the department and then report to the House how such a public discourse could be undertaken?
Baroness Penn
Changes have been made to inheritance tax in recent years; notably, that from 2017, implementation of the residential non-rateable band, which allows families who have built up an asset, usually the family home, to pass it on to their direct descendants. As I said in a previous answer, we keep the tax system under review; for example, we have considered and continue to consider carefully reports from the Office of Tax Simplification.
Lord Livermore (Lab)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Wood made clear, wealth inequality in the UK is even greater than income inequality. As the Government consider how to pay for the current coronavirus crisis, will the Minister commit to the principle of fairer taxation of both income and wealth to ensure that those with the broadest shoulders genuinely bear the biggest burden?
Baroness Penn
The Government are committed to a fair taxation system. We recognise that the current pandemic will have an impact on public borrowing and we will need to look at the sustainability of our public finances in the future. Our immediate focus is on providing financial support now for those who have been hit by the pandemic and on supporting jobs and livelihoods while we are in the period of social distancing and other coronavirus-related restrictions.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I fully support IHT being paid when it should, but I also support the campaign against excessive and burdensome bereavement bureaucracy being run by the charity Cruse Bereavement Care and the Times. In that context, can the Minister explain and justify why HMRC obliges the completion of onerous IHT forms in certain circumstances, even if the sole beneficiary is a spouse who is exempt from paying the tax? If she cannot answer me now, will she commit to reviewing this issue?
Baroness Penn
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness for her campaigning in this area. I reassure her that the Government have recently implemented an online service for inheritance tax where excepted estates can provide assured accounts to HMRC through a simple online portal. We will continue to consider ways of making the payment of tax more simple; for example, during the pandemic we have recognised that the provision of wet signatures may not be possible so we have introduced the acceptance of e-signatures in their place.
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)
My Lords, does not the current crisis and its impact on the wider tax take offer us the ideal opportunity to reform inheritance tax by abolishing it and treating inheritance as income under the Income Tax Acts, with an added tax-free allowance or threshold? This would increase the tax take, substantially widen the recipient base, make for a far more equitable distribution of wealth, and foster entrepreneurship on potentially a huge scale. Why not seize this opportunity while we have it?
Baroness Penn
My Lords, as I have said, we will look at the public finances and how we can put them on to a sustainable footing after this crisis, but during this crisis our focus is on getting support to households now. We have made a number of changes to the inheritance tax system recently, including the Office of Tax Simplification report, and we will continue to keep all these aspects under review.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)
My Lords, Australia abolished federal inheritance tax in 1979. Following that, by 1984 all estate duties, state and federal, were removed nationally. Have the Government assessed the pros and cons of systems used by other countries in this inheritance tax issue and, if not, will they commit to doing so? These answers may cover many of the points raised by other noble Lords in this Question.
Baroness Penn
The Government often look at systems in other countries to see what can be learned from them. In the UK, the Government think that inheritance tax makes an important contribution to the Exchequer, while balancing the importance of allowing those who have worked hard and built up an asset that they want to pass on the ability to do so.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Covid-19: Ireland
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what discussions they have had with the government of Ireland about the development of a co-ordinated all-island approach to the lifting of COVID-19 related restrictions.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
The UK is committed to working with the Government of Ireland on our response to the Covid-19 pandemic. There have been regular discussions of our approach, including between Ministers and officials from the UK and Irish Governments and the Northern Ireland Executive. We are determined to work together to ensure that our measures safeguard the health and well-being of UK and Irish citizens and abide by our obligations under the Belfast Good Friday agreement and the common travel area.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Northern Ireland is now involved in a contact-tracing programme. How much better would that be if it was done on an all-Ireland basis because of the local geography, as stated this morning by Professor Bauld from the University of Edinburgh? What concerted action will the Minister take with the Irish Government as co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement to ensure that such an all-Ireland approach to contact tracing takes places to suppress the virus and save lives?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Baroness is right in that making paths towards proper contact tracing is very important. We have very good co-operation between Northern Ireland and Ireland on this. The more rapidly we can identify those who have been in contact with those infected, the more quickly they can self-isolate and lower the R rate. I can tell the noble Baroness that much work is going on on developing one app. There are a couple of apps at the moment, and the two Governments are working closely together to look at the best way forward.
Baroness Rawlings (Con)
My Lords, in discussion with Ireland on the co-ordinated approach for lifting restrictions, when we find a vaccine for Covid-19, what are Her Majesty’s Government doing to prevent the anti-vaccine movement convincing people not to be vaccinated?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Clearly this is of concern. We will use all means possible to counter any disinformation that is circulated from that quarter. The key to bringing an end to this cruel virus is to find a vaccine against it, and we will recommend that people have it. Of course, the UK Government will license a vaccine only when it is effective and safe.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB)
Does the Minister agree that Covid-19 has jolted us into interdependence and common concerns? Does he agree that co-operation and the development of a common strategy between Eire and Northern Ireland is necessary not only to help a smooth move out of the current lockdown but because the experience and trust gained will be invaluable in tackling economic and other areas of difference?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord is absolutely right. Having clear co-operation on Covid-19 is incredibly important. The UK Government, the Northern Ireland Executive and the Irish Government share the goal of working together to ensure that we take complementary measures to safeguard the health and well-being of UK and Irish citizens.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab)
As noble Lords are aware, between Great Britain and Ireland lies the self-governing British Crown dependency of the Isle of Man. Although its Parliament has total responsibility for Covid-19 matters, will the Minister bear in mind the island’s interests in any relevant joint discussions?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Yes, absolutely. I will take that back to the department. The Isle of Man is part of the common travel area, so we should bear in mind its interests in relation to Ireland and Northern Ireland in tackling this dreadful virus, and we do.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
Is it not imperative that the lifting of restrictions in Northern Ireland takes full account of the Province’s unique position in relation to the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom and the common travel area? Is it not also desirable that testing and tracing practices should be closely aligned, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has said? We should not require cross-border travellers to operate two systems—indeed, to have two different apps on their phones, as the Health Minister suggested. Is this not pursuing difference for difference’s sake?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Lord is right in that, as I said earlier, we are developing an integrated test-and-trace programme. The details are rather sparse at the moment and conversations continue. It could be app, web or phone-based. I reiterate that this is a key way of helping us to work more closely together on getting out of this virus.
Lord Empey (UUP)
Were the Government aware that the Republic was going to impose a 14-day quarantine period on travellers from Britain when the UK Government had decided not to impose one on travellers from the Republic? What does the Minister think of the implications of this decision for the operation of the common travel area and the free movement of people within these islands?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The operation of the common travel area and free movement are vital. For those who fly into Ireland from outside the EU, there is a 14-day quarantine and people doing that will be advised to fill in a form so that addresses are known. People need to take responsibility, having come in. As I say, the common travel area is absolutely non-negotiable and should remain as is.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
Given that there are 28 all- Ireland sports governing bodies, will the Minister seek as co-ordinated an approach as possible with the Government of Ireland for the lifting of restrictions covering sport, especially during steps three, four and five of the Northern Ireland Executive’s five-step plan?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
Absolutely. My noble friend will know that Ireland has a timetable, a five-phase approach which includes the resumption of sports. Northern Ireland also has a five-point plan, which is understandably rather different and has no timetable. However, I will take his comments back and make sure that they are known.
Lord Wigley (PC)
Further to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, is the Minister aware that many citizens of Northern Ireland enter Great Britain via Dublin and Holyhead? In those circumstances, if Covid testing takes place, what will be the position of Northern Ireland citizens following that route? What discussion has taken place with the Welsh, Irish and Northern Irish Governments on the issue?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I cannot give the noble Lord specific details, but I can tell him that there are extremely close and regular links between the CMOs in all four nations. I am certain that these discussions will come up regularly. As I said, contact tracing within the four nations is incredibly important in terms of getting it right and managing it effectively.
Baroness Crawley (Lab)
Can the Minister say what monitoring and follow-up has been made of the working of the memorandum of understanding signed on 7 April between the Irish Government and the First Minister of Northern Ireland so that both Governments adopt similar approaches to Covid, as many noble Lords have mentioned, and therefore assist cross-border industries?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
The noble Baroness is right that there is this memorandum of understanding. Health officials both north and south of the border are working closely together with the sole aim of making sure that there is a co-ordinated approach to tackling this virus.
Lord Alderdice (LD)
Given that Covid-19 is a whole-of-government challenge, and arguably our most serious health and economic challenge since partition, have Her Majesty’s Government had or requested an online meeting of the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference? If not, why not, given the need to ensure that all levels of the two Governments are engaged in co-operating, and especially given that we have now left the EU, whose institutional meetings ensured regular intergovernmental contact between the UK and Ireland?
Viscount Younger of Leckie
I will take that point back, but the noble Lord will know that there are constantly meetings going on at different levels, not only between the UK Government but, much more to the point in relation to the subject of this Question, between Northern Ireland and Ireland. I have not mentioned the quad meetings. The Secretary of State speaks to party leaders regularly and, as I have mentioned, the CMOs speak regularly, so there are different areas. I will certainly take that point back.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and we now come to the fourth Oral Question.
Dental Care
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when they plan to permit the resumption of routine dental care.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the NHS and the Chief Dental Officer have worked hard to reopen the dental sector, with the aim of restarting routine dental care as soon as we safely can. In the meantime, over 500 urgent dental treatment centres have been set up in each NHS region, to provide urgent face-to-face care for patients.
Lord Farmer (Con)
I thank the Minister for his reply. Untreated and moderate dental problems can become severe and potentially life-affecting. Infected teeth were a major cause of death in the 19th century. I note the 500 urgent dental care hubs already set up in England following strict guidelines, but can my noble friend say why the regulator cannot simply modify the existing guidelines used in the hubs to make them transferable to local dental practices?
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord is entirely right that poor dental care is extremely damaging to individual health. The current situation is one that we massively regret, but the safety of patients and dental professionals is paramount. The aerosols generated by dental drilling and other dental practices leave the threat of germs in the air in a dental practice for hours to come, which could be caught by staff or future patients. It is for that reason that we have focused the infection protocols in 500 special units that have the right kit, the right training and the right arrangements.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interest as president of the British Fluoridation Society. I recognise the work done in setting up urgent treatment centres, but they are patchy in England and many provide only for pain relief and tooth extraction. Many high street dentists are in danger of bankruptcy, because the Chancellor’s schemes to help businesses have not been applied to them. Will the Minister consider setting up a programme of work with the BDA and the Chief Dental Officer to establish a national plan to get dentistry back on track and save the profession from ruin?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, I completely understand the points that the noble Lord has made. He refers to a situation that we are fully aware of, and I completely agree with his analysis. The truth is that tooth extraction avoids some of the risks that I described, but treatment in the centres is not limited to extraction and other protocols are arranged. The Chief Dental Officer is working on a dental plan, and we are liaising with colleagues in the Treasury to see what more can be done to help dental practices.
Lord Rogan (UUP)
My Lords, United Kingdom dentists, too, are heroes and heroines of this pandemic. In Northern Ireland 100 dentists were sought to run emergency clinics, but more than 400 stepped forward, and dozens more have volunteered to work in care homes. A recent BDA survey warned that three-quarters of Northern Ireland’s dental practices could collapse by the summer because of Covid-19. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I ask the Minister urgently to consider adopting a UK-wide approach to saving our dental sector from disaster.
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord’s concerns are well understood. Practices that depend on private income are particularly affected, because the NHS has guaranteed the income to NHS practices for their NHS work. We are working on a UK-wide national plan, and it is a massive priority for the Government.
Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con)
My Lords, I echo the points made by the previous speaker: £7.8 billion is spent on private dental health care, yet dental practices of this nature are among the only businesses not to receive the full business rate relief. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that they receive adequate provision, as a matter of urgency, to ensure that these practitioners do not disappear from the high street?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, I cannot make the commitment that my noble friend seeks at the Dispatch Box, but I promise to convey his thoughts to the discussions taking place between DHSC colleagues and the Treasury.
Baroness Harris of Richmond (LD)
My Lords, a recent poll of around 2,000 dentists and dental professionals found that 97.5% of them supported a vote of no confidence in the leadership of the office of the Chief Dental Officer of England. What is the Government’s assessment of this?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, it is not the role of the Department of Health and Social Care to have a view on the popularity of the Chief Dental Officer. All I can say is that the support he has provided for the profession is enormously appreciated, and we have a lot of confidence in his work.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest in that my brother-in-law is a dentist. My noble friend will be aware that many private dental practices have already sourced and stocked their requirements of PPE. Is he satisfied that when NHS dental care resumes, practitioners will have adequate supplies for dentists, their staff and their patients?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, the Government are buying billions of items of PPE and putting them into the supply chain. That supply chain includes dentists, and we are working hard to ensure that all dentists, both in the urgent treatment centres and in other dental practices that may reopen in the short term, have exactly what they need.
Lord Low of Dalston (CB)
My Lords, when will the NHS be able to look beyond the current crisis and get back to routine eye care by opticians and eye clinics, which plays such a vital part in preventing blindness?
Lord Bethell
The arrangements for eye care, similarly, are an extremely delicate matter, because the eye is a potential source of infection, and both workers and patients are at risk through work done by opticians. We are extremely keen to get back to normal, but we put the safety and care of patients and staff first.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My question to the Minister is an amalgam of those already asked, and I want to press him on them. Everyone needs dentists to be able to survive this pandemic and to be open to do their job as soon as possible. What financial support might be given to the sector to make that happen? What steps are the Government taking to ensure that there are treatment guidelines and access to PPE?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, I completely endorse the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton. I lost a front tooth a few weeks ago and I cannot wait for the dentists to reopen because it is both uncomfortable and embarrassing. We are providing enormous financial support through NHS contracts, which we have honoured 100% through the epidemic whether or not dentists are seeing patients. However, we recognise that there is a problem with the private sector, and we are working with colleagues in the Treasury to try to find a solution.
Lord Bradshaw (LD)
It is the private dental sector that is probably in most trouble, because of a lack of financial support given by the Government and the question whether private dentists have adequate access to PPE, to which the Minister has referred. Will he address those questions? What meetings have taken place with the BDA to deal with these problems?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, at present there are restrictions on private dentists opening; the guidelines are clear on that. We are putting in place provision of PPE for when those guidelines are amended to allow the reopening of dental practices. We are also giving thought to how we will get through the large backlog of dentists’ work that will need to be done to catch up on those missed appointments.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
It was pointed out recently by Public Health England that snack buying has gone up hugely in the past few weeks of the crisis. As Ministers know, the main reason that children go into hospital and have anaesthetics is to have all their teeth out as a result of eating sugary foods. Will the Minister guarantee that, when the crisis is over, the Government will bring the obesity Bill back to Parliament and get it through this time, because this is a tragedy for our youngsters?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is entirely right. I confess to having a profound biscuit habit through the Covid epidemic which I am wrestling to get over. On a serious note, the Covid epidemic has put a spotlight on the health of the nation. There seems to be some evidence that we have suffered badly from the epidemic partly because of obesity. The Prime Minister has commented personally on this issue. It will be a priority of the Government to address this point once the epidemic is over to restore the health of the nation and to tackle obesity.
The Lord Speaker (Lord Fowler)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. I thank all who put questions and the Ministers who answered. That concludes the Virtual Proceedings on Oral Questions. The Virtual Proceedings will resume at a convenient point after 12 noon for the Private Notice Question on scientific evidence relating to the reopening of schools.
Arrangement of Business
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, Virtual Proceedings of the House will now resume. I remind Members that these proceedings are subject to parliamentary privilege and that what we say is available to the public both in Hansard and to those listening and watching. Members’ microphones will be initially 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 microphones will be again set to mute.
Covid-19: Schools
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Watson of Invergowrie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they are taking to publish scientific evidence which (1) ensures the re-opening schools on 1 June will be safe for pupils, staff and parents, and (2) includes the impact on the (a) national, and (b) regional, reproduction rates (R number) of COVID-19.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, the first two batches of SAGE papers were released on 20 March and 5 May. Further batches will be released shortly. From the week commencing 1 June, we hope to welcome back more children to early years, schools and further education, provided that the Government’s five key tests justify the changes at that time.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, but I have to say that it is somewhat vague. This is National Thank a Teacher Day: a national campaign to record our gratitude to teachers and school support staff. This year, it also embraces the millions of parents and carers thrust into the role of temporary teachers during school closures. The Minister will have seen today that various local authorities across England are now advising schools in their area not to open. With Public Health England having said that R values vary across different regions, it is difficult to understand the logic of the Government’s decision that schools should reopen nationwide on 1 June. Will the Minister reveal to noble Lords what the Government’s scientific evidence says about reopening schools in communities which have an R value that is closer to 1 than the average?
Baroness Berridge
I join the noble Lord in thanking all of our teachers and draw attention to the fact that 80% of education settings are open for vulnerable children and the children of critical workers. I applaud their hard work. The R rate is not broken down regionally and is not published in that form. It is a UK-wide estimate range which is published each week. The individual modelling groups include epidemiological information on the intensive care unit rate of admissions, the death rate and the rate of hospital admissions. It is an average value that can vary across communities, but it is not published on a regional basis.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, in order to assist local authorities that are reluctant to reopen schools, will my noble friend consider publishing the Government’s assessment of the effects of a prolonged school lockdown on the emotional, educational and economic chances of disadvantaged children?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, it is obvious that the good and protective factor that a school provides to children cannot be replaced. I assure my noble friend that in making this decision, consideration was given to the future education and social outcomes for children, alongside the health and epidemiological information and data. We are deeply concerned about the effect of continued school closures, particularly on disadvantaged pupils, and are looking at a range of interventions to help them catch up.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, did the Minister agree with the Government’s Deputy Chief Scientific Adviser when she added another condition, saying that Ministers have been told that changes to lockdown would require an effective system for tracing and isolating to be in place? She went on to say that changes should be based on observed levels of infection, not a fixed date. How does this affect schools?
Baroness Berridge
When the Government announced the five tests to be satisfied to plan for reopening on 1 June, we also included the enabling programmes mentioned in the road map. This includes the contact-tracing system. Testing has been ramped up, with a view to being able to introduce a “track and trace” system. This is in accordance with the scientific advice we have.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I refer the House to my entry in the register of interests in relation to the National Education Union. Speaking in another place on 13 May, the Secretary of State said he was happy to share all advice received from SAGE. The National Education Union has analysed the SAGE evidence and papers available on GOV.UK. Most of the evidence explicitly relating to children and education—80% of it; nine out of 11 papers—is unpublished. SAGE has not published any evidence for over a week, at a time when critical decisions are being taken, and there is no record of SAGE papers for the last month, published or unpublished. Will the Minister urge the Government to expedite the publication of all scientific advice and evidence, in particular relating to “test, track, trace and isolate”, to try to build confidence among the public, parents and the education workforce in how schools could open to more children and students safely, bearing in mind that, as she said, schools are generally open for vulnerable children and the children of key workers and that teachers not in schools are at present teaching their pupils both online and through a variety of means?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, the Secretary of State outlined that the evidence will be published. As I have said, the latest updates from SAGE have been published; the latest was on 5 May. We are committed to transparency and enabling access to the evidence on which we rely. On that evidence, Public Health England’s guidance to us is that there can be a hierarchy of controls in schools, beginning with nobody symptomatic being in schools. Once those controls are in place, we can substantially reduce the risk of transmission in education settings.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, Germany closed its schools within three weeks of its first case being identified. This and its very early “test, trace and isolate” strategy appear to account for its remarkable success in controlling deaths from Covid. Does the Minister agree that schools should reopen only in areas with a capacity to test, trace and isolate absolutely fully across the community, so that if a child in a school is identified as having Covid, the school could close for 14 days, then reopen and press on with its wonderful work?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, we are seeking to learn from the experience of other countries but this is a disease and it is affecting populations in different ways so we will be introducing a track, trace and test system in the UK that is specific to our community and to the NHS. Indeed, if any child or staff member becomes symptomatic they are to go home and isolate for seven days, and they and their families will be able to get a test. If that proves positive then, with the reduced class sizes of 15 who are not intermingling in the school, or at least not intermingling as much as possible, the disease can be contained. If there is an outbreak within a particular setting, the Public Health England local health planning scheme will be advising schools on that issue.
The Lord Bishop of Winchester
My Lords, as with many schools, Church of England schools have remained open during the lockdown for the children of key workers and vulnerable children. Our teachers are working extremely hard to provide educational and pastoral support to our students at this time of unprecedented challenge. Can the Minister confirm whether school leaders will be granted the discretion to reopen at a pace dictated by their local circumstances and context, considering the significant mental, spiritual, physical and social impact that the current situation is having on children, especially those from the most disadvantaged and vulnerable families?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, school leaders, teachers and support staff are indeed concerned about the education of their children and have been undertaking risk assessments in relation to whether vulnerable children are better off at home or in a school setting. We are of course aware that each school building, as well as each cohort of students, is different, so in the current plans we have enabled head teachers and school leaders to have the discretion to include a child that they view as vulnerable who might not be in the categories that the Government have outlined, and indeed it is they who will be doing the risk assessments of their buildings. We trust those professionals to do this job, relying on the guidance that we have given them. Away from the headlines, many teachers, head teachers and support staff are planning in anticipation of being able to reopen on 1 June should the five tests be satisfied.
Lord Lucas (Con)
Will my noble friend confirm that the Government will issue some guidance next week on how and when boarding school pupils may safely return to school, on permitting boarding schools to quarantine themselves—that is, running quarantine facilities for pupils who are returning from overseas—and to cover the measures that are being taken to avoid visa delays for overseas pupils?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I have been in touch over this period directly with the head of the Boarding Schools’ Association to talk about their specific issues. We will shortly be issuing guidance to them, particularly in relation to year 6 international boarders. At such a time as international travel resumes, we will of course expect them to abide by the guidance that is in place in relation to self-isolation or quarantine, depending on what is in force at that time. Obviously we will be advising them on what constitutes a household or isolation of a household for those purposes. The guidance will be out shortly.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)
The Science and Technology Committee of your Lordships’ House heard yesterday in its evidence session from the science community that there is not yet sufficient scientific evidence about the transmission rate of COVID-19 by children, many of whom are asymptomatic, to adults, including teachers. The reliance that the Government are putting on the test, trace and isolate system means that it must be reliable, but it rather begs the question whether they are satisfied with the scientific advice that they are getting on the infectivity of children. And why is the R number not published regionally if the test, trace and isolate system is showing that action will have to happen regionally?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, this is a new virus and the scientific understanding of it is developing. The current understanding is that there is a high degree of confidence that the severity of the disease in children is lower and there is moderate to high confidence that the susceptibility to clinical disease of children up to the age of 11 to 13 is lower than for adults. Hence, this is forming the basis, along with Public Health England guidance on the hierarchy of controls in schools, of the plans to reopen schools in the week of 1 June, assuming that the five tests are satisfied at that time.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
Every school can have an elected trade union health and safety workplace representative with statutory powers to carry out risk assessments. How many have done so?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I am not aware of how many health and safety officers have performed such risk assessments, but I will seek to obtain the information for the noble Lord. It is the responsibility of school leaders to carry out those kinds of risk assessments in the course of planning to reopen on 1 June.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend has emphasised the number of schools and multi-academy organisations that say they want to go back. I welcome the efforts of the teaching professions over the past few weeks where schools have remained open. However, is there a final date by which a decision has to be taken, which should apply to all local authorities, as to whether schools reopen on 1 June or some other date?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, this two- to three-week period is vital for schools to plan for reopening, but the tracking of the disease in the population will not be static during this period. My noble friend is correct that there is a notice period in the road map by which the Government will tell schools the position of the scientific data at that point.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab)
My Lords, of course I wish for schools to open, but I was in a meeting yesterday where I met the UN Secretary-General’s special envoy on Covid-19. He emphasised that the seriousness of this virus cannot be underestimated, nor can its uncertainty. He said that we should have “a comprehensive defence everywhere”. Can the Government guarantee that every school that opens will have a full operational defence plan that protects staff and children?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s acknowledgement that the population is having to deal with a time of great uncertainty around the disease. The department has published detailed guidance, including a planning framework for schools to be able to reopen. If they enact the hierarchy of controls when they reopen we can substantially reduce transmission of the disease in those settings.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. The Virtual Proceedings will now adjourn until a convenient point after 12.30 pm for the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan.
Arrangement of Business
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
My Lords, Virtual Proceedings of the House of Lords will now resume. I remind Members that these proceedings are subject to parliamentary privilege and that 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 microphones will again be set to mute.
We now come to the Virtual Proceedings on the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. The time limit is one and a half hours.
Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Definitions of “Metre” and “Kilogram”) (Amendment) Order 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Callanan
That the Virtual Proceedings do consider the draft Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Definitions of “Metre” and “Kilogram”) (Amendment) Order 2020.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, this order was laid before the House on 16 March 2020. The purpose of this statutory instrument is to update the Weights and Measures Act 1985 with new definitions for the metre and kilogram units of measurement. I emphasise that this does not represent any change in policy; it is simply about updating the unit of measurement definitions in UK law to align with those agreed internationally. It ensures that UK legislation is in step with the rest of the world.
I emphasise that the values of the units of measurement themselves are not changing. A kilogram will weigh the same as it did before the definitions were amended and a metre length will also still be the same. Therefore, there will be no direct impact on business or consumers. Businesses will not need to change their weighing or measuring equipment and consumers will have no need to be made aware of the changes. Perhaps I may give some background for the aid of noble Lords, providing the context of the changes that have been made and the processes that sit behind them.
The new definitions have been approved by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures. Currently 102 countries, including the UK, are members or associated members of the bureau. In fact, the UK was a founding member in 1875, alongside France, India and the US, recognising, even then, the need for consistency and accuracy of measurement to support fair and effective international trade.
The UK has remained at the forefront of both legal and scientific metrology for over 140 years since the bureau was founded. The bureau’s key objective,
“to … be the coordinator of the world-wide measurement system, ensuring it gives comparable and internationally accepted measurement results”,
is relevant even today. It ensures that the International System of Units—also known as SI base units—is uniform and accessible for the purposes of international trade, high-technology manufacturing, human health and safety, protection of the environment, global climate studies and the basic science that underpins all of those.
An accurate and agreed standard is essential to ensure consistency in weights and measures across all these applications. For example, it is critical not only that medicines are measured accurately to ensure correct dosage, but that consumers of any goods sold based on measurement have transparency and get what they pay for. This is vital, as in the UK some £342 billion-worth of goods are sold based on the measurement of their quantity, equating to some £6.23 billion every week. In addition, £280 billion-worth of goods per year are weighed or measured at the business-to-business level.
Originally, the definitions to determine the value of a unit of measurement were based on physical standards. Historically these might have been references to parts of the human body, utensils, or amounts that animals could carry. In more recent times, the physical standards became more sophisticated. For example, until now the kilogram was defined by reference to a piece of platinum and iridium that was held in a vault near Paris. As the definitions have developed, they have moved away from physical standards, as those physical standards can deteriorate over time and become less accurate. Even the slightest dust or cleaning can lead to deterioration of the metal and affect accuracy.
Until now, the kilogram was the only remaining definition based on a physical standard. Following decades of discussion, scientific research and testing, the new definitions for seven base units of measurement were agreed and recognised by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures in November 2018. The new definitions were deemed by the bureau to come into effect on 20 May 2019. Under the EU withdrawal agreement, we are proposing to implement the definition changes on the same date as member states of the EU: 13 June this year.
The seven base units of measurement with these new definitions are the metre, kilogram, ampere, second, candela, mole and kelvin. The definitions that we are concerned with today are those of the metre and kilogram. The new definitions are based on a set of seven defining constants, drawn from the fundamental constants of physics and other constants of nature, from which the definitions of the seven base units are deduced. For example, the value of a kilogram can now be determined from Planck’s constant, which remains accurate under all circumstances. It is interesting to note that the redefinition of the kilogram was made possible using technology developed here in the UK. The UK’s National Physical Laboratory, one of the leading national metrology institutes in the world, played a key part in the redefinition of the kilogram. This change ensures that unit of measurement definitions are scientifically robust and accessible to all globally. It also ensures uniformity and accuracy and will stand the test of time, because no dust or cleaning will affect them.
For the UK to stay in step with the rest of the world and meet our obligations under the withdrawal agreement, we have taken steps to amend our legislation. In September 2019, regulations amended the definitions for all seven of the SI base units in the Units of Measurement Regulations 1986 and made amendments to certain definitions in the Weights and Measures Act 1985. Those amendments, in Statutory Instrument 2019/ 1211, were made using powers under Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 and are timed to come into force on 13 June 2020.
The Weights and Measures Act also contains the definitions of the metre and kilogram units of measurement. I have been advised that amending them requires the use of powers provided for in the Weights and Measures Act itself. That is why this new statutory instrument is before your Lordships today: to amend the Weights and Measures Act definitions of the kilogram and the metre. This will ensure that all of the UK’s law is consistent and up to date, and that we are complying with the terms of the withdrawal agreement. Our intention is that this amendment should come into effect alongside the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Amendment) and Units of Measurement Regulations 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 2019, which is SI 2019/ 1211. That will happen on 13 June this year.
To conclude, this statutory instrument is simply about making UK legislation consistent and up to date, reflecting the new scientific definitions that underpin the legal and scientific metrology framework. There is no policy change. This is simply a technical change to ensure that the UK is in step with the rest of the world and therefore meeting our obligations under the withdrawal agreement. I emphasise once again: there is no direct impact on businesses or consumers, and I commend this order to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction, and his officials for their clear exposition of this order. The order reflects our interlinked world. It is vital that measurement is agreed across borders. As the notes explain, this is clearly essential for international trade, high-technology manufacturing and basic science.
Standard weights have been vital in coinage and valuable metals, going back to ancient times, where we can see that coins were devalued by having slices taken off them to make additional coins. As the Minister said, the International Bureau of Weights and Measures was established in 1875. By then, the industrial powers of Germany and the United States needed increasing standardisation, as the chemical and pharmaceutical industry was developing. Medicinal pills, with which we are so familiar, were introduced so that doses could be standardised. We can see the economic damage of the lack of such agreement even today in Africa. Rail lines in one country, formerly under one colonial ruler, meet the border of another which was formerly under another colonial power, and the gauges do not match. Colonial powers were looking to bring goods to the ports and out to them. They were not concerned about infra-African trade, and that disadvantage remains.
As science and industry develops—for example, in nanotechnology—measurements need to be further refined and standardised. This would certainly not be a time to hanker after some ancient era of Britain—or any other country—going its own way in measurement. If we are to compete and trade internationally, or even with our major partners in the EU, and in the science, we need to ensure that we are in line with international, tighter and more precise definitions. In the future, we will not be able to rely on EU mechanisms for checking this; we will need to build capacity to do so ourselves. Can the Minister assure me that we will do so?
As the Explanatory Note says, there is no reason to review this decision, as it is putting us in line with international practice. What will be needed is a watchful eye on whether we need to take action if further and tighter definitions come along, as they surely will. Are we also taking action to ensure that developing countries are brought into this system to facilitate their own science, health and trade, and, as we seek globally, to help tackle climate change? In the meantime, it is very nice to be able to agree the Minister, at least in this area.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for his introduction to this measure and for the clear way in which he set out the background to what we are being asked to consider. I was attracted to this measure simply because, as a lawyer, I appreciate that weights and measures are part of our law and fundamental to a great deal of what goes on in trade and in the scientific community.
However, when I began to look at the measure and its definitions, it seems that we find ourselves in an extraordinary position. The measure sits rather uneasily with the first rule of law, which is that the law should be accessible, clear and predictable, particularly where, as we find in this case, a criminal sanction is attached to a breach of the rules that the law lays down. One has to have regard to the context set by the Act itself: the Act lays down what the units of length and mass are to be for any measurement of length and mass that is to be made in this country: the yard or metre, the pound or the kilogram, as the case may be. We are given formulae that define exactly—the word “exactly” is used—how to measure a yard by reference to a metre, and a pound by reference to a kilogram.
When we look at the schedule, we see that, among other things, “METRE” and “KILOGRAM” are set out in capital letters, to highlight their prominence in the whole system, whereas everything else is in lower case. The whole process is policed, if one can put it like that, by Section 8 of the Act, which provides that no person shall use for trade any measurement which is not included in the schedule. Section 8(4) provides that a person who contravenes that provision shall be guilty of an offence which is punishable by a fine on summary conviction of up to £1,000. The word “exactly” is crucial to the whole process.
The interesting thing is that the existing definition of “metre” is sufficiently clear for the Oxford English Dictionary to publish it in full, whereas it would be very difficult to do that with what we have now. We now have a greatly expanded definition and my concern is that, if a lay man were to look at these things, he would find it frankly very difficult to understand. The definitions as they will now stand cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as accessible or clear to members of the public. Of course, I understand the value of this for other reasons, but that is my principal concern.
Therefore, can the Minister explain in simple language how a tradesman who is trying to remain within the law should interpret these new definitions? If that is not possible, why should we adopt these since we are no longer in the EU?
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for presenting these draft regulations with such clarity on what I believe is World Metrology Day. I strongly support these regulations, which, as he quite rightly said, do not actually change anything in a legal sense.
The Explanatory Memorandum makes it clear that these regulations are for purposes that are very much in our interest domestically in terms of furthering international trade, high-technology manufacturing, global climate studies, and, very topically, safety and security, as well as basic health and the basic science underpinning these; this is all set out in paragraph 7.3. The Government and the Minister are quite rightly committed to these aims.
I particularly commend the Government on two aspects of their approach. The first is their keeping the devolved Administrations very much in the frame. Coming in the speakers’ list, as I do, between two distinguished Scots, that seems an enlightened thing to support in any event. These are reserved matters, but it represents best practice to share information. The Government are absolutely right to do that and I commend them.
Secondly, the Government are clearly working closely with the International Bureau of Weights and Measures, based in Saint-Cloud, just outside Paris. As the Minister said, we are a founder member of the organisation. Its head is a Briton, the physicist Martin Milton. Clearly, this international engagement is very much in our interest and represents global Britain at its best. I would appreciate it if the Minister could say a little more about engagement with the bureau. It is very important that we engage with international organisations going forward, and not just this one. Involving as it does 102 member states and associate states, this is very much an international body. As I understand it, this does not have a European Union dimension at all; it is truly international across the piece.
As I say, I strongly support these regulations. They do not change the law, but represent best practice and are very much in the United Kingdom’s interest.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow such a noble and distinguished Welshman. I too thank the Minister for his fascinating introduction, particularly his remarks on the platinum lump near Paris used to define the kilogram. He will therefore not object when I remind him that it was also the French who created the metre in the 1790s. It was described as being one ten-millionth of the distance from the equator to the North Pole along a meridian through, of course, Paris. That is not an easy thing to calculate, but they did it. Notably, though, its introduction came about following the French Revolution, when the new French Republic wanted to throw its weight behind a new system which distanced itself from the ancien régime—interesting in today’s circumstances.
Let us fast forward many years. I am old enough to remember when we changed from inches, feet and yards, ounces, pounds and tonnes to metres and kilograms, way back in the swinging sixties. However, I am a bit surprised that—given the present Prime Minister and Government, and as we are on a path to what they describe as becoming a free country—we are not being asked to revert to those units, along with our new blue passports.
Given—unfortunately in our case—the motivation to put weight behind a new regime that distances itself from the European Union, to the dismay of many, but not to me, we are still bound to meet our obligation under EU law as applied under the withdrawal agreement, as the Minister said. Positively, as a result, we are continuing to ensure that the United Kingdom keeps abreast with the European Union and worldwide developments on this instance of metrology.
The noble Lord, Lord Bourne, mentioned the devolved authorities. What consultation has taken place with them? In the case of Scotland, is a legislative consent Motion required and, if so, what is its current position in consideration? Since this movement is to ensure uniformity across the world, have these changes been discussed with our Crown dependencies and overseas territories to make sure they are also in line? I alerted the Minister to these questions, and I will be interested in his reply.
Finally, I am looking forward to the day when a metre is no longer best known as half the social distance that we are obliged to keep apart, so that we can once again meet in the Palace of Westminster and discuss these matters in a far more convenient and fruitful way.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the early 1970s saw a series of changes that I began learning about while at primary school. At that time, many people were confused about how the country was taking steps towards the adoption of metric measurement, decimalisation of the currency and membership of what was then generally still known as the Common Market. There was little awareness in this country about the history of the metric system being adopted in many other countries as older systems, some of them based on units set in Roman times, were replaced.
It was not appreciated by everyone in the UK at the time that we remained free to sell pints of beer, use road signs based on yards and speed limits set in miles. Governments did little to persuade people that metrication was not being forced upon us in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, described French revolutionaries and the Emperor Napoleon doing some two centuries ago. This failure accounts for some of the prejudice against metric systems, even though they have been central to arrangements that allow countries to trade successfully with each other.
As my noble friend Lady Northover said, they have had an important role in public safety as well as protecting consumer interests. International standards are generally a good thing, which is why this order makes sense. The principle of international standardisation was recognised in the Weights and Measures Act 1824, but that applied only to the British Empire as we sought to impose the standard imperial system of weights and measures upon it. Parliamentary Select Committees throughout the 19th century kept recommending the general adoption of metric systems, only for progress to be blocked for fear of a public backlash.
Meanwhile, British scientists were at the forefront of the metrication movement. It was the British Association for the Advancement of Science that promoted the centimetre, gram, second system of units as a coherent method of measurement. It was the British firm Johnson Matthey that was accepted by the General Conference on Weights and Measures in 1889 to cast the international prototype metre and kilogram, although it was not until 1965 that the UK began an official programme of metrication. We have dragged our feet or, I should say, our 30 centimetres on this. Perhaps the Minister could enlighten us on progress on metrication generally, given the importance of international standards to trade.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on so expertly taking us through the order today. I hope noble Lords will spare a thought for my late mother who, having been brought up in Denmark where she was used to metrication, moved to the UK in 1948, where she learned a whole new times table of feet and inches, only to have to revert back to metrication in the 1960s and 1970s.
Following on from what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, said about potential criminal offences, can my noble friend explain what the role of trading standards officers in England will be when this change is applied and what resources are available to them? I cannot imagine the number, so perhaps he can say how many infringements there have been. I am conscious of the fact that trading standards officers, and local authorities generally, will have a huge draw on their resources, particularly with regard to Covid-19. It would be interesting to know how much pressure this will put on them.
My noble friend did not refer to the consultation, but the statutory instrument states that the Secretary of State consulted a range of bodies. Will my noble friend explain how wide that consultation was and what form it took?
There is clearly a different system in Northern Ireland. Can my noble friend give assurances that there are no problems on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland in so far as any different standards that might apply? I assume that Northern Ireland will simply apply this order separately.
What future relationship will we have with the International Bureau of Weights and Measures? We have always been there as a sovereign state. Will that continue on the same basis?
With those few remarks, I welcome the order and the opportunity I have had to learn a great deal more about the metre and the kilogram than I perhaps knew in the past.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I join others in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, on the clarity of his exposition at the start of the debate on this very complex matter. It is also nice to see him at the virtual Dispatch Box once again. To tell the truth, I am rather missing him from all the debates that we had together on Brexit. It is a shame, in a way, that he has gone to another department—certainly his successor does not appear to wish to engage the House on the issues of our future relationship with Europe in quite the same depth that he was so nobly and willingly keen to do—so it is a pleasure to be debating something with him again today.
This is essentially a very technical measure; I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, put it very well in explaining its importance. However, in the past this business of weights and measures has of course been of no small amount of political significance. I would just like to make some comments on that.
We will all remember the great brouhaha of the early 2000s about the “Metric Martyrs”, the refusal of traders in some of our markets to go along with these standards. They were taken to court, and this was described by the Daily Mail as the EU’s “bureaucratic bullying”. I think it was described by many people who were opponents of the EU at the time as a classic example of the EU bullying its way into something that good Brits wanted to have nothing to do with. What makes the row about the Metric Martyrs quite poignant is that, of course, one of the people who were greatly involved in it was a man called Mr Steve Thoburn, a trader in Sunderland. It was a case involving Sunderland City Council that brought this issue to prominence, and of course Sunderland was the city that voted overwhelmingly for Brexit.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I remind the noble Lord of the speaking time limit.
Lord Liddle
Yes. I believe that the Government should now be acknowledging that this issue is nothing to do with EU sovereignty but was to do with international standards, and that it is desirable for Britain fully to follow international standards. I humbly suggest that the Minister, as a former North East MEP, writes to the Daily Mail, the Daily Telegraph and all those others—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I suggest that the noble Lord draws his comments to a close.
Lord Liddle
Of course I will. I suggest that he writes to them and explains that the great brouhaha about EU bullying was so much nonsense.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, it may be worth remembering that the time recommended for each contribution is three minutes. On that basis, I now call the noble Lord, Lord Wei.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the Minister for the clarity of his opening remarks. I welcome this change. I am going to disagree with the previous speaker and some of the others, because I believe that there is an interesting nuance to this measure and its context that goes way beyond the debate around the metric system versus imperial.
In fact, it is true to say that Britain and British scientists and thinkers have played a key role in developing the metric system, with the likes of Kelvin and, more recently, Kibble, who developed some of the techniques that have led to the current definitions that we are discussing today. Undoubtedly, in future the accuracy that this change will bring will be of great benefit in many fields: astronomy, quantum physics, computing and telecommunications, as well as more generally in business.
To me, this measure starts to potentially exemplify a positive trend towards decentralising control. No longer will we need to reference a lump of metal in Paris; we can actually develop our own understanding of these measures in laboratories in Britain. I am therefore saddened that the Explanatory Note says that we have to align with Europe in order to develop these standards. We were part of developing this system, so I do not think we necessarily need to reference any other country. In my view, we need to be able to make our own decisions, especially with Brexit, sovereignly about what measures we want to move forwards, and if our choice is to align with international standards then that should be our choice.
I have a question for the Minister: until recently there were apparently only two laboratories in this country that had the instruments to do these measurements. I would be keen to know whether there are more labs that have been equipped, resourced and encouraged to make these measurements on a regular basis around the country, so that we can decentralise even away from London or wherever we take our national standard from, and local communities, local scientists and manufacturers of weight and measurement instruments can actually develop these standards in accordance with the natural norms of the Planck measurement and so on.
I welcome this move and, while I would not say that it is necessarily about internationalism, although it is good to have common standards for trade, I would encourage the Government to give us clarity in the coming months and years on how we will develop our own sovereign decision-making on this. For example, will future decisions on changes are made to this system and others fall under the purview of chief scientists?
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his clear, concise and measured introduction. Weights and measures are critical to almost every element of life, not least trade. We are in an enviable position here in the UK because of the National Physical Laboratory and indeed the UK Accreditation System which is ably chaired by my noble friend Lord Lindsay, and I pay tribute to him for all his work in that area. Given that, can my noble friend the Minister say how the Government will use the advantage we have across weights and measures standards in the post-Brexit world? I believe that we have a clear competitive advantage that we can exploit. This demonstrates that weights and measures are not just about quantity; they are also about quality.
I was lucky enough to be one of the directors of the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Whenever we were asked to give a sense of how big something was in terms of space, we would use football pitches. If it was for length or height, we used London double-decker buses. This instrument shows that we have clear, accurate and world-leading means of taking measurements, many of them stemming from our history here in the UK. It is perhaps a shame that we are not bringing these regulations into force on the anniversary of the Metre Convention, but it is excellent that this debate is being held on its anniversary, the title for which is “Measurements for global trade”—just so.
Will the Minister consider what the most difficult unit of measurement is and how he would go about measuring it? I refer to the House of Lords minute. I wish these regulations godspeed—however we choose to measure that.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for giving us the chance to speak on this important subject. Indeed, we used to speak of nothing else but the Planck and Avogrado constants in the Bishops’ Bar, so let me make some mischievous points today.
The current definitions have been in effect since 1985, and they have worked perfectly. Since 1889, the IPK has been used to define the mass of the kilogram. It is a golf ball-sized object made of 90% platinum and 10% iridium and is regarded as the most perfect object to define its weight because of its stability. There is the original IPK itself, six sister copies and hundreds of national prototypes that are held by world Governments.
The excuse for this change is that the boffins say that the IPKs are unstable because their weight varies over time by up to the weight of 50 specks of dust. Their masses are calibrated as offset values. For instance, K20, the US’s primary standard, originally had an official mass of 1 kilogram minus 39 micrograms in 1889. In 1948, it was down 19 micrograms, or 19 specks of dust, but the latest verification shows it to be precisely identical to its original 1889 value. These specks of dust variations are accounted for all the time by using offset values. It is like the North Pole and magnetic variation, which everyone simply recalculates by taking the variation into account. For 130 years, there has never been a problem with any national IPK distorting the weight of a kilogram, so why change it?
The 1985 Act states that a metre is defined as:
“the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299 792 458 of a second.”
Can my noble friend tell the House whether that simple definition has caused any errors over the past 35 years? Have there been critical measurement mistakes because the second has not been defined as
“taking the fixed numerical value of the caesium frequency Delta nu caesium, the unperturbed ground-state hyperfine transition frequency of the caesium 133 atom.”
Will I have to return my tape measure to B&Q since the metre scale no longer corresponds to 1.09361 yards? Will the Minister tell us what practical differences these changes will make?
In conclusion, I would prefer my noble friend to tackle the law-breaking by many councils which are illegally introducing metric measures on road signs. The law is absolutely clear: metric units are not permitted on distance signs, whether by themselves or in conjunction with imperial units. Distances must be in miles and yards only, and that applies to all traffic signs, not just those for motorists. Yet there are countless examples of councils erecting illegal signs in metric units. Will my noble friend therefore take up this matter urgently with the Department for Transport to make sure that all councils obey the law of this country and not what they might wish it to be?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, those who review Hansard tomorrow may find the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, using words that they never expected him to utter. I think that many of your Lordships have been going back to their science, chemistry and physics lessons to prepare for this debate. As a science graduate, it is a pleasure to hear a bit of science, albeit in this context. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, questioning the Minister about the unit of time used to measure Members’ speeches. I have been allocated eight minutes for this summation, and I believe that I will use less than that, which will make up for some of the other, more elastic interpretations of the minute.
I join other speakers who have commended the Minister on the clarity of his explanation. This is a challenging piece of secondary legislation, and he has done a magnificent job in explaining it, so much so that I feel that there may be a future in home schooling or suchlike for him, so I congratulate him.
During the Brexit campaign, there were many spurious reports about people campaigning or indeed being told that exit was an opportunity to return to the great British verities of pounds and ounces in our shops; the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, reflected a little of that in his speech. I am therefore pleased that the Minister is sticking to his metres, and I am relieved by his reassurance, which I hope will reassure the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that this will not change the weight of potatoes in his carrier bag.
The question on reinforcement asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, is important, and the general enforcement of weights and measures is the sharp end of this Bill.
It is difficult to introduce anything that has not been said around the Bill. However, I have a point around internationalism, which the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and my noble friend Lady Northover, were particularly adept at introducing. The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, made the point that the metre was originally adopted in 1799, and my noble friend Lady Northover set out the internationalism aspect. In effect, this is a parable of international co-operation, which was to a large extent European. We are dealing here of course with the metre and the kilogram, but the whole suite of SI measurements rests on a foundation of seven defining constants.
The noble Lord, Lord Wei, and the Minister alluded to the role of UK scientists. Looking back, we have the Planck constant: Max Planck was a German physicist; the Boltzmann constant: Ludwig Boltzmann was Austrian; the Avogadro constant: Amedeo Avogadro was Italian; caesium hyperfine splitting frequency—caesium was discovered by the chemist Bunsen and the physicist Kirchhoff, both of whom were German. The luminous efficacy of specified monochrome source is a harder call, but Joseph Fourier from France is an important precursor of the ability to measure that. However, the Minister and others will be pleased that when we come to the speed of light in a vacuum, I name James Maxwell, the brilliant British scientist, who first proposed light as an electromagnetic wave, as its progenitor. That leaves us with the elementary charge—the charge of a proton. Here we have to thank the American, Robert Millikan, for his famous oil drop experiment—I am sure all your Lordships remember it—which helps to measure that.
Of course, this is making a point, and the Minister is right to highlight the role of British institutions and scientists in this. However, the SI system is founded on centuries of international scientific co-operation. This is, therefore, an opportunity to speak up for international scientific co-operation. Long may it continue. These days, never has it been more needed to combat the situation we find ourselves in.
My noble friend Lord Rennard and the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, talked about the history of weights and measures. I think the history of science and co-operation is a much more important aspect. Schemes such as Erasmus and Horizon Europe are the basis on which European scientific co-operation were founded. I hope the Minister agrees that these are very important and must continue, so that we can continue to do the important things that this SI sits beneath. I also hope he shares my wish that the immigration Bill is not used to make things harder for scientists, technicians and their families to contribute to the future of science in this country.
I welcome this SI and the debate we have had and look forward to the answers the Minister can give us, particularly on the questions about enforcement. Overall, in a world in which unilateralism is seen to be the name of the game, this is a beam of multilateral light.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, it seems an amazing slice of luck that we are debating this on World Metrology Day, which—as others have noted—celebrates the signing of the Metre Convention by 17 nations, most of them European, in 1875. It sought to co-ordinate international measurements and the development of the metric system. I congratulate the Minister on the clarity of his exposition. I thought I detected an internationalist, perhaps even a European, in his tone. As other noble Lords have said, this instrument plays up the importance of international agreements, particularly across trading nations.
Neatly, the current worldwide measurement system is known as the International System of Units, or SI, and today’s SI reflects revisions to this system so that, as colleagues have said, it is based on the fundamental constants of physics and other constants of nature. The seven base units, including metre and kilogram, were therefore redefined. This SI amends the Weights and Measures Act 1985 to reflect this. Despite these changes, a kilogram will still have the same mass and a metre will still be the same length, as colleagues have said. While, like others, I would like to play my part in shortening the 2-metre distance to allow people to get closer to loved ones, I am glad that we use this measurement as a way of ensuring a safe space for social distancing.
As the Minister said, the order partially implements Commission directive 2019/1258. However, perhaps he could give us some clarity on what parts of the Commission directive are not implemented and why. Does the UK want to continue reflecting the EU’s metrological definitions after the transition period? We need an answer to that.
As I understand it, this order is connected with similar regulations from last year. All come into force on 13 June this year. Does the Minister know of any issues in how these regulations interact with each other? Such changes seem small in comparison with the extreme events of the moment, and rightly so, but they remain important. I was struck by the aim of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures to ensure that our measurement system is uniform and accessible worldwide for the purposes of international trade, human health and safety and, most importantly, the protection of the environment.
I have enjoyed this wide-ranging debate, particularly the contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, and the noble Lord, Lord Fox, with his plea for internationalism. I hope the Minister can assure us that internationalism will remain at the heart of our measures on weights and measures. I support these changes.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I too thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to what I thought was an extremely interesting, albeit short, debate. Of course, metrology is a subject that may at times seem a little remote and archaic, but it is actually of fundamental importance to all our lives: from the medical weighing of babies to the food that we eat, metrology affects us all in everything we do. As soon as humans started to trade, they needed common units: for measurements to have meaning, they must use common standards. That is why it is so important that we have agreed global standards that can ensure accuracy wherever they are used. I remind noble Lords once again of the huge volume of goods sold in the UK alone on the basis of measurement of their quantity. It is £342 billion- worth of goods, equating to £6.23 billion every week; and a further £280 billion-worth of goods per year are weighed or measured at the business-to-business level.
I shall now address some of the points raised during the debate. I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, for his very kind remarks: I too enjoyed sparring with him over Europe, and I am sure there will be lots of opportunity to do that in the future. I can confirm, in response to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, that we do have capacity to build our own mechanisms now that we have left the EU, and that the Government are committed to maintaining the UK’s role as a leader in international metrology and in science.
In answer to the queries raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, no tradesmen will have to change their practices as a result of these changes. The value of the units of measurement themselves are not changing, as I said in my introduction: a kilogram will still weigh the same as before the definitions are amended. We are adopting the new definitions to ensure that the UK remains at the forefront of metrology, which is where we want to be, and, while this does implement a European directive, which we have agreed—of course, we are obliged to do so under the withdrawal agreement—that is not the most significant aspect from our policy perspective. These changes have the support of the British science community, led by the National Physical Laboratory, and they reflect our ambition for the UK to remain a leader in international science.
My old sparring partner, the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, raised the question of a legislative consent Motion. I am pleased to tell him that units and standards of weights and measurement are reserved in Scotland under Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, and therefore it was not necessary for any legislative consent Motion to be tabled. That said, of course we have made contact with all the devolved Administrations to inform them of the proposed changes, and no objections have been raised. I can also confirm that this order does not extend to Crown dependencies or British Overseas Territories. These are separate jurisdictions and must make their own provision for updated units of measurement.
The noble Lord, Lord Rennard, raised the question of progress on metrication. The Government recognise that many people have an attachment to the imperial system and a preference to use imperial units in their day-to-day lives. At the same time, we recognise that the majority are not familiar with imperial units and that the use of metric is a necessity for British businesses to compete in markets around the world. The system that we have in the UK takes account of both preferences—the need for both imperial and a single, comprehensive set of units of measurement—by allowing for indications, in trade use, to be provided in imperial and metric, as people so choose.
It is important that consumers can tell how much of a product they are buying so that they can easily make comparisons to identify the best deal. Being able to compare prices and quantities is a fundamental principle of fair trade, and that is why, on the whole, today we have a single metric system of units of measurement. However, now that we have left the EU—much to the chagrin of the noble Lord, Lord Liddle—it is entirely for the UK alone to decide on any future approach to meet the needs of all British people and businesses.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering asked about enforcement. I can confirm that trading standards’ responsibilities and resources are not affected. Enforcement of the Weights and Measures Act will remain the responsibility of local authority trading standards departments.
In response to the question about consultation, statutory consultation was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the enabling powers in the Weights and Measures Act. On 15 August 2019, the Government wrote to organisations representative of those with an interest in the changes, setting out the approach that we intended to take to update the legislation and seeking their views. They were asked to respond by 27 August 2019.
I can give my noble friend the names of some of the consultees: the National Physical Laboratory; the British Standards Institution; the UK’s national accreditation body, UKAS; the Royal Society; the Royal Academy of Engineering; the Institute of Physics; the Institute of Measurement and Control; the Legal Metrology Experts Group, representing trading standards departments; and the UK Weighing Federation, representing manufacturers of weighing equipment. Discussions were also held with the NPL, and no concerns were raised by any of the stakeholders. As I said earlier, a statutory consultation was undertaken in accordance with the requirements of the enabling powers.
The statutory instrument before your Lordships will bring in, on 30 June, the changes that are needed to maintain pace with the international definitions. I close by reiterating that no policy change is involved here. Although it is important, this is simply a technical change to ensure that the UK is in step with the rest of the world. In making the change, we will also be meeting our obligations in line with the EU withdrawal agreement. A kilogram will weigh the same as before the definitions were amended and a metre will still be the same length, but now they will be based on the most up-to-date science. I commend this draft instrument to the House.
Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill
Wednesday 20th May 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Act 2020 View all Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 102-I Marshalled list for Virtual Committee - (15 May 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, this Virtual Committee will now begin. I remind Members that these proceedings are subject to parliamentary privilege, and that 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. The Virtual Committee will operate as far as possible like a Grand Committee. A participants’ list for today’s proceedings has been published and is in my brief, which Members should have received. The brief also lists Members who have put their names to the amendments, or expressed an interest in speaking, on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order that they are listed. 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 press an amendment or to say “Not content”, 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.
We now start with 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” if the Question is put made that clear in debate. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill in this Committee; this Committee cannot divide.
Clause 1: Murder, manslaughter or indecent images: prisoner’s non-disclosure
Amendment 1
Lord Blencathra
(d) the Parole Board reasonably suspects”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the next in the name of Lord Blencathra would make it mandatory for the Parole Board to reject parole applications where a prisoner refuses to say where and how they disposed of a body, and the prisoner has been medically certified as not having irreversible memory loss.
Lord Blencathra (Con)
My Lords, these little amendments are straightforward—at least, in my view. If passed, they would make it mandatory for the Parole Board not to release any prisoners who refused to divulge where and how they have disposed of the bodies of their victims. I have built in an exception for the minority who may have genuine and irreversible memory loss and are therefore unable to state that.
The reason for the amendments s quite simple. We all know that even when there is no criminality but a person is killed and no body is found, or someone is lost at sea, relatives find it very difficult to get closure. But where someone has been murdered, we have all seen the terrible distress of the parents—for example, of the Moors murders victims or of those murdered by the IRA—when the perpetrators will not reveal what they did with the bodies. It is, we are all told, one of the most difficult things for relatives to contend with. Can one imagine the anguish and the sheer injustice of it if a convict refuses to reveal what they have done with the victims, they continue to thumb their nose at the relatives of the victims and the Parole Board, but they can still be considered for early release?
My noble and learned friend and other noble and learned friends may say, “Well, don’t worry, in those circumstances the Parole Board would be highly unlikely to release that convict”, but why should it be at the discretion of the Parole Board based on its “belief” as to a person’s honesty and integrity?
If a convict, in full possession of their faculties and their memory, refuses to divulge what they did with the bodies of their victims, why should the Parole Board be put in the invidious position of having to come to a subjective judgment based on psychologists’ reports. Parliament should say that, in such circumstances, no one will be considered—I stress “considered”—for early release until they say what they have done with the bodies. If a convict refuses to admit that they have done anything wrong in killing someone, would they be considered for release? I believe not. Thus, if they will not talk about the disposal of their victims, they should automatically be excluded from any consideration of early release.
It is not as if the Parole Board has a great track record of coming to the right judgments, as we have seen in the Worboys cabbie rapist case. He should never have been considered for early release and is rightly still behind bars.
Only last week, Mr Justin Russell, the Chief Inspector of Probation, released a report stating that the number of murders by offenders released on probation rose from 70 in 2015 to 114 in 2018, an incredible increase and a fifth of all homicides in England and Wales. Of these, two-thirds had been assessed as “low or medium” risk on release, which meant that there was a lesser level of supervision and checks by probation officers and police.
This is not the time or place for me to set out my views on the naivety of many on the Parole Board, who swallow any old guff that the psychologists put in front of them: that a convict has seen the error of their ways and is now safe to release. Indeed, I do not have to make that observation, since the statistics that I have just cited speak for themselves.
Sociopaths, psychopaths, serial killers and rapists such as Ian Brady, Worboys and Joseph McCann are incredibly devious and calculating. If they can qualify for consideration for early release by keeping quiet about what they did with the bodies, why on earth should they own up? By doing so, they might trigger a further investigation which could lead to a further charge for another murder. Also, there might be such revulsion at how they disposed of the bodies that no Parole Board would ever dare consider them for early release. Therefore, there is an incentive for them to keep quiet and let everyone think that they killed their victims nicely and gave them a Christian burial.
We should use the certainty of no consideration for early release as the only weapon we have to get those people to talk. The Parole Board cannot do that, since the Bill allows them to consider their application and come to a belief judgment. If we remove that possibility, there is a chance of getting them to talk about what they did to the bodies. For the sake of grieving relatives and for the sake of justice, I beg to move.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendments because of the change that took place when the challenge to the right of the Home Secretary went through the judicial system and the safeguard that existed was therefore withdrawn. I do not share the view that the Parole Board is full of naive people. It has an incredibly difficult job and needs all the support and guidance it can get. I have my own disagreements with it, including on the case of David McCauliffe, who has been in prison for 32 years and did not commit murder or rape, although he did commit some totally heinous crimes.
I speak to this amendment because, like other Home Secretaries, I had to deal with Myra Hindley and Ian Brady. When Keith Bennett’s aunt, on behalf of the family, made her appeals to me to see if we could get an identification of where the little boy, Keith, was buried, my heart went out to the family. It was one of those distressing moments that Home Secretaries and now Justice Secretaries have to deal with in cases of murder, particularly where the body has not been identified and there is not therefore the opportunity to grieve properly or to lay the remains to rest. Winnie Johnson, Keith’s mother, died in 2012 without ever knowing where he was. No parent should have to put up with that.
As I have spoken about already, like my predecessors I was able to block the release of the Moors murderers because the power then existed with the Home Secretary. For reasons relating to human rights—it was not to do with the incorporation of the ECHR into the Human Rights Act but with the appeal that went through the judicial system—that power was taken away and, as described, now rests with the Parole Board.
In the circumstances, we are asking the impossible of the Parole Board: to make a judgment on a situation in which somebody has knowingly refused to identify the place in which they put the body of the individual they murdered. For the parents of a child, that is so horrendous as to require a much more rigid approach than we would normally take in giving judges and the Parole Board, quite rightly, the discretion they need to deal with cases. That is why I am in support.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 1 and the amendments in the next group to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and spoken to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, are concerned with the prisoner’s state of mind or mental capacity at the time of his application to the Parole Board for release on licence. The amendments may start from different places but end up in more or less the same place. The difference between them is where the assessment of the prisoner’s state of mind begins.
In short, if one agrees with my noble friend Lord Blencathra, it is essentially for the prisoner to persuade two doctors that he is not pulling the wool over the eyes of the Parole Board about not being able to remember where the victim’s remains are. If I correctly anticipate the argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, it is for the Parole Board to be satisfied that the prisoner’s state of mind or mental capacity is of such a quality that he is able to disclose, but has not disclosed, their whereabouts.
Lord Adonis (Lab)
My Lords, there is clearly great public concern underlying this Bill. However, as he did in a very persuasive speech at Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, has just asked whether it will make any difference whatever. The more speeches one hears, the less convinced one becomes that this is in fact going to change anything. What it does is put the discretion that currently exists, and the facts that currently have to be taken account of by the Parole Board, on a statutory footing. However, it has not been made clear at any stage why putting these on a statutory footing will make any difference to the current arrangement, where it is required to take account of these factors anyway.
In his persuasive speech at Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, argued that non-disclosure of a body should itself be an offence which could lengthen a sentence. However, the response from the noble and learned Lord the Advocate-General raised as many questions as it answered. He said that the sentencing judge will
“take account of the non-disclosure when deciding on the length of the tariff”.—[Official Report, 28/4/20; col. 214.]
Therefore, it is a factor at the moment, but it is also a factor in respect of the Parole Board. To a lay observer such as me, that leaves us in the somewhat confusing position of not knowing where the penalty lies. Does it lie at both ends? Is a longer sentence imposed because of non-disclosure, and because it is a factor in respect of the Parole Board, or not? I would be grateful if the Minister could address that further.
Underlying all this, completely understandably, is massive public concern, which focuses particularly on especially gruesome cases. My noble friend Lord Blunkett said that, in the past, decisions on such cases have been made by the Home Secretary, reflecting—to be direct about it—public sentiment, which tended to go with those crimes that got the most media coverage at the time they were committed. Now, this discretion lies with the Parole Board, but the big problem is that the Parole Board is not really accountable to anyone at all. I welcome the Minister’s point about the role of the courts themselves, because the judge is formally required to consider factors when imposing a sentence. As we explore how we give effect to the real intention of the Bill, I wonder whether there might be some role for the courts—a judge—to take the final decision on whether a prisoner should be released in these circumstances.
Baroness Sanderson of Welton (Con)
My Lords, having not been able to take part in Second Reading, I welcome the chance to take part in today’s debate. I appreciate that we are now in Committee and therefore I will keep my comments brief.
I hope that the Bill will not disappoint, for I think it achieves something of immeasurable value. To all who have lost a loved one and who wait, day by day, if not hour by hour, to be reunited with them, it says that their son, daughter, mother or brother has not been, and will not be, forgotten. It gives victims dignity and it reassures their families that they are not alone in their quest to lay their loved one to rest. This might seem small comfort, but, in the circumstances, it is an important message to relay.
The families’ needs are paramount, and I fear that, despite the best of intentions, Amendment 1 could end up causing further distress. Irrespective of the fact that a “no body, no parole” rule does not allow for potential miscarriages of justice, should it be open to legal challenge, families may find that their suffering is in fact made worse over time. Given that they have already suffered in ways we cannot possibly imagine, I know that this is something we would all wish to avoid.
More generally, I hope noble Lords will not mind if I take this opportunity to welcome the inclusion in the Bill of the statutory obligation for the Parole Board to consider the non-disclosure of information about the identity of children featured in the taking and/or making of indecent images. I declare my interests as set out in the register as someone who works with the victims of child sexual abuse as part of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. I work on the Truth Project, which runs parallel to the inquiry and was set up so that victims could come forward and tell their stories—so that after years, very often decades, of not being listened to, they could finally be heard. While their experiences are, of course, different, the effects of abuse are all too often the same: lack of self-worth, guilt that this was somehow their fault, lives gone unfulfilled and people’s futures fundamentally changed through no fault of their own.
I would argue that, as a society, we are still coming to terms with the reality of child sexual abuse, so I welcome that the Bill acknowledges the very real harm that these indecent images can do. That is a big step forward and another way in which the Bill offers crucial support for victims and their families. I thank noble Lords for allowing me to make these extra comments. I hope that we will pass the Bill unamended.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we heard at Second Reading the case of Helen McCourt. I have looked at how many more cases there have been in England since then of murder convictions where there is no body. There have been quite a number, with victims including Sarah Wellgreen, Jenny Nicholl and Danielle Jones. The interesting but predictable correlation is that the victims are all children and women. The last male victim was Mark Tildesley, aged seven—like Keith Bennett, a child murdered by an older man. I refer noble Lords back to terms that I used at Second Reading: power games and the misuse of power. It is no coincidence that it is young children—young boys and girls—and women who are the victims of crimes where there is no body and yet a murder has taken place.
This is more than a moral crusade, more than an ethical issue. It is more than trying to shape public demand—although I am sure that public demand is huge on this. I recall the heckling outside the Old Bailey many years ago, when a man was about to be convicted of murder and the call went out, “Hand him over to the women of Bermondsey.” Then, and now, we could get a significant majority in the country to acclaim that as a concept. That is not the way we do justice—but if we do justice using legislation through the parliamentary system, where there are weaknesses we need to address them. The fact that young children and women are the victims demonstrates the power game continuing behind bars. It is a misuse of power—the understanding that the murderer retains power over the family and friends grieving the lost one. The murder is motivated in these cases by that power. Therefore, the law needs to address how we deal with that. It is a double anguish, a double punishment that the families receive. It would not be a double punishment if this amendment were passed.
Therefore, to echo what others have said about the case that above all others dominated my early years, the Moors murderers, and Winnie Johnson’s public anguish, which we saw over many decades in our media, while there are many more anguished families who are less vocal and choose other ways to grieve, I do not think that we have the system right. I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend who proposed these amendments has been well known to me as a very clear, well-informed campaigner for many years in a number of different situations. I am also very conscious of the tremendous pain that is felt by a family who have lost a loved one in circumstances where they are unable to come to closure because they do not have the body of their loved one. However, we have to look at this carefully and that is what I suggest we do.
These amendments deal with a situation in which the prosecuting authority did not have access to the victim’s body in a murder or manslaughter case. In former times, it was difficult to secure a conviction in such a case, but prosecutors’ powers and the means of investigation at their disposal has enabled success in such cases to be easier now. Where a prisoner has pled not guilty and persistently proclaimed his innocence, it will not be consistent with his position to give such information. The circumstances in which such information might not be available are many. It might be impossible for him to know what happened to the body, for example if he was not a principal in the case, but an accessory who gave the lethal weapon to the perpetrator at some distance from the scene, or he was not the person who took charge of the body after the crime and had no knowledge of what was done with it. These are just some of the circumstances in which what happened to the body might not have been known to the prisoner and where the Parole Board cannot know or have a reasonable suspicion that he did. Yet, in each of these circumstances, the family’s pain is the same as if he did know. The result is that it is not always possible to find a just retribution for that pain.
The fact that the prisoner would not disclose the fate of the body would be known and would be a consideration at the time of the sentence. Co-operation with the police in their inquiries is a relevant factor in the determination of a sentence. This would be an important element in that aspect of the sentencing decision. The extent of the prisoner’s involvement would be much more freshly known at the time of the Parole Board hearing.
The Parole Board’s function in making its decision is to consider whether it is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the prosecution of further protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined. In my submission, it would be utterly contrary to that duty to refuse release, as proposed in the amendment, without any discretion to the Parole Board. I therefore object to the amendment and oppose it. To require the board to consider this matter, thus to commit it to the board’s discretion, is a wise and just way to recognise the severe pain inflicted on the family of the victim in the circumstances disclosed. The prisoner will know that this is to be considered and that this situation is unlikely to be a factor in his favour, so he might be encouraged to disclose what he knows.
In my view there are serious difficulties in making this matter a separate legal offence, as was proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier, for whom, as a lawyer and otherwise, I have the greatest respect. This is a matter that would be difficult to disentangle from the jury’s verdict on the murder—and the last thing we want is two different verdicts on the same case by different juries. However, I do not need to elaborate on that today, because that is not what is proposed. I conclude by emphasising the fact that I do not consider this a just way of dealing with a very painful problem.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I shall be brief, because a great deal has been covered already, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Mann; he spoke on Second Reading, as I did myself, and we explored some of this then. The Committee should be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. As was said on Second Reading, the Parole Board seems far from ideal in the present circumstances, and to have the safeguard of two registered medical practitioners is the least we can do, particularly in a high-risk situation. We are talking about men and women who have carried out terrible crimes. Bearing in mind the risk that they potentially pose to society, the safeguards in the amendment would be very helpful.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the debate, and I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has tabled the amendment, because it is right that we should subject the Government to scrutiny. In drafting it, the noble Lord has gone some way down the road towards matters that were discussed in another place, such as whether we should have a rule of no disclosure and no release at all. He has not gone quite that far; he is just seeking to stop early release. Members of your Lordships’ House should go back and read the debates in another place on that matter. If anything, the Commons was inclined to go down a more severe road than that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, but in the end it decided not to. We should pay attention to its reasons for that—particularly in the light of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, who, as ever, dispensed wisdom to those of us who are non-lawyers, which I greatly appreciated.
May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, what difference his amendment would make in practice? My understanding is that its main thrust would be to require two medical opinions, which the Parole Board would have to follow; it would take away the board’s discretion. Does he have evidence of the Parole Board making decisions, particularly in cases involving such high-profile serious offenders, either without taking account of medical opinion or disregarding it completely? That seems to be what his amendments suggest may happen, and I am not sure whether there is evidence for that.
The Parole Board has the most difficult of tasks. It is always likely to disappoint one person, or one side of an argument, or another. It frequently finds itself having to depend publicly the judgments it has made, so I would be surprised if it was routinely dismissing or not paying attention to medical assessments. Indeed, it would have to have a medical assessment made by a medical practitioner to determine somebody’s mental capacity. I simply wish to know from the noble Lord what deficiency in the proceedings of the Parole Board he seeks to address and on what basis.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, I am winding up for the Opposition on this short but very interesting debate. I want to open by addressing the point made by my noble friend Lord Blunkett. He concluded in his support for this amendment that we are asking the impossible of the Parole Board. Although I recognise his immense experience, I question whether that basic assumption is true, and I take up the point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that we entrust the Parole Board with these extremely difficult decisions. All the members of the board who I have ever met are extremely responsible people. My understanding of this amendment is that it would require two medical opinions, after which the Parole Board would make its decision, and it is right that the Parole Board should have that responsibility.
My main objection to the amendment is that by making it inevitable in some way that people will find it impossible to get out of prison, they could be tempted to knowingly give wrong information and to do so as a form of torture, if you like, because they know that it will cause more distress to the parents involved. We should not give them that power. We should retain the responsibility and the subjective judgment of the Parole Board in making these difficult decisions.
I also listened to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the response to his points by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. They are both extremely experienced lawyers. I must admit that I was initially attracted to the solution proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, but I listened with interest to the objections of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and his method of solving the conundrum before us.
This amendment is not appropriate for the Bill, and I think we should pass the Bill as amended. While I acknowledge the point made by my noble friend Lord Adonis questioning whether the Bill is necessary, I think it is right that the practice of the Parole Board is put into statute, otherwise there may be other legal mechanisms of challenging the Parole Board’s decisions if it is adopting this practice but is not supported by proper legislation being in place. On that basis I would reject this amendment. We will consider the other amendments in due course, but largely speaking the Bill should pass unamended.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con)
I thank noble Lords and noble and learned Lords for their contributions to the debate in Committee —[Inaudible.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester)
Could the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, please lean a little closer to the microphone?
Lord Keen of Elie
Yes, of course, although I do not think I could get much closer. Can you hear me?
Lord Keen of Elie
I am not sure what I can do about that. Can you hear me now?
Lord Keen of Elie
I believe the host has stopped the video. I will continue, if I may. Amendment 1, as indicated, would require certification by two—[Inaudible] —the application of the release provisions to the prisoner. Of course if the result of the assessment is that the prisoner is found to be suffering from irreversible memory loss, the Bill’s provisions would not apply to that prisoner. The amendment creates a requirement for medical certification in all cases where the board considered the provisions might apply before such provisions—[Inaudible]—as part of the release assessment. That of course contrasts with the Bill’s current approach, which is to allow the Parole Board as an independent—[Inaudible]—prisoner has not disclosed. So the amendment alters the subjective test that requires the board to— [Inaudible]—which they had not disclosed to, I think I quote, “reasonably suspect” that the prisoner has such information. Again, the replacement of “believe” with “reasonably suspect” would lower the threshold—[Inaudible.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I am so sorry to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, and I apologise to all noble Lords. We have to adjourn for 10 minutes while we try to sort out this technical problem. We will resume shortly after 3.25 pm.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, we will now resume the Committee stage of the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill, and I hope that we will hear from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie. Perhaps I may suggest that he starts his remarks from the top.
Lord Keen of Elie
I thank the Deputy Chairman of Committees and apologise to noble Lords for any inconvenience that has been caused. It is not clear what the problem was. [Inaudible.]
I was turning to look at Amendments 1 and 3, which, despite having separate effects on the Bill’s provisions, when taken together have the cumulative effect of preventing the Parole Board considering the release of any prisoner who has failed to disclose the relevant information, unless they have been certified as suffering from “irreversible memory loss”. [Inaudible.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I apologise to the Minister but we cannot hear him properly. We will adjourn for five minutes in the hope that he will be able to dial in to speak in the debate. The Committee is adjourned until 3.34 pm.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, welcome back. We are on Amendment 1 of the Prisoners (Disclosure of Information About Victims) Bill. I hope we will now hear from the Minister, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie.
Lord Keen of Elie
I thank noble Lords for their patience. I now turn to consider Amendments 1 and 3, tabled by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. Although they have separate effects on the Bill’s provisions, when taken together, the two amendments have the cumulative effect of preventing the Parole Board considering the release of any prisoner who has failed to disclose the relevant information, unless they have been certified as suffering from “irreversible memory loss”.
Amendment 1 creates a requirement for medical certification in all cases in which the board considers that the provisions might apply to a prisoner, before such provisions would apply as part of the release assessment. This contrasts with the Bill’s current approach which is to allow the Parole Board, as an independent expert body, to form its own belief as to whether a prisoner has the necessary information regarding a victim’s remains, which that prisoner has not disclosed.
In addition, the amendment alters the subjective test that requires the board to believe that a prisoner has information regarding a victim’s remains which they have not disclosed to a test that it “reasonably suspects” that the prisoner has such information. That would lower the threshold of the evidential standard required by the board to satisfy itself.
Of course, mental impairment, including irreversible memory loss, may well be a reason for such non-disclosure, and I fully expect the Parole Board to consider these issues after consultation with medical and other experts, as it does now. In these circumstances, I see no need for a prior medical assessment to take place, which may be unnecessary and which would unjustifiably fetter the board’s subsequent handling of such cases.
Furthermore, the reference to reasonableness here is, I suggest, unnecessary. As a public authority, the board is already obliged to act reasonably, and to prescribe this in the Bill may undermine these existing general law principles. I do not consider that to be the appropriate approach in this instance.
Turning briefly to Amendment 3, which would deny release to any prisoner who failed to disclose the information under consideration in this Bill, unless they were suffering from irretrievable memory loss, as set out in the preceding amendment, it raises very real difficulties. Parole Board consideration of the case would cease until the prisoner disclosed the relevant information or the medical evidence changed. Precluding release on such grounds may very well give rise to a challenge under Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as once a prisoner has served their minimum tariff, and is found no longer to pose a risk to the public, continuing detention would be regarded as arbitrary for the purposes of Article 5. I will come back to elaborate upon that in a moment.
In addition, as was touched upon by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, a failure to disclose relevant information may not be solely due to memory loss but, alternatively, may be due to mental impairment or mental ill-health, or could be a consequence of genuine changes, for example in geography, which meant the location of a body could no longer be identified. Furthermore, creating a blanket ban on release may even create an incentive for offenders to lie about the location of a body. In these circumstances, I encourage noble Lords to consider very carefully what the Bill currently enables the Board to do, which is to investigate these issues and to come to a subjective view in this context.
I will now touch upon a number of points raised. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, alluded to the question of the Home Secretary’s former power to block release. I just note that the Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary does have the power now to review a decision of the Parole Board, and has exercised that power.
With regards to the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, in the context of the sentences that we are looking at—that is, life sentences and certain extended sentences—there are two elements to the sentence: the punitive element and the preventive element. The punitive element is essentially the tariff which is set by the court at the time of sentencing, or the minimum period within the life sentence that the accused or convicted person is going to have to spend in custody. That will have regard to a number of factors including, for example, the non-disclosure of the whereabouts of a victim.
The preventive element is addressed by the Parole Board, and not by the court. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern observed, the test there is whether it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be detained. An element for consideration at that point is whether a failure to disclose the whereabouts of a victim or victims would indicate a continuing threat to the public in that context. To have an absolute bar on the prisoner being released, on the grounds of non-disclosure, would not fit with the appropriate test which has to be applied by the Parole Board at the preventive stage. I reiterate that this would take us into territory where the whole process could potentially be challenged under Article 5 of the convention. It would be extremely unwise for us to legislate on such an issue in circumstances where we left that legislation open to future challenge from the court. That is hardly going to bring any comfort to the families of victims and others.
In these circumstances, I do not consider that it would be appropriate to go down the road suggested by my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I would add only that I concur with the observations made by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay on the matter of a further criminal offence of non-disclosure. As I indicated before, there is a common law offence of not disclosing the whereabouts of a body, but even if one was to be convicted of that, in the context of a life sentence having already been imposed, there would be another concurrent sentence and that could only lead to a degree of confusion. That is putting aside for the moment the very real difficulty that was identified by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of two juries coming to quite different conclusions on the evidence in related trials.
In all of these circumstances, I would invite my noble friend to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I have had notification that the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, wishes to speak after the Minister.
Lord Adonis
No, I simply wished to observe that we could not hear a word that the Minister was saying the first time around, but he was extremely clear the second time and I thought he gave a very effective response.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
In that case, I call the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, to reply to the debate.
Lord Blencathra
My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for his response and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed. I shall try to comment briefly on all the points raised. I cannot say that I am disappointed with my noble and learned friend’s reply, since I had no expectation that our Ministry of Justice would countenance the radical proposal that some convicts not deserving of leniency should stay locked up.
Consideration for early release is not a fundamental right; it should be earned by a whole range of factors. Some of these may be subjective and judgmental, such as reports on the convict’s behaviour in prison, his attempts at learning a skill or trade, anger management and so on. Others, I believe, should be a simple statutory bar that removes any discretion from the Parole Board. One would be that a convict who admits that he killed a person but refuses to admit that it was wrong should not be considered for release until he is willing to make that admission. The other case, in my opinion, is the one before us today: no one should be considered for release if he has not given details of how and where he disposed of the bodies of his victims, with the exception for the minority who have genuine memory loss.
My noble and learned friend said that if a prisoner lies about the location of the body and it turns out to be false, he forfeits his right to consideration for early release. I am not suggesting that we take the prisoner at his word; we would not be so naive as to say, “Okay, you’ll get early release; you’ve told us where the body is”, and then a few weeks later discover that he has lied about it—of course not. Nor do I accept that a bar on early release would necessarily be in contravention of Article 5 of the treaty. My noble and learned friend said that it could—I think these were his words—“potentially put us in that territory”. That is far from certain.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who spoke with considerable authority on this matter. If my arguments are not convincing, I hope that the House will in due course listen to him. I was also moved by what the noble Lord, Lord Mann, said. He, too, had experience of the pain of the families of the Moors murder victims, who were deprived of closure because the killers kept that power. He stressed the word “power”, which is a very good term. If a prisoner can still be eligible for parole and not divulge information about the bodies, he retains that power over the relatives, the victims and the Parole Board.
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Garnier for his kind and typically overgenerous comments and, as usual, his very thoughtful and learned contribution. I hope that the Government will explore his idea of a proper court hearing to decide on disclosure, despite what my noble and learned friends the Advocate-General and Lord Mackay of Clashfern said. I take the point that my two doctors suggestion is another attempt to get some certainty when a prisoner may not be able to recall. I accept that getting certainty may be difficult for a wide variety of reasons, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern highlighted. However, I hope that he would agree with me that, where a prisoner considered to have memory recall simply refuses to divulge information, parole should not be considered in any circumstance. That is a quite different matter from a prisoner who is unable to recall, however that is determined.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
We now start the group beginning with Amendment 2. I remind noble Lords that if they wish to speak after the Minister, they should email the clerk during the debate. It would be helpful if any noble Lord intending to say “Not content” when the question is put could make that clear in the debate. It takes unanimity to amend a Bill in this Committee. The Committee cannot divide.
Amendment 2
Baroness Bull
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that account is taken of the prisoner’s state of mind in determining whether they can make a disclosure.
Baroness Bull (CB)
My Lords, it has long been recognised that the withholding of information about the location of victims’ remains can have a devastating impact on the lives and mental health of their families. This Bill enshrines in law what is already the practice in parole boards, which is fully to consider the failure by a prisoner to disclose this information or, indeed, to disclose the identity of child victims of indecent imagery. By removing any discretion to disregard non-disclosure, the Bill will play an important role in helping families come to terms with what for most of us is unimaginable grief. It is for these reasons that I supported the Bill at Second Reading. In doing so again today, I repeat my tributes to Marie McCourt and to those people who have campaigned tirelessly over several decades to see legislation of this sort brought before the House.
Amendments 2 and 4 in Clause 1 and Amendments 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16 and 17 in Clause 2 make two connected points. The first is that parole boards must take account of the prisoner’s state of mind when determining whether they can in fact make a disclosure, and the second is that the prisoner’s mental capacity within the meaning of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to make the disclosure, is taken into account. Out of necessity, the amendments are repeated at relevant places in the Bill, so I am essentially speaking to two amendments, and these two amendments stand together.
My amendments address the concern I raised at Second Reading that, as drafted, the Bill fails to provide adequate protection for prisoners with mental health issues, and therefore seeks to balance the imperative for justice with the appropriate regard for human rights. Since that occasion, I have discussed these concerns with colleagues working in mental health and with others working in mental health charities, including the charity Rethink. I am grateful to them and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, for their expert advice, and it is with their support that I have tabled these brief amendments.
In response to my questions at Second Reading, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, said:
“We are confident that the provisions of the Bill are sufficient and effective to apply in the contexts of non-disclosure, psychiatric conditions and mental illness.”—[Official Report, 28/4/20; col 214.]
Speaking in the other place, the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, Robert Buckland, further clarified the Government’s acceptance by saying:
“This subjective approach is fundamental to the proper functioning of the Bill.”—[Official Report, Commons, 11/2/20; col. 748.]
In other words, the Government accept that the approach has to take into account the circumstances of the particular prisoner. This acceptance is important because the consequences of deliberate non-disclosure will, in most cases, give rise to a longer period of imprisonment. The Government rightly accept that these consequences should not flow on a strict liability basis, but only where in effect the non-disclosure is culpable and where there is, as conventional principles dictate, the combination of a relevant act carried out with the requisite degree of either intentionality or recklessness.
This approach has to be correct; any other approach would come dangerously close to suggesting that the mere fact that there is missing information means that the prisoner should be held responsible for withholding it. While the Government’s acceptance of this key point is welcome, the Bill does not at present specifically direct the Parole Board’s attention to the consideration of whether, first, the prisoner has the mental capacity to decide whether or not to disclose the information, and/or, secondly, whether for some reason—for instance, because of the presence of mental disorder—they cannot form the requisite intention to withhold the information.
It is difficult to know how extensive a problem this might present, as it has always been challenging accurately to estimate the number of prisoners with mental health problems in England and Wales. The 2017 report from the Public Accounts Select Committee showed that people in prison are more likely to suffer mental health problems than those in the community, and successive reports from the noble Lord, Lord Bradley, the National Audit Office and others have all highlighted that it is unknown precisely how many prisoners have mental illnesses. Figures from NHS England in March 2017 showed that nearly 8,000 prisoners, 10% of the prison population, were receiving treatment for mental illness in prison. It is estimated that 37% of NHS expenditure on adult healthcare in prisons is on mental health, which is more than twice the proportion within the NHS budget as a whole. The Public Accounts Committee also found that imprisonment can exacerbate mental illness, due to what it describes as,
“a deteriorating prison estate, long-standing lack of prison staff and the increased prevalence of drugs in prison.”
This is highly relevant to the Bill, given that parole hearings are likely to take place some considerable time after sentencing.
The World Health Organization points to several factors that have negative effects on the mental health of prisoners, including exposure to violence, enforced solitude or, conversely, lack of privacy, absence of meaningful activity, insecurity about the future and inadequate mental health services. Prisoners with mental health issues are often subject to bullying and extortion; they may even have their medication stolen. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has expressed concerns that its members are unable to deliver adequate mental health services in prisons.
These points bear repeating here because they demonstrate both the scale of mental health problems in the prison population and the potential for mental health to deteriorate during imprisonment. By extension, mental capacity may also change during imprisonment, given that, as defined within the Mental Capacity Act 2005, lack of capacity may be related to mental health, learning disabilities and neurodegenerative conditions such as dementia. The charity Rethink and other experts believe that these particular conditions are likely to be overrepresented in the prison system. Capacity is also specific to a given decision, rather than universal, meaning that a person who lacks capacity for some kinds of decisions may well be able to make others. The Mental Capacity Act code of practice is clear that a person can have capacity to make decisions in certain areas—for example, deciding what activities to undertake—while lacking it in others, such as a decision to disclose information. The potential for capacity to change over time, particularly with mental health conditions such as dementia, is especially relevant here, as the Government are rightly focused in the Bill on the present position. This makes it all the more important that parole boards are directed to take into account the current capacity of an offender to disclose information about a victim, the presence of mental illness at the time of the hearing, the place of the offender in their mental health recovery and their compliance with any treatment for mental health conditions.
As the Bill is presented, it would indeed be possible for the Parole Board to take these matters into account in the very broad discretion provided by each of the relevant clauses. This could also be amplified in any guidance provided to the Parole Board, but I contend that the Parole Board is not directed with sufficient precision to consideration of whether refusal to provide the relevant information is deliberate, and hence culpable. As the consequences of deliberate nondisclosure are, and are intended to be, serious, the test to be applied by the Parole Board should explicitly reflect this.
To conclude, my amendments would ensure, first, that specific focus is placed in that broad discretion on whether the refusal to disclose information is deliberate and therefore culpable, hence also relevant to consideration of the likely risk that the prisoner will pose; and secondly, that when considering questions of the prisoner’s capacity to make the decision to refuse to disclose the information, the Parole Board is doing so by express reference to the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This is of no little importance, given the time-specific nature of the test for capacity in the Act. The focus of the Parole Board’s attention should be on whether the prisoner currently has the capacity to make the decision, rather than the position historically. This will be of particular relevance where the prisoner has a progressive condition such as dementia.
The Parole Board’s broader discussion to take account of all other relevant factors remains unfettered by the amendments. I urge the noble and learned Lord to consider these amendments and the attempt behind them seriously. I believe that they in no way undermine this important Bill; rather, they strengthen it by directing the Parole Board explicitly to determine whether prisoners’ withholding of information is deliberate, conscious and therefore culpable, and not unimportantly a potentially legitimate signifier of continued risk. I beg to move.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 2 and 4, to which I have added my name. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, for her introduction to the group. I too completely understand the policy reasons that have given rise to the Bill. I have the deepest sympathy for those who feel that they can have no closure until they are given the information that the Bill refers to.
A tragic headline in the Scotsman only three weeks ago read:
“We cannot say goodbye until Suzanne is found.”
This was a reference to the case of Suzanne Pilley, of whose murder her former lover, David Gilroy, was convicted in 2012. It is now 10 years since she went missing, and her body has still not been found. Her family believe that he is the only person who knows where it is. The problem is that Gilroy has maintained throughout, despite his conviction, that he is innocent. He says that he cannot reveal where the body is and that it had nothing whatever to do with him. There seems to be no way out of this impasse, but the family’s distress is very real and very deep. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said, sadly, it is not always possible to find a just solution to their pain.
However, we need to be very careful about exactly what it is that the Bill is trying to achieve—or, to be more precise, about the test that the Parole Board is being asked to apply when it takes non-disclosure into account. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, was quite right in his understanding that our amendments seek to leave it with the Parole Board to make the judgment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, said at Second Reading in the Chamber in April, this is not a “no body, no release” Bill, although that is what some campaigners would have preferred. We need to be clear: is the Bill about simply delaying release as a punishment, or securing the release of information? Surely, it is only by securing the release of the information that the board will be able to give closure to those most affected. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that it is the latter and that the point of the Bill is to strengthen the power of the Parole Board to encourage disclosure. “Encourage” is perhaps too mild a word because of course, we have to face the fact that disclosure must have been asked for repeatedly, time and again, ever since the prisoner was first interviewed by the police. Nevertheless, one can only hope that, however this is done, the board will be able to achieve that objective.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I will address the same amendments in this group as were listed by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. Amendments 5, 6, 9, 12 and 15 will be addressed by my noble friends Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord German. I declare an interest as a member of an advisory board at the charity Rethink Mental Illness.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, I want to draw attention to the decisions being taken about a prisoner’s state of mind and their mental capacity to answer questions relating to the release of information about bodies. I was a member of the scrutiny committee in your Lordships’ House that did the pre-legislative scrutiny on the Mental Capacity Bill. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I took part in the passage of that Bill through Parliament. I was part of the body that reviewed it and have subsequently been one of the Peers who participated in the Mental Capacity (Amendment) Bill.
When the post-legislative scrutiny of the Mental Capacity Act took place, it became very apparent that while it is widely regarded as being a very necessary and very innovative law, it is a law which is largely misunderstood and often ignored in practice. Some professionals, particularly in the world of health and social care, are very adept at understanding the concepts behind the Mental Capacity Act and are deploying them in their everyday work, but they are few and far between. Noble Lords who have listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, may have picked up on the fact that even within the medical profession, many practitioners simply do not understand what mental capacity and the tests of it are under this legislation.
During the review of the Mental Capacity Act, we spent virtually no time looking at the questions of how the Act is used within the criminal justice system, and I suspect that that was because it is not widely understood. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, made clear, the Mental Capacity Act rests upon the capacity of a person to make a particular decision at a particular time. It is not lawful to make a read-across from a person’s incapacity to make one decision to an assumption that they cannot make another. Therefore, in every case, it is for the Parole Board to decide at that point whether the prisoner has the capacity to withhold information, and that may vary over time.
It is right that we should discuss this, and we should look at putting these provisions in the Bill for three reasons. First, there are some conditions under which mental capacity can fluctuate. As mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, some mental health conditions—the effects of drug and alcohol or degenerative diseases, the onset of dementia—may mean that over time the capacity of a prisoner to release this information diminishes.
The second is that there needs to be training and good practice for all practitioners throughout the criminal justice system in determining mental capacity. That includes members of the Parole Board. I wonder whether, in his summing up on this amendment, the Minister might say what training members of the Parole Board have and what guidance is available to them in making determinations under the Mental Capacity Act. Do they call on Mental Capacity Act practitioners, as people in social services do when they come to determine the capacity of an individual to make any decision?
In saying all this, I am acutely aware that, in some of these cases, the crimes happened a very long time ago. I understand that Helen McCourt’s case was one of the first in which DNA evidence was used. Some prisoners who have been in prison for a very long time could be victims of a miscarriage of justice. It is extremely important when we look at their refusal to impart information about the whereabouts of a body that we do so with great care and make sure that we are not misjudging a lack of mental capacity.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD)
My Lords, I am addressing Amendment 5 and the subsequent amendments to the same effect in relation to similar subsections in the Bill. I did not have the opportunity of speaking at Second Reading, so perhaps I can make one or two observations before I come to my amendments.
First, it is my experience that prosecutions where there is no body are comparatively rare. They do happen, but I recall only three or four cases in my own career where such things took place. If the Minister has information on this, I would be interested to know how many people subject to the provisions of the Bill are currently incarcerated in prison.
The noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Mann, referred to the Moors murders case. I was present in court at the Chester Assizes during that case as a pupil in support of the late Lord Hooson, who appeared on behalf of Brady. I can testify to the distress and huge impact that that case had on the families of victims— but not only them. It had an impact on the counsel who appeared in the case and indeed, I believe, on the judge.
Brady subsequently attempted, many years later, to take the police to places where he said he had buried bodies—to no effect. We cannot know whether this was a genuine attempt on his behalf to uncover the remains or whether he was simply, as has been put earlier in this debate, grinding the knife into the victims’ families. It is a terrible indication of what can happen to families in these circumstances.
My other point relates to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra. He relied on medical evidence, almost putting it in the place of the Parole Board. I prosecuted a double murder from mid-Wales which gave me a particular view. It was not a case where the bodies of the two victims were not available, but the defence was diminished responsibility. On the side of the defence in the original trial were no fewer than five psychologists and psychiatrists, giving evidence about the mental capacity of the defendant. On the prosecution side, there were four such expert views. After the conviction of the defendant, having observed their cross-examination in the witness box, one of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution decided that the defendant really did suffer from mental incapacity. An appeal was launched on that basis. It was successful and there was a retrial in which there were then six experts for the defence and three for the prosecution. The defendant was still convicted of murder at the second trial by a majority of 11 to one.
What impacted on me was that members of the medical profession are accustomed to taking a history from patients, which they accept. There is no questioning of what they are told to any great degree. Therefore, to put the decision on the release of a prisoner undergoing life imprisonment in the hands of medical people is, to my mind, wrong. There should be a proper judicial process. I do not agree for a moment with the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, that the Parole Board will swallow any guff put before it—that is simply not what experience tells us.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I support Amendment 2 and the other amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull. I contributed to the Second Reading debate on the Bill a few weeks ago in the Chamber, where the noble Baroness made a powerful speech. Like other noble Lords, I welcome the Bill and pay tribute to the campaigners who have got us to this point.
The amendments before us allow us to have a debate on the detail of the issue in question. The balance that has to be stuck here is between justice and the denial of a funeral to a victim’s family, which brings further pain and distress to a family denied the ability to grieve properly, a prisoner with mental health issues and respect for human rights. These are extremely difficult issues that have to be approached with thoroughness. Decisions being made clearly and victims being listened to are an important part of the work that we expect the Parole Board to do.
The Parole Board has to take account of several factors in making its decisions. I have never met a member of the Parole Board, unlike my noble friends Lord Blunkett and Lord Ponsonby, but the Parole Board deserves our support in the difficult job that it is asked to do. I do not doubt that it undertakes its responsibilities with the utmost seriousness, making difficult and important judgments independently, and I wholeheartedly endorse the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in that respect.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, has posed a number of points for the Minister to address about the state of mind of the prisoner at a particular time as well as the prisoner’s mental capacity. I very much see the point that the noble Baroness is making: that these issues should be taken into account at the time of the hearing. I look forward to the Minister’s reply on these points and on other points made by noble Lords.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendments in the second group in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, particularly in relation to Amendments 2 and 4, which are reiterated in subsequent amendments. I reinforce my full support for the Bill and congratulate the Government on bringing it forward.
I support the concept of removing any discretion to disregard non-disclosure by prisoners when Parole Boards are reviewing their cases. This is because there is a very small minority of people who may have severe mental health problems but who are also well able to give the impression that they have complete amnesia. I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said earlier about healthcare professionals believing what they are told by people with mental health problems. I actually worked in Broadmoor and introducing as part of the concept as a trainer that you should not read a patient’s records until you had got to know the patient a bit. That is sometimes quite shocking because you trust people but then find that significant things they have told you are in fact extremely inaccurate. So we must be clear that medics are not on the whole easily fooled by the very small minority of people who are able to display very significant selective amnesia.
Of much more interest to me at the moment in relation to this Act is that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and its subsequent amendments, as referred to by other noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, indicate that we have a growing population with significant acquired brain injury, severe psychosis and, of course, a range of neurodegenerative progressive disorders, known largely as the dementias, which mean that prisoners who have been in prison for 15 to 30 years may well have developed cognitive difficulty during the period of their imprisonment. When they then apply to the Parole Board, it is right that they have full access to a medical assessment in line with their human rights. I believe there will be a proportion of people who apply in this way who do not have sufficient cognitive ability at the time when they come to the Parole Board that they will be able coherently to remember the kind of issues that we have raised during this debate.
In summary, I support the approach of the charity Rethink Mental Illness that these amendments would provide an explicit reference to mental capacity, meaning that there would be consistency adopted by Parole Boards when reviewing individual cases. I would like to see the amendments supported, but I am also very aware that, in the review of the Mental Capacity Act, we were able to deal with some things by ensuring that they would be put into guidance for practitioners. That may be something to consider in relation to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Bull.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I wish to speak in favour of this group of amendments, particularly those tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
Where a Newton hearing has taken place in respect to the relevant facts of an offence, it makes sense that those findings must be taken into account by the Parole Board when making a decision affected by the Bill. In effect, a rigorous “mini-trial” has been carried out, and a judgment given, so this information should quite obviously be used by the Parole Board.
In some circumstances, this might go in favour of the prisoner; in others, it might go against them. Either way, justice will be served by using the proceeds of Newton hearings. Without doing so, the Parole Board is at risk of ignoring or contradicting the findings of the Newton hearing which set the grounds for the prisoner’s sentence in the first place. That would not make sense and would create ripe grounds for judicial review of the Parole Board’s decision. It is almost inevitable, I would have thought, that a judicial review would conclude that it must be taken into account by the Parole Board. In the interests of clear legislation, and for the clarity of prisoners and victims, the Government really have to accept these amendments.
Lord Naseby
My Lords, I do not wish to contribute at this point, but I will listen to the Minister’s response.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
My Lords, I wish to speak briefly to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Bull, and to support them, but before turning to that, I will make two points.
I entirely agree with and support the purposes of the Bill because, as has been shown on so many occasions, closure is impossible to achieve to any degree without knowledge of what has happened to the body of the deceased. However, there is another observation which it is important to make. If there is to be a proper review and recasting of the Parole Board system, which is long overdue, it is not sensible to make piecemeal amendments at this stage. Therefore, I urge that this Bill be passed without significant amendment.
The only amendment which I support, and I do so warmly, is that tabled by my noble friend Lady Bull. My reason for doing so is very straightforward. It is my experience that, when hearing evidence, trying to determine whether someone has had memory loss and whether that loss is genuine is an extremely difficult exercise. Medical opinion may well vary on either side of the argument. Therefore, it is very important that, if there is a case in which mental capacity or the mental state of the convicted person is to be examined, it is done very carefully before the board. It seems self-evident that if, after a long time in prison, a person is to be considered unsuitable for release because disclosure of the whereabouts of the body or other matters has not been made, the judgment should take into account, if the question arises, whether the prisoner has the mental capacity to recall the events, whether his mental health permits him to do so or whether this is all phony. That is a difficult determination and it should be done by the board.
Lord Woolf (CB)
I have listened to what has been said in the debate so far with considerable interest. I am afraid that I was unable to attend Second Reading, but I have read the transcript of it with particular interest, and I am bound to say that what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, had to say then was particularly important. I have been helped in my consideration by what has been said in the debate today.
We start off with the fact that anybody who knows victims who have been put in the position of those who were the sponsors of the legislation which we are now considering knows that what they had to go through because they were not able to find out what happened to their deceased relative causes the greatest anguish. They certainly deserve to be protected from suffering any more anguish than is absolutely necessary. The question before us is: what is the best way to achieve the redress to which they are entitled, bearing in mind the practicalities of our criminal justice system?
I was also very impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said, and his reference to a Newton hearing. That deserves important attention, because it is a way of achieving the best possible result when this sort of problem has to be considered. The prisoner should know that if he is voluntarily failing to disclose information that he has, there is a risk that he will suffer a substantial increase in the period for which he is detained. That is the most likely thing to produce the result that anyone must hope for. And if that be so, the question is: what is the best way to achieve this in a just manner? It has to be done in a just manner, because if it is not, there is a danger of making the prisoner, quite undeservedly, the subject of some concern and sympathy.
That brings me to the Newton hearing, because I believe this is best left in the hands of the trial judge. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said the same thing—indeed, so did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. The judge has been listening to the trial and he knows the facts of the trial, so for him to deal with it is ideal. Otherwise there can be difficulty. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, said about the sort of problem that could arise indicates why it could be important for the judge to deal with it. If he told the defendant that he was going to deal with it, there could be a Newton hearing in public, in which the victims would see that the matter had been investigated properly, and have the judge’s knowing response to what was causing them concern.
If at the end of the trial there were any reason for a prisoner to say, “I can’t recall”, or “I can’t give you information because I didn’t deal with what happened at that stage”, people would hear it, and hear the prisoner being questioned and cross-examined about it. The relatives of the deceased, too, would hear that process being conducted, so they would know that it had been fully investigated. If, as I believe would happen in most circumstances, the judge came to the conclusion that the defendant was erecting a smokescreen to try to hide what he was doing, which was so malicious, the judge would find the matter, and in due course it would, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, pointed out, be taken into account by the Parole Board.
It has been suggested that that should be done much nearer the time of the questioning being considered by the Parole Board—but I suggest that a better time would be not later in the day, when all sorts of other matters can arise to muddy the water, but immediately after the trial. The record on Newton hearings is very good; they have resolved problems where facts have needed to be resolved, and that is a process which can be conducted fairly.
It is also important that the situation should be one where justice has been done. If it is done in the way that would be carried out at a Newton hearing, that would be achieved. Although the amendments put forward so far may not satisfactorily deal with the situation, I suggest that there is plenty of time before the Bill becomes law to achieve what is suggested in the amendment I am addressing, as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. I suggest that is the sensible thing. One of the advantages of a Newton hearing is that the procedure which takes place is short and curtailed at the end of the trial.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, I too was precluded from taking part at Second Reading, but I have read the transcripts in Hansard. There are two substantive issues in this group of amendments, and neither of the two sets takes away the required subjectivity of which the Minister has spoken.
The amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and my noble friend Lady Barker, seek to ensure that the prisoner has the mental capacity to provide the disclosure information required. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 defines mental capacity by saying that
“a person lacks capacity in relation to a matter if at the material time he is unable to make a decision for himself in relation to the matter because of an impairment of, or a disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain.”
It follows that the Parole Board would need to have received the appropriate professional advice that this test of capacity would not apply. If the advice was that the prisoner lacked the mental capacity under this definition, that would be a material fact for the Parole Board to take into account.
It is presumed that the prisoner could therefore not be expected to provide an answer to the disclosure question if the test was not passed. This test is also a relevant issue in the decision to be taken by the Parole Board on grounds of public safety, which of course is the pre-eminent thing that it has to do. Many noble Lords have outlined in debating these amendments that the Parole Board’s task is to determine whether failure to disclose is both deliberate and culpable. These amendments provide more precision for the board to make its decision.
I now move on to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Thomas. They have the intention of providing the Parole Board with an increased level of relevant information on disclosure by including the issues raised by Newton hearings. A Newton hearing may be held where a defendant has been found guilty at trial or has entered a plea of guilty but the issues in dispute which could affect sentencing were not resolved by the verdict of a jury. In the course of a Newton hearing, the prosecution will call evidence and test defence evidence in the usual manner: in front of a judge. This includes that it can call witnesses to give evidence if required. If the issue is within the exclusive knowledge of the defendant, as is the case with the situations defined in the Bill, they should be prepared to give evidence as well. Where they fail to do so without good reason, the judge may draw such inferences as they think fit. This increased level of information would become available to the Parole Board when taking into account the issue of disclosure in considering parole if these amendments were in place.
At Second Reading in the House, and in Committee today, as mentioned by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, noble Lords have pressed the Government to make non-disclosure an offence at the time of a first trial. My noble friend’s proposal seeks to take the intention of the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and put them into an established legal framework. Newton hearings may be a fairly recent legal procedure, but in the matters relating to the purposes of the Bill such a hearing could have a profound effect on the outcome for the victims. Justice is not just a point in time for them; it can last a long time, and for some a lifetime. For victims, coming to terms with their grief, anguish and hurt can last forever. That is why the justice system has to do everything in its power to make this coming-to-terms period as short as possible.
The amendments to this tightly drawn Bill do not determine that there shall be a Newton hearing but simply that, if one has taken place, the Parole Board shall take note of its proceedings, which will provide it with internal and external information—for which I am sure it would be grateful—and will determine whether there was remorse and whether the perpetrator had knowledge of his or her victims that he or she had chosen not to disclose. It may be easier to achieve this disclosure, and hopefully provide solace to the victims, at this early stage.
While these amendments do not require that there are Newton hearings, their inclusion in the Bill would send a powerful message to the judiciary of the significance of such a hearing, particularly its impact on victims, and therefore they might become a regular feature in future—but they are not part of the Bill. I commend these amendments to the Minister and look forward to a positive response to these proposals.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord German, has just said, there are essentially two groups within this single group of amendments. The first was introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, on mental capacity and making sure that the Mental Capacity Act 2005 is properly taken into account in the Parole Board proceedings. I was persuaded by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that while we should not do piecemeal reforms of the Parole Board system—I anticipate that the Minister will say there will be a larger-scale review of the Parole Board system—this aspect of the mental capacity of the offenders who come before the board should nevertheless be taken into account.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bull, was very persuasive in her speech. She alluded to my noble friend Lord Bradley’s report, in which he pointed out that it is unknown how many people in our prisons have mental disorders. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, said, it should be no surprise that quite a lot of prisoners’ mental capacity deteriorates because of their time in prison, for the reasons she gave in her speech. The other point she made was about dementia. We are often dealing with people on very long prison sentences, and dementia is becoming an ever more real issue. For those reasons, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull.
The amendments in the second part of this group were introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who spoke about Newton hearings as a possible way of resolving this conundrum. I have some experience of Newton hearings in a much lower capacity in magistrates’ courts. I regularly have Newton hearings, trying to resolve whatever the issue of the day is. My experience is that, in practice, it is quite difficult to narrow the issues and look just at the issue in dispute in a Newton hearing. It is very often the case that the wider events surrounding the events as a whole are brought into the case, even when one is trying to narrow the issue.
While I understand the suggestion and think it interesting, I am also mindful of the points made by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mackay of Clashfern and Lord Thomas, that the sentencing judge will have heard the whole case in any event and can explain their view on the reason the offender has not disclosed the location of the body and make it quite explicit whether there is an uplift to the tariff because of the way the offender has behaved. I am open-minded on that point; I have just raised some questions that arise from my own experience in the lower courts.
Nevertheless, these amendments are interesting and constructive. I hope that, when he comes to reply, the Minister will treat them in that way.
Lord Keen of Elie
I thank noble Lords and noble and learned Lords for their contribution to the debate prompted by these amendments. I begin with a number of general remarks which may well be familiar to noble and learned Lords, but perhaps not to everyone.
I believe there was a reference at one stage of the proceedings to early release, and I emphasise that we are not dealing here with any issue of early release. As I mentioned in response to observations from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, we are generally dealing with a life sentence or extended sentence, and when we come to look at that, we can identify two elements—in what I shall refer to as a life sentence. There is the punitive element, which is the tariff fixed by the court, and a preventive element, which is the issue addressed by the Parole Board in the context of public protection. The Parole Board’s role comes into play only at the end of the tariff—the punitive element of the sentence—at which point the Parole Board has to determine whether there should be a continuation of custody or a release under licence, having regard to the public protection test.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, was quite right in observing that in most, if not all, of these cases, the judge will have made findings in fact that will address, among other things, whether there has been disclosure of a victim’s whereabouts. If that becomes an issue, there is scope for what is termed a Newton hearing. But generally, the trial judge—whether after plea or after trial—will be in a position to make findings in fact on that issue, and to then reflect those findings in fact in the tariff he imposes upon the individual in question when applying the punitive element of the sentence. I emphasise that because the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, made the point that there should not be punishment again. That is quite right: it is not the role of the Parole Board to punish. The role of the Parole Board is to determine, by reference to the public protection test, whether at the expiry of the tariff it is appropriate for an individual to be released from custody, albeit under licence.
That takes me to an observation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, who asked whether the object of this legislation is to delay release as a punishment. The answer is clearly no. The issue being addressed is in the context of public protection, and whether the failure to disclose indicates to the Parole Board that there is a very real and material question about public protection, and whether someone should be retained in custody. Indeed, if the object of this legislation was to punish, it would potentially be in breach of both Article 5 and Article 7 of the European convention. I stress that this is not the object of this legislation at all.
I turn specifically to the amendments tabled—first, to those in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, which really have two limbs. The first is covered by Amendments 2, 7, 10, 13 and 16, and the second by Amendment 4 and subsequent amendments. The first limb would ensure that the Bill’s provisions apply only to prisoners who are “able” to disclose relevant information about the location of a victim’s remains but had not done so. The second limb would particularise a prisoner’s mental capacity as one of the possible reasons for non-disclosure.
The Bill in its current form affords the Parole Board a wide scope to subjectively consider the circumstances of a prisoner’s non-disclosure. The test is broadly drafted to give the Parole Board, an independent judicial body with experience of assessing risk and evidence, sufficient flexibility to take all circumstances into account when making a determination about non-disclosure, including the ability, whether mental or physical, of an offender to disclose.
The amendments as drafted would confine the operation of the provisions to prisoners deemed able to make such a disclosure but who had not done so. However, there may be cases where an offender has had ample opportunity to co-operate with the police or the authorities over many years to reveal a victim’s whereabouts but has refused to do so. If such an offender later became unable to disclose—by reason of age or mental illness, for example—the provision of these amendments would not apply to that offender and the board would be unable to consider a previous refusal to co-operate in its assessment of that prisoner’s risk, yet these previous persistent refusals may well be considered as reflecting quite materially on the risk that the prisoner posed to the public in the event of release on licence.
The current Bill avoids such difficulties by allowing the Parole Board to consider all possible reasons in its view to explain non-disclosure, including considering historical refusals. That flexible approach is underlined by Clause 1(3), which makes clear that the imposition of the statutory duty does not in any way limit other matters that the board must or may take into account when conducting such an assessment.
The existence of mental health difficulties or a lack of mental health capacity would doubtless be a relevant circumstance to be taken into account, but there would also be other relevant circumstances. By not specifically referring to particulars in the Bill, we are not giving some more significance than others; we are instead allowing the Parole Board to use its expertise in how it approaches such cases. It is therefore for the board itself to take a subjective view of what the reasons might be, and then it is for the board to decide what bearing that information may have on the subsequent assessment of suitability for release, which is the relevant test that the Parole Board has to address.
We have deliberately avoided any delineation in the Bill of what the reasons for non-disclosure may be, to preserve this flexible and subjective approach. Noble Lords have correctly identified that a prisoner’s mental state is likely to be a significant factor in assessing reasons for non-disclosure but there may also be other reasons, such as, as I mentioned, geographical change, mental impairment or issues of mental capacity that may not have occurred at an earlier point but will still be relevant to a current assessment. In these circumstances, I will be inviting the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.
I move on to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, which specify that where a Newton hearing has been carried out to ascertain certain disputed facts—generally where there has been a guilty plea, but it may take place after a trial—that should be considered by the Parole Board. The short point that I would make is that these are matters that it will be within the competence of the Parole Board to consider, and the board can call for all material pertaining to sentencing, including the terms of any Newton hearing that may have taken place. I apprehend that what the noble Lord may have in mind is perhaps to encourage judicial activity when sentencing in these cases to ensure that they address the non-disclosure of the whereabouts of a victim. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, observed, that is something that will invariably be taken into account by a trial judge in fixing a tariff for the sentence that he is going to impose.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, have indicated that they wish to speak after the Minister. I call the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
Lord Thomas of Gresford
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for his reply, but I think it is necessary to distinguish where there has been a plea of guilty and where there has been a plea of not guilty in a trial. Very often, when a person pleads guilty, he will, with the assistance of his legal team, put together a basis of plea, which is handed to the prosecution for consideration. If it accepts the basis of plea, there is no problem but, if there is an issue, a Newton hearing will be held to determine whether the prosecution which refuses to accept the basis of plea is correct or whether the defendant who is pleading guilty is correct. The judge will sentence accordingly.
That is one situation. Another is after a trial, when there has been a finding of guilt. Let us take a circumstance where a group of people have attacked an individual and one of the group says, “I didn’t take part”—indeed, I remember a case where precisely that happened; the defence was, “I was trying to discourage them so they’d go away”—but, at the end of the trial, the defendant is found guilty. At that point, the judge says, “I will sentence you on the basis that you are withholding information as to where the body was buried.” The defendant could then say, “I’ve been found guilty, but the others took the body away and I want to be heard on that, because I don’t know where they went and where the body was ultimately buried. You cannot sentence me on the basis of the facts the jury has found—that I was a party to a killing—when I don’t know where the body went.” That situation does not involve mental incapacity at all and such a situation should be investigated at the time and not 15 or 20 years later by the Parole Board doing its best, unassisted by medical evidence because it would not arise. It seems to me that issues of that nature should be determined prior to sentencing for the actual offence, whether there is a plea of guilty or a finding of guilt. That should involve a hearing of the sort that I have proposed.
Obviously, my amendment does not require the Parole Board to order a hearing. As the Minister anticipated, my purpose is to encourage the holding of Newton hearings where necessary. I do not believe that they are quite as rare or unusual as he suggests. In this particular instance, with proper directions being given generally to judges to hold Newton hearings where appropriate, they would be useful and helpful to the board’s ultimate determination. They would be of great significance concerning culpability.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has observed. In cases of this kind, the judge will wish to take into account the disclosure or non-disclosure of the whereabouts of a victim and the circumstances in which the offender can or cannot make that disclosure. There may be circumstances in which that might necessitate a Newton hearing, and so be it. That would be done contemporaneously with the determination of the tariff in the sentence. When later on we get to the preventive element after the tariff has been served, the Parole Board will be able to call for all that material, whether it be a Newton hearing or otherwise.
I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, has to say about the importance of determining these issues at the time of trial and sentence; I do not disagree with him at all. It may be that some element of encouragement will be given if it is required, although I take from the observations of the former Lord Chief Justice—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas—that there may be little requirement to encourage in a matter that is dealt with in this way day in and day out.
Lord Hope of Craighead
My Lords, I refer the Minister to his remarks about historic refusals. Reading proposed new subsection (1)(c), I do not get the impression that it is talking about historic refusals and I do not think that anything in the noble Baroness’s amendments would cut the ability of the board to look at them. What the opening words of the subsection are talking about is a situation where the board
“believes that the prisoner has information”—
talking about it in the present tense so that the board can consider it in a situation where it thinks that the prisoner is able to do something. That is where the words suggested by the noble Baroness would fit in very well.
Would the Minister like to reflect carefully on exactly what subsection (1)(c) is talking about and reconsider his point as to whether these amendments would cut out historic refusals, which would be highly undesirable, of course?
Lord Keen of Elie
It does appear that the amendment has that effect even it was unintended. I will give the matter further consideration, as invited to by the noble and learned Lord.
Baroness Bull
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen of Elie, for his comments and I have listened carefully to his response. I also express my gratitude to all noble and noble and learned Lords who have spoken in support of my amendments. Aside from generously sharing his considerable expertise with me in advance of today’s debate, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, helpfully extended my arguments to include the possibility that the convicted prisoner is not in fact able to disclose the information because, despite the findings of the court at trial, they are innocent. One hopes that this is rarely the case, but of course history shows that it can indeed be so.
I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who sounded a useful warning about the general understanding of the Mental Capacity Act and concerns about the extent to which it is drawn on and applied within the prison environment. She raised an important question about training for practitioners in the criminal justice system, including members of the Parole Board, in applying the provisions of the Act. The Minister responded to a point about competence, but I am not sure that he responded to the point about training more broadly to enhance understanding of the Act within the criminal justice system. Perhaps he would write to us on that point.
The noble Baroness, Lady Watkins, spoke from her position of vast experience, including in Broadmoor, and reminded us that medical personnel are usually well able to distinguish between genuine mental disorders and what was referred to earlier as “guff”. Her views of course bear considerable weight here.
I am grateful to the Minister for addressing the two limbs of my amendments in so much detail. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I was confused by his point about previous refusals not being taken into account. I am grateful to him for agreeing to reflect further on that, in response to the noble and learned Lord’s further comments. He argued that state of mind and/or mental capacity are just one of several reasons why disclosure might not be possible. However, given what we have heard today from the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about understanding the Mental Capacity Act as it is applied within the criminal justice system, and the potential for the infringement of human rights, I contend that there is justification for expressly including this reason in the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, set out very clearly the difficult balance between the rights of a grieving family, who have been by extension the victims of a heinous act, and the rights of a prisoner, convicted of that crime but who suffers a mental health disorder or who, for whatever reason, lacks the mental capacity at the time of the Parole Board hearing to disclose the information requested of him. I know that every noble Lord who has spoken today is acutely aware of this tension and of the importance of this Bill, not just in putting the needs of victims at the centre of the justice system and helping grieving families to achieve closure but as part of a wider and necessary process to increase the efficiency, transparency and accountability of the parole system.
My amendments do not seek to alter the intention of the Bill in any way. As the noble Lord, Lord German, pointed out, neither of the amendments takes away the subjective capacity of parole boards. They simply seek to add clarity through the insertion of the words “is able to, but”, and an explicit reference to consideration of mental capacity. I continue to believe that these simple amendments would support the Parole Board in the fulfilment of the new statutory duty that the Bill places on it by enshrining in law what government has already accepted: that parole boards need to take state of mind and mental capacity into account. This would empower them to do so with confidence and consistency.
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for considering the amendments. I am disappointed that he has not been persuaded by my arguments and those of other noble, and noble and learned, Lords. However, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, due to the necessity of a few short adjournments earlier this afternoon, I suggest that we continue without any further adjournments this evening.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, we now move on to the group consisting of Amendment 19. 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” if the question is put could make that clear in the debate. It takes unanimity to amend the Bill in this Committee. The Committee cannot divide.
Baroness Barker
“Provision of information to victims’ families
(1) Where the Parole Board makes a decision for which it is required to take into account a prisoner’s non-disclosure under section 1 or 2, the Parole Board must inform the relevant persons of—(a) the timings of hearings where the prisoner’s release from prison is being considered;(b) the relevant persons’ rights in relation to requesting a judicial review of the Parole Board’s decision;(c) the length of the sentence that will have been served by the prisoner at the time of the hearing; and(d) any other rights that the relevant persons have relating to the provision of information.(2) The Parole Board must take reasonable steps to contact the relevant persons to ensure they have access to the information in subsection (1).(3) The Parole Board must provide the relevant persons with the information in subsection (1) unless they declare to the Parole Board that they do not wish to receive such information.(4) In this section, the relevant persons are—(a) where the prisoner’s sentence has been imposed for murder or manslaughter, the victim’s parents or guardians, children and siblings; or(b) where the prisoner’s sentence has been imposed for an offence relating to indecent images as defined by section 28B of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 (as inserted by section 1)—(i) the victim or suspected victim (if the victim’s identity is not known for certain) if the victim or suspected victim is over the age of 18; or(ii) the victim or suspected victim’s parents or guardians if the victim or suspected victim is under the age of 18.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the Parole Board to provide the victim, suspected victim, or their family with information relating to the prisoner’s hearing.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I was inspired to table Amendment 19, which stands in my name, by three experiences. The first was that, prior to the Bill’s Second Reading, I spent a considerable amount of time talking to Helen McCourt’s mother. She stressed to me the importance of families being informed fully and involved in hearings about release.
My second experience happened very many years ago. I knew Iris Bentley, and I watched her in her latter years as she came to the end of her decades-long campaign to obtain a pardon for her brother Derek Bentley. She was a woman of immense fortitude, diligence and grace. They are very different cases, but in both, the amount of time and effort it took for those women to seek and obtain justice from a system that largely ignored them was remarkable. They were two very strong, determined women who refused to be ignored. Not everyone is so resilient, and nor should they need to be. They should automatically be involved and included by the criminal justice system.
My third experience is that I lived for many years in a Pennine town. Anyone who did at that time could not be unaware of or unsympathetic to the suffering of the families of the Moors murder victims—and that suffering continues today.
From talking to Marie McCourt, I understand that there are at most 100 prisoners to whom this legislation would apply. There are not that many, but the families of their victims suffer perhaps more than anybody else in the criminal justice system. For them, not to be told that a release hearing will take place, nor where and when it will take place, is a trauma. These hearings might happen many years after there has been a conviction, but their importance to victims and victims’ families never diminishes. One needs only to look at what happened to the victims of John Worboys to know about the importance of making sure that people are informed and included.
By the time a release hearing is reached, relatives who are desperate to know what has happened to their loved one are running out of time and the means to compel the prisoner in question to tell them what has happened. It is wrong not only to ignore them but not to advise them that they might not be involved in something that they might see as their last hope of achieving a resolution.
My amendment would place in the Bill that it is the right of relatives to receive information about the timing and location of a release hearing and about their rights, particularly in relation to judicial review. In putting this in the Bill, my intention is that the Parole Board will know right from the moment that the sentence is passed that it is under an obligation to maintain contact with victims’ families and that the onus is on the board, not the families, to maintain contact. It is not unusual for families to be told that they have not been contacted because they have moved or their details have changed, and the Parole Board has simply failed to keep their details up to date.
Release hearings and the prospect of release are a time of heightened anxiety for victims’ families. It can be a grave disappointment that there is no further prospect of the prisoner disclosing information about the victim, but for some there is also the knowledge that the perpetrator will be released into the community and might well know or discover where their victim’s family lives. I know that victims are very fearful of that. At that time, the onus should be on the Parole Board to keep victims’ families fully informed. It is the very least that they should expect. This might be a seemingly simple procedural matter, but it is of immense importance to people who are victims of these prisoners. Therefore, it is in that vein that I beg to move.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab)
My Lords, I support the amendment. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that much more needs to be done to support victims in the parole process. The amendment would provide information rights for victims and their families, which are desperately needed. As I noted at Second Reading, many parents involved in the George case sadly found out about her release on Facebook or via the local newspaper. That is completely unacceptable. I am sure that every effort was made to contact the parents in that case, but the system places the onus on the victim or their families, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, eloquently set out. It is made their responsibility to opt in and keep in touch with victim liaison officers; it has to be the other way around. The Parole Board should have a duty to ensure that accurate information is given to victims and their families in an appropriate timeframe. The amendment would give them that reassurance.
I particularly welcome proposed new subsection (3). Rather than there being an opt-in approach, victims and their families should automatically be included in the scheme for information unless they opt out. In a meeting a few months ago, the Victims Commissioner and the chair of the Parole Board acknowledged that not all victims opted into the victim contact scheme. They noted that this caused distress to those who failed to opt in and who later discovered through third parties that the offender had been released. They agreed that the current requirement for victims to opt into the scheme was a concern. The amendment addresses that concern. In addition, technology should be developed to modernise information flow to victims and their families so that they can keep their contact details up to date and keep up to date with the details of the case.
The type of additional support outlined in the amendment will not only help victims and their families but help to build public confidence in the system. I hope that the Minister will highlight his support for the principles raised in the amendment, commit to improving the victim experience of the parole process and give assurances that the needs and experiences of victims and their families will be central to the pending review of the parole system. Will he indicate whether he is willing to discuss the amendment further before Report?
Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill and am sorry that I was unable to speak at Second Reading. I pay tribute to the ground-breaking work done by my colleague in the other place, Conor McGinn, following the campaign by Marie McCourt, the mother of Helen, who was tragically murdered and whose remains have never been found or their location revealed by her murderer, now released.
It is right that the refusal by serious offenders to disclose information about their victims—including the whereabouts of a murdered victim and the identities of child victims in the case of offenders who take or make indecent images—is always taken into account by the Parole Board when making decisions about their possible release, and will now be a statutory requirement.
I support Amendment 19 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord German, and believe the effectiveness of the Bill will be proved only if we can assure victims that their concerns are a priority in the justice system. Victims cannot be an afterthought; there have been too many occasions in the past when painful interviews with the bereaved, still suffering terrible grief, are broadcast in which they say that no one had told them in advance that those who had done terrible things to their loved ones had been released.
The Victims Commissioner reported recently that victims are less satisfied than ever that their views are taken into consideration. Can the Government assure the House that victim involvement in Parole Board decisions will improve with the passing of this Bill? I hope that the amendment will therefore be accepted. I know that the Government will point to a future, wider root-and-branch review of the operation of the Parole Board as a way of increasing transparency, but they have an immediate opportunity to do so by accepting Amendment 19.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
Lord Naseby. No? I am not getting a response from the noble Lord, Lord Naseby. If I do not hear any more, I shall move on to the noble Lord, Lord German.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, this amendment, tabled by my noble friend Lady Barker, puts victims right at the centre of the parole functions. The amendment has two major functions: to ensure that victims are contacted, and to provide victims with information about the Parole Board’s hearing of the case of the prisoner’s parole. Much more needs to be done to support victims. The issue of strengthening the victims contact scheme as a whole is important and, while associated with the Bill, is beyond the scope of it. I look forward to the Minister telling us when his root-and-branch review of the Parole Board will take place. “In the fullness of time” was the response we got at Second Reading, and I think we ought to know when full time will be up.
However, there are matters in the Bill that relate to the Parole Board’s functions and to the work it has to do for victims. There are considerations that affect the way the board should engage with victims. First, cannot the system be modernised so that victims’ views can be taken by video link, rather than having to travel in person to the prison where the perpetrator is located? This process can in itself add to the anguish felt by victims who have struggled to come to terms with the grief they have suffered. Sentencing and conviction is just the start of justice for victims. The parole process can easily add to a victim’s pain, and it is essential that everything be done to minimise the trauma this can cause, amplified by the heinous crimes committed, which are the subject of the Bill.
The amendment requires that victims should be contacted as of right. Too often we have heard cases where victims have just not known what is going to happen, and suddenly they find that the perpetrator is released into the community, they have no idea what the conditions were, and they have simply to face up to the fright and misery of that happening. It has to be at their choice that they actually receive the information about the Parole Board’s operations; they have to be given the option to do that. That means we must have an opting out of receiving information: in other words, it is the duty of the Parole Board to give information to victims—to do everything it possibly can to give them that information—and it is the victims’ choice whether they receive that information. Of course, that means that, over time, we would expect some people to say, right at the beginning, “I do not want to hear any more; I do not want to have any more information”. But at this particular point, at the point of possible release into the community, there has to be that option, and contact has to be made as of right.
We know of too many examples of victims finding out the result of the parole process only from media reports, as the noble Baroness just said, from social media or, worst of all—can you imagine?—from reporters calling victims to ask for their comments on the release of the perpetrator. Thus far the service has adopted much more of an opting-in approach to receiving information than an opting-out approach, which I think is crucial in making sure that victims have their rights upheld. For example, I am sure Members will recall the case of Worboys being debated in your Lordships’ House last year, when this matter came to a very important head. Within the narrow scope of the Bill, which leads to only a relatively small number of cases being considered, I do not think this obligation on the Parole Board will place a large administrative burden on its workings. But these Parole Board cases are of great significance to victims, and victims have a right to know what is happening and to have their say should they desire to. They need a consistent infrastructure for exercising these rights. This amendment enables victims to opt out of knowing about and participating in the parole process, but the default position is that they will always be given that opportunity.
With modern technology, keeping in contact with victims is so much easier. Tracing victims if they change their address, telephone number or email will be much simpler and quicker. Governments have databases which can make it much easier to locate people whose contact details have been mislaid. There should be an obligation, therefore, on the Parole Board to maintain the contact details of victims, so that when this time comes, as in the Bill it will do, it is obliged to make sure that the victims understand and know their rights, and that they have a right not to hear anything and to opt out of the information if they so desire. That is what this important amendment would do: give rights to victims that are recorded as being consistent, and which are so important to people who are suffering such misery.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede
My Lords, all noble Lords who have spoken on the amendment have supported it with some passion. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, who moved it, spoke forcefully about relatives’ right to hear about release hearings and about putting the onus on the Parole Board to inform victims’ families, rather than victims’ families having to use their own initiative to remain in contact with the Parole Board. As she rightly said, this is very important for families. There should be automatic membership of the victims contact scheme. People should not have to opt in, although they should, of course, have the option of opting out.
My noble friend Lady Healy had it absolutely right when she said that of course we understand that there is to be a wholesale review of all aspects of the Parole Board, but that here we have an opportunity right now to do something about this, something that has received cross-party support and is very much in the spirit of supporting victims through this often very protracted process. It is a difficult process, but we can do something about it right now.
In his summing up, the noble Lord, Lord German, made the same points about putting victims at the centre of the Parole Board’s functions. He alluded to the benefits of modern technology. I have to say, again with my magistrate’s hat on—although I do not speak for the magistracy in any way—that even with the best modern technology, it is sometimes quite difficult to locate people, particularly if they do not want to be located. However, that is not a reason for not putting the onus on the Parole Board, and I very much support the amendments.
Lord Keen of Elie
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions to the debate on the amendment, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for her submissions on it. In the context of the Bill, we are dealing with particularly disturbing forms of crime and particularly disturbing consequences. However, we must have regard to all victims of crime, not just of these crimes, in determining the appropriate step to take in order properly to take account of their views, interests and concerns.
Processes are already in place, by virtue of the Parole Board rules, the victims’ code and the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, that address the issues referred to in the amendment. Both the National Probation Service and the Parole Board communicate information to victims, and where a family member is affected by an offender’s action, they too, of course, will be victims and will be contacted. Where a victim wishes to receive information, this will be provided by their victim liaison officer. Victims can receive information regarding the date of a parole hearing and the outcome of a review. Indeed, they may request a summary of a Parole Board decision and can also provide a victim personal statement to the Parole Board to explain the impact of the crime upon them. They have the right to request that certain tailored licence conditions be applied.
Victims are also informed of the avenues for making a request for reconsideration of a decision. Such reconsideration will be carried out by the Secretary of State. Following a request for reconsideration, they will receive reasons why their request was or was not successful. Thereafter, a victim liaison officer will provide information regarding judicial review, if that is requested.
In recent times—I note the reference to the Worboys case—the National Probation Service has improved the way in which it communicates with victims, such as using email or telephone as opposed to letters, while being mindful of the victim’s preferred method of contact. We have also tightened processes to ensure that victims are informed of developments, such as being notified of the date of oral hearings, in a timely manner. We have expanded the criteria for victims who are eligible for contact under the National Probation Service Victim Contact Scheme. We are trialling a new process whereby all eligible victims are referred directly to probation to reduce the risk that they are not offered use of the victim contact scheme directly. Therefore, we have taken steps to improve the system. However, the Parole Board is an independent body and it requires a degree of flexibility in how it operates. To impose these statutory obligations on the Parole Board, and the Parole Board alone, would, I suggest, be going too far.
I hear what is said about the idea of an opt-out rather than an opt-in scheme for victims and what is said about the need to improve the involvement of victims, particularly those in the present category. I will be happy to discuss that at a meeting, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, before the next stage of the Bill. However, I also note that there is a proposal for a review of the Parole Board. I cannot give a precise date for that review but, again, I will be happy to take that up in discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy. At this stage, however, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, no noble Lords have indicated a wish to speak after the Minister, so I now call the noble Baroness, Lady Barker.
Baroness Barker
I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate on this amendment. It would have been easy to dismiss this as a minor procedural matter, but I have long held the view that when people have frustrations about the criminal justice system or indeed the workings of the Home Office, as many of those arise from the way in which the system works and the procedures that are adopted as from the decisions of substance that are made. Our criminal justice system can be extremely difficult to work with at a basic administrative level.
I particularly welcomed the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of Cradley, for our proposal that there should be an opt-out rather than an opt-in scheme. It is high time that we moved to that, and I do not think that it would necessarily put any undue obligations or administrative burdens on the probation service or the Parole Board. My noble friend Lord German spoke about the increased use of technology, which will be life in the new world for everybody. I think that it can be done in ways that minimise trauma to victims, maximise inclusion and make life administratively easier for those who are responsible for implementing it.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, recognised that there is cross-party support. I, too, think that it is a matter that could be looked at in the near future. I do not think that it has to wait for the full, wider review of the Parole Board. I very much welcome the Minister’s offer of a meeting. I hope that he might consider including in that some of the victims’ representatives, for whom this is not theoretical but a crucially important matter in their lives. We all wish to see this Bill make the statute book. Therefore, at this point, as the Minister predicted, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
My Lords, I am getting a little background disturbance. I am not sure whether it is intended to get my attention, but I shall proceed on the basis that it is not. That concludes the Virtual Committee’s proceedings on the Bill. The Virtual Proceeding will now adjourn until a convenient point after 6.30 pm.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (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’ micro- phones 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 microphones will again be set to mute.
We now come to the Virtual Proceedings on the repeat of the first Urgent Question. 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, led by the Opposition Front Bench. The Minister will respond to each question in turn. I ask that all questions and answers be brief, so that we can call the maximum number of speakers.
Covid-19: Care Homes
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Wheeler (Lab)
My Lords, this Urgent Question taken yesterday in the Commons on coronavirus and care homes covered much of the ground in the Statement taken by us last night. Sadly, it is clear that Ministers’ claims to have thrown a protective ring around care homes ring hollow in the light of the latest ONS figures on deaths in care homes: 9,495 residents in England and 480 in Wales. These figures are still ringing alarm bells, as the number of deaths involving Covid-19 as a percentage of all care home deaths continues to rise this week. As Martin Green of Care England told MPs yesterday, most care home residents should have been prioritised from the start. He also stressed that there are still huge issues with testing, with results lost and staff waiting eight to 10 days to find out whether they have coronavirus.
I ask the Minister about reports on the PHE study on genome tracking to investigate outbreaks in care homes, which last month found that bank and temporary agency care workers, often employed on zero-hours contracts, had unwittingly transmitted Covid-19 between care homes as cases surged and they were moved from home to home to cover staff vacancies. Does this not raise even further doubts and questions about this ring of protection? Why was this issue not recognised early on as a crucial factor in any infection-control strategy?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the issue the noble Baroness raises was recognised in the very early stages. The problem of itinerant staff who move from one resident or patient to another was always going to be one of the most difficult to tackle. They perform an absolutely vital role in the care of non-domiciliary patients. That is why we put more money in to pay for more staff, provided PPE for the staff who were working and continue to upgrade the testing arrangements for both staff and patients, to ensure that they are protected.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
Yesterday, Professor Dame Angela McLean said testing had been prioritised in the NHS over care homes. Today, Justice Secretary Robert Buckland said the Government had prioritised the NHS over care homes as well. Yesterday’s Health and Social Care Select Committee also heard members of the care sector report continuing and widespread problems with PPE—chaotic, unreliable and extremely expensive, with the Clipper system promised two months ago still not rolled out. When will the Government ensure that our care sector gets the urgent priority support outlined in the Government’s social care action plan on 15 April, needed to keep residents and staff safe?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is quite right to focus on the importance of social care, but I think she unfairly characterises the effort made to ensure that social care is protected. The social care action plan announced on 15 April has been enormously important and extremely effective. Also on 15 April, we rolled out outbreak testing for all symptomatic care home staff and residents. We brought in extra funding on 16 April, with £850 million in existing social care grants. There has been new guidance and more money for local authorities, and we have launched a workforce recruitment campaign for care home staff. An enormous amount has been done. Care homes were always vulnerable, and we have sought to put every possible measure in place to protect them.
Baroness Newlove (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the Statement. Unfortunately, I am having hearing issues, which are overriding the voices.
Can the Minister tell us what the business model is for care homes? We are seeing so many deaths in our care homes because of Covid-19 that it highlights that there may be underlying issues. We must think of the staff who are caring for the most vulnerable in our society.
Lord Bethell
My noble friend raises one of the key features of our social care system. It is provided by 12,000 different care home providers—or 16,000, depending on how you measure it—many of whom have very different business models. This creates a rich and diverse tapestry of provision, but it is also extremely difficult to engage with from a central campaign provision. That is one of the challenges that we have faced when rolling out support such as PPE and testing. We do not believe that the business models are inappropriate, but undoubtedly we have challenges when we are trying to reach all the care homes with an equal and central format.
Lord Bilimoria (CB)
My Lords, the Statement says that 27% of coronavirus deaths in England have taken place in care homes, whereas in Europe the average is around half—but does the Minister agree that in Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea there were zero deaths in care homes, and in Germany, a country with a population of 90 million people, 3,000 deaths? Also, can he confirm that no patients were ever sent from a care home to a hospital and then back from a hospital to a care home without being tested? Can he reassure us, as the Statement says, that the testing of all care home residents and staff, with and without symptoms, is now taking place? That is 2.5 million people. When will it be done by, and will it be done on a regular basis? Some care homes are saying that it will be necessary to test many times a week.
Lord Bethell
The statistics which the noble Lord refers to are correct. It is probably more appropriate to compare the British care home statistics with those in Europe rather than Asia, which had previous experience and different models. With regard to care home testing, not everyone needs to be tested every day. Not every care home has an outbreak, and we must focus our resources on those that do. Regular testing may be necessary for them, but it is not correct that, for example, 2.5 million people need to be tested every week. That is not the advice from the scientists or the CMO. We want to focus our tests where Covid-19 has been found, and we must use our testing resources to expunge the disease from those locations.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, we know how crucial the social care sector is, and the huge challenges it faced even before Covid-19, with 120,000 care assistant vacancies. Can the Minister therefore respond to the excellent suggestion from the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury that we establish a royal commission on social care, not to blame but to learn, so that we have the right information to make the right decisions and provide the right services for these most vulnerable people?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, this Government have already made a very clear commitment to review the social care sector; that was made before coronavirus. The experience of coronavirus will no doubt put a massive spotlight on our provision for social care. It is entirely right that we review all of our arrangements. The vacancy question that the right reverend Prelate raises is an important one, and that is why we have launched a massive recruitment campaign, and why we have brought in minimum wage legislation which has seen rises in the pay of social care workers that are historically at the high end.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, care homes tell me that they are still being required to take residents from hospital who may have Covid-19. May I ask my noble friend whether scientific and medical advice supported the guidance issued in the action plan of 15 April that, prior to discharge into care homes, patients must be tested but will be discharged “pending the result”, despite spare capacity in the NHS? Will the Government urgently consider altering that guidance?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, the guidance has been reviewed by the CMO, and we stand by it. I can confirm that all patients leaving hospital for care homes are, as a routine, tested. When they arrive at a care home, they are treated as if they might have Covid, and they are put into an area of isolation, until either the test has come through or their diagnosis has been confirmed. This is a way of protecting care homes, and it is necessary to continue the traffic of people from hospital to care homes, in order to have the beds available for those who need them more.
Lord Turnberg (Lab)
My Lords, among the many reasons why we have done so badly in protecting our care home residents from this dreadful illness is the almost complete lack of adequate public health services at the local level. A few years ago, when I was chairman of the then Public Health Laboratory Service, we had a robust network of public health expertise in every locality which did all the testing and tracing of infectious diseases across the country. All that has been eroded over very many years, and I fear we have lost that local expertise—the doctors and the other staff that could have done the job that we are now left struggling to fulfil far too late. I ask the noble Lord whether he will make it a priority now, as a matter of urgency, to begin to fill that huge gap in our network of local public health services.
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord is more expert on the history of public health than I am, but I do not doubt the story that he talked about. I reassure him that Covid has definitely made us all think again about the very clear priority that local public health provision must and will provide. I would like to pay testimony to those public health officials—public health directors, environmental health officers, infection control officers—who play, and are currently playing, a huge role in controlling the epidemic.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, the Statement is encouraging on one level but very disappointing on another, since it does not recognise that initially there were delays and problems. Consequently, care workers in those homes were working in very difficult and distressing circumstances, often without PPE and on low pay, in many cases below the real living wage. Will the Minister agree that they deserve not just applause but proper protection and a real living wage?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, we ensure that the social care system is funded so that providers can pay the national minimum and living wages to care workers. Since the introduction of the national living wage in 2016, care worker pay has increased at a faster rate than before. I share the noble Baroness’s praise for care workers. As a group, our million-plus care workers have massively delivered for the country. They deserve our praise, our thanks and a tribute from this House.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the Government on publishing the data behind their assessment of the Roche and Abbott ELISA tests. The transparency is welcome, but given the latest evidence on how asymptomatic cases affect transmission and how challenging infection control has been in care homes, can the Minister say whether care workers and care home residents will now be prioritised for antibody as well as PCR tests to give them the best data to improve infection control?
Lord Bethell
My noble friend Lady Blackwood is quite right that the Roche and Abbott antibody tests are a great step forward. It shows how diagnostic technology is progressing very quickly. We are determined to use all the benefits of modern technology in the fight against Covid. Our announcements on antibody testing in the NHS, in the care service and for key workers will be announced shortly. When it is, I assure her that NHS and social care workers will be on an equal footing.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, in answer to an earlier question, the Minister said that it was not appropriate to compare us with what happened in Hong Kong, South Korea and Singapore, which had no deaths in care homes at all. He preferred to compare us with Europe. Is the truth not that we took our eye off the ball and that as a country we failed to learn from what was happening elsewhere? We failed to learn good practice and we actually lost two months, where we did nothing very much until we tried to catch up just now. Surely we failed pretty badly.
Lord Bethell
The noble Lord makes a comparison that history will have to judge on, I am afraid to say. I think that I am making a fair point when I say that Britain can really only benchmark itself against its close neighbours. The experience of Asian countries taught them an enormous amount, but it is not one that has seemed proximate or relevant to us in recent times. I am afraid that I can only leave it to history to judge whether we made mistakes. It would be wrong for me to prejudge that at this moment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, I must apologise because I allowed everybody to come in. I had mistaken the timing and had allowed this to run for 15 minutes instead of 10. I must make it clear that this does not set any precedent. It was my error.
The Virtual Proceedings will now adjourn until a convenient point after 7 pm for the second Urgent Question repeat.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, good evening. 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 have finished speaking, their microphones will again be set to mute.
We now come to the Virtual Proceedings on the repeat of the second Urgent Question. Please note that it has been agreed in the usual channels to dispense with the reading of the Statement itself and that we will proceed immediately to questions, led by the Opposition Front Bench. The Minister will respond to each question in turn. I ask that all questions and answers be brief—no more than 70 words—so that we can get the maximum number of speakers.
EU: Future Relationship
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
While I was grateful to hear the Answer from Mr Gove, it is a shame that we cannot question the actual negotiator, David Frost, who seems to be following something other than the political declaration signed by the Prime Minister in October, and whose unprecedented letter to Michel Barnier yesterday called the EU proposals “unbalanced” and “egregious”, claiming that the EU is treating the UK as unworthy to be a partner in trade talks. Can the Minister confirm that this letter was signed off by a Minister, that it represents the UK’s attitude and that it is the normal way of undertaking delicate talks?
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is always critical of the role of Mr David Frost, the Prime Minister’s Sherpa. Mr Frost acts on behalf of the UK Government and, in my view, is doing an outstanding job. I think many noble Lords would agree that his letter was not unreasonable, but reasonable in setting out some of the areas of difference which we hope can be clarified. I believe that it is still very possible, as Mr Frost said, to agree a “modern and high-quality” free trade agreement and other agreements. He has suggested ways to find a rapid and constructive way forward.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
How can the Government reproach the EU for being inflexible and ideological when they are insisting on many club membership benefits that they know are incompatible with the rather thin, minimalist relationship in which they reject the EU’s rules? Why, on the other hand, are they being so unambitious in areas such as foreign and defence policy, given that the UK surely has a great deal to contribute to a common European effort in an era of such uncertainty about the US and China? Why is there no proposed treaty on these matters, and why are the Government cavalier about a no-deal outcome at the end of the year? Are they refusing to contemplate an extension to the transition period because they think that the dire economic effect of no deal would be hidden by the effects of the corona- virus?
Lord True
My Lords, I certainly reject the last part of the noble Baroness’s question. I noted that today the Liberal Democrats introduced in another place a Bill to extend the transition period for two years until January 2024—a Bill, by the way, that comes without a financial memorandum. I just wonder when the party opposite is going to clock the decision made by the British people. The British Government are negotiating in good faith with ambition, hope and a constructive state of mind to reach a free trade agreement with the EU. We are confident that that is possible.
Lord Howard of Rising (Con)
How is it possible to negotiate with the EU when Monsieur Barnier’s starting point is to deal with the UK as if it were a colony rather than an independent sovereign nation, with which the EU has a large trade surplus?
Lord True
My Lords, I am not chasing either my noble friend or the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, into descriptions of other people’s positions with epithets. Mr Barnier is an excellent negotiator, but my noble friend is right that the EU mandate is perhaps somewhat less viable than that of Monsieur le Duc de Talleyrand. It is a pity that those mandating the EU negotiations have not noticed that 23 June 2016, 12 December 2019 and 31 January 2020 have changed much in this country, and it does not serve in these circumstances to have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I doubt if the Statement or Mr Frost ‘s letter will greatly advance the negotiation. I am struck by its petulant and querulous tone and the view that we are entitled to pick and choose. The Statement ends by saying that progress is possible only if the EU recognises that we are now a sovereign equal. I have two quick questions on sovereignty for the Minister. First, does he regard France, Spain, Germany and the 27 sovereign states as equally entitled to determine their own interests? Secondly, when we called in the political declaration for an overarching institutional framework that could be an association agreement, we must have had a different view on sovereignty because we now say that such an agreement is appropriate not for a sovereign equal but only for applicants for EU membership. I am really puzzled about this sovereignty doctrine. Is Israel or South Africa applying to join the EU? Do we think Ukraine is not a sovereign equal?
Lord True
My Lords, Question Time is not the moment for a debate on sovereignty. I must say I think the noble Lord probably used some much firmer language than Mr Frost in his diplomatic career occasionally. One of the issues is a sense that the EU wishes to exercise influence and authority within this country after the end of transition. The noble Lord quoted Latin the last time he spoke. I commend to him the wise advice of the Emperor Augustus, “consilium coercendi intra terminos imperii”—that is, a power should stay within its own fixed bounds. On issues such as the so-called level playing field, the jurisdiction of the ECJ and fisheries, we are asking the EU to recognise that the UK has chosen to be an independent state.
The Earl of Kinnoull (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in the last week my committee has had meetings with senior representatives of the European Commission, the European Parliament and the EU 27. An emerging theme has been the need to rebuild mutual trust, and a vital part of addressing that is interparliamentary work. When asked about the EU proposals on inter- parliamentary work, the Minister told the House on 12 May:
“the government are keenly supportive of such proposals”.—[Official Report, 12/5/20; col. 657.]
Michel Barnier talked on 15 May of a “lack of ambition” on the respective roles of the European Parliament and the British Parliament. I ask the Minister: which is correct?
Lord True
My Lords, I do not think there is any distinction between the two. The Government wish to see good relations between this Parliament—both your Lordships’ House and the other place—and other parliaments around the world, including the European Parliament. But it remains the Government’s view that while we are of course supportive of dialogue between parliamentarians, it is for your Lordships and those in the other place to determine how they wish to engage; it is not for a Government to bind this and future Parliaments to a particular methodology by a treaty.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, the Sherpa’s letter states that the draft fisheries agreement put forward by the UK is very close to the EU-Norway agreement, yet surely the success of an EU-UK fisheries policy will be that our produce—particularly that coming from a long distance, such as shellfish from Scotland—will have access to the French, Belgian and Dutch markets. How does my noble friend the Minister think that will be achieved by what is set out in the letter?
Lord True
My Lords, we have published a framework text to assist the negotiations on fisheries. It is based on precedent, but arrangements obviously will differ, as it is usual for those sorts of agreements to be tailored to the specific fisheries interests of the coastal states. That will be so in this case.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
Lord Morris of Aberavon? He does not seem to be there so I will move on.
Baroness Deech (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate David Frost on reaching out to member states and remind him of the wise words of his late namesake, Sir David Frost, who said:
“Diplomacy is the art of letting someone else have your way.”
Will the Government encourage Mr Frost to stand up for British values for the benefit of this country, and not just to think about the economy?
I must raise the arbitrary dismissal of Eleanor Sharpston, the British advocate-general at the European Court of Justice. She was sent packing before her term ended, even though her post is not attached to UK membership. If you sack a member of the court, judicial independence is meaningless. This is not a court that we can remain subject to. I hope the Government will make representations on behalf of Eleanor Sharpston.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, and the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, but the time allocated for the Statement is now up. The day’s Virtual Proceedings are complete and are adjourned.