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
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I start by wishing you, Mr Speaker, a very happy birthday.
The UK is leading global efforts to ensure that equitable access to covid-19 vaccines is possible. We worked night and day to make the global vaccine summit last week a success. Not only did we significantly beat our fundraising target to buy vaccines for the world’s poorest people, but we pledged £1.65 billion of UK aid to be the world’s largest donor to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. We have also pledged £250 million to vaccine research through the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and are a key part of the brand new scheme to ensure global vaccine production. But it is not just about money; the summit showed what true collaboration can do. The UK will leave no stone unturned to make everyone safe.
Virginia Crosbie
Businesses in M-SParc, a scientific park in my constituency, are developing innovation to fight the coronavirus pandemic, while at the further education college, Coleg Menai, and across the bridge at Bangor University, everyone is working hard in the fight against coronavirus by developing innovative technologies. For example, the science park businesses are developing proteins for vaccines and have made more than 8,000 visors. Can the Secretary of State tell me how we are supporting innovative British businesses to play a role in fighting coronavirus and developing a vaccine for the rest of the world?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
It is lovely to welcome a scientist to our Green Benches. As my hon. Friend suggests, organisations right across the UK are playing a vital role in innovating to develop a coronavirus vaccine. It is a great pleasure to thank all the communities across the island of Ynys Môn helping to fight coronavirus with their technological solutions. My officials are also working closely with the Action for Global Health network to draw on the expertise of a range of UK charities and organisations as part of our approach to shaping global vaccine efforts. If UK-backed candidates for vaccines are successful, the Department for International Development funding for international efforts will help to ensure that those are scaled up and support equitable access for all who need them globally.
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab/Co-op)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
I start by welcoming the Secretary of State’s apology concerning the sharing of an unacceptable, offensive and xenophobic image, but it was extremely disappointing that it took so long to apologise.
The Secretary of State has said she wants to ensure equitable access for many new vaccines once developed. AstraZeneca has guaranteed the US and the UK the first 400 million of any new vaccine in September, while those in the world’s poorest countries will not begin to get any until the end of the year, at the very earliest. Does she think this is equitable access?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The vaccine challenge, and the race for scientists to crack that code and for industry to come in behind them to support, to produce and to deliver, is critical. AstraZeneca is leading the way with us and has now signed a licence for 300 million doses, should the Oxford vaccine be successful, which it has committed will go to low and middle-income countries, which is fantastic news. This is a huge piece of work, which is led by the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and which DFID is involved in, to draw together that scientific effort. The key point about any vaccine that is found—obviously we hope one will be found—is delivery, which is why Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance is so critical, because it can reach out. It has effective networks for delivering vaccines in those poorest countries, where we want to make sure that everyone who needs it gets that vaccine.
Preet Kaur Gill
The “Oxford Dictionary” defines “equitable” as “fair or just”; what the Secretary of State has just outlined is neither. She rightly praises Gavi and the number of people it has vaccinated, but as she knows the alliance would not be needed if access to vaccines was actually equitable. There is a disconnect between the Government’s rhetoric on this issue and their actions. Rather than outsourcing responsibility, will she step up and commit to attaching clear, transparent conditions on British taxpayers’ money to accelerate development and guarantee truly equitable access to vaccines based on need, not how deep your pockets are?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The UK taxpayer, through UK aid, has made a huge commitment. We gave £250 million to CEPI very early on in the crisis. Those who use that CEPI money as part of their vaccine development work have that commitment. That is fantastic. Gavi is a fundamental part of ensuring the whole world works together to make vaccines available. By being the organisation that vaccinates nearly 50% of the world’s children, it brings down prices. It can bring huge negotiating benefits so the value is spread across the world.
Chris Law (Dundee West) (SNP) [V]
The Department’s work in funding the development of a vaccine for covid-19 is just one of many projects that help to protect some of the most vulnerable people in the developing world, but we cannot take our eye off the ball on the need to continuously tackle global poverty. Can the Secretary of State confirm reports that there is a rapid ministerial review happening of the aid budget and that the vast majority of new projects have been paused, and can she explain why these life-saving projects are being quietly put on hold without informing Parliament or engaging with the International Development Committee?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Our aid spending is linked to the growth of our economy. The challenge this year, in which gross national income will go down, means that the economy is likely to shrink. We are working closely with the Treasury to understand the likely forecasts and to ensure that we can meet our 0.7% commitment. We are working across Departments to ensure that we continue to drive UK aid spending and commit our official development assistance to the most vulnerable and poorest.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (James Duddridge)
The UK, the G20 and the Paris Club will suspend debt repayments from the poorest countries due this year. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his G20 counterparts have called on private sector creditors to do likewise. At the World Bank spring forum, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development amplified that call, along with other World Bank governors.
Navendu Mishra
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker. Following comments from the UN Secretary-General in recent weeks on the increase in allocations of its special drawing rights currency to give countries more access to funding, what is the Secretary of State doing to get an SDR issuance agreed multilaterally? Will she support the UK and other rich countries transferring some of their allocation to poorer countries?
James Duddridge
Last time, the allocation was split, and I am sure we would want it to be used by developing countries if special drawing rights were exercised. That could be part of the solution, but as the hon. Gentleman knows, 85% of the banks need to agree, and the US effectively has a blocking right, which means that this is perhaps not a short-term solution but one to work on over time with international partners.
Mary Kelly Foy
I welcome the Government’s role in the G20’s suspension of bilateral debt payments due in 2020 from the world’s poorest countries, as well as their donation of £150 million to an IMF debt relief scheme used for covid-19. However, the World Bank is yet to take action on debt relief, despite that being one of the most important things we can do to support developing countries in this global pandemic. Can the Minister tell me what actions the Government will take to ensure that the World Bank moves to cancel debt payments, to support the world’s poorest?
James Duddridge
I thank the hon. Lady for recognising the work that has already been done on suspension and relief. That will perhaps be looked at again, in terms of private sector relief and expanding either the data or the amounts of both those schemes, before looking at cancellation issues, which will have a longer-term impact. We need to focus on solutions that will help immediately and leave longer-term solutions for the longer term, but that is still very much on the table. I would not want to leave the House with the impression the World Bank is doing nothing. The international development banks overall are putting $200 billion into developing countries over the next 15 months as a result of the covid crisis.
Kim Johnson
Have a wonderful birthday, Mr Speaker. The coronavirus is having a significant impact on developing countries. The economic impact of the crisis is very severe. Poor countries face a debt crisis unlike anything we have seen. Their finances have been decimated by the global crisis, with private creditors exploiting the debt. The commitments made by the G20 at the spring meetings were a great start in reducing countries’ debt burdens. However, does the Minister agree that suspension is not enough and that it will lead to a further debt crisis in two years’ time? Does he agree that what countries urgently need now from the G20 is the cancellation of debt payments?
James Duddridge
The hon. Lady is right that suspension on its own is not an adequate response, but it was the right response to make immediately. She mentions the private sector. The Institute of International Finance is already working with the 450 main private sector lenders and put in place the terms of reference 10 days ago. The private sector, far from being abusive, can join that debt suspension. There will be a case potentially for extending that period and extending relief more generally, and we will continue our discussions with Her Majesty’s Treasury on that. Ultimately, for some countries, cancellation may be an option, but we have to remember that 50% of countries were struggling even before covid.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (James Duddridge)
I was delighted that the chair of the African Union Commission, Moussa Faki, was able to join and speak at the Gavi summit. This week, I would have spoken to all eight AU commissioners. Under our strategic partnership with the AU, we are revising our joint plan to work on covid-19 implications and intend to hold a virtual high-level dialogue later this month. I also speak to member states of the AU more directly.
Mark Pawsey
The pandemic has shown us the vulnerability of not only the health systems in African countries, but their economies. The African Union has warned that nearly 20 million jobs may be lost. Has the Minister seen the excellent work of the African Development Bank as it focuses on the recovery and, in particular, focuses on the private sector as the key to employment and prosperity?
James Duddridge
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He clearly shares my concern that this is an economic crisis as well as a humanitarian and health crisis. The private sector and the African Development Bank play a critical role alongside supply chains, but particularly the ADB in relation to protecting livelihoods. I look forward to working as an alternate governor to the Secretary of State for that great organisation in Abidjan.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
Development policy and foreign policy are remarkably intertwined, which is why the Department for International Development and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office already work together in 32 bilateral posts, nine multilateral missions and eight FCO-DFID joint units. To deal with coronavirus as effectively as possible and to co-ordinate our international efforts, we established a superb joint conflict, security and governance covid-19 hub, so the UK has a stronger presence in the world when speaking as one Government, rather than as only individual Departments.
Jerome Mayhew
Beyond the immediate covid response, the past 30 years have shown us that trade, not aid, lifts developing nations out of poverty. With this in mind, does the Secretary of State agree that the considerable soft power that her Department wields should be used to encourage and expand trading opportunities with developing nations?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The UK Government are firmly committed to ensuring that developing countries can reduce poverty through trading opportunities. Indeed, that is one of the critical outcomes, and we will have to work very hard to help those countries get back on their feet. DFID has a joint team with the Department for International Trade, which is working to enhance market access for developing countries, ensuring that they can take advantage of this access through trade-related assistance and using our influence in organisations such as the World Trade Organisation.
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
Yesterday, the International Development Committee released its review into UK aid, which concluded that DFID was by far the best Department to deliver it. The integrated review is formally paused, but it seems that the Secretary of State is carrying out her own stealth review. The official development assistance meeting was chaired by the Foreign Secretary. All but 200 future DFID programmes are paused, and DFID looks as if it is taking most of the forecast ODA cuts. Can the Secretary of State tell us what is the scope of the review, what is the timetable, and why the Committee found out through whistleblowers rather than through official channels?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
I thank the hon. Lady for her Committee’s report, which I was able to read overnight before it was published. I also thank her for her compliments about DFID. Indeed, the effectiveness with which DFID is able to deliver aid is because the Department has decades of honed experience in understanding the most effective and targeted ways of spending taxpayers’ money and getting the most developmental impact. It was a really encouraging report. As I said earlier, because of the likely drop in gross national income, we are having to assess, across the board, how we will manage the 0.7% target in the coming year. We are working across Government to ensure that we do that as effectively as possible, because as far as we are all concerned—the Prime Minister has been very clear on this—UK aid must be spent to help the world tackle covid-19.
Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
The UK remains determined to work for peace in the region, and that means supporting a stable Palestinian Authority that can deliver essential public services to Palestinians and act as an effective partner for peace with Israel. In 2018-19, UK support helped the Palestinian Authority provide education for 26,000 children, half of whom were girls, and deliver 3,000 more immunisations and 111,000 medical consultations. I recently announced £20 million in new funding to help Palestinian health workers battle the coronavirus on the frontline.
Andrew Percy
Happy 50th birthday, Mr Speaker. [Interruption.] I’ll definitely get called again.
There has been some excellent working between the Palestinian Authority and Israel in response to covid. However, an investigation has shown that groups funded by the OHCA—the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs—and the World Health Organisation have links to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which is a proscribed terrorist organisation. Can the Minister assure me that no UK aid money has been channelled in that way?
James Cleverly
The UK has provided £840,000 to the WHO and UNICEF in response to covid-19. We maintain robust measures to ensure that aid is not diverted. We are determined to continue to play our responsible part in cross-Government approaches to support the Palestinian people and to work towards peace in the region.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Wendy Morton)
Charities and non-governmental organisations are crucial partners for DFID and play a critical role in ensuring UK aid reaches the most vulnerable. We have used schemes such as our rapid response facility to send £45 million of special funding to them. We want them to deliver some of the rest of the UK’s £764 million coronavirus response. Where our charity partners are struggling, we have introduced a special procedure to make sure they remain our partners for the long term.
Dehenna Davison
Many happy returns from the residents of Bishop Auckland, Mr Speaker.
Earlier this week, Members from across the House marked World Oceans Day, outlining how we can put nature at the heart of a clean and resilient recovery. Does my hon. Friend agree that Durham University’s transforming energy access initiative will help the deployment of renewable energy sources, as part of the UK’s ambitious climate change targets?
Wendy Morton
Increasing the deployment of clean energy is a key part of helping countries build back greener after the covid-19 crisis. DFID’s transforming energy access programme, in which Durham University has played a valuable role, is supporting technology and business model innovations, accelerating access to affordable clean energy. It has already improved energy access for more than 5 million people in sub-Saharan Africa and south Asia. This is the sort of ambition we hope to be able to scale up from April 2021 under the Ayrton fund.
Ms Buck
Many happy returns, Mr Speaker.
UK-based international charities are under unprecedented pressure at a time when their services are most needed, with the latest research indicating that more than half have cut back on their overseas programmes and nearly half, particularly small organisations, are at risk of not surviving for another six months. Will the Minister ensure that the review of their work begins by the Government dealing with those with the lowest transparency scores and tackling programmes that do not put poverty reduction at the heart of their work?
Wendy Morton
I ought to wish you happy birthday as well, Mr Speaker. That was rather remiss of me.
The hon. Lady makes a very important point. Civil society is an important policy and delivery partner for DFID and I absolutely recognise the work it does. Our continued partnership will be critical in ensuring that UK aid reaches those most in need as a result of covid-19. There are a number of funding schemes and programmes that DFID has recently announced and allocated, including a new £30 million UK Aid Direct funding round that is open specifically for small and medium-sized charities based both in the UK and internationally to support the global response to covid-19.
Ian Levy (Blyth Valley) (Con)
The Secretary of State for International Development (Anne-Marie Trevelyan)
I want to put on the record that black lives matter. We must listen to those communities that face discrimination, and solve the unconscious biases that still create injustice and lost potential. My Department will redouble its efforts to drive out discrimination and support the poorest countries to achieve genuine mutual prosperity free of prejudice. That struggle for equality is exactly why it was so important last week that the UK brought together, via video link, the London 2020 global vaccine summit as part of a 60-country effort. A historic $8.8 billion was raised to vaccinate the world’s poorest people. Gavi will immunise 300 million more children as a result.
Ian Levy
Sorry about that, Mr Speaker, and happy birthday again.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order to tackle this virus so that we can all be safe from future waves of infection the international community must work together, co-ordinating and increasing support for vulnerable countries, and delivering the appropriate international financial and health system assistance?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Strong, resilient health systems are vital to national and global health security, and to helping to protect the world from infectious diseases, including covid. The UK has so far pledged £764 million of UK aid to help end the covid-19 pandemic, in support of the co-ordinated international response through the international financing institutions, multilaterals and global health initiatives, alongside DFID programmes. Through our multilateral partnerships and our regional and national programmes, we support developing countries to make their domestic healthcare systems stronger and more resilient and to better prepare for, prevent, detect and respond to health crises, including covid.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
Penblwydd hapus, Mr Speaker.
The UK’s Commonwealth Development Corporation does important work, but deeply concerning evidence has come to light, thanks to the work of Finance Uncovered, regarding CDC investments in Myanmar, including $30 million in an internet service provider called Frontiir, which, at the orders of the Myanmar Government, has blocked independent news sites reporting on atrocities taking place against the Rohingya. Will the Secretary of State now urge CDC to immediately divest from this company? Is she sure that none of the other microfinance programmes being supported is indirectly helping the Myanmar regime?
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The UK Government condemn any action to restrict the freedom of expression of journalists, and have repeatedly raised the issue of internet restrictions and shutdowns at the highest level with the Myanmar Government, but, after going through due diligence, CDC invested in Frontiir to extend internet access to more people in Myanmar and to combat poverty. The company has followed the international Global Network Initiative standards by posting transparency statements so that users know whether the site has limitations upon it.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
Queenie is clearly a wise young person, and it is a really important question. The UK is at the forefront of efforts to drive global collaboration and resourcing, including through our engagement through the access to covid tools accelerator and through industry for the development of new vaccines at the speed and scale required to ensure access for all those who will need them. As well as contributing £1.65 billion to fund Gavi’s core programme we have committed £48 million to its newly launched covax advanced market commitment, aimed at incentivising manufacturers to produce sufficient quantities of a potential vaccine to ensure future access for low-income and middle-income countries.
Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con) [V]
Anne-Marie Trevelyan
The UK is proud to support the World Food Programme, with £500 million last year, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, with £40 million, and the International Fund for Agricultural Development, with more than £50 million, in their efforts to end hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition across Africa. We are also assisting countries to respond to the desert locust upsurge in east Africa, which threatens 25 million people with severe food shortages. UK aid has funded a supercomputer to track that and help develop early warning systems and has provided £5 million to the UNFAO’s regional emergency appeal.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
The Minister for the Middle East and North Africa (James Cleverly)
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that all Departments are closely integrated in the work of humanitarian aid, economic development and improving our planet. The work of my right hon. Friend Lord Goldsmith means that we are fully integrated in ensuring that economic development is not done at the cost of the environment and the planet.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
As we approach the third anniversary, this coming Sunday, of the Grenfell Tower tragedy, I know that the whole House would wish to join me in sending our heartfelt sympathies and thoughts to the families and friends of the 72 people who lost their lives and to the survivors. Across Government, we remain committed to ensuring that such a tragedy can never happen again.
Members from across the House will want to join me in offering our very best wishes to His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh on his 99th birthday. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I am sure the whole House will also want to join me in wishing you, Mr Speaker, a very happy birthday.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Vicky Foxcroft [V]
As a shielded person, I am grateful to once again contribute to Parliament. Many shielded people have contacted me, worried about Government guidance on going for walks. They want a “safe hour” walk for shielded people similar to that adopted in many other countries. Will the Prime Minister do that? They also want more transparency on the shielding list, with each category named and risks published. Will he provide that? Finally, will he agree to review the furlough scheme so shielded people, in the future, are not penalised?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I can tell the hon. Lady that we certainly will be doing as much as we can in the near future to ensure shielded people get guidance about how they can come out of their shielded environment safely, in a way that is covid secure. Her point about furlough is a very important one, and clearly newly shielded people may be asking themselves whether they will be entitled to furlough funds. I have been made aware of the issue very recently. I can assure her that we will be addressing it forthwith.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Perhaps it would be helpful in advance of any consultation paper if I just set out my own broad position, and stress that I am a Sinophile. I believe that we must continue to work with this great and rising power on climate change or trade or whatever it happens to be, but when we have serious concerns as a country—whether it is over the origins of covid or the protection of our critical national infrastructure or, indeed, what is happening in Hong Kong—we must feel absolutely free to raise those issues loud and clear with Beijing, and that is what we will continue to do.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
May I join the Prime Minister in his comments on Grenfell—that dreadful night—in his comments on the Duke of Edinburgh and, of course in his best wishes to you, Mr Speaker? May I also say that I listened carefully to what the Prime Minister just said on furlough for those newly shielding, which I welcome? That has been something we have been concerned about. We will look at the proposal when it is put on the table, but I am grateful that he has listened to that and for what he has said this morning.
The Prime Minister on Monday said that feelings of black and minority ethnic groups about discrimination are “founded on a cold reality”, and I agree with him about that. There have been at least seven reports into racial inequality in the past three years alone, but precious little action. For example, most of the recommendations in the Lammy report into inequality in the criminal justice system have yet to be implemented, three years after the report was published. Similarly, the long-delayed and damning report by Wendy Williams into the Windrush scandal has yet to be implemented.
I spoke last night to black community leaders, and they had a very clear message for the Prime Minister: “Implement the reports you’ve already got.” Will the Prime Minister now turbocharge the Government’s responses and tell us when he will implement in full the Lammy report and the Windrush recommendations?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and of course I understand, as I said, the very strong and legitimate feelings of people in this country at the death of George Floyd. Of course I agree that black lives matter. We are getting on with the implementation, not just of the Lammy report but also of the report into Windrush. For instance, on the Lammy report, which this Government commissioned, and for which I thank the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), we are increasing already the number of black and minority ethnic people in the Prison Service, as he recommended. We are increasing the use of body-worn cameras, and we are trying to ensure, among other things, that young BME people are not immediately prosecuted as a result of the trouble they find themselves in. We try to make sure that we give people a chance, but I must stress that on the Lammy report and all these matters, it is absolutely vital at the same time that we keep our streets safe and that we back our police, and that is what we are going to do.
Keir Starmer
I welcome what the Prime Minister says about implementing the reports, and obviously we will hold him to it. He will appreciate that people do notice when recommendations are made and then not implemented, so it is very important that they are implemented in accordance with those reports. The latest report is the Public Health England report on the disproportionate impact of covid-19. That report concluded that death rates are
“highest among people of Black and Asian ethnic groups.”
It went on to say—this was the important bit—that
“it is already clear that relevant guidance…and key policies should be adapted”
to mitigate the risk. If it is already clear that guidance and policy need to be changed, why have the Government not already acted?
The Prime Minister
Not only is it already clear, but we are already acting. I can tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that as a result of the report by Professor Fenton, which again we commissioned, we are looking at the particular exposure of black and minority ethnic groups to coronavirus. We should be in no doubt that they have been at the forefront of the struggle against coronavirus, whether that is in the NHS or in public transport. Some 44% of the NHS workforce in London are black and minority ethnic workers. That is why what we are doing first and most directly is ensuring that those high-contact professions get expanded and targeted testing now, and that is what I have agreed with Dido Harding from NHS Test and Trace. I think that is the first and most practical step we can take as a result of Professor Fenton’s report.
Keir Starmer
The Prime Minister, I know, understands the frustration of those most at risk when they see a report like that and they know action is needed. Action is needed now, not in a few weeks or months, so can I ask for the Prime Minister’s complete—[Interruption.] Well, perhaps the Prime Minister will indicate whether that is all the action or whether there is more action. This is a serious issue, and we can make progress together, but it is important that it is done swiftly for those most at risk.
I want to turn to the overall numbers of those who have tragically died from covid-19, because those overall numbers haunt us. Since the last Prime Minister’s questions, the Government’s daily total figure for those who have died from coronavirus has gone past 40,000. The Office for National Statistics figure, which records cases where coronavirus is on the death certificate, stands at just over 50,000. The number of excess deaths, which is an awful phrase, stands at over 63,000. Those are among the highest numbers anywhere in the world. Last week the Prime Minister said he was proud of the Government’s record, but there is no pride in those figures, is there?
The Prime Minister
Let me just say that on the death figures for this country, we mourn every one; we grieve for their relatives and their friends. But I must also tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman—he has raised this point repeatedly across the Dispatch Box—that the best scientific evidence and advice is that we must wait until the epidemic has been through its whole cycle in order to draw the relevant international comparisons. I simply must repeat that point to him.
As for what this country did to fight the epidemic, I must say I strongly disagree with the way he characterised it. I think it was an astonishing achievement of the NHS to build the Nightingale hospitals. I think it was an astonishing thing that this country came together to drive down the curve—to follow the social distancing rules, in spite of all the doubt that was cast on the advice, to follow those rules, to get the number of deaths down, to get the epidemic under control in the way that we have. This Government announced a plan, on 11 May, to get our country back on to its feet, and that is what we are going to do. We have a plan, we are following it and we are going to stick to it.
Keir Starmer
It just does not wash to say that we can’t compare these figures with other countries. Everybody can see those figures and see the disparity, and we need to learn from those other countries—what did they do more quickly than us, what did they do differently? We can learn those lessons and ensure that the numbers come down. It is little solace to the families that have lost someone to simply be told, “It is too early to compare, and to learn from other countries.” And of course there will be long-term consequences of the Government’s approach.
I want to turn now to another aspect of Government policy, and that is school reopening. We all want as many children back into school as soon as it is possible and as soon as it is safe. What was required for that to happen was a robust national plan, consensus among all key stakeholders and strong leadership from the top. All three are missing. The current arrangements lie in tatters; parents have lost confidence in the Government’s approach. Millions of children will miss six months’ worth of schooling and inequality will now go up.
Several weeks ago, I suggested to the Prime Minister that we set up a national taskforce, so that everybody could put their shoulder to the wheel. It is not too late. Will the Prime Minister take me up on that?
The Prime Minister
As I told the House before, I have been in contact with the right hon. and learned Gentleman by a modern device called the telephone, on which we have tried to agree a way forward, which he then seemed to deviate from later on. Last week—[Interruption.] Last week he was telling the House that it was not yet safe for kids to go back to school; this week he is saying that not enough kids are going back to school. I really think he needs to make up his mind.
Since he is so fond of these international comparisons, he should know that there are some countries in the EU—in Europe—where no primary school kids are going back to school, I think. We are being extremely cautious in our approach; we are following the plan that we set out, and I think that the people of this country will want to follow it. All the evidence—97% of the schools that have submitted data are now seeing kids come back to school. I think what we would like to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman is a bit of support for that, and a bit of encouragement to pupils, and perhaps even encouragement to some of his friends in the left-wing trade unions, to help get our schools ready.
Keir Starmer
Let us just have this out. The Prime Minister and I have never discussed our letter in any phone call; he knows it, and I know it. The taskforce has never been the subject of a conversation between him and me, one-to-one or in any other circumstance on the telephone; he knows it, so please drop that.
Secondly—he mentions other countries—plenty of other comparable countries are getting their children back to school. Wales is an example; across Europe there are other examples. We are the outlier on this. And it is no good the Prime Minister flailing around, trying to blame others. [Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. We need to get through lots of other Members, so if we can listen to the question, I certainly want to hear the answers.
Keir Starmer
I was saying it is no good the Prime Minister flailing around, trying to blame others. A month ago today—a month ago today—he made the announcement about schools, without consulting relevant parties, without warning about the dates and without any scientific backing for his proposals. It is time he took responsibility for his own failures. This mess was completely avoidable. The consequences are stark. The Children’s Commissioner has warned of
“a deepening education disadvantage gap”
And she spoke yesterday of, “an emerging picture, which doesn’t give confidence that there’s a strategic plan.”. She called for the Government to scale up their response and said, “It must have occurred to the Government that space would be a problem; that there would be a need for temporary accommodation and classrooms.” The Government built the Nightingale hospitals; why are they only starting on schools now?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. and learned Gentleman still cannot work out whether he is saying that schools are not safe enough or that we should be going back more quickly. He cannot have it both ways. It is one brief on one day and another brief on the next. I understand how the legal profession works, but what the public want to have is some consistency. I hope he will agree that it is a good thing that 37% of kids in year 6 in our primary schools are now coming back, and that is increasing the whole time. I think the message that teachers want to hear across the country is that all parliamentarians in this House of Commons support the return of kids to school and, furthermore, that they are encouraging kids to come back to school because it is safe. Will he now say that?
Keir Starmer
I want as many children to go back to school as possible, as soon as possible, as quickly as possible—when it is safe. I have been saying that like a broken record for weeks on end. I know that the Prime Minister has rehearsed attack lines, but he should look at what I said in the letter and what I have been saying consistently.
One way in which the Government could help those worst affected would be to extend the national voucher scheme. Because child poverty numbers are so high in this country, 1.3 million children in low-income families rely on those vouchers. They mean that children who cannot go to school because of coronavirus restrictions still get free meals. The Labour Government in Wales have said that they will continue to fund those meals through the summer. Yesterday, the Education Secretary said that will not be the case in England. That is just wrong, and it will lead to further inequality, so may I urge the Prime Minister to reconsider on that point?
The Prime Minister
Of course, we do not normally continue with free school meals over the summer holidays, and I am sure that is right, but we are aware of the particular difficulties faced by vulnerable families. That is why we are announcing a further £63 million of local welfare assistance to be used by local authorities at their discretion to help the most vulnerable families. This Government have put their arms around the people of this country throughout this crisis and done their absolute best to help—[Interruption.] I may say that this is not helped by the wobbling and tergiversation of the Labour party and the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Last week he said that it is not safe; this week he says we are not going fast enough. We protected the NHS, we provided huge numbers of ventilated beds and we are now getting the disease under control, but we will do it in a cautious and contingent way.
Today I will be announcing further measures to open up and unlock our society, but only because of the huge efforts and sacrifice that this country has made. We are sticking to our plan of 11 May. It is a plan that is working and will continue to work, with or without the assistance of the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
Alan Mak (Havant) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Yes, and I thank my hon. Friend; he is absolutely right. We will be funding the Advanced Research Projects Agency to the tune of £800 million, and it will be tasked with supporting really revolutionary breakthroughs in this country. It is the UK—from the splitting of the atom to the jet engine to the internet—that has led the world in scientific research, and under this Government we intend to continue.
Mr Speaker
We are now heading up to Scotland. I call the leader of the Scottish National party, Ian Blackford.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister on Grenfell, and on the birthdays of both the Duke of Edinburgh and yourself, Mr Speaker?
The Prime Minister told the Liaison Committee:
“I do not actually read the scientific papers”.
It is no wonder, then, that it took the UK so long to act on quarantine measures. The Prime Minister’s scientific advisory group was not even asked for advice on this significant policy. This has been a complete shambles: too little, too late. We cannot risk ignoring the experts once again. Can the Prime Minister confirm what scientific papers he has read on the 2 metre social distancing rule?
The Prime Minister
I must say that I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. I have read a huge amount about a disease that affects our entire nation. I have actually read many papers on the social distancing rule, and it is a very interesting point. Members across the House of Commons will want to understand that I believe that those measures—the 2 metre rule—need now to be kept under review. As we drive this disease down and get the incidence down, working together, I want to make sure that we keep the 2 metre rule under constant review, because, as I think the right hon. Gentleman indicates, there is all sorts of scientific advice about that particular matter.
Ian Blackford
Of course, we know that the Cabinet has discussed reducing the 2 metre social distancing rule, but that is not the experts’ advice right now. SAGE reported that being exposed to the virus for six seconds at 1 metre is the same as being exposed for one minute at 2 metres. That is a significant increase in risk. The last time that Professor Whitty was allowed to attend the daily press briefing, he stressed that the 2 metre rule was going to be necessary for as long as the pandemic continues.
People are losing confidence in this Government: a U-turn on schools; a shambolic roll-out of quarantine measures; and now looking to reduce the 2 metre rule far too soon. Will the Prime Minister continue to ignore the experts, or will he start following the advice of those who have actually read the scientific papers?
The Prime Minister
Actually, the people of this country are overwhelmingly following the guidance that the Government give. Tomorrow the House will be hearing a bit more about what has happened with NHS Test and Trace, and they will find that there is an extraordinary degree of natural compliance and understanding by the British people.
In spite of all the obscurantism and myth making that we have heard from the Opposition parties, I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that there are all sorts of views about the 2 metre rule. He is absolutely correct in what he says about the SAGE advice, but, clearly, as the incidence of the disease comes down—I think members of SAGE would confirm this—the statistical likelihood of being infected, no matter how close or far people are from somebody who may or may not have coronavirus, goes down.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We want to reopen hospitality as quickly as we possibly can. The House will remember that, according to the road map, we were going to open outdoor hospitality no earlier than 4 July. That is still our plan, and we are sticking to it. Guidance is now being developed for such hospitality. What we do not want to see is a roiling, Bacchanalian mass of people who can spread the disease, so it is very important that people understand the continuing risks that this country faces.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
The Prime Minister will be aware that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has today published the guidelines for the special payment scheme for severely injured victims linked to the troubles in Northern Ireland. The Prime Minister will also know that this House passed legislation that excludes those injured by their own hand. But the innocent victims have not yet been able to benefit from this scheme, not least because of the actions of Sinn Féin, who are blocking the next steps to implementation. Will the Prime Minister and his Government now commit to doing all they can to move this matter forward so that our most vulnerable of innocent victims can receive this pension?
The Prime Minister
Yes indeed. I think the scheme provides a fair, balanced and proportionate way of helping all those who have suffered most during the troubles. It is very important that Sinn Féin, along with all other parties, allow the scheme to go forward as soon as possible.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I thank my right hon. Friend. I completely agree with the need for all political leaders to promote these issues—to recognise how important they are in people’s hearts. I am very proud of what I did as Mayor to encourage the promotion of young BAME officers in our Metropolitan police; we had a system to move them up. I want to see that kind of activity across the government of this country. It is the right way forward for the UK.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
I renew what I have said many times; it is important for the House to hear it again. Yes, black lives matter, and yes, the death of George Floyd was absolutely appalling. As for the qualities of Mr Trump, let me say that, among many other things, he is President of the United States, which is our most important ally in the world today. Whatever people may say about it—whatever those on the left may say about it—the United States is a bastion of peace and freedom and has been for most of my lifetime.
Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)
The Prime Minister
I join my hon. Friend warmly in paying tribute to the Archbishop of York as he lays down his crozier. He and I correspond very often and I take his advice very sincerely. I had no idea that today was such a distinguished birthday.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
The Prime Minister
It is very important that stop-and-search is carried out sensitively in accordance with the law. The fact that we now have body-worn cameras has made a great difference to the way it happens. I must say that section 60 powers can be very important in fighting violent crime. I am afraid that what has been happening in London with knife crime has been completely unacceptable, and I do believe that stop-and-search, among many other things, can be a very important utensil for fighting knife crime. It does work. It worked for us when I was running London and it must work now. I am not saying it is the whole answer—the right hon. Gentleman is right; it is not the whole answer—but it is part of the mix.
Mr Speaker
We now head up to the county palatine of Lancashire, with Mark Menzies.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
What I can say is that we will unite and level up with infrastructure projects across our country. I congratulate my hon. Friend on his lobbying for that particular scheme and can tell him that last year we put £31 million into the Preston western distributor scheme, which is a new dual carriageway that will reduce congestion in Preston and lead directly to the creation of 3,000 houses and more than 500 jobs. As for further expansion of the M55, my hon. Friend will have to wait, but there will be further announcements in due course.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
Yes, of course, statutory sick pay is an important part of the way we tackle the problems of self-isolation and all the issues faced by people facing coronavirus, but people also receive additional funds. Anybody looking impartially at what we are doing to support the people of this country throughout this epidemic will concede that the UK has done more than virtually any other country on earth to look after the people of this country, whether through the furloughing scheme, the bounce-back loans or anything else. Having listened to the hon. Gentleman, I should say I have also pledged that we are going to put in gigabit broadband across the whole of the UK, so that he can be heard more clearly in future.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) [V]
The Prime Minister
Yes, which is why I am encouraged by NHS Test and Trace and the progress that it is making. With the help of the joint biosecurity centre, we are now able to identify hotspots, to do whack-a-mole and to stamp out outbreaks of the epidemic where they occur.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister
Not only will we protect animal welfare standards but, on leaving the EU, as we have, we will be able to increase our animal welfare standards. We will be able to ban the treatment of farrowing sows that is currently legal in the EU, and we will be able to ban the shipment of live animals, which currently we cannot ban in the UK. We will be able to go further and better, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports that. By the way, I also hope that he will tell all his friends in the—SNP, is it?—SNP that that is one of the reasons why their plan to take Scotland back into the EU would be completely contrary to the instincts of the British people.
Robert Largan (High Peak) (Con)
The Prime Minister
Thank you so much. I can confirm briefly to my hon. Friend that we are indeed committed under the road investment strategy published last year to building a bypass around Mottram, and I look forward to being there to see it done.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
Because I think the British public, with their overwhelming common sense, have ignored some of the propaganda that we have been hearing from the Opposition about our advice. They have ignored the negativity and the attempts to confuse and they are overwhelmingly following advice, and indeed, they are complying with NHS Test and Trace—which is the way forward—which will enable us to defeat this virus both locally and nationally.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Pre-covid, the Prime Minister made a firm commitment to reaching out to some of the most deprived areas and levelling up the country. This is needed now more than ever. Will he make a firm commitment—and re-commit—to Whitmore Reans, Chapel Ash, Penn Fields and the rest of Wolverhampton, so that they will not just survive but thrive?
The Prime Minister
Yes, I certainly will. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way he represents Wolverhampton and the many campaigns he fights for that great city. I can tell him just for starters that Wolverhampton will benefit from around £217 million of the growth deal funding across the Black Country, which aims to create 5,000 jobs, 1,400 new homes and £310 million in public and private investment—just for starters.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. This country is going through a very difficult crisis—a public health crisis, an economic crisis—and of course, it has put many families to great hardship. I think the Government have done a huge amount to look after families across the country. We have, as she knows, put £3.2 billion more into local government. I announced earlier today—just now—that we are also putting another £63 million into extra welfare support for particularly disadvantaged families to help with meals throughout the summer period. She is entirely right. We face a huge economic problem. That is why we need to get moving, get this country going forward together, and work as parliamentarians and politicians to communicate to the public jointly what we are doing.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I now suspend the House for three minutes.
Speaker's Statement
Mr Speaker
Hon. Members will know that preparations are under way for the new Division system of using pass readers in the Division Lobbies. Based on the tests so far and the best professional advice, I have concluded that we cannot use the new system today. I will make a further statement on Monday.
Horizon: Sub-Postmaster Convictions
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy what steps the Government are taking to support sub-postmasters wrongly convicted in the Post Office Horizon scandal.
I wish you a very happy birthday, Mr Speaker, and many happy returns.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
Happy Birthday, Mr Speaker. I have listened to a number of postmasters’ stories personally, and I saw the recent “Panorama” programme. It is impossible to ignore the negative impact that the Horizon dispute and court case have had on affected postmasters’ lives, livelihoods, financial situations, reputations and, for some, as we know, their physical and mental health.
Convicted claimants’ seeking to overturn their convictions are going through a further process with the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which has the power to refer cases to the Court of Appeal to consider whether any of the convictions are unsafe. As the hon. Lady will appreciate, it is important that the Government do not seek to influence this process or comment on any individual cases. I can confirm, though, that the Post Office is co-operating with the CCRC to the fullest extent and the Government are monitoring this. Forty-seven of the 61 CCRC cases have now been referred to the Court of Appeal, and it is for the courts to decide whether the convictions are unsafe.
Let me acknowledge the strength of feeling on this matter on both sides of the House, which was evident in the debates I participated in earlier this year and in the correspondence I have had from many Members. That is why the Government are committed to establishing an independent review to consider whether the Post Office has learned the necessary lessons from the Horizon dispute and court case, and to provide an independent and external assessment of its work to rebuild its relationship with its postmasters. Full details of the terms of reference for that independent review are set out in a written ministerial statement that I laid in the House this morning. We are keen to see that review launched as soon as possible, and we are in the process of identifying a chair to lead the work of the review.
Chi Onwurah
The Post Office Horizon scandal may well be the largest miscarriage of justice in our history. Nine hundred prosecutions, each one its own story of dreams crushed, careers ruined, families destroyed, reputations smashed and lives lost—innocent people bankrupted and imprisoned. Does the Minister agree that Monday’s “Panorama” adds to the sense of a cover-up on a grand scale in the Post Office, a trusted national institution? And all because of the failings in the Post Office Horizon system.
For over a decade, the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance campaigned to get at the truth, but the Post Office denied all wrongdoing, imposing huge lawyers’ fees on the claimants. Mr Justice Fraser’s High Court ruling in December paved the way finally for justice for some, but the mediated settlement means the truth remains hidden. Does the Minister agree that there can be no justice without truth?
So many questions remain unanswered. When did the Post Office know that the Horizon system could cause money to disappear, and what responsibility did the developer, Fujitsu, have? What did Ministers, to whom the Post Office is accountable, do, and what did they know? Who was responsible for innocent people going to jail? Have they been held accountable? Will all the victims be properly compensated?
Three months ago, the Prime Minister committed to a public inquiry, but we now hear that that is to consider whether the Post Office has learned the necessary lessons. We need an inquiry not simply to learn lessons but to get to the truth. Only a judge-led inquiry can do that, with the Post Office compelled to co-operate. Will the Minister now agree to the judge-led inquiry we need? It is the very least the victims deserve.
We need answers, not more delay. We will not rest until we get that and justice for all those wronged in this scandal.
Paul Scully
I welcome the hon. Lady to her place, and I appreciate her comments. A public inquiry, according to Jason Beer QC, one of the leading experts on this, talks about what happened, why it happened and who is to blame, and what can be done to prevent it from happening again. This independent review, chaired by someone independent of both the Government and the Post Office, will indeed look to do that—to understand and acknowledge what went wrong in relation to the Horizon system by drawing on the evidence of those people who, as we have discussed, have been wronged in this situation, using both Mr Justice Fraser’s judgment and words and his own evidence that he will call upon.
The Government want to be fully assured—I want to be fully assured—that the right lessons are learned for the future and concrete changes have taken place at Post Office Ltd to ensure that this is not repeated. We want to be sure that, through this review, there is a public summary of the failings that occurred at Post Office Ltd, drawing on the judgments and, as I say, listening to those who have been most affected. That is the purpose of the independent review we are in the process of setting up.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
It is absolutely right that we acknowledge the injustices that were done at the time. I have spent a bit of time in post offices in my time, and I remember having conversations with sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in which they acknowledged to me that they could not get their books to balance at the end of particular days. They were really worried about it at the time. It is worth remembering that the post office network is made up of sub-postmasters, and they need our support at this moment in time. What can the Department do to ensure that our sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who are working around the country have the ability to continue while the Horizon scandal is taking place?
Paul Scully
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The Government provided nearly £2 billion for the period 2010-18 and are investing a further £370 million from 2018-21 to invest in the transformation of the business. A negotiated agreement was secured with all 28 UK banks in 2019 and took effect in 2020. That has resulted in a significant increase in the overall fees received by the Post Office from the banks, and that will rise further if transaction volumes continue to grow. We have also encouraged the Post Office to strengthen its relationship with postmasters and postmaster training to foster a stronger commercial partnership. We recently put in place personalised support for postmasters. If we are going to get the future relationship with postmasters right, we have to tackle the injustices that have happened in the past, but we also have to rebuild, with the new management in the Post Office, trust and training and respect for the sub-postmasters of the future.
Mr Speaker
We now come to the Scottish National party spokesperson, Patricia Gibson, who has one minute.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
We can all agree with the Minister that the reputations, mental health and lives of the victims of this scandal have been ruined. Alan Bates, the former sub-postmaster who led the legal case against the Post Office, has been clear that the Post Office has not changed. It is six months since judges found major issues, including an excessive culture of secrecy and confidentiality generally in the Post Office, but specifically relating to Horizon, so can the Minister explain why we still are not getting a public inquiry into the scandal? The Prime Minister told the House on 26 February that such an inquiry would be established, but the proposals set out by the Minister today fall short of that. We welcome the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee inquiry into this issue, but we really need a full independent public inquiry.
Does the Minister understand the anger and disappointment at the length of time it is taking to get the truth about one of the largest miscarriages of justice in the UK’s history, amidst very serious allegations of perjury levelled against employees of Fujitsu, the company behind the system, and will he apologise to the hundreds of postmasters whose lives have been ruined—who have lost their homes, their livelihoods and their reputations as a result of inaction by this Government?
Paul Scully
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those questions. The review that we are putting in train covers the areas that a public inquiry would achieve. We want to find out exactly what is going on. We do not want to duplicate the effort, and we already have a number of words from Justice Fraser that point to exactly where the chairman of the independent review needs to look.
This situation has been going on for some 20-odd years. It is disgraceful that it has taken this time for Alan Bates and his fellow group-litigants to actually get to a settlement and that so many people have had to suffer as a result. What I am keen to do now—my tenure in this role has been brief—is push on and make sure that they can get the answers that they need.
Mary Robinson (Cheadle) (Con)
It is clear that the Post Office concealed evidence that would have cleared sub-postmasters who were convicted and have had their lives ruined. A major part of the evidence came from a Fujitsu whistleblower, who revealed that Post Office accounts could be changed remotely from Fujitsu offices. Sub-postmasters now have the opportunity to sue the Post Office for malicious prosecution, but while those who were subject to criminal proceedings are able to make claims, people who brought civil claims that have been settled cannot. This was clearly not the intention of the courts, so how can such a disparity in outcome be justified?
Paul Scully
In terms of the whistleblower, Justice Fraser recommended a number of individuals to the criminal prosecution service, and that will follow its train accordingly. In terms of the group litigation, the settlement was agreed with the Post Office and that included legal and all other costs. In those circumstances, the Government cannot accept any further requests for payments, but for postmasters who have been convicted and had their convictions overturned there is a process in place for them to receive compensation, if appropriate.
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
The Minister will know that the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which I chair, is undertaking an inquiry on the Post Office Horizon scandal, and it is a matter of regret that we were unable to take oral evidence from Mr Read, the current chief executive officer of the Post Office, Ms Vennells, the former CEO, and Fujitsu as planned on 24 March, because of the lockdown. The sub-postmasters who have suffered such a depth of injustice, such a wide range of harm, will no doubt welcome the news today of the Minister’s inquiry, but will he confirm to the House that that inquiry will have sufficient power to compel the disclosure of documentary evidence and to compel witnesses to come before it to give evidence in public?
Paul Scully
I am sorry that, for the same reason, I was unable to attend that session, but I hope in future to engage fully with the Select Committee. The key point is that the Post Office has said that it will disclose everything, and I will ensure that it does, to the best of my ability. I saw the same “Panorama” programme as the hon. Gentleman did, in which there was a big discussion and a long piece about non-disclosure. That cannot happen again. We have to draw a line and make sure that we get answers. The chairman of the independent review will push for that and so will I, to ensure that the Post Office complies appropriately.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Most MPs want the Post Office to apologise to all those it has wronged and pay generous compensation to them in the circumstances. Will the Minister add the Government’s voice to that and make it a demand of the Post Office?
Paul Scully
The Post Office has acknowledged mistakes in the settlement and the case that we have had. I am glad that both parties to the group litigation were able to reach a settlement. Other sub-postmasters who suffered a shortfall will be able to take advantage of the historical shortfall scheme that the Post Office has launched. They will be able to come forward and have their case investigated, and hopefully those wrongs will be righted.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I, the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen) and Lord Arbuthnot have been campaigning on this for over seven years. People have been imprisoned; they have been ruined, both financially and mentally. As I have said on the record previously, they have been treated in a way a totalitarian state would treat people. The fact is that only a judge-led inquiry will get to the bottom of what is needed. Over the past seven years, I have cross-examined many of the Minister’s predecessors; today, I urge him to insist on that, because without it we will not get to the truth.
The Post Office is not the only one to blame; the Government are to blame as well, because Government Ministers have shareholder representation on the Post Office board and they have sat back and done absolutely nothing. Last year, they allowed the Post Office to spend nearly £100 million of public money on trying to bankrupt the Justice For Subpostmasters Alliance. That disgrace also needs to be exposed.
Paul Scully
I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman’s long campaign on behalf of the Horizon postmasters, which is to be welcomed. I have been shocked and surprised by the revelations I saw when I took over and continue to see. The terms of reference of the review are the same as those for a public inquiry. It is to work out: who is to blame, can it happen again, how can we prevent it from happening again, what wrongs were done, and how can we right them? The chairman will be independent of both the Post Office and Government.
On the Government’s role as a shareholder, clearly the Post Office has operational independence, but numerous attempts have been made over the years to resolve the dispute, including an independent investigation in 2013 and a mediation scheme in 2015, which was supported by Post Office Ltd and Ministers. All those attempts failed to resolve the issues, leaving the court as the only way to provide the independent review that all sides needed.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I am sure we all agree that sub-postmasters are at the heart of our communities, none more than the communities I represent in Wednesbury, Oldbury and Tipton. It is right that the Post Office is able to compete in challenging times, but may I ask my hon. Friend to reassure sub-postmasters in my constituency that the Government will continue to review the Post Office’s relationship with sub-postmasters and make sure that they are given the protection and respect they are entitled to and deserve?
Paul Scully
One of the first things I said to the chief executive was to acknowledge the fact that we need to build the relationship with postmasters and give them the support they need in the future, and we need to make sure that we right the wrongs of the past. The chief executive has assured me, and his background supports this, that he is used to working with sub-postmasters as stakeholders, and I think that is what they need to be.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Postmasters across the country have been fired, gone bankrupt and, in some cases, gone to prison. Given the scale of this injustice, with over 550 postmasters’ families left in financial ruin, does the Minister agree that the current compensation, which fails to cover their legal costs, is neither fair nor just?
Paul Scully
I agree that so many people have suffered. Indeed, some people have taken their lives, as well as losing their livelihoods; that is not to be forgotten. I was pleased that a settlement was reached by both sides of this agreement and, as I say, sub-postmasters caught within shortfalls in the past who were not part of that agreement are able to claim under the historical shortfall scheme.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
One of the great frustrations to date has been the refusal of the former senior management of the Post Office to answer detailed questions on this issue and to be held to account. That is the least that is owed to those who have been wrongly convicted, including my constituent Siobhan Sayer. Will my hon. Friend confirm that individual culpability of senior management figures within the Post Office will be part of this review?
Paul Scully
I totally empathise with the suffering of my hon. Friend’s constituent, Siobhan Sayer. The chairman, who is independent of the Post Office, and the Government need to look at exactly what went wrong, which will by necessity mean looking at who took what decisions when. It will be complicated, because this happened over a period of 20 years, but none the less, they must get to the bottom of it.
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP) [V]
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
Post Office Ltd has been allowed to destabilise the post office network by its underhand and legally dubious actions. This Government must take up their responsibilities as a special shareholder in Post Office Ltd and commission a judge-led inquiry—I make no apology for repeating that. Nothing less will do. Will this Government help to compensate those postmasters who have been so wrongly convicted and help shore up the finances of Post Office Ltd?
Paul Scully
In terms of the finances, the Government continue to work with the Post Office on its needs and to ensure that, although it is an independent company, it can work within its service obligations. In terms of the review, we recognise the hugely negative impact that the Horizon dispute had on postmasters. The financial settlement was a major step towards resolving some of those grievances, but there is more to be done. That is why we have launched the independent review, to ensure that the lessons are learned and that they can never be repeated.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
This is one of the worst disasters in public life since the contaminated blood scandal. Does the Minister agree that, if it is proven that Post Office executives were aware of the software faults but allowed innocent people to rot in jail, they were guilty of criminal negligence and possibly criminal conspiracy and therefore ought to be brought to justice? Will the proposed inquiry allow that to be done?
Paul Scully
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. The Horizon IT system was put in place in 1999, with the first issues being raised in the early 2000s, so this was over a long period. Mr Justice Fraser considered what happened over that period and set out his findings in considerable detail and, as I said, he has referred some individuals to the Crown Prosecution Service. Post Office is now working to implement all the vital changes to which it has committed under the leadership of its new CEO, to reset the relationship with its postmasters.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)
Many hundreds of postmasters were forced to pay back many thousands of pounds to the Post Office—moneys that were never in fact owed or, indeed, missing. That in itself should trigger a criminal investigation. How much of that money went to pay the previous chief executive’s £5 million salary, and why can the Minister not accept that only a judge will get to the bottom of this miscarriage of justice?
Paul Scully
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman’s part not only in campaigning on the plight of the sub-postmasters since coming to this place, but in his previous work representing some of them in the court case. As I said, the important thing about the review is: does it find out what went wrong and who made what decisions when, does it listen to the evidence of those who were wronged and get those voices out there, complementing what Justice Fraser said, and does it make sure it can never happen again? Those are the terms of the inquiry and review. The independent chair will get to the bottom of that while being independent of Government and the Post Office.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
I cannot understand why the Government want to prolong the agony on this with the halfway house of an independent review. I add my calls for a judge-led review that progresses speedily. Does the Minister share my amazement at the behaviour of the Post Office, which had employed these postmasters and postmistresses for years and realised they were decent, hard-working people? They did not suddenly all become criminals. Did no one ask the questions? Can we please get on with this and get the full judge-led inquiry now?
Paul Scully
It is for that very reason that we have announced an independent review. Of all the judge-led inquiries in the last 30 years, the shortest lasted 45 days —that was one Minister dealing with two people, whereas this is an incredibly complicated case—and the longest lasted 13 years. In the last 30 years, inquiries have cost £600 million. We need something reasonable in its timing and extensive in its remit so that we can get to the bottom of this as quickly as possible.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
The covid crisis has revealed what should have been obvious: that key workers, including postmasters, are essential workers and should have been treated with respect, not suspicion. Why did the Minister’s Department fail to protect workers from a corporate governance failure of this magnitude, and how will it prevent such a failure from happening again?
Paul Scully
The Government have challenged it over the years, especially in recent years—the Horizon situation has come about over 20 years, but as I have said, recently there have been independent reviews in 2013 and investigations in 2015. It is because we have been unable to get a result that we have had to resort to the courts. We need to get to the bottom of this so that we can right the wrongs done to the postmasters of the past and ensure the respect of future postmasters, who must feel secure in their positive relationship with the Post Office.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I fear the cover-up could continue. The Post Office has decided to bring in Herbert Smith Freehills to oversee historic cases. This is the practice that contributed to the cover-up of a fraud at Lloyds HBOS over seven years and oversaw the establishment and operation of the Lloyds bank customer review, which was described by the Financial Conduct Authority’s review of that scheme as discriminatory, flawed and an unacceptable denial of responsibility, and that review is now having to be done again. Does the Minister think the Post Office should reconsider that decision?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend and I spoke about this earlier. As he says, the Post Office decides its own legal advisers. As far as I understand it, the Post Office changed its advisers to Herbert Smith Freehills in the latter stages of the litigation, which resulted in the settlement, good progress in resolving outstanding claimant issues and a successful launch of the historical shortfall scheme.
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP) [V]
Happy birthday from me also, Mr Speaker.
We have seen some movement today from the Government, and I do welcome that as far as it goes, but like the Equitable Life scandal, this is an ongoing deep injustice, as is the plight of people currently suffering under the loan charge. There is a consensus across the House that this just does not go far enough. Could I urge the Minister to build on the progress he has announced today and accept the will of the House that we need a judge-led inquiry to properly ventilate all the issues?
Paul Scully
As I have said, the terms of reference of this review are deep enough to get to the bottom of exactly what has happened. The fact that the chairman, who will be appointed, is independent of Government, independent of Post Office Ltd, and will have the freedom to be able to go and find evidence to complement the evidence that has already been published by Mr Justice Fraser in his judgment means that there will be plenty to draw on in order to come to conclusions and recommendations.
John Howell (Henley) (Con)
Does the Minister not accept that this is as big a scandal as that of the Guildford Four? Although the settlement was reached by mediation, which I approve of, much of that settlement was taken away in cash for lawyers. Can we not do something to ensure that the settlement justifies the indignities that many of these people have had to suffer?
Paul Scully
With regard to the scale of the issue, I agree with my hon. Friend that this has gone on for so long and has involved so many people who have suffered as a result, some with their lives, as we have heard. The point is that the mediated settlement was between the Post Office and the sub-postmasters who took out that group litigation. I am pleased that it came to a conclusion, but, as a result of that, the Government cannot enter into a new discussion with the Post Office on that basis.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
It is noble of the Minister to offer himself up as a human shield for the Post Office in this way, but I hope that, when he returns to the Department today, he will tell his officials, who, I fear, have perhaps not briefed him as well as they might have done, and Post Office senior management that this review will just not cut it. He says that this is a complex case spanning a long period of time, and he is absolutely right about that. That is why it requires a judge-led inquiry. That is what will happen eventually, so why not just cut to the quick and do it now?
Paul Scully
I keep hearing that. I keep hearing the words “judge-led inquiry” and then I keep hearing that we need to move this on as quickly as possible. The point is that the terms of reference within this review are the same as a judge-led inquiry.
Paul Scully
Because I do not want an inquiry that will last 13 years, with sub-postmasters coming back time and again with no justice. I have been pushing on this from the moment that I found out the details about it as postal affairs Minister. That is why I will drive this through to make sure that the answers are heard and that the independent chairman, who is independent of Government and independent of the Post Office, gets to the bottom of the case and gets some answers.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
In 2015, Post Office Ltd closed its own review of Horizon IT by saying that there were “no system-wide problems with our computer systems”. Nothing could have been further from the truth. We have all been let down, and many sub-postmasters have been badly treated. I urge the Minister to start the independent review as soon as possible to discover precisely who knew what and when in Fujitsu, Post Office Ltd, and the National Federation of SubPostmasters. Does he agree that nothing should be ruled out, including criminal prosecution, if justified?
Paul Scully
I totally agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, as the criminal proceedings continue, those wrongly convicted continue as well, and that will sit along with Justice Fraser’s findings. I do want to move this on as quickly as possible—not to rush anything, but to make sure that those postmasters can get answers and bring the injustice to an end.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I add my support for a proper judge-led inquiry, too. Della Robinson was sub-postmaster at Dukinfield post office. She lost her business, the building the post office was in, her rental property, her job, and almost her home. It is just wrong. Can the Minister confirm that the Government are re-evaluating any public positions held by current or former senior employees at the Post Office who were intimately involved in decisions that victimised sub-postmasters?
Paul Scully
I am aware that a former chief executive of the Post Office took up a role as a non-executive director at the Cabinet Office until she stood down. I am also aware that the Care Quality Commission has written to Imperial following a fit-and-proper-persons referral. The CQC is considering this. Lord Callanan wrote to the Department of Health and Social Care on 18 May to draw the Department’s attention to the strength of feeling about the position in the NHS of the former chief executive of the Post Office.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Post offices are at the heart of our communities, yet the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses have been so badly let down. I share the clear anger felt across the House on this issue, but to keep the network open and viable it must be attractive to take on a Post Office franchise. To do that there is the critical question of rebuilding trust. As the Minister holds the Post Office to account, will he hold it to account on how it is rebuilding trust with all sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses right across the network?
Paul Scully
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why some of my first conversations with Nick Read, the current chief executive of the Post Office, have been to ensure that he can do exactly that. We need to draw a line and right the wrongs of the past to give respect and trust, as well as support, for future postmasters to make sure they are valued stakeholders.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
Many innocent sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses have been bankrupted, imprisoned and wrongly accused of theft due to the Post Office’s heavy-handed approach, when accountancy issues with Horizon reported financial irregularities. Sadly, one of my constituents tragically took his own life after being falsely accused of financial impropriety, leaving his family destitute and without their business. It is too late for an apology or compensation for that family. What new procedures have the Post Office introduced to protect sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses as a consequence of this scandal? What protections has the Post Office put in place to ensure accountancy software is fit for purpose? What action will be taken against those in positions of leadership in the Post Office during the scandal? And does the Minister agree that actions speak much louder than words?
Paul Scully
I sympathise with the hon. Lady’s constituent who sadly took his life. That is one of many tragic stories. The fact is that we have now got the Post Office to accept its wrong position and the fact that the Horizon software could make mistakes—things were being changed there. That is why it is important to get that acknowledgment. It is also important that we continue to build trust with sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses in their relationship with the Post Office. That is why every time I speak to the chief executive, I make sure that that is at the top of our agenda.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
If the Government accept that software can never be thought infallible, will the Minister take steps to ensure that the law and policy making reflects the truth that all software has bugs?
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
The Post Office Horizon scandal begs the question: why did the Post Office not believe its own sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, many of whom had given decades of loyal service, even after evidence was presented to them that the Horizon system was most likely faulty? Can the Secretary of State give a cast-iron guarantee, as other hon. and right hon. Members have requested, to all sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses and their families whose lives have been ruined, that there will be a judge-led inquiry, not merely a review, so we can ascertain how this happened, who is responsible and what steps can be taken to ensure that this never happens again?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that promotion to Secretary of State. He raises some really important points. The point is that, whether we call it a review or an inquiry, the terms of reference are exactly as he describes. We want to make sure we can get to the bottom of this to find out who made what decisions and how they were made, and ensure they can never happen again. That is exactly why I have pushed to make this happen as soon as possible.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
Isabella Wall was a sub-postmistress in Barrow. She ran a thriving shop and let flats above the property. As a result of the scandal, she lost everything. She was the very first person to come and see me at a surgery as a newly elected MP and I carry with me the anger she brought to that meeting. Does my hon. Friend accept that while the Post Office has accepted it got things wrong, there is a long, long way to go for people like Ms Wall before they are properly compensated for the financial and emotional losses they faced? Will he confirm that the Government will give weight to fair compensation being paid to wronged sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses?
Paul Scully
Isabella Wall is one of far too many constituents of ours who have suffered in this. The hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi) was right when he said that the Post Office should have had more faith and trust in its sub-postmasters. Of course we will make sure we can get to the bottom of this to get some justice for Isabella Wall. On the group litigation, I am glad that they have reached a settlement. As for sub-postmasters who have not yet been part of a case but may have suffered a shortfall, I encourage them to come forward to take advantage of the historical shortfall scheme the Post Office has launched.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
Many happy returns, Mr Speaker.
There is no doubt that many grave injustices have been served upon sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, some of whom have gone to jail and lost everything. I know that my constituents will want two things. The first is to see justice done and the full facts brought out in a public inquiry, which is why a judge-led public inquiry is so important. They will also want to see their local post office network protected, ensuring it is shielded from the potential ramifications arising from the actions of management. So what plan does the Minister have to ensure both?
Paul Scully
On the inquiry, I have set out the fact that the terms of reference are wide and deep enough. The judge has already reviewed this situation; Justice Fraser has already come up with many, many pages of a response about what happened when and what went wrong. We need to make sure we can build on that evidence, we listen carefully to those who have been wronged and we make sure it can never happen again.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
We are all aware that victims of this scandal have lost their livelihoods, savings and reputations, and that some have lost their liberty, as a result of a faulty computer system. I know that my hon. Friend understands the financial and emotional suffering that the Horizon litigation has brought on the victims, but does he agree that the only right and just situation will be to restore those victims to exactly the financial position they would have been in had this faulty system not occurred? I am talking about full compensation and an apology, and, equally, about the real criminals being brought to justice.
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The point he raises shows why it took a court to get to the bottom of this, to break the deadlock that had been happening over so many years, which should have been settled so much earlier. That is why in December 2019 both parties in the group litigation agreed a settlement, following several days of mediation—it was a financial settlement totalling £57.75 million. Convicted claimants can still go through a further process; processes are in place for them to receive compensation, if appropriate.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) [V]
The Post Office was not slow in dragging hard-working, honest sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses before the courts based on spurious data from a flawed IT system, one that it knew to be flawed, thereby depriving good people at the centre of their communities of their reputations, businesses and personal assets, in some instances their liberty and, tragically, for some their lives. Does the Minister accept that a judge-led public inquiry, not a review, is required now, without delay, and that anything less is a further assault on the welfare of Horizon victims?
Paul Scully
The findings outlined during the Horizon case provided extensive insight into what went wrong with the Post Office—this includes the independent judicial review of the facts that all sides have been looking for. However, the serious impacts of this case mean more needs to be done. We want to be assured that the right lessons are learned, and that is the purpose of the independent review that we are in the process of setting up.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to the postmasters in Beaconsfield and Bucks and across the country who have tirelessly carried on throughout covid-19? Will he also join me in paying tribute to Mr Patel, who passed away from covid-19 and served the people of Hedgerley loyally? He was lovingly known as CD to many of the customers. Will the Minister please not only demand an apology but demand justice for the countless men and women who served and have suffered at the hands of the Post Office, and who see no justice? I hope that he will have the courage to deliver that for them.
Paul Scully
Justice is exactly what I want and what I want to be seen to be done. I would go further to extend my sympathy to the family of Mr Patel as well, because we must not forget, in all of this, at this particular moment in time, postmasters up and down the country are doing an incredible job for the most vulnerable people in society.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
At Prime Minister’s questions on 24 February, the Prime Minister agreed with my request to commit to hold an independent inquiry into this horrific scandal. I followed that question up with a letter to the Prime Minister. Three months later, only this week, I received a response from the Minister. I welcome the Government’s commitment to a review of mishandlings, but this cannot just be a review of past mistakes. With a background of many years in the postal industry, I know many whose lives have been destroyed by this scandal, including sub- postmasters and sub-postmistresses in my constituency of Jarrow. So I ask the Minister again, and make absolutely no apology for doing so: will he commit to having a judge-led review as quickly as possible that will take action against those responsible for the scandal, and ensure that each individual case is assessed and proper compensation is paid to all those affected?
Paul Scully
I thank the hon. Lady for the work that she has done on this matter. Given her background, I can understand her motivation. As I have said, it is important to know that the terms of reference of this independent review are wide enough and deep enough to get to the bottom of what happened. An independent judge has already looked at this and built up a body of evidence and other views, which will be then be looked at as a complement to the review. Do not forget that public inquiries cannot determine criminal or civil guilt in themselves; that is reserved for a court.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
Many colleagues in the House have alluded to the importance of sub-postmasters during this global pandemic. What reassurance can my hon. Friend give that Post Office Ltd has understood that there needs to be fundamental cultural and organisational change to ensure that sub-postmasters come forward and that therefore the critical network of post offices remains in our communities for years to come?
Paul Scully
I think that that lesson has definitely been learned by the new chief executive. Certainly, the Government have worked, as shareholders, on a new framework for the Post Office to make sure that we can build a solid, confident relationship with future sub-postmasters. Nick Read’s background working with independent convenience stores suggests that he is used to working with people as stakeholders rather than as simple employees or instruments of a large company.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
The Minister has said several times that the victims of this situation need to be heard and their cases listened to, so can he name any one of them who is in agreement with his position and is not calling for an independent judge-led inquiry?
Paul Scully
The sub-postmasters who have been wronged by this want some justice and they want it quickly. What I do not want to happen is a public inquiry that may take many, many years and cost them a lot of money to get more legal representation in. When people have the chance to study the terms of reference, they will realise that the chair will be independent of Government and independent of the Post Office, and that he or she will listen to them to make sure that their stories are told—not just listen to them but make sure that those stories are actually there to feed into making sure that this can never happen again. Then, I hope, they will see that justice can be done.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend for his response to my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), but one of the stumbling blocks to a judge-led inquiry is cost. Does he agree that it is absolutely imperative that the honest, decent sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses across the whole country, and indeed specifically in Romsey and Southampton North, should not have a price put on lifting the stain on their characters?
Paul Scully
Sub-postmasters who have been wronged, including in Romsey, need to ensure that their voices can be heard quickly, with no cost. They need to be sure that this can never happen again, and get the acknowledgement that there have been severe mistakes that have caused misery for so many.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
This scandal represents a massive failure of accountability and oversight, not just by Post Office Ltd, but by the Government. Will the Minister apologise to those whose lives have been ruined? What assurances can he provide that the losses arising from the Horizon case will not affect postmasters’ pay and unfairly penalise even more postmasters and sub-postmasters?
Paul Scully
There have been numerous attempts over the years to try to resolve the dispute. The fact is that the Post Office has independent operational control. However, facts have come to light through the litigation, revealing that the advice that the Government and the shareholders received over that period was flawed. That is why the Government will be monitoring closely the progress of the Post Office in delivering the programme of commitments following the settlement, including through the review. We have also reviewed the mechanisms that we have in place to maintain oversight of the Post Office, by increasing the frequency of shareholder meetings, establishing a Post Office policy team within the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, and publishing a framework document to govern the relationship between BEIS, UK Government Investments and the Post Office.
Amy Callaghan (East Dunbartonshire) (SNP) [V]
A very happy birthday to you, Mr Speaker.
This Government have had six months to enact an inquiry—six months to seek justice for the damage, disruption and loss of livelihood caused by this scandal, not just to see whether the Post Office has learnt lessons. The Minister has said that he pushed for the independent review, but what about listening to the sub-postmasters who have been left destitute by this scandal and providing them with the judge-led inquiry they so desperately want? Will the Minister stop stalling with reviews and commit today to a judge-led inquiry?
Paul Scully
We can talk about semantics, but what we actually need are the terms of reference that get people what they want. Whether we call it a review or an inquiry, the fact is that it will understand and acknowledge what went wrong in relation to Horizon by drawing on the evidence. It will assess whether the Post Office has learnt its lessons, whether the commitments made by the Post Office in the mediation settlement have been properly delivered, and whether the processes and information provided by post offices to postmasters are sufficient. It will also examine the governance and whistleblowing controls now in place at Post Office Ltd. That is what we need to ensure that we get answers in as timely a fashion as possible. I am sorry that it has taken six months. These things are complicated; I would love to have announced the review that following day. However, I am glad that we now have terms of reference that are deep and wide enough to get the answers that we need and for which sub-postmasters have desperately been waiting.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My hon. Friend the Minister is quite right to emphasise the need for speed, but people have taken their own lives, and have been wrongly convicted and imprisoned. It does not get much more serious than that. This House is here to defend the liberties of our constituents. Will he bear in mind that the Prime Minister confirmed on 26 February that there would indeed be an inquiry, and, following this urgent question, will he discuss with his colleagues in the Government whether the will of the House may be different on this point from the will of the Government?
Paul Scully
We have looked at the different options. I do not want something that is long, drawn out and costly for sub-postmasters, and which does not necessarily get any answers for years and years to come, if ever. Someone used to say to me, “Less haste, more speed.” Yes, we need to ensure that we can do this in a timely fashion, but that does not mean that we need to rush through the detail as the review is going ahead. We need to listen to the views of the sub-postmasters who have been wronged and put that alongside the findings of Justice Fraser to ensure that such things will never happen again.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
The Government speak as if there is nothing that they could have done as a special shareholder. Well, of course they could have done something. This situation has left communities in York, such as Clifton, bereft of a post office. The fact is that the Government sat on their hands and did not use their powers, and sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses were thrown into jail and made bankrupt, and some took their lives. Do the Government not want a full, judge-led inquiry with the powers necessary to investigate and dig deep because a review does not hold those powers and will not expose their failings in this matter?
Paul Scully
The Post Office has said that it will comply fully with this review. I will push fully for that compliance, and I am sure that the independent chair will want to get right to the bottom of things, however long that takes. We need to get on with the review and get it started now.
On the Government’s actions over the past few years, this issue happened over 20 years, and with hindsight facts have come to light in the litigation that some of the advice received was flawed. However, we have pushed for many years to make sure that we can get a settlement, and I am glad that we are at the point at which we can start to get some answers.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
As a barrister of more than 30 years’ experience, I have witnessed at first hand the sheer devastation that a wrong conviction, or even a false accusation, can bring to a family. This is the United Kingdom. This is an injustice. Will the Minister reassure me that following the review there will be real sanctions, because this injustice has effectively destroyed a much-loved public institution?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. She is right about its being a much-loved institution. What we must not lose is the amazing work of post offices and sub-postmasters up and down the country. We must make sure that their reputations are not tarnished by what happened over a 20-year period. We need answers as quickly as possible, so that I, the Government and all of us can see the recommendations that the chairman will bring forward from that review.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Many happy returns, Mr Speaker.
For the Patels, moving from being managers of Acton Crown post office for more than three decades to their own sub-postmaster role in the country was meant to be a dream come true, but it turned into a nightmare when they lost not only substantial sums of money but their mental and physical health and their reputations. Mr Patel ended up with a criminal electronic tag—the humiliation of it. They want to know why in Acton, for more than 20 years, they were seen as upstanding pillars of the community—they handled multi-million pound sums and had a safe key—but suddenly in Oxfordshire they were falsely branded as criminals. Why did it take the Criminal Cases Review Commission to say that there had been a miscarriage of justice? Where was the oversight? Finally, can the Minister make good on the promise that Paula Vennells gave me in 2018 that Acton Crown post office will reopen? It closed on her watch, and she has since done a runner.
Paul Scully
We have had the most stable network of post offices for a number of years now, on which—obviously, covid-19 notwithstanding—we need to make sure we can build. I also want answers to why the three Patels—her constituents, who were fine, upstanding members of the community—were seen in that way because of the actions of the Post Office. That is why we need to get this review done and why we need to get the independent chairman’s recommendations out, so that we can see justice done.
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
Many happy returns of the day, Mr Speaker.
The scale of this scandal demands no less than a judge-led inquiry that has appropriate power. Why can the Minister not accept that that is the only way to examine fully and get answers on how this sorry saga went on for so long and caused so much misery and heartache to my constituents and thousands more across the country?
Paul Scully
We have 1,000 pages of Justice Fraser’s findings to build on. Reviews are going through to over- turn and look at a number of convictions. We have this review to build on all of that. I hope and believe that all that body of work will find the answers that sub-postmasters are after about when decisions were taken, who took those decisions, how they went wrong and how they were allowed to go wrong. The fact is that we must get some answers so that it can never happen again.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
I think the Minister is doing an excellent job, and I have been in his position, where I have announced a review but was not allowed to call it a review. I appreciate that he might think the difference between a review and an inquiry is just semantics, but for many people those semantics really matter. I share colleagues’ views about the need for an independent inquiry. I would also like to know what the Minister will do about financial compensation. He has said that there are limits on what the Government can do, but it is really important that he looks at this again and sees what steps can be taken to ensure that those affected are fully and fairly compensated.
Paul Scully
In terms of compensation, the mediation that took place allowed a settlement to be reached by the members of that group litigation. Other sub-postmasters who have been found to be wrongly convicted will be able to go through other procedures to get compensation, and any postmasters who were not part of that litigation but suffered a shortfall as a result of the Post Office will be able to apply to the historical scheme. I believe that this review will be able to get to the answers and build on the body of evidence that Justice Fraser has built up through the findings of his court case. There will be a lot of answers and recommendations there to secure the future trust and relationship between postmasters and the Post Office.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) [V]
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
Following this case being taken to the High Court, I have read that some Fujitsu employees are being investigated for perjury, which is a big deal. What discussions has the Minister had with the Attorney General and the Ministry of Justice on this issue, and when will he announce a judge-led inquiry into this whole sorry debacle?
Paul Scully
My understanding is that Justice Fraser has referred a number of people to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Derek Thomas (St Ives) (Con)
I hope that all the time taken to wish you a happy birthday has not delayed any celebration you might have planned for later, Mr Speaker.
I want to raise a case that is one of many. Susan Knight was a postmistress of 32 years who was dragged before magistrates courts three times and Truro Crown court twice and made to pay over £20,000. This lady’s life was made a misery, with her reputation trashed and 32 years of service for the Post Office counting for nothing. It is too late for her to rebuild her business. She is basically left with nothing. Can the Minister assure me, my constituents and Susan Knight that she will be adequately compensated in good time without a huge effort to achieve that result?
Paul Scully
My hon. Friend refers to Susan Knight. He has also told me about another constituent of his who was the landlady of a local pub and lost that pub. It was another terrible story, alongside those we have heard from Members on both sides of the House about their constituents. In terms of compensation, members of the group litigation have reached a settlement, and I am pleased that a settlement was reached after many years and that the deadlock was broken. As I said, anybody else who has not claimed can join the historical shortfall scheme, and if people have been wrongly convicted, there will be procedures in place for them to claim compensation.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Happy birthday, Mr Speaker.
While the Post Office was wilfully hiding its own failings, it operated a system where sub-postmasters were automatically guilty. The Post Office then ran its own prosecutions, so in effect, it was judge, jury and executioner. This proves that we need a judge-led public inquiry, with all the powers associated with that, to get full disclosure and a call for evidence. In the meantime, can the Minister tell me what steps the Government have taken to ensure that this abuse of power can never be replicated and that sub-postmasters now have fair and transparent contracts?
Paul Scully
Justice Fraser is that independent judge who has looked into exactly what the hon. Gentleman described, which is why we want to build on those findings in what happens next. The Post Office has realised and finally acknowledged that it has done wrong. The fact is that the Government, within our new relationship and new framework as the sole shareholder in the Post Office, need to ensure that we can analyse the work that is done to earn trust and rebuild the relationship with future sub-postmasters.
Chris Loder (West Dorset) (Con)
The biggest disgrace about all this is that innocent people have been incarcerated and imprisoned. Can the Minister confirm whether there are any sub-postmasters or sub-postmistresses currently in prison? If that is the case, will he commit to expediting immediately a full investigation into those specific cases for their release, if that is appropriate?
Paul Scully
What we are not going to do with the review is get in the way of the Criminal Cases Review Commission. It is really important that it does actually go through that process as quickly as possible for any number of reasons, not least to lift the conviction of people wrongly convicted. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to decry the fact that people have been put in prison wrongly. Their reputation has suffered, their lives have suffered and, indeed, in certain cases their lives have ended. That is why I want to make sure that we can get on, set up this review and find those answers to move forward.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
If the review that the Minister proposes is just as deep and wide-ranging in going into the complexities as a judge-led inquiry, the question is why it should be less time consuming and more cost-effective than a judge-led inquiry. I understand that the Government always say no before they say yes, so for the last time today, will he commit to a judge-led inquiry?
Paul Scully
I can give the hon. Member one easy answer as to why it takes so long, and that is lawyers. If we have a public inquiry, we tend to get a lot of expense, with both sides lawyering up, to use the vernacular. That is why £600 million has been spent in the last 30 years on public inquiries. We can either spend a lot of time in working on such a case, or we can get through a review, build on the work of the independent judge who has already looked at this case and has already built up the foundations, and make sure that we add to that by listening to the voices of those people who have gone through absolute hell.
Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)
Hearty birthday felicitations, Mr Speaker.
Throughout the financial and emotional suffering the Horizon process has caused postmasters and their families across the country, I have been kept informed of developments by the Bailgate post office sub-postmaster, Simon Clarke, in my constituency of Lincoln. Can my hon. Friend tell me and the House how many senior managers responsible for the position that the Post Office has taken have resigned or been sanctioned or had any bonus payments revoked?
Paul Scully
I thank my hon. Friend. One of the problems with this case is that it has happened over 20 years, which means that a lot of people have moved on or moved around, and it has been difficult to follow those who have gone through the system in all this time. [Interruption.] I hear the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) say from a sedentary position that we gave the former chief executive a CBE. We have followed that up: she went through the independent honours commission, which works on that in a separate process, but we have actually made sure that we have written to the Care Quality Commission to ask if she is a fit and proper person in terms of the position she now holds.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for including me on the call list.
I sympathise with my hon. Friend, and I know that he will have heard what has been said today and will be listening very carefully. A succession of his predecessors have come to that Dispatch Box over years to read out statements from officials who we know have closely connected relationships with Post Office management and who knew that an injustice had occurred. What will he do to tackle the network of intertwined vested interests on his doorstep—and I include the Cabinet Office and ex-Fujitsu employees—that led to this shameful and tragic scandal and cover-up?
Paul Scully
It may be that many Government Ministers have come here, but it is this Government Minister who has actually pushed to make sure that we can have a review and that we can have it independently chaired—separate from the Post Office, separate from Government —to come up with those answers. That is what postmasters want. We have made sure in Government that we have come up with a new framework for an increased frequency of shareholder meetings to ensure that we can hold the Post Office to account for its actions, but also ensure that the taxpayer gets the most out of the Post Office, communities get the most out of the Post Office and, importantly, postmasters can feel confident they can build up a trustful relationship as valued stakeholders within the post office network.
Mr Speaker
In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am now suspending the House for three minutes.
Local Electricity
Wednesday 10th June 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Local Electricity Bill 2019-21 View all Local Electricity Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable electricity generators to become local electricity suppliers; and for connected purposes.
As the UK emerges from the lockdown, and as we look out across a different landscape, there is a need to rebuild local communities and local economies for the benefit of local people and local businesses and, in doing so, to meet head-on the challenge of climate change. To do that successfully, we need power—electricity in a low-carbon form, to light up and to heat our homes and workplaces and to run our transport networks and our vehicles.
In recent years, the UK has made great strides in decarbonising our energy system, but we still have a very long way to go, and the way we regulate the supply of electricity means that we are in effect operating with one arm tied behind our backs. We currently have a system that prevents local generators from becoming local suppliers. This very short Bill would help remove that barrier. I thank Power for People, which has carried out most of the background research, campaigning and preparatory work ahead of this Bill.
Today we face two great challenges: one immediate—the seismic economic shock created by the covid-19 pandemic —and the other looming large, which is the devastating impact of climate change. The Bill addresses both challenges. As a nation, we have made significant progress in meeting the targets under the Climate Change Act 2008, but the Committee on Climate Change is clear that ambitious new policy and regulation is needed if we are to continue to meet those targets in the future. At present, renewable electricity generation accounts for only 11% of all UK energy use, and our transport and heating networks need to be electrified to decarbonise our economy. To ensure that the dramatic rise in electricity demand that this will create is met by renewable generation, we must put the right policy and regulatory frameworks in place.
There is tremendous potential for a significant proportion of renewable energy generation to come from new community projects right across the country, whether solar, hydro on rivers and estuaries, batteries in former factories, or wind in the uplands. Such schemes can bring many benefits to many local economies—opportunities that are desperately needed, given the devastating economic impact of the covid-19 pandemic. A Government report published in 2014 found that the community energy sector could deliver at least 3,000 MW of generating capacity, yet at present it is producing only a tenth of that, equating to less than 0.5% of our total generating capacity.
There is a great opportunity for renewable energy to be the lead player in the economic recovery, but it is being blocked by the current energy market and licensing rules that lead to huge costs and burdensome bureaucracy being imposed on new supply entrants, with the result that some great and highly innovative schemes never see the light of day. A report by the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that the financial, technical and operational challenges involved in setting up a licensed energy supply company are such that the initial costs could exceed £1 million. It is a bit like someone setting up a micro-brewery, planning to deliver their beers to local pubs, off-licences and homes, and then being told that they have to pay £1 million in road tax for their delivery van.
To solve the problem, the costs and complexity of being a licensed electricity supplier must be proportionate to the supply of the supply operation. If they are, it becomes financially viable for renewable generators to supply electricity, and suppliers will spring up all over the country. This is what happens in Germany, where there are 1,000 such supply companies, compared with 60 in the UK. Most of them are local suppliers, which are community owned and supply renewable energy. Germany’s big four control only 40% of the market. We need to empower local community groups and businesses to sell locally generated clean energy directly to local people and local companies.
The Bill would do that by establishing a right to local supply. That would give the energy market regulator, Ofgem, the duty to establish new market rules that ensure that the set-up and running costs of selling locally generated energy directly to local consumers are proportionate to the scale of the supply business. The Bill is a first attempt to lay out a mechanism that will fix the UK’s local supply problem. It is accepted that there is scope for improvement and refinement, and new ideas are welcome for how that can be done.
Clause 1 states the purpose of the Bill: to enable the local supply of electricity. Clause 2 states that it is generators of electricity that can become local suppliers. This is intended to achieve the aim of smaller-scale renewable generators being able to supply electricity to a local area. There is a case for amending the clause to allow any organisation to become a local licensed supplier; the logic for that is that currently licensed suppliers do not also need to be generators.
Clause 3 goes to the heart of the Bill and gives Ofgem the task of setting up the local supplier licence process; it also requires that the process ensures that local suppliers face set-up costs and complexity proportionate to the scale of their operations. The exact details of that process are not laid out in the Bill, as it is believed that Ofgem should carry out this task. Subsection (1) requires Ofgem to set up the local supply licence mechanism to ensure that the costs and complexity of becoming a local supplier are proportionate to the size of the operation. Subsection (3) allows for the local supplier operation to be based on a radius area, although that could arguably be improved, if amended, to be a defined area.
The result of the Bill would be that building new community-scale renewable generation infrastructure and selling the electricity direct to local people through a locally licensed energy supply company would become financially viable. The benefits would be significant. These new local energy businesses, creating local jobs and being paid by local customers, would keep significant additional value in their local economies, thereby making them stronger. There would also be the knock-on benefit of greater public support for the transition to sustainable energy. There would be improved air quality. The nation’s energy supply would be more secure and less dependent on imports. Being able to sell to local customers would reduce the need for renewable subsidies. Renewable generators would receive significantly more than their current 4p per kilowatt-hour and would be paid by their customers, not the state.
It may sound as though I am painting a picture of utopia, but this is nothing new. It has been done before. Local amenities across the UK, such as parks, swimming pool baths and libraries, were built from the revenues of the municipal energy companies of the 19th and early 20th centuries. In this respect, we need to turn back the clock.
One hundred and fifty-one MPs from right across the Chamber have declared their support for the Bill, from all parties. This is an advance on the 116 Members who did so when a presentation Bill was submitted in the last Session. Power for People, which is co-ordinating the public campaign for the Bill, have also mobilised the grassroots movement and brought together a broad coalition of support, including from 50 national non-governmental organisations and 43 local councils.
In conclusion, the Bill would enable local people to come up with local solutions to meet the challenge of climate change. In doing so, they would be creating sustainable jobs and making their local economies more resilient. I am very much aware that, very often, Bills such as this do not advance very far in this and the other place, but let us work together to turn the compelling objectives of this Bill into reality. It is now time to deliver power for people.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Peter Aldous, Sir Graham Brady, Rosie Duffield, Wera Hobhouse, Dame Diana Johnson, David Johnston, Ben Lake, Caroline Lucas, John Mc Nally, John Penrose, Selaine Saxby and Mr Barry Sheerman present the Bill.
Peter Aldous accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 135).
Senior Courts of England and Wales
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
I beg to move,
That the draft Court of Appeal (Recording and Broadcasting) (Amendment) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 12 March, be approved.
The statutory instrument before the House today is intended to enable the inclusion of family proceedings within a pilot project testing the live-streaming of Court of Appeal hearings. The order advances the shared commitment between the Government and the judiciary to increase public engagement and understanding of the court system.
Currently, the recording and broadcasting of court proceedings in England and Wales is prohibited by section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 and section 9 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981. By virtue of section 23 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, the Lord Chancellor, with the agreement of the Lord Chief Justice, can make an order in some circumstances lifting the prohibition. That was done in 2013 to allow the recording and broadcasting of proceedings in the civil and criminal divisions of the Court of Appeal. However, that was not extended to the family division. The order before the House today lifts the prohibition on broadcasting and recording hearings in the Court of Appeal in relation to family cases for the first time, thereby furthering our objective of opening up the visibility of justice.
Let me make it clear that whether or not a particular case is actually broadcast will remain a matter for the judge overseeing and hearing the case, so judicial discretion will apply. The confidentiality and anonymity of the parties will be maintained, so the names of any children or the names of parties to a divorce hearing will not be disclosed. Only the judges and the advocates will be broadcast. If by any chance there were a litigant in person, for example, or sensitive witness testimony, we would expect the judge not to allow that to be broadcast, although in the Court of Appeal it is very rare for any witnesses to appear; the arguments tend to be on points of law. So let me reassure the House that the confidentiality of the parties will be fully maintained.
I should add that this order makes no further change to any family proceedings and the confidentiality applying to those; it is simply about broadcasting. I notice the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is present, and I should add that this applies only to England and Wales; it does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland.
The order is a small but welcome step in the direction of further opening up our justice system and I commend it to the House.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
I shall be brief; I have just a few comments and a couple of questions for the Government.
This is the fifth time that I have seen the Minister in the past four sitting days, as we have sat on our respective Front Benches, and the fourth time that he has the Opposition’s support for a piece of legislation. But neither I nor the Labour party are going to start going soft on the Tories. Far from it—as the Leader of the Opposition said when he was elected, when the Government get it right, we will support them, whilst holding them to account.
We on this side of the House have demonstrated in the past that we support measures such as the online streaming of public court cases to create a more transparent and fair justice system, and I hope the move towards supporting digital justice where possible extends well beyond coronavirus and becomes a substantial part of our justice system. But whether in court hearings or the recording of court proceedings, digital justice must be done properly and be seen to serve justice in every situation.
This instrument will facilitate live streaming of family Court of Appeal cases, allowing the broadcasting of judgments and advocates’ arguments in family cases in the Court of Appeal. It is a positive move, which will allow the public to see what happens in court in one of the most sensitive areas, and it will allow them to hear the decisions of judges in their own words.
I hope that Ministers may even take the opportunity of watching proceedings from the family court and others, particularly when people are forced to represent themselves in what are often complex legal matters because of the absence of legal aid. I hope that the Government will learn from the broadcasts and that they can find a way to make the system work more fairly and effectively.
Family proceedings are often regarded as insufficiently transparent, and this motion will go some way towards tackling that and helping people who are totally bamboozled by the whole court process. However, in such a move consideration must be given to matters such as protecting what are often some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Family court cases can involve highly emotional and sensitive matters and we must take seriously even any potential issues relating to safeguarding. The Minister has talked about that, but I ask him to say a little more about the safeguarding processes that will be in place to meet the need to protect these people while making this move to greater transparency.
Steps must also be taken to address the digital divide in our society and to ensure that, by opening up justice for people to engage with, we do not just find ourselves in a situation where people are excluded because they do not have the appropriate equipment to access it. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that. Ultimately, though, we welcome the steps that this order is taking and look forward to working with the Government to ensure that justice is even more open and transparent.
Chris Philp
I thank the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman for the constructive and thoughtful approach he has been taking this week, and I look forward to that continuing for many months and years to come. I shall briefly answer his principal questions. On the matter of digital access to courts more generally, I completely concur with everything he said. We are absolutely committed to expanding and extending digital access. In particular, the roll-out of the cloud video platform, which is happening as we speak and due to be completed in the Crown courts and magistrates courts by the end of this month, is a critical part of that. I am glad that we can work together in pushing that programme even further.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am really keen to see the system that is coming in for England and Wales being used in Northern Ireland when the opportunity arises. Is it possible that discussions could take place with the police and justice authorities and through the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that this pilot scheme could also be done in Northern Ireland?
Chris Philp
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. Those matters are in the hands of the Northern Ireland Assembly and Executive, but I would certainly be happy to pass on to the Northern Ireland Justice Minister the lessons that we are learning from the jurisdiction in England and Wales, and I would of course encourage them to follow the same path that we are treading if they wished to do so.
On the question of safeguards, the key safeguard in all this is the control that the judge exercises in how a case is conducted. It is still a matter for judicial discretion whether any individual case can be streamed and broadcast. As I said in my opening remarks, we would expect judges not to livestream cases where a litigant in person was present or if there was witness testimony where the identity of the witness might be a matter of sensitivity. We are, as we often do, entrusting to the judge the sensible and safe management of any individual case. With that, I commend this order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I consider that there is no need to suspend the House on this occasion, as I observe that everyone who is intending to leave has now left, and everyone who is intending to be present is now present. So we will proceed immediately to motion No. 3 on Exiting the European Union (Civil Aviation).
Exiting the European Union (Civil Aviation)
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Rachel Maclean)
I beg to move,
That the draft Civil Aviation (Insurance) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 5 March, be approved.
It is a great pleasure to debate this statutory instrument. It is my first SI debate on the Floor of the House, and I had my first ever SI debate only yesterday.
This draft instrument will be made under the powers conferred by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and will be needed at the end of the transition period. As hon. Members are aware, the Government are committed to ensuring that the UK has a functioning statute book at the end of the transition period, while we continue to work to achieve a positive future relationship with the EU. Although the Government will seek to reach the best outcome for the UK and the EU, it is our duty to make reasonable preparations for all scenarios, including by ensuring that there is a functioning statute book, irrespective of the outcome of the negotiations. To that extent, we have conducted intensive work to ensure that there continues to be a well-functioning legislative and regulatory regime for aviation, including for insurance.
This instrument is made under section 8 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It is subject to the affirmative procedure because it transfers an EU legislative function to a public authority in the UK. This procedure also enables the right level of parliamentary scrutiny for the proposed changes.
EU regulation 785/2004 requires air carriers and aircraft operators to be insured in respect of passengers, baggage, cargo and third parties, and against other risks, such as acts of war, terrorism, hijacking, sabotage, unlawful seizure of aircraft and civil commotion.
The amounts for which carriers and operators are required to be insured are measured in special drawing rights, an international reserve asset created by the International Monetary Fund.
The EU regulation also requires air carriers and aircraft operators to demonstrate their compliance with the minimum insurance requirements set out in the regulation. Elements of the regulation were developed in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US. They make provision for exceptional situations where a failure of the insurance market means that carriers are not able to demonstrate that they are adequately insured in respect of all the risks specified in the regulation.
The withdrawal Act will retain regulation 785/2004 in UK law in its entirety at the end of the transition period. The draft regulations we are considering make further changes that are necessary so that the EU regulation continues to function correctly after the end of the transition period. The withdrawal Act will ensure that the same minimum insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators that apply today continue to apply after the transition period.
The Civil Aviation (Insurance) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018, which were debated in Committee in October 2018, made changes to the retained regulation so that it continues to function correctly after EU exit. The need for this additional statutory instrument arose due to the EU adopting regulation 2019/1243, which amended regulation 785/2004, after the 2018 regulations were made. The purpose of this SI is to fixed further deficiencies introduced by those amendments.
The amendments made by this SI are technical in nature. Regulation 785/2004 includes powers for the Commission to adjust minimum required levels of insurance where international treaties make that necessary. The 2018 regulations converted those powers into powers for the Secretary of State to do the same via regulations. However, since the 2018 regulations were made, the EU’s amendments to regulation 785/2004 have replaced the Commission powers with new versions more closely aligned to the legal framework established by the treaty of Lisbon.
To ensure that UK legislation continues to function correctly after the end of the transition period, these regulations take the same approach used in the 2018 regulations for the previous versions of the Commission powers. They replace them with powers for the Secretary of State to amend the minimum insurance requirements by regulations. That is what the SI is for. In summary, no change in policy is made by these regulations; they make only minor technical and consequential changes to ensure that UK legislation on aviation insurance continues to function effectively after the end of the transition period.
As I said in my opening remarks, we continue to work to achieve a positive future relationship with the EU. However, this instrument is an essential element in ensuring that we have a functioning statute book at the end of the transition period. It makes technical changes to ensure that UK legislation on aviation insurance continues to function. I hope colleagues will join me in supporting the regulations, which I commend to the House.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
It has been some four years since I stood at this Dispatch Box, so it is a pleasure to be back. I took part in Transport orals a few weeks ago, but that was on one of the screens above us. I am very pleased to be here shadowing the Minister today. We have already established a constructive relationship. We debated our first statutory instrument together yesterday in Committee. As I said to her, I will be writing to her and scrutinising what she does, but in a spirit of constructive working. We have the decarbonisation of transport brief and the EU transition brief, both of which are incredibly important in the current circumstances.
The statutory instrument that we are discussing today is uncontroversial in that we accept that, now that Britain has left the European Union and the end of the transition period is in sight, we need to transfer relevant powers away from the European Commission and to the Secretary of State for Transport as smoothly as possible. I understand, a number of statutory instruments will be issuing forth from the Minister in the coming months, and that could be seen as a mechanistic process to ensure continuity. That does not mean to say, however, that we will not scrutinise and challenge if we have concerns about the way that the Government are doing things.
As the Minister said, the function of the measure is to ensure that there are minimum insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators in respect of passengers’ baggage, cargo and third parties. My understanding is that that stems from the 1999 Montreal convention, whereby airlines are responsible for compensation in the case of death and injury to passengers, and are required to be adequately insured to cover any liabilities. The EU civil aviation insurance regulation sets out the minimum level required.
I have one question, which the Minister may have answered in her opening remarks. Given that the statutory instrument transfers power from the European Commission to the Secretary of State to set those minimum requirements, and that he—or she in future—can do so by regulation, is there potentially a risk that the minimum insurance levels will not be the same as they would be if we were still part of the EU scheme? I think that is quite an important point to note.
The statutory instrument is one of many that the Government are having to rush through Parliament as a result of what I would say is an unnecessary focus on an arbitrary date in our exit from the transition period. Given the limitations on parliamentary scrutiny at the moment because of the need for social distancing and the fact that not as many Members can take part in proceedings, as well as the delay that we have had over the past few months, there is a danger that we could be rushing delegated legislation rather than giving it the proper attention that it deserves. Given the need for certainty for the people who will be affected by such legislation, we do not want a logjam towards the end of the year, giving rise to uncertainty about whether arrangements will be put in place or not.
The fact that we have now got started, and that we have dealt with two of the statutory instruments this week, is a good start. I do not think, however, that fixing in law the end date for the transition period has been beneficial to the legislative process, and I am uneasy about the apparent lack of progress in ongoing negotiations with the European Union. The concerns about a damaging exit at the end of the year are very real. That is particularly important for the aviation industry, given that we are in a time of unprecedented economic upheaval for the sector.
The aviation sector’s need for certainty has never been greater. Brexit will inevitably have an impact on a business that is, by its very nature, about crossing borders and relationships with other countries, and the global pandemic has hit aviation especially hard. There has been a devastating collapse in air traffic of approximately 90%, which is putting at risk an economically vital industry that supports 230,000 jobs.
We need clarity from the Government on three major policy areas. The first is the one that we are discussing today—the legislation related to the European Union and the transition period. We also need clarity on the financial support for the industry, and on the nature of the measures that the industry must implement to avoid further spread of covid-19.
I am pleased that today we are establishing a degree of clarity on one aspect, as it relates to the EU transition period, but confusion still reigns over the Government’s quarantine for new arrivals, and we continue to wait for a specific conditional support package for the aviation industry. I and my colleagues in the shadow Transport team are very happy to work with Ministers to try to ensure that the aviation industry is given the certainty, the clarity, the direction and the support that it needs.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
This is my first chance to welcome the Minister and the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) to their places. I congratulate them both on securing such an important brief at such a critical time.
I am pleased to support the Government on the Bill. As we leave the European Union and become a sovereign state once again, we should feel capable of regulating our own affairs, and to set our own level of insurance requirements in aviation. Just as it makes sense to control our own fisheries and protect our own marine environment, so it makes sense to do so for the sky above our heads. The acid test of a regulatory structure, however, must be whether it supports the aviation and aerospace sectors.
Having taken back control, we must be generous and collaborative with our international partners. I encourage the Minister, therefore, to seek bilateral aviation safety agreement with both the US Federal Aviation Authority and the European Union Aviation Safety Agency and ensure that where there are opportunities to deregulate further than either, we remain in alignment with both in respect of matters such as type certification, personnel licensing and trading standards.
While I am on the subject of regulation, I should like to congratulate Sir Stephen Hillier on his appointment as the new chair of the Civil Aviation Authority. My constituency, as well as being one of the most beautiful from the ground, is even more spectacular from the air. It is home to the excellent South Down gliding club, formed in 1930 and one of the oldest in the United Kingdom. Sir Stephen has a distinguished aviation career, and I ask him to consider making one of his priorities during his term in office the protection of airspace for recreational general aviation, such as gliding, which is so critical to providing affordable access to the skies and thereby inspiring future generations.
Going into this pandemic, our aviation sector was world leading in growth, jobs and competitiveness, but that is now at real risk. Aviation has taken the full force of the economic impact of the covid-19 crisis, devastated by border closures and the drop in passenger demand. Many of my constituents work for British Airways, Virgin, TUI and other airlines, or for businesses that are part of the extended Gatwick supply chain. I know of constituents such as Antonello and Grainne Patteri, who have served British Airways loyally for 24 years but whose loyalty sadly is not being reciprocated. I share their worry and frustration at how they are being treated, and it is right that I raise it with the Minister today.
While other industries are beginning their recovery, the downturn for aviation has only been exacerbated by the imposition of blanket quarantine, which hangs the “closed” sign on Britain just as our competitors reopen for business. I believe that the Minister fully understands, having previously worked in the financial sector, that if planes full of passengers from Iceland, whose last death from covid was in April, or from covid-free New Zealand were landing in the UK this afternoon, it would actually lower our average infection rate. I am reassured by the Government’s undertakings to implement air bridges as a matter of urgency, as well as to look again at testing on arrival—something I first raised in April—but could she be so kind as to provide an update in her winding-up speech?
My final point relates to future opportunities. Together with quantum computing, artificial intelligence, fintech and the life sciences, aviation and aerospace is one of the key industrial sectors where UK businesses have a global competitive advantage in a growing and high-value industry.
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I apologise for my late entrance, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was sauntering over unaware that the last SI had been moved formally. The sauntering turned into a sprint when I saw the monitor.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. For the avoidance of doubt, I must say that in current circumstances it is not necessary for everyone who is taking part in a debate to be here at the beginning—just in case the House happens to be full and we want to keep the numbers down. Most unusually, therefore, the hon. Gentleman has done nothing wrong.
Gavin Newlands
I will take that in the spirit in which it was intended, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The SI comes at a difficult time for the aviation sector, as has been highlighted, and one that undoubtedly will see a significantly impacted and reduced sector by the time these regulations come into force. Notwithstanding the fact that Scotland is being dragged out of the EU and the transition period against our collective will, and that the regulations are therefore a matter of regret to us, it is not in our or anyone’s interest to interrupt regulations that ensure minimum insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators in respect of passengers’ baggage, cargo and third parties.
With that said, in looking at the issue of insurance in aviation, perhaps we should be debating whether airlines have or can access appropriate business interruption insurance to cover situations such as the one that we face right now. If they had that insurance, we might not now be in a situation in which so many of our constituents waited inordinate lengths of time to secure a refund—indeed, many are still fighting to get one. That is why we on the SNP Benches have called on the Government to implement a travel guarantee fund, which may well still be necessary.
In my dealings with operators, they have said that the rights in respect of cancellation refunds in essence go only one way. In other words, if the holiday provider cancels a holiday, be it because of travel advice or any other reason, the consumer is entitled to a full refund, but if the passenger cancels a holiday because of Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advice on the date of travel or the Government’s quarantine policy, only a portion of the refund, according to the terms and conditions of the bookings, is payable. Although it strays outside the scope of the regulations, does the Minister think that is fair?
The sector may not be as scaled down as we fear if the Government show the same level of support for this strategic sector as that shown by many other Governments around the world, including Scotland’s. I do not want to stray any further from the tight confines of the regulations, but other issues—including the situation facing workers at Rolls-Royce and British Airways, and right across the sector—may well be raised in much detail in my Adjournment debate, which will follow proceedings and which I am shamelessly plugging right now.
To conclude, I reiterate that despite the fact that we do not accept the basis by which the UK Government give effect to legislation that takes Scotland out of the EU, nor the transfer of discretionary powers from the Commission—an organisation accountable to the European Parliament and member states—to Ministers as individuals, we recognise the need to ensure that EU regulations are maintained on exit day, regardless of the constitutional situation. That is in the interests of consumers, passengers and businesses, and as such, we will not vote against the motion.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I wish the Minister every success in her new role; we look forward to watching her progress. It is also nice to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), in her place. I am sure a long career beckons for both—perhaps in different roles, but it is none the less important to say that.
I thank the Government, and the Minister in particular, for bringing forward the regulations to ensure that the removal of what would be onerous European legislation is complete. The very nature of aviation means that we travel large distances into different countries and uphold their aviation rules, but the fact is that we must be the ones who set our own standards, and they must be safe and appropriate and give the cover that is needed, as the Minister indicated.
Regulation (EC) 785/2004 established minimum insurance requirements for air carriers and aircraft operators in respect of passengers, baggage, cargo and third parties. It also required air carriers and aircraft operators to have insurance that covers specific risks, including all things that could possibly take place—acts of war, terrorism, hijacking, acts of sabotage, the unlawful seizure of aviation and civil commotion. Such protections obviously need to be in place, yet the point of the matter is that if anything is to change in our aviation, it is imperative that although we will in all likelihood align with basic regulations, the decision lies where it should: with Ministers of our Government.
Our aviation sector is in unprecedented times. The regulations before the House remind the industry that we have a role to play in the industry going forward, as other Members have said. Whether that is by supporting the industry through production in the Bombardier factory in Newtownards in my constituency, similarly to the situation mentioned by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith); by supporting our airports to enable them to maintain connectivity across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and globally; by supporting airline staff and their baggage handlers; or by supporting individual airlines—for instance, British Airways, to which the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs referred, and in respect of which a number of my constituents, some with 30-plus years of loyal commitment to British Airways, are very concerned about their future—the pandemic will mean change for our aviation sector. Hard times are ahead, but tomorrow can be a better day if we have the commitment that the Minister and our Government are showing for the aviation sector.
We have a role to play, and this statutory instrument clearly shows that we are determined to leave Europe and stand alone at that date, regardless of coronavirus and European determination to exploit an awful time not just for the global economy, but for all the families directly involved with the aviation sector in the UK. This small wording and legislative change shows not only that are we prepared to leave, but that we are mindful of the needs of the industry and are equipped to deal with those needs. It is such a small change, which may seem meaningless to some, yet the message is clear: the aviation industry is a priority for Members of this House. I, for one, will look into anything that affects the strength of the industry. With that in mind, I support this instrument, which brings power back to the House.
Rachel Maclean
This is a great opportunity for Members across the House to express their support for the aviation industry in their own constituencies and across the whole country. The Government share that support.
The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) has given a clear and welcome commitment that she will be supporting this SI, although I understand that she may reserve the right to oppose and debate in the future, as is absolutely right. She asked about the transfer of powers from the European Commission to the Secretary of State. I can reassure her that as part of preparations for leaving the European Union, we, as a responsible Government, are preparing for all scenarios. We absolutely expect that the minimum insurance levels will apply for aviation in any scenario. She referred to the amount of SIs that we have to get through. Ministers are working closely with officials in the Department to ensure that we can reach those commitments, and we expect to be able to do so. We expect to stick to the commitments that we have given, especially on aviation.
The hon. Lady referred to the financial support that we are looking to provide to the aviation industry. The Aviation Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Kelly Tolhurst), has discussed those points at the Dispatch Box, and I will certainly take the hon. Lady’s comments back to her. A vast range of support has been given to businesses across the country, including many of the airlines that we all use. We expect that to continue and will keep all those measures under review.
The hon. Lady finally asked me a little bit about the Government’s position on social distancing and quarantine. As she will know, all the measures are kept under review, and our priority is to keep people safe and to be guided by the science. We will continue that dialogue because we understand the pressures on the aviation sector.
It is a great pleasure to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), who highlighted the importance of aviation in his constituency. I understand that there is a gliding club there. I am not sure whether he is a keen glider himself, but I wish the club well. I reassure him that we have already agreed, and have in place, a bilateral aviation safety agreement with the US. He also touched on air bridges. This policy has been introduced because it is our priority to keep people safe. We are looking into these matters closely and are keeping them under review as the position of the coronavirus pandemic progresses in this country.
Gavin Newlands
In looking at the potential dates for the introduction of air bridges, are the Government taking into account the different holiday seasons around the UK? England and Wales obviously have a significantly later holiday season than Scotland and Northern Ireland. Scottish and Northern Ireland airports will therefore be adversely affected if air bridges are brought in at the end of, or after, the Scottish and Northern Ireland holiday seasons.
Rachel Maclean
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point. That matter is outside the scope of this particular SI, but I assure him that I speak to the devolved Administrations on a regular basis, so all these concerns are being discussed in the Department and I will certainly take his point back with me.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) expressed his support for aviation security, and mentioned the Bombardier plant in his constituency. We are aware of all those concerns, and are keen to work closely with him. I discuss connectivity with colleagues from Northern Ireland in my regular meetings with them. The Government recognise the importance of preparing throughout the year to ensure that we bring forward the required legislation for all possible scenarios at the end of the transition period and for Parliament to have the opportunity to scrutinise it in the normal way. This instrument, as we have seen, is essential to ensure that the legislation on aviation, which is an important part of the regulatory framework for civil aviation, continues to work effectively at the end of the transition period. I hope that the House has found this informative and that it will join me in supporting these regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Once again, I will not suspend the House, because the last piece of business passed very swiftly and I perceive that everyone who was intending to leave the Chamber has done so and that everyone who requires to be here for the next piece of business is here, so we will move immediately on.
Water Industry
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I beg to move,
That the draft Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) (Amendment) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 28 April, be approved.
Mr Speaker—no, Madam Deputy Speaker. I got that completely wrong before I had even started. I apologise.
The instrument before the House is a simple amendment to the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 to remove the sunsetting provision. That would allow the 2013 regulations to continue in force and to be available as part of the regulatory framework of the water industry. Without this SI, the 2013 regulations would expire on 27 June 2020. Before I talk a little further about the Government’s reasons for bringing forward this amending SI, I wish to outline the purpose of the 2013 regulations.
Water and sewerage services in England are provided by companies known as undertakers. The 2013 regulations were designed to help contain and minimise the risks associated with large or complex water or sewerage infra- structure projects, thereby helping to protect undertakers, their customers and UK taxpayers. Containing and minimising risks is likely to reduce the overall cost of borrowing for a given water undertaker and so ensure better value for money for that undertaker’s customers. It also makes sure that delivery of such infrastructure projects will not adversely impact on the existing water or sewerage services provided by undertakers.
The 2013 regulations enable the Secretary of State or Ofwat to specify, by notice, an infrastructure project where either is satisfied that two conditions had been met. The first is that the infrastructure project is of a size or complexity that threatens an undertaker’s ability to provide services to its customers. The second condition is that specifying the project would likely result in better value for money than if the project was not so specified, taking into account charges to customers and any Government financial assistance. A good example of this, just to set this all in context, is the Thames Tideway Tunnel, which meets both of those conditions.
Once specified, an undertaker is required to put the infrastructure project out to tender and a separate Ofwat regulated infrastructure provider is then designated to finance and deliver the project. Such infrastructure projects raise many complex issues, particularly around determining the cost of their financing, coupled with the construction risk that is far greater than that normally associated with an undertaker’s typical capital investment.
Requiring an undertaker to tender competitively for an infrastructure provider for a large or complex project provides an objective means of testing whether the financing costs of such a project are appropriate and reasonable. Without the tendering process, competitively determining the cost of capital for this type of infrastructure project would not be possible. The ability to create Ofwat-regulated infrastructure providers also helps to ring fence their associated higher risks and should result in more effective risk management for these projects. Creating designated infrastructure providers in this way means that a large or complex infrastructure project will not affect the ability of an undertaker to provide its day-to-day services for its customers and avoids any resultant extra costs that would ultimately be borne by their customers—in other words, the people using the water.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
Will the Minister assure the House that this provision will not be used as a device to prevent the additional provision of water capacity, which is much-needed in the south-east? We have had huge overdevelopment, without the proper additional provision of water. We now wish to see an awful lot more food grown locally and in our country, which will need a lot of irrigation. So will she assure the House that increasing capacity will be an important part of the greener growth that we look forward to?
Rebecca Pow
My right hon. Friend makes an exceedingly good point. Of course the Government are completely aware of the situation on water supply and dealing with the issues he is talking about is on our top list of priorities, but what we are dealing with here is quite separate. We are talking about big infrastructure projects, some of which will deliver some of the water he is referring to and will be very helpful, but they will be separate projects, as is the Thames Tideway Tunnel, from the general work of the water companies and the smaller-scale projects that they will still undertake to keep our water supply as we need it.
The amending statutory instrument was laid in Parliament following a post-implementation review of the 2013 regulations, carried out in 2018. Eight key stake- holders were consulted, five of which submitted responses —Ofwat, Thames Water, Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd, Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd investors and the Consumer Council for Water. The review found that the 2013 regulations had been successful in fulfilling all their policy objectives: facilitating large or complex projects; minimising risks to undertakers; providing value for money to customers; and promoting innovation in the sector. Accordingly, the review recommended that the 2013 regulations’ sunsetting provision be removed.
In March 2020, we undertook a further, targeted consultation on our proposal to remove the sunsetting provision in this piece of legislation. Views were sought from Ofwat, Water UK, Thames Water, Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd, the Environment, Agency the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the CCFW. Water companies were consulted via Water UK and Bazalgette Tunnel Ltd was given the option to consult its investors. Four written responses were received, from Ofwat, the Environment Agency, Thames Water and Affinity Water. All indicated that they were in favour of this amendment.
Currently, the only project regulated under the 2013 regulations is the Thames Tideway Tunnel, which I referred to earlier. However, Ofwat has identified four large or complex water infrastructure projects currently in development that may benefit from being specified in accordance with the 2013 regulations over the next 10 years, which might be of interest to my right hon. Friend. They are the south-east strategic reservoir at Abingdon, a joint project proposed by Thames Water; the London effluent re-use scheme, a project proposed by Thames Water; the south Lincolnshire reservoir, a joint project proposed by Anglia Water and Affinity Water; and the River Severn to River Thames transfer, a joint project proposed by Thames Water, Severn Trent Water and United Utilities.
John Redwood
I thank the Minister, because she has got to the point that I was hoping she might be making, which is that we need more reservoir capacity urgently. It is crazy that with just one month of dry weather we are already at risk of some kind of hosepipe ban, after the wettest, long autumn and winter I can remember.
Rebecca Pow
My right hon. Friend makes a sound point. A lot of the issue is that we have been in lockdown and there has been an enormous increase in demand for water because people have been at home, filling their paddling pools and watering their gardens and vegetable patches, as I have. That increased use of water has put on immediate pressure. It is not a drought situation, but he is right: we need to deal with our overall water supply, and that is absolutely on this Government’s agenda.
A decision as to whether the infrastructure projects I have referred to could come within the scope of the 2013 regulations will be made on a case-by-case basis at the appropriate time when the schemes are brought forward. The Government are committed to improving water supply resilience, as set out in our strategic policy statement to Ofwat and our 25-year environment plan. That ambition is made more challenging because of the growing population, increased water demand from agriculture and industry and, of course, climate change.
We also want to ensure that there is sufficient water left for the natural environment. Without any action, many areas of England will face water shortages by 2050. The starting point for action is to reduce water use by reducing leakage from the water distribution networks and reducing our personal consumption. However, even if leaks and personal consumption are reduced, we will continue to need new water resource infrastructure. In our “Water conservation report”, published in December 2018, we set out our progress on promoting water conservation from 2015 onwards.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister responded to an Adjournment debate secured by a Member from England on the decreasing water supply in rivers because of water being taken out by water companies. Is it her intention to ensure that that practice will stop and that river water levels will be retained?
Rebecca Pow
The water supply is to be looked at in the round. If the hon. Gentleman would like to have a conversation with me, I would be happy to tell him about all the things we have in train to deal with that, to ensure that we have enough water for everyone in future and take account of climate change and the growing demands. He raises an important point; keeping the right status for our rivers is incredibly important.
We endorse the industry’s existing commitment to a 50% reduction in leakage by 2050, and we announced a consultation to enable us to set an ambitious target for personal water consumption. We consulted on measures to reduce personal water consumption, including supporting measures on amending building regulations, water efficiency labelling and smart metering. Most of those measures can be taken forward without the need for new primary legislation, and we will publish a Government position on it later this year.
Alongside reducing leakage and personal water consumption, new water resources infrastructure, including reservoirs and water transfers, is needed to provide a secure supply of water for future generations. In the current price review period, Ofwat has made £469 million available to nine water companies to investigate and develop integrated strategic regional water resource solutions, in order to be construction-ready by 2025. That work will be supported by the Environment Agency’s national framework for water resources, which was published in March this year.
In summary, this statutory instrument enables the Water Industry (Specified Infrastructure Projects) (English Undertakers) Regulations 2013 to continue in force, in order that they can continue to be used in the future delivery of large or complex water or sewerage infrastructure projects. Such projects play an essential role in strengthening the future resilience of water resources in England. Retaining the 2013 regulations will help to reduce the associated financial risks of such projects, ensure that water undertakers continue to deliver their existing water or sewerage services to customers and provide greater value for money. I commend the regulations to the House.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
As the Minister stated, this statutory instrument removes the seven-year sunset clause in relation to the Thames Tideway tunnel, to allow the 2013 regulations to continue. Those regulations, which Labour supported, enable the creation of infra- structure providers. To date, the Thames Tideway tunnel—nicknamed the “super sewer”—is the only project created under the regulatory regime. It is reportedly on budget and on target for completion by 2024. At 25 km long when completed, it will reduce the amount of overflow water and sewerage pumped into the Thames by 94%. It would appear that the regulatory model for this project has been successful and therefore should be allowed to continue. That would enable other large or complex projects to make use of the same funding model, as the Minister outlined.
As we are a few years off the tunnel’s planned completion date, can I ask the Minister to provide an update on the progress of the Thames Tideway project, as well as what plans she has to review the tunnel’s effectiveness when finished? I would also be grateful if she could outline the Government’s strategy for managing the inheritance of major assets, such as the tunnel, to water and sewerage companies from the infrastructure providers that build them. Thames Water customers paid an average of £19 of their annual household bill last year to finance this project, while the company avoided paying corporation tax and its executives pocketed hundreds of thousands of pounds in bonuses. It is important that those who pay for the asset through their bills should retain some of the benefits if the asset is to be part of the water or sewerage utility base.
I note that there will be no new sunset clause. Is that a wise decision, given the fact that this is the only project being undertaken in this way and it has not yet been completed? Will the Minister elaborate on her decision not to put in place a new sunset clause? The scale of infrastructure projects under this regulatory model demands a rigorous oversight and review process. The removal of a sunset clause will benefit a number of future large and complex infrastructure projects. What steps will the Government take to ensure that this regulatory and funding model is best suited to such multimillion pound projects?
Every effort must be made to increase customer confidence. In recent years, customers have faced rising water bills, while those at the top have received multimillion-pound packages, huge bonuses and dividends. In Yorkshire, the average annual water bill for this year will be £406. That is almost a 60% real-terms increase since the Yorkshire Water Authority was privatised in 1989. Labour is not opposing the amendment to the regulations today, but we are clear that a wider conversation needs to take place on making water bills affordable for customers.
Billions of litres of water are lost each day due to leaks, causing water shortages and environmental damage, yet a recent report found that unless action is taken now, parts of southern England will run out of water within 20 years. With a growing climate change crisis and increasingly extreme weather, there must be a larger strategy to tackle current and future challenges for our water and sewerage systems.
John Redwood
Does the hon. Lady agree that part of the answer to the south-east’s problem is more reservoir provision? We have a massive expansion of housing with no additional provision and we will need a lot more for agriculture, because we will want more market gardening.
Stephanie Peacock
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point and I am sure the Minister has heard it.
I would like to conclude by asking the Minister this: what are the Government doing to encourage water and sewerage companies to reinvest in existing infrastructure to promote reduced household water consumption, prevent leaks, improve services to customers and protect our natural environment? I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Rebecca Pow
I welcome the shadow Minister to her place. I believe this is her first time at the Dispatch Box and I very much look forward to working with her on all the exciting issues we are dealing with in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs right now, not least the subject of water. I thank those who have contributed today, and I thank the shadow Minister for her comments.
As we look forward to the challenges of population growth and climate change, and we strive to leave the environment in a better place than we found it in, we know that new water resource infrastructure is going to be required. On that, I believe we are all agreed today. It is essential that we give the regulators the right tools to address those challenges and ensure we have sufficient sustainable water resources into the future.
I just want to touch on a couple of points that were raised by the shadow Minister, one of which was why we had not set another date for the subject we are reviewing today. The answer is that we did not consider it necessary or appropriate to set a further review date, as we expect that the power to specify projects under the regulations will be used infrequently.
The answer is that we did not consider it necessary or appropriate to set a further review date as we expect that the power to specify projects under the regulations will be used infrequently. We will of course review the regulations as appropriate.
I was very pleased that the shadow Minister actually praised the tideway tunnel project. I have visited it myself and I recommend doing so, if she has not made a visit, when it is safe to do so with all the social distancing. It is an incredible project and a good model for projects of this nature, which is exactly what this SI concerns—projects of this type in future. As I have mentioned, a number of such projects could be coming forward in the next few years.
The Thames tideway tunnel is due to be operational in 2023, and the project as a whole is due for completion in 2024, but obviously we are still assessing the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic, because that potentially has had some impact on the working schedule. We are very much keeping abreast of that.
The shadow Minister touched on whether these projects are value for money for customers. The tideway tunnel has demonstrated value for money for customers, being specified in accordance with the 2013 regulations, which has contributed to a lower cost of borrowing for the project. That has resulted in Thames Water customers paying an average increase of £20 to £25 a year, which is a reduction from the £70 to £80 initially modelled.
I reassure the shadow Minister that the whole issue of water supply is at the forefront of my mind as the water Minister. As I outlined in my speech, we have a number of policies going through to help with that and, indeed, that ambition to reduce individual personal water consumption. At the moment, the average water used by a person in a day is 143 litres. It is interesting to reflect on how much one uses in a shower or bath or to clean one’s teeth. We all need to start taking more notice of those things, although the right to water is obviously something we must always provide. There is a great deal in the pipeline to reduce water consumption, and there is also a great deal coming forward in the Environment Bill that will help the whole supply agenda, including measures dealing with abstraction and water and sewerage management plans.
On that note, I hope that the SI, which brings forward something that will be incredibly useful in the future, will be supported by the whole House.
Question put and agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
In order to allow the safe exit of Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Children and Young Persons
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:24 - The House divided: - Ayes: 123 / Noes: 260 - Question accordingly negatived.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020 (S.I., 2020, No. 445), dated 21 April 2020, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 April 2020, be annulled.
I thank the Minister for making time for this debate this afternoon in response to the prayer motion we have laid against these regulations. The Labour party has been clear that we do not support these regulations, and we will be voting accordingly.
These regulations make significant changes to the statutory protections for children in the care system, who are some of the most vulnerable and at-risk children in the country. Coming into force on 24 April and due to expire on 25 September, the regulations relax to a significant degree the safeguarding responsibilities of local authorities in relation to children going into and in the care system. The changes are wide-ranging, and I will not go into all of them today, but I will outline some of the provisions contained in the regulations that have caused the most concern.
First, social workers had been required to visit privately fostered children or those in care within one week when they go into care and every six weeks for the year after that. This requirement has been changed to
“as soon as is reasonably practical”,
even for a phone or video call. The requirements to review plans for children in care to set timescales have also been relaxed, denying children the opportunity to raise concerns and the problems they are having.
Secondly, independent panels, which approve foster carers and adoption placements, have become optional, and local authorities can now approve anyone who meets the requirements as a temporary foster carer, rather than only those who were connected to a child, with consequences for the future outcomes of that child. In addition, approval is no longer needed by a nominated officer to place children into care outside their local areas. Together with the change to allow placement with temporary carers who may not be connected to the child, this could mean that children are moved away from their home or anyone they know.
Thirdly, there now only have to be “reasonable endeavours” made to visit children’s homes, instead of monthly visits, and Ofsted inspections no longer need to take place twice a year.
Fourthly, controls on the periods of time children can be placed in emergency or short placements has been extended beyond any reasonable definition of short. Children can be placed with emergency foster carers for 24 weeks, rather than the usual six days, and children can be placed in short break placements for up to 75 days, rather than 17 days.
Finally, as the Children’s Commissioner has highlighted, children’s homes can now enforce the deprivation of liberty of children if they are showing symptoms of coronavirus, in accordance with the Coronavirus Act 2020.
I am sure the whole House agrees that these are not small changes. It is easy to see how a whole generation of looked-after children could be adversely affected during the six months the relaxed duties are in place—if, indeed, the Government do reverse them later this year. It is important to recognise the group of children we are talking about in this debate. As of 31 March 2019, just over 78,000 children were in the care of local authorities, up 4% on the previous year. On top of this, many more are classified as in need or at risk, and may flow in and out of the care system; about 100,000 children flow through the care system each year. Looked-after children have, almost by definition, faced great trauma in their lives. They may have started life in child poverty, in abusive households, in households that suffer from substance abuse or domestic violence, or with parents who suffer from mental illness. They could have been at risk of female genital mutilation, gang violence, child sexual exploitation, or radicalisation; or they could have been an unaccompanied child seeking asylum.
The outcomes for these children are much worse than for their peers. A report by the Social Market Foundation highlighted the fact that of children in or leaving care only 14% achieved five A*-C GCSEs in 2015, compared with 55% nationally, and they are five times more likely to face exclusion than their peers. In 2015-16, an estimated 39% of children in secure training centres had been in care, despite children in care accounting for about 1% of all children; and almost 25% of the adult prison population have previously been in care. Similarly, looked-after children are four times more likely to have a mental health condition, and 40% of care leavers aged between 19 and 21 are not in employment or education.
I am setting out these issues for the House because any disruption to the care of these children could have a significant impact on the rest of their lives. It is clear that these children are incredibly vulnerable, and in the context of the pandemic they need more support, not less. Our opposition to the regulations is echoed by the Children’s Commissioner, a chorus of children’s charities and MPs from across the House; and Article 39 has applied to the High Court for judicial review of the changes. A specific campaign group, Scrap SI 445, has been established, such is the strength of feeling against the regulations.
The following are just a few examples of the opposition that has been voiced. The Children’s Commissioner, Anne Longfield, said of the regulations:
“I think they should be revoked now—I don’t think they are necessary or justified… There is a potential for children in care not to be given the protection they need and for them to be put at greater risk… For some, that means they are at greater risk of grooming or exploitation, especially older children in semi-independent accommodation.”
She went on to say:
“The focus was not on the best interests of children, it was on the system and the providers of it… all of this should be based on the best interests of children, especially those that the state has such a high level of responsibility over.”
The National Youth Advocacy Service has said that reduced contact by professionals increases safeguarding risks, with the Department for Education reporting that only one in 20 students identified as vulnerable continued to attend school during the lockdown. Many children and young people at risk of harm have been living without the safety net that school would usually provide, as well as having less contact with social workers and other safeguarding professionals.
The British Association for Social Workers said:
“Looked after children and young people are among the most vulnerable in society. Hard won rights in law are not simply bureaucratic processes but exist to protect children and young people and promote their well-being.”
It added:
“Some of the changes in the Regulations seem suspiciously close to the ‘freedoms’ that were in the original draft of the Children and Social Work Bill”—
in 2016-17—
“clauses that were subsequently thrown out by a coalition of Parliamentarians, after a vigorous campaign by civil society groups and service users.”
Finally, Become, the charity for children in care and care leavers, listed its objections thus:
“There was no justification or evidence for removing these particular safeguards…The emergency amendments were introduced just one day before they came into force without appropriate consultation or parliamentary scrutiny…The emergency amendments lack clear guidance or parameters about how and when they should be used…Current guidance does not provide sufficient detail on how the use and impact of the new powers will be centrally collated and monitored by government or Ofsted.”
There is clearly consensus across the board that these regulations are not necessary. They are disproportionate to the need expressed by local authorities; will significantly increase the risk that these children and young people are already exposed to; are likely to be detrimental to children’s outcomes; were introduced with no scrutiny and minimal consultation; and have no guarantee that they will be revoked in September. As such, the Labour party opposes these regulations and urges the Government to revoke them with immediate effect.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. This is a 90-minute debate. We have a fair number of speakers, so I urge colleagues to speak for no longer than 10 minutes.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
With this statutory instrument, the Government are trying to do what they failed to do in 2017, during the passage of the Children and Social Work Act 2017, and what they failed to do with their myth-busting guide in 2019.
In 2017, the Government proposed allowing local authorities, under the guise of innovation, to opt out of protective legislation for children. The aim was to deregulate, on the back of the LaingBuisson report, making the sector ripe and ready for privatisation. After a groundswell of cross-party objection both in and outside this place, the changes, which comprised a whole chapter of the 2017 Act, were removed at the 11th hour. In 2019, the then Minister disseminated a dangerous myth-busting document advising local authorities to dispense with the statutory guidance in relation to the most vulnerable children. Again, this attempt to deregulate and wipe away hard-fought-for protective legislation for children was eventually quashed and the document withdrawn.
Any child protection strategy—whether we are in a pandemic or not—that requires the dispensing of the law to achieve it is counterproductive and downright dangerous. I am not sure if the current Minister is aware, but the legislation that the Secretary of State so cavalierly dispensed with under this SI took decades to achieve and was hard-fought-for by the profession and in this place and the other place. It led to our having one of the safest child protection systems in the world.
However, the Secretary of State’s actions have removed the safety net, because since 24 April this year, vulnerable children in care of the state, which stands at a record of more than 78,000, have lost their right to visits from their social worker when they are in placement. They have lost their right to have reviews regarding their care. They have lost their right to have temporary carers who have an existing connection with them. They have lost their right to have their complaints thoroughly investigated. These changes either substantially dilute or remove 65 legal protections and, worryingly, the expiration date can be revoked. In other words, this may become a permanent change.
The fact that a child is in placement does not always mean that they are safe. That is why this legislation existed. Children have been harmed, even murdered, by their carers. The consequences of having no social worker oversight and no one visiting or speaking to them about their care could not be more serious.
This SI has also seen a relaxing of the requirements that govern children’s homes, a dispensing of fostering and adoption panels, emergency foster placements extended to 24 weeks and relaxations on placements away from a child’s home area, and for children who are privately fostered, there is no longer a timeframe on when the local authority needs to check up on them in that placement.
Despite the Government’s attempts to circumvent parliamentary scrutiny, they have also been disingenuous in stating that they have consulted key organisations about this SI when they have not. The facts are that a petition to withdraw the SI has, in a short timeframe, amassed over 7,300 signatures, and 51 organisations and over 452 individual social work professionals are calling for it to be withdrawn. Not a single local authority has publicly admitted asking for these changes. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), the Government are facing legal action from Article 39, because it, like many across this House who signed this prayer, has a grasp of the legislation and cares deeply about children. No social workers or local authorities regularly cite protective legislation for children as a block to them carrying out their role. What stops effective children and families social work is the constant barrage of cuts and resource stripping over the past 10 years.
To use this pandemic as an excuse to reignite experiments from 2017 and 2019 on the most vulnerable of our children is reprehensible. The Minister has so far been unable to explain to me the rationale and demand for these changes. I would like her to explain to the House today which local authorities, organisations and social workers asked for these changes, who was consulted on them, and when they were consulted. What involvement does the Chief Social Worker for Children and Families have in these changes? On which date did the Department begin assessing these changes? Additionally, the Minister should be able to share with us today how many local authorities have actually dispensed with these protections and what the outcome of such has been on the children concerned—because I cannot imagine, having been one myself, that a single social worker would allow any child they work with to be put at risk in this way.
I urge the Minister to revoke this SI immediately before she and her colleagues who follow their Whips on this vote are culpable for the significant harm that children may already be suffering and will certainly suffer in future.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I declare two interests: first, that in the register; and secondly, given that these regulations go back to 2002, I think that, for the entire time, I was either the shadow Children’s Minister or the Children’s Minister and responsible for making some of these regulations. I am doubly interested in them today.
I am not going to vote against these regulations, but this is the opportunity for some serious questions to be answered. It is unfortunate that, these regulations having been laid before Parliament on 23 April, they came into effect on 24 April. Normal conventions about the 21-day rule simply did not happen, and this is the first time that this House has had the opportunity to scrutinise what are very important regulations.
There are serious question marks, as the hon. Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck) mentioned, about the consultation that went into this. The Children’s Commissioner was not consulted, and she has made further comments today to say that she has serious concerns about this. The British Association of Social Workers was not consulted. The Association of Directors of Children’s Services was not consulted. The Local Government Association was not consulted. Apparently not even Ofsted was consulted before these regulations became a fait accompli.
There is also the question mark about why the regulations were—
Tim Loughton
I will not give way because we are short of time. I am sure the hon. Lady will get in later.
There are also question marks about why we had to do this in England but apparently similar moves have not been planned in Scotland or Wales. The Minister might want to comment on that. It would be useful to know what input went into these regulations and why they were chosen to be relaxed or extended in the way they were.
I am not against emergency legislation in these unprecedented circumstances. We are absolutely going to have to adapt across the board; we have become used to that. But this is a particularly sensitive area of policy dealing with some of our most vulnerable children, who are not in a position to provide the challenge and scrutiny that would be readily available in other areas. We have heard, through the commencement of the Domestic Abuse Bill, that there has been a spike in domestic abuse. We have heard from the NSPCC and others about an increase in reporting of suspected child abuse. It is when children are more vulnerable that we need to make sure that the checks and balances are absolutely there and working. There are also the fears about the impact of county lines gangs using the pandemic as a recruitment tool.
So across a whole range of areas, we should be concerned that the service is there to do what it desperately needs to do, particularly at this time. If we look through these regulations, we see that too often the phrases “as soon as is reasonably practicable” and “best endeavours” come up, covering a multitude of sins.
I just want to know the thinking behind the introduction of these regulations. Was it because we were expecting a high incidence of social worker absences? We have had seven weeks of these regulations in practice, so the Minister might be able to give us some examples of what has happened over that time. We need to know how the Government are monitoring this. Was it a capacity issue that led to the regulations? What are the current vacancy rates? Was it a reprioritisation issue, and if so, on the basis of what risk assessment? What has the reprioritisation of those social worker resources, and so on, actually gone to? As a result of what has happened, how many new child vulnerability hotspots are springing up, particularly for the 85% of vulnerable children who have not been in school, as the Chairman of the Education Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), has pointed out? That was a really useful way of putting them on the radar; teachers were often the early warning sign that something was going wrong at home on a safeguarding issue. They could then pass that information on to social workers and others.
I want to touch briefly on the 10 areas. First, on section 28 and the regulations about visits—which I think I overhauled back in 2010—these are now to take place “as soon as is reasonably practicable”. I am not going to delude myself that it all was working perfectly before. The purpose of the Munro review reforms, which were brought in from 2010, was to get away from some of the arbitrary timescales and from being ruled just by a rulebook, rather than by the expertise of experienced and well trained social workers as well. With only a small number of children in school, those social worker visits are even more important, so if they are not happening practically, why not? Is this a resource issue? Are they happening virtually, and are those virtual visits effective? How are social workers teaming up with teachers trying to teach remotely, with the police and with others to ensure that they are monitoring those children in households with a safeguarding question mark particularly closely?
Secondly, the six-monthly independent review of childcare is important, but that is usually down to the independent reviewing officers. What are the IROs actually doing at the moment? Why can they not carry on as before? Thirdly, I am particularly concerned about adoption panels. Adoption was one of the big campaigns of the coalition Government, and I am proud of my part in getting adoptions up to a peak of 5,360 in 2015. However, adoptions went back down again last year and we are now back down almost to the levels before we started the overhaul of adoption regulations, at around 3,500, so we need more adopters to come forward. We need more children to be adopted. Who is doing that important work in the absence of adoption panels? If social workers are too busy doing things elsewhere, or if there are not enough of them because of the pandemic, who is approving those adopters to come forward? Does the Minister fear that we are going to see a further big decrease in the amount of adoptions happening? How many prospective adopters are coming forward but are unable to be processed and trained? Who is doing the training to ensure that they can take on those really important roles as adoptive parents?
The same goes for fostering panels. It is likely that we will see a big surge in people coming forward to offer foster placements, given the likely job losses that will come out of the pandemic. That is a fact of life in recessions. We need to ensure that local authorities are up and running and able to take on those foster placements and to train people and assess them properly to ensure that they are suitable to take on those children who desperately need a home.
Another area I am really concerned about is the dropping of senior officer approval for out-of-care placement. This has been a scandal for too many years. Over half of children are placed out of their area, against all the regulations. It makes it so much more difficult to look at their progress when we have to monitor them from afar, and they are often placed in cheap property in coastal resorts, particularly on the Kent coast. That has been a case in point. It is really important that when a child is placed out of area, it is as a result of proper scrutiny and a decision made at director level. That is a reform that I brought in. I am really concerned about who is now going to be responsible for that.
Skipping through a few of the other points, senior officer approval for the really important fostering for adoption placements has also been dropped.
I am also concerned about the dropping of Ofsted inspection frequencies, and in any case it seems as though Ofsted will not be doing any inspections until next year. That is really worrying. We need Ofsted inspections for new listings—new care homes—where we desperately need that capacity. We need to prioritise them looking at homes that are deemed to require improvement or that are inadequate to make sure they are not continuing to offer a poor service or that they have improved and therefore can take on more children again. We need to do that because we have serious capacity problem.
I understand the suspicion of others that this is a back-door measure to complete the work from the 2016 Bill. I led a delegation of very experienced noble Lords to see the then Secretary of State, Justine Greening—it was a large part of the reason the regulations were dropped, I am glad to say—so I do not want them reintroduced through this route, and I would like to hear it from the Minister that the measures are only temporary and will not be extended beyond September other than in exceptional circumstances. I would like her to show how they are being monitored where that is actually not required at the moment.
I repeat my invitation to the Minister. The all-party group on children, which I chair, is meeting the children’s charities and others in July to assess how children are faring during the coronavirus pandemic, and it would be great if she could come and give an account of why the regulations are still required and how they are impacting on children. I understand why they were necessary; I do not understand why they were introduced in the way they were. We would all understand better if we had an account of the experience during the seven weeks they have been in operation and some guarantees that the welfare of some of our most vulnerable children is not being compromised and will not be compromised for a week longer than it needs to under the current conditions.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. In order to get everyone in and give the Minister a good opportunity to reply, speeches should be a maximum of eight minutes.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I can understand that there might be a need for some easements due to anticipated staff shortages during this crisis, but I do not understand why there are fewer safeguards on easements for children’s services than in the arrangements for adult services. What is the logic in that? Obviously visits might need to be suspended during the lockdown, but why is it necessary to suspend the six-week contact rule? Are reviews not a crucial safeguard for the interests of children and young people in the care system? Who does the Minister think benefits from removing six-monthly reviews and what does she think is the main benefit of not holding panels for prospective adopters?
One of the conclusions from the child sexual exploitation cases in Rotherham and Rochdale was that children placed outside their own area were all too often out of sight and out of mind, and that is why it was so easy for them to fall prey. Like the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), I am concerned about the removal of senior-level approval for out-of-area placements. What alternative arrangements have been put in place to compensate for the loss of independent visits to children’s homes? Afterall, it is only nine years since the House was discussing the Pindown report. When you make these places less accessible, it is easier for things to happen that should not happen.
Like my hon. Friends, I am curious to know who the Government consulted before they implemented these arrangements. I would love to know who made representations to the Minister and who asked for these arrangements. Was it the same people who tried to impose these changes back in 2016 and 2018? Of course, the reason they were eventually scuppered back then was that there was a genuine fear across the parties that the measures were intended to relax local authority scrutiny and safeguards, save money and pave the way for further privatisation of children’s services. At the very point where this Government are rueing the fact that they made unnecessary changes to probation and are now planning to reverse them, it would be completely mad to create the same conditions for our children’s services, only to go through all this again.
I am a bit more sceptical than the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham—I fear that the emergency may be a smokescreen and that this is just a third attempt at the same old game. I recognise that the Minister believes that the powers are being used sparingly. She says in her letter of 15 May that they should
“only be used if absolutely necessary”.
Is she receiving regular reports on their use? Does she have any plans to collect and publish data on the use of these emergency arrangements? Will she place in the Library an interim report on the use of these powers to date?
I am also curious to know why the Minister thinks that children’s services in Scotland have not been under similar pressure and do not face demands for a similar change. What does she think is different? Has she looked at that arrangement? As we have heard, the Children’s Commissioner was rather critical of these measures. Was it an oversight not to consult her? That requires a straightforward answer from the Minister. Was a children’s rights impact assessment conducted before the regulations were approved? If so, will the Minister publish it, and if not, why not?
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
It is quite clear that, at a time of great crisis, the Government’s first duty is to protect the most vulnerable. My hon. Friends and the former Minister, the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), have spoken eloquently about the need for proper administration of this sector for vulnerable people. We must consider the broader implications of this mistaken statutory instrument. It appears to me that this is part of a wider mishandling of a range of issues related to children, which paints the Government in a very poor light. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is yet another blunder in relation to children?
Steve McCabe
The honest answer is that we do not know, but when children’s services across the country are under enormous pressure, this is maybe not the smartest time to relax safeguards and scrutiny. For that reason, we have to hope and trust that when the Minister says these measures are purely for the purposes of this emergency, she is being entirely frank with us. It would be easier to draw that conclusion if she could tell us what she plans to do after 25 September.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
This has been a well-informed debate so far. I would like to begin by reflecting on the big picture of our system for protecting vulnerable children in this country. By international standards, the system ranks at or close to the top of the league tables for its effectiveness in protecting children who are at risk. In respect of children who are in the care of the state, we know that the earlier they go into the care system and the longer they spend in it, the better the outcomes. Where a local authority intervenes at the birth of a child and that child is placed in a secure environment, that child’s outcomes are broadly equal to other children who have not been through the experience of having to go into care. There is undoubtedly an issue around children who come into care late in their childhood, having bounced around the system, at a moment of crisis, for whom the professionals we rely on have little opportunity to turn that situation around.
We know that that is the big picture of how children’s social care works in this country. It is important to reflect that the consistent message from the sector over many years has been that system’s effectiveness is driven by good professional practice rather than by regulation. Governments of all parties have introduced changes many times over the years to try to enable effective professional practice to create the security and protection that vulnerable children need. It is important that Parliament recognises that.
This population of children is around half of 1% of all the children in the country, but they are, as a number of Members have said, incredibly vulnerable. For them, their council is the emergency service that is there to intervene when they desperately need help. Around three-quarters of those children are placed with foster carers. Having had the experience of 20 years leading on this issue in a local authority, I believe that elements of the regulations are helpful in reducing some of the burdens that many foster carers complain about as they go on the journey of taking on that vital role, and have the potential to increase the speed with which foster care placements are made available for vulnerable children.
That is an example of where the regulations target an easement of a process that is heavy on face-to-face meetings. They replace it with no reduction in the requirements, as the shadow Minister mentioned, but with a reduction in the process, to enable that to happen more quickly for the benefit of the children who need access to it.
This debate is happening at the end of a decade in which we have seen a 28% increase in the number of children in that system. Even against the backdrop of a rising number of children, that is very much evidence of a system that is under pressure. Although I am not remotely in favour of a bonfire of regulation, the House needs to recognise that not all regulation is helpful, particularly at a time when we face a national emergency. Many Members have talked about the need to reduce our expectations of schools and schoolteachers to enable us to manage the response to that. We must expect to go through a similar process in respect of children’s social care.
Many of these easements reflect frustrations that prospective adopters, prospective foster carers and children who are going through the system have expressed for a very long time, which are brought into sharp focus by the fact that we cannot go through lengthy face-to-face processes at a time when social distancing and shielding are a crucial part of our national life. For that reason, it seems to me that although the measures outlined by the Minister have a bearing on the wider picture of a system that is under pressure, which needs to be debated, they are reasonable, they are proportionate and they have the potential, following an effective period of implementation, to help reduce some of the logjams in the system that impact our children.
A number of Members have mentioned the need to consult the broadest possible range of stakeholders. I know that the Department has engaged in a process that, perhaps not unexpectedly, has resulted in many organisations saying that although they do not have an objection to the regulations, they will not necessarily come out and support them. I entirely understand that, not least because I hear from many local authorities that they have not needed to implement significant changes to make use of these easements, but if they face a point at which there is either a large increase in the number of children in their care or a crisis in the availability of workforce time, it will be incredibly valuable that they can take advantage of the easements in order to respond effectively. Clearly, however, it would be helpful if we ensured in the future that, for example, directors of public health, chief executives and lead members of local authorities, all of whom will have a very broad perspective on this, were consulted, in addition to professional bodies such as the Association of Directors of Children’s Services.
In conclusion, the message over many years is that effective protection for children on their journey through the care system relies on good social care and effective professional practice. We in this House need to show confidence at this time of national emergency—as we have in our health professionals—that those social-care-for-children professionals will also meet the highest possible standards without the need for regulations to ensure that. For that reason, I hope that when these measures come to their end we will have the opportunity to learn from them and to see how local authorities have made use of the easements that are available. I also hope that we will see that they have not been misused or abused, and that this has ensured effective protection of our most vulnerable children at this time of national crisis.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
The number of looked-after children continues to rise; there were over 78,000 children in care nationally last year, a 4% rise on the previous year and a shocking 30% rise since 2010. In my home city of Liverpool, there are nearly 1,500 vulnerable children in care who need these protections, including 115 unaccompanied child asylum seekers—double the rate of the national percentage. This represents a rise on last year, with additional numbers coming under the protection of social services during this pandemic.
As schools return and hidden harms are exposed, Liverpool City Council is, like most local authorities, expecting a further rise in referrals. Liverpool is also a referral centre for unaccompanied children seeking asylum—children who need the maximum possible care and support to help them overcome the most traumatic of experiences. At a time when we need to ensure that our most vulnerable children have the support and care they need to survive trauma, neglect and abuse, it is most disappointing to see the Government relaxing these safeguards for financial reasons.
As the Government know, looked-after children face greater hurdles than other children in their adult lives. They are more likely to suffer mental health issues, more likely to end up in the prison system, more likely to succumb to drug or alcohol addiction, less likely to achieve educationally, and more likely to be unemployed. How will loosening the monitoring and support redress the situation?
Nationally, recent analysis by national agencies, including Action for Children, Barnardo’s, the National Children’s Bureau, the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and the Children’s Society, estimates that funding for local authority children’s services has fallen by an astonishing 23% since 2010, with a fall of £2.2 billion nationally. Liverpool City Council has seen its Government income slashed by 64% over the past 10 years, leaving a £460-million gaping hole. If the Government are serious about protecting our most vulnerable children and enabling them positive life chances, the answer lies not in reducing safeguards when they are under the protection of local authorities, but in adequately funding local authorities to allow them to do their job.
I am also concerned that neither the Children’s Commissioner nor the major agencies concerned with children’s welfare were consulted on these changes and nor was there a public consultation. If the Government truly believe their proposals were for the better, why the lack of consultation?
The coronavirus pandemic must not be used as an excuse to force through these measures that the Government have unsuccessfully tried to put through for four years. Allowing local authorities the right to opt out of ensuring that certain safeguards or regular monitoring are in place would have a detrimental impact on the lives of children and their families and erode the rights and entitlements of children.
In conclusion, I call on the Minister to think again and to revoke this SI, to consult and listen to the Children’s Commissioner and the expert organisations, and, indeed, to talk to children and their families. We need to do what is right, not what is possible, and that means looking to adequately fund local authorities to provide maximum care and protection.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I want to reflect on this matter from the point of view of some work that I did last year. I spent some time training with foster care leavers and one thing that came across to me was the fact that they had several parts to their personality—this is not just a broad-brush thing. There was immense ambition and an immense wish to have a normal life, but the problem was that, often, the confidence was not there. They felt let down and abandoned, which means that the challenge for the system is to ensure that there is a consistency in their lives and an ability for their lives to move. They should not feel left behind and ignored during any crisis.
My reading of these regulations is not that they are about trying to reduce safeguarding, but that they are about enabling the machinery of local government—of social care—to help these children and young people get the support that they need. I absolutely agree—100%—that these measures need to be temporary. I need to hear that the safeguarding measures are there, that we will receive updates, as other Members have said, and that we will hear how things are being monitored.
I fear that if we do not put these measures in place, there may come a time when the mechanics are not in place—the reality of day-to-day lives where people cannot go to their jobs and do the social care work, and where there are not opportunities in offices to make sure that things are moving. If that happens, these children and young people will again feel that they have been left at the back, ignored and forgotten. One of the biggest challenges to overcome in life is the unknown, and covid has created an unknown situation for all of us, but let us imagine what it is like for those young people in care. They will not know whether they will reach their forever home or get to the point where they have a family around them. What we must remember in this debate is that behind each and every one of those statistics that has been shared, there is a life. There is a young child or a young person with ambition, who wants to have a family, who wants to have normality. Using these measures to ensure that that happens will be critical. Of course, safeguarding and all of those things are paramount, but we need to ensure also that the machine continues to work in their favour and to support them.
Munira Wilson
The hon. Gentleman talks about the machinery. Indeed, the Children’s Commissioner has expressed concern that the starting point for these regulations is to ease pressure on services, rather than to think about what is right for the child in front of those services. These are the most vulnerable children—even more vulnerable at a time like this. Does he not think that we have the balance wrong here by focusing more on the machine than on the child?
Dean Russell
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point and I appreciate her making it. Actually, there has to be a balance of both. We have to ensure that there is wraparound care for young people so that they can be supported. The machine is not necessarily an anonymous, amorphous blob of mechanics; it is actually people. It is social carers, who are doing that work on the ground and who should already be trusted in their roles. It is not about trying to say, “Let’s just keep going and going” in ignorance of the vulnerable young people involved. It is about making sure that the system is still working for them. Although I have some concerns, I can say that everything that I have seen in here so far really reflects the fact that we need to ensure that everything can continue, as it should do, to enable these young people to get to their homes, to get to families and to get the support that they need.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
We have come so far with children’s rights, why are we going backwards? Those are not my words. They are the words of Charlotte, a 19-year-old care leaver. I start with those words because it is young people in care and those entering care who are directly affected by this legislation and yet it is the same young people who have been denied a say, as their rights have been ripped away. They were not consulted.
As a former social worker and fostering manager, I am deeply concerned about the impact of this legislation. Coronavirus has led to more anxiety, more stress and increased loneliness for many children. Right now, they need more support, not fewer protections. Anyone who has worked with children knows that their safety must be a top priority. Indeed, the Children Act 1989 says that the welfare of a child is paramount. The safeguards that the legislation removes or dilutes include how often a child sees their social worker, whether and when their care is independently reviewed, and if a proper care plan is put in place for them. A lack of contact with significant professionals increases the risk to children. The Department for Education reported that only one in 20 children identified as vulnerable continued to attend school during the lockdown. This means that so many children have already been living without the safety net that school would usually provide.
The National Youth Advocacy Service, which does incredible work with children in care in Lewisham East and across the country, has made more than triple the number of safeguarding referrals during the lockdown compared with last year. NYAS is worried about how many children will be placed at risk and might go unnoticed by local authorities under this new legislation. These changes may be enforced temporarily, but their impact could last a lifetime. The adoption that is waved through without an independent panel shapes an entire childhood and beyond. Adoption and fostering panels should be able to sit virtually.
The legislation leaves huge gaps in rights and protections for children in care, and this Chamber must not allow children to fall through those gaps. With that in mind, what is the Minister’s view on the comments from the Children’s Commissioner for England? We have heard her quoted so many times, and with her comments I will conclude my speech. Anne Longfield said:
“I would like to see all the regulations revoked, as I do not believe that there is sufficient justification to introduce them. This crisis must not remove protections from extremely vulnerable children, particularly as they are even more vulnerable at this time.”
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to say a few words on this vital topic, because issues of child protection and social care for children are some of the most important that we as Members of this House and our colleagues in national, regional and local government will ever have to deal with. Indeed, much of the very essence of our jobs as Members of Parliament is to build a safer and secure community and a brighter and more sustainable future for the next generation. It is clear to me, however, that the changes contained in the regulations before the House are not fit for purpose. They will, as many stakeholders have indicated, seriously undermine legal safeguarding protections for some of the most vulnerable children in our country. These changes are unnecessary and could end up putting children in harm’s way.
While we appreciate and understand the impact on local authorities in England as a result of coronavirus, the Government have yet to provide the evidence to justify the regulations. As such, I welcome the fact that Her Majesty’s Opposition will oppose them and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), the shadow Secretary of State, for her remarks at the start of this debate.
I want to be clear that I do not believe it is acceptable to make sweeping reductions in children’s rights with very few safeguards and absolutely no parliamentary scrutiny. The world has changed so very much in recent months and among many changes to our way of life, provision was made for local authorities in England to have “easements” on their statutory duties on adult social care to respond effectively to the demands of coronavirus. This was in the Coronavirus Act 2020. It is important to note that the same flexibility was not granted in relation to children’s social care, yet guidance published in early April suggested that local authorities did not have to meet these statutory duties.
This stands in stark contrast to the Welsh Labour Government under the leadership of the First Minister, Mark Drakeford. Hon. Friends have already mentioned today the differences in approach to legislation in the countries across the UK. Rather than following the approach taken by Ministers in this House, in Wales, they have chosen to issue guidance that explains how local authorities can work in an innovative way to continue to meet their statutory duties in the spirit of the law. This is, as is so often the case, a matter of will, and I want to ask the Minister to think again.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby) said, one important stakeholder is the Children’s Commissioner for England, who said in April that the current crisis should not
“remove protections from extremely vulnerable children”.
I agree with her completely.
Ahead of this debate, I received a very helpful briefing from Napo, the trade union and professional association for probation and family court staff. These are hard-working professionals who work around the clock in all parts of the UK to protect, support and defend some of the most vulnerable children in our country. I am inclined to listen to them and I suggest that the Minister does the same thing.
The Napo briefing noted that its members have very real concerns about child safeguarding during this continued lockdown period, and with schools still broadly closed and reduced access to children’s social services, it is vital that this House strengthens legislation to protect vulnerable children, not reduce it.
I want to make one further point, which is that these regulations make sweeping changes to foster care. The changes have caused great concern, and they include scrapping foster panels, extending emergency placements with local authority foster carers from six days to 24 weeks, reducing councils’ obligations to privately fostered children, and removing conditions and levels of scrutiny for some foster care placements. The impact is wide and potentially very dangerous indeed.
I hope the Minister will listen to those in this House who have raised these concerns today, but if the Government will not listen to us, will they please listen to professionals out in the community? They do an amazing job under difficult circumstances every day, and I commend them for it.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I am grateful for being allowed to speak on what as other Members have said is an essential matter. When we first went into lockdown, we were in unprecedented times and it was very disconcerting. None of us in the Chamber could have been unaware of just how disconcerting it was, not only for us in our job, but for our constituents, who came to us with the most complex problems.
It is absolutely my belief that the Minister and the Government brought in these regulations with the best of intentions to keep children safe at a time when we could not imagine at all how normal life would continue. However, as right hon. and hon. Members have said, time has brought perspective and shown how we have managed to adapt. Seeing me participate in a virtual Parliament when I had no idea how it worked was an example of what we can do if we have to. However, time has also shown us that some of the Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations are not the best way of doing things. Right hon. and hon. Members—each and every one of them—have very eloquently and very significantly confirmed that to be the case. I want to give an example of where the regulations fall down. That was never the intention, but it is quite clear that they have fallen down.
The example I would give is the issue of contact. When I spoke to some of my primary schoolteachers at the start of lockdown—I have had, and still have, a good relationship with them—one teacher expressed her concern that she was not able to see and connect with a child in her class. She watches over and gives the child that little bit extra emotional support because of their vulnerability, given her position and the knowledge that she has of that child. She encourages and she affirms that child more than the rest of the children in that class in a very quiet way, because the child shows signs of not receiving that support at home. The role of the teacher in a class is so critical, and the knowledge, perception and initiative of the teacher can help such a child. She made contact with every parent of those in her class to establish the easiest way to keep in touch with her children—whether by phone call, video call, messaging the parents or a Zoom class—and to continue to play her part in meeting their needs.
How much more is that true for children who we know have support issues and who need contact with their social workers? I understand that lockdown is a very different time. It is not possible physically to visit children, but there are other forms of contact and support. Taking away the need for social workers to make contact in temporary homes is not a good thing, and I believe it is not necessary. If we are making changes, we should say that, although physical visits may not be practical there is an obligation to have direct, sustained contact to lend support to these most vulnerable of children and to deliver for foster families.
Adoption UK said that in 2018
“more than half of all newly-placed adopters wondered in the early months whether they had done the right thing and whether they would be able to cope. 54% experienced stress, anxiety and/or symptoms of post-adoption depression.”
It is very clear that that comes in different forms. Even at the best of times, the early days of a placement can be particularly difficult for new adopters. For those currently at this stage in their adoption journey, that has been compounded by the covid-19 lockdown, leaving them isolated and detached from their usual support network. Removing statutory duties to support these new families will only leave them feeling more isolated, and will put more adoptive placements at risk. That can never be allowed to happen, as we know how important those placements are.
I have received, as have other Members, numerous briefings from Become and Adoption UK, among others—all expressing deep and sincere concern about the effects of these regulations and the vagueness of the proposed end date.
I will conclude by asking the Minister a couple of questions. If she is not prepared, or unable, to revisit the need for the measures, will she at least confirm that the emergency regulations will expire on 25 September 2020? If not, will she outline the circumstances in which she believes it will be necessary to extend them and how that decision will be made?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
This is a deeply unprecedented time, and it falls on all of us to protect and support those who are most vulnerable. Protecting vulnerable children has been at the heart of the Government’s response. Many Members have spoken with great passion this afternoon, and I welcome this opportunity to explain the work that the Government have been doing for vulnerable children.
Every child is different and different children are vulnerable for different reasons. Therefore, we have been setting up networks of support across the country for different groups of vulnerable children. For some vulnerable children, especially those with a social worker, attending school is an important protective factor. That is why schools, colleges and early years providers have remained open for them throughout. When children have not attended, we have worked with education settings and local authorities to ensure that social services are in touch with them. We have been surveying local authorities, and the vast majority of the most vulnerable children—those with a child protection plan—have been seen or contacted by their social worker within the past fortnight.
Children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities always face extra challenges, and this has been a particularly difficult time for them and their families, so we have asked education settings to ensure that those with education, health and care plans can attend their normal school setting, but that has to be on an individual risk-assessed basis to make sure that the child’s needs come first. We have also provided a wide range of specific online resources so that those staying at home can continue their education, and we have committed £37 million this year through the Family Fund to support more than 75,000 low-income families with disabled or critically ill children; £10 million of that is specifically in response to this pandemic.
Some 39,000 adoptive families have had extra help from the increase that we have made to the adoption support fund, and across the country our loving foster carers have been able to access extra help from the increases that we have put into the Fostering Network. Care leavers are particularly vulnerable and often face isolation, so we have made it clear that those who are due to leave care can stay in their current home. We have provided over £100 million of laptops and devices to care leavers and disadvantaged children so that they can stay in touch and access social care services, as well as education, putting care leavers and children in care first.
Teenagers in alternative provision are especially vulnerable, so we are wrapping those in year 11 who are in alternative provision with a bespoke package to support them not only now but through next year, too. For those suffering anxiety, we have increased mental health and wellbeing support and guidance for children, teachers and parents; we have invested in mental health charities; and, crucially, we have ensured that the new 24/7 mental health crisis lines are available to children as well as adults.
Domestic violence impacts on children, so we have worked with the Home Office to invest in specialist services and enlarged Operation Encompass, which brings together police and schools. We have funded the expansion of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and helped to promote its national helplines, so that people have a place to go if they are concerned that a child may be experiencing abuse or facing neglect. Our See, Hear, Respond project, led by Barnardo’s, will further support vulnerable children at risk of harm.
All that I have outlined is just some of the work that we have been doing. A massive amount of work has been undertaken. I thank parents, teachers, childcare providers, social workers, foster carers and our partners in the public, private and charity sectors for all they are doing to support children. I also thank children and young people themselves, especially those in care and in children’s homes.
Mrs Lewell-Buck
May I gently nudge the Minister to answer some of the questions that came from the Opposition? She is halfway through her speech and we have not yet we heard about the children affected by these changes.
Vicky Ford
I am coming to exactly those answers.
The protection of vulnerable children relies on those on the frontline, especially children’s services in local authorities, so we have supported local authorities with additional investment to help social workers to return to the frontline and by deploying more than 250 Ofsted staff directly into local authorities, as well as through new regional teams. But those on the frontline have faced challenges that they have never seen before. I have heard directly from many social workers about those challenges; hence we have needed to give them some regulatory flexibilities.
Munira Wilson
Will the Minister explain why, in respect of the easing of statutory duties, the standards that need to be met are lesser for children than they are for adults? Will she address the suggestion that many have put to her that we should publish data on local authorities that use the easements so that we can scrutinise what is happening on the ground?
Vicky Ford
Absolutely. I will address many of the points that have been raised. The safeguards for adult social care are different from those for children’s social care because the statutory framework for adult social care differs. The easements that have been made on adult social care are in primary legislation, not secondary legislation, whereas in children’s social care we have made absolutely sure that the primary legislation stays in place.
Let me continue to set the scene. Those on the frontline have faced challenges that they have never seen before. For those children with special educational needs and disabilities, and especially those with an EHC plan, which sets out the specific provisions required to meet their needs, such provision would normally happen in an education setting. However, although those settings have remained open for children with an EHC plan, not all of them have been able to attend, so it has simply been impossible for local authorities and health commissioners to deliver the full provisions of those plans. That is why we have needed to make some changes.
The regulations on children’s social care are intended to support local authorities and providers, but do not remove any fundamental protections. Let me be really clear: section 22 of the Children Act 1989 remains in place, meaning that local authorities still have a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child they are looking after, and section 1 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 remains, meaning that the child’s welfare is paramount in all decisions on adoption. We have made no changes to primary legislation and the vast majority of secondary legislation has remained unchanged.
The amendments do not reduce the responsibilities that local authorities have to protect children from significant harm and to promote their welfare, nor should they be at the expense of the rights and protection of children in care.
Vicky Ford
I am going to make some progress and come to the specific questions raised. We did need to prepare for the risk that local services may be unable to fully respond to significant pressures caused by covid-19. Serious staff absences, coupled with an increase in demand for services, could lead to the most vulnerable children being put at risk if services struggle to cope with the requirements of legislation. Some of the changes provide for the ability to diverge from established timescales for a limited number of activities or to cater for situations where there may be staff absences or a need to reduce personal contact. For example, it may not be appropriate for a social worker to physically visit a looked-after child if covid is present or if the household is self-isolating.
Some changes are designed to help ensure that there are minimal delays in the adoption or fostering process. For example, in order to make sure that we have enough foster carers available at a time when potential need has increased, we have given flexibility on who could be a temporary foster carer, while still requiring that carers must be properly assessed for this vital role. Other changes allow local authorities more time to respond to formal reports, such as those from Ofsted inspections.
The flexibilities were developed rapidly and they needed to be, so the scope for formal consultation was more limited than normal and it was necessary to forgo the standard 21-day rule for their coming into force, but the views of a wide range of organisations did influence the regulations that were laid before the House, and I do welcome the opportunity to discuss them tonight. It is important to be clear exactly what those flexibilities are; otherwise young people will be unduly concerned. The hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) has suggested that short-break placements for children are now too long and there will not be any requirements on visits and care plans, but the annual limit of 75 days in any one year remains. We have removed the restriction on no single placement being longer than 17 days, simply so that children do not have to move between homes as frequently, and I am sure she will understand that.
Opposition Members have also suggested that social workers will no longer need to visit children living in care, but that is simply not the case. Statutory timescales remain in place. Social workers always must endeavour to meet those timetables, and in the small number of cases where they cannot meet them, for reasons such as sickness or self-isolation, they must be able to demonstrate that they can meet them and why the temporary amendment can be used. It is not the case that children’s homes can deprive a child of his or her liberty. That decision can be made only by a public health officer, who has the power to impose proportionate requirements, including screening and isolation, if any individual has a suspected or confirmed case of coronavirus. That decision must always be kept under review and must take account of the child’s wellbeing.
It has also been suggested that children could be placed with emergency foster carers for too long and without scrutiny, but in fact there will continue to be the same scrutiny of emergency foster carers. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) asked about decisions on placing a child in care outside his local area. I thank him for his invitation to meet his all-party group on children, as I would be delighted to do that. In fact, any decision to place a child with a non-connected person would still be subject to strict and intensive assessment by the local authority of their suitability, background and circumstances. This flexibility is available only in cases where additional scrutiny by a nominated officer will delay a child being placed with an appropriate and approved carer. He also raised the important issue of serious safeguarding cases. No changes have been made to primary legislation that require local authorities to investigate suspected cases of the risk of significant harm, or local authorities’ powers to make applications for emergency protection orders or applications for care protection orders.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) asked why there were differences in other parts of the UK. Structures and approaches differ across each part of the UK and so will the pressures that are felt. We in the Department for Education speak to providers and local authorities in England. These changes are a response to what we have been told. Other countries will have spoken to their own local areas and will take actions accordingly.
The Children’s Commissioner has a very important job to speak for children and it is right that she does so. We agree on the importance of protecting vulnerable children—indeed, I speak to her regularly—but on this matter we disagree. I set out clear responses to the points she made in an article in The Guardian in a point-by-point statement published on the Department’s website. I suggest that Members who quoted her look at the detailed responses I have made, because we have worked to address many of her concerns on the guidance that we have published for local authorities. We are continuing to engage with her about how we can ensure our guidance is clear.
This is a really important point: these flexibilities should be used only when absolutely necessary and in the interests of the child, because the child’s interests must come first. If there is no pressing need to use them, they should not be used. The flexibilities must be approved at chief officer level in local authorities or by top-tier management in other organisations. The decisions for their being used must be recorded. Ofsted will take note of any usage and stands ready to take action. Indeed, Ofsted is taking action, even at this time, to suspend 17 children’s homes or stop them taking children.
Monitoring is important. We have been gathering information regularly on which of the regulations are being used and why we are holding a monthly survey of local authorities. We are working with key organisations, including children’s charities and provider representatives, to seek feedback on how the regulations are being used and the effect on children. I am glad to report that they are being used infrequently. The flexibility most likely to be used is one that allows medical reports to be considered at a later date of an adoption process, thus minimising delays in approving adopters and allowing for those children to move on into that new forever family.
The changes will expire on 25 September. There is no plan to extend them. If there is a need for further flexibility, it will be on a case-by-case basis after discussion with stakeholders and subject to full parliamentary process. The regulation changes are temporary. They are not permanent. I am committed to keeping a close eye on the situation and will report back to Parliament before the summer recess.
The Government are absolutely committed to supporting vulnerable children and ensuring that they are properly safeguarded. We have demonstrated that through the initiatives I have outlined today. Supporting vulnerable children will continue to be my No. 1 priority, the No. 1 priority of the Department for Education, and the No. 1 priority of the Government during this time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am expecting a Division on this Question, and hon. and right hon. Members should be familiar with the Division process. But could I please urge all hon. Members to pause at the relevant Dispatch Box and give their names and vote clearly? The Question is on Motion 5 on the Order Paper.
Question put.
Business without Debate
Business of the House (Private Members’ Bills)
Day 1 | Day 2 |
12 June 2020 | 10 July 2020 |
26 June 2020 | 11 September 2020 |
10 July 2020 | 16 October 2020 |
11 September 2020 | 23 October 2020 |
16 October 2020 | 30 October 2020 |
30 October 2020 | 13 November 2020 |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to rise to support the Government’s motion. It is to the great credit of the Leader of the House’s Office that it revised the original schedule for the benefit of the House and—I am finding these words very difficult—I congratulate the Whips on their help in this matter.
What we have today is a Government who have allowed private Members’ Bills to proceed. The last time a Government attempted to stop private Members’ Bills—and I fear the original motion would have had the effect of ending private Members’ Bills in this Session —was in 1945, and for a very similar reason. The Government had a lot of Bills to get through following the war, just as the Government have a lot of Bills to get through now, with very limited availability and space in the House.
In those days, private Members’ Bills were written out in hand with a great deal of time and effort, put in red tape and placed on the Table. In due course, there was a ballot for them. The Government decided in 1945 that they were not going to do that, but one Member— Sir Alan Herbert, the Member for Oxford University—was very unhappy about that. In a speech on 16 August, he said:
“I have worked very hard. Hon. Members may laugh at my little Bills, but I believe they will be a little more popular with a great many people than some of the proposals which will later be laid before us. I presented them in due order at the Table yesterday. I am not quarrelling with your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, but you said that they must not appear on the Order Paper. But look at what this House is doing to me after all the things I promised to my constituents, and all the things I have promised to the constituents of other hon. Members. I get a hundred letters a week, not from my own constituents but from poor people who are worried about their divorces.”
That was followed by laughter. He continued:
“There is no laughter about this. They write also about the Poor Persons’ Procedure. I have a Bill here dealing with the provision of legal aid and assistance for the poor. That is something fundamental, but there is not a word about it in the Gracious Speech. What am I to say to all those people who write to me? I must tell them to stop sending their letters and to save their stamps, because I can do no more to help them if this Motion goes through; I might just as well be a Member of the German Reichstag or a stuffed exhibit in the Natural History Museum. If the House will not have my Bills on the Table I cast them on the Floor, as a monument to Parliamentary liberty and a challenge to despotic power.”—[Official Report, 16 August 1945; Vol. 413, c. 143-144.]
With a great flourish, he chucked his Bills on to the Floor of the House. Unfortunately, he had not tied them up properly, and they fell apart, only to reveal that every single one of them was blank. That speech got the Government to reverse their position on trying to kill off private Members’ Bills in 1945. Thankfully, this Government have not followed that and have listened.
By the way, I should say one other thing about poor old Mr Herbert. Although he got the private Members’ Bills back and it became part of standard procedure, which most Governments do not like, the Government got their own back—they abolished university seats thereafter, and he was no longer a Member of Parliament.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am happy to engage in a conversation about reform of the private Members’ Bill process. I know that the hon. Gentleman is a big fan of bringing forward presentation Bills under the auspices of Standing Order No. 57. If we are having that wider debate about reform of private Members’ Bills, surely we need to move away from the ridiculous lottery that exists where, in the equivalent of buying a scratchcard, 20 Members have the opportunity to bring forward a private Member’s Bill and realistically get it through. A great many of us, including the hon. Gentleman himself, will bring forward Bills under Standing Order No. 57, and they will never see the light of day or get on to the statute book.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We are not having that wider debate, but the hon. Member has made his point.
Mr Bone
We are definitely not going to have that debate, because it is not part of this. That is for the Procedure Committee, and I might well support some of those changes. The hon. Member is actually wrong. In the last Parliament, some of the ballot Bills became law, but a number of presentation Bills also became law. I got an Act of Parliament. [Interruption.] No, it was about half of them. There was one Act that you might remember, Mr Deputy Speaker—it was called the Hilary Benn Act, and it rather changed the course of history, so people who say that private Members’ Bills do not matter are wrong. The procedure is very clear. We do not now have the archaic position of having to lay the Bill on the Table. All we have to do now to get a presentation Bill is sleep for a week under Big Ben upstairs. Some things never change, but it does work, and presentation Bills, ten-minute rule Bills and ballot Bills do raise very important issues.
The first private Member’s Bill Friday sitting of this Session went ahead before the lockdown, and three Bills got a Second Reading. The only one that unfortunately did not was promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope). For some reason, the Minister seemed to not want to sit down and let the House vote. The result of that Friday sitting is that three Bills need a Committee stage, and they can get a Committee stage.
But the problem with private Members’ Bills is the ruling that we have to get to the eighth Friday before we can get a Bill from Committee back to the House for Report and Third Reading and then try to get it through the House of Lords. The problem with the original motion was that the eighth Friday would become 5 February 2021, about a year after those Bills were introduced. The original eighth Friday was 11 September. Because of the coronavirus—I understand entirely the thought behind this—the Government have changed it so that the eighth Friday is now in November, but that still gives time for the Bills to become law.
David Linden
I enjoyed serving with the hon. Gentleman on the Procedure Committee. Was it not the case in the last Parliament that the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) had Bills before the eighth Friday, but the Government refused to bring forward a money resolution? That is another issue—if the Government do not bring forward a money resolution, that essentially kills a private Member’s Bill, which is why we need reform.
Mr Bone
I am not going to fall foul of the Deputy Speaker, because that is exactly a procedure that I would approve of. The idea that a Government do not lay a money resolution to allow the House to decide whether to pass a Bill is outrageous, but that is part of the problem of getting private Members’ Bills through.
I want to congratulate the Government on doing a very sensible thing. We will now sit on 10 July, hopefully, for the second private Member’s Bill Friday. We have one Friday in September and then a series in October—I think it is every week—and one in November. It is to their credit that the Government have moved on this issue. Unfortunately, as he is now the Leader of the House, he will no longer be sitting on the Back Benches arguing for hours on end as to why some private Member’s Bill should not get through, but perhaps he will turn up and sit at the Dispatch Box to listen.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on this. I am very pleased to be able to say that the result of the change to the motion has meant that I do not have to speak for three and a half hours and I do not have to throw my 40 Bills on to the Floor of the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
We all live in disappointment.
Question put and agreed to.
Proxy Voting (Extension)
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I will speak briefly, so as not to detain the House. I spoke in the Standing Order No. 24 debate on this matter on Monday, when I urged the Leader of the House to listen to the debate and make the changes that he has indeed brought forward to extend proxy voting. I therefore thought it appropriate to say on the Floor of the House what I have said on Twitter, and thank the Leader for listening to what was said in the House and for extending proxy voting to enable those with caring responsibilities, and those who have reasons other than their own medical condition and are unable to be present—it is not that they do not want to come to the House—to have the opportunity to have a proxy vote and have their vote cast on their behalf. To the Leader, I say thank you.
One other thing, which is a question for the Leader to think about. I also said on Monday that I hoped—he indicated that he was open to this—to see whether it was technically possible to enable colleagues who are not able to be present in the House to participate in the legislative functions of the House, albeit that I acknowledged that perhaps they would not be able to participate fully, as in intervening. I wonder whether he has made any progress on that. I accept that matter may be technically complex and require some further thought, but I thought it worth mentioning on the Floor of the House. When the Leader has listened and responded to what is said in the House, it is appropriate to say thank you to him for doing so.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I rise this evening to present a petition on behalf of my east end constituents, who have been outraged by the actions of the Prime Minister’s chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, during lockdown. When everyone else has been told to stay home, protect the NHS and save lives, Dominic Cummings was using Barnard Castle as some sort of Optical Express drive-through service, which would be the height of irresponsibility at the best of times, but is even more outrageous during a global pandemic. The fact that the Prime Minister and the rest of the Cabinet have sought to defend this only reaffirms the widely held view that with this Tory Government, it is one rule for them and one rule for everyone else.
The petition states:
“The Petition of residents of the constituency of Glasgow East,
Declares that the Prime Minister’s Chief Advisor, Mr Dominic Cummings, driving 260 miles to Durham during lockdown for childcare reasons when he and his wife were displaying symptoms of COVID-19, acted against the UK Government advice to “Stay at Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives”; further notes that driving a 60-mile round trip to Barnard Castle to test if his eyesight was suitable for driving was potentially dangerous to himself, his family and other road users, and also breached the “Stay at Home” message; further declares that the support from the Prime Minister and other senior members of the Cabinet for Mr Cummings’ actions weaken the efforts for public compliance with the stay at home and social distancing requirements; and further notes that the whole episode has upset many people who have abided by the rules and guidance, missing out on the chance to say goodbye to loved ones, not being able to see new-born members of their families, and missing family contact during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to conduct an inquiry into the conduct and justification of the Prime Minister’s Chief Advisor and that he be requested to consider his position; further to instruct all special advisers to adhere to the same rules as other members of the public.
And the petitioners remain etc.”
[P002574]
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
Huge numbers of my constituents have contacted me angry and upset about the Prime Minister’s senior adviser breaking the lockdown rules that they so scrupulously followed, with all the sacrifices that that required of them. They followed the public health requirements for the greater good of all. They are angry not only that Mr Cummings broke the lockdown rules but that he was accorded a press conference in the rose garden of Downing Street to evade, explain and excuse this dangerous breach, with no sense that he and his family are not the exception and are not exceptional.
To those who, on public health grounds, condemned those who attended demonstrations at the weekend, I point out that we shall never know how many decided to go on those demonstrations because of the example set by Mr Cummings—that, if someone believes they have a good reason to ignore the rules, they can.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the Prime Minister’s Chief Advisor, Mr Dominic Cummings, driving 260 miles to Durham during lockdown for childcare reasons when he and his wife were displaying symptoms of COVID-19, acted against the UK Government advice to “Stay at Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives”; further notes that driving a 60-mile round trip to Barnard Castle to test if his eyesight was suitable for driving was potentially dangerous to himself, his family and other road users, and also breached the “Stay at Home” message; further declares that the support from the Prime Minister and other senior members of the Cabinet for Mr Cummings’ actions weaken the efforts for public compliance with the stay at home and social distancing requirements; and further notes that the whole episode has upset many people who have abided by the rules and guidance, missing out on the chance to say goodbye to loved ones, not being able to see new-born members of their families, and missing family contact during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to conduct an inquiry into the conduct and justification of the Prime Minister’s Chief Advisor and that he be requested to consider his position; further to instruct all special advisers to adhere to the same rules as other members of the public.
And the petitioners remain etc.
[P002572]
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
I rise on behalf of my constituents to launch this petition regarding the conduct of the Prime Minister’s chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, during the covid-19 pandemic. They are angry that, while they obeyed the lockdown instructions, depriving themselves of opportunities to see family members, missing funerals and, in some cases, missing the chance of a personal farewell, the chief adviser to the Prime Minister travelled 260 miles when he and his wife were both displaying covid-19 symptoms. They are angry that that was justified as owing to childcare requirements. They are angry that that reckless behaviour was compounded by a 60-mile round trip to Barnard Castle with his family, supposedly to test whether his eyesight was suitable for driving. They are really angry that the UK Government, including the Prime Minister, backed these woeful excuses, meaning that there is one rule for us and one rule for them. It is no wonder that nearly 1.2 million people signed the change.org petition calling for Dominic Cummings to go. At a minimum, we need an inquiry, but my constituents are quite clear: they want him to go.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the constituency of Kilmarnock and Loudoun,
Declares that the Prime Minister’s Chief Advisor, Mr Dominic Cummings, driving 260 miles to Durham during lockdown for childcare reasons when he and his wife were displaying symptoms of COVID-19, acted against the UK Government advice to “Stay at Home, Protect the NHS, Save Lives”; further notes that driving a 60-mile round trip to Barnard Castle to test if his eyesight was suitable for driving was potentially dangerous to himself, his family and other road users, and also breached the “Stay at Home” message; further declares that the support from the Prime Minister and other senior members of the Cabinet for Mr Cummings’ actions weaken the efforts for public compliance with the stay at home and social distancing requirements; and further notes that the whole episode has upset many people who have abided by the rules and guidance, missing out on the chance to say goodbye to loved ones, not being able to see new-born members of their families, and missing family contact during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to conduct an inquiry into the conduct and justification of the Prime Minister’s Chief Advisor and that he be requested to consider his position; further to instruct all special advisers to adhere to the same rules as other members of the public.
And the petitioners remain etc.
[P002573]
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I rise to present a petition signed by more than 400 of my constituents. It acknowledges that there are more than 5 million unpaid carers in this country, who also juggle employment alongside their caring activities. It recognises the enormous strain placed on these people, with 2.6 million forced to quit their job, at an estimated cost to the economy—in lost revenues, earnings and additional benefits—of £5.3 billion, and it urges the Government, in Carers Week, to introduce a statutory paid leave entitlement for working carers of between five and 10 days per year.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Birmingham, Selly Oak Constituency,
Declares that the Employment Rights Act 1996 only provides for a ‘reasonable amount of unpaid time off’ to care for dependents for one-off appointments and emergencies; notes that latest figures show that there are an estimated 5 million people juggling paid work and unpaid care; further that Carers UK research reveals that 2.6 million have quit their job to care for a loved one who is older, disabled or seriously ill with nearly half a million (468,000) leaving their job in the last two years alone; further that the estimated costs to the economy of carers being forced to give up work to care had reached £5.3 billion in lost tax revenues, earnings and additional benefit payments.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to introduce a statutory entitlement to paid care leave of 5 to 10 days per year.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002576]
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
This petition is on the unique position of islands across the UK and covid-19. It is of great importance to my constituents in North Ayrshire and Arran, and is supported by the MSP for Cunninghame North, Kenneth Gibson, and my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara), who also represent island communities that face particular challenges at this time.
The petition states:
The Petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the economic fortunes and sustainability of island communities across the UK, such as the Isle of Arran and the Isle of Cumbrae, are more precarious than mainland communities, not least because of the higher number of older people in such communities; further declares that, despite welcome support from the United Kingdom and devolved governments, lockdown has been particularly challenging for island communities; notes that the exiting of lockdown for islands has to be slower than on mainland communities as ferry capacity must be restricted to ensure social distancing, with capacity expected to be initially limited to less than 20 per cent on some routes, presenting an unprecedented economic threat for island economies and leaving them at a disadvantage to the rest of the mainland UK; further notes that island communities are heavily reliant on tourism, levels of which have been significantly reduced by lockdown measures; further notes the impact that redundancies in the tourism industry will have on islands such as Arran, where one resort, the Auchrannie resort, employs 171 people from a total island population of 4,600; and further declares that as the Government prepares to reduce support in September for furloughed workers, fragile island communities will be particularly affected by mass redundancies and unemployment.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the UK Government to bring forward special measures to support island economies, including a furlough extension specifically for island communities.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002577]
Rolls-Royce (Redundancies)
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
I thought that we had just had the Adjournment debate, with the last petition from my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson); it has certainly eaten into the time available.
Following its announcement in May of a potential 6,000 job losses around the UK, Rolls-Royce last week proposed what it says is the first tranche. Some 3,000 posts across the UK are under threat, including 700 at the site in Inchinnan in my constituency. Inchinnan is a key site for the company’s maintenance, repair and overhaul—MRO—operations, as well as manufacturing compressors and seals. Such businesses provide parts and support for Rolls-Royce engines used around the world. Their output is world-class, and recognised throughout the business and the industry at large as first-rate. Under the proposals, Rolls-Royce will close the MRO business completely, and the rest of the plant will be downgraded. A total of 700 jobs are threatened, which is over half the total workforce in Inchinnan.
These plans would be a hard blow to the economy in my constituency and across the west of the Scotland. Its impact will also be felt across the supply chain, which goes right across Scotland and the UK. Just yesterday, Wyman-Gordon in Livingston announced 72 redundancies, blaming a drop in orders, including from Rolls-Royce. These are the high-value and highly skilled jobs that we are all fighting to secure for our constituencies—the jobs that Government Ministers promote so often it is almost a cliché. These jobs are the cornerstone of manufacturing in this country and have the potential to grow it further. Yet UK Ministers have been quiet—nay, silent—about what they intend to do to support the workforce and the high-value manufacturing that is so often the subject of press releases and photos of Ministers wearing hard hats.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman may be aware that the International Air Transport Association does not expect air travel to recover to last year’s levels until 2023. This sustained drop in demand is one reason why companies such as Rolls-Royce are considering large-scale redundancies. He may also be aware that British Airways has threatened to cut 12,000 jobs, citing reduced demand. Many of my constituents who have worked loyally for BA over many years have written to me about the fact that they are now being treated as expendable. I am deeply concerned about that. The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful argument; does he agree that we need an urgent Government intervention to ensure that jobs affected by reduced air travel are protected for the long term?
Gavin Newlands
The short answer is absolutely. I completely agree with the proposal that the hon. Lady outlines; in fact, it is a proposal that we have been making to the UK Government for months now. There are many estimates as to how long the industry will take to recover but, as I shall come on to say, there is no denying that the industry will face a long and slow recovery. The industry will face redundancies, but the issue is the nature of some of those redundancies. I shall certainly touch on British Airways a little later, although Rolls-Royce is the focus of my speech.
Gavin Newlands
Before I kick on, it would not be an Adjournment debate without hearing from hon. Gentleman.
Jim Shannon
First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate. He brings forward excellent Adjournment debates and makes other excellent contributions in the House, which we all appreciate, and we are pleased to be able to participate.
I absolutely understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from: just in the past few weeks a major employer in my constituency has outlined how redundancies will be on their way soon. Does he agree that Government support for local industries is essential, as we all know that once a company shuts an operation it never, or rarely, reopens? If we do not hold on to these industries, we will face mass unemployment, alongside the fact that we will be perceived to be a nation that no longer manufacturers or creates, leaving us absolutely at the mercy of imports, which should never be allowed to happen.
Gavin Newlands
As usual in these debates, the hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I will outline how Scotland has a very forward-looking approach to manufacturing, particularly in the area in which Rolls-Royce operates, but he is right that when these types of jobs go, they rarely return. I shall elaborate on that later.
When the Minister responds, I hope he will give us a full update on the work that he and his colleagues have undertaken to save the jobs of not only my constituents but those at Rolls-Royce sites right throughout the country. There is no doubt that in the short term there is a period of great challenge—perhaps the greatest ever challenge—for Rolls-Royce and the entire aviation and aerospace sector, but given the history of excellence at Inchinnan, there is also no doubt that as the sector recovers over the coming months and years, there will be a customer base for its output, and Rolls-Royce will benefit from that.
The unions recognise that and want to help. From the start they have set things out clearly to their members and to management and asked how they think the short-term operation of the site can work so that it has a long-term future. Throughout the process, the unions have been pragmatic, serious and forward-thinking, looking for a way forward that supports their members and the company’s operations. Anyone who thinks that the unions at Inchinnan or anywhere else in the Rolls-Royce business are interested in anything other than the long-term future of production at the sites is living in a parallel universe.
Several hon. Members rose—
Gavin Newlands
Who do I pick? I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson).
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way; I predict that he will continue to be generous with his time as we all seek to intervene on him.
I appreciate that the focus of this debate is on Rolls-Royce, which is quite appropriate given that my hon. Friend has been leading on this issue as a constituency Member who faces a lot of redundancies in his constituency. I know he will agree with me, because he has done a lot of work on the fact that BA has also announced 12,000 redundancies, added to the 9,000 at Rolls-Royce and the terrible treatment of the workforce at BA. I know that my hon. Friend shares my concern that this is only the tip of the iceberg; is he, like me, hopeful that the Government will intervene? This is the tip of the iceberg and we are going to see tens of thousands more jobs lost across the whole aviation, travel, tourism and aerospace sector. Does he agree that we need urgent Government action right now?
Gavin Newlands
I think I was told that I would agree with my hon. Friend, so I do agree with her—I agree completely with what she says. I will come on to discuss British Airways, so if anybody else has an intervention on British Airways, perhaps they should wait until that section of my speech .
Darren Jones (Bristol North West) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene in this popular Adjournment debate. I congratulate him on making the case for the long-term growth prospects that come from the aerospace sector and Rolls-Royce’s work. Does he agree that time is now of the essence for Ministers? The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, which I chair, has in recent weeks heard that redundancy decisions are being taken now about tens of thousands of jobs throughout the country. If we look to other countries, such as France, Germany and the United States, which have already brought forward measures to support the industry, we see that the UK is starting to lag behind. We really need to see action sooner rather than later.
Gavin Newlands
The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point, and I could not agree with him more. We constantly hear Ministers, particularly from the Department for Transport, talk about things being “under review”, but it has been four months now; we do not have time for further review. We need action, so I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am grateful to my friend for giving way. Although he is a friend of mine, I do wish to pay tribute to him for the amount of campaigning work he has done on this issue. A number of constituency Members throughout the country have a situation in which the local economy appears to be collapsing, and my hon. Friend has really led this charge, so I pay tribute to him for that.
I have constituents in Glasgow East who, like my hon. Friend’s constituents, work at the Inchinnan plant and are incredibly concerned about the situation. The Government have shown, whether through things like the furlough scheme or other aspects of how they have handled coronavirus, that they will intervene, and it is right that when they do things right we pay tribute to that. This is a Government who have in the past intervened, stood up and strongly signalled when they needed to see action, so may I say to the Minister and the Government , through my hon. Friend, that on this issue the Government need to speak up and reassure my constituents back home in Glasgow East that they are fighting to try to protect these jobs as much as possible?
Gavin Newlands
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those words; I am sure the Minister will address them in his speech.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) for his tenacity, and not just on Rolls-Royce. With Glasgow airport in his constituency, he has his work cut out for him, but he has certainly risen to the occasion. He will be aware that constituents of mine are also employed in Rolls-Royce in Inchinnan. One of the key concerns I hear from them is that the Rolls-Royce facility is part of the planned National Manufacturing Institute Scotland, which is to develop skills and engineering in the west of Scotland. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the UK Government step in so that we can continue to use the Rolls-Royce facility to develop highly skilled engineering jobs in the west of Scotland?
Gavin Newlands
Yes, I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I will touch on NMIS later in my speech, so I do not want to give too much away now.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
Obviously, we must focus on the long term, but there is an immediate and short-term issue. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that some companies seem to have rushed to make decisions on closures when the furlough scheme has been on the go and available for a while now? I have a company in Kilmarnock, Wabtec, which has announced it is closing its plant, ending railway works at the site after more than 100 years. It refuses to consider the furlough scheme, and I do not understand why. It seems to me that Rolls-Royce might be having the same knee-jerk reaction. It could utilise short-term support, then look at the long-term future and see whether it could get long-term Government support.
Gavin Newlands
My hon. Friend makes a good point, but I would have preferred it if the Government had not signalled their intention to end the furlough scheme in October, because for many businesses, it will just push redundancies from earlier in the year to later. Perhaps the Government should look at extending it and phasing it out a bit more gradually than they have said. However, the scheme exists and is here until October, and too many businesses are not utilising the scheme to the maximum.
Gavin Newlands
Yes, although I do not think I have given any of my own speech for a good time.
Antony Higginbotham
I welcome the debate the hon. Gentleman has managed to secure. He made a really important point about the impact this decision will have across the UK, not just because of Rolls-Royce’s geographic scope, but because of the whole supply chain that sits behind it. Does he agree that often supply chain businesses are clustered, so the impact will be felt in some communities far more than in others, which is why we need to be particularly mindful of these redundancies?
Gavin Newlands
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. My constituency has Glasgow airport in it, so as he can imagine, there are many aviation jobs and a strong aerospace sector. We face a pretty tough time in the coming months.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this debate to the House. It is important for my constituents in Anstey, where about a third of the workforce are in danger of losing their jobs. They have recently secured some new repair and overhaul work at the plant, to bring in an additional 30 to 50 jobs, but I understand that some of that work is now going to be offshored and carried out by Rolls-Royce overseas. Does he agree that, at this time, we need to look at how to keep some of that activity here in the UK?
Gavin Newlands
I could not agree more, and I will go on to talk about offshoring. I have already made the point that when these jobs go and the work goes overseas to other sites in the Rolls-Royce family, if I can call it that, and to joint venture partners, it is very unlikely to return, so I totally agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
Zarah Sultana
I thank the hon. Member for being generous with his time and congratulate him on securing this important debate. Coventry is home to the Rolls-Royce Ansty plant, whose skilled workers will be vital in building the sustainable economic recovery we need following this crisis. Does he agree that the Government must not sit on the sidelines and abandon Rolls-Royce workers, but instead work with the company and the trade unions to protect those jobs and invest in the green technologies of the future?
Gavin Newlands
I totally agree that it is not for the Government to sit on the sidelines here. We often hear Governments of all persuasions saying that these things are a matter for private business, but this is a strategic sector of extreme importance to the country. Again, once the jobs go, they will be gone, so the Government have to step in and do something.
We need to be clear that the sacrifices proposed by the workforce and the trade unions go beyond minor flexibilities. They involve real-terms hardship for workers and their families, working for less pay, mothballing sites for months and increasing working hours. These have all been proposed by the union reps at Inchinnan as practical and achievable solutions to the current temporary difficulties. They tell me, however, that these comprehensive offers have been met with complete silence from Rolls-Royce. That is simply unacceptable. Industrial relations should not be conducted as though we were living in the 19th century. The hard-working and loyal workforce must be fully involved in decisions that will change their future and those of their families. My constituents, and those of other Members, who work at Inchinnan should not be treated like chattels or given their jotters whenever the management decides that savings are to be made. As I have said, everyone accepts that there will be change—the unions, the workforce, elected members and management—but it is only the management that appear to have locked themselves in a bunker, appearing only to issue their edicts and give frankly ludicrous interviews to the media.
That brings me to the chief exec, Warren East. I watched Mr East’s interview with the BBC, in which he was giggling away as he was quizzed about the loss of thousands of UK jobs. I am sure he regrets that that happened, but it was grossly insensitive to the thousands of workers whose livelihoods would be lost as a result of that decision, and they are asking for an apology. I do not want to get personal with regard to Mr East, not least because he took a meeting with me on Friday to discuss the situation, for which I am grateful, and during which, incidentally, he said that the Inchinnan workforce were second to none in the business. But I am told that Mr East and his higher management have shown no interest in dialogue with the workforce. There has now been engagement with the Scottish Government, but that took some time and many requests. I should say that the Scottish Government are absolutely committed to supporting and working with Rolls-Royce to ensure that they do all they can to secure a strong future for Rolls-Royce and its workforce in Scotland.
Rolls-Royce has had a strong relationship with Scotland since 1939, when it built its facility at Hillington. It was built to produce Merlin engines for the RAF’s Hurricanes and Spitfires during world war two, and it produced nearly 24,000 Merlins by the end of the war. I grew up not far from the Hillington site, and I had a good view of the factory’s tall chimney from the family flat close to the site of the old Renfrew airport. It was a bittersweet moment when the factory closed in 2005, when the work moved to a purpose-built facility at Inchinnan and a redeveloped site at East Kilbride. The factory was part of the local landscape, and the investment would surely safeguard jobs for years, perhaps decades, to come, but just seven years later it was announced that the East Kilbride site was to close and that its production was also to move to Inchinnan. Now, just 15 years later, that purpose-built site is itself in grave danger.
It does not have to be this way, not least because of the relationship that Rolls-Royce already has as a tier 1 partner with the Advanced Forming Research Centre—the AFRC—which sits alongside the Rolls-Royce plant. The AFRC is a globally recognised centre of excellence in innovative manufacturing technologies, R&D and metal forming and forging research, which I have visited a number of times. There has also been a huge level of manufacturing-oriented investment in the Inchinnan area, including £39 million of city deal funding to create the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation District Scotland—AMIDS—next to Glasgow airport. Again, this affects the whole site. There has also been £75 million of Scottish Government investment in building and establishing the National Manufacturing Institute Scotland —NMIS—with a further announcement of an additional £20 million on 28 May. Including other partners, this investment is now close to £100 million, so there can be no doubt of the Scottish Government’s commitment to high-value, highly skilled jobs being developed, retained and attracted to Scotland. The question for Rolls-Royce is whether it can match that commitment. There has been no discussion of the long term with the workforce and their representatives. The loyalty shown by the staff at Inchinnan, some of whom have been forced to transfer sites twice during their employment, first from Hillington and then to East Kilbride, has not been repaid and has not been respected.
This highlights a wider problem across the industry. The behaviour of IAG British Airways and its chief executive, Willie Walsh, has been widely reported and condemned in this Chamber and by the Transport Committee. It must be said that the behaviour of IAG British Airways is more reprehensible than that of Rolls-Royce, which still has some sort of relationship with its unions, albeit a little fractious of late. It is simply unacceptable for the loyalty shown by any workers, whether they work for Rolls-Royce, British Airways or anyone else, to be rewarded with the exit door the minute a challenge arises that management think can be met through cost-cutting alone. We cannot have industrial policy run as a race to the bottom with no regard to the longer term or to the communities and families who rely on these jobs.
Yesterday I presented my Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) Bill to prohibit employers from dismissing employees and subsequently re-employing them for the purposes of diminishing their terms and conditions of employment. I cannot believe that I had to present a Bill to try to make this illegal, but apparently that is the case. Does the Minister think that it is fair for a workforce to be told that they would be made redundant and a proportion rehired on vastly reduced terms and conditions—up to 70%, in some cases? If not, will he back my Bill, or the aim of it, at least, to protect the workers of this country from unscrupulous management?
Jim Shannon
Does the hon. Member agree that it is obscene for British Airways or for any other company to take advantage of the Government’s furlough scheme to then change the contracts of their workers? Some of them are my constituents, and they have expressed great concern, anger and dismay that after 30 years of loyal employment with British Airways, they have been discarded. At a time when British Airways has plenty of money in reserves, as well, it seems that its policy may be to give Virgin a run for its money. Does he think that it is now perhaps time for Government to say to British Airways, “It’s time for your slots at Heathrow and elsewhere to be looked at and not given the special treatment that they presently have”?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Before the hon. Gentleman answers, the topic of the debate is Rolls-Royce. I absolutely understand people’s anger at what has gone on with British Airways. I will allow a little bit of latitude, but we must really focus on the topic. I think it is an excellent topic for another debate, to be honest.
Gavin Newlands
The hon. Gentleman makes a very strong point about the misuse, almost, of the furlough scheme. I know that this has drawn some criticism from Ministers, but if only they had listened at the start, because when they introduced the scheme, we all said that there are no protections in it for redundancies. Other countries have put in protections to stop this sort of behaviour, but the UK Government did not listen, and here we are with regard to British Airways.
Chris Stephens
I was pleased to co-sponsor my hon. Friend’s Bill yesterday. There is a wider point about redundancy, particularly as it relates to Rolls-Royce. We are seeing, far too many times, firms choosing to lay off UK workers because it is easier to lay off a worker, in terms of redundancy, in the UK than in other countries. For example, Germany has 120 days’ notice and there has to be a far tougher process. As we come out of lockdown, should not the UK Government be looking at and discussing the whole issue of redundancy when it comes to their legislation going forward?
Gavin Newlands
I concur with my hon. Friend. In fact, executives formally allude to the fact that there are different rules and regulations in other countries, and the UK workforce will bear the brunt.
Patricia Gibson
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way so frequently. This is a debate about Rolls-Royce, but is it not a concern that when bad practice is used for all to see, it emboldens other companies in bad behaviour? British Airways has set a bad example with its arrogant attitude to its employees, and it has always had terrible industrial relations. It fails to appreciate that the company is built on the back of the loyal workers; some have worked there for decades. In that context, we are all afraid of what might now happen with Rolls-Royce.
Gavin Newlands
I totally agree. I said at the start, when British Airways came out with that horrendous proposal, that it would potentially give the wider sector cover to do something very similar. I have certainly been told stories of small and large businesses looking to do something similar and perhaps waiting to see the outcome of what happens if British Airways is allowed to carry on.
In both cases, Rolls-Royce and British Airways management have made great play of their roots, history and heritage here in this country. In both cases, that pride seems to extend only to proffering their hand for taxpayers’ cash. When it comes to repaying those taxpayers by keeping them in employment, supporting the industry and working together to tackle short-term problems, that heritage suddenly evaporates. Two thirds of Rolls-Royce’s proposed worldwide job cuts are set for the UK. That shows the loyalty the management have towards the communities and citizens of this country.
At the moment, Rolls-Royce employs roughly 52,000 people globally, of whom 23,000 are UK employees—about 44% of the entire workforce, down from 64% in 2000. That is in part as a result of some global acquisitions, but it is also the result of a previous restructuring which offshored jobs from the UK. It is hard, therefore, not to conclude that Rolls-Royce prefers to offshore UK jobs, rather than to work with sector partners and the UK workforce to recover and rebuild for the future, despite the fact that it has been in receipt of £670 million of UK Government money—mainly research and development money—over the past 20 years.
Rolls-Royce in Inchinnan is at the heart of the new advanced manufacturing innovation district that I described. That district represents a drive for world-class manufacturing and industry. I mentioned earlier that those buzzwords have almost become clichés, but in the case of Inchinnan they are 100% true. The maintenance, repair and overhaul of Inchinnan is world leading to the extent that for many years its workers have been sent around Europe and the far east to assist the company’s operations there. Five years ago, Rolls-Royce were recognising the
“dedication and flexibility of the Inchinnan workforce who continue to play a key role on the success of Rolls-Royce.”
What has changed in those five years? If Inchinnan plays a key role, why is it being singled out, disproportionately, as the hardest hit plant in the UK? It is difficult to reconcile Rolls-Royce’s previous faith in the workforce with the treatment it is now meting out.
Ministers have often stood at the Dispatch Box in this Chamber and lauded the kind of manufacturing that Inchinnan is renowned for—as they should. But the test is not what is said in this place and recorded in Hansard; it is the action the Government take to protect and promote our manufacturing sector, particularly at a time when the industry needs action from the state. So far that action has been virtually non-existent when it comes to my constituents and others around the UK. The UK is home to one of the world’s leading aviation and aerospace sectors. It supports more than 1 million jobs in the UK. It is one of the important strategic sectors of industry in this country, if not the most important. It is high time the Government acknowledged that and acted accordingly. We need to hear what the Government plan to do, because when these jobs go, very few, if any, will return. Other global sites will absorb that capacity, and those skills and those jobs will be lost to these shores.
Successive Administrations have made great play of the power of the free market, as if Milton Friedman himself had the skills and craftsmanship to produce the kind of output my constituents produce every day. That sort of ideological nonsense is dead. The impact of covid-19 has shown the need for the state to have a key role in setting the strategy for our economy and intervening where required. The workforce at Inchinnan have shown that they must be listened to, and that decisions must be taken by management after discussion and in consultation with them; not as a paper exercise, but as part of a real long-term plan.
I ask the UK Government to use their influence and power to intervene not just for my constituents in Inchinnan, but for all our aviation and aerospace businesses and workers. This is not the time to let our industries down. The Government laud high-skill production. Now is the time for them to show that they are interested in deeds, not words.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
I thank the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) for securing this important debate today. I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), whose two sites in Barnoldswick are impacted—I know that some of those workers actually live in your constituency, Mr Deputy Speaker—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer), the Chief Whip, have both made representations to me on behalf of their constituents.
I would like to begin by stating that Rolls-Royce is one of our most important manufacturers in the United Kingdom. It is the world’s second largest manufacturer of large civil aerospace engines and our largest civil aerospace company, and it accounts for about 2% of all UK exports of manufactured goods. On 18 May, the Business Secretary spoke to Warren East, the chief executive of Rolls-Royce, who advised that he would be making an announcement on restructuring plans involving job reductions globally. Warren East explained that this latest restructuring was a difficult but necessary decision to respond to the changed medium-term market conditions for civil aircraft resulting from the covid-19 pandemic and, of course, to ensure the long-term sustainability of the company. Although still uncertain of the number of job reductions at any particular location, he indicated that all of its civil aerospace sites were likely to be impacted, and assured us that Rolls-Royce would notify the MPs in the constituencies that would be affected. Warren East was grateful for the Government’s covid-19 business support measures, which are helping the company in the short term. However, he made it clear that no Government support could replace the lost global customer demand and reduced flying hours. Rolls-Royce made a public announcement on the restructuring plans on 20 May. It said that it would reduce its global workforce by at least 9,000, and that about two thirds of the job reductions would be in the United Kingdom.
Alan Brown
Did the Minister challenge Rolls-Royce on why the UK is losing workers so disproportionately, what the reasons are for that and what it could do to reverse that decision?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question, and I will come to that a little later in my speech. Essentially, the number reflects the proportion of civil aerospace jobs here compared with Rolls-Royce’s global footprint.
Rolls-Royce has now commenced its statutory consultation process, and on 3 June it opened a voluntary severance scheme that will reduce the number of compulsory redundancies. The Government fully appreciate that this news will come as a crushing blow—a crushing blow—to the Rolls-Royce workforce. We understand what a worrying time this is for its proud and talented workers who, through no fault of their own—and we heard the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North eloquently describe the workers in his own constituency—will now be affected by this decision.
We now know that reductions are planned across all Rolls-Royce’s UK civil aerospace sites, and last week Rolls-Royce confirmed that at least 700 workers will be affected in Inchinnan in the hon. Member’s Paisley and Renfrewshire North constituency. The site in Inchinnan currently has about 1,300 employees, who manufacture compressor blades for civil aerospace and defence products, as well as performing maintenance, repair and overhaul services. I would like to use this opportunity to assure the hon. Member that my officials are in regular dialogue with colleagues in Scottish Enterprise, and will continue to work with them to support not only the Scottish Government’s effort to help those affected, but the broader aerospace industry that he spoke about in Scotland.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
Over 200 job losses are proposed at Rolls-Royce in Barnoldswick. Rolls-Royce is a jewel in the crown of manufacturing in east Lancashire, and it is important to everyone, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson), who has worked extremely hard on this. Does the Minister agree that supporting the small modular reactors programme would help protect jobs at Rolls-Royce?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my hon. Friend for her question. I was going to come to small modular reactors later on. Supporting that programme will mean that Rolls-Royce will have another product line which could become a world beater in a market that we estimate to be worth about £300 billion a year.
Gavin Newlands
I hear what the Minister says about liaising with Scottish Enterprise and so forth, and I am aware of the engagement that Rolls-Royce has had with Scottish Enterprise and the Scottish Government, but what are this Government doing, other than warm words with Scottish Enterprise? What are the Government doing to keep the jobs in this country?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I hope that as I make some headway in my speech he will recognise what we are doing. I can tell him, because he asked about this earlier, that in terms of financial support the corporate finance facility from the Bank of England has provided £1.8 billion of support to airlines, and £300 million to Rolls-Royce—I will come back to that—and £60 million to Meggitt as well.
David Linden
I want to press the Minister further on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands). The Minister speaks about dealing with Scottish Enterprise and officials in Scotland, but I am afraid that that sounds to me like looking at the impact of this and thinking about the pace and so forth. Every time I visit a Government Department there are posters up all over the place saying “Britain is GREAT”, “Britain is open”, and “Britain is great for manufacturing”. The Minister mentioned that the Secretary of State had a conversation with Rolls-Royce on 18 May; has the Secretary of State picked up the phone to Rolls-Royce since then, or is it the UK Government’s view that it is just inevitable that this is going to happen, and in fact Britain is not open and Britain is not good for manufacturing? That is the message that I am getting at the moment.
Nadhim Zahawi
It is exactly the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman says, and I hope that when he listens to the words that I am about to deliver he will recognise the support we are putting into the aviation industry; I hold calls with the whole of the sector and I hope he will see after I have completed my speech to the House that this Government are committed to the sector.
Mark Pawsey
The Minister is about to talk about the financial support that the Government are providing to the sector, but he has also spoken about the catastrophic fall in demand for both air travel and new aircraft. Could the Government bring forward any measures to stimulate demand for air travel?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and, again, he anticipates my speech. We are looking at all of this, as I hope he will recognise from some of the things I will be saying soon.
Patricia Gibson
I am very interested in what the Minister has just said about looking at ways to facilitate an improvement and an increase in air travel given the crisis we have just gone through. Does he agree with me and probably all his own Back Benchers that not having the quarantine, which has been brought in with no real medical evidence to support it at this late stage in the game, would help, and that to impose it will in effect deliver a hammer blow to some of the industries that he says he is trying to help?
Nadhim Zahawi
With respect to the hon. Lady, I completely disagree. At the beginning of this epidemic, when we were in the contain phase because the number of incidences was low, we had a triage at ports and airports for passengers coming from hot countries and places such as Wuhan and the rest of China, northern Italy and then the whole of Italy, Japan and of course Iran as well. But as we moved from contain to delay, because the virus began to spread in our communities, the scientific advice was very clear that having that sort of triage at airports was making very little difference. Now that we have the virus under control, and the numbers are reducing every single day and the spread in our communities is becoming very low, it is dangerous not to have a quarantine, because we could easily import the virus from other countries. We are reviewing this every 21 days, and, of course, working on the air bridges that we have heard the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport talk about for the future. That is important; lives are incredibly important, but so are livelihoods.
Nadhim Zahawi
I will try to make headway, without abusing your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have given way before, so now let me try to make some headway with my speech.
We will do all we can to support every worker affected at each location, including through the Department for Work and Pensions, Jobcentre Plus and, of course, the Partnership Action for Continuing Employment in Scotland.
Rolls-Royce has confirmed that it will work with those bodies and other regional organisations, such as local enterprise partnerships, local authorities and the unions, to help those who will be affected to get back into employment as quickly as possible.
I have also kept in close contact with my counterpart in the Scottish Government, Fiona Hyslop and Ken Skates in the Welsh Government, and Diane Dodds and the Northern Ireland Executive. During these challenging times, we have a weekly call as a team looking at the shocks of covid-19. I will be meeting with the Minister for Business, Fair Trade and Skills next week to have an in-depth discussion on the Scottish aerospace sector. At a national level, we are working closely with the aerospace industry, particularly through the Aerospace Growth Partnership. My colleagues were asking what support we will be delivering to assist companies through the pandemic and into recovery—
Darren Jones
With all due respect, all of us are having those types of meetings on a daily basis, and we understand the challenges facing the sector. The difference is that the Minister is in a position to do something about it, and the clock is really ticking now for many, many workers, including small and medium-sized enterprises in the supply chain that supply Rolls-Royce. Redundancy notices are being handed in to trade unions now. We are losing workers, we are losing skills and we are losing production capacity. May I gently encourage the Minister in his summing up perhaps to give us some dates and some announcements about action that will be taken, ideally, in the coming weeks?
Nadhim Zahawi
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I hope that, as I make some headway, he will see some of the action that we have already taken to help the industry. I have held several meetings with groups of senior industrialists from the sector during this period. I am pleased that aerospace companies have been able to draw on the Government’s extensive financial support package, which includes £330 billion of loans and guarantees, the tax deferrals and the furlough scheme for workers. Rolls-Royce has benefited from £300 million of support from the Bank of England’s Covid Corporate Financing Facility. My Department is working with an industry-led UK aerospace supply chain taskforce, set up by the ADS Group, the national aerospace trade association, in consultation with Airbus. The taskforce, led by Tom Williams, the former chief operating officer of Airbus, is looking at supply chain vulnerabilities within the industry and at potential remedies, including around financing. That will ensure that ongoing covid-19 Government support is co-ordinated with the actions of business to support supply chains and employment.
We are continuing to back the sector strongly. Our Aerospace Technology Institute, the ATI programme, is providing £1.95 billion of Government funding for aerospace R&D by 2026, which will be matched by industry. The programme has been a game-changer for the UK aerospace industry since 2013, providing real long-term certainty about the availability and the level of public funding, giving industry the confidence it needs to invest. From Broughton in north Wales, to Derby in the east midlands and Inchinnan in the constituency of the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North, we are at the cutting edge of global aerospace innovation. We manufacture the most advanced parts of an aircraft here in the UK, and we want to maintain our position for many years to come. Indeed, creating this positive business environment helped to give Rolls-Royce the confidence to build its new large engine testbed in Derby, the largest indoor facility of its type in the world.
Nadhim Zahawi
If the hon. Gentleman will give me a couple more minutes, I will come back to him.
The facility is capable of testing large engines and, crucially, the next generation of UltraFan engines. Looking to the future, we recently opened the £300 million feature flight challenge, which will award £125 million of grants to small and medium-sized companies investing in future aviation systems and vehicle technologies, which will enable new classes of electric or autonomous air vehicles. We are supporting SMEs through innovation and productivity programmes, and we are looking at what scope there is to refocus some of these to assist with the short-term needs of businesses. That is what we are doing currently with those SMEs. We are making sure that Rolls-Royce and others can sustain investment in cutting-edge technology so that they are competitive when the markets actually recover. Our joint research projects funded through our ATI programme, which I referred to earlier, are supporting the development of the next generation of cleaner and quieter aero engines.
Chris Stephens
I thank the Minister for his generosity in giving way. He rightly talks about the support the Government have given to industry and the aviation industry, but with that we expect some corporate social responsibility. Will he outline what that means? Does it mean the Government are going to have to and will review redundancy legislation so that companies that are not engaging in CSR and are getting taxpayers’ money are told by the Government, “Sorry, you can’t make people redundant.”?
Nadhim Zahawi
I hope to address the hon. Gentleman’s point in my concluding remarks. Suffice it to say that the most valuable resource in any organisation—I have spent more years being in business than I have as a Member of Parliament and a Minister—is the human resource and that any leader, and chief executive, would be minded to think long and hard before behaving in a way that makes their people, the family who make up their business, feel as though their leadership are not listening to them.
In addition, we are supporting investments in new green aviation technologies, which will not only help us to deliver on our net zero commitments, but keep the UK at the forefront of the aerospace sector globally. We continue to back Rolls-Royce’s export campaigns, including, where needed, through UK Export Finance. The recovery of the aerospace sector is, of course, dependent on the wider aviation sector, as has been mentioned in this debate, and on getting aircraft flying again. The Government are committed to getting this crucial sector restarted. Led by my right hon. Friend the Transport Secretary, we are in active discussions with industry through an expert steering group, as part of an international aviation taskforce. The group has been instrumental in the development of the health measures guidance for passengers and operators, which my Department for Transport colleagues will be publishing as soon as possible. The border health measures that we spoke about earlier will be subject to review—currently this will be every three weeks—to ensure that they are in line with the latest scientific evidence, and remain effective and necessary. We are examining the possibility of alternatives to the international passenger self-isolation rules, including air bridges, where countries have managed the virus and we are confident in their measures for departing passengers—I spoke about that earlier. We will continue to work with industry on this concept and, ultimately, we will be guided by the science. I am sure the House will appreciate that the health of the public will always come first.
Alan Brown
I thank the Minister for giving in and giving way. Let us go back to the welcome support he outlined, which he is saying the Government are putting in for the future of aviation and cutting-edge technology, and being ahead of the world. If the UK is going to be so far ahead of the world and the Government are providing all that long-term certainty, can he explain why Rolls-Royce is still laying off so many workers in the UK? That still does not square. Let us go back to back the earlier intervention about small modular reactors. This is an unproven technology and good money is being thrown after bad. If we are looking at diversification, should it not be into green renewable energy? Should we not be looking to throw money into this in that way, to help sectors diversify, instead of looking at more nuclear energy?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point, but I did address it earlier in my speech—I hope he will read it in Hansard tomorrow morning.
I know that workers at Rolls-Royce who risk losing their jobs will be in a state of shock at the way events have unfolded. Just a few months ago, the sector was thriving. Apart from the financial impacts and worries, this news will take its toll on the overall wellbeing and health of individuals and families. I know that Rolls-Royce will act in a responsible way—colleagues mentioned corporate social responsibility—in assisting those affected and, as I have committed, we will also do all we can to support them.
I started by speaking about the importance of Rolls-Royce to the UK. Although this restructuring is hugely painful, it is intended to make sure that the company remains competitive and can return to growth in civil aerospace as we come out of the covid-19 challenge. Rolls-Royce remains committed to the UK, evidenced by their investment of over £2 billion in UK infrastructure over the past five years. We will continue to support the company and the wider UK aerospace industry to get back on its feet and back it into a position of growth, protecting high-paid jobs across the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
The workforce was mentioned. The leadership at Rolls-Royce have made it very clear to us that they are being sensitive to their workforce, which is why they have introduced the voluntary scheme first of all. I will end by saying that we continue to look at what other countries are doing around the world in supporting aerospace and aviation, and we will review our support in the light of the global environment.
David Linden
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I do not know whether the Minister perhaps did not hear, but my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands) was seeking to intervene. Given that there are 55 minutes left for the debate, is it in order for him to make his point to the Minister, who would not let him in?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Interventions are either accepted or not accepted by whom they are intended for. It is for them to make that decision, not the Chair.
Question put and agreed to.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 500).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. These amending regulations were made by the Secretary of State on 13 May and are rightly being brought before the Committee today for the scrutiny and debate that they require. The regulations made amendments to the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, which, as amended, remain exceptional measures, brought forward to reflect unprecedented challenges and times.
While these regulations are necessary to meet the public health needs of the coronavirus pandemic, it is also important that this House plays its proper role, and that due process and the rule of law are maintained. On 1 June, further amendments were made to the regulations. Those amendments will be debated in the House on 15 June, while today’s debate will focus on the amending regulations, which came into force on 13 May.
This country has been, and still is, engaged in a national effort to beat coronavirus. Great work has been done by the British public to help flatten the curve and ensure that our NHS is protected. We are currently moving on a path of cautious relaxation of some of the restrictions and requirements of the regulations, taking small steps to ease the measures guided by the science. We have reduced the restrictions in these amendments to minimise the impact on people’s rights and begin a cautious return to normal life. I will now outline what the regulations do and then set out the policies and processes underlying their development and their implementation, and finally their monitoring and review.
On 26 March 2020, the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 came into force, with a requirement in the regulations to review them at least every 21 days. The first review took place on 16 April and no changes were deemed appropriate at that time. Some minor changes were brought in on 22 April to clarify the regulations and ease the operation of the regulations. The regulations were then reviewed again on 7 May. While no changes were deemed appropriate at that point, fresh evidence and advice subsequently enabled the Government to bring in some changes, which came into force on 13 May. Those are the amendments we debate today.
The amendments that came into force on 13 May were made to provide clarity, to reduce socioeconomic cost where safe, and to ensure continued compliance while mitigating health risk. Some technical changes were made to make it clear that people can visit a shop to collect goods they have ordered online, by post or by phone, and to clarify that people can visit household waste and recycling centres.
Some further changes enabled additional economic activities to take place, where the health risk in doing so was minimal and the socioeconomic cost of continuing the restriction was no longer considered necessary and proportionate. Those changes were: to allow garden centres to reopen; to allow outdoor sports courts to reopen; to make it clear that it is permitted for hotels to provide accommodation to any key worker, to support their effort to respond to covid-19; and to enable all house moves, rather than only reasonably necessary house moves, including visits to estate agents and show homes.
There was a specific enforcement change to increase the amount of the fine associated with the fixed penalty notice, to ensure that compliance with the regulations remains high. The final change was to permit outdoor recreation for the purpose of wellbeing, rather than just outdoor exercise, and to permit outdoor recreational exercise with one other person outside your household.
The Prime Minister made a statement to this House on 11 May regarding the Government’s plan to ease restrictions over the coming weeks and months. The measures I outlined above were a cautious first step in delivering this plan. I recognise that the regulations continue to place demands upon individuals, society and businesses and are a strain on our daily lives. The regulations have played and are playing an important role in reducing infection and transmission levels, and as an amended package are still very much necessary. However, as soon as the science has indicated it is safe to do so, we have begun to take small steps in easing the regulations to enable a return to normal life and restart the economy, and to ensure people face only those restrictions that are truly necessary and proportionate.
The regulations are lawfully made under the power in the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984, and comply with all the Government’s human rights obligations. Above all, they help to save lives and protect public health, which is why Parliament has given Ministers these powers. The Committee will be aware that applications for judicial review and other legal actions are in the offing, which I will not be able to comment on. We also recognise that some people are impacted more than others by these regulations, and have made changes through these amendments to reduce the restrictions and lift some of that burden.
A significant challenge is involved in reaching a balance between protecting the public’s health and upholding individual freedoms. The Government are constantly reviewing the regulations to achieve the right balance, and measures are in place to help us do so. First, the regulations set out that a review of the restrictions and requirements must take place at least every 21 days to ensure that each restriction or requirement continues to be necessary
“to prevent, protect against, control or provide a public health response to the incidence or spread of infection in England”.
We completed the first review as required on 16 April 2020, and the second was completed on 7 May. The maximum review period—that is, the maximum period of time between reviews of the regulations—has subsequently been amended so that a review must take place at least every 28 days. That is part of a set of amendments made on 28 May, which are to be debated by this House on 15 June. Between these formal reviews, the Secretary of State keeps the restrictions and requirements under constant consideration, and the Government will make changes only when we are confident that we can do so safely.
Secondly, these regulations are led by the best available scientific evidence, along with consideration of their economic, operational, social and policy implications. Thirdly, as we understand the potential for harm to both public health and the economy if measures are relaxed too soon, we have developed five tests to guide policy considerations on whether and when it would be desirable for the measures to be eased. The tests are as follows.
First, to protect the NHS’s ability to cope, we must be confident that we are able to provide sufficient critical care and specialist treatment across the UK. Secondly, we must see a sustained and consistent fall in the daily death rates from covid-19, so that we are confident that we have moved beyond the peak. Thirdly, there must be reliable data from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies showing that the rate of infection is decreasing to manageable levels across the board. Fourthly, we must be confident that the range of operational challenges, including testing capacity and personal protective equipment, are in hand, with supply able to meet future demand. Fifthly, we must be confident that any adjustments to the current measures will not risk a second peak of infections that overwhelms the NHS. Ministers conduct those reviews, guided by officials and experts, ensuring that the measures continue to be both proportionate and necessary.
Members of this House have rightly pointed out that their approval is being sought retrospectively. However, we have acted urgently: we understand that the regulations place great restrictions on people, society and business, and the Government have therefore sought to ease them as soon as it is safe to do so. The impact that the coronavirus is having on the UK is changing as both the R rate and incidence rate change, and the regulations must reflect that. However, it is also critical that this House can play its proper role, and that due process and the rule of law are maintained. That is why we want to maintain an ongoing dialogue with Parliament.
As Members will be aware, further changes to the regulations were made on 28 May and came into force on 1 June. Those changes include allowing increased social contact outdoors, in groups of up to six people from different households; enabling élite athletes to train and compete in currently closed facilities; opening some non-essential retail; requiring additional businesses to close by law; ensuring that venues such as community centres can open for education and childcare services; and ensuring that those who are required to self-isolate on arrival in the UK can stay in hotels. We have also amended the maximum review period to 28 days to ensure that where needed, there is time to assess the impact of previous relaxation of the measures. Those amendments will be debated by the House on 15 June. We will therefore continue to use the powers given to us by Parliament in the best interests of the public, and to welcome the scrutiny that rightly comes with that responsibility.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Mundell.
We are here today to consider these regulations during yet another critical phase in the fight against coronavirus, and of course we all wish that they were not necessary, but sadly we know that these restrictions are required due to the ongoing and serious threat to public health that we face. The virus has not gone away and it is right that we take all necessary steps to protect our citizens.
Of course we want the Government to succeed in defeating this virus and in minimising the impact that it has on our lives and on the country, so we will continue to be supportive where that is appropriate. Equally, however, in wanting the Government to get this right, where we have concerns we will continue to raise them, and it is right to say that we have concerns.
First of all, we are having the right debate, but we are having it at the wrong time. I want to place on the record our concerns about the procedure for considering these regulations. As the Minister said, these regulations were created and signed into law on 14 May. It is now 10 June. It is far too late for anything that we say to make any difference to these regulations.
The Minister has said that it is right that the rule of law be maintained, and of course we agree with that, but I fear that by debating these regulations retrospectively, we are treading on the wrong side of that. Of course we accept that the initial regulations had to be hurriedly introduced, in response to the rising number of infections. However, as I stated when we debated those initial regulations back on 4 May—some six weeks after they had been introduced—given that Parliament was up and running again by that time, there should have been sufficient time to ensure that future changes were debated and had democratic consent before they were introduced. Debating them weeks after the event, and when in fact they have already been superseded, as we have heard today, is frankly an insult.
There is no excuse for this situation now. As we have heard, the regulations require there to be a review every three weeks, as the Secretary of State has a duty to terminate any regulations that are not necessary or proportionate to control the transmission of the virus. That means that all along we have had a clear timetable and sight for when new regulations might be created, which should have allowed plenty of opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of those regulations.
Yet here we are again today, debating regulations that came into effect weeks ago. That is not good enough. I want to ask the Minister this: what would happen if the Committee voted against these regulations today? Would all the fines issued under them have to be repaid? I imagine that would be a minimum step, but the Minister will be pleased to hear that, at this stage, that is a hypothetical question, because we are not going to vote against these regulations. However, this is the issue—it is the way that these regulations continually come to us late. Moving forwards, we cannot carry on in this way and the Government accept our indolence at their peril.
That is because we are not only debating these regulations too late but, as we have heard, we are debating them when they have been superseded, as the next set of regulations has been introduced. As we heard, the review that took place on 28 May, with regulations being laid on 31 May, came into law on 1 June, and a debate on those regulations is set to take place on Monday—again, long after the event. Does the Minister agree that debating regulations when they are already out of date makes a mockery of the process?
As we know, and as the Minister told us, the regulations have changed the requirement for a review to take place from every 21 days to every 28 days. Given that the next review must take place before 25 June, if that review does envisage an introduction of more relaxations, can the Minister commit today that those new regulations—any introduced off the back of that review—will be debated before they are implemented, and not retrospectively, as has been the case today?
The Minister went on to say that the regulations are, in fact, constantly reviewed; I should be grateful if she would clarify exactly what she means by that. Is there a formal process by which that is taking place, or are there, in fact, just the three-weekly reviews that have been set out in the regulations?
As for those reviews, where are they? In a written question that I put to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, I asked if he would publish the reviews carried out on 16 April, 7 May and 28 May pursuant to these regulations. I received a reply to that question at half-past 9 last night, which said:
“The Department of Health and Social Care has indicated that it will not be possible to answer the question within the usual time period.”
I find that absolutely incredible, and, regrettably, the failure of the Department to provide me with an answer to what I would have thought was a pretty important and obvious question leads me to one inevitable and damning conclusion: there has been no proper review.
Here we have the most far-reaching impositions on the life of this country in peacetime—necessary actions, but ones that have had unparalleled and far-reaching economic and social impacts—and the Government have not, as required by law, conducted any review of those regulations that we can actually see; or if they have, they have decided that we do not deserve to see them, which is equally reprehensible.
I understand, from what the Minister said in her introduction, that there were several more reviews on 22 April and 7 May. Again, if the Minister had not been good enough to tell us today about those reviews, we would never have known that they had taken place. We need far more transparency than we are seeing at the moment. We cannot go on like this. If we are to defeat the virus and carry with us public confidence and trust that the tough decisions being made are the right ones, the Government must be transparent and open and let us see the outcome of the reviews as a matter of urgency.
It is because of their wide-ranging effect that these measures demand full parliamentary scrutiny. I am sure that many hon. Members agree that a 90-minute debate by a small parliamentary Committee, weeks after the fact, cannot possibly be sufficient to provide the level of examination and scrutiny that such important laws require. As we have seen, great efforts have been made by staff to get Parliament up and running again. We should not demean those efforts by turning these debates into a procedural formality, a rubber-stamping exercise to create the veneer of a democratic process. We should be better than that. We should not be debating the measures late and without the full extent of the information on which the Government have made their decisions.
When it comes to the regulations themselves, not only has the legally required review of them not been disclosed to date; they have not had any kind of impact assessment carried out. Again, to be fair to the Government, we understand why, in the first instance, that was not possible. However, we did make it very clear, the last time the regulations were debated, that we did not want that to become the norm, especially for regulations such as these, where we know that the impact will have been huge. The second and third set of regulations have apparently had no impact assessment, either.
How can the Government continue to issue new laws with such sweeping powers as these when they cannot tell us what their impact is? As the time between reviews and updated regulations extends, will the Minister commit to undertaking impact assessments for future regulations and publishing them alongside the regular reviews of the regulations that they undertake?
The public have made huge sacrifices. Like us, they have supported the lockdown. It is right that we take a moment to acknowledge the sacrifices that they have made in the interests of public health and to thank them for that. However, it is simply unacceptable for the Government to continue to issue regulations but then to make no attempt to measure their impact.
We have always argued that restrictions need to be eased gradually and in a safe way. Of course we want to see society reopen, but that has to happen safely. We need a structured approach to easing and tightening restrictions, which needs to be done in an open way, backed by the science and alongside a published impact assessment. That is the way to take people with you.
The Government have confirmed that all the proposed easings of restrictions have been modelled and that that showed that the R value remained below 1, but we of course have not seen that modelling. We still see thousands of new infections each week. Indeed, I understand that we still have the second highest infection rate in Europe. We need to see all the scientific evidence for the decisions that have been taken. Any easing of restrictions should be accompanied by publication of the Government’s full scientific evidence and should involve advance warning, to allow adequate time for planning. It should be done in conjunction with all nations, regions, local authorities and elected Mayors. The decision at 5 pm last Friday night suddenly to announce that everyone in hospitals should wear face masks was a classic example of a headline-driven agenda that fails to acknowledge that decisions need to be taken in consultation with those who will have to deliver on them.
The Government should be clear that they would rapidly reintroduce targeted restrictions where necessary should infections increase and the R rate increase above 1 in the whole or in parts of the country. They should also spell out how they would do that. That is essential to ensure that we maintain public confidence and safety. We have heard talk of localised lockdowns, but the Government have not spelt out how that will work in practice. Who will make those decisions? Who will monitor and enforce the lockdown? And who will be responsible for dealing with the economic fallout from such decisions?
Will the Minister commit to publishing written guidance on defining what a “local lockdown” is, how it will be enforced and what resources and powers local authorities and other agencies will be able to draw on in enforcing it? We know from what Ministers have said that they are looking at the scientific advice across the board, but we do not know what that science is, because we have not seen it. What we have seen in recent weeks is various members of the SAGE committee popping up on TV to raise their concerns, while at the same time those experts have mysteriously disappeared from the nightly Downing Street briefings. Is it any wonder, in those circumstances, that we might want to have some more detail about the basis on which decisions are being made? I hope the Minister will take the opportunity today to reiterate the Government’s commitment to following the science. Of course, the simplest way to show that commitment would be to publish it all.
We also consistently hear concerns about the Government’s strategy in communication from the royal colleges, membership bodies and NHS bodies. Only last weekend, the chairman of the Royal College of General Practitioners called for a strategy for test and trace, for PPE, for the use of technology, for maintaining covid services and opening up non-covid services, saying that
“there’s no sense of direction as to where we’re heading.”
Those are not small concerns. Senior clinicians, frontline NHS staff and public health experts are not convinced that there is a plan to deal with a potential second wave of covid-19 infections, more than 80 days since lockdown began. That is about as serious as it gets. The Government say they have met their own five tests for the easing of lockdown rules, but as I have set out, there are considerable concerns from people on the frontline that we are woefully underprepared to deal with a spike in cases. Can the Minister point to a document that sets out the Government’s assessment of the five tests? Can she explain why the relaxations have already happened when the joint biosecurity centre has not reduced the threat level?
I come to the substance of the regulations. As we have heard from the Minister, the regulations further amend the original lockdown regulations and give further reasons why a person can leave their home. The explanatory memorandum describes them as
“a number of small relaxations”.
I would not dissent from that description, nor will I recite them all here, but I will draw attention to the new permission that has been granted by amending regulation 6(2) of the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 to include sub-paragraph (n)—namely, the ability to visit a waste or recycling centre. I mention that because when we debated the first set of regulations, I contrasted the permitted reasons to leave home at that stage with the statements made by the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, who had said in April that people were permitted to leave their homes to visit waste or recycling centres. Clearly, he should have said at the time that he meant that people could do that after 13 May.
On fines, the regulations significantly increase—from £60 to £100—the amount that can be charged as a fixed penalty notice for people over 18 who breach the lockdown restrictions. What is the reason for that increase? What evidence has the Minister had to suggest that there needs to be a higher level of punishment? Is a greater deterrent needed? Will she also provide an update on the representations that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care made to the Treasury on the fines issued to people whose childcare issues may have been why they breached the rules?
In the context of public compliance with the rules, it would be remiss of me not to raise concerns that the actions of Government in recent weeks have negatively impacted on public confidence in such measures. The Government have allowed the public health message to be undermined because the Prime Minister, for reasons best known to himself, would not take firm action against his senior adviser for breaking the lockdown. No one wants to feel as though there is one rule for them and another for those is power. That should not be the case. We want to keep the public on board and adhering to social distancing, to keep everyone safe. It is vital that Ministers rebuild trust in their strategy and that ministerial statements in the media are without bias and reflect the rules and official guidance.
There are concerns about the issuing of fixed penalty notices. We have seen some worrying data showing that black, Asian and minority ethnic people in England are 54% more likely to be fined under the regulations than white people. According to 2016 population figures, BAME people account for 15.5% of the population in England. However, according to National Police Chiefs Council data from 15 May, they have received at least 22% of the coronavirus lockdown fines. Will the Minister confirm that she is aware of this issue? What steps are the Government taking to address the disproportionality?
We also know that racial and health inequalities amplify the risks of covid-19 and that people in the poorest households and those of colour are disproportionately affected, with black, Asian and minority ethnic people more likely to die from covid and more likely to be admitted to intensive care. However, the Public Health England review published last week made no recommendations on how to reduce the impact of covid-19 on BAME communities. As the lockdown is eased, will the Minister confirm what steps the Government are taking to mitigate the risks faced by such communities and to protect them, in order to ensure that no further lives are lost?
One message that has been coming through clearly from the experts is that the key to easing lockdown safely is a properly functioning testing and tracing strategy. The Opposition have concerns about that: we have been too slow on testing, and now it seems we are too slow on tracing. The Prime Minster promised a “world-beating” system by 1 June, but that date has come and gone, and we are now told that it may not be fully operational until September. We do not know the numbers of people tested each day or the numbers of contacts traced. We do not know whether mailed tests are completed and we do not know how many care home residents, care staff or NHS staff have been routinely tested, or whether they are symptomatic or not.
We take no pleasure from the fact that the system is in chaos and that the UK Statistics Authority has been forced to intervene over concerns about testing data, or that the Association of Directors of Public Health has called on the Government to delay easing lockdown until the tracing system has been proved to be more robust and there can be confidence about what the impact will be on continuing trends in infection rates. I raise those issues because we want to get things right. If we do not, we will risk another spike in the number of infections, with a second lockdown, costing many more lives and causing untold damage. We must do everything we can to ensure that that is not allowed to happen.
I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm when we will have a fully functioning, effective test, trace and tracking system, with a fully functioning app. I hope that she will commit to introducing a covid test guarantee, so that no one will have to wait more than 24 hours to receive a test, and then no more than 24 hours to receive the results—for all tests, without exception and with immediate effect. I hope that she will also commit to delivering a working app that will enable councils to contact everyone at risk, with a cast-iron guarantee to the public that they can feel secure that their information will not be disclosed to third parties.
None of us wants a sharp rise in infections or the R rate. We are at a critical moment. The Government must demonstrate that they have got a grip of the testing and tracing strategy, to restore public confidence in their handling of the pandemic. The Government have taken the decision to lift the restrictions. It is for them to demonstrate that they are listening to experts and publish the full scientific evidence and the rationale behind the decisions that they have taken. We want society to reopen, but that must happen safely and in a way that follows the science. We remain committed to working constructively with the Government. That requires them to work constructively and openly with us and others. We hope that the Government will confirm that that is their intention on those important issues, because only with constructive working, where the Government listen and respond to concerns, can we all beat the virus together.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Mundell. I should be interested to know the reason for certain sittings being broadcast and others, like this, not being broadcast. Is there a reason?
The Chair
I do not know the answer to the hon. Gentleman’s query, but I shall undertake to find out.
Helen Whately
In summing up, I want to restate the Government’s commitment to working with Parliament in developing the policies that find expression in the legislation that we debate in the House. I appreciate the tone of the comments made by the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston, and particularly his opening remarks about wanting to support the Government in the measures we are taking and, overall, our drive to succeed in crushing coronavirus. There were many questions in his speech, and I shall do my utmost to cover them in my response, but as he spoke at pace I might not manage 100% to do that. I will do my best.
I think his first point could be encapsulated as a preference for us to debate regulations and amendments sooner. I appreciate that point, but he and other hon. Members will appreciate the situation that we are in, with a global pandemic hitting us and other countries with extraordinary aggression. That has required extremely rapid action to protect people’s lives. The hon. Gentleman also knows that we must act as quickly as we can to protect people’s livelihoods and wellbeing. That means looking to move promptly, albeit cautiously, towards easing some of the restrictions when the science indicates that it is possible for us to do so.
The hon. Gentleman asked me about what happens with the review process. It is conducted by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care following discussion with other Ministers. It is guided by officials and experts, and SAGE provides scientific evidence and advice. Overall, the process is to ensure that the measures are necessary and proportionate.
The hon. Gentleman asked about impact assessments. We acknowledge that the impact of the restrictions is hard. It is tough on many individuals and hard for businesses, but it is variable: it is harder on some than on others. In my role as Care Minister, I talk to carers looking after people with learning disabilities, autism and a range of other health conditions. That group has been hit particularly hard by the restrictions and the loss of services, given that it is not considered safe to access them. I am mindful of the variable impact.
Justin Madders
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, and I hope she will answer all the questions. I take it from what she has said that there is not actually a formal impact assessment but reviews are undertaken. Will she explain why the Department has not issued copies of them, following my written question?
Helen Whately
What I do know is that there is a huge volume of inquires coming into the Department at the moment. I am personally handling a large number of questions and letters from colleagues, so there is huge demand on the Department to respond to inquiries.
The Government absolutely are considering the impact on businesses and individuals—the economic, personal, physical and mental health impact, including on those with protected characteristics. We take those impacts very seriously, and we want to provide as much support as possible to mitigate the negative impacts on people.
The hon. Gentleman asked about transparency and the publication of, for instance, SAGE documents. I am sure he is aware that a suite of documents from SAGE has been published online.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about fines and the reason for their increase in the instrument. The reason for the increased fixed penalties is to act as a greater deterrent to those who might break the rules.
The hon. Gentleman made a very important point about whether fines have had a disproportionate impact on people from BAME communities. That is clearly a very serious concern. We are working with policing partners to analyse the data, to determine whether there has been a detrimental impact on those from BAME backgrounds. Let me make it absolutely clear that no one should be subject to police enforcement on the basis of their race.
The hon. Gentleman asked a number of questions about testing. There has been a phenomenal ramping up of the volume of testing that has been carried out. I have seen the enormous efforts that have taken place to increase the volume of testing available to the care sector, and particularly to care homes. We are getting testing kits directly out to care homes so it is easy for them to access tests. The team that did that has done a truly phenomenal job, at pace. I absolutely appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s desire for data on the testing programme—both the numbers and what they tell us. However, as he said, it is really important that we share accurate data that is supported by the UK Statistics Authority, and we are working with it to make sure that we share reliable, robust, informative data on the testing programme.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)
Could the Minister say by what date a fully functioning test and tracing app will be ready for use?
Helen Whately
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. To make it clear, the important thing is to have a fully working test and trace system. That is up and running, using the tried and tested method of a human contact tracing system. The app is under development to complement that. It has been piloted, as he knows, on the Isle of Wight, and it will be brought online in due course. The important thing is that we have a fully working test and trace system to support the easement of the measures that has already taken place.
Nick Smith
I absolutely agree that the test and trace app has to be fully functional and working well, but may I press the Minister on when she thinks it will be ready for use?
Helen Whately
I have already given my answer. I have nothing further to give on that point.
Justin Madders
We have talked about the importance of the reviews of the regulations. Can we have a commitment that those will now be published?
Helen Whately
I have set out the process that is taking place and I am not going to give the hon. Gentleman the commitment that he asks for, but he has made it clear that that is what he would like to see.
To sum up, these amendments are an important and cautious step towards returning to normal life. We have listened to the public and to the scientific evidence and we are taking the steps to ease the restrictions over the coming weeks and months. We understand the burden that restrictions place not only on individuals but on society as a whole. We maintain only the restrictions that are necessary and proportionate at any given time. There will be many occasions over the coming weeks and months when we will be able to debate these questions further. As I said, the changes brought in on 1 June will be brought to the House for debate on 15 June.
I end by paying tribute to the NHS and care workforce, to whom we all owe the greatest respect for the work they do each and every day, and to the people of the United Kingdom for their patience and strength in helping to combat this pandemic. The steps we have been able to take towards normal life are a testament to the people of the UK and their fortitude in tackling this outbreak. As a Government, we will play our part by making sure that the burden is no more onerous than it absolutely needs to be. These regulations ensure that that remains the case.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020, No. 500).
Domestic Abuse Bill (Fifth sitting)
Wednesday 10th June 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 June 2020 - (10 Jun 2020)
The Chair
I have a few opening remarks. For the benefit of the shadow Minister, we are definitely stopping for lunch. This sitting will run until 11.25 am, so that Members can get to the main Chamber by the time it sits, if they so wish. Please turn your electronic devices on silent. Hot drinks are not allowed during sittings. Social distancing is exceptionally important, so please maintain it. If anyone is unhappy about the social distancing arrangements, they should let me know—we take it very seriously. Obviously, you cannot hand notes to Hansard now, so please email electronic copies of any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clauses 11 and 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 13
Annual reports
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 13, page 8, line 16, leave out from “must” to “on” and insert “report annually to Parliament”.
This amendment changes the requirement for the Commissioner to submit an annual report to the Secretary of State to a requirement to report annually to Parliament.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 46, in clause 13, page 8, line 25, leave out subsections (3) to (5) and insert—
“(3) The Commissioner must arrange for a copy of every annual report under this section to be laid before Parliament.
(4) Before laying the report before Parliament, the Commissioner must ensure that no material is included in the report which—
(a) might jeopardise the safety of any person, or
(b) might prejudice the investigation or prosecution of an offence.
(5) The Commissioner must provide a copy of the report to the Secretary of State.”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 45.
Peter Kyle
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I do not know about you, but I like to start every day with a quote from an inspirational political figure, and I thought today there could be no better inspirational political figure than the Minister for safeguarding. On 18 September 2019, the Minister said:
“The focus of the Commissioner will be to stand up for victims and survivors, raise public awareness and hold both agencies and government to account in tackling domestic abuse.”
That is key: to hold Government to account. The most important Government Department that the commissioner needs to hold to account will be the Home Office.
Yesterday we explored the independence and importance of the commissioner. I will not go over all the arguments made yesterday, as we want to make some progress today, but we established that it is absolutely essential. For the commissioner to be successful in the role, she will need a degree of independence from the Home Office. Amendments 45 and 46 would deliver the independence that she will need.
The Minister is right that the role of the commissioner is to hold Government to account. An essential part of the commissioner’s role is to advise, support and inform, and at times to challenge. Nothing must stand in the way of her being able to perform that challenge. Holding to account sometimes involves disagreeing. Sometimes it involves saying publicly, “I believe they are wrong,” or, “I believe they should be doing things differently.”
We need the commissioner to be 100% focused on giving a voice to victims and survivors, and that is not possible if they are worried about the reaction of the people paying their wages. That is true for any other organisation up and down the country, and it is true for this appointment as well. The thing that makes the biggest difference to a survivor’s life is the way that public services respond to their needs.
Most of the commissioner’s time will be spent trying to improve and change things. By definition, improvement is change, so the role of the commissioner will be to change Home Office policy. The vast majority of that change must come from the Home Office. Yet the Home Office pays the bills, sets the budget, hires or fires the commissioner and sets the framework. The Home Secretary is, in essence, the commissioner’s line manager, and even gets to mark her homework.
The Minister has drawn the Committee’s attention to the exhaustive prelegislative process that the Bill has been subjected to, and it is true that the Bill is one of the most heavily scrutinised pieces of legislation—even before arriving in the House—of any in recent years. However, what if every part of that exhaustive process comes to the same conclusion—as, when it comes to the Home Office, it has? If every part of prelegislative scrutiny results in saying the same thing but the Home Office does the exact opposite, we must ask ourselves what the point of all the prelegislative scrutiny was.
As I have said, the commissioner is popular—everyone wants a piece of the commissioner. Everyone wants her to report to them or to someone else. The Home Affairs Committee wants her to report to Parliament. The Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill wants her to report to the Cabinet Office. However, they all have one thing in common: none of them thinks that it is appropriate for her to report to the Home Office.
That can be seen in the prelegislative scrutiny. I will quote from paragraph 306 of the Joint Committee’s report. It mentions two names: Emily Frith, who worked for the Children’s Commissioner, and Kevin Hyland, the former Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. It states:
“Emily Frith noted that the Children’s Commissioner had to send draft reports to the Secretary of State for Education before publication, and that the Secretary of State had to approve its annual strategic plan. She stated, ‘We would like to see both those things removed, because that would give the commissioner much more independence to report directly to Parliament.’”
That was with reference to the domestic abuse commissioner. The report continues:
“Kevin Hyland told us that, during his reappointment, he was criticised for giving evidence to a parliamentary committee. He suggested that, if the Commissioner were to be responsible to a parliamentary committee rather than a government department, then they would be able to express concerns more openly.”
Paragraph 307 states:
“In its report on domestic abuse, the Home Affairs Committee recommended that the Commissioner be accountable, and report directly, to Parliament rather than to Government, and should be independently accommodated and resourced.”
The safeguarding Minister drew the Committee’s attention to the process, and it is incumbent on us to heed the Joint Committee’s advice. It did not mince its words, and concluded, in paragraph 323, that it had
“grave concerns about the proposal for the Commissioner’s role to be responsible to the Home Office.”
It recommended in paragraph 324
“that the Commissioner be responsible to the Cabinet Office”.
The Opposition—[Interruption.] I reassure the Committee that my cough is the result of the London plane trees outside Parliament, not anything else that might be making its way around the city. [Laughter.] I am well protected by the Brighton Gin hand sanitiser that sits before me.
The Opposition accept the clear advice of both parliamentary inquiries, which involved both Houses of Parliament, and their exhaustive deliberations. Since those inquiries completed, Britain has left the European Union and the Cabinet Office is consumed—some might say overwhelmed—by the challenges posed by the negotiations and preparations for our future relationship. It is unlikely that a domestic abuse commissioner would find a suitable home there right now, bearing in mind that the Joint Committee reported almost two years ago.
We accept the clear recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee that for matters of substance the commissioner should report directly to Parliament. I feel certain that if the Joint Committee were reporting today, rather than two years ago, it would totally agree.
Amendment 45 and 46 are straightforward. Amendment 45 would simply exchange “Secretary of State” for “Parliament” for the submission of the commissioner’s annual report. Amendment 46 achieves a similar outcome but has regard to a concern raised by the Minister yesterday, by requiring the commissioner by law to ensure that no material be included that might jeopardise the safety of anyone or prejudice an investigation or prosecution.
These amendments refer to the annual report. We do not cover all the different areas of reporting. These amendments are intended to probe the issue of accountability and independence and will not be pressed to a vote. We urge Ministers to look afresh at the conclusions of pre-legislative Committees and, if they are in a generous mood, to ensure that we can argue for the amendments, engage with them as they stand and keep an open mind as to whether the role of the commissioner could be strengthened, delivering an outcome that I believe would put it in a much safer, stronger and more secure position, to enable the commissioner to do their job. My God, the people whom the commissioner seeks to give a voice to need the strongest possible voice that we can muster.
There is one final aspect of the relationship between the Home Office and the commissioner that I want to raise. I do this carefully and with respect to all hon. Members, because I know that when we talk about individuals it is a sensitive issue. I do not want to squander the constructive nature of our deliberations so far, but I believe that this is relevant and important. This relates to the nature of the Home Secretary and issues raised about her own personal behaviour in recent times.
At this time there are two separate formal processes underway that involve multiple allegations of abusive behaviour by the Home Secretary: one is an internal civil service inquiry being conducted by the Cabinet Office; and the other is a legal tribunal by the Home Office’s former most senior official for constructive dismissal. Both are ongoing and I will say nothing that will prejudice either inquiry.
The Chair
Order. I liked the part where you said that you will say nothing on this issue, because I am not really sure what the relevance is to amendment 45 to clause 13.
Peter Kyle
Mr Bone, I would like to explain. We are talking about the establishment of a commissioner for abuse, reporting directly to the Home Secretary. The amendment seeks to change the line management of the commissioner. I believe I am treading lightly as I progress through this. I think it will become apparent why I want to put this on the record.
As I say, we will not push the amendment to a vote, but there are arguments here that I believe need to be made. Many people who have contacted me are aware of the irony of having a commissioner for abuse reporting to somebody who has two active investigations into abusive behaviour. I will tread lightly.
The Chair
Order. I am afraid that you will not tread lightly, because you have made the point. I understand the argument you are making, but we are talking about the post of Home Secretary, not an individual. The point is on the record and I think we should now move on.
Peter Kyle
I am very respectful of your chairmanship. I will move on and conclude my remarks. I have put on the record what I wanted to say, which was to explain delicately the parallels between the comments that were made in public statements relating to the Home Secretary. What I said—I will not repeat it—was meant to acknowledge your point, Mr Bone, that this legislation will almost certainly last for a generation and will therefore see successive Home Secretaries. A particular issue right now is the character of the one who—
The Chair
No, I am not having this. I do not want to spoil the hon. Gentleman’s speech, but I am going to. I thought he was making a very well-argued speech until he got to that point, which I think is out of order. In fact, I am telling him that it is out of order. We will now move on.
Peter Kyle
I appreciate that. In our debates yesterday, during an exhaustive set of speeches about the independence of the role of the commissioner, the case was made that it is extremely important that the link between independence and effectiveness is categoric. That has been exhaustively investigated by two previous inquiries by the Home Affairs Committee and by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. The direct link between effectiveness in that role and where it reports—its independence—comes from a central role of the commissioner: to give voice to people who have, for too long, been shut out of public debate. Victims and survivors of domestic abuse are some of the most disempowered people in our society.
The reason that independence is important is that there will be times when the commissioner needs to give voice to people who are suffering abuse but comes into conflict with current Home Office policy. That area is never more acute than on the issues of migrant women, legal aid and the experience of women at the hands of law enforcement agencies. Overwhelmingly, there will be a constructive relationship between the Home Office, the Home Secretary and the commissioner—there is already a good and fruitful working relationship between the Home Office and the commissioner designate—but there will be times when we need the commissioner to be an unflinching advocate for survivors and victims and to be 100% focused on the needs of those individuals, and not even 1% focused on the delicacies of managing a complex set of relationships within the Home Office.
There are also technical reasons why that is seen as more effective. As we heard in evidence, reporting to the Home Office is a complex relationship. The Home Office is a complex organisation with numerous officials and various levels that can have direct relationships with the commissioner. The commissioner will have a handful of staff, while the Home Office will have thousands, and although those thousands will not all report directly, dozens will—that is a very high-maintenance reporting line.
We will not push the amendment to a vote, but I urge the Minister to assure us that she will use her influence at the Home Office to ensure that the reporting line is effective and efficient and that the commissioner is not overwhelmed with different people asking for different things. As we all know, the civil service rightly needs to protect taxpayers’ money, and people’s liberty and safety, so it can sometimes overwhelm small organisations with bureaucracy. We want to ensure that the commissioner has all the freedom to act in a way that fully represents the victims and survivors for whom she is there to give voice.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I understand the concerns that you raise about effectiveness and independence. We have a Children’s Commissioner and a Victims’ Commissioner, and they are both very independent. What makes you think—
The Chair
Order. It is not supposed to be “you”, because I am “you”—you are supposed to speak through me.
Nickie Aiken
Yes, Mr Bone.
What does the hon. Gentleman think? Why would this commissioner be any different in independence and effectiveness compared with the Children’s Commissioner, the Victims’ Commissioner or any other commissioner that the Government may have?
Peter Kyle
I welcome the hon. Lady’s intervention. As I said yesterday, I remember my first Bill Committee well. I assure every Member sitting on a Bill Committee for the first time that they are in the safest of environments if they want to stand up to speak—and, like me, to make mistakes in an honest, open and sincere way. Believe me, it is much better to do so here in Committee than over there in the Chamber.
The hon. Lady is completely right about other commissioners, including the two she named. In fact, the Victims’ Commissioner reports directly to a Department. The Children’s Commissioner has a slightly different reporting line, because more aspects of her role involve reporting directly to Parliament. What those commissioners have in common, however, is that they have both given evidence to the Joint Committee and to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and one commissioner gave evidence in our evidence session only last week.
Both those commissioners believe that greater independence for the domestic abuse commissioner is desirable. Based on their experience of being commissioners, they believe that that is more desirable, and they have both said so on the record in the firmest possible terms. That reflects on their own positions—they would like more freedom in their roles—and they are generously willing to share their experience with this Committee so that we can get it right for the new commissioner. We got it mostly right in previous times, but there is always room for improvement and, given on their experience, the issue of independence is something they would like to see improved.
With that, Mr Bone, I conclude my remarks.
The Chair
I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I wish him well with the cough because I suffer from exactly the same problem. You never know when it is going to come on—if I start to have a coughing fit, please, that is the reason.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.
I thank the hon. Member for Hove for emphasising yet again the exhaustive scrutiny that the Bill has received. When we look over the history of the Bill and its scrutiny, we see that he is right to say that few other pieces of legislation in recent history have received such scrutiny. Yesterday, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley said that we had “got away with it” this time with the appointment of Nicole Jacobs, but, on behalf of the commissioner, I should say that it is not a question of getting away with it.
We had a recruitment process in line with the public appointments process, which is carefully managed and objective. I interviewed Nicole myself, and she was the stand-out candidate. That is why I advised the Home Secretary to appoint her. I know that the hon. Member for Hove does not mean to do this, but the more it is suggested that Nicole, the designate commissioner, will somehow not be independent, the more I fear that that risks undermining her. We have to accept that Ms Jacobs is a professional, highly qualified and highly experienced person in the world of domestic abuse. We should welcome her appointment, which shows that the system has worked.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I absolutely echo the Minister’s words about Nicole Jacobs—and, I am sure, anyone who had been given the position.
May I ask if that same process was followed in the appointment of Kevin Hyland as the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner? Where does the Minister feel that that relationship broke down, to the point that his evidence on this Bill led to concerns that are now shared by me, Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove, the Home Affairs Committee and so on?
Victoria Atkins
I cannot speak to that appointment process, because I was not the Minister at the time, although I know that, personally, I had a good relationship with Mr Hyland at the tail end of his tenure.
Clearly, however, I was involved in the appointment process for the current Anti-slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton. I asked officials to double-check this: I do not believe that she has voiced any concerns about her independence in the year—it must be at least a year—that she has been in role. I remind the Committee that Dame Sara is a former chief constable and was chair of the Association of Chief Police Officers before the National Police Chiefs Council was set up. She is, again, a very highly qualified, highly experienced professional with decades of public service under her belt.
In exploring these issues, I would not for a moment wish to risk undermining the work or reputations of Dame Sara, Ms Jacobs or any of the commissioners that we have heard reference to.
Jess Phillips
There is absolutely no sense that anybody here wishes to undermine the commissioners—we also work with those commissioners. We wish to empower them. We are concerned about relationship breakdown, and not necessarily with the current commissioner. Can the Minister speak more to the relationship with the previous Anti-slavery Commissioner, which definitely broke down?
Victoria Atkins
Forgive me, but I am returning to the Bill, which is what we are concerned with now.
I am very happy to talk about the Children’s Commissioner, who is sponsored by the Department for Education. I do not know whether anyone has been listening to the news recently, but I do not think anybody could accuse Ms Longfield of not being independent or not expressing her views pretty forcefully and vehemently. Only yesterday there was a statement in the House about the issues she has raised.
Peter Kyle
I am keen for us not to fall into the bearpit that the Chair has already identified. We are not talking about the specific officeholder; we are talking about the role. We need to make sure that we get the role right so that future holders of the office are able to exercise powers correctly and so that the powers encourage a certain type of behaviour, rather than relying on a character who can find their way through unideal rules, making the best of it.
Victoria Atkins
I am absolutely focusing on the powers available. Ms Longfield is exercising her powers as a commissioner who is sponsored by the Department for Education, just as Dame Vera Baird is—I think the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley referred to Dame Vera’s political background. I have to say that she was appointed by a Conservative Government. She is very capable and experienced, with decades of public service under her belt. Again, the appointments process identified the correct candidate and she uses her powers to great effect. No one can accuse Dame Vera of holding back when she feels there is a need to hold the Government to account.
The point is that the powers and the offices already exist, they work, and it is on that basis that we have listened to the Joint Committee’s recommendations. We have made changes between the first iteration and this iteration of the Bill. For example, clause 13 has been changed. It was the case that the Home Secretary would lay a copy of the report before Parliament, but we listened and took on board what the Joint Committee recommended. We have now changed that so that it is the commissioner who must arrange for a copy of her report to be laid before Parliament—it is the commissioner who decides when that happens, within the realms of the reporting framework and the financial year and so on. It is the commissioner who decides what is in that report, with that tiny, narrow exception that we discussed yesterday, which mirrors the previous clauses. I am grateful that the hon. Member for Hove withdrew that amendment; I took it that he was satisfied with my explanation.
I would very much argue that the domestic abuse commissioner is empowered. She has oversight by a Department—the Home Office—as does pretty much every other commissioner, with the three exceptions that we have identified, including the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, which by definition reports directly to Parliament. We have followed that model, but adapted it to take into account the matters raised by the Joint Committee.
In recommending the clause to the Committee, I pray in aid the fact that, when Ms Jacobs appeared before the Public Bill Committee in the previous Session, she was asked about sponsorship of her office by the Home Office. She replied that she felt
“confident about the hosting at the Home Office.”––[Official Report, Domestic Abuse Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2019; c. 9, Q10.]
In separate evidence to the Public Bill Committee last October, Zoë Billingham, who is one of Her Majesty’s inspectors of constabulary and fire and rescue services, said:
“The fact that I have a relationship with the Home Office does not undermine my personal statutory independence as an HMI or our organisation’s independence.”––[Official Report, Domestic Abuse Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2019; c. 43, Q70.]
I fully appreciate why hon. Members want to debate and explore the issue, but I hope that they will be reassured by the fact that office holders do not have a problem, and feel confident about the hosting at the Home Office. What is more, we have listened to the Committee and adapted the measures so that the commissioner has the direct relationship with Parliament that Members feel is so important.
Peter Kyle
I briefly make the point that you cannot have it both ways—or, rather, the Minister cannot have it both ways. You, Mr Bone, can obviously have it any way you like.
The Minister cannot say that the commissioners speak up freely, and give examples of that, but ignore what they say, and have a reporting line for them. Every one of the commissioners that she mentioned believes that the commissioner for domestic abuse should report somewhere other than the Home Office.
The Minister is right to quote Nicole, because she is a formidable and generous advocate. She has been given the role, and was clear from the outset about the reporting lines, which she accepted when she began to apply for the job. However, I remind the Minister that last week, in giving evidence, she made it clear in her opening exchange with me that she would welcome greater independence from the Home Office. She was clear about that.
I will lay the argument to rest, and accept the arguments of the Minister. I hope that she sees the sincerity with which we make our argument, which in no way impugns our belief that Nicole Jacobs will be a fantastic advocate. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 14
Duty to co-operate with Commissioner
Victoria Atkins
I beg to move amendment 30, in clause 14, page 10, line 2, after “London” insert “in its capacity as a local authority”
This amendment clarifies that the reference to the Common Council of the City of London in the definition of “English local authority” in clause 14 is to the Common Council in its capacity as a local authority.
Victoria Atkins
I can be brief. The amendments are technical ones to clauses 14 and 57. Clause 14 uses the term “English local authority” while part 4 of the Bill uses the term “local authority”. In both cases, the definition of those terms includes the Court of Common Council of the City of London.
The City of London Corporation has both public and private functions, so it is appropriate that public legislation should apply to it only in respect of its public functions. The amendments to clauses 14 and 57 therefore provide that the references to “the Common Council” relate to its capacity as a local authority.
Amendment 30 agreed to.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
Clause 14 is about the duty to co-operate with the commissioner. We addressed parts of it yesterday. It is an absolutely crucial part of the commissioner’s powers. The commissioner may specify public authorities as laid out in subsection (3) to co-operate. We can add to the list in due course by regulations, but the public authorities listed in subsection (3) may not be removed. In this case I would recommend the clause to the House, although I appreciate that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley might have some things to say about it.
Jess Phillips
We went over this extensively yesterday. I just want complete clarity for the record—don’t worry, I will not go on for 50 minutes, although I could. I want to feel absolutely certain about this issue. When the commissioner says something to any one of the authorities—the list is absolutely fine—and they have the duty to respond, where in the system does the duty to act come in? Does that fall within the reporting line to the Home Secretary, who will then help the commissioner to ensure that action is taken? As somebody who often seeks a response from the Government, what I am actually seeking is action.
Victoria Atkins
Yes, of course. There are organisations on the list that are directly accountable to the electorate, such as local authorities, or are accountable via elected officials such as police and crime commissioners. We expect those bodies to be mindful and act on what the commissioner recommends. There will be consequences for them at the ballot box if they do not do so, which is the case for Ministers as well as any other Member of Parliament.
As for the other bodies, we are mindful of the independence of the police, the British Transport Police and organisations such as the Criminal Cases Review Commission, so there will be a delicate balancing act between what Ministers can do and the independence of those organisations. As with other commissioners, where a public body is given fully reasoned recommendations by the commissioner in her report, they would be expected to respond to that, and that includes action.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 14, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 15 to 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19
Power to give a domestic abuse protection notice
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
Clause 19 signifies the beginning of part 3 of the Bill, which introduces domestic abuse protection notices and domestic abuse protection orders. These are very important aspects of the Bill. It may help if, before turning specifically to clause 19, I recap why we are creating the new protective orders, and the significant value that they will provide to victims and to agencies in holding perpetrators to account.
Responses to our public consultation in 2018 emphasised that the multitude of orders currently available in domestic abuse cases, which include non-molestation orders, occupation orders, restraining orders and domestic violence protection orders, can be confusing for victims and, indeed, practitioners. Each of those orders is available in different circumstances, does different things and has different consequences for breach. No single order provides victims with the comprehensive protection that they need to rebuild their lives. Our intention, in creating the new DAPOs, is to bring the strongest elements of the existing protective order regime together in one comprehensive and flexible order, and for DAPOs to become the go-to order in domestic abuse cases.
Clauses 19 to 23 create the new domestic abuse protection notice, which is designed to provide victims with immediate protection and breathing space from the perpetrator following a crisis incident. The notice will be issued by the police and could, for example, require the perpetrator to leave the victim’s home for up to 48 hours. Issue of the notice triggers an application by the police to a magistrates court for a DAPO, an order, which, if made by the court, provides the victim with longer-term protection.
Unlike the current domestic violence protection notices and orders, the new domestic abuse protection notice and order can be used to protect victims from all forms of domestic abuse and not just from violence or the threat of violence. However, it will not always be the case that there is a single crisis incident that necessitates the issuing of a notice by the police. Furthermore, we know that some victims do not want to involve the police in their case at all; they just want the abuse to stop. That is why the Bill provides for a range of flexible application routes to obtain an order, enabling not just the police but victims themselves or any other person, with the leave of the court, to apply for a DAPO. In addition, it is open to a judge or magistrate to decide to make a DAPO as part of existing proceedings in the criminal, civil or family courts.
The DAPO is designed to be fully flexible, so that it can be tailored by the court to meet the needs of the victim, based on the specific facts of each individual case. That is one of the order’s most important characteristics. Unlike the existing domestic violence protection orders, which have a maximum duration of just 28 days, DAPOs can be flexible in duration and can therefore provide victims with longer-term protection if needed. It will be for the court to determine the duration of an order or, if necessary, to decide that it should be open-ended until such time as the court makes a further order.
The Bill also provides courts with the flexibility to attach to the order not only restrictions but positive requirements, depending on what is necessary in each case to protect the victim from abuse. For example, the conditions attached to a DAPO could range from basic non-contact requirements and an exclusion zone, right up to requirements to wear an electronic tag or to attend a behaviour change programme. Crucially, breach of an order will be a criminal offence, subject to a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment.
We know how important it is to get the implementation of the new orders right and to ensure that the whole process is as simple as possible for victims, the police and others to navigate. That is why we will issue statutory guidance on the orders and also pilot them in a small number of areas prior to any national roll-out. The Bill expressly provides for that.
We must acknowledge, however, that the creation of the new protective order will not by itself deliver a better response to domestic abuse. The success of DAPOs will rest on a strong, multi-agency approach to ensure that these orders are the protective tool that they are intended to be. Everyone will have a role to play in this: the justice system, other statutory agencies, and specialist domestic abuse organisations will be expected to work together to manage those who are subject to an order and, most importantly, keep victims and their children safe.
Clause 19 confers a power on a police officer to issue domestic abuse protection notices. It sets out the two conditions that must be met in order for the police to issue a notice. The first condition is
“that the senior police officer has reasonable grounds for believing that P”—
the perpetrator—
“has been abusive towards a person aged 16 or over to whom P is personally connected”,
in line with the definitions we discussed yesterday, contained in clauses 1 and 2.
As I have mentioned, unlike with the current domestic violence protection notice, this clause provides that the new notice can be used to protect victims from all forms of domestic abuse, not simply from violence or the threat of violence, which the Joint Committee commented
“removes a key weakness of the previous scheme.”
Furthermore, it does not matter if the abusive behaviour that provides grounds for the issue of the notice took place outside England and Wales.
The second condition is that the police officer
“has reasonable grounds for believing that it is necessary to give the notice to protect that person from domestic abuse.”
The requirements imposed by the notice, which are provided for in clause 20, have effect in all parts of the United Kingdom, not just in England and Wales. For example, if a notice required the perpetrator not to make contact with the victim in any way, the perpetrator would breach the notice by sending a text message or email to the victim from Scotland. I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.
Jess Phillips
I feel I have been remiss in not having yet said that it is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Bone, as others have. I will not start with an inspirational quote, though I am sure you have given plenty in your time.
I thank the Minister for a detailed and forensic walk through the new DAPO system. It can sometimes feel like we say all these things in all these different scrutiny bodies, but absolutely nothing comes of it; however, from what the Minister has walked us through, I can see how different systems have evolved over time and over the course of lots of conversations. For people who love scrutiny, worry not: it does sometimes get heard.
I feel very hopeful about the new system of DAPNs and DAPOs. The Opposition, along with most witnesses who reported to the Joint Committee, strongly support any tool that gives the police and courts greater powers to protect victims of abusive relationships. We very much welcome the fact that the new orders just require abusive behaviour—rather than violent behaviour—as a precondition, although time will tell how that plays out on the ground. For too long, judges have looked for evidence of scars and bruises, rather than the emotional pain that victims suffer, so this is a real step forward, and one of which the Government should be proud.
The Opposition are also pleased to see the introduction of criminal sanctions—I believe that another amendment on this topic will be debated later—with the power of arrest for a breach of the order. For too many years, I have worked with women and children for whom the orders in place to protect them were not worth the paper they were written on. For far too long, victims have been left to argue with police forces about what constitutes a breach.
As modern technology has advanced—certainly since I started working in the field of domestic abuse—we have seen a host of new ways in which a perpetrator, or those connected with one, can breach an order. Sending posts through a family member on Facebook, for example, is a very common one that I have seen time and again. When the victim has highlighted that as a breach of an order with the police, it has not been acted on. This is not necessarily just a complaint about the police. I am not suggesting that they can act on literally everything; they have their own set of circumstances.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
Very briefly, I want to take the opportunity to describe the rural experience.
Liz Saville Roberts
They are different in different ways. There is immense pressure in terms of population, but the rural experience is that there might well be a desired staffing level on the police of six to cover the whole of north-west Wales. It is physically impossible to reach people within the hour.
Jess Phillips
That is a deeply important thing. For my constituents, it would take four minutes to drive across if there was no traffic, so that is not such an issue. It will definitely lead to victimisation by different means. It also has to be added on to the police resource, for when they see a call and have an immediate issue they need to deal with, because the order has potentially been breached, and they are going to have to drive 50 miles.
I am not suggesting for a second that the police do not want to act on these calls. I think that they do. Every police officer I meet—this has definitely changed over the last 10 years—deeply cares about domestic abuse and wants their force to be brilliant at tackling it. I am just concerned.
What I do not want to happen with the DAPO is for it to have the same reputation as all the other orders among victims and victims’ organisations. All the other orders are basically, “Isn’t that nice? I’ve got this piece of paper,” apart from an occupation order, which is given vanishingly rarely. If we were to sit down with a group of victims, they would say, “What was the point of it?”. I do not want the DAPO to have that. The inclusion of abuse and the inclusion of criminality will go some way to allaying that fear, but without resource, it will be very difficult.
The Joint Committee clearly shared some of our concerns. Its report noted:
“Particular concerns were that the proposed new notices and orders did not ‘cure’ the difficulties seen in the operation of the current Domestic Violence Protection Notices and Orders and the practical workings of the DAPO scheme had not been considered, or funded, sufficiently.”
I give the Minister her due; that is from a year ago and a lot of consideration has gone into it since.
The Joint Committee also found that the use of the existing model of DVPNs and DVPOs—different in flavour, if not in name—by police forces across England and Wales a year after they were rolled out nationally was “patchy.” We are not just referring to breaches; this is about whether they are even given out. I am concerned about resources for dealing with breaches, but there is quite a lot of concern about resources for the orders being given out in the first place.
The Joint Committee noted:
“Numbers ranged from three DVPNs and three DVPOs in Cambridgeshire”—
where there is either no domestic violence, or they are not giving them out properly—
“to 229 DVPNs and 199 DVPOs in Essex”.
Bravo to Essex! The majority of forces submitted figures between 10 and 100.
The Joint Committee continued:
“A review of the police response to domestic abuse by HM Inspectorate of Constabulary, Fire and Rescue Services”—
I noticed the Minister also struggled to say that earlier; it needs a better acronym—
“in 2017 found: ‘Many forces are still not using DVPOs as widely as they could, and opportunities to use them are continuing to be missed. Over half of the forces that were able to provide data—
that were able to provide data does not speak to many—
“on the use of DVPOs reported a decrease in the number of DVPOs granted per 100 domestic abuse related offences in the 12 months to 30 June 2016 compared to the 12 months to 31 March 2015.’”
Those comments speak to my concerns about the capacity of the police, rather than their desire.
I very much hope that the inclusion of the term “abuse” rather than “violence” will act to massively improve the numbers—I really hope that we are proven right on that—and that the act of criminalising has a similar effect on the uptake and usefulness of DAPOs. However, I seek from the Minister an understanding of how and at what intervals that will be assessed.
A number of organisations, from the perspective of both the victim and the perpetrator, have expressed concerns about the new scheme and the act of criminalisation. I am sure that some minds will be put to rest if a framework for review and possible action plans from the evidence of such reviews were put in place—the Minister has spoken about a two-year review in specific areas. For example, if there is limited use in a certain police force after a year and it is identified that that is because of training deficits—that is what it usually is—action plans could then be put in place to ensure a remedy.
Some concerns about the criminalisation element would certainly be allayed if we have an idea about exactly how the pilot is going to work and what actions will be taken to remedy any possible deficits.
There are two potentials. In one of the pilot areas, they may not do it well, and we could all say, “Maybe DAPOs don’t work,” and go and look at something else. Alternatively, pilot areas could put a lot of effort and resources in because of the very nature of being pilot areas. Fair play to all of them, but when we scale that up to the Metropolitan police, the West Midlands police or a police force in a completely rural area, for example, and the scheme is ongoing, there is a concern that we need to ensure that we are reviewing it constantly and pushing for it to work.
I want to the order to work, and the sector wants it to work. I could be glib about people rolling their eyes when an does not work, but that tells victims that the police do not care, even if that is not the case. If someone rings the police and they do not act on a breach, the view is, “It’s because they don’t care about me.” That will stop that person going forward again in the future. That demoralises the whole system, and we cannot have that.
I welcome the fact that domestic abuse protection orders may be applied for without victims’ consent—by the police, specialist agencies and third parties, with the consent of the court. That will end a process that can be very onerous on victims, both administratively and, much more keenly, emotionally. As the Joint Committee highlighted,
“the nature of domestic abuse is such that pressure not to take action against the perpetrator will often be overwhelming and it would significantly weaken the protective effect of the orders if only victims were able to apply for them.”
I cannot sing the praises of that enough.
I turn now to some of the concerns raised by police about the cost of the DAPO application. We welcome the Government’s assurances that no victim will have to pay any costs. I have seen incidences, in times of austerity, where local authority partnership boards moved from systems for application of civil orders, where there was no cost to a victim for application, to a system where victims have been asked for large sums to apply for various orders. Some were asked for thousands of pounds in fees to keep them and their children safe—or, as it turned out, partially safe. It is welcome news that there will be no cost to the victim in this new regime.
Currently, however, an application for a DVPO costs the police £205—admittedly, that is under the current system—and a contested hearing costs £515. In evidence to the Joint Committee, Rights of Women explained:
“the police will seek a costs order against the respondent, which will only be granted when the application is successful. It is unclear how many costs orders are made following applications for DVPOs, and, most pertinently, how much money is actually recovered from respondents when costs orders are made. The National Audit Office report from the summer of 2011 concluded that as much as £1.3bn was owed in court fines, prosecutor costs and other payments arising from court proceedings.”
I especially like the bit at the end of a court hearing, when we talk about the money. It is so academic, as hardly any of it will be paid, but I often enjoy that moment in court.
To date, police forces have not received any additional funding for DVPOs. Olive Craig, legal officer at Rights of Women, told the Joint Committee:
“the organisation had been told by police officers, victims, and frontline domestic violence support staff that one of the reasons they did not use these orders was because they were seen as ‘too expensive’.”
It has been the concern of many specialists that courts will not want to be seen as being draconian, so courts may be less likely to grant DAPOs in the first place, especially now, with the criminalisation element.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
I want to add my voice in supporting the belief that the orders will be a step change in the courts. As a magistrate, I have grappled with many restraining orders and non-molestation orders, and with bail conditions. One of the frustrations I have seen on the bench arises from the desire to know what tools we have to do more, particularly for what seem like minor offences, when someone is not breaking down someone’s door, but writing Facebook messages, or text messages, to their mum or sister.
Many in the police and the courts recognise that the point of crisis for women—in my experience, it is mainly women, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley said—is when they try to break away from an abuser. That is the moment of greatest danger for a woman, because the perpetrator can see the control slipping away. That is a moment of desperation, when the perpetrator wants to reassert that control, and will use every tool and every trick in the book to do so.
In my experience, the courts and the police are crying out for the tools that they can use, and for the clarity and scope that the measures introduce. I am optimistic, and I believe that lots of people in the system are crying out for just this kind of measure. It will be very welcome and effective.
Victoria Atkins
Forgive me, Mr Bone, but I should explain that, because we do not have box notes, I am having to use my phone. If I may, I will deal with a couple of points that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley raised. A lot of the questions that she posed sit with other clauses in the Bill, and I do not want to detract from the magnificent occasion that will be my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Justice getting to his feet and talking through some of those clauses, so I will defer to him.
The hon. Lady raised the issue of police fees and recognised that the Government have accepted the Joint Committee’s recommendation, which means that, for the two-year pilot, we will cover the police’s court fees for applying for the orders. We very much want to use the pilot to understand the resource implications of the new orders for the police and other agencies, and to use that to inform our considerations in future.
When she spoke to the Public Bill Committee in 2019, Deputy Chief Constable Louisa Rolfe, the National Police Chiefs Council lead on domestic abuse, said:
“The cost of the DAPO would be the least of our concerns. There are many positive aspects to the DAPO…Policing is not deterred by cost and I have some examples of that. We have a strong record of sometimes stepping in where other agencies are not able to.”––[Official Report, Domestic Abuse Public Bill Committee, 29 October 2019; c. 27, Q47.]
In any event, as I say, we have said that we will cover the cost in response to the concerns raised by the Joint Committee.
In terms of training, we will provide statutory guidance on the new orders, to ensure that the police and other frontline practitioners use them effectively and consistently to protect victims and their children. We will consult with the commissioner, the police and others on the guidance before it is issued, and we will ensure that the police and other frontline practitioners have enough time to prepare for the introduction of the new orders.
The Judicial College has a regular training programme for all judges and magistrates, and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service provides training for court staff. We will work with both those partners to assess how to incorporate training on DAPOs into their ongoing training programmes.
Jess Phillips
I do appreciate the back and forth of this forum. I am pleased to hear that about the guidance. Will there be some overview to check whether that training has been done? What body might that sit with? I understand that the Minister may have to get the answer from somebody else.
Victoria Atkins
Obviously, in relation to the judiciary, it will be the Judicial College. The College of Policing plays a vital role in training constabularies across the country to ensure consistency, as do chief constables.
To move away from the Bill momentarily and reflect on the last couple of months, the Home Secretary, I and others have had daily operational calls with the NPCC and other chief officers, and I have been struck by how much domestic abuse has been absolutely at the top of every chief constable’s mind in the last month or two. Some innovative policing practice has been going on, precisely because we are worried about the effects of lockdown.
I know that chief constables take that training responsibility very seriously. Of course, the Home Office has a role to play as well. The hon. Lady said that training is a constant theme in these discussions, which it is, but we should acknowledge that we are in a better place than we were, certainly 10 years ago and, actually, five years ago. I hope that I will be saying that in another five years as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I was struck by what the Minister said about the problem of not having the officials here, and so not having inspiration fluttering from behind. If it is of any help to the her in these exceptional circumstances, if she is stuck on a point, I am happy to come back to the matter later, because the Committee would then be better advised.
Jess Phillips
I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 20, page 13, line 8, after “lives”, insert “or works.”
This amendment would ensure that those giving Domestic Abuse Protection notices have the discretion to consider the workplace as well as the home.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 57, in clause 20, page 13, line 10, after “lives”, insert “or works.”
This amendment would ensure that those giving Domestic Abuse Protection notices have the discretion to consider the workplace as well as the home.
Amendment 58, in clause 20, page 13, line 11, after “lives”, insert “or works.”
This amendment would ensure that those giving Domestic Abuse Protection notices have the discretion to consider the workplace as well as the home.
Amendment 59, in clause 21, page 13, line 29, after “lives”, insert “or works.”
This amendment would ensure that those giving Domestic Abuse Protection notices have the discretion to consider the workplace as well as the home.
Amendment 60, in clause 21, page 13, line 32, after “lives”, insert “or works.”
This amendment would ensure that those giving Domestic Abuse Protection notices have the discretion to consider the workplace as well as the home.
Amendment 61, in clause 32, page 20, line 24, after “lives”, insert “or works.”
This amendment would ensure that those giving Domestic Abuse Protection Orders have the discretion to consider the workplace as well as the home.
Amendment 62, in clause 32, page 20, line 26, after “lives”, insert “or works.”
This amendment would ensure that those making Domestic Abuse Protection Orders have the discretion to consider the workplace as well as the home.
Amendment 63, in clause 32, page 20, line 27, after “lives”, insert “or works.”
This amendment would ensure that those making Domestic Abuse Protection Orders have the discretion to consider the workplace as well as the home.
Amendment 64, in clause 32, page 20, line 28, after “person from”, insert “part of”
This amendment would ensure that those making Domestic Abuse Protection Orders have the discretion to consider the workplace as well as the home.
Amendment 65, in clause 32, page 20, line 28, after “the”, insert “workplace or”
This amendment would ensure that those serving Domestic Abuse Protection Orders have the discretion to consider the workplace as well as the home.
Amendment 66, in clause 33, page 20, line 43, after “establishment”, add “except in a case where the person against whom the order is made works in the same premises as the person for whose protection the order is made;”
This amendment would ensure that those making Domestic Abuse Protection Orders have the discretion to consider the workplace as well as the home.
Jess Phillips
We got here quickly—we are a bit quicker today, aren’t we? I realise that is my responsibility, so maybe we will not be quick anymore. The amendments would expand the DAPO to cover the workplace. In 2016, four women were murdered in their workplaces by men.
In one high-profile case, Andrew Burke cut the throat of his ex-partner’s new girlfriend, Cassie Hayes, at the Southport branch of Tui. The 28-year-old was killed by her lover’s ex-partner at her agency branch in what the judge called a
“cold-blooded execution in public”.
Burke slit Cassie’s throat at the travel shop in front of horrified customers, including families with young children. A court heard how events turned toxic in the lead-up to the murder, after the killer realised that Cassie had begun a relationship with his ex. In 2017, Burke admitted to sending malicious communications and was fined and warned to keep away from Cassie after threatening to kill her. It is particularly poignant for any of us here who have had the exact same thing happen. The perpetrator was already awaiting sentencing for harassing the mother of his child, and was being investigated for further harassing Cassie.
Rachel Williams, about whom I spoke yesterday in the context of the suicide of her son Jack, suffered much of her abuse in the workplace. Rachel’s employer recounted to a newspaper the behaviour of the perpetrator—Rachel’s husband, Darren Williams—in the workplace:
“First, her employer recalled, Williams banned Rachel from working with male colleagues and cutting the hair of any man—or even lesbian women.
When they employed a young man, the entire salon had to enact the charade that he was gay.
Rachel’s boss recalled: ‘Darren’s demeanour was intimidating and we were all afraid of him “kicking off.” He would make surprise visits to the salon and check our appointment book to try to catch her cutting men’s hair.’
‘I remember one particular day when Rachel was the only stylist available to cut a gent’s hair and I had to order all my trainees to circle around her and the client to block any view from the street while she cut his hair. The fear of her getting caught was tangible and the whole salon was on pins.’”
Some 47.3% of respondents to a TUC survey said that their partner physically turned up at their workplace, while 43.6% said that their partner stalked them outside their workplace. Three quarters of women who experience domestic violence will also be targeted at work. Clearly there is a problem with the protection of victims in their places of work. I feel as though the Government were prepared for this speech, because I am very pleased to hear of a review—we all know how much I love a review—into what is needed in workplaces, although I think the issue still stands with regard to the DAPO.
I have seen time and again, working both in domestic abuse services and, I am afraid to say, as an employer, how women can be targeted. Although it did not always mean that the perpetrator would turn up, women would be threatened with the idea that the perpetrator would come and make a scene at their workplace. Imagine being in an abusive relationship—even someone in our job or someone who works for us—and to be kept being told, “I will come and make a scene at your work.” We would do almost anything. It is one of the worst controls that I can imagine—I say that as someone who is so driven by my work—someone turning up at work to humiliate me, causing a scene. I remember one case of a victim whose perpetrator rang her workplace switchboard hundreds of times a day, but she was disciplined for it.
I also recall the case of a teaching assistant who called the police many times about the abuse she suffered at home, including violence and sexual abuse. As in many cases, unfortunately, no convictions were ever secured, for one reason or another. However, were this case to occur now, after this Bill, with which we are all trying to improve the situation, I can very much foresee that we might have got a DAPO—whether through the family courts, the police, the victim or, potentially, a third party, because in that case the woman had an older teenage daughter who was fiercely fighting for her mother.
One day at work, that victim was told that her perpetrator would be coming as a visiting dignitary to the school where she worked. The school had no idea of the connection or the abuse but, when she expressed concerns, she was asked to take the day off. The tentacles of control are hard for us to beat. When we look at domestic abuse, we see that it is about power and control. In that case, someone who wishes to exert power and control is being given the option—which they always are—of using another model of power and control, which is the hierarchies we have at work, such as fear of the boss, worry about what colleagues will think, or that they will say, “Gosh, she is always causing trouble”, or, “She’s whinging again.” It happens, because that is human nature—these things happen—but the two power structures together are a dangerous and heady combination.
In that case, the perpetrator knew that he had the power to go to his ex-partner’s place of work, and that her position as a teaching assistant in that power structure meant that he trumped her even in her workplace. The thought of him delighting in the fact that she would have to take action because of him going about his business makes my blood boil. Perpetrators will use every power option they have, so there is no reason to think that they would not do that in a place of work.
We do not have anywhere near robust enough policies and procedures to deal with workplace domestic abuse, and it is barely seen as a side issue by most. Some really notable examples of good employers, such as Lloyds bank, Vodafone and the Welsh Government, have all sought to take the issue and to go above and beyond with it. They offer paid leave, instances of support and proper policies, for example on what to do if there is a perpetrator and a victim at the workplace.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
My hon. Friend mentioned the Welsh Government and yesterday we discussed the Violence against Women, Domestic Abuse and Sexual Violence (Wales) Act 2015, which puts a statutory duty on organisations in Wales to provide training. Some of our local authorities have extended that duty to local employers as well. That is about engagement with local businesses and employers to make their staff aware, so that they can identify the signs, picking up on domestic abuse to help their employees. Some of our local authorities have also introduced paid leave, following what has been done in Scotland. We would definitely look to that as a blanket measure across the UK.
Jess Phillips
When the Minister stands up, I am sure that she will urge us all to take part in the consultation on the current review and say that very thing. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is another issue on which this Bill, although it is for England and Wales, is up against some potential differences in Wales—there might be different guidance—and I very much hope that the statutory guidance that comes with the Bill will look at that. The specific issue is that of the DAPO.
I want to talk about how little the issue of violence against women and girls at work is currently considered. As a member of the Women and Equalities Committee, I raised the issue of abuse in the workplace with the Health and Safety Executive as part of our inquiry into sexual harassment in the workplace. Obviously, we know that there is much crossover in this area. I said—this is like a script; I could act it out, but I am definitely better at being Jess Phillips than I am at being Philip White from the Health and Safety Executive. I said:
“Do you know what caused the most deaths of women at work last year?”
The answer, of course, is violence against women and girls. Philip White said, “I don’t know.” That is from the Health and Safety Executive. I asked:
“Would you consider that deaths of women at work came under Health and Safety Executive legislation?”
This is the best answer I have ever received in Parliament; it has stayed with me and will stay with me forever. He said:
“If they were killed by a reversing vehicle or an exposure to gas—”.
I asked:
“So when their safety is not their interpersonal safety, it would come under the Health and Safety Executive?”
The then Chair of that Committee, the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), tried to push the issue, asking:
“Surely a death at work would come under you?”
We talked through different incidents of violence at work that would fall under the Health and Safety Executive. As hon. Members might imagine, it did not fill me with much hope, so I asked him
“do you think that the Health and Safety Executive has a role in making sure that workplaces have safety practices at work that keep people safe from violence at work?”,
to which the response was a simple yes.
I pushed further, asking
“does the Health and Safety Executive have any specific guidance for violence against women and girls at work?”
Philip White answered:
“We don’t have any specific advice regarding violence against women and girls at work.”
I mean, we are only 52% of the population. He said that there was some evidence on the website and that HSE was part of
“a European piece of guidance that has been developed”,
which has nothing to do with violence against women and girls. I pushed him further, saying:
“Three women were murdered at work last year due to violence against women and girls, so it might be worth looking into.”
While the amendments we are proposing would not improve the role of the Health and Safety Executive, my encounter with it points to the current lack of proper understanding about the effect of interpersonal violence and abuse in people’s workplaces. It is stark. From my scrutiny of the Health and Safety Executive, I was left with the firm feeling that an employer had a role to protect me as a woman if I was hit by a van, but not if I was hit by a man. The extension of the DAPO to include protections based on people’s workplaces would have not only a material effect by literally protecting people at work, but the effect of forcing employers to take on the role of protecting their workforces from this very real problem.
The right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), not normally a union firebrand, herself the originator of this very Bill—[Interruption.] I would not like to speak to what Government Members know of the right hon. Lady’s union firebrandery, but she agrees with me, and on Second Reading of this Bill she very clearly spoke of the need for improvements in the workplace and safety in the workplace. In fact, on Second Reading of the sister Bill, the predecessor to this Bill, the right hon. Lady bravely spoke about specific issues of domestic abuse in the workplace when people work in the police force. She has been a constant champion of this particular issue, and she found many bedfellows on Second Reading of this Bill in people I would definitely describe as union firebrands.
The Bill rightly and nobly includes economic abuse, and the definition is clear—it would be abusive to perpetrate any behaviour that has “a substantial adverse effect” on a victim’s ability to “acquire…or maintain money”. It is clear that perpetrators will use a victim’s workplace as part of their pattern of control, and we have an opportunity in the Bill to stop that. A victim should be safe in the knowledge that they can attend their workplace without their abuser being able to reach them, and all that my amendments would do is simply add the words “and workplace” where the Bill refers to the provisions of a DAPO.
Alex Davies-Jones
We need this amendment to the Bill, because nearly a quarter of all people now meet their partners at work. If someone is working with an abusive partner as well as living with them, it makes sense that they will be subjected to domestic abuse while at work. That is another reason why we need this amendment.
Jess Phillips
I agree, and I will move on to concerns about people working in the same building. It is a very real issue; a quarter of people meet their partner at work—I met my husband in Kings Heath Park when I was 12; it is now many happy years later.
The Bill must not exclude the workplace from victims’ protections, when it is the place where many victims will spend the majority of their time—those of us in this room know that our time at work far outstrips the time we spend anywhere else. I have to say that what is in the Bill with regard to DAPOs really does recognise the idea of a victim’s life and where people are. The only deficit is specifically with regard to workplaces.
For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd referred to, where a victim and a perpetrator share a workplace, a DAPO could specify distances and support employers to make the changes to shift patterns, or locations, or the perpetrator’s work space. The amendment would allow victims to keep their job and to continue working, as necessary steps can be taken to ensure that they have no contact with the perpetrator.
I understand that the Government may feel that non-police interventions for protections may be considered more effective. However, my interaction with the Health and Safety Executive speaks to a different reality, and the evidence that victims need protection in the workplace is clear.
Undoubtedly, in some situations there will need to be stronger enforcement to protect victims and to ensure that there is no unnecessary loss of life. In situations where the victim is in serious danger, workplaces should be a place of safety, but this will only be the case if protections are properly enforced by police interventions.
The amendment seeks for judges to include the consideration of the workplace in DAPOs; it does not have to be included. As we have said, one of the good things about DAPOs is that they are flexible, and there is no compulsion on the court or the applicant to request this consideration in addition to protection in the home. The amendment does not necessarily mean that all DAPOs will feature the victim’s workplace; as I have said, it will be at the discretion of the judiciary and those presenting the case.
In cases where perpetrators’ access to their workplace is restricted due to a DAPO, workplaces should be able to support both the perpetrator and victim to ensure that as few limitations as possible are placed on them, but ultimately they must ensure that they operate a zero-tolerance policy towards any kind of harassment.
I am fearful. I have been trying for years to look at different models for how we can support victims of domestic abuse in the workplace. When perpetrators and victims work together, the issue we always run up against is that it gets too difficult because of the potential infringement on the liberties of people in the workplace. But this infringes on the liberties of the victim every single day. We put a man on the moon 50 years ago. It is not too difficult for us to come up with something. Let him Zoom in—that is what we have all been doing. Can he not use Zoom in his new place of work? We have all learned that we do not have to physically be here in order to work—unless the Leader of the House says otherwise, in which case we are entitled to different options. We cannot live in this modern society and think that this is too difficult to address because people work together, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd has said. We are better than that. What is that phrase? “World beating”. Let us be world beating in how we deal with domestic abuse in the workplace.
The amendment would protect victims with life-saving orders and give them the opportunity to be protected at work. It would also present a chance to push forward, as so much of the Bill seeks to do, the idea that workplaces across the country should be safe for vulnerable people. The amendment would force employers to consider their role. By agreeing to this amendment, the Committee would be saying that we believe in the DAPO and that it has a chance to keep people safe. The amendment would also do what we all hope the Bill will do. It would break ground and enable us to say, for the first time, to the bosses and to Philip White of the Health and Safety Executive, “This is the responsibility of all of us.”
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
Like every other area of the UK, the constituents of Ynys Môn who suffer domestic abuse are supported by a range of agencies, including police, local authorities and charitable organisations. These organisations provide housing, counselling, education and other services that are vital to keeping safe those escaping domestic abuse. However, as those organisations are all too aware, the issue of domestic abuse goes well beyond the home. Domestic abuse-related stalking and harassment cases make up more than 60% of cases heard at magistrates courts, and more than one third of all reported stalking and harassment takes place at work or at home. It is difficult for those suffering domestic abuse to escape when their abuser follows them.
We all know from evidence provided by organisations such as Refuge that the current injunction system is of limited effectiveness. I therefore welcome the introduction of domestic abuse protection orders, which are a critical part of the Bill. The orders will enable anyone who suffers domestic abuse of any kind to access services knowing that they will be supported and protected beyond the home.
Victoria Atkins
May I start by saying that I have some sympathy with the aim of the amendments? I recognise that the targeting of the victim’s place of work is often a tactic used by domestic abuse perpetrators to cause distress and exercise coercive control. I have been a strong supporter of the work of the Employers’ Initiative on Domestic Abuse, which aims to help businesses and employers take practical steps to help members of their workforce who suffer from domestic abuse. They can often be very small steps, including allowing time off for a victim to go and seek medical help, but they can also include much larger ideas, such as setting up a bank account so that she can siphon money off to get a little bit of independence from the perpetrator. I am very interested in what employers can do to help their employees who are suffering from domestic abuse. Indeed, the Government are looking into this. Only yesterday, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy launched a consultation calling for evidence on what more can be done by employers to protect their workforce against domestic abuse. That is very much the direction of travel of this Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn mentioned stalking, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley referred to some terrible cases in which victims have been murdered at their workplace. The story that always comes to my mind is that of Hollie Gazzard, as I lived not very far from Gloucester at the time. That was a horrendous case, and her parents have been quite extraordinary in doing what they have done to try to stop other families suffering in the same way. Our efforts to address the issue of stalking have included the introduction of stalking protection orders, which have a similar format to these orders. We have tried to mirror in DAPOs things like the positive requirements and the criminal breach that are in stalking protection orders, so that there is a protection order for stalking if the facts fit one, but if the facts are better suited to a DAPO, those orders will be available as well—subject to the approval of the House, of course. A huge amount of work is going on to recognise the role that the workplace can play in a victim’s life, and in the attempts of a perpetrator to continue their aggressive or coercive behaviour.
To be clear, clauses 19 to 23 relate to the notices, and these are emergency orders. They are issued not by a court, but by a senior police officer, and the perpetrator has no opportunity to make representations against the imposition of the notice. They apply for a very short period—for 48 hours—so that we can give a bit of space to the victim, and so that the police or others can take steps to make the formal application for an order before a court. These emergency orders are different in nature. They are much more restrictive, because obviously if they are issued by a police officer rather than a court and the perpetrator does not have the chance to make representations, we have to reflect that in the nature of the orders. That is why the list of conditions in clause 20 is exhaustive, and they relate in particular to the occupation of the premises shared with the victim. These were drafted because they mirror the existing provisions in the domestic violence protection notices that are in operation at the moment, but I will consider what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley and others have said about introducing the workplace into these notices.
There is one caveat. The hon. Lady has talked about the notices more generally. I hope, Mr Bone, you will forgive me if I veer into clause 21. The reason we are being very careful and methodical is that clause 21(2) requires the police to consider, before issuing a notice that restricts the perpetrator’s access to the premises, the opinion of other people who work on those premises. In very small workplaces, that may be practicable, but in a workplace of thousands—the House of Commons, a Government Department or elsewhere—there would be significant logistical challenges. We will look into the overall principle, but we flag that as a practical concern about amendments 59 and 60. We also have to bear in mind as we look at these amendments that a victim may not wish to disclose their abuse to their employer.
The purpose of amendments 61 to 65 is to make equivalent amendments to provisions that may be made by a DAPO. The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham may deal with those specifically in relation to the clauses on orders. It may be that they are not quite as necessary in orders as they are in notices, given that orders will be considered by a court and there is much more freedom for the court to impose necessary restrictions.
Jess Phillips
I welcome the Minister’s comments. I am happy about the announcement of a Government review, although a number of reviews about workplace violence against women and girls are outstanding after a number of years. That is not the Minister’s responsibility, but the issue of non-disclosure agreements, for example, has been raging, as part of a review and consultation, for three years since the Weinstein affair.
I welcome the Minister’s commitment to this particular issue. I do not think that anybody wants victims to be controlled in that way in their workplaces. I recognise the concerns about when people work together and that, in those instances, it will potentially be much easier to have that conversation in court. I am happy to withdraw the amendment on the proviso that the Government have given, having said that they will listen and try to take that on board and see how it could work. I welcome that, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 21
Matters to be considered before giving a notice
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
Clause 21 relates to matters that must be considered by the senior police officer before giving a notice. Again, I emphasise the difference between a notice and an order. First, the police officer must consider the welfare of any child whose interests the officer considers relevant to ensure that any safeguarding concerns are addressed appropriately. The child does not have to be personally connected to the perpetrator for their interests to be relevant and could therefore be the victim’s child from a previous relationship.
The police officer must also take reasonable steps to find out the opinion of the victim as to whether the notice should be given. However, as set out in subsection (4), the police officer does not have to obtain the victim’s consent to give a notice, which I think the Committee—I observe the nodding heads—is in agreement with. That enables the police to protect victims who may be coerced by the perpetrator into expressing the opinion that a notice should not be given or who are fearful of the consequences should they appear to be supporting action against the perpetrator.
Where the notice includes conditions in relation to the premises lived in by the victim, reasonable steps must be taken to find out the opinion of any other person who lives in the premises and is personally connected to the perpetrator, if the perpetrator also lives there. For example, if the perpetrator had caring responsibilities for a family member with whom they shared the premises, it would be important for the police to be aware of that. Consideration must also be given by the police officer to any representation that the perpetrator makes in relation to the giving of a notice, although that is not a formal process as with the courts.
I want to be absolutely clear that the primary consideration in determining whether notice should be given must be the protection of the victim and their children. We will ensure that that is set out clearly in the statutory guidance.
Peter Kyle
The decision that the officer has to make on whether he asks permission from an alleged victim or issues the notice without the support of the victim is going to be very difficult. What guidance will the Home Office issue to assist frontline officers in making that decision in a way that is consistent within and across police forces?
Victoria Atkins
The hon. Gentleman raises a sensible point. There will be moments where an officer has to judge the situation as it is presented to her or him. We will be issuing statutory guidance and, as with the statutory guidance on the Bill, that will very much be in consultation with the commissioner and frontline charities.
These sorts of decisions have to be made regularly by officers. During the current crisis, officers are making decisions about whether they visit certain premises to check that people are okay and the potential impact of that. There will be difficult decisions, but we will very much engage with people in a transparent way to make sure that the guidance is in a good place before it is issued formally.
Liz Saville Roberts
A point that has been raised with me is that training in domestic abuse for junior police officers is often much more thorough than that which their senior officers have experienced, and that, as well as guidelines, specific training for those officers who will be making the decisions could be very useful.
Victoria Atkins
That is not the case with all senior officers. Deputy Chief Constable Louisa Rolfe, who is the NPCC lead on domestic violence, is a very senior officer and an absolute expert. I take the point that officers at different stages in their career will have different levels of experience and training. I am sure the guidance will help address that so that we have a wealth and diversity of experience in the decision-making process.
Jess Phillips
I will be brief. I have a number of concerns about the notice, some of which have, quite rightly, already been raised. Louisa Rolfe is currently a West Midlands police officer—she is just about to leave that post—and an excellent one at that, but I get the point that has been raised.
Last night, a journalism award was given to someone who investigated what happens when there is domestic abuse within the police force. In this instance, we are putting so much of the onus on the individual police officer. If a social worker suffers domestic abuse or is accused and convicted or perpetrating domestic abuse, or any other type of abuse, the LADO process—the local authority designated officer—is followed. They go through that process at work and are not allowed to work on certain areas. I just want to make sure that something similar applies in this case. Individual police forces are huge; a variety of people work for them. If issues were raised in an officer’s case, that kind of process would ensure that they were taken into consideration when deciding who within the force gives out notices. I imagine that that sort of situation would be vanishingly rare, but it is worth noting.
On breach of a notice, we are talking about victims who do not give consent. As the Minister said, I nodded—I totally agree—but if a victim breaches a notice, I do not want that to end up being used against them in court. A lot of issues came up in the sad case of the suicide of Caroline Flack—
Domestic Abuse Bill (Sixth sitting)
Wednesday 10th June 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 View all Domestic Abuse Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 June 2020 - (10 Jun 2020)
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
I was just discussing the issue of a notice being breached on behalf of the victim. I had started to say that in the case of Caroline Flack, who sadly took her own life, there was a notice between her and her partner that they had not breached. In that instance, the partner would be considered the victim in the context we are discussing. That case has highlighted in the public’s mind the fact that when a victim is told not to contact somebody, there will always be pressures, for lots of different reasons, and certainly if the victim shares children with the perpetrator.
In a case where somebody is struggling with their mental health or wishes to reach out, I just want some assurance about how it might play out in court if a breach of these notices occurred on the side of the victim—that is, if a victim breached a notice for pressure reasons, or even for humanitarian reasons. I have seen lots of cases in the family courts, for example, where the fact that orders have not been kept to has been used against victims. I wondered what we might think about breaches of these particular notices from the victim’s point of view.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Victoria Atkins)
The hon. Lady’s question relates to clause 23, but my answer will be given on the basis that we are debating clause 21. Before I answer, I want to clarify that when I said the perpetrator could not make representations, I was thinking of court representations. I suspect that the officer can take representations into account if they arrive at the scene and the perpetrator says something to that officer, or whatever.
In relation to breaches, again, we need to be careful about the language we use. The notice will be between the police, who issue it, and the perpetrator; it does not place any restrictions on the victim. However, with other types of orders, there are of course circumstances in which non-contact orders have been made and the person being protected by that non-contact order contacts the person on whom it is placed.
That must be a matter for the court. As the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley has set out, the person being protected may well have had perfectly reasonable grounds for making contact, but that must fall into the arena of the court. I do not think we could interfere with that, because the judge will have to engage in that balancing exercise when considering the orders, as opposed to the notices we are debating at the moment. I am sorry that I cannot provide the hon. Lady with more information than that, but in those circumstances I recommend to the Committee that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 21 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Breach of notice
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
I will address this clause briefly, because the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley has raised a query about it. Clause 23 relates to a perpetrator who is alleged to have breached the grounds of their notice. If a constable has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is in breach of a notice, they can be arrested without warrant, held in custody and brought before a magistrates court within 24 hours, or in time to attend the scheduled hearing of the application for a domestic abuse protection order—whichever is sooner. It is fair to say that these are very strong powers, which I hope shows the seriousness with which we believe the alleged perpetrator should be viewed, but also the seriousness with which the police and the courts view these notices.
The Bill also provides the police with a power of entry when they are arresting someone for breach of notice, and that is stronger than the current domestic violence protection notice provisions, which do not go quite that far. This additional power of entry will improve the police’s ability to safeguard victims and to gather vital evidence at the scene of an incident.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
One of the most striking features of the clause is set out in subsection (2), which states:
“A person arrested by virtue of subsection (1) must be held in custody”.
These are indeed strong powers, but they send a very clear signal that the law and law enforcement are on the side of the alleged victim at such times. It is a very welcome move and will give confidence and respite to any alleged victims in future, so we thank the Government for delivering it.
Victoria Atkins
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I am pleased that he sees what we are trying to achieve with this clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 23 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Meaning of “domestic abuse protection order”
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
Sorry. Just to explain, I am obviously very keen that the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham, plays his part, but this shows that there is real interaction between both our Departments on the Bill, so we have had to do a certain amount of carving-up between us.
It is my pleasure to introduce clause 24. We are moving now from the provisions in the Bill about notices to those about domestic abuse protection orders. Clause 24 defines a DAPO for the purposes of part 3 of the Bill and signposts the subsequent provisions in this chapter relating to the making of an order.
The definition in subsection (1) provides that a DAPO is
“an order which…places prohibitions or restrictions or both on the subject of the order, namely, the perpetrator for the purpose of protecting another person, namely, the victim from abuse and in accordance with Clause one, the victim must be aged 16 or over”
and “personally connected” to the perpetrator.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 24 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 25
Domestic abuse protection orders on application
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
One key advantage of the DAPO over other existing orders is that it can be obtained via a range of different application routes. Unlike the current domestic violence protection order, which can only be applied for by police to a magistrates court, or the non-molestation order, which can only be applied for by victims to the family courts, the DAPO provisions allow far greater flexibility in who can apply for an order, and to which court the application may be made.
Clause 25 sets out who can apply for a DAPO: namely, the victim, the police, a relevant third party specified in regulations, or any other person with the leave of the court. The provision for relevant third parties, which is to be set out in the regulations, ensures that such parties would be able to apply for an order directly without first obtaining the leave of the court. We will use the pilot of the orders to assess whether the current provisions for anyone to apply with the leave of the court are sufficient, or whether it would be beneficial to enable local authorities, for example, to make an application without first having to seek leave of the court. If there is a case for expanding the list of persons who can apply for a DAPO as of right, we can provide for that in regulations at a later stage.
Subsections (3) and (4) set out which police force, including the British Transport police and the Ministry of Defence police, should lead on an application for an order in different circumstances. Where a notice has already been given, the application must be made by the police force that gave the notice. Where the police wish to apply for a stand-alone order without a notice having been given, the application should be made by the force for the police area in which the perpetrator resides currently or intends to come into. The purpose of the provision is to make it absolutely clear which police force has responsibility for applying for a DAPO in order to avoid any confusion, duplication of effort or delay in putting protective measures around the victim.
The clause also sets out to which courts applications can be made. Police applications are to be made to a magistrates court, as is the case for domestic violence protection orders, and other applications are to be made to the family court. To ensure that DAPOs are widely accessible in other circumstances where they may be needed, the clause also allows for applications to be made by a victim during the course of certain proceedings in the family and civil courts, as specified at clause 28.
Jess Phillips
The clause is very robust and replaces an incredibly confusing picture of which orders one can get where. As somebody who has filled in the paperwork for pretty much all of these orders, I do not think I could explain it right now. It is very complicated, but we have a clear listing of exactly who can do what. What the Minister has said about regulations being laid around relative third parties is an important point. I know that the Joint Committee on the Draft Domestic Abuse Bill and also anyone who works in this building will have potential concerns about the misuse of third parties applying for DAPOs. I cannot imagine many circumstances in which they could be misused, but unfortunately perpetrators are particularly manipulative and can sometimes find ways to do that, so I will be interested to see the regulations on third parties when they are laid and how much that will be in consultation with the victim and, in fact, the perpetrator. We are infringing on people’s rights. Although I want to see those rights inhibited in lots of cases, they are none the less rights that we are here to fight for.
The Minister has outlined the police force area in which the DAPO is filed. This is always a complicated thing, but does she foresee any problems with resource in the police force area? I raise this because of personal experience in having orders in my own cases. I am not very popular in Manchester for some reason. I feel desperately sorry for Greater Manchester police. When coming to take statements from me to look at options around protections for me personally, it takes a whole day out of a police officer’s time to come all the way to Birmingham and sit in my house, sometimes for nine hours.
Is there a plan that could be put in guidance around police force partnerships where there is a big geographical spread? In these cases, most likely people will be close by, but when women go into refuge they can move across the country, often from Birmingham to Wales, for some reason—I do not know why, but it is close and we like the water. I have concerns about victims feeling, “Oh, that’s really far away,” or, “Gosh, I’m bothering the police.” I have certainly felt myself that I am bothering Greater Manchester police and that I might just give up on this because it is such an effort for them to drive there.
Those are not reasonable things, and we cannot mitigate people’s feelings in the law. As the Minister said, we do not try to put people’s feelings into the law, because we would never be able to represent them properly, but I think this has to be considered. The clause is well written and substantive in its detail.
Victoria Atkins
On the potential for conflict between the different areas for the victim and perpetrator police forces, we absolutely understand that. We very much expect those sorts of issues to be drawn out through the pilot. Interestingly, any police force can issue a notice to the perpetrator in response to a crisis incident, whether or not it is the police force where the perpetrator resides. That prevents any delay in protecting the victim and means that the forces do not have to reach a decision in each case on who should issue the notice. Clause 25(3) provides that whichever police force issues the notice to the perpetrator must then apply for the order against them.
We are very alert to the issue of distances. That is why in subsection (8)(b) we have ensured that a victim cannot be compelled to attend the hearing or answer questions unless they have given oral or written evidence at the hearing. That means that the police and other third-party applicants can make evidence-led applications that do not rely on the victim’s testimony. Of course, where the application is supported by evidence provided by the victim, the court should have the opportunity to hear from the victim in person. We will ensure that there are guidance materials for victims to make it clear what they can expect from the DAPO process and to address any concerns they may have about the DAPO application hearing.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 25 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 26
Applications where domestic abuse protection notice has been given
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
Clause 26 covers the steps that the police must take to apply for a DAPO following the issuing of a domestic abuse protection notice. Subsections (2) and (3) set out that the application for a DAPO must be heard in a magistrates court within 48 hours of the notice being given. That 48-hour period gives the police time to make the application for the order while giving the victims breathing space from the perpetrator until more comprehensive and longer-term protective measures can be put in place through the DAPO.
Clause 22 requires the police giving the notice to ask the perpetrator to provide an address at which they may be given notice of the hearing of the application for the order. Clause 26 provides that if the notice of the hearing is left at this address or, in cases where no address is given, reasonable efforts have been made by the police to give the perpetrator the notice, the court may hear the application without notice to the perpetrator. That is to ensure that the sorts of manipulative individuals that we have heard about cannot try to frustrate this process by simply not turning up.
To ensure that the victim remains protected if the hearing of the DAPO application is adjourned by the court, subsections (7) and (8) ensure that the notice continues to have effect until the application for the DAPO has been determined or withdrawn. The perpetrator can be remanded if they have been brought before the court after breaching the notice. Again, these are very powerful measures, and I hope that assures the Committee about the strength that we want to give to the police, the courts and those who are trying to stop perpetrators and protect victims, and about our determination to support them.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 26 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 27
Remand under section 26(8) of person arrested for breach of notice
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
Thank you very much.
Alex Chalk
I am glad that all hon. Members are taking this seriously. It is a pleasure to serve under your expert chairmanship, Mr Bone, and to be one of the Ministers leading on this Bill. When I was a Back Bencher, together with another Member of Parliament, I ended up doing some work on stalking laws to try to increase the maximum sentence for stalking, so if I could have chosen any Bill to be a Minister on, it would have been this one. It is a real pleasure to be here. I am delighted to see my shadow, the hon. Member for Hove, and the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley. We share a common endeavour in wanting to make this the best piece of legislation.
Clause 27 is a procedural clause that sets out how long a person can be held on remand if they are arrested for breach of a police-issued domestic abuse protection notice and the magistrates court adjourns that hearing. A magistrates court can normally remand a person for up to eight days, but clause 27 sets out that the court can also remand the person if a medical report is required. In such cases, a person can be remanded for only up to three weeks at a time if they are remanded in custody, or up to four weeks at a time if they are remanded on bail.
If the person is suffering from a mental disorder and a report is needed on their mental condition, they may be remanded to hospital so that such a report can be produced. That can be for up to a maximum of 28 days at a time or a total of 12 weeks if there are multiple stays in hospital.
If the court decides to remand a person on bail, it can attach any conditions necessary to prevent the person from obstructing the course of justice—for example, interfering with witnesses. These are standard provisions that largely replicate the approach taken for remand following breaches of other types of protective orders, such as non-molestation orders, occupation orders and antisocial behaviour injunctions.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 28
Domestic abuse protection orders otherwise than on application
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Chalk
Clause 28 makes provision for the court to make a domestic abuse protection order of its own volition during other ongoing proceedings that do not have to be domestic abuse-related. It is an important provision that shows the flexibility of the legislation.
The family court will have the power to do so in cases where both the victim and the alleged abuser are parties to the proceedings, which means that the family court will be able to make an order in other ongoing proceedings where the court becomes aware that an order would be beneficial. For example, if an issue of domestic abuse is raised during ongoing child contact proceedings, the victim would not have to make a separate application to the court to obtain an order. Instead, the court can make an order of its own volition as it sees necessary. That is an important element of flexibility, and indeed robustness, built into the legislation.
In criminal courts—I am conscious that we have expertise here in the form of a former magistrate, which is excellent—as with the current restraining order, the court will be able to make a domestic abuse protection order on either conviction or acquittal. To that extent it is similar to a restraining order, which can also apply in the event of an acquittal. Importantly, however, the DAPO is an improvement on the current restraining order because it can impose positive requirements as well as prohibitions on the perpetrator. All Committee members will recognise that, although we of course want to protect victims first and foremost, we also want to stop further abuse happening, so anything that can be done to ensure that people are rehabilitated and see the error of their ways is a positive thing for society as well as, of course, for the victim.
In the case of a conviction, that will allow the court to, for example, set an order with a longer duration than the sentence passed, to ensure that the victim receives the protection they need beyond the length of their sentence. In the case of an acquittal, it will ensure that the victim still receives protection if the court thinks that is necessary.
The court will also be able to make a DAPO of its own volition during other ongoing civil proceedings where both the victim and the alleged abuser are parties to the proceedings.
We will specify the type of civil proceedings in regulations, but initially we expect it to cover civil proceedings in which issues of domestic abuse are most likely to be raised or revealed in evidence, such as housing-related proceedings.
Jess Phillips
I feel that, now Minister Chalk is on his feet, I should have some things to say; I do not want to leave him out.
I cannot say how important the idea that the court can put in place an order on acquittal in these circumstances is to somebody like me, who has watched many cases fall apart over the years. I am always slightly jealous of the Scottish system of not proven, because in too many cases in the area of violence against women and girls, it may well be that the balance of evidence needed cannot be provided either at the magistrates court or at the Crown court in these circumstances, but there is still gross fear among all involved that the fact that it is not proven does not mean that it did not happen.
The idea that, on acquittal, courts could put these orders in place is a huge step forward, ideologically and politically speaking. My concern—I am almost doing myself an injustice on what I am going to say about some of the amendments later—is what the Ministry of Justice foresees as a review mechanism to ensure where this is going, how it is working and how regularly the family courts are dishing out such orders.
If everybody was like Essex police force, I would be jumping for joy. I do not hope for this, but maybe one day somebody will perpetrate a crime against me in Essex and I will see how brilliant the force is at orders, as we heard from the evidence earlier. What worries me is whose responsibility it will be, after a year or two years—even after the pilot scheme—between the Ministry of Justice, the head of the family courts structure and the chief prosecutor at the head of the Crown Prosecution Service, to see how readily these orders are being used in our courts.
I have already said this once today, but often people like me put in annoying questions to people like the Minister, such as, “Can you tell me how many times this has been used in these circumstances?”, and very often the answer that we receive back is, “We do not collect this data nationally”, or, “We do not hold this data in the Department.” I want a sense of how we are going to monitor this, because while I know this just looks like words on paper, to people like me it is deeply, deeply important that the courts could take this role.
However, I have seen too many times that, even the powers that the courts have—certainly the family courts, which no doubt we will come on to tomorrow—are not always used wisely and well, so I want an understanding of how specifically we are going to monitor the use of the courts giving out the orders, which is new in this instance. How are we going to test that it is working and try to improve its use? I would be very interested in even just a basic data gathering each year of how many were done on acquittal, how many were done on conviction and how many were done in family court proceedings where both parties were part of proceedings.
With regard to the family court, and in fact in all these circumstances—whether it is a notice or an order; whether a police officer has to make a decision there on the doorstep or we are talking about orders—how are we going to deal with some of the “he said, she said”? I have seen an awful lot of counter-claims in the family courts. Often somebody will talk about being victimised as part of domestic abuse, and it becomes: “Well, actually, she was domestically abusing me,” or, “He was domestically abusing me.” I wonder whether any thought has been given to how, in giving out DAPOs in a family court, we do not end up with potentially two people, both with an order against each other—or maybe that could happen.
Alex Chalk
I will say a couple of things. First, I completely agree with the hon. Lady’s observation that the powers are very stark but very welcome. It is important to note why they are in place. It is not uncommon that cases cannot necessarily be proven to the criminal standard: beyond reasonable doubt. The tribunal has to be satisfied that it is sure; however, there can be serious lingering concerns that, were it to apply a test of the balance of probabilities, it would have no difficulty in finding that the abuse had taken place.
It is to cater for those circumstances that the courts can now impose really quite robust measures to ensure the protection of complainants and the rehabilitation of perpetrators. They are important powers, and benches and courts will want to exercise them wisely. Inevitably, they apply to individuals who have not been convicted of any offence. The courts will therefore need to tread carefully to ensure that justice is done, but they have shown themselves well able to do that for many centuries.
Peter Kyle
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley made the point very well that, for some of the issues that we are tackling with the legislation, the powers already existed in other pieces of legislation, but the courts, in their conservatism, refused to exercise them. As my hon. Friend asked, will the Minister ensure that his Department gives the right steer to the courts, which the president of the family division can translate into something that is actionable on the front line in family courts up and down the country?
Alex Chalk
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Ultimately, he will understand why I say that a very proper distinction exists between the legislature, the Executive and the judiciary. The judiciary are proudly and profoundly independent, and they will take their course and impose the orders if they think that it is in in the interest of justice to do so. Of course, we must ensure that courts are properly aware of the powers available to them. I have no doubt that the president of the family division, and indeed the Lord Chief Justice in the criminal sphere, will use their good offices to ensure that that takes place.
On the point that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley made about whether we can look after the event to check that the powers are being used, first, there is, as she knows, the issue of the pilot. That provides a significant period to establish whether the orders are being taken up. Secondly, the Office for National Statistics has an annual publication of DA statistics that includes the different orders, so we will be able to get a sense of the extent to which they are being applied.
I hope that this will not sound overly fastidious, but one should not necessarily automatically read reluctance into a low level of use in one part of the country compared with others. It may be, because each case turns on the facts, that it was not appropriate in those circumstances. However, as a general observation, we will keep an eye on it, and there will be data on which the hon. Lady will no doubt robustly hold the Government to account. I beg to move.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 28 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
For the benefit of the Committee, and perhaps for the Minister, I should say that you do not need to beg to move stand part clauses, because they are already in the Bill; the only thing that you have to move are the amendments—but you, sir, are one of many Ministers who make that mistake.
Clause 29
Conditions for making an order
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Chalk
Thank you, Mr Bone—that’s my career over.
Clause 29 sets out two conditions that must be met before the court may make a domestic abuse protection order. The first is that the court must be satisfied—on the balance of probability, as I have indicated—that the person has been abusive towards the victim. Our intention with the DAPO is to bring together the strongest elements of the existing protective order regime.
One of the key benefits of existing civil protection orders is that if a victim who needs protection from abuse is not able to gather sufficient evidence to meet a criminal standard of proof, they can still apply to the courts for protection. We have ensured that that will be the case for the DAPO as well by explicitly providing for a civil standard of proof: on the balance of probabilities. The Joint Committee in examining the draft Bill were content with the application of the civil standard.
In the Bill, we have made it clear that domestic abuse includes many different types of abusive behaviour, as we have heard, including physical and sexual, as well as controlling, economic and emotional abuse. That is a novel and important departure. That means the court will be able to take into account all the abuse present in the case when deciding whether to make an order.
That is a step forward compared to current domestic violence protection orders, which require either violence or the threat of violence before a notice can be issued or an order made; we understand that this is currently interpreted to mean physical violence only. Members of the Committee will immediately see the extent to which the ambit has been broadened.
The second condition is that the court must be satisfied that it is necessary and proportionate to make the order to protect the victims of domestic abuse or those at risk of domestic abuse. Once the threshold is met, the court may impose only those requirements that it considers are necessary to protect the victim. Incidentally, that necessary threshold is important in ensuring that the measure is compliant with our responsibilities under the European convention on human rights.
The clause also specifies that an order can be made only against a person who is 18 or over. We recognise that younger people can be involved in abusive relationships, which is why we have included 16 and 17-year-olds in the new statutory definition of domestic abuse. There is, however, a balance to strike. We do not want to rush to criminalise young people, in line with our youth justice guidelines, as DAPOs carry a criminal penalty for breach, punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine, or both.
Pausing on that, it is important to recognise that DAPOs will be imposed on somebody who is not guilty of any crime, yet breach of them is punishable by imprisonment: these are robust powers, and that is why we have circumscribed them carefully in the way that we have. I do not need to beg to move, so I shall just sit down.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 29 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Matters to be considered before making an order
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Chalk
This clause concerns matters to be considered before making an order. Similar to the provisions at clause 21 in relation to a notice, clause 30 sets up particular matters, which the court must consider before making a domestic abuse protection order.
First, the court must consider the welfare of any person under the age of 18, whose interests the court considers relevant, in order to ensure that any safeguarding concerns can be appropriately addressed. The person does not have to be personally connected to the perpetrator and could, therefore, for example, be the victim’s child from a previous relationship.
The court must also consider the opinion of the victim as to whether the order should be made. As set out, however, in subsection (3), the court does not have to obtain the victim’s consent in order to make an order. We have already discussed why that is desirable. It enables the court to protect victims who may be coerced into withholding their consent, or who are fearful of the consequences should they appear to be supporting action against the perpetrator.
Where the order includes conditions in relation to premises lived in by the victim, the court must consider the opinion of any other person who lives in the premises and is personally connected to the victim or, if the perpetrator also lives in the premises, to the perpetrator. For example, if the perpetrator has caring responsibilities for a family member, the court would need to consider the family member’s opinion on the making of an order excluding the perpetrator from the premises.
Jess Phillips
I wonder whether the Government foresee a child being included in that instance. If it was an elderly relative, that is reasonable. But are we saying here—or perhaps it will be in the much-awaited guidance—that if a child was living in the house, their opinion might be sought?
Alex Chalk
Yes, I think it would be and I think that is appropriate. One thing that certainly the criminal law has done over the last 20 years is start to recognise that people under the age of 18 have views that are sometimes worth hearing. In the past, they were almost kept out of court, but now of course we try to facilitate their giving evidence. I would imagine that that would be the case in these circumstances and that a court would want to hear that.
It will be for the court to weigh up the different factors to come to its decision on whether a DAPO is necessary and proportionate in order to protect the victim from domestic abuse or the risk of it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 31
Making of orders without notice
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Chalk
Clause 31 makes provisions for making an order without giving prior notice to the person who is alleged to have been abusive. These are standard provisions and consistent with existing protection orders. Before making an order, a court would normally inform the relevant person of the hearing taking place. However, as with existing orders, we recognise that in some cases an order may be urgently required. Clause 31 enables the court to make an order without notice in those cases where it is just and convenient to do so.
When deciding whether to make an order without notice, a court must first consider the risk to the victim if the order is not made immediately and the risk that the victim would be deterred from pursuing the application if the order were not made immediately. This measure also allows the court to take action in cases where it believes that the person alleged to have been abusive is aware of the proceedings but deliberately evading service, in order to ensure that the victim can still receive the protection that they need. In other words, it provides scope to the court, if it thinks that an individual is seeking to frustrate justice, simply to go ahead in the normal way and ensure that the protection is put in place.
If an order is made without notice, the court must schedule a return hearing as soon as is just and convenient, to allow the affected person to make representations about the order. That is in line with the usual procedures for current protective orders, and you may feel, Mr Bone, that it is in the interests of justice. If an order is made without notice, the individual who is subject to it should have the opportunity to make representations as soon as is just and convenient.
It is worth mentioning that subsection (2) of clause 34, which makes further provision about electronic monitoring requirements, provides that an electronic monitoring or tagging requirement may not be imposed on a person in their absence. I trust that the reason for that is obvious, but if anyone wants to ask me about it, they can.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 31 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 32
Provision that may be made by orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Chalk
Clause 32 concerns provision that may be made by orders. The Committee will recall that we heard earlier about provision that may be made by notices. This is the twin in respect of orders.
Clause 32 provides courts with the flexibility to impose in respect of a DAPO not only restrictions but positive requirements, depending on what is necessary in each case to protect the victim from all forms of abusive behaviour. Subsections (4) to (6) provide examples of the kinds of conditions that could be imposed by a DAPO, but subsection (3) expressly provides that those are not exhaustive.
It is up to the court carefully to tailor the conditions of the DAPO to meet the needs of the individual victim and take into account the behaviour of the perpetrator. The reason is that circumstances are varied and it is important to ensure that the court considers each case on its merits, and the circumstances as they apply, and ensures that the conditions are tailored accordingly.
Jess Phillips
Specifically with regard to what we were discussing earlier in relation to workplaces, does the Minister foresee that that could be one of those issues that could be discussed in the court—that there would be an allowance for the workplace to be included, with leave of the court?
Alex Chalk
Absolutely; I do not see why not at all. In fact, when the hon. Lady was making those points in respect of notices, I did fast-forward to clause 32, and it is deliberately broadly cast. Clause 32(2) says:
“The court must, in particular, consider what requirements (if any) may be necessary to protect the person for whose protection the order is made from different kinds of abusive behaviour.”
Jess Phillips
It is very pleasing to hear that—it is reassuring. I urge that the point is made explicitly in the guidance that will go along with all the orders. I wanted that on the public record.
Alex Chalk
It may be in the guidance but, I respectfully suggest, does not necessarily need to be in it. When a court comes to consider what it will or will not do, it may look at this measure and say, “Are we precluded from banning him from her workplace? If the answer to that is no, we will go ahead and do it, regardless of what is in the guidance.” It may be that it will be in there anyway, but I am confident that, as the Bill is set out, it is drafted sufficiently widely—deliberately so—for the courts to see their way to do justice and impose protections as they see fit.
Peter Kyle
One benefit of this approach to legislation is that it allows scope for creativity in the individual court to tailor to a specific circumstance that might not be predictable. In such circumstances, how can other courts learn from that innovation? It is obviously the responsibility of the judiciary, including the president of the family division of the High Court, but we have learnt from bitter experience that some courts and judges are almost impervious to change—I speak with respect to the former one before us. How does the Department seek to use innovation on the frontline in family courts to ensure that family courts in other parts of the country benefit?
Alex Chalk
May I gently push back on that? I understand the hon. Gentleman’s observations about the need to ensure that one modernises and so on, but if we think for a second about the sorts of conditions that the court is likely to impose, those will be along the lines of conditions routinely imposed in respect of bail, for example—not to contact an individual, not to go within a certain a postcode, not to go to a school, not to visit the home or not to contact relatives directly or indirectly.
I am confident that the courts will be well able to impose those conditions without requiring any particular leap of imagination. They will welcome and embrace these powers, which are deliberately drawn widely, so that the courts may apply their everyday experience of the world to understanding what is required to do justice and to provide protection in an individual case.
On the issue of keeping an eye on this, there are data and statistics, which will be published in due course. It will be open to hon. Members, the domestic abuse commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner to keep a close weather eye on that. I know that the hon. Member for Hove will do precisely that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 33
Further provision about requirements that may be imposed by orders
Jess Phillips
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 33, page 21, line 3, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) A domestic abuse protection order that imposes a requirement to do something on a person (“P”) must—
(a) specify the person who is to be responsible for supervising compliance with that requirement; and
(b) meet the standard published by the Home Secretary for domestic abuse behaviour interventions, if the requirement is to attend an intervention specifically designed to address the use of abusive behaviour.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 26—Publish statutory standards—
“It is the duty of the Home Secretary to consult on and publish statutory standards in furtherance of section 33(2)(b) within 12 months of royal assent to this act, and to review these standards at least once every 3 years.”
This new clause is contingent upon Amendment 51 and seeks to ensure that all interventions designed to address abusive behaviour, that are imposed by DAPOs, are of a quality assured standard, as made clear under published statutory standards.
New clause 27—A strategic plan for perpetrators of domestic abuse—
“Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Government must lay before Parliament a comprehensive perpetrator strategy for domestic abuse to improve the identification and assessment of perpetrators, increase the number of rehabilitation programmes, and increase specialist work to tackle abusive attitudes and behaviour.”
Jess Phillips
The amendment is not dissimilar to new clause 26, so I shall speak to them together, before moving on to new clause 27.
This part of the Bill is specifically about further provisions, beyond those that the Minister has just outlined for us—about where people can and cannot go. This is about positive actions that can be taken in the court. Of course, that is not new to the Bill. This is a new Bill, and a new clause in it, but for many years the court has had the option to make positive requirements in such cases as those we are discussing and many others, so it is no surprise to see this in the Bill.
The new Bill establishes domestic abuse prevention orders that enable judges to require perpetrators to attend behaviour change interventions as part of their sentence. Again, they exist already. It is estimated that a need for 15,200 extra places on behaviour change and drug or alcohol programmes could spring out of the possible requirement to take positive action. I do not stand in criticism—I am looking forward to 15,200 extra people going through behaviour change courses—but there are currently no proposals to ensure that such interventions meet any sort of minimum standard.
I feel as though my hon. Friend the Member for Hove and I have been constantly asking the Minister about how we will review things and how we will know how they are going. Currently, there is no minimum standard for positive actions ordered by the court. At worst, poorly run programmes can increase the risk to victims. I know the Government would not want to put themselves in a position where a programme that they have funded would ever harm a victim. At best, a poor programme is a waste of money. We can all agree that there is no room for waste in the field of domestic abuse, with services up and down the country already strapped for cash. With the necessary quality assurance amendments, however, the Bill could mark a new era in which perpetrators are held to account and given genuine chances to change.
In a sort of change theory moment, the fact that I just stood in the House of Commons and said my last sentence proves that people can change, because I did not have any time and/or respect for behaviour change programmes when I worked in domestic abuse services, largely because of some of the experiences that I am referring to and the need for such programmes to be quality assured. I saw waste, and what I saw very rarely ended up being rooted in the safety of the victim. Provision is at best patchy; there have been years of problems with evidence-based programmes for perpetrators, and it seems patchy even in areas that one might think would be compelled to deliver them, such as probation.
I have seen instances of one local authority in the area where I worked putting out a tender for perpetrator programmes. It was quite a generous tender at the time—we are talking about seven years ago—because there was not much money going around. It was around £100,000 for a small local authority area—not Birmingham, because we would need millions—to offer services to around 100 perpetrators and to set up a programme to do that. During the tendering process, I saw the amount of the money that was to go to the specialist sector. The commissioners recognise—better than in most areas—that we should not be commissioning perpetrator services without the relative support being provided to victims. That has definitely happened, because, as we heard yesterday, good people and good local authorities working in the borough spoke up and said, “Hang on a minute. You can’t commission these services for perpetrators if you don’t also put in place support for the victims.”
I see the Minister nodding. It is now long agreed that that is the right way to handle this issue. However, just as an aside on what I would call patriarchal commissioning, there was £100,000 to deal with the perpetrators on the programme, and £18,000 to deal with the victims and their children. There is a balance between how much we value each thing in the system. I saw more than an unfair commissioning round, which I have been part of millions of times. Many providers who never had expertise in work with victims or perpetrators of domestic abuse saw on the council website that there was £100,000 being offered to people who could work with perpetrators, and, say, the local housing association would suddenly say “We know loads about perpetrators. We will set up a perpetrator programme.” Seven years ago when everything was being cut we used to say “diversify or die”, so if there was £100,000 they would say “We will do that.” Smaller organisations would say “We can go on Google and write a perpetrator programme.” I kid you not. That is the kind of thing that would go on.
The commissioners in our local authorities, with the best will in the world, who were in this instance doing lots of things right, were not experts in what a good quality-assured perpetrator programme might be—not at all. In the commissioning round we were commissioned, as the only violence against women and girls organisation in the area, to do the victim support work. A host of different people suddenly wanted a chat with us, to get our expertise in the commissioning round. Commissioning can make someone very popular. Never has my organisation been more popular than when probation was privatised. Every company from all over the country wanted a chat about our expert services.
A wide variety of agencies said they could handle perpetrators. In that instance the right thing happened—and fair play to the commissioners. The contract went to probation in the end, and before it could be realised probation withdrew on the grounds that it could not deliver the programme safely on behalf of the victims, because of the contract arrangements. In the end the programme did not happen. I point that out only because in that local authority area there were organisations such as the one I worked for, which punched well above its weight in lobbying and working with local authorities in the area. Also there was a decent head of what was then the community interest company in probation services, who did the right thing. However, anyone else who had been given the contract would probably just have delivered it along lines. It would have been monitored by a local authority provider commissioner with no idea about change management with offenders. With the greatest respect to local authorities, what do their commissioners know about that?
I used to go and speak to all the judges about female offenders and say, “Send them on our programmes.” I foresee a situation in which a judge, rightly looking around, thinks, “I’ve got this leaflet; I can do a positive thing. I am going to send this person”—and we have no idea, and the court has no understanding, whether where the person is being sent is any good. There is nothing in the Bill to provide quality assurance of those positive requirements.
Quality assurance provisions would be written into law only to apply to the DAPOs, but the expectation is that they would set a benchmark for all behaviour interventions commissioned by public bodies, raising, for example, the standard of work in probation. The probation service that I mentioned withdrew from the work in question out of morality and good sense, but a report from Her Majesty’s inspectorate of probation on the provision of domestic abuse rehabilitation activities demonstrates how urgently that is needed:
“Some responsible officers were delivering the domestic abuse RAR”—
the rehabilitation activity requirement—
“on a one-to-one basis, borrowing resources from colleagues, browsing the internet for resources or devising their own one-to-one interventions. There was no system in place to make sure that interventions were evidence-based and delivered safely and effectively”.
Perhaps my seven-years-ago story speaks to what was found in that probation report. The Minister spoke earlier about something else that had progressed over five years. I think that in the area I have been discussing, we have progressed vastly. The reason why I say that is that my opinion of perpetrator programmes has followed the evidence—I can change, proving that change is possible. I followed the science, as the Government like to say at the moment. The evidence base is now strong where previously it was not, so it presents an opportunity.
Victoria Atkins
On coronavirus, we have been in constant contact with charities and the police locally to understand how DVPOs are working. Where there have been problems, as in the hon. Lady’s point about homelessness, we have sent out guidance repeatedly to local authorities to say that they must include perpetrators in their rehousing programmes, precisely so that DVPOs can be enforced.
Jess Phillips
It will be a very thin silver lining to what has been an enormous cloud over our country. The Minister is absolutely right: we have been learning some things in this period. Because of the availability of resource in our police forces as a result of the reduction in other areas of crime, this will in some regards be a high point—a gold standard—in terms of how we act in domestic violence cases. If there was certainty in a police force area, built in partnership with a local authority, that there would absolutely be a place for a perpetrator to stay, I can almost guarantee that the police would be much more active in the DVPO area, because that is what we have seen during the coronavirus crisis.
There should be five elements of a perpetrator strategy. We need criminal justice systems and other public and voluntary services, such as housing, health and education. We need training, and clever and tough working, to hold perpetrators to account. We need proven interventions and behaviour change programmes for all perpetrators available everywhere, and we need education to prevent and raise awareness of abusive behaviours. We need regulation to end poorly run programmes, some of which are actually dangerous. And we need ongoing research to ensure that we know what stops abuse, particularly within groups that are currently under-served by these kinds of preventive interventions, such as LGBT groups.
Essentially, money is needed. A sustainable and predictable source of funding would save millions in policing, justice and health costs—perhaps even billions, given the Home Office costings on the cost of domestic abuse. Leadership is ultimately needed to make it happen. It is pleasing to see that the domestic abuse commissioner is taking a proactive stance on this. She will need backing from Ministers in all Departments to look beyond their important response to victims to the other side of the coin: the people causing the harm.
The Chair
I will call Nickie Aiken in a second, but I am aware that there will be a Division at about 4.36 pm. I am afraid that if a Division is called and the Committee is still sitting, I will have to suspend for at least 45 minutes. Members might want to bear that in mind.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I just want to provide my experience of being a council leader with responsibility for commissioning perpetrator courses and services, which does not mirror what the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley outlined. I have always found commissioners to be excellent, to really understand the process and to appreciate that this is public money.
For our commissioning services, we worked with the former Mayor of London, who really understood how important perpetrator programmes are, as did the then deputy Mayor for policing, who is now Lord Greenhalgh and is a Minister. I supported their view that it was about payment on results. That is one of the main issues in perpetrator services, children’s services and public protection services: they should be about results.
I am extremely proud of this Bill and this clause, because it takes to heart the fact that, although we have to support victims, if we are ever going to bring domestic abuse to an end, particularly in families, it has to be about the perpetrator too.
There are many brilliant services today, such as SafeLives—which I think is based in the south-west—that take a family view on this. I welcome the clause and I do not support the amendment. I think the Bill is outstanding, and that it will bring perpetrators to book while also supporting victims.
Alex Chalk
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend’s contribution, and I entirely agree with its content. I think there is agreement across the House that we want credibility and consistency for perpetrator programmes to ensure that individuals who have been led into error by their behaviour do not continue to do so, at dramatic cost to both individuals and society more widely. We are absolutely clear that if we do not hold perpetrators to account for their actions, we will not be able to tackle the root cause of domestic abuse. We agree that it is essential for any perpetrator programme imposed as part of a DAPO to provide a high-quality, safe and effective intervention.
Although we support the aim of the amendments, we respectfully think that there is a better way of achieving the end result that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley seeks. At the heart of our response is the idea that quality assurance needs to be looked at in the round, in relation to all domestic abuse perpetrator programmes, not just those imposed by a DAPO, as is provided for in the amendments. Before I develop that point, I will say that consistency and credibility are important not just for the perpetrator or the victim, but for the courts themselves, so that they have confidence that when they impose orders, they will get results. Also, courts may not feel the need to lock someone up if they can reach for an order—whether a DAPO or a community order—in which they have confidence.
It is really important to note that not all domestic abuse perpetrator programmes come via a DAPO. First, a family court could make a referral into a perpetrator programme by, for example, imposing an activity, direction or condition in connection with a child arrangement order. Secondly, the police, probation service and local authorities could work together to impose a programme as part of an integrated offender management programme. Thirdly, there could even be self-referral: there may be individuals who have had a long, hard look at their behaviour and thought, “I need to address this. I am, off my own bat, going to seek a referral into such a programme.” Respect runs a helpline offering information and advice to people who have perpetrated abuse and want to stop.
I am at pains to emphasise that while we want to make sure any programmes delivered via the gateway of a DAPO achieve high standards and are consistent and credible, we should not forget that other programmes are being delivered outwith DAPOs, via different gateways, and we want to ensure that those programmes meet the same standard. Otherwise, we would end up in the perverse and unsatisfactory situation of having a DAPO gateway programme that is great, but other ones that are not.
We propose to take this work forward by using some of the £10 million announced by the Chancellor in this year’s Budget for the development of new interventions for domestic abuse perpetrators. We will work with the domestic abuse commissioner and specialist domestic abuse organisations—along the lines that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley indicated—to undertake mapping and evaluation of the range of perpetrator interventions currently available, and explore what works for different models of quality assurance for domestic abuse perpetrator behaviour change programmes.
By the way, there is already a wealth of promising evidence that we can draw on as part of this work. For example, the Government have already invested through the police transformation fund in a number of innovative approaches to managing perpetrators, including the Drive project led by Respect and SafeLives, to which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley alluded, as well as the whole-system approach to domestic abuse in Northumbria and the Women’s Aid “Make a Change” programme. There is a lot out there, and we need to draw the threads together.
We continue to support the important work of Respect, which is helping to ensure through its service standards that programmes targeted at a range of perpetrators are delivered safely and effectively. We will also draw on the ongoing work of the Ministry of Justice’s correctional services accreditation and advice panel, which accredits programmes for perpetrators who have been convicted of an offence.
Alex Chalk
It is important to note that clause 66 contains important provisions that allow for exactly what we want to achieve.
Turning to new clause 27 on the perpetrator strategy, I reassure the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley that we have heard the call to action for a perpetrator strategy. We commend the work of the Drive partnership of Respect, SafeLifes and Social Finance, who have done so much to change the narrative and to shift the focus from, “Why doesn’t she leave?”, to, “Why doesn’t he stop?”.
I want to be absolutely clear that we fully recognise the need for increased focus on perpetrators and are ambitious in our aim to transform the response to those who have caused this appalling harm, but to have an increased focus on tackling perpetrators, we do not need to make inflexible provision in the Bill for a one-off strategy. We have made clear our commitment to this work through our allocation of £10 million in this year’s Budget for preventive work with perpetrators. Over the past three years, we have funded a range of innovative approaches to working with perpetrators and we are beginning to build a solid evidence base on what works through some of the programmes I have mentioned: Drive, a whole-system approach to tackling domestic abuse, and “Make a Change”.
We have undertaken work to improve the response to the perpetrators through the criminal justice system. As was set out in the consultation response published alongside the draft Bill, we are taking action to improve the identification and risk assessment of perpetrators. The College of Policing has published key principles for police on the management of serial and dangerous domestic abuse perpetrators, and we are expanding the range of interventions available to offenders serving community sentences.
We recognise the concerns; that is why we want to ensure that we develop and properly test a whole-system approach, in particular through the piloting of DAPOs. It might well prove counterproductive to develop a new strategy without awaiting the learning from those pilots. I hope that, in the light of our intention to work towards that fully comprehensive package of perpetrator programmes and our wider programme of work to confront and change perpetrator behaviours, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley will see her way to withdrawing the amendment.
Jess Phillips
I recognise what the Minister says about the fact that perpetrator programmes are used elsewhere. Very often in children’s services, I have seen people sent on perpetrator programmes that, I am afraid to say, are useless. If only everything was as perfect as it is in Westminster.
Jess Phillips
I apologise if I did not cover all the boroughs in London. I did not come up with the amendments all by myself; the specialist sector is working with us to ask for these things, and the reality is that, as sometimes happens in this place, we will say how something is on the ground and we will be told that that is not the case. We will be told, “Actually, no; it’s going to be fine because we are going to have a whole-system approach.”
What the Minister says about a whole-system approach is needed wherever perpetrator programmes are issued, rather than just in DAPOs. I could not agree with him more on that point. I shall allow him as many interventions as he likes, and I will speak for as long as it takes for him to get the answer. If he is saying to me that, at the other end of this very notable approach and funding that the Home Office and the Government are putting in place, we will end up with an accredited system that stops the bad practice and the poor commissioning of services, of course I will withdraw the amendment.
Is the Minister saying that we will work towards a standard that will have to be met and that will be compelled—not dissimilar to the standard that we will hopefully come on to tomorrow, where we compel local authorities with a duty? There, I believe, we will be writing a set of standards that the local authority in its commissioning process has to live by, so that it cannot just say, “We’re doing any old domestic abuse services.” There has long been talk at MHCLG about having standards to go with any duty. Is the Minister telling me that we will end up with an accreditation system, which is essentially what I seek?
Alex Chalk
The whole point of the approach we are taking is to seek standardisation across the piece. Words like “accreditation” can mean all sorts of things, but certainly it is the case that our absolute aim is to draw on the best practice that we have referred to and combine it with the experience we glean from the pilots to work out what we think is best practice, to clarify what that best practice is and to do everything we can to promulgate that best practice. One can use words like “accreditation” or “standardisation”, but we want to use the mechanisms within the Bill—pilot and guidance—to do precisely what the hon. Lady is aiming for. We recognise that clarity, consistency and credibility are the hallmarks of an effective order, and that is precisely what we want to achieve.
Jess Phillips
I welcome what the Minister says. I suppose the reality is that if that does not happen, I have no recourse beyond changing this Bill. Actually, I can just stand in this building and say, “Things aren’t working and we don’t have good perpetrator systems,” but it will largely fall on deaf ears. It might not—we cannot know which ears it will fall on—but, largely, when people come and say that things are not working in whatever we are talking about, it is very hard.
I have a Bill in front of me, and I can attempt to compel this to happen. However, on this occasion—because I would never describe the Minister as having deaf ears, and I am quite confident in my own ability to keep on raising the issue until the right thing happens—I accept and welcome what the Minister has outlined, and I look forward to working on it with him, the commissioner and the sector. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 33 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 34
Further provision about electronic monitoring requirements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Chalk
Clause 34 sets out the circumstances in which a court can impose electronic monitoring requirements on a person as part of an order, and the nature of such requirements. The clause specifies that the electronic monitoring requirements may not be imposed if the person is not present at the hearing. The clause also specifies that, if there is a person other than the perpetrator who will need to co-operate with the monitoring requirements in order for them to be practicable, they will need to give their consent before the requirements can be imposed. That may include, for example, the occupier of the premises where the perpetrator lives. The court must also have been notified by the Secretary of State that electronic monitoring requirements are available in the area, and it must be satisfied that the provision can be made under the arrangements available. Any order that imposes electronic monitoring requirements must also specify the person who will be responsible for their monitoring.
Where electronic monitoring requirements are imposed, the person must submit to being fitted with the necessary apparatus and to the installation of any associated equipment, and they must co-operate with any inspection or repair that is required. They must not interfere with the apparatus, and they must keep it in working order—for example, by keeping it charged. I trust that the Committee will agree that proper procedures should be in place when a decision is made by the court that electronic monitoring is required.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 34 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Breach of order
Alex Chalk
I beg to move amendment 31, in clause 36, page 23, line 29, leave out
“section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003”
and insert
“paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020”.
This amendment, and amendments 32, 34, 35 and 37, update references to existing legislation in the Bill to refer to the equivalent provision made by the Sentencing Bill that was introduced into Parliament in March (which will introduce the new Sentencing Code).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Government amendments 32, 34, 35 and 37.
New clause 15—Consequential amendments of the Sentencing Code—
“(1) The Sentencing Code is amended as follows.
(2) In section 80 (order for conditional discharge), in subsection (3), at the end insert—
‘(f) section 36(6) (breach of domestic abuse protection order).’
(3) In Chapter 6 of Part 11 (other behaviour orders), before section 379 (but after the heading ‘Other orders’) insert—
‘378A Domestic abuse protection orders
See Part 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2020 (and in particular section 28(3) of that Act) for the power of a court to make a domestic abuse protection order when dealing with an offender for an offence.’”
This New Clause makes two consequential amendments to the Sentencing Code as a result of Part 3 of the Bill. The first adds a reference to clause 36(6) to the list of cases where an order for conditional discharge is not available. The second inserts a signpost to Part 3 of the Bill into Part 11 of the Sentencing Code, which deals with behaviour orders.
Alex Chalk
Am I permitted to speak to all the amendments? They are all quite technical.
The Chair
At this stage, we are debating all the amendments I referred to. You have to move only amendment 31 at this moment, but you can talk about them all.
Alex Chalk
That is eminently sensible.
These are minor and technical Government amendments. Clause 36 provides that a breach of a DAPO is a criminal offence. Where someone is convicted of such an offence, clause 36(6) provides that a conditional discharge is not an option open to the court in respect of the offence. As I am sure hon. Members are aware, a conditional discharge means that the offender is released and no further action is taken unless the offender commits another offence within the specified period, at which point they can be sentenced for the first offence at the same time as the new offence.
Misconduct by members of the armed forces and by civilians subject to service discipline, which is an offence in England and Wales—or would be, if it took place there—may also be charged as a service offence under the disciplinary regime of the Armed Forces Act 2006. It means that a breach of a DAPO may come before the court martial and other service courts.
Amendment 33 to clause 36—I will come to amendments 31 and 32 in a moment—makes equivalent provision to clause 36(6), whereas—
The Chair
Order. Amendment 33 is not on the list, so it is not really worth talking about—[Interruption.] It is definitely later on my list, so we may have different lists. Oh, go on—talk about it.
Alex Chalk
It is that kind of flexibility in the Chair that we have grown to love and admire. Thank you very much, Mr Bone.
I was saying that amendment 33 makes equivalent provision to clause 36(6). When a service court convicts someone of the offence of a breach of a DAPO, a conditional discharge is not an option that is open to the service court in respect of the offence. Amendments 38 and 39 would make consequential amendments to the extent clause—clause 71—to ensure that the extent of new clause 36(6)(a), inserted by amendment 33, aligns with the extent of the Armed Forces Act 2016. That is a long-winded way of saying that we need to make sure that this measure dovetails with the 2016 Act in respect of the conditional discharge implications.
Amendments 31, 32, 34, 35 and 37, which I hope are on your list Mr Bone, make amendments to part 3 of the Bill—as we know, part 3 provides for DAPOs—and clause 59—
“Prohibition of cross-examination in person in family proceedings”—
and are consequential on the sentencing code. In turn, new clause 15 makes two consequential amendments to the sentencing code as a result of part 3. The first adds a reference to clause 36(6) to the list of cases where an order for conditional discharge is not available. The second inserts a signpost to part 3 of the Bill into part 11 of the sentencing code, which deals with behaviour orders, such as a DAPO.
Members may be asking, “What on earth is the Sentencing Bill?” The Sentencing Bill, which was introduced in the House of Lords on 5 March 2020, provides for the new sentencing code. The new code, which will be transformational for practitioners, is a consolidation of the law governing sentencing procedure in England and Wales. It brings together the procedural provisions that sentencing courts need to rely on during the sentencing process, and in doing so it aims to ensure that the law relating to sentencing procedure is readily comprehensible, and operates within a clear framework and as efficiently as possible.
Amendment 31 agreed to.
Amendments made: 32, in clause 36, page 23, line 36, leave out from “under” to “(conditional” and insert “section 80 of the Sentencing Code”.
See the explanatory statement for amendment 31.
Amendment 33, in clause 36, page 23, line 37, at end insert—
“(6A) If a person is convicted of an offence under section 42 of the Armed Forces Act 2006 as respects which the corresponding offence under the law of England and Wales (within the meaning given by that section) is an offence under this section, it is not open to the service court that convicted the person to make, in respect of the offence, an order under section 185 of that Act (conditional discharge).
In this subsection “service court” means the Court Martial or the Service Civilian Court.”.—(Alex Chalk.)
Conduct that is an offence under the law of England and Wales (or would be if it took place there) may be charged as a service offence, so a breach of a domestic abuse protection order may be dealt with by a service court. This amendment therefore makes provision corresponding to that made by clause 36(6), prohibiting a service court from giving a person a conditional discharge for breaching an order.
Clause 36, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 37
Arrest for breach of order
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Chalk
Clause 37 relates to arrest for breach of order and it makes provision for breach of a domestic abuse protection order to be dealt with as a civil matter— that is, as a contempt of court. A breach of an order is a criminal offence under clause 36, which we did not debate, whereby a police officer can make an arrest without a warrant under powers in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
However, we understand that some victims may be concerned about their partner or ex-partner being convicted of a criminal offence for breaching the order. Where an order is made by the High Court, the family court or the county court, clause 37 makes provision for the victim—the original applicant for the order—or any other person with leave of the judge to apply to the court for a warrant of arrest to be issued. That means that the court can then deal with the breach as a civil matter as a contempt of court. We consider that this allows effective action to be taken by the court following breach of an order, while still providing an option for victims who do not wish to criminalise their partner or ex-partner.
Schedule 1 makes further provision regarding remand under clause 37, where breach of a DAPO is being dealt with by the court as a civil matter. It sets out the procedure whereby the court may remand the person who has been arrested for breach. The process set out is consistent with existing law and replicates the approach the court already takes in regard to remand in such cases. It is sometimes necessary for the court to adjourn the hearing in order to allow for evidence to be prepared. In such cases, the court may decide to remand the person in custody or on bail.
Remand would usually only be used in cases where the court considers that the person arrested for breach is at a high risk of either committing further breaches or evading the return hearing. That may include, for example, if the court considers that person a flight risk.
Clause 37 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 38
Notification requirements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
Clause 38 provides that all DAPOs will impose notification requirements on the perpetrator, requiring them to notify the police of certain personal details within three days, beginning with the day on which the order is made. The perpetrator will have to provide details of their name, together with any aliases that they use, their home address and any changes to those details. This will help to ensure the police have the right information at the right time in order to monitor the perpetrator’s whereabouts and the risk posed to the victim.
These provisions have been drafted to capture a number of different scenarios, including if the perpetrator has no one fixed address, leaves and then returns to the UK or becomes homeless, helping to ensure their compliance with the notification requirements. There is also a power for the Home Secretary to specify by regulations further notification requirements, which a court may attach to a DAPO on a case-by-case basis, as appropriate. For example, details of the perpetrator’s work place, whether they hold a firearms licence and details of new applications for a spousal visa.
We will use the pilot of the orders to assess whether the current provisions are sufficient or whether it is necessary for the police to be notified of additional information by the perpetrator in order to protect victims. If so, this can be set out in regulations at a later stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 38 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 40
Offences relating to notification
Amendment made: 34, in clause 40, page 26, line 22, leave out “section 154(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 2003” and insert “paragraph 24(2) of Schedule 22 to the Sentencing Act 2020”.—(Alex Chalk.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 31.
Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Victoria Atkins
Clause 40 simply provides that breach of the notification requirements without reasonable excuse is an offence carrying a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. Again, this sends a very strong message to perpetrators that the Government, as well as the courts, the agencies, the police and so on, take any breaches of these orders very seriously indeed.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 40, as amended, accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 41
Variation and discharge of orders
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Chalk
Clause 41 is about the variation and discharge of orders. Another example of the DAPO’s flexibility is that the requirements imposed by the order can be varied so that the courts can respond to changes over time in the perpetrator’s abusive behaviour. That is important for the complainant, so to speak, as well as for the person who is subject to the perpetrator order. It is important that he—it will usually be a he—can come back to the court to seek to vary it if appropriate. That is why the clause is drafted as it is.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 42 to 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 45
Nature of certain proceedings under this Part
Amendment made: 35, in clause 45, page 31, leave out line 15 and insert
“sections 79, 80 and 82 of the Sentencing Code”—(Alex Chalk.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 31.
Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 46
Special measures for witnesses
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Chalk
Clause 46 relates to special measures for witnesses. It ensures that victims in DAPO proceedings will be eligible for special measures when giving evidence. As some Members will know, special measures are used to assist vulnerable and intimidated witnesses to give their best evidence, and can include giving evidence from behind a screen, giving evidence remotely via a video link, giving pre-recorded evidence in chief, or giving evidence through an interpreter or another intermediary. Many witnesses in criminal and family proceedings already benefit from access to special measures when giving evidence, and we are strengthening those provisions for victims of domestic abuse in criminal proceedings through clause 58.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Guidance
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 47— Review of domestic abuse protection orders and notices—
“(1) The Secretary of State must within 12 months of this Act being passed conduct a review into the operation and use of domestic abuse protection orders and notices.
(2) The review must take account of—
(a) the extent to which domestic abuse protection orders and notices have been used;
(b) data on the effectiveness of domestic abuse protection orders and notices in tackling and preventing domestic abuse;
(c) the views of those for whose protection orders and notices have been made.
(3) In designing and conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Domestic Abuse Commissioner,
(b) the Welsh Ministers,
(c) organisations providing support to victims and perpetrators of domestic abuse,
(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(4) Upon completion of the review, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report setting out—
(a) the findings of the review, and
(b) the action the Secretary of State proposes to take in response to the review.”
This new clause would ensure that both DAPOs and DAPNs are reviewed to ensure that they are operating effectively and serving the purpose that they were intended for.
Victoria Atkins
Clause 47 requires the Government to issue statutory guidance on the new notices and orders to the police, and to any third parties specified in regulations who may make a standalone application for an order. The recipients of that guidance must have regard to it when exercising their functions. The Government are also required to consult the commissioner before issuing or revising any guidance under the clause. This provision is crucial to help to ensure that frontline practitioners have the knowledge, understanding and confidence to use DAPOs effectively and consistently, in order to help victims and their children.
Topics to be covered by the guidance include how the different application pathways for a DAPO operate, when to consider applying for a DAPO and how to prepare robust application conditions, which may be included in a DAPO, and how to work with victims effectively, highlighting the importance of robust safety planning and referral to appropriate victim support services. We will develop the guidance in collaboration with the police and sector experts, ensuring that it is of high quality and relevant to the frontline practitioners using it.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49
Powers to make other orders in proceedings under this Part
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Alex Chalk
The clause relates to powers to make other orders in proceedings under this part. I will speak briefly on this, because it is important. Clause 49 makes provision for DAPO proceedings to be included in the definition of family proceedings in the Children Act 1989 and the Family Law Act 1996, if they are taking place in the family court or the family division of the high court. In practical terms, that will ensure that family judges have access to their powers under the Children Act and the Family Law Act in the course of DAPO proceedings.
For example, if a family judge is hearing an application to make or vary a DAPO, and concerns around child contact arrangements are raised, the judge will be able to make an order under the Children Act without a separate application having to be issued. We consider that that will provide clarity and flexibility to the court, as judges will be able to use their powers under the Children Act and the Family Law Act in any DAPO proceedings to best protect victims of domestic abuse and their children.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 49 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 50 to 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Rebecca Harris.)
Medicines and Medical Devices Bill (Third sitting)
Wednesday 10th June 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 View all Medicines and Medical Devices Act 2021 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 10 June 2020 - (10 Jun 2020)
The Chair
Before we resume, I remind hon. Members of the preliminary points that I made on Monday. Members will understand the need to respect social distancing guidance. I remind them to switch electronic devices to silent mode and that tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings.
The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. That shows how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Grouped amendments are generally on the same or a similar issue. Please be reminded that decisions on amendments take place not in the order in which they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection and grouping list shows the order of debates. Decisions on each amendment are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects. Again, the Hansard Reporters will be most grateful if Members could email any electronic copies of their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Clause 17
Suspension notices
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 29, in clause 17, page 10, line 12, at end insert—
“(f) advertising it.”
This amendment allows the enforcement authority to prevent an individual who has been served a suspension note from advertising their product.
It is a pleasure to be back. Monday’s discussions were of a high quality and in a good spirit, which is what we need at this time, so I am glad to be here and back at it.
This is a short amendment: again, I want to talk about the issue rather than do anything else. Clause 17 sets the context and is mirrored in clause 18, to which I have tabled amendment 18. It sets out what the Secretary of State or the enforcement authority can do in relation to a faulty product, a medical device that is presumably dangerous or certainly not known to be safe. It includes a list of five things that can be prohibited under either a suspension notice or a safety notice. This prevents an individual from
“(a) supplying the medical device;
(b) offering to supply it;
(c) agreeing to supply it;
(d) exposing it for supply;
(e) possessing it for supply.”
I would add a sixth one—advertising it for supply. I flagged this up with the Minister the other day and will obviously be interested to hear her reply. I am conscious that she has the collective might of the legal brains of the whole Government. It could be that I have spotted a gap, or that I have not. That depends on whether advertising is covered by “offering to supply it” or “exposing it for supply”.
I want to talk about a particular phenomenon—the current way in which clickbait is used. For example, over the weekend, I saw an article that normally would be up my street. It said, “Jason Statham says he no longer needs to do the ‘Fast and Furious’ films”. I am a big fan of the “Fast and Furious” franchise, and that would grieve me enormously. I did not click on the article, because it was obviously nonsense, but I later saw an article about the very same thing. It mentioned Jason Statham and other people, and when you click on that type of thing, it takes you through to bitcoin. It basically said that he does not need to do films anymore, because he has made so much money on bitcoin and so can you. There is an argument to be had about cryptocurrencies, but the issue there is people being shown one thing that actually leads them to something else.
In the medical devices space, it is very easy to see equivalent things for people to click on. They will show someone with dramatic weight loss and then say, “You won’t believe how they did it.” In this case, there will be a picture of a medical device, and the idea is that someone says, “Wow! I’ve found a magical device. I can do the same. I can do it just like this celebrity.” Then they click through and it takes them to diet pills. I would argue that at no point there—there is no price; the article may not name or price the product, but just picture the product—have those responsible exposed it for supply, because it would be possible to argue that we literally cannot buy it, it is just a picture and certainly it has not been offered for supply.
Again, I am happy to take the lawyers’ guidance on this, and I hope that the Minister will help us with that. I just want to ascertain whether that gap—the thing that would legitimise a product, the demonstrating of it for another end—is one that we have to close.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I would also like to say what a pleasure it is to resume under your chairmanship, Mr Davies.
Amendment 29 seeks to amend clause 17 with regard to the suspension notices. I understand totally why hon. Members are looking to double-check where we are. The clause provides an enforcement authority with the power to serve a suspension notice on a person, where doing so is considered necessary to restrict the availability of a medical device in order to protect health and safety. It lists a number of prohibitions that may be imposed, and seeks to add a specific prohibition on advertising a medical device.
The Government recognise that the intention behind the amendment is to equip the enforcement agency with the ability to prohibit a recipient of a suspension notice from advertising a medical device where there is a need to protect health and safety. I assure hon. Members that the enforcement authority has the ability to do what the hon. Member for Nottingham North is asking and prohibit the advertising of a product already catered for in the clause. That is already in the Bill as it is currently drafted.
Hon. Members will note that prohibitions that may be impose include, in clause 17(2)(b), “offering to supply”, which encompasses advertising or an advertisement. Although I am grateful for the probe, I respectfully ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Norris
I am content with that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 18
Safety notices
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 18, in clause 18, page 10, line 34, at end insert—
“(f) advertising it.”
This amendment allows the enforcement authority to prevent an individual who has been served a safety note from advertising their product.
Alex Norris
This is exactly the point that I just made, so I will not labour it.
Jo Churchill
My explanation covered both points. Clause 18 provides an enforcement authority with the power to serve a safety notice on a person where doing so is considered necessary to restrict the availability of a medical device in order to protect health and safety. It provides the enforcement authority with discretion about the prohibitions that may be imposed. The amendment seeks to add a specific prohibition on advertising a medical device. We recognise that the purpose behind it is to equip the enforcement agency. I would like to reassure hon. Members that that sits in the Bill. On that basis, I commend the clause to the Committee.
Alex Norris
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 19 to 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 24
Defence of due diligence
Jo Churchill
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 24, page 13, line 26, leave out ‘case’ and insert
‘proceedings for such an offence’.
This amendment, and amendments 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7, amend certain provisions to ensure they operate effectively in relation to Scotland.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 3 and 4.
Clause stand part.
Government amendments 5 to 7.
Jo Churchill
Amendments 2 to 7 relate to the clauses about defences available for offences under clause 23 and regulation 60A to be inserted into the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 by schedule 2.
Clause 23 will provide that it is an offence to fail to comply with a compliance, suspension, safety or information notice. Schedule 2 makes it an offence to fail to comply with certain provisions of the Medical Devices Regulations 2002. Further, the Bill provides that a defence of due diligence will be available with respect to each of those offences. That means that a person charged with an offence under either clause 23 or regulation 60A will be able to argue that they have not committed an offence because they took reasonable steps to avoid doing so.
The provisions that make those defences available are in clause 24 and schedule 2. It is those provisions that we seek to amend. Amendments 2 to 4 are to clause 24 and amendments 5 to 7 are to schedule 2.
Alex Norris
I do not have an awful lot to say. I am comfortable with the amendments, and I know that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire is, too, as she put her name to them. I always find it reassuring when there are Government amendments during Committee, as it means they are still reading the Bill, which is a good thing. So, yes, we are content.
Jo Churchill
On that basis I commend the amendment to the Committee.
Amendment 2 agreed to.
Amendments made: 3, in clause 24, page 13, line 32, after ‘hearing’ insert ‘of the proceedings’.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 2.
Amendment 4, in clause 24, page 14, line 2, at the end insert ‘, and
(b) the reference in subsection (3) to “the hearing of the proceedings” is to be read as a reference to “the trial diet”.’—(Jo Churchill.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 2.
Clause 24 , as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 25 and 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1
Medical devices: civil sanctions
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 20, in schedule 1, page 31, line 16, after ‘guidance’ insert
‘within three months of this Act receiving Royal Assent’.
This amendment requires the relevant guidance relating to enforcement to be published within 3 months rather than at an undetermined time.
The schedule compels the Secretary of State to provide guidance on sanctioning powers and how they are likely to be used. Those are the new civil powers—among the bigger changes in the Bill—and the guidance will cover when they are likely to be used, the likely level of fines, and the cost recovery, which we spoke about earlier. They are clearly an area of significant interest. Those civil powers are new and important, and we will cover them a bit when we debate the next amendment. At the moment, schedule 1 states that:
“The Secretary of State must prepare and publish guidance”.
That is it. The amendment seeks for that to be done within three months. Three months might not be the right period of time, but I am keen to test when we are likely to see the guidance and whether we should put a bit of structure around that.
Jo Churchill
I would like first to address the intention behind the amendment. I recognise that it is driven by the desire to ensure that the Government issue guidance on the new civil sanctions regime within three months of the Bill gaining Royal Assent. The new civil sanctions regime will complement the consolidation of the current enforcement regime, enabling the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to impose a monetary penalty, an enforcement cost and a recovery notice, or to accept an enforcement undertaking as an alternative to criminal prosecutions. That will enhance the MHRA’s ability to incentivise compliance with the Medical Devices Regulations 2002.
Under paragraph 13 of schedule 1, the Secretary of State has to publish guidance on the new civil sanctions regime. However, the timeframe for doing so is not specified on the face of the Bill. Before it is fully operational, the new civil sanctions regime provided for by the Bill will require further provision, to be set out in supplementary regulations made under paragraph 9 of schedule 1. The regulations will cover matters such as enforcement and monitoring of compliance with enforcement undertakings and appeals.
Clause 40 provides that any regulations made under paragraph 9 of schedule 1 must be consulted on. There needs to be enough time to do that, which is why a three-month period is perhaps too truncated. The Government wish to allow sufficient time for such a consultation on these matters before we make the regulations, in order to ensure that they best fit the situation that we are trying to enforce. As I have explained, the civil sanctions regime will not be fully effective before the regulations are made. Under paragraph 13 of schedule 1, the Secretary of State must also consult before issuing guidance on the new regime.
It is right that we consider the views of stakeholders. As we discussed at length on Monday, this is about getting it right for patients and all stakeholders before we bring the regulations into force. It is important that we allow sufficient time to engage effectively and to ensure that we act in the best interests of both patients and the healthcare sector. The effect of the amendment would be that the Government are required to consult on, and publish guidance on, the civil sanctions within a tight three-month period before the regulations have been made, and at a point when the consultation might still be ongoing, so that we arrive at the best place.
Paragraph 13 of schedule 1 already places a duty on the Secretary of State to publish the guidance in order to be transparent, and the new civil sanctions regime will require consultation and secondary legislation. It is therefore impractical to specify on the face of the Bill that we would have a timeframe for doing so. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member understands that we wish to get this right, and that he will withdraw the amendment.
Alex Norris
I am happy with that, certainly for the purpose of greater consultation, because a theme in the written evidence is that the sector wants to continue to talk about such things and get them right. We will return to this issue when we debate the next amendment.
I hope the Government will not leave it too long. There is a very important bit of guidance that the Secretary of State is compelled to publish under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, but we have still not seen it. The regulations are likely to be less challenging than that. I do not like the open-ended space, so I hope the Government will move on precipitously. On the basis of the Minister’s answer, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 21, in schedule 1, page 32, line 18, leave out “from time to time” and insert “every 12 months”.
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to report back on their use of civil sanctions every year rather than at an undetermined frequency
Again, this helps us to delve into the new sanctions regime and to talk about the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. As we see from the written evidence, there is a lot of interest in that. The Bill seems to do two things, certainly regarding the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency: consolidate disparate bits of legislation that govern its activity, and provide it with new civil powers.
Jo Churchill
Once again, I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is probing, to ensure we make good legislation. For that, I am extremely grateful.
The Government have every intention of providing greater transparency about the safety and effectiveness of medical devices on the UK market, including on how our use of civil sanctions will achieve that aim. On that basis, I confirm that the Cumberlege report will definitely be with us on 8 July, which I do not think I stated during proceedings on Monday. I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point that we may well be looking at things in the round.
Civil sanctions will provide an alternative to criminal prosecution where the latter is not suitable. If, for example, a breach is judged to have had the potential to cause harm but it does not, the civil sanction is a second tool in the toolbox. As the hon. Gentleman said, there have been very few prosecutions in the last decade. Criminal prosecutions can be used where the breach of regulations leads to a serious incident or death, or where a manufacturer has directly contravened the conditions set out in a safety or suspension notice. As I am sure he will agree, other incidents very often need a flag raising, and that is the point of bringing civil sanctions into the legislation.
Currently, as the hon. Gentleman said, the Secretary of State is committed, under paragraph 15 of schedule 1, to publishing reports on the use of civil sanctions from time to time. The requirement to publish reports on the use of civil sanctions is in line with existing obligations on other Government agencies that already operate a civil sanctions regime for their sector. The Environment Agency is one—in respect of environmental civil sanctions—while the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, who is responsible for enforcing the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products Regulations 2010, is another. Those regulations explicitly state that reports on the use of civil sanctions will be published “from time to time”.
The new civil sanction regime would require supplementary legislation, as per paragraph 9 of schedule 1. A consultation on the supplementary legislation would be necessary to ensure that the new regime is operational. I assure Members that the Government intend to publish reports on their use of those measures at regular and appropriate intervals, and the hon. Gentleman will bring me up on that. The Government may indeed decide that reporting annually is appropriate. However, as the new regime will require secondary legislation, which must be consulted on before it comes into force, it is not practical to specify at this point the frequency of Government reports on the use of civil sanctions.
On the hon. Gentleman’s specific point about burden of proof and how we arrived at that, I will write to him. On that basis, I invite him to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Norris
On the principle of civil sanctions, we are content. I am really grateful to the Minister for her offer to write to me about the burden of proof, and I will definitely take her up on that. It is important to reflect on why that is different in different cases.
I meant to refer to the potential to do harm, which is something worth reflecting on that, and we can talk about it in the remaining stages. At the risk of going into pub chat—if only—let us imagine that I throw a stone at someone. Whether I hit or miss, have I committed an offence? Does it matter that I have good or poor aim? When it comes to medical devices, if we find something with the potential to do significant harm, the fact that it has not yet done so would certainly not be a good enough reason to downgrade the way in which that was treated. Again, we can reflect on that another time, and it is also tied up with the burden of proof, but on the basis of the answers so far, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clauses 27 to 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 30
Recall of medical device by enforcement authority
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 30, page 16, line 23, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must, within 24 months of this Act receiving Royal Assent, lay a report before Parliament reviewing uses of this clause.”
This amendment requires the Government to review any use of the recall powers made in the first 2 years of the Act.
Again, this is a simple amendment. The clause governs the recall of a medical device by the MHRA. That is of significant public interest—recall, obviously, is important to people. It is also really challenging, and we have all seen that, whether with washing machines, cars or whatever. Once devices are out there, it is hard to recall them, so we want to know that these powers are working effectively.
The obligation that the amendment would put on the Secretary of State is to provide, within two years, a report on when recall has been used. That would do two things: first, it would allow us to evaluate how effectively recall was being used; and, secondly, it would act as a further publicity tool, so that people understood that the device has been recalled and, if they were still in possession of it, that they could do something about it.
At the moment, subsection (2) states: “The authority”—the MHRA—
“may take such steps as it considers necessary to organise the return of the device”,
but the clause does not quite say anywhere that the MHRA will then tell people what it has done. If that is implied, I am probably willing to accept that answer, but I am keen for the Minister to note that the Government’s clear intent is not only to organise the recall of unsafe devices, but to publicise that significantly, such that it will be reasonable to expect people to see such publicity and therefore to act on it.
Jo Churchill
The Government consider the new recall power to be crucial to ensuring that unsafe devices are removed from the market. It is important to note, however, that subsection (3) requires that the power is used only as a last resort.
The Bill introduces this statutory power for the MHRA, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to conduct recalls on the rare occasions when a manufacturer is either unwilling to carry out a recall imposed under clause 18 or is unable to do so because the manufacturer no longer exists as an entity. I am sure Members will agree with this power, as it is intended to ensure the safety of devices for patients and, without it, there would be a gap. In the case of companies unwilling to take action, devices that are not recalled might well present risks to patients. It is right that the regulator can take action if and when companies fail to recall devices.
The statutory power also addresses an anomaly in the existing enforcement regime, whereby the MHRA has the statutory power to conduct a recall under the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 where the medical device in question meets the definition of a consumer good—typically, a low-risk medical device—but the MHRA does not currently have the commensurate statutory power to conduct recalls for higher-risk medical devices that are not also consumer goods under the GPSR. That would appear to be an inconsistency that does not align with risk to patients. I am sure all hon. Members would agree that, where possible, that is what good legislation should do, and the Bill seeks to correct that anomaly.
Alex Norris
I will not labour the point, but the Government must act not just transparently, but transparently, publicly and proactively. That is something we would be really keen on.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
On a point of clarification, at what point does the MHRA intervene? At what point is the threshold—that is perhaps a better way of putting it—at which a recall is demanded? Depending on the product, at what point is that necessary and who bears the cost? I am not sure whether that should be covered by the clause, or whether it is simply within the remit of the MHRA.
Alex Norris
That is interesting, and if the Minister wants to intervene to address that point, I will take an intervention. Otherwise, my best guess is that it would be covered by the regs and, presumably, subject to consultation. However, I hope the Government have a clear trigger point, so that we are all clear and transparent about what will happen.
Jo Churchill
The MHRA has a specific compliance department. It works on a case-by-case basis, and it would issue a notice—see clause 18—and it would move forward on that basis with an individual recall against a company. I hope that clarifies the situation.
Alex Norris
I am grateful for that clarification. On the basis of the answer I have received, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 31 to 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 2
Offence of breaching provisions in the Medical Devices Regulations 2002
Amendments made: 5, in schedule 2, page 34, line 8, leave out “case” and insert
“proceedings for such an offence”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 2.
Amendment 6, in schedule 2, page 34, line 14, after “hearing” insert “of the proceedings”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 2.
Amendment 7, in schedule 2, page 34, line 28, at the end insert “and
(b) the reference in paragraph (3) to ‘the hearing of the proceedings’ is to be read as a reference to ‘the trial diet’.”—(Jo Churchill.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 2.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Commencement
Alex Norris
I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 43, page 24, line 17, leave out
“on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint”
and insert
“six months after this Act receives Royal Assent.”
This amendment brings the enforcement regime into force at a defined period after Royal Assent rather than at a date of the Government’s choosing.
Having accepted the principle of the new enforcement regime and seeing its potential, I am keen to know when it will be in place and what the Government’s intentions are for getting on with it. Clause 43(3) says:
“Chapters 2 and 3 of Part 3”—
the bit that governs the enforcement and disclosure around medical devices—
“come into force on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument appoint.”
Basically, that means at some point in the future.
The amendment, which is in my name and the name of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, suggests the regime should come into force within six months of Royal Assent. As was said in our earlier discussion, I imagine that the Government want to return to consultation on that point, so that might not be the right period. We are keen to know that the Government intend to get on with it, however, because there may be some push-back from those with vested interests who do not want the scheme to go ahead. I talked about there being three prosecutions in 12 years; we are likely to see much greater activity than that, and there will be those with vested interests who do not want that to happen.
I am keen for the Government not to leave this forever. If we accept in primary legislation that the regime is going to happen and is a good idea, that is what matters, and it should happen at a defined point. I am keen to know what the Government see as the timeline for introducing it. As Parliament has decided that we will do this, I would like a firm commitment on the record that we are actually going to do it.
Jo Churchill
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising, through amendment 19, the issue of the commencement of chapters 2 and 3 of part 3 of the Bill, which is concerned with medical devices. Chapter 2 introduces a new enforcement regime that includes the civil sanctions set out in schedule 1, which we discussed. Chapter 3 concerns data and disclosure provisions, and contains a number of consequential amendments, which facilitate the introduction of the new enforcement regime in chapter 2.
On chapter 2, as I have said, a key element of the new enforcement regime is the addition of civil sanctions, which will act as a flexible, proportionate enforcement mechanism to enhance the MHRA’s ability to incentivise compliance. Supplementary regulations must be made under paragraph 9 of schedule 1 before the new civil sanctions can be fully operational. Those regulations, which could relate to matters such as the enforcement of a monetary penalty regime, monitoring compliance with an enforcement undertaking, and the provision of appeals, are subject to a consultation requirement, as set out in clause 40. It is right that we consider the views of stakeholders before bringing the regulations into force, and it is important to allow for time to engage effectively, so that we can ensure that we act in the best interests of patients, and thereby in the best interests of the healthcare sector that serves them.
The data and disclosure provisions in chapter 3 will provide greater transparency about the safety and effectiveness of medical devices on the UK market. I am sure we all agree that that is what we are after: knowing what is going where and helping whom, and, if there is an issue, being able to isolate and highlight it, and then provide a remedy. The Government are exploring how we can ensure that the new powers are as effective as possible and secure the needs of the healthcare community, patients and the wider public. It is therefore appropriate that due consideration be given to how the powers can most effectively be used before they are commenced. An amendment putting in place a deadline by which the powers must come into force could limit the MHRA’s ability to find the most effective route, and it could limit the time that MHRA has before commencement for the important process of engaging with stakeholders on the powers.
Finally, the consequential provisions in clause 36 are linked to the disapplication of the previous enforcement regime in part 2 of the Consumer Protection Act 1987. They too must be commenceable by regulations, so that they come into force at the same time as the new enforcement regime.
I reassure hon. Members that the Government are committed to bringing the enforcement, data and disclosure chapters of the Bill into force as soon as is appropriate, in order to enhance the safety of the medical devices regime, which I think we all see as important. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Nottingham North to withdraw the amendment.
Alex Norris
The final part of that answer answered my question. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 44 to 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 6
Registration of Medical Devices
‘(1) The Secretary of State shall by regulations establish a UK Registry of all devices implanted into patients on a long-term basis.
(2) The identifier details of any devices implanted into patients, on a long-term or permanent basis, must be registered.
(3) The information registered must include—
(a) The unique identifier of the patient into whom the device is implanted;
(b) The Clinician responsible for the procedure;
(c) The hospital or clinic in which the procedure is performed;
(d) A standardised description of the device;
(e) The unique identifier code of the device implanted.
(4) Efforts must be made for this unique identifier data to be gathered by barcode reader as in the trial of ‘Scan for Safety’.
(5) This Registry shall require linkage from all currently established speciality device registries, in current operation, to avoid duplication of registration.
(6) Devices without any form of specialist registry currently available shall be registered in this UK Registry.
(7) Governance structures regarding the management and access to registry data shall be established after consultation with stakeholders including but not limited to—
(a) the appropriate authorities as defined in Section 1 (4);
(b) all UK based Royal Colleges of Surgery or Radiology and any others representing clinicians involved in such procedures;
(c) Managers of current speciality device registries;
(d) the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency;
(e) the Directors of each of the four UK based National Health Services;
(f) healthcare quality improvement bodies from each of the four UK based National Health Services;
(g) representatives of the Healthcare device manufacturing sector;
(h) academics with expertise in the design and maintenance of registries;
(i) additional stakeholders as identified during the development and maintenance of such a registry.
(8) Patient information from such a registry shall be provided to clinicians if there is concern regarding the management of or complications from any implanted device to allow closer monitoring or removal if so warranted.”
The aim of such a UK register is to ensure earlier recognition of complications from implantable devices and allow the easy identification and urgent recall of affected patients should such a concern be recognised.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Alex Norris
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I am pleased to give this clause a run-out on behalf of the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire. We have missed her during these proceedings, and I hope that conversations are ongoing through the usual channels about how we can make Public Bill Committees work and perhaps give hon. Members who cannot be here—for very good reasons—a chance to contribute.
This is the final new clause, but it is by no means the least important. In fact, it has the most potential to be a clause with which we do something quite exciting. A great deal of pain has been caused in the past. I will not get ahead of the Cumberlege review, but when things go wrong in the space of medical devices, they go wrong catastrophically and in a life-altering fashion. None of us would want to see that; all of us would want to do anything we can to avoid or mitigate that harm.
The new clause would establish an exciting regime of registration of medical devices. It would provide information on a granular level—we have seen the level of detail that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire has put into it—so that we know exactly what medical device has gone where and for what purpose. This is a complex area. We talked on Monday about the various different registries or registrations we could have, and all are complex and require reflection. This would be a good part of marking the Government’s card. Since Monday, we have had very good informal conversations about how we can take this forward.
Jo Churchill
As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am also enthused and excited about the register, because it offers us a space to do something good. I am very grateful to him and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire, to whom I spoke at the weekend, as I said on Monday, and I noted that she would not be with us for Committee proceedings.
A registry of long-term implantable medical devices as suggested in new clause 6 is of significant interest to many Members. On Second Reading, many Members put forward good ideas on how we could make a register work for the benefit of patients. We should consider this in the context of the forthcoming report from the independent medicines and medical devices safety review and the matters it looked into, particularly the use of pelvic mesh, and how we oversee medical devices, including post-market surveillance. It is not only the point when the device is implanted that is vital, but also the potential impacts some years later. I know we all recognise the critical importance of ensuring that patients are heard and that concerns about medical devices are identified and dealt with quickly and effectively. That must be at the forefront of our minds. As the hon. Gentleman said, the impact on an individual’s life can be significant.
New clause 6 is similar to new clause 1, which was tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris). I know that she and many other Members in the House and the other place are interested in what more we could do to improve the tracking of implantable medical devices. The issue has also been a subject of interest to the Health Quality Improvement Partnership and the Royal College of Surgeons. It is very topical.
Clause 13(1)(h) provides for the creation of a register of medical devices to capture which devices are available on the UK market and to ensure that the MHRA can identify which device has been produced by which manufacturer. There has been some confusion in some of the written evidence as to whether that is intended to constitute a registry. A registry as in new clause 6 suggests bringing together patient and clinical information with device information. We have device registries, such as the national joint registry in the UK, which is seen as a global exemplar, so it is important to make sure that we do what we need to in order to enhance what is already in the system.
I understand the intent behind the new clause and, as ever, I am keen to understand what more we can do to protect patients in a fast-moving and constantly innovating environment, but I am not sure that new clause 6 is practical. The hon. Member for Central Ayrshire and I discussed the fact that it was heading in the right direction, but we need to work on it.
Patient safety absolutely underpins everything in our approach to regulation of medical devices in the Bill. It is the key consideration for all of us, as set out in clause 12(2)—the Government have put it there as the key priority. That is why we have introduced the ability for the Secretary of State to disclose information in the event of a safety concern, as we discussed.
I am not sure that the new clause achieves what the hon. Members for Central Ayrshire and for Nottingham North want it to. The intent is to establish a UK registry linking together all existing device registries, so that duplication of the entry of information is reduced, and to require the information entered to include the specifics of a device, such as the clinician who implanted it—information that, in the event of something going wrong, would give a clear picture of what happened. Although that is a commendable aim, the existing registries have been established over time and have expanded into different regions, evolving as they go. We have not had conversations on linkages to the registers in various parts of the country and in devolved Administrations. It is right and proper that we pull back and ensure that we have taken in the views of all stakeholders, and done the proper engagement to ensure that we collect the information from registers appropriately. That needs some work, partly due to the differing operating approaches in each registry. I gently suggest that the proposal in subsection (6) that all implanted devices without a specialist registry be logged on a national registry is a little broad at this stage. We perhaps need to talk about that with stakeholders and others.
The new clause also seeks to establish a governance structure, after consultation with a range of stakeholders, on the management of and access to the proposed registry. I suggest that the consultation requirement is out of step with the consultation duty in clause 40, which provides that consultation with those considered appropriate must take place before we make the regulations. It is a little cart before the horse but, that notwithstanding, this is very much the direction of travel. I remain of the view—no doubt we will come to this point—that we must ensure that we do not inadvertently rule out consulting those who ought to be consulted.
The hon. Member for Nottingham North and I have had discussions in this space, and we are united in wanting this idea to get to the right place. I appreciate the careful consideration that was given to the new clause, and I am grateful for it. I would welcome further discussions in the near future.
Matt Western
I am keen to clarify, not having been party to previous debate, what happens with non-medical cosmetic devices implanted by a medical procedure. Should registry for them be part of this consideration? There is a subsequent impact on our NHS when things go wrong.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. We are not talking about cosmetic devices here, but I very much take his point. If it involves implantation, it is worth talking about, in the round, during consultation; however, many of the cosmetic issues he refers to may be temporary—if, for example, a device is inserted and then taken away. The legislation is about implanted devices. Again, it is something that we would talk about and ensure that we had consulted on, but for the purposes of the Bill, we are specifically looking at medical devices, and the definition of them.
As I said, I welcome discussion with those interested in these matters, particularly as we look forward to Baroness Cumberlege’s review, which is coming very shortly. On that basis, I ask the hon. Members for Central Ayrshire and for Nottingham North to withdraw the motion, but I will commit to following up with arrangements to have those discussions in a timely fashion.
Alex Norris
We are in vicious agreement on this point. The new clause provides a possible destination, but through conversations and the expertise of colleagues, we may end up going in a similar but different direction. It is right that we start with the goal in mind and then work to where we get to. I think there is real potential in this area. As the Minister said, my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington made a very important point, because the principles are very similar. There may be scope to include the areas that he mentioned also.
I thank the Clerks and you, Chair, for your support in this process. We have had some very good discussions, and laid the groundwork to do even more. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
The Chair
Before I put the final question, I thank all Members, particularly the Minister and the shadow Minister, for the way they have conducted themselves throughout the proceedings, which have been a pleasure to chair. I also thank the two Clerks and the Hansard reporters for their hard work.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Written Statements
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Post Office Horizon IT System: Independent Review
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I am today announcing the scope of the independent review into the Post Office Horizon IT system and trials which the Prime Minister committed to on 26 February 2020. This followed Post Office Ltd reaching a settlement, in December 2019, of £57.75 million to conclude a long-running case brought against it by a group of postmasters over issues related to Post Office’s Horizon IT system.
The longstanding dispute and subsequent trials relating to the Post Office Horizon IT system have had a hugely negative impact on affected postmasters and their families. These events have deeply affected postmasters’ lives: their livelihoods, their financial situation, their reputations and, for some, also their physical and mental health. In his judgments in the “common issues” and “Horizon issues” trials, Mr Justice Fraser identified significant failings within Post Office Ltd over nearly two decades, particularly in relation to the treatment of postmasters and in its management culture.
Under its new CEO, Nick Read, Post Office Ltd has admitted it got things wrong in relation to the Horizon case and has apologised. It has also started to take steps to reset the relationship with postmasters. These are important moves in the right direction. However, given the very serious impacts this case has had on many individual postmasters, more needs to be done.
Government want to be fully assured that through the review there is a public summary of the failings that occurred at Post Office Ltd, drawing on the judgments from the Horizon case and by listening to those that have been most affected; that lessons have genuinely been learned; and that concrete changes have taken place at Post Office Ltd to ensure that this situation will never be repeated. For these reasons Government have decided to establish an independent review.
The independent review shall:
Understand and acknowledge what went wrong in relation to Horizon, leading to the Group Litigation Order, by drawing on evidence from the Horizon judgments and affected postmasters’ experiences and identify what key lessons must be learned for the future;
Assess whether the Post Office Ltd has learned the lessons from the criticisms made by Mr Justice Fraser in the “Common Issues” and “Horizon Issues" trials and those identified by affected postmasters and has delivered or made good progress on the organisational and cultural changes necessary to ensure a similar case does not happen in the future;
Assess whether the commitments made by Post Office Ltd within the mediation settlement—including the historical shortfall scheme—have been properly delivered;
Assess whether the processes and information provided by Post Office Ltd to postmasters are sufficient to i) enable both parties to meet their contractual obligations; and ii) enable postmasters to run their businesses. This includes assessing whether Post Office Ltd’s related processes such as recording and resolving postmaster queries, dispute handling, suspension and termination are fit for purpose. In addition, determine whether the quality of the service offer for postmasters and their relationship with Post Office Ltd has materially improved since the conclusions by Mr Justice Fraser; and examine the governance and whistleblowing controls now in place at Post Office Ltd and whether they are sufficient to ensure that the failings that led to the Horizon case issues do not happen again.
The review will be led by an independent chair who will be announced in due course alongside final timings and terms of reference for the review.
The review shall set out Post Office Ltd’s actions in response to the findings of Mr Justice Fraser. While avoiding a re-examination of the findings made by Mr Justice Fraser through the lengthy court proceedings, it must use these and the experiences of affected postmasters as the basis for its work. The review should not encroach on the work of the Criminal Cases Review Commission and the Court of Appeal. The review should make any recommendations it sees fit, including actions that may, in its view, be appropriate as a result of its findings. The final report will be laid in the Libraries of both Houses upon completion of the review.
[HCWS280]
Coronavirus: Local Authority Funding
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
On 22 May the Government announced £300 million additional funding for local authorities to support them to develop and action their plans to reduce the spread of the virus in their area as part of the launch of the wider NHS test and trace service. This funding will enable local authorities to develop and implement tailored local covid-19 outbreak plans through for example funding the recruitment of additional staff where required. Authorities to which grant is to be paid Amount of grant to be paid Barking and Dagenham £1,566,647 Barnet £1,599,177 Barnsley £1,568,553 Bath and North East Somerset £849,159 Bedford £806,281 Bexley £902,348 Birmingham £8,438,988 Blackburn with Darwen £1,366,942 Blackpool £1,693,874 Bolton £1,997,675 Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole £1,808,624 Bracknell Forest £385,454 Bradford £3,870,360 Brent £1,993,129 Brighton and Hove £1,862,524 Bristol, City of £3,032,572 Bromley £1,369,923 Buckinghamshire £1,954,838 Bury £1,080,413 Calderdale £1,233,390 Cambridgeshire £2,493,304 Camden £2,460,643 Central Bedfordshire £1,156,291 Cheshire East £1,533,331 Cheshire West and Chester £1,513,306 City of London £146,484 Cornwall £2,387,297 County Durham £4,498,138 Coventry £2,041,190 Croydon £1,998,175 Cumbria £1,717,862 Darlington £778,834 Derby £1,807,712 Derbyshire £3,859,136 Devon 2,618,508 Doncaster £2,233,745 Dorset £1,287,650 Dudley £1,941,764 Ealing £2,261,924 East Riding of Yorkshire £1,024,000 East Sussex £2,534,832 Enfield £1,582,042 Essex £5,783,212 Gateshead £1,513,527 Gloucestershire £2,221,773 Greenwich £2,159,691 Hackney £3,100,891 Halton £948,538 Hammersmith and Fulham £2,020,099 Hampshire £4,789,993 Haringey £1,862,362 Harrow £1,020,258 Hartlepool £825,809 Havering £1,022,848 Herefordshire, County of £845,091 Hertfordshire £4,506,303 Hillingdon £1,629,656 Hounslow £1,467,891 Isle of Wight £700,230 Isles of Scilly £11,935 Islington £2,430,588 Kensington and Chelsea £1,932,848 Kent £6,311,401 Kingston upon Hull, City of £2,235,503 Kingston upon Thames £940,711 Kirklees £2,381,215 Knowsley £1,595,940 Lambeth £2,919,086 Lancashire £6,367,420 Leeds £4,141,249 Leicester £2,489,071 Leicestershire £2,309,000 Lewisham £2,267,070 Lincolnshire £3,069,554 Liverpool £4,088,731 Luton £1,425,693 Manchester £4,836,535 Medway £1,592,918 Merton £964,982 Middlesbrough £1,566,024 Milton Keynes £1,065,306 Newcastle upon Tyne £2,185,756 Newham £2,843,060 Norfolk £3,717,780 North East Lincolnshire £1,049,417 North Lincolnshire £855,156 North Somerset £868,716 North Tyneside £1,140,250 North Yorkshire £2,022,805 Northamptonshire £3,270,065 Northumberland £1,528,975 Nottingham £3,126,717 Nottinghamshire £3,802,915 Oldham £1,560,230 Oxfordshire £2,858,487 Peterborough £1,017,883 Plymouth £1,402,003 Portsmouth £1,637,748 Reading £901,002 Redbridge £1,279,157 Redcar and Cleveland £1,076,223 Richmond upon Thames £858,104 Rochdale £1,591,757 Rotherham £1,518,012 Rutland £120,148 Salford £1,975,758 Sandwell £2,276,836 Sefton £1,995,065 Sheffield £3,101,989 Shropshire £1,126,797 Slough £689,507 Solihull £1,040,717 Somerset £1,925,972 South Gloucestershire £863,029 South Tyneside £1,250,300 Southampton £1,571,231 Southend-on-Sea £887,492 Southwark £2,521,368 St. Helens £1,328,091 Staffordshire £3,634,365 Stockport £1,473,704 Stockton-on-Tees £1,310,997 Stoke-on-Trent £2,084,370 Suffolk £2,789,363 Sunderland £2,219,966 Surrey £3,477,690 Sutton £920,329 Swindon £930,733 Tameside £1,419,817 Telford and Wrekin £1,162,281 Thurrock £1,050,883 Torbay £886,457 Tower Hamlets £3,220,464 Trafford £1,156,759 Wakefield £2,247,805 Walsall £1,650,559 Waltham Forest £1,478,904 Wandsworth £2,541,671 Warrington £1,136,884 Warwickshire £2,137,781 West Berkshire £540,345 West Sussex £3,178,715 Westminster £2,890,797 Wigan £2,392,101 Wiltshire £1,586,902 Windsor and Maidenhead £435,650 Wirral £2,733,018 Wokingham £499,857 Wolverhampton £1,920,236 Worcestershire £2,752,192 York £733,896 Total £300,000,000
Today we are updating the House on the detailed allocation of these monies which has been made on the basis of the 2020-21 public health grant allocations. This allocation formula has been chosen as that which best reflects the public health needs in local authorities.
This funding is for local authorities in England only. This means an additional £57 million will be provided by HMT via the Barnett formula for the devolved Administrations, £29 million for the Scottish Government, £18 million for the Welsh Government, and £10 million for the Northern Ireland Executive.
[HCWS281]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. A limited number of Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and, if the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Other Members will participate remotely, but all Members will be treated equally wherever they are. For Members participating remotely, microphones will unmute shortly before they are to speak—please accept any on-screen prompt to unmute. Microphones will be muted after each speech. I ask noble Lords to be patient if there are any short delays as we switch between physically present and remote participants.
I should remind the House that our normal courtesies in debate still very much apply in this new hybrid way of working. Oral Questions will now begin. Please ensure that questions and answers are short. I call the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Worcester to ask the first Oral Question.
G20: Debt Cancellation
The Lord Bishop of Worcester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that G20 countries cancel any debt owed to them by the poorest countries.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government are concerned by debt vulnerabilities in developing countries, which Covid-19 has amplified. The Chancellor and his G20 counterparts agreed a historic suspension of debt repayments from the world’s poorest countries. This will see official creditors provide up to $12 billion of cash-flow relief to help countries respond to the health and economic impacts of Covid-19. It also provides time to assess what further assistance these countries may need as the full economic impact becomes clearer.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester [V]
I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her Answer. I also take this opportunity to express appreciation to the Government for their continued commitment to paying 0.7% of GNI to official development assistance. It is a very positive step that debt has been suspended but, in view of the increasing economic and social burden of this terrible virus on the poorest countries in the world, will the Government begin to press not only for the suspension but the cancellation of debts as we go further and, indeed, encourage private debtors to do the same?
Baroness Penn
My Lords, we are in uncharted territory at the moment and the full impact of Covid on the developing world is unknown. The DSSI provides breathing space, so future restructuring of debts may be needed. The G20 has publicly called for the private sector to voluntarily participate in this initiative and, if it did so to the full extent, that would provide another $10 billion of breathing space for these countries.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend and the Government for all the work they have already done to help less developed and low-income emerging markets grappling with the health and economic fallout of Covid, especially from the fall in commodity prices. But I hope that the Government will consider debt forgiveness rather than just a debt freeze as we go through this unprecedented crisis, so that these countries can recover rather than having to continue to pay debts that have posed such problems in these times.
Baroness Penn
The Government will continue to keep all options under review. In terms of debt forgiveness, the Government have committed a further £150 million to the IMF Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust, which provides debt relief to low-income countries for their IMF payments. Twenty-five eligible countries will receive that debt relief for at least the next six months.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for what the Minister has already said, but I want to back up the right reverend Prelate because, given the public interest in debt relief, surely the Government could take the lead in debt cancellation as well as suspension during the pandemic. Does the Minister agree that DfID and the Treasury also have some responsibility for ensuring that the private sector cannot pursue LDCs for any default?
Baroness Penn
Debt relief can be an important route for some countries; however, in terms of UK support, under the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, the UK has written off most of its exposure to low-income developing countries and has since adopted a grant-based financing model. We need to look at all routes of support to these countries during the Covid epidemic.
Baroness Goudie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, for the world as a whole and especially for the G20 countries, the priority at the present time must be for poorer countries to have the resources to combat the pandemic and to do so effectively. To that end, it is essential for these countries to be relieved of debt; a mere postponement of repayment is not enough. Lives must be saved and the spread of the disease must be prevented. Poorer countries must be able to withstand the economic consequences of the pandemic. The United Kingdom must lead the way.
Baroness Penn
My Lords, I feel I have said quite a bit on debt relief and that we may be supportive in future for certain countries, if that is the right route. In terms of the UK’s contribution to support, very little of our support to countries is in the form of debt and we therefore need to look at other routes as well. That is why the UK is spending over £700 million of its ODA funding towards the Covid response, in addition to normal programming, and is the largest contributor in the G20 to global efforts on a vaccine for Covid.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, at a time when low-income countries need to intervene to support their economies but lack the reserves, in addition to broader debt cancellation her Government should urge the IMF to initiate a large special drawing rights allocation to speed the recovery of low-income economies?
Baroness Penn
The noble Baroness is right that the scale of the economic crisis facing these countries is significant. The IMF predicts that global GDP will fall by 3% in 2020 and says it is the worst global recession since the great depression and much worse than the 2008 financial crisis. We are providing a huge amount of additional support, including through the IMF, which has doubled to $100 billion the emergency financing support available to its members.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am second to none in wanting to assist poorer countries, but will the noble Baroness accept, in the context of debt forgiveness, that the World Bank has done recent research to show that aid flows through the poorest countries straight back into the wealthier countries—something called aid leakage? So unless we want to give money to Switzerland, Luxembourg, the Cayman Islands and those sorts of places, the best way to help the poorest countries is through a vaccine, through medical and pharmaceutical products and, most importantly, through the special drawing rights of the IMF mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer.
Baroness Penn
The noble Baroness is correct that we need to ensure that the support we give to these countries actually flows into supporting social and health programmes that help to tackle this virus. That is why one of the conditions of the debt service suspension initiative is that the financial headroom it creates for those countries is actually directed towards those services.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. No? In that case, I call the noble Lord, Lord Singh of Wimbledon.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, in view of the iniquity of wealth acquired through slave trading, does the Minister agree that the cancellation of debt would be a timely and practical acknowledgement that black lives matter?
Baroness Penn
My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Lord that black lives matter. The UK has been a leading voice on debt forgiveness. As I said previously, however, the UK has forgiven most of its debt from low-income countries, so we also focus our support to those countries through other routes.
Lord Livermore (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the G20 public debt initiative lasts only until the end of 2020, yet it is clear that the economic consequences of the Covid-19 pandemic will be felt far beyond the end of this year. Will the Government support an extension of the scheme?
Lord Hussain (LD) [V]
My Lords, I know that Britain plays a major role in fighting poverty around the world and I appreciate the UK’s generous donation of £150 million to an IMF debt relief scheme used for Covid-19. What further plans do the Government have to take part in international initiatives to repay the debt of the poorest countries?
Baroness Penn
As I said in my response to the noble Lord, Lord Livermore, we will continue to work with the G20 and look at the extension of the debt service suspension initiative. One of the things that makes that initiative so ground-breaking is that it is the first time that China has signed up to a multilateral agreement of this nature, and as it is the largest lender to some of these countries, that will have a big impact for them.
Baroness Verma (Con) [V]
My Lords, will my noble friend ensure that funding through DfID and FCO is directed at supporting economic recovery through an economic recovery plan, whereby British businesses are supported in investing and generating employment?
Baroness Penn
We will absolutely ensure that our commitment to 0.7% of GNI supports economic recovery in the countries most affected by this pandemic and also draw on the expertise and skills of British businesses and investors across the world to support jobs.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, and we now move to the second Oral Question.
Sub-Saharan Africa: Water and Sanitation
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bruce of Bennachie
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to increase their support for water and sanitation programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing on my name in the Order Paper and draw attention to my entry in the register of interests.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, water, sanitation and hygiene are essential for preventing the spread of Covid-19. We continue to support WASH projects throughout Africa. Our country teams are responding through health and humanitarian programmes, with water and sanitation being a key area. We have provided more funding to UNICEF, the lead UN agency for water supply and sanitation, to help with the response. We have launched a new partnership with Unilever, which is working in Africa to scale up Covid-specific messaging on hygiene.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie [V]
With the impact of Covid-19 and the stress on water supplies from the climate emergency, I know the Minister recognises, as she acknowledged, that clean water and sanitation are more vital than ever, especially when aid budgets are squeezed. Water Unite, which I chair, collects a 1% levy on the sale of bottled water to invest in water and sanitation projects. Will the Government encourage this and other innovative ways of unlocking millions of pounds for development funds to add to taxpayer-funded donor contributions? Will she consider meeting me to explore this further?
Baroness Sugg
I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion. We have discussed that excellent initiative in the past and I would be delighted to meet him to discuss it further. As he says, water, sanitation and hygiene are incredibly important and the first line of defence for preventing the spread of Covid. DfID will continue to support WASH, as we know it is critical for managing the Covid recovery.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab) [V]
My Lords, handwashing is one of the most effective disease prevention methods available, including specifically for Covid-19, yet 3 billion people globally do not have handwashing facilities at home. As part of DfID’s monitoring of Covid-19 cases in developing countries, do the Government intend to increase support for sanitation programmes in areas that are experiencing a high number of cases?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, as the noble Lord says, hygiene relies on access to adequate quantities of clean water, and that applies to both handwashing and surface hygiene. We will absolutely continue to support WASH projects. We need to make progress on sanitation, and progress to ensure that sufficient clean water is available for people to be able to keep safe.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]
Can the Minister be absolutely clear: will we be spending more on this in sub-Saharan Africa in the next 12 months?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I fear I am not in a position to answer that question. As the noble Lord will be aware, DfID funds a vast number of projects to tackle Covid. As I said, WASH projects will absolutely continue to be a key priority for DfID as we move forward.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank, is not asking his question, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
My Lords, in Africa, the WASH sector is critical for both containing the virus and lowering its devastating impact on human and economic costs. Can the Minister say what conversations DfID has had with the CDC about using its heft to leverage investment into both WASH, infrastructure and products such as soap and sanitiser?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, obviously we work closely with CDC to ensure that it is responding sufficiently to Covid. CDC is urgently undertaking a Covid-19 impact and vulnerability assessment across its portfolio of investments in Africa and South Asia. As other investors withdraw, CDC is looking at extending the risk-sharing agreements it has with partner banks to ensure that it will continue to be able to support projects. I will certainly have a further discussion with it about how it can specifically support WASH projects.
Baroness Stroud (Con) [V]
My Lords, the recent outbreak of Covid has led to the biggest and most welcome extension of the WASH programme across Africa. How can we ensure that the investments made in water sanitation and hygiene by DfID look beyond Covid-19 and help to fight other diseases in the long term, such as neglected tropical diseases, and provide sustainable water and sanitation solutions for vulnerable populations going forward?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, my noble friend is of course quite right to point out that WASH is critical not only now as we deal with the immediate impacts of Covid-19 but for the future. That is why we are working closely with our partner Governments to ensure that the water systems in their countries continue to receive investment as countries around the world are challenged with the economic impact of Covid-19.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, can the noble Baroness assure the House that everything possible is being done to assist villagers in poorer countries such as Malawi, in sub-Saharan Africa? Access to clean water for washing hands is often very limited, as has been pointed out, and traditional medicine inhibits knowledge of symptoms and how to deal with them. The provision of well-judged education and sufficient hand sanitation could save many lives.
Baroness Sugg
I certainly agree with the noble and learned Lord that we must make sure that the information provided to people is correct in order to help them save lives. I mentioned our project with Unilever, which aims to reach 1 billion people with the correct information about how best to protect themselves from Covid.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I congratulate the Government on the Gavi replenishment—a great example of international co-operation delivering on a vital health initiative. WASH is an important ingredient in delivering SDG 6, as well as our objective of universal health coverage. What are the noble Baroness, the Government and DfID doing to ensure that we lead and get other countries to invest in WASH projects?
Baroness Sugg
I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing up Gavi, which was a great success last week, and which brought the world together to raise over £8.8 billion for essential vaccinations. As he says, improving access to water and sanitation is its own development goal; safe water and sanitation are critical to public health and are necessary elements of universal health coverage. It is also good value for money, and we encourage other donors and indeed the World Bank to continue investment. It estimates that for every £1 spent there are economic benefits worth over £4. Therefore, we target our aid well to vulnerable countries. Between 2011 and 2015, we helped 64.5 million people get access to water and sanitation. We will continue this work and continue to encourage other partners to invest.
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
I declare an interest, as my husband receives a grant for research on sustainable farming in Uganda. Almost 22 million people in Uganda do not have access to clean water. That is important for health but also for equality and education opportunities for girls in particular. How much funding have the Government allocated in the last year to address health and sanitation problems in that country?
Baroness Sugg
I am afraid that I do not have the specific amount of funding for that country but I will write to the noble Baroness with that information. I completely agree that we must ensure that, as schools reopen, all pupils are able to return to school, and providing proper health, hygiene and clean running water will of course be important for that aim.
Viscount Waverley (CB) [V]
My Lords, negotiating a broad network of water PPP awards similar to that which has worked well in Gaza could be a strategy. However, I draw attention to the use of the term “sub-Sahara”, which many consider to have overtones from a bygone colonialist and racist era and so to have had its day. Would it therefore not be better to exercise our minds on Africa geostrategically, to include north Africa and the Maghreb?
Baroness Sugg
I thank the noble Viscount for that question. While examples of donating water supply or treatment equipment have been successful in some cases, our programmes overall focus increasingly on more systems-strengthening and climate resilience, as they are part of our work on ending preventable deaths. I recognise that both “Africa” and “sub-Saharan Africa” are used as shorthand for a continent that is incredibly diverse in people, cultures and contexts, and our work is designed in collaboration with countries and partners to respond to that diversity.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, there is a practical and reliable solution. For the last 12 years, the charity Innovation: Africa has enabled remote villages to harness the power of the sun using Israeli solar and water technology. The solar panels power the pump, which is placed in the aquifer below ground. The clean water is then pumped into a tank and taps are installed throughout the village, providing up to 10,000 people with clean water from one system at a cost of about £40,000 per system. Thanks to Innovation: Africa, 1.7 million people in remote villages in sub-Saharan Africa have clean running water. Would the Minister agree to meet with Innovation: Africa to explore ways in which her department can help ensure that clean, fresh water can be delivered to the millions in desperate need?
Baroness Sugg
My noble friend highlights one of the ways in which we are helping people in rural villages, which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, asked about earlier. I understand that Innovation: Africa works closely with UNICEF, one of our key partners in WASH. Its use of innovative technology is particularly encouraging, especially as it uses green energy to power it. To achieve our ambitious SDG 6 WASH targets will require a major increase of resources and capacity. To use those effectively we must make the most of domestic funding, contributions from households and attract new finance. The WASH team at DfID will be happy to meet with Innovation: Africa, and I will follow that up with my noble friend.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked, so we now move on to the next Question.
Covid-19: Cancelled Medical Operations
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of cancelled medical operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con) [V]
My Lords, NHS trusts were rightly asked to postpone elective activity to free up capacity to support the response to Covid-19. The latest data shows that there was a 30% reduction in the number of completed admitted patient pathways in March 2020 compared to the same month last year. Data for April is due to be published by NHS England tomorrow. The NHS is safely restoring urgent non-Covid services, catching up on the backlog, and ensuring that surge capacity can be stood up again should it be needed.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, thousands of patients with non-Covid conditions are not getting the treatment they need, and thousands more with life-threatening diseases such as cancer are going undiagnosed every day. Yet we see reports that private facilities, which the Government are paying for, are either empty or hosting only a trickle of NHS patients. Can the noble Lord say how many private beds paid for by the Government are being used by the NHS, and what is the Government’s plan to stop waiting lists hitting 10 million by Christmas?
Lord Bethell [V]
My Lords, I do not have the precise figures which the noble Baroness asked for. However, I reassure the Chamber that the NHS is working hard to ensure that those who need urgent surgery, such as cancer patients, have it, and we have committed a substantial amount to the Help Us, Help You media campaign, which is having an impact in restoring confidence in returning to hospitals.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle [V]
My Lords, given the disproportionate effect of Covid-19 on those aged over 75 and the likely knock-on effects of cancelled operations, will the Minister take steps to encourage the reintroduction of routine GP health checks among people in this age group which, understandably, have been largely suspended during the pandemic?
Lord Bethell [V]
My Lords, the impact on the over-75s is, as has been described, profound. We have worked hard to try to protect those who are shielding. The reopening of GPs’ surgeries is a priority but, at the moment, we are not encouraging those who are over 75 to make the journey to surgeries that are a potential source of infection. Therefore, we will not be taking the steps the right reverend Prelate described.
Baroness Blackwood of North Oxford (Con) [V]
My Lords, as the waiting lists caused by Covid create huge pressures, harder-to-treat patients must not be left behind. Last month, Eurordis released a survey which included UK rare disease patients and found that nine out of 10 had experienced disruptions in care, while more than half who needed surgery had had it cancelled or postponed. Many rare disease patients are in the shielding group and many have degenerative conditions. Can the Minister set out the plans to improve access to care and communications about care for rare disease patients, and can he please undertake to meet with patient groups about this?
Lord Bethell [V]
The work of my noble friend Lady Blackwood on rare diseases is well known and acknowledged in the House. Those with rare diseases are in exactly in the kind of vulnerable groups that are being hard hit by Covid. They are given particular access to local support systems and they should have access to home testing services if they feel vulnerable to the effects of Covid. Further, I am happy to undertake a commitment to meet with the relevant stakeholder groups to discuss how we could be working harder to support them.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We do not seem to be able to hear the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have unmuted my microphone and I hope that my voice is coming through. I am sorry for the delay.
As the Minister will know, several million patients are on waiting lists for surgery. Given the increased levels of hygiene safety that will be required, it is inevitable that productivity will be down. This means that there will be a need for the prioritisation of cases. Does he agree that the professional organisations should draw up advisory guidelines for clinicians, rather than leaving it to the individuals?
Lord Bethell [V]
The noble Lord may be interested to know that, frustratingly, waiting lists have gone down rather than up, from 4.42 million in February to 4.32 million in March. This is an indication of people not coming forward for operations that they may need, and it is something that we are keen to address. However, we are putting the decision-making on how to handle the lists into the hands of local clinicians, who will use a combination of clinical need and waiting list times to make their decisions.
Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, which NHS trusts, following Sir Simon Stevens’ letter to them of 29 April, have made full use of all contracted independent sector hospital capacity, and will the contract between NHS England and the private healthcare sector be renewed at the end of June?
Lord Bethell [V]
The noble Baroness has asked for a very specific figure, which I am afraid I do not have to hand. However, I can assure her that the private healthcare contract has provided us with incredibly valuable surge capacity and we will be looking at how to use that kind of capacity to protect the NHS from a potential surge in the wintertime.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, can the Government guarantee that there are safe spaces for all cancer services and ensure that these spaces are Covid-protected? Further, will the Minister update the House on testing numbers and the number and frequency of tests in hospitals and in cancer hubs in England? I understand that he may not have all the figures to hand, but I would be grateful if he could write to me and put a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Bethell [V]
The noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, is right to emphasise the importance of safe spaces. Cancer surgery requires a completely hygienic environment for those who have immune challenges. Safe spaces are found for all those who need to have cancer practices. They may not be in absolutely every hospital, but if one hospital cannot make that kind of offer, an adjacent or nearby hospital will be found to provide the kind of safe spaces that are needed to carry out the procedures she described.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
When will treatment begin for post-operative patients who are waiting for chemotherapy, do we have instances where chemotherapies have been halted during their term of treatment, and will these therapies recommence? Do we know whether trusts are beginning to do this?
Lord Bethell [V]
The noble Baroness is entirely right to focus on those who are the most vulnerable. Data for March 2020 shows that cancer referrals began to drop although treatment levels did remain high, with 15,363 patients starting treatment following an urgent referral. That is the highest figure on record in a single month. So, although some treatments may have been cancelled, as she rightly describes, what I would like to convey is that a large number of treatments did continue, and we will be working hard to address any backlog.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, following on from a previous question about bed capacity, I declare an interest in that my son was involved in setting up the Nightingale Hospital Excel. What assessment has been made of bed requirements to keep non-surgical care completely separate from surgical care that needs to happen in Covid-light or Covid-free areas, and to ensure the frequent testing of staff, in particular highly skilled trauma surgical staff who may be moving between these two zones, so that they do not themselves become a cause of transmitting infection?
Lord Bethell [V]
I should first like to pay tribute to all those who have been involved in setting up the Nightingale hospitals. People have worked extremely hard to deliver a valuable service to the country. Bed allocation arrangements are made by local trusts and testing within the NHS is now intense. Decisions on the traffic of staff between safe zones and non-safe zones are taken by the local director of infection control.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, it is important that the Minister informs the House about how beds there are in the private sector, how many were occupied, at what cost and whether there will be a renewal. Does the noble Lord share my concern that if there is a second spike of Covid-19, it will lead to further delays in life-saving operations? What contingency arrangements do the Government have in place for this?
Lord Bethell [V]
The noble Baroness is right to raise this concern. The bigger focus is less on the operational restraints, because the NHS has in fact done extremely well to keep the flow of operations going during this period. It is actually on demand. What we are most deeply concerned about is that patients return to hospitals and that their confidence in undertaking procedures is restored. That is why we have put a huge amount of emphasis on the marketing side of things. That is not to understate the importance of the operational side, but it is patient confidence that is our focus at the moment.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has elapsed and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that we have not been able to take their questions.
Free School Meal Vouchers Scheme
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact on children in poverty of not providing the free school meal vouchers scheme during the summer holidays.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con) [V]
My Lords, the Government remain committed to ensuring that the most disadvantaged children continue to be supported while schools remain closed. The free school meal vouchers system has seen more than £139 million-worth of voucher codes redeemed into supermarket vouchers by families and schools as of Monday. This provision is ordinarily about providing healthy meals for children in school. As such, as schools close for the summer holidays, this scheme will come to an end.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, exceptional times require exceptional measures. Food insecurity among children has doubled under lockdown, yet DWP has provided no extra money for children. For all their inadequacies, free school meal vouchers have been a lifeline for low-income parents struggling to feed hungry children. The holiday activities fund mentioned yesterday by the Secretary of State will reach only a tiny fraction of them. In view of the Children’s Commissioner’s criticism that the decision lacks compassion and is “exceptionally short-sighted”, can the Minister explain why if Wales can provide this most basic support for children in poverty during the school holidays and more generously England cannot?
Baroness Berridge [V]
My Lords, the provision through the free school meal vouchers system is at a higher rate than what is normally provided to schools to provide free school meals, due to the recognition that families do not have the economies of scale of schools. On additional support to families, the noble Baroness will probably be aware that during this period there has also been an uplift to universal credit and to working tax credits, such that there is an advantage of just over £1,000 a year, which affects 4 million households. This is considerable support to families who, as we recognise, are struggling to feed their children.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we know that poverty leads to food insecurity for children. Last week the Trussell Trust reported an 89% increase in the need for emergency food parcels in April. Who will make up for this loss of vouchers for free school meals? The UK has signed the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Do the Government now recognise their responsibility to the welfare of children, especially vulnerable ones?
Baroness Berridge [V]
My Lords, the Government clearly recognise our responsibility to vulnerable children and have enabled them to attend school during this outbreak. The vouchers system we outlined is in addition to the funding going to schools to provide free school meals on the premises. In addition, there has been £16 million through DCMS and Defra for food support through charities such as FareShare and WRAP. There has been considerable support to enable food provision for those in need.
Baroness Janke (LD) [V]
To meet the cost of the Government’s Eatwell Guide to a healthy diet, the poorest decile of UK households would need to spend 74% of their after-housing disposable income on food. How will the Government ensure that the poorest and most vulnerable children have access to a healthy diet?
Baroness Berridge [V]
My Lords, funding of £9 million has been announced for the provision of holiday activity clubs, which include food, during the school holidays. We are currently in discussions with contractors regarding the continuation of Family Action and Magic Breakfast provision during the summer holidays.
Lord Balfe (Con) [V]
The Minister has outlined the extra money put into family budgets, and there are still people in poverty. Is not part of the problem a need for proper budgetary advice and help for families to manage better? In other words, it is a case not just of money but of the way in which it is spent and giving families assistance with their budgeting. Could we not look at an educational part of this programme?
Baroness Berridge [V]
My Lords, budgeting is indeed a skill needed by many households, particularly those on limited income. Before the Covid crisis hit, there was an almost 16% increase in the Budget to the Money and Pensions Service, which gives essential advice and support, particularly to those dealing with debt.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB) [V]
My Lords, 15.4% of children were eligible for free school meals in 2019, with 42% in pupil referral units and 37% in special schools. Many of these children’s health and well-being would at least in part be protected if their entitlement to the equivalent of free school meals were to continue through the summer holidays to the autumn term. A high proportion of recipients are from BME backgrounds and many are child carers. Does the Minister consider it appropriate to go back to Her Majesty’s Government and re-emphasise noble Lords’ support for the continuing provision of the equivalent of £15 per child per week to promote a level of equality of access to food for children in the poorest households this summer?
Baroness Berridge [V]
My Lords, I always take back representations made by noble Lords and will take that one back. As I have outlined, there has been an increase in support through the universal credit system and working tax credits. For those who are furloughed, the national living wage is more than £3,000 higher than in 2016, which affects the wages of those put on that scheme. We are concerned to ensure that households are able to make provision at the moment.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Children’s Society has highlighted how the cost of living has increased for families due to the pandemic, as more children are at home while parents’ earnings have often decreased, leaving many families struggling with the cost of food and other essentials. Demand for food banks has risen substantially, yet the Government think this is the time for yet more pressure for the millions of families across the country suffering financial hardship because of Covid-19 by withdrawing the free school meal vouchers scheme over the summer. With MPs from across the parties joining the call for the scheme to be extended to cover the summer holidays, this must surely be the Government’s next U-turn. If not, how does the Minister suggest parents should feed their children without the vouchers scheme during these immensely difficult times?
Baroness Berridge [V]
My Lords, as I have outlined, the vouchers scheme was in addition to the funding given to schools to provide free school meals on the premises. It has always been the position that free school meals provision was when schools were open, and it is not expected that schools will be open throughout the summer holiday. There has been a £6.5 billion injection into the DWP budget and more than 1 million food parcels have been distributed through Defra and other government departments. There is support out there for those who need provision.
Lord Rennard (LD) [V]
My Lords, should not the Government negotiate a deal for some form of reimbursement to themselves from the large supermarkets involved in this scheme, many of which are making good profits from the crisis? This could perhaps enable the scheme to be extended. In any event, the poorest children should be our priority.
Baroness Berridge [V]
My Lords, I will take back to my colleagues in BEIS the novel and motivational idea that the noble Lord outlines. As we have seen, those in the supermarkets have been essential workers during this time of crisis. As I have outlined, we are in discussion with Magic Breakfast and Family Action about breakfast club provision during the summer holidays.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of ukactive. Far fewer children than expected have been accessing school and school meals during the pandemic. This has left them in a perilous position. They now face up to 23 weeks without engaging in structured and enriching activities outside their home. Will Her Majesty’s Government confirm that they will explore all options for keeping some schools’ facilities open safely across the summer holidays, providing activity and food, to support the most vulnerable children?
Baroness Berridge [V]
My Lords, the latest statistics show that around 15% of vulnerable children are in school. The noble Baroness is correct that we are concerned about the sedentary nature of many children at the moment. On the phased reopening of schools, there has been specific guidance to encourage the use of outdoor space, and even team sports, where the appropriate hygiene measures are carried out among the different groups of children involved. DCMS now also has guidance on the phased reintroduction of outdoor activity and recreation.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, I regret that the time allowed for this Question has elapsed. I apologise to the noble Lords, Lord Blunkett and Lord Empey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, that we were not able to get in their questions. I thank all noble Lords; that concludes the hybrid proceedings on Oral Questions.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, a limited number of Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and if the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded I will immediately adjourn the House. Other Members will participate remotely, but all Members will be treated equally wherever they are. For Members participating remotely, microphones will unmute shortly before they are to speak; please accept any onscreen prompt to unmute. Microphones will be muted after each speech. I ask noble Lords to be patient if there are any short delays as we switch between physical and remote participants. I remind the House that our normal courtesies in debate still very much apply in this new hybrid way of working. Please ensure that questions and answers are short so that we can try to get in all the people who wish to ask questions.
Quarantine: Scientific Advice
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to publish the scientific advice upon which the travel quarantine measures are based.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con) [V]
My Lords, SAGE, the Home Office’s chief scientific adviser and the Chief Medical Officer are clear that when the rate of domestic transmission is high, imported cases represent a small proportion of the total number and make no significant difference to the epidemic. The Home Secretary has agreed to publish a summary of this advice in due course.
Lord Balfe (Con) [V]
In her exchange on 4 June, the Minister said:
“The science advice has been consistent … It is for SAGE to determine when to publish its advice.”—[Official Report, 4/6/20; col. 1531.]
With respect, no: Ministers decide when to publish the advice. The Government’s measures are increasingly met with widespread derision and non-compliance. I therefore urge the Minister to say to SAGE that the advice must be published very soon if it is to have any credibility, otherwise the Government’s strategy in this field will, frankly, collapse.
Baroness Williams of Trafford [V]
It is a matter for SAGE when to publish its advice. It published advice from 23 March. As I said in my Answer, the Home Secretary has agreed to publish a summary of the advice in due course.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
The noble Baroness makes it sounds as though SAGE was rather lukewarm about this change. Could she tell us whether the national police chiefs’ guidance was shared with it, namely that it would not be the role of the police to conduct spot checks on those who should be isolating, and that they will act only if the public health authority suspects that someone is not following the guidelines? They ask how the public health authorities will know this, since, as the Immigration Service Union says, Border Force officers will not be able to check basic information such as the address at which a new arrival plans to self-isolate. They say that it is a shambles, so was SAGE told how much of a sham these quarantine rules are and is that why we are not being given more detail?
Baroness Williams of Trafford [V]
My Lords, I think that Parliament has been given a lot of detail on this. On spot checks, PHE will do dip sampling of 20% of arriving passengers. If information on where to contact people is not forthcoming at the border, a fine can be issued.
Baroness Hamwee (LD) [V]
My Lords, these regulations have been received with concern, incredulity and, I am afraid, contempt. Does the Minister accept that it is essential that the public have confidence in these measures, because the absence of confidence threatens the public’s adherence to all the Government’s measures?
Baroness Williams of Trafford [V]
I agree with the noble Baroness. Indeed, I took the opportunity to speak to Border Force yesterday about how things were going at the border. It had no problems yesterday. Looking at the general public’s compliance with the regulations thus far, there has been a high degree of not only compliance but support.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con) [V]
My Lords, could my noble friend tell me what assessment the Government carried out on the impact of imposing a travel quarantine now on unemployment, tax revenues and the country’s overall health, and whether they will publish the results of that assessment? If no such assessment was made, how could this be considered a responsible decision?
Baroness Williams of Trafford [V]
It is definitely for the benefit of the economy for these measures to be reviewed and lifted as soon as possible. Of course, we have to balance the public health risks with the need to get the economy moving. Of course, we will get the economy moving just as soon as we possibly can.
Lord St John of Bletso (CB) [V]
Can the Minister explain the divergences from other European countries that have not adopted such draconian measures and give us some indication of the road map for when these restrictions will be eased? Have the Government costed the economic impact from these measures at a time when we are seeing a general easing of other restrictions?
Baroness Williams of Trafford [V]
Each country has its own methods of trying to control the virus, with some implementation of restrictions at the border. We know that Covid-19 will have a huge economic impact and we do not wish to keep some of the restrictive measures in place for any longer than we need to. It is absolutely the Government’s strong desire to get the economy up and running as soon as we can.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
In the Commons on Monday, when challenged about the practicality of the quarantine plan, the Home Secretary said
“first of all, this is not my plan; this is a Government plan”.—[Official Report, Commons, 8/6/20; col. 15.]
That sounds like a nifty piece of political distancing. We are calling for a rapid 48-hour testing-led programme to allow people to safely exit quarantine more quickly and keep the country open for business; full publication of the SAGE advice on quarantining; a sector-specific support package to save jobs in industries at risk of collapse from the current measures; and clarity on plans and timelines for so-called air bridges. Will the Minister recommend our proposals to the Home Secretary?
Baroness Williams of Trafford [V]
My right honourable friend the Home Secretary talked about a government plan because the sort of measures we are putting in place need not only support across government but collective agreement across government. The noble Lord is right that the quicker the testing can be done—testing is speeding up all the time—the better. He will also have seen over the past few months that certain sectors have been more able to go about their business than others, the difficult areas being industries such as hospitality. On air bridges, we are talking to countries across the world about just this—where we can perhaps pair with countries that have similar rates of infection.
Baroness Doocey (LD) [V]
My Lords, inbound tourism brings in £9 billion from July to September, but industry experts expect this to drop to £500 million because of the quarantine restrictions. This will cost the tourism industry £650 million a week. The Centre for Economics and Business Research says that more than 90% of Britain’s summer tourism trade will be obliterated. In that light, what specific support are the Government prepared to give to the sector?
Baroness Williams of Trafford [V]
The noble Baroness will know, if she listened to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary the other day, that she is in constant dialogue with the Transport Secretary and countries around the world, looking at innovative techniques for lifting restrictions and, as the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, mentioned, at air bridges and similar measures that could allow travel between countries.
Baroness Pidding (Con) [V]
My Lords, there has been much talk recently about bridges and travel corridors. Will the Government consider travel gates to block incoming travellers from certain countries, based on the science—a more targeted, risk-based approach to the screening of passengers?
Baroness Williams of Trafford [V]
My noble friend is right. We are aiming for a risk-based approach, based on other countries’ levels of infection and the public health of the people of this country. That is entirely what the strategy is about.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as other noble Lords have made clear, the logic of bringing in quarantine at this stage is hard to understand. Was this proposal put before focus groups before it was adopted? Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are following the science, not the focus groups?
Baroness Williams of Trafford [V]
My Lords, mandatory self-isolation is certainly based on the science. The time to introduce restrictions is when infection rates in this country are low. We had some restrictions initially, when we hit the peak. Those restrictions were increasingly ineffective at controlling the virus. Now that we have got the infection rates low, it is time to introduce restrictions to keep the rate of the virus low.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, objection to and ridicule of this devolved policy is widespread. The SI for England is 22 pages, for Wales 26 pages. They are massively complicated—a valiant attempt to cover every other department’s wish list of exemptions. Scotland and Wales have differing fixed penalties to the England-only SI. As there is no unified UK policy, would it not be better to scrap it now, and not even wait for the three-week review?
Baroness Williams of Trafford [V]
My Lords, we would wish to instigate a four-nations approach, and we engage across four nations in an attempt to get unified approach. That has been our aim all along.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab) [V]
My Lords, on 4 April the EU and the UK experienced over 40,000 new Covid-19 cases, and the UK had no quarantine provision. Yesterday, the EU and the UK experienced just 16,000 new Covid-19 cases, a 60% reduction, and we now have a 14-day quarantine provision. How can there be any logic in insisting on quarantine for travellers from EU countries that have negligible numbers of new cases compared to ours, when transmission within the UK is overwhelmingly likely to come from UK residents and not foreign travellers?
Baroness Williams of Trafford [V]
The noble Lord makes a point about different rates of infection and the strategies that we have employed. When the initial rate was low, we were trying to contain the virus. Then the peak happened, and measures at the border were seen to be very ineffective. Now that they are now low again, mandatory self-isolation comes in to keep them low.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister confirm that the Government’s policy is to relax quarantine rules for elite sports so that soccer clubs can compete in European competitions, Formula 1’s plans for Silverstone can go ahead, and French horses entered for the Derby in three weeks’ time can do so, with appropriate safeguards but without a strict fortnight’s quarantine?
Baroness Williams of Trafford [V]
My Lords, it is absolutely the Government’s intention that if we can lift restrictive measures, we will. Many of us are keen to watch the football. I was supposed to be going to the Derby; I do not think I will see it in real time, but I might see it virtually. Based on the science, we are reviewing these things every three weeks.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB) [V]
My Lords, why are frequently flying business travellers exempt, when this increases the chances of spreading the virus? Does this not make a nonsense of the restrictions, and is it not another case of one rule for some but not others?
Baroness Williams of Trafford [V]
My Lords, there are certain exemptions for people such as hauliers. We need people to deliver food to this country. In all decisions that the Government make, there is a balance to be struck between public health and not only the economy, but getting essential goods and services to the people of this country.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, a limited number of Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Other Members will participate remotely but all Members will be treated equally, wherever they are. For Members participating remotely, microphones will unmute shortly before they are to speak. Please accept any on-screen prompt to unmute. Microphones will be muted after each speech. I ask noble Lords to be patient if there are any short delays as we switch between physical and remote participants. I remind the House that our normal courtesies in debate still very much apply in this new hybrid way of working.
To manage proceedings, there will be an adjournment at a convenient point after 3.45 pm. After the adjournment, the debate will resume at a convenient point after 4.15 pm with the next speaker on the list.
Agriculture Bill
Wednesday 10th June 2020
(4 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 13 May 2020 - large font accessible version - (13 May 2020)
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Delegated Powers Committee
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, in declaring my farming interests as set out in the register, it is clearly a privilege to open this debate. The policies that flow from the Bill seek to strengthen our agricultural and horticultural industries and protect the long-term future of food production in this country. They will help deliver a fairer return from a fairer marketplace for food producers.
Financial assistance will be provided for protecting or improving the environment and will allow the environmental land management—ELM—scheme to provide financial assistance for the delivery of outcomes such as cleaner air and water and thriving plants and wildlife. The Government will also provide financial support in connection with managing land or water to help mitigate flooding. There will also be support for action to improve animal health and welfare, reduce endemic disease, keep livestock and soils healthy, and support public access to and enjoyment of the countryside. Farmers and land managers will be rewarded for their vital work in enhancing our environment and looking after our landscapes.
The Government and food producers have important contributions to make when it comes to tackling climate change. These provisions will put our farmers at the heart of an ambitious enterprise: to meet the goals of the 25-year environment plan and achieve the Government’s world-leading commitment to reaching net-zero emissions by 2050. The National Farmers Union has already shown admirable leadership in its work on seeking net-zero emissions.
The Bill recognises at its heart that food production and a flourishing natural environment can—and must—go hand in hand. This is explicitly demonstrated in Clause 1(4), which places a duty on the Secretary of State to have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England, and in an environmentally sustainable way, when framing financial assistance schemes. It includes provisions for financial assistance to encourage farmers, foresters and growers to improve their productivity in a sustainable way. The Government will provide grants so that they can invest in equipment, technology and infrastructure.
I know that Ministers sometimes receive reports from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee with some trepidation, but I am most grateful to—indeed, I thank—the committee for its consideration of the Bill, its overwhelmingly positive report and its commentary on an improvement to an earlier Bill. Of course, we will consider closely any residual issues and concerns raised by the committee.
In setting a seven-year agricultural transition period from direct payments to a new system, the Government wish to ensure a gradual move so that farmers can adapt. Over the past few months, the role of farmers and food producers in feeding the nation has quite rightly been on everyone’s minds. Working as I do at Defra, I particularly want to record my gratitude to all who have worked so hard, from farm to fork, to ensure we have access to the food we need. The importance that the Government place on food security is recognised in the Bill, with a duty placed on the Secretary of State to lay a report on food security before Parliament at least—I emphasise at least—every five years. We would certainly not intend to wait five years before publishing the first report, which will of course take into account what has been learned from the current pandemic.
The Secretary of State will have the powers to act in truly exceptional market conditions, such as those we are enduring at present, or in extreme weather conditions if these result in a severe disturbance in agricultural markets. As we move from area-based payments towards payments for the delivery of public benefit, we must also make sure that our farmers are fairly rewarded by a fair marketplace for the food that they produce.
Part 3 of the Bill contains provisions to strengthen the position of farmers in the food supply chain. Fair dealing provisions will introduce statutory codes of practice to regulate those buying from farmers; we will look at the dairy and red meat sectors first. Farmers’ position in the supply chain can also be strengthened by allowing groups of farmers to form producer organisations, which can access derogations from competition law, giving them the power to co-ordinate activities and become more competitive. The Bill contains powers to collect and share data, allowing the Government to strengthen existing market reporting services, and to provide information which will help farmers to make clearly evidenced business decisions and manage risk.
The Bill will enable the streamlining and modernising of the regulation of fertilisers. It also sets up the new multispecies livestock information service in England, which will provide the best livestock traceability. As a Minister with biosecurity in my brief, I think it essential that we enhance traceability.
The Bill also attends to a fairer distribution of the red meat levy, which I know has been an issue in Wales and Scotland. It will make pragmatic modifications to tenancy legislation, introducing more contemporary arrangements that will work for both tenants and landlords. It also contains powers to amend existing marketing standards, and to make new organics regulations and amend the existing regime so that these can be modernised to work better for domestic producers.
Part 6 provides powers to ensure the UK’s compliance with its obligations under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture. Regulations made under this part will allow the apportionment, between the nations of the United Kingdom, of agreed limits on certain types of financial support. I should note that this clause refers only to the Agreement on Agriculture and not to other WTO treaties, such as GATT, which the United Kingdom is bound to as a WTO member.
Clauses 43 to 45 and Schedules 5 and 6 have been included in the Bill at the request of the Welsh Government and DAERA Ministers. I am pleased to present them on their behalf. The Scottish Government have chosen to introduce their own agriculture Bill.
The Government have made it clear in the joint letter from the Environment Secretary and the International Trade Secretary published on 5 June, which I asked to be circulated to noble Lords yesterday, that they are alive to the issue of trade standards. My honourable Friend the Minister for Farming in the other place has stated:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
I can confirm that all food—I emphasise all food—coming into the country will continue to have to meet existing import requirements as the withdrawal Act transfers EU standards on to the UK statute book. This specifically means that the import of chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-fed beef, for example, is prohibited.
I realise that this is a brisk run-through of some elements of the Bill but I want to keep my remarks fairly short, so that we have plenty of time for other contributions. The Agriculture Bill is the beginning of a journey that we acknowledge will take time. We will put farmers and land managers at the heart of that journey. It needs to be their project too; it will not work if it is not. We will support them through the agricultural transition by adequately rewarding them for protecting and enhancing the environment, while enabling their businesses to prosper in the production of outstanding British food and drink for domestic and international consumption.
In this context, given the immense challenges that this planet faces—an increasing world population; climate change and its impact; the imperatives of enhancing the environment; and sufficient food production—how should we best use scientific advances to aid us? We have to wrestle with all these challenges. Innovation has been part of agricultural history, as have the traditions of good husbandry and custodianship. We clearly seek a blend of succeeding generations of farmers and new entrants. Coming from farming stock, I say that we ask much of the British farmer—as usual, at the very beginning, in contending with the weather. As some of your Lordships will know from an earlier consideration on derogation, this year had an exceptionally wet winter and spring followed by an exceptionally dry May.
I look forward to this debate because, by coming from all parts of the country, noble Lords will be well aware of the dynamics of their local farming sectors. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Bill. I declare my interests in having a career from dairy farming, through processing and manufacturing to retailing, as well as serving on a public-private partnership.
Agriculture has been subject to many crises and constant change, albeit incremental, shaping and responding to each reform package as a member state in the EU. With all areas being repatriated, the House rightly recognises that the Bill creates a rare opportunity to make a clear strategic leap into new but familiar territory by designing new support systems to underpin sustainable agriculture.
I congratulate the Government on this second, revised version of the Bill after the one originally proposed. The first Bill was roundly criticised for being a misnomer of a Bill. Although it was called an Agriculture Bill, it did not include much agriculture and provided only a delivery mechanism for environmental payments. That would have been a tremendous lost opportunity. This improved Bill provides better balance. It recognises the importance of food production in ongoing reforms, balanced with the need to refocus on environmental sustainability. With all trading blocs around the world supporting their agriculture, Labour recognises that the UK’s departure from the common agricultural policy creates a unique opportunity to change the way that the UK supports its domestic farms and food producers, and welcomes the environmental focus underlying aspects of the new policy. We will work across parties to ensure that the final version of the Bill strikes the right balance between production and environmental protection. Labour endorses the concept of public money for public goods.
The Government set out their changed priorities in two important policy documents in February this year: Farming for the Future, and Environmental Land Management. My first question to the Minister is: having written these before the arrival of the coronavirus pandemic, do they wish to amend their approach in the light of its experience? My second question seems to follow: is food a public good? These two documents do not explicitly recognise that it is, yet with the experience of severe disruption in supply chains, access challenges to food banks and challenges to safeguarding vulnerable and shielded persons, debate may well move in the future towards recognising food as a fundamental right, with its provision in some aspects becoming a public service.
The additions in the Bill now include provisions on safeguards on the support of domestic food production by focusing on soil protection, investments in technology and equipment, improving environmental sustainability, and innovation through future research and development; while reducing carbon emissions. Additionally, the Government have recognised the importance of food security by commissioning Henry Dimbleby to lead an independent review into the UK’s food system. It could be argued this review should have appeared before the Bill to provide a back-cloth to the Bill’s provisions. This review, with recommendations for a national food strategy, must not be delayed.
Does the Minister also recognise the importance of the UK’s self-sufficiency? His department has been reluctant to do so in the past, such that the UK’s self-sufficiency in food has declined to 53%. We welcome the Bill’s provision that the Government must report on food security, but call on the Government to recognise that, in relying on imported food, it is exporting decision-making on food policy to overseas countries with differing priorities. This may not be consistent with the Bill’s focus on the environment.
We also welcome the importance of providing a better balance of economic returns to agriculture through transparent and fair markets. The coronavirus disruption to supply chains once again has exposed poor behaviour, especially in the food service sector, where enterprise risk was pushed down on to the primary producer. While recognising the benefits that have come through the retail market with the work of the Groceries Code Adjudicator, how and through what mechanisms will the statutory code of practice for contracts, outlined in the Bill, be enforced in this food service sector?
Competition law needs to be re-examined in light of the pandemic experience. How will the obligation to establish fair dealing be brought forward? Bearing in mind the Groceries Code was the responsibility of the Department for Business, can the Minister say which department will take overall responsibility for business practice enforcement to make it effective?
The key feature of the Bill is to replace direct payments with environmental land management, characterised as providing public support for public goods. While we welcome these provisions, the policy document and the Bill are both scanty on the final details of what ELM will look like. I know these provisions will form the basis of many questions for other speakers. Everyone will praise the intentions of the Government. Environmental degradation is abhorrent. But there are many concerns regarding baseline standards without meaningful enforcement through cross-compliance for basic environmental conditions to receive payment and how this can be replaced with meaningful incentives to enhance the countryside if the food producer does not want to enter into any scheme.
Direct payments have provided a large element of financial support to a lot of farmers, especially in the uplands. The first change to agricultural experience in the transition is a cut next year to its funding, with few alternative schemes being ready. If agriculture is to be encouraged to take up environmental improvements, these schemes must be seen to pay, with schemes recognising opportunity costs of value rather than being based on income forgone. The Government must learn from having already experienced a huge shortfall in the expected take-up of environmental stewardship schemes recently.
Aspects regarding climate change mitigation must also be a fundamental priority. I welcome such projects as the carbon credit schemes on woodlands and warn against fixed, bureaucratic approaches that fail to recognise local farming conditions.
The improved balance of the Bill will nevertheless be a severe challenge to achieve. The Bill omits, and needs, a vital third element and focus to provide better stability. This key element would be provided by the introduction of food standards into the Bill. For agriculture to thrive, for the countryside to be enhanced, food standards must underpin the provisions in the Bill and be maintained. I want to make it clear that dealing with the issue of standards is one of our top priorities. Domestic standards of production are a clear commitment and all imported produce must comply with food, environmental and animal welfare standards that domestic production has to adhere to. This has been the key concern of every submission, letter and email I have received on the Bill. I thank everyone and all the organisations who have sent me their thoughts.
The joint letter issued recently from the Secretaries of State of Defra and DIT still does not recognise the strength of feeling that a clear majority of the public want the certainty of the law to put this commitment beyond dispute, prevarication and back-tracking. Labour will look to support this commitment by writing amendments also into the Trade Bill. We will be tabling an amendment on the matter, and I expect to see several others tabled at Committee. We wish to work with all voices around the House who share this concern, to find the correct formulation to write this into law, be that through a food and trade standards commission to adjudicate on equivalence of standards or through other statutory provisions.
The Bill has been recognised as a framework Bill that is scantily dressed in detail. Your Lordships’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, in its 13th report of the Session, outlines the major transfer of powers from the EU to Ministers, bypassing Parliament and devolved legislatures. The skeletal framework of the Bill gives extensive powers for future regulatory changes without clear detail and with correspondingly few duties. Yet the Government acknowledge that the new agricultural support system will take time to develop. We will wish to draw out in Committee as much detail as possible on relevant principles, policies and criteria underpinning ministerial decision-making that will eventually arrive through statutory instruments. As your Lordships know, statutory instruments are not generally subject to amendment.
There are so many aspects of the Bill that time precludes me from discussing. This is a significant piece of legislation, and it is disappointing that speakers are under such time constraints. The three key tests of the Bill are that: first, it must secure a safe and traceable supply of nutritious food; secondly, it must ensure ELM schemes are effective, supporting jobs, investment and research for a sustainable environment and planet; and, thirdly, it must insist on high standards, clear equivalence and a level playing field to enhance the health of the nation.
Baroness Parminter (LD) [V]
My Lords,
“God made the land for the people”.
I was reminded of that rallying cry from the Liberal anthem “The Land” as I considered this Bill. There have been many political struggles down the years over the ownership and management of land, of which nearly three quarters in the UK is farmed. This Bill righty seeks a new consensus on how we manage the sometimes competing demands of farmed land and how we reward those who steward it on the people’s behalf.
So, whilst we are saddened this has been necessitated by our leaving the European Union, Liberal Democrats welcome the new approach proposed by the Government of paying farmers and land managers public money for delivering public goods: namely, protecting the environment, on which we depend, to produce healthy food; enhancing biodiversity; and tackling the impacts of climate change—all this at the same time as maintaining the patchwork quilt of fields and rolling hills which create a sense of local place, so valued for our physical and mental well-being. But this is only an enabling Bill, and much remains unclear about how those welcome ambitions will become more than aspirations.
In the past, the more land you had, the more money you received. Thankfully, in the future, payments will depend on delivering agreed legal targets. But, despite the welcome multiannual financial plans, there is no requirement for a budget to be set for the individual component schemes or clarity on the long-term funding framework for farmers.
While the Bill allows for drawing up targets and metrics to deliver the public goods, there is no clarity as to how the new measures will be regulated and enforced. It has been estimated that, at present, farms have just a one in 200 chance of being inspected each year by the Environment Agency. The system already needed radical overhauling, as the government-commissioned review by Dame Glenys Stacey outlined. In future, with a far more complex new system to monitor, it doubly needs it.
Yet the Government have sat on the Stacey review since 2018 and the Bill is silent on any objectives or indications of how a new regulatory framework and anybody administering it might exercise its functions. The Government managed to set these out for the Office for Environmental Protection in the Environment Bill. It is deeply disappointing that the Agriculture Bill gives no sense of how we can guarantee the delivery of the environmental and animal welfare ambitions in it.
It is essential that those ambitions are delivered. Tackling Covid-19 has reminded us how vital it is that our farmers contribute to public health goals by supplying healthy food, while helping us tackle the nature emergency and the worrying decline in biodiversity and wildlife—there has been a 54% drop in farmland birds during my lifetime—and mitigating the effects of climate change by planting trees and restoring peat bogs. The agriculture sector accounts for about 10% of the UK’s greenhouse gas emissions, and we must bring those down, including by cutting on-farm food waste. If food waste was a country, it would be the third-biggest emitter of CO2 on the planet. Among other amendments that my Liberal Democrat colleagues will speak to at later stages of the Bill, we will introduce one requiring that the Secretary of State’s five-yearly UK food security report includes data on how much food is wasted, since we will not be food secure if we produce plenty but much of it is wasted.
Those ambitions will not be delivered either if all government policy does not support them, including future trade policy. Existing UK agriculture policy, agreed as a member of the European Union, has been pivotal in guaranteeing consumers the safety of their food and respecting the welfare of livestock. It has kept out pork from pigs confined in sow stalls, beef from cattle injected with hormones to enhance their growth and chlorinated chicken to wash away the shame of poor husbandry. The Government say that they are sincere in their commitments to maintaining those standards, so why not put it in the Bill? Liberal Democrats will work with others, including the Labour Front Bench and anyone else in the House, to support amendments to the Bill to ensure our high environmental protections and animal welfare standards are not compromised in trade negotiations, which would also fatally undermine farmers who seek to do the right thing for our health, our animals and our countryside.
No financial support or policy changes on productivity measures should undermine the delivery of other public goods. I will oppose any attempt to use the Bill to overturn existing legislation on gene editing, which would be a serious step backwards for animal welfare and public trust in our food. We need to retain the European model of regulation that we are currently signed up to, where no gene editing is allowed outside the lab and mandatory labelling is required, and we should not enable trade deals with countries such as America, where products from genetically modified animals can be marketed. Rather than amending this Bill to obtain even more productivity and profit from individual animals, who are sentient and have intrinsic worth, I hope that this House will endorse the aim of the Bill to support sustainable agriculture that respects the welfare of farmed animals and enhances biodiversity. The direction of travel in this Bill is welcome, but there is more to be done to ensure that we end up rightly rewarding the careful stewardship of the people’s precious countryside.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, living in rural Northern Ireland in the county of Armagh, better known as the garden of Ulster, I have a natural interest in the Bill. I also have an interest in it having served on the agriculture committee of the European Parliament, although that service was in the middle of the last century.
I have watched developments in the common agricultural policy; I have watched the development of the European Union. More recently, the United Kingdom has contributed £20 billion to the EU budget, of which about £8 billion comes back, £4 billion of that to the farming industry in the United Kingdom.
As a result of Brexit, this is the first real United Kingdom agricultural policy for about 50 years. This is due to the end of the application of the common agricultural policy. There are three fundamental questions which still need to be answered—in fairness, the Minister answered one of them, but I want further clarity on the issue. First, will Her Majesty’s Government’s support for the agricultural industry in the United Kingdom continue at the same level as exists from the common agricultural policy at present? Secondly, will the quality and standards of agriculture and food in the United Kingdom decline after we leave the common agricultural policy? Thirdly, will there be provision for the import of cheaper foods, creating unfair competition for our own home producers here in the United Kingdom?
This is a comprehensive Bill that will require much detailed examination in Committee, but there are a number of issues in relation to Northern Ireland that I wish to mention. Agriculture is the main employer in Northern Ireland, employing one in eight people. Rural towns and communities depend on the success of our 25,000 farm enterprises, but beef production income has fallen by £36 million in the past year alone. Income from milk has also fallen. Many farmers are now finding it difficult to stay in business.
Farm structure in Northern Ireland is very different from that in England, hence it is important that agriculture is a devolved matter. For example, farms in Northern Ireland are much smaller than in England. Intensively farmed poultry and pigs are a major product. Near where I live, we have Moy Park, employing 4,000 people dealing with poultry alone.
There are three issues that I wish to mention to the Minister today. One relates to the Northern Ireland protocol, in which I am sure he is well conversant; namely, can the Government give an assurance that there will no checks or tariffs on Northern Ireland agricultural exports into Great Britain, as 50% of our exports are into the British market? It is very important that that is maintained, so I hope that there will be no checks or tariffs. Secondly, can the Government confirm that they do not want lower standards of food safety than in the European Union, as Northern Ireland has to retain the EU’s standards under the protocol? Such lower standards would result in reduced costs of production and make it more difficult for Northern Ireland agricultural producers to compete in the GB market. Finally, on Article 10.2 of the EU Northern Ireland protocol, will UK support for Northern Ireland agriculture be unquestioned, or will the exemption from the EU state aid rules become null and void if the joint committee fails to reach an agreement? Does this in practice mean a continuing EU veto over UK support for Northern Ireland agriculture?
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I am pleased that the long-anticipated Agriculture Bill has finally arrived in your Lordships’ House. There are many good and laudable parts of the Bill, not least the fair trading provisions for farmers and concerns for the environment and wildlife.
This House knows that rural England requires flexibility, and the complications and unintended consequences caused by the European Union’s cap have been well rehearsed. I have repeatedly raised the issue of food security in your Lordships’ House, which must be a top priority for any Government.
We have been reminded of this again recently after the recent lockdown following the Covid pandemic. Shop shelves were stripped bare within hours and you could not buy some products such as flour for weeks. We know we cannot be fully self-sufficient in food as a nation, as nowadays we demand many products that are best produced in warmer climates. However, we can learn from our recent experience and think about how as many people as possible can have access to ethically farmed, good quality, locally sourced food. This is an agricultural issue, an environmental issue and a social justice issue.
The possibility of cheap imports providing even cheaper food is being trumpeted by some and a trade deal with the States has long been thought of as an opportunity to deregulate our farming. As the Bill progresses through its various stages, we will want to test the legislative guarantees to reassure us that these worries will not be proved correct. I will want to explore why the reviews into food security will be so infrequent rather than undertaken on an annual basis.
Elsewhere in the Bill, we will also seek clarity. Environmental land management schemes, with public money for public good, remain a cornerstone of the Bill, yet a cornerstone with so little clarity will fail to support legislation. The definition of biodiversity in the Environment Bill—a piece of legislation this Bill fails to acknowledge—remains unclear, as does this Bill’s lack of definition of the phrase “public good”. Moreover, the tapering of the schemes remains opaque, despite many requests for clarity. Upland farming, for example, is dependent on similar schemes, yet, as far as I can see, remains undervalued by the Bill. Furthermore, issues such as peat restoration and water obstruction which fail to consider legal implications remain unfinished. While welcome, the Bill will need a much great level of clarity as it passes through its various stages if it is to receive support from this House.
Lord Taylor of Holbeach (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests in the Bill as published in the register. The Bill is one of the most important for the countryside and for farming for many years. It does not just tinker with the system. It is not just an Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, with which many noble Lords will be familiar. It is a direct consequence of our 31 January departure from the EU. As such, it is a great opportunity to reinvigorate our farming industry as we in the UK would want it, free from the suffocation of the common agricultural policy.
There is a real need to give farming a boost—a breath of fresh air. Recent events have lessons for us. It is a paradox of the global world: just as the supplies of PPE dried up as a result of the coronavirus pandemic, so can our dependence on cheap food imports from around the world expose us to a similar risk.
The structure of the Bill is essentially that of an enabling Bill, but it is important to note that it does not weaken current commitments to the public good. Farms such as ours support far more trees, hedgerows, spinneys, field margins and nature areas than in my day. It is also important to note that the joint letter that noble Lords received from Liz Truss and George Eustice, Secretaries of State respectively for International Trade and Defra, clearly commits that there will be no lowering of standards, either in animal welfare or food safety. Chlorinated chicken is not on the table.
There is one area to which I would like to see a similar commitment—one in which there is extensive support from both scientists and farmers and, for that matter, here and in Europe. It is breeding for enhanced yields and reducing our use of fertilisers and pesticides—a double whammy, but a positive one. I refer, of course, to gene editing, which is an acceleration of plant breeding that is supported not only by our world-leading scientists here, but also in Europe. The Prime Minister spoke of the technique on the day he was appointed. He used it to demonstrate the perversities of the European justice system.
The agency delivering this game changer would not be multinational agro-giants but institute spin-offs and small SMEs, such as the ones that I am familiar with in my area. The Minister will know that the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture strongly endorsed these techniques, which have a great potential in the developing world. As an industry we would be delivering a greener environment and food security for the nation, and playing our part in feeding the world. I welcome the Bill.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as chairman of the Woodland Trust, chairman of the Royal Veterinary College, a member of the Commission on Food, Farming and the Countryside and vice-president of the RSPB.
I want to say three things on the Bill. As noble Lords have said, it is a once in a lifetime opportunity. I know that the Government regard it as an enabling Bill, but such landmark legislation should have a bit more real meat on the face of the Bill to tackle the important future for farming, food, the environment and climate change. I welcome the Bill’s commitment to public money for public goods, but Ministers must ensure that the environmental land management schemes do not result in a basic level of payment that does not really deliver for the environment but looks like the same old farmers’ support system. There is a real risk of that.
Payments for agricultural productivity which are allowed under the Bill should explicitly be for sustainable productivity. The Bill has too many clauses where the Secretary of State “may” do worthwhile things, such as have an environmental land management scheme or provide financial assistance for public goods. The Bill should say that he “must” in these circumstances—we need duties, not simply powers.
My second point is that the Bill must have as its key principle support for a thriving and sustainable food and farming sector, while delivering public goods. But we know that the negotiation of a free trade deal with the USA could jeopardise the Conservative manifesto commitment that imports will not be permitted to the UK of food produced to lower environmental, animal welfare, food safety and employment standards. To do this would risk undermining UK standards and create unfair competition. Simply to slap a higher tariff on such imports, as is rumoured in the press, would not remove that risk. Trade Ministers continue to reassure us—we have now had a joint letter from the Trade and Environment Ministers. I quote the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, a Minister in the Department for International Trade, who said last week:
“There will be no compromise on high environmental, animal welfare and food standards.”
We are also told that that might be contrary to World Trade Organization rules. Should that not have been thought of by the manifesto writers before they wrote their assurances? Will the Minister tell us what is going on? If there are such strong commitments, surely the Bill should be amended to require agri-food imports to have been produced to equivalent standards to those in the UK.
My third point is one that many noble Lords will have heard before, because it is my current hobby-horse. The list of public goods in Clause 1 that the agricultural sector is to be asked to deliver is very extensive, but these are not the only pressures on land, and they are growing. Land is needed for increased food security, carbon storage, biodiversity, flood management, trees and increased timber self-sufficiency, recreation and health, and built development such as housing, infrastructure and other needs. The Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership found that, to meet a growing UK population’s food, space and energy needs, while protecting the nation’s natural capital, the UK would need a third more land—7 million hectares. I therefore call on the Government to commit in this Bill to develop a land use framework for England, within which these competing needs can be reconciled. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have land use frameworks already, and it is long overdue for England.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a co-chair of the Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Nature Partnership. In some ways, I have a slightly different view, and have always been pretty critical of the state aid that the agriculture and farming industry has received, largely unconditionally—some £3 billion to £4 billion a year. Many of us think that that money could have been spent in much more effective ways, whether in the National Health Service or social security, or in all the other areas that are so demanding on the Treasury. We have a real chance now, outside the European Union, to change that.
At the same time, I am very aware that as well as the climate change crisis facing us globally, there is also a biodiversity challenge for ecosystems and ecosystems services, not just globally but here in the UK. I remind Members of the State of Nature report by the Wildlife Trust, which, to give just a few examples, pointed out that 40% of species in the UK are currently in decline, some 13% are at threat of extinction, and one-quarter of our mammal species are at risk. The reasons for this are due in part to climate change, but the main reason identified is land use for agriculture. Of course, 70% of England, and slightly more of the UK as a whole, is under agriculture and farming management. It was in looking at those trade-offs that I made a personal decision: it is important to direct that subsidy, or state aid, at this crisis, as we have started to direct many other resources at climate change.
I very much welcome the environmental land management scheme set out in the Bill, although I would like to see a lot more detail on it. I believe that this is one way to make sure that we start to meet the biodiversity and ecosystem challenges across our nation—it is not the only way, but as it is the only way the Government are proposing, I support it. This is an emergency and we need to get on with it. For that reason, I speak probably in the opposite direction to some of those involved in the industry itself, and ask why the transition is seven years. It seems to me that, for an emergency, that is an extremely long time. Why can we not take five years to move across to the different system, to make sure that we keep our ecosystems safe and maintain everything that our economy depends on?
I welcome that the Bill mentions agroecology, which is a new way of looking at agriculture and whole-farming systems. I hope that ELMS will take seriously that whole-farming systems approach. My question for the Minister is this. There have been a number of trials of ELMS. How do we see those now? I am concerned about whether farmers will take up these schemes, so that we can have a real effect on our environment.
All environmental measures need to be a long-term commitment; it is no good growing trees if we cut them down in five or seven years. How do we ensure that these improvements, be it peatlands or whatever, are maintained over a long period? Reflecting in particular on my noble friend Lady Parminter’s excellent speech, I wonder also how we will enforce this. We are not good at enforcing environmental regulations in the United Kingdom at the moment, something the Government really need to confront.
Baroness Browning (Con) [V]
My Lords, I very much welcome the commitment given by my noble friend in his opening remarks to the pledges made in the letter of 5 June from the two Secretaries of State about food standards, particularly in relation to food imports. It is worth remembering that, across a range of areas, the benchmark of EU standards, which we will incorporate into UK law and adhere to, is one that we have signed up to in the EU. But in addition to EU rules, several measures have been taken unilaterally by the UK Government in the past—such as the banning of sow stalls and tethers, and veal crates—which were not universally welcomed within the EU. I say to my noble friend: do not just rest on the laurels of the EU. Let us look across the piece at how we can improve and enhance our standards as we go forward, both for the domestic market and for imports. Pesticides, veterinary medicines and issues relating to zoonotic diseases all have to be monitored and need ongoing improvement
Turning to food supply, the Bill makes welcome reference to the small producer. In his opening remarks, my noble friend referred to producer organisations. These have been tried over many years: some have been very successful, and others have failed. The farming community in particular has everything to gain from adding value to food products at the farm gate, rather than leaving a long chain of people to take a slice of the profit. But my noble friend should note the very small producers—farms that produce regional, local food products with which those areas are familiar. Over the years, we have very much admired this in continental countries such as France. There is benefit in adding value at the farm gate, before the product leaves.
This is true not just for supermarket sales but for those very important farmers’ markets, farm shops and food boxes, all of which have grown in popularity in recent years. I hope we will build on that. The advantages are enormous: the food is fresh; it saves on transport costs, which helps the environment; and the people who buy the food get to talk to the very people who produce it. There is an educational element to this. I am a former cookery teacher who is appalled that cookery classes, such as we used to know them, were banned—I am afraid that that was done by a Conservative Government. Domestic science is often derided, but, my gosh, it is a very important life skill. I hope my noble friend will give attention to those who are producing all the raw ingredients that not only help economically but help the health of the nation.
I want to add a word of support for the point made by my noble friend Lord Taylor of Holbeach. As an Agriculture Minister, I introduced the first GM product in this country, way back in the 1990s. It all fell apart, as we know, for all sorts of reasons. But with the right controls I believe that there is much to be gained from looking at this science, particularly in respect of plants. We must make sure that we are not left behind because of people’s fear of the word “gene”.
The Duke of Somerset (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my farming interest, as in the register.
There are many substantive issues in this Bill and around ELMS, and I start with standards. The empty shelves which were so apparent at the start of the lockdown should focus our minds, so I welcome the belated acknowledgment of food production as an aim in the Bill, but I ask: what sort of food production? The Minister says that the Government can square the stated promise of not reducing our standards of welfare, stocking densities and environmental concerns with doing trade deals with countries with lower standards. Therefore, if there is to be one standard for imports and another for home-produced food, it is vital that labelling regulations are updated to give transparent and full information to the shopper, who tends to buy primarily on price considerations. Care also needs to be given to how consumers in cafés and restaurants are properly informed of the origins of their foodstuffs.
The Government have been clear that they intend to take advantage of Brexit freedom from EU red tape and will phase out cross-compliance. So again there is a dichotomy between moving away from the stifling rules and regulations that benighted the CAP and the demand for a high-cost regulatory regime to ensure continuation of our high standards. We must avoid even worse red tape than currently strangles our enterprises. The NFU’s suggestion of a farm standards commission to address that seems laudable.
I hope that ELMS will be far-reaching, including embracing, for example, emerging technologies, such as leaf recognition to target individual plants when spraying. The further development of robotic fruit and vegetable picking is vital if the shortage of foreign labour, so exacerbated by our foolish Brexit policy, is to be avoided.
We are seeing a gradual shift in diet in the UK, not just with less meat being consumed but with demand for locally produced food sold in local shops. The coronavirus has encouraged this trend and people are becoming more conscious of their health. In the post-virus world, we must embrace and encourage this localism, breaking the unfair near-monopolies of the big supermarkets, with their aggressive purchasing tactics.
Cleaner water is clearly targeted in the Bill. However, floods continue to ravage settlements every year. We need to slow up floodwater flows and catch the excess higher up in the hills. Rewilding is a topical discussion and one of the best ways of controlling water is by reintroducing bends into our streams, as well as reintroducing beavers. The successful introduction of beavers to the River Otter in Devon points the way back to better river management regimes. Can the Minister confirm that Defra’s intention is to expedite and encourage the licensing of these native animals, which naturally slow water and create rich environments for wildlife, thus regenerating biodiversity?
The Bill mentions productivity in forestry. I believe that we need to encourage more planting of both conifers for commercial wood use and broadleaf trees for landscape and environmental reasons. However, indigenous broadleaves cannot thrive alongside the grey squirrel. Can the Minister kindly indicate the department’s support for the current immuno- contraception research and rollout?
The UK agriculture industry needs consumer buy-in to support the higher cost of our standards. That means getting the general public to understand farming constraints. I would like to see encouragement in ELMS for farm tours and school groups, and the expansion of permitted footpaths to augment our already world-leading rights-of-way network. There is much to welcome in the Bill. Let us expand and use it to the fullest extent.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the National Farmers Union, and my two sons are involved in both agriculture and land management.
The Bill is a major step forward in laying the foundations for a bright future for agriculture, food production and security, animal welfare and environmental land management. This is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to get it right and we must grasp the issues. I know that Her Majesty’s Government wish for a speedy passage of the Bill in order to facilitate payments to farmers, but that must not stop us scrutinising the Bill most carefully.
I welcome this opportunity to break free from the burden of the common agricultural policy, under which farmers and owners are rewarded based on land and not on outcomes or public good. I believe firmly that the thrust of monetary reward should be targeted towards small and medium-sized farms, those who farm in less-favoured areas, and hill farms. That comprises much of what I voted to leave the EU for, along with at last being able to be in charge of our own affairs.
In the very short time available, I will touch on three subjects: animal health and welfare; food standards; and tariffs. British agriculture and its products, and the manner in which they are produced, have an envious reputation worldwide for excellence. The prevention of disease among farm animals is absolutely critical in ensuring a bright and profitable future for British farming. I know that my noble friend the Minister has a special interest in biosecurity matters, and that is of course a key area. The cost of animal diseases to the British economy and the farmer can be crippling.
When I farmed sheep, the major problem was foot rot, which is still endemic in the national flock today. Sick animals are less productive, have reduced welfare and place a major burden on farmers, and the quality of the end product is compromised. In this Bill we have a real opportunity to reduce and prevent the burden of disease. I shall be tabling an amendment in Committee addressing the health and welfare of livestock, which I hope the Government will look kindly upon.
With regard to food standards and tariffs, I am grateful to my right honourable friends the two Secretaries of State for their joint letter to colleagues yesterday. It was helpful. However, I have received a large number of representations from farmers and others who come from rural communities or who hold an interest in food production and consumption, and many bodies with a related interest, even including the Shrewsbury and Atcham Labour Party. All are furious, as I am, that the parish amendment in the other place was voted down recently.
The joint letter from the Secretaries of State says:
“This UK Government will not compromise on our standards … our manifesto is clear”.
However, none of us would ever be naive enough to view politics as a squeaky-clean business. Indeed, its waters are always somewhat murky. A manifesto can be interpreted in many different ways to suit those implementing it. Words and language can have more than one meaning. Legislation can be altered by numerous mechanisms, some not requiring a vote. For instance, in trade law a free-range egg and a caged egg are considered the same when it comes to the risk imposed specifically by the egg. However, they are both simply eggs. The Government have said that they will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare or food standards. That is absolutely excellent and very much to be applauded, but much more detail and action are needed.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the somewhat belated arrival of the Bill in this House, and I welcome its general sense of direction. However, we have only half the picture in the Bill. We do not yet know the trading environment in which we will be operating and in which these measures will be delivered; nor is the mechanism for delivery and enforcement clear.
During the Brexit campaign, one lot of Brexiteers foresaw a future of cheap food for consumers coming from trade agreements with low-cost countries, while another group envisaged a renaissance of British agriculture where we made our own rules to attain a high degree of self-sufficiency, protected from the burden of Brussels bureaucracy on the one hand and European competition on the other. Of course, those positions were contradictory but they had in common an assumption of a seriously reduced burden of regulation. Cheap food and self-sufficiency both meant lower standards.
Those pressures are still there, but thankfully Ministers have taken a third position: maintain our standards and subsidise public goods. However, we do not know the trading context and the Bill does not really make clear how we deliver a radically different, sustainable and healthier food production system in this country.
As a point of history, the CAP was never popular. We have been in the system for nearly 50 years. Just half way through that I became a Minister for Agriculture when we switched from the much-derided and distorted production subsidy system to the almost equally derided land-based system. There were some supposed advantages of the switch in the Fischler reforms of 2005 but they were not fully realised. At the time, we thought that we would be moving to a new system of multilateral trade agreements in the Doha round. In practice, that never materialised but would have required a substantial dismantling of the production subsidy. As I said, that never happened and we are now in a much more anarchic world trade position.
Applying the direct payment to all agricultural land meant that food, welfare and environmental standards could be made to apply to all agriculture: you lost the subsidy, or part of it, if you did not comply. In practice, regrettably that system of cross-compliance was never properly implemented here or across Europe. However, the fact is that the Bill takes away some of that universality, and that is dangerous, unless we have a wider plan to which we are working, as my noble friend Lady Young said, for an overall framework for land use.
There are three or four omissions from the Bill to which I want to return. First, the defects of the last CAP reforms were seriously compounded in this country by the failure to administer the system effectively. The RPA seriously failed, yet the Bill gives no clarity over how the new system, much more complex and granular, will be administered or what the relation of that is to the machinery to come in the environment Bill.
Secondly, we need tougher measures against the overchemicalisation of farming. I have heard that the reason why pesticide regulation is not explicitly referred to in the Bill is that we have a perfectly adequate domestic system for pesticide regulation. We do not. There are dangers to human health as well as damage to air, soil and water, livestock and biodiversity if we do not reduce the dependence on chemical solutions.
Thirdly, for a new era in agriculture we need to ensure a new generation of those who work the land. We need to make it easier for new, younger farmers to come into the business without necessarily having inherited the land. I want to see a revival of county farms. We also need a wider home-based, skilled and better-paid workforce on the land. Our immigration policy will make dependency on overseas labour impossible for a range of jobs, from seasonal fruit pickers to livestock vets. We need to upgrade the whole domestic labour force. I hope to return to these issues at later stages of the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, we begin this debate at a time when the subject of the Bill is of acute urgency. That is not just for the obvious reason—the looming threat of a crash-out Brexit and the need for farmers to have certainty about what is happening in a few months’ time—but because it is being debated with our countryside and food system in a state of emergency, The nature crisis, the collapse of biodiversity and bioabundance, that has left the UK one of the most nature-deprived nations on earth; the obesity and health crisis associated with nutrient-poor diets; and the dominance of the supermarkets in what we eat: these are the issues that the Bill could and should be tackling.
Instead what we have is a shell, a statement of a few principles that are not generally bad in themselves and are sometimes even admirable, and certainly somewhat improved since earlier iterations of this legislation, but there are few commitments to action. This is a grade D effort, not even a pass mark, when what we need is a sterling, standout, brilliant Bill, something—I am sure the Government will agree with me on this—that is world-leading.
The limitations of our arrangements in your Lordships’ House, imposed not only by Covid but by the usual channels, have ensured that many Peers with valuable contributions to make—my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb among them—have been excluded from this debate. I know they are pushing for a second day of this debate and I hope that is secured. Given the extreme time restrictions on today’s speech, I am going for a checklist of issues that my noble friend will be covering: safeguards on import standards, ensuring that agriculture reaches net-zero carbon as soon as possible, and animal welfare standards.
My focus will be on the farming system and the food system. When farmers hear criticism of the system they often take it as criticism of themselves, but we know that they have been betrayed by decades of failed government policies. They need a Bill that gives them a real choice to build back better. The Government say they support agroecology. Words are good but a direction to the Secretary of State to support whole-farm agroecological systems is far more important.
The Bill also lacks a commitment to organic agriculture. The EU’s 2030 biodiversity strategy plans for 25% of agricultural land there to be organic. The EU is also looking at a 50% reduction in the use of pesticides and cuts to mineral fertiliser use. If the Government want to be world-leading, they have to do better than that. Crucially, we need to ensure that the payments for productivity in Clause 2 do not undermine progress on biodiversity, climate and animal welfare.
Some are arguing that we should downplay nature and sustainability and dial up food production, but that is a false dichotomy that risks doubling down on a food system that is contributing to a perfect storm of a spillover of diseases from wildlife to people, and, like the proponents of genetically modified organisms and crops, it chases after a failed industrialised monoculture. Just as there is a growing consensus on the need to measure economic progress with indicators far more useful than GDP, we must adopt new indicators for agriculture. We need to think about people nourished per hectare, not tonnes of biomass.
Protection for the basic infrastructure of farming—farmers—is also missing. They need financial security for long-term planning. The idea of multiannual financial assistance in the Bill is good but guarantees are needed.
Let us see a commitment to many thousands of new entrants. We need to see the county farms supported. We need to see the green belt used to the best advantage and, as other noble Lords have said, a comprehensive land-use strategy. Then there is democracy. Let us give Northern Ireland control, and let us bring in people’s assemblies to oversee agricultural policy.
We have learned that our holidays this year will be significantly curtailed. Good. Now we need the department and the Government to take the time to listen to the expertise of this House.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I remind the noble Baroness of the speaking limit.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle [V]
We need to stand up for what the people and the environment desperately need: a good, world-leading agriculture Act.
Viscount Ridley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as the owner of a working farm in Northumberland. I support the Bill. I see it as an opportunity to make farming more sustainable environmentally, ecologically and climatically as well as commercially and technologically. So I welcome the emphasis in the Bill on productivity. I seek assurance from the Minister that as far as possible the environmental land management scheme will work by results, not by intentions. One of the great mistakes of subsidies in the past is that they have rewarded pious intentions rather than successful results.
To be sustainable, agriculture needs innovation in precision farming, robotics, drones and other technologies so as to use fewer chemicals more precisely targeted. It needs innovation in genome editing particularly—a precise new breeding technology that enables plant breeders to achieve exactly what they have achieved in the past but much more quickly and precisely, thereby reducing the dependence of crops on chemicals.
There has been a huge debate in recent years between the advocates of land sparing and land sharing. The land sharers are those who suggest that we should farm badly and have wildlife alongside us. The land sparers say no, farm as well as you can but set land aside. The argument has been won by the land sparers. Evidence from Cambridge University and elsewhere has shown clearly that you get not only more wildlife but fewer emissions if you farm as well as you can and then set land aside. That is what I try to practise on my own farm, where we farm as well as we can in the field but leave generous field margins for wildlife and we leave particular meadows—flower meadows, water meadows and so on—also for wildlife. As a result we have increasing numbers of skylarks, yellowhammers, tree sparrows, brown hares, butterflies and bumblebees. If we were to try to feed the world using organic and agroecological methods, we would need to cultivate 82% of the world’s land area instead of 38% as we do today.
The Government have rightly committed to maintaining standards, and a lot of amendments to the Bill are driven by protectionism disguised as animal welfare. Free trade is a huge export opportunity for agriculture. We already export £24 billion worth a year and British lamb, which is world-beating, is competitive in the American market and has a huge opportunity there. Stocking density for poultry in the US is roughly the same as here and there is less campylobacter per head in the US. We should work to improve these standards internationally through the OIE, the world organisation for animal health. The UK has lower standards in some areas—for example, it has lower standards than New Zealand on stunning in abattoirs. We have nothing to fear and lots to gain from world trade. As the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, and my noble friend Lady Browning both mentioned, the issue here is that the European Union has forced us to adopt lower standards. It has forced us to spray more on crops such as sugar beet and potatoes by denying us opportunities in biotechnology.
I quote from a farmer’s email sent to me today:
“Farmers not only can but will do the green if we’re in the black, give farmers back the responsibility and ownership and all may well be amazed at the results Reignite our once bright curiosity to innovate … Allow us to disrupt from within, rather than imposed disruption from outside.”
Baroness Humphreys (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for outlining the provisions as they apply to Wales in this Bill. I very much welcome the inclusion of Schedule 5 on Wales, which provides Welsh Ministers with the powers to provide for the continuation of direct payments to farmers after 2020, giving some security to our farmers in these difficult times. As the Welsh Government intend to introduce an Agriculture (Wales) Bill, expected after next year’s Senedd elections, these are transitional powers, with a sunset clause of 31 December 2024, allowing for consultations with interested parties and the production of a White Paper. Again, I welcome that decision
Agriculture is of course a devolved matter, and this Bill covers areas where the Senedd believes it has competence, particularly in relation to the WTO agreements on agriculture, but which the UK Government believe are reserved. I would be grateful if the noble Lord could update us on the present position of both parties on this issue. Will an LCM be required, or will the matter be resolved through a bilateral agreement? If the latter, can the noble Lord say how such an agreement would operate, and confirm whether either way forward has received Senedd approval?
Farmers in Wales have welcomed the inclusion of food security in the Bill and, in particular, the duty placed on the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament
“at least once every five years”.
They were, however, concerned about the frequency of the reporting requirement. In their evidence to the Senedd’s Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, leaders expressed concerns that a five-year cycle would not
“sufficiently reflect the food security risk to the UK”,
and that the period would be too long,
“particularly through a transition period that could prove to be challenging.”
The lack of a requirement on the UK and Welsh Governments to publish a response and to take action as appropriate was also seen as a deficiency in the Bill. These are issues, along with the inclusion of the devolved Administrations in the methodology planning for the report, that I hope we can discuss in more detail in Committee.
The CCERA committee report also highlights the concerns of farmers’ leaders in the matter of fair dealing with agricultural producers and others in the supply chain. Clause 27 of the Bill is aimed at addressing unfair practices in agri-food supply chains, which disadvantage small, individual businesses operating without strong links between them. The discretionary powers that this clause gives the Secretary of State were queried and a strong, alternative case was made for extending the powers of the Groceries Code Adjudicator in relation to fair dealing with agricultural producers along the whole supply chain. Have the Government given any consideration to this or discussed this alternative with the Welsh Government?
In the matter of identification and traceability of animals, broadly welcomed by farmers, can the noble Lord say whether it is indeed the case that the new multispecies livestock information system will be run by what is essentially the present Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board? If so, how will this UK board, operating in a devolved policy area, be accountable to the Welsh Government? Finally, what steps will be taken to ensure compatibility between the new livestock information system and the Welsh electronic IDCymru system?
Lord Carrington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as farmer and landowner, as set out in the register. I broadly welcome this Bill and will confine my remarks to those areas that have been less widely addressed. I start from the premise that this Bill should principally focus on agriculture.
Public money for public goods is an excellent mantra, and support is directed at the range of activities listed in Chapter 1 of Part 1, on which environmental land management schemes will be based, together with measures to improve productivity in the sector and supporting ancillary activities. However, the seven-year transition period becomes a problem if financial and other details are too sketchy for farmers and land managers to have enough information on which to base investment decisions. We know what basic payment will be paid in 2021, but not in the remaining years.
Similarly, we know that the ELM scheme currently being piloted will not be available to roll out until 2024. Absolutely no financial or other information is available to enable farmers to calculate the likely return of implementing a scheme. Remember, without profit there is a risk that they are not taken up and land is abandoned. Without the BPS, 24% of farms make a loss; return on capital in farming is around 1%, well below returns in other parts of the food industry. Farmers need profits to survive. No doubt farmers on good land will thrive without BPS, as will those in parts of the country where diversification can be driven by good location and so on. But those on the poorer land and in less desirable places will really struggle, and many will leave the industry. My first point is to reduce these uncertainties by providing clarification on the remaining BPS payments and early information on the likely financial returns from ELMs. Accordingly, a delay in implementation to 2021 would make sense.
My second point is the issue of skills, which should be covered by a clause of its own, rather than coming in the catch-all clause on productivity. Work is currently being done on this by a group ably led by the noble Lord, Lord Curry. The establishment of an industry professional body to lay down, monitor, measure and advise on common standards is crucial to the industry and requires government funding to underwrite its role. Such an amendment will be tabled.
The proposed five-yearly review of food security is excellent and, once the methodology is established, one hopes that it will become an annual or biannual event. Although not directly specified, the review should cover both skills in the industry and the profile of participants. Currently, farming is characterised by a high average age, with a third being over 65 and only 3% under 35. An unattractive career image, based on low median earnings, needs to be watched.
My final point relates to intervention in agricultural markets. It is very narrowly drawn and excludes exceptional weather events or animal disease. Intervention seems to depend on reduced market prices, although some events could lead to higher prices, which are not available to farmers if they have nothing to sell. I request that the Minister look at widening the definition of intervention.
In farming, there is an old adage: timeliness is godliness. This should be a guiding principle of this Bill, as the importance of food security is increasingly recognised.
Lord Colgrain (Con)
My Lords, I refer to my farming interests as set out in the register. There are a number of aspects of this Bill that are causing concern to the farming community and on which I have had many representations. I am sure that many noble Lords will want to continue to discuss the principal ones among them, such as food security, high animal welfare standards, the timetable attached to the reduction of the basic payment scheme in advance of any financial details consequent on the introduction of the new ELMs, and the need to maintain domestic food production. There are other aspects of the Bill that lack clear explanation. Two principal areas of concern are the definitions of natural capital and greater public access. It is uncomfortable progressing with this Bill when such critical areas lack clarity. However, will the Minister give a response to three other aspects of the Bill in particular?
The first is the degree of financial support the Government will undertake to provide for our agricultural colleges and other places of education. Given that the university and college structure has already come under severe and sustained financial pressure, which I fear will only increase, can he assure the House that support will be maintained for the current apprenticeship schemes? These will be important at any time, but given the anticipated high rate of national unemployment envisaged across the country, particularly among the young, such schemes have a vital role to play for both rural industry and the individuals who enrol. We must provide a well-educated labour force to bring about the technical and scientific changes that we will seek to introduce to maintain our competitive global position in agricultural production.
The second question relates to forestry. All the mainstream political parties included ambitious tree planting targets in their manifestos before the last election. The reality is that unless more funding is provided, both for initial planting and subsequent maintenance, there is no realistic likelihood of even a small percentage of these targets being achieved. Can the Minister give some comfort on this point, too?
Lastly, as a result of the recommendations put forward last year by the ad hoc committee on the rural economy, of which I was a member, the Minister has undertaken to give an annual report on rural-proofing. I suggest that Defra undertakes a similar annual report on food security, rather than the five-yearly report proposed in the Bill.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is an important Bill that aims to shape the future of farming in our country and promote a food and farming industry in harmony with the environment and which is environmentally sustainable. In this respect I think it builds on the work that many farmers are already undertaking. I am certainly aware, in my own part of the world, that there are farmers who have enthusiastically, over and above any financial incentive, adopted measures to promote the environment in various ways—providing habitats for birds such as the curlew, the lapwing and the endangered grey partridge, or for endangered animal species, such as the brown hare and our beloved red squirrel.
I also support the aims of the Bill in increasing our own food production, particularly in horticulture. When I was an Agriculture Minister some years ago, I was enthusiastic about the role horticulture could play in our country and I hope that the Bill will promote that even further. The Bill, however, presents a lot of challenges for farmers, and I echo the concerns raised that we need to work with farmers—who have had a lot of bureaucratic hurdles over the years and a lot of difficulties with deferred payments to contend with—so that the new system is brought in fairly and with a proper, carefully thought-out transition.
Agriculture is a devolved matter, as we know, and I very much respect that, but as a supporter of decentralisation I hope that in England the Bill will be sensitive to the needs of different regions. Here in Northumberland, we feel very close in many ways to agriculture as it is practised in the Scottish borders, not far away. I believe that co-operation between the devolved authorities will be tremendously important, not least in safeguarding the future of the UK’s own internal market, but also in learning from each other and sharing good practice.
Very valid criticisms have been made on the question of standards and I look forward to supporting the amendments that will be tabled by my noble friends Lord Grantchester, Lady Jones and others in Committee and on Report. It is important to have standards enshrined in the Bill. The biggest challenge to the Bill, however, is the Government’s own trade policy. In this, I very much echo the words of my noble friend Lord Whitty.
We are currently negotiating with the European Union. It seems to make environmental sense to cut down on air miles and to trade with our nearest partners. Already, most our food exports go to the EU, including something like 94% of our sheepmeat. In recent years, the market for lamb has increased more in European countries than in countries outside the EU, so it is vital that we get our trade arrangements with the EU on to a very good footing for the long-term future. It would be crazy to try to leave the EU without a deal—to crash out—and to give our farmers export hurdles as a result. I urge the Government not to let British agriculture down by allowing substandard food imports. I also urge them to prevent our farmers having difficulties in the future in accessing our nearest and biggest export market, in Europe, on which we depend.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his introduction of the Bill. First, I pay tribute to three people from whom we shall not hear during our discussions on the Bill: the Countess of Mar, Baroness Byford and the Earl of Selbourne, who have retired. We will miss their expertise, wise counsel and first-hand experience in agriculture. However, I welcome the interest in agriculture from those who do not usually take part in debates on this subject. Sadly, one-third of those who put their names down to speak cannot do so because of the unusual and regrettable way in which this House is now being run. Can my noble friend confirm that there will be no curtailment of debate whatever in the following stages, so that the House can fulfil its function properly?
Like others who have spoken, I have concerns not only over environmental and welfare standards for trade agreements, but also that the Bill should provide for proper environmental standards in the UK with appropriate regulations, long-term funding and certainty, so that farmers are properly rewarded. In the last 50 years, the amount of land available to feed each person on this planet has dropped from two acres to less than half an acre, and it is still falling. The UK is only 75% self-sufficient in indigenous-type foods. Therefore, food security and food strategy must be included in the Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ridley that high-yield farming and improved biodiversity are not mutually exclusive. The Allerton project has scientifically demonstrated that more than successfully for more than 25 years.
Farming is currently an administrative nightmare. I want to focus on one key practical point of the Bill, which is the scale of change and adjustment for farming as it moves from the arrangements inherited from the EU CAP to those founded on markets in food production. It will become more of a marketplace for farmers to sell public goods to the state acting as buyer on behalf of society, as well as probable private sector activity. The outcome will be a much less standardised industry than the one we have created since World War II, as we move away from full-time commodity production. Achieving that will be a major call on all those involved, not only government and farmers. Thus, I hope my noble friend, like me, will endorse the Welsh Government’s observation:
“Advice should be seen as an investment in the capacity of farmers and farms rather than a cost”.
Farming needs a climate positively supportive of sustained, useful advice, with the necessary conversations and time for reflection and delivery of everything from cost control, the adoption of new technology and generational change to repositioning the business, implementing a diversification project, accepting that land should be let out or understanding the value in public good contracts. This will involve both the private and public sectors and we must ensure that it happens.
This is a watershed moment for British agriculture, and this is a hugely important Bill. Although frustrating in many respects, because it is largely an enabling Bill, it puts in place the legislative framework for many years to come. I support it, but I also say to my noble friend Lord Gardiner, who, with his officials, has, as usual, been so helpful with briefing and information, that it would be disappointing and utterly inappropriate if all amendments, particularly the many cross-party ones that will be tabled, were to be rejected.
Lord Carter of Coles (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is an important Bill and certainly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reform the funding of agriculture in this country. It is confirmed by the number of noble Lords speaking in the debate, which is in contrast to the occasion when one of the Minister’s predecessors, Lord Walton, came to the House in December 1940 to make what he thought was an important speech only to find seven Members in attendance, their main interest being in the allocation of jam. I declare an interest as a farmer, with other rural interests. In the interests of time, I will touch briefly on three issues: security, standards and sustainability.
Agricultural subsidies are rife throughout the world and cost over $500 billion a year. Often, their purpose is to support rural economies and underwrite food security. Covid-19 has shown that in many areas, globalisation can lead to national shortages. While it has not dramatically affected the food supply here, it has been comforting to see how well the food supply chain has functioned in recent months—our thanks should certainly go to those who have kept the shelves full.
On food security, we are 60% self-sufficient but, despite the dramatic performance of our agricultural exports, we run an annual balance of payments deficit of about £24 billion. We welcome the review of sustainability and security but the question is, what level of self-sufficiency should the country aim for? I would be grateful if the Minister commented on that. Also, in the course of policy formulation, what attention is being paid to our ability to pay for the high level of imports that we sustain?
Many noble Lords have spoken eloquently about food standards, and we are absolutely clear—everybody I speak to is clear—that there must be no reduction in those. The joint Secretary of States’ letter yesterday offered some comfort. However, the key is to see how this is dealt with in the Trade Bill, and of course the Government’s intentions, as noble Lords have indicated, remain a matter of concern. The key will be the regulatory framework we put in place to oversee those, and as we work our way through the Bill and the amendments, we will get a better picture.
The sanitary and phytosanitary standards are more visible. One of the things we need to be aware of as we drive for more productivity and efficiency is that we do not want to drive standards down. We want to ensure that those who work in the production and, more importantly, the processing of food have the right working conditions and standards to do their jobs. We must ensure that those standards are maintained.
Finally, I come to the sustainability issue: getting the balance right between environmentally ambitious policies and the need to have a highly productive, quality agricultural sector. It is commendable that the Government have recognised that this will take time, and the transition period is very welcome. However, until we see details of things like the ELMS project, as other noble Lords have indicated, it makes it extraordinarily difficult for farmers to plan. Farming is a long-term activity, as is environmental investment, and the quicker we can see details of the success of the pilot schemes and understand the finer detail, the better we will be able to go forward. Similarly, on issues such as productivity and investment, we need to understand how this will come about and which sectors will be supported, how that money will flow through and how it will go over the coming seven years.
When Lord Walton came to the House in 1940, his objectives were to ensure that the nation had enough food of sufficiently high standards, and of course we wanted to survive. The threats we face have changed, but we should ensure that this legislation is true to the same principles: food security, food standards and sustainability.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, I have no interests to declare but for years I shadowed Agriculture Ministers Gummer and Hogg—now the noble Lord, Lord Deben, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham—and represented a predominantly farming constituency through the BSE and foot and mouth crises.
This is an enabling Bill but is really a legislative pig in a poke. Perhaps inevitably, but with dire consequences, it is entirely dependent on its context. From Clause 1, in which the Secretary of State is given a permissive funding role, the only certainty is uncertainty. That uncertainty combines the forthcoming recession following Covid-19 with the potential failure to achieve a satisfactory Brexit deal in just 28 weeks’ time, creating unprecedented chaos for the UK’s food supplies. That recession, as we already know, will be harder-hitting than anything the country has experienced in our lifetime. Anyone who believes the Government will be willing and able to invest on the scale necessary to make the Bill work is surely living in a fool’s paradise. In the worst possible economic environment, the Government are determined to ditch the tried-and-tested partnership with our neighbours in favour of surrender at the feet of Mr “American farmers first” Trump.
We have all seen the Secretary of States’ letter but frankly, they did not support the Parish amendment, and on the rebound from Brexit, how can they really stand up to Trump? In the words of the NFU president, this could result in us
“opening our ports, shelves and fridges to food which would be illegal to produce here”
and
“would be the work of the insane.”
Now, Trump’s negotiators want us to give up origin labelling—so much for consumer choice.
In the unanimous briefing I have received, I especially welcomed the personal evidence from Juliet Cleave, a livestock farmer in my old constituency. In my four minutes, I obviously cannot do justice to her passionate defence of British agriculture. However, one sentence stands out:
“Unfair competition in the marketplace not only undermines the rural economy but will lead to further consumer confusion.”
In that context, Ministers seem to have failed to secure reciprocal protection for traditional food products such as Cornish pasties, Melton Mowbray pies and Scotch whisky, which are all currently subject to the excellent EU GI scheme. I was assured last year that this would be guaranteed, but that looks like another broken Brexit promise.
With a few weeks to go, the Government are charging hell for leather towards failure to secure a satisfactory deal—or indeed any deal at all. Farmers, consumers and the environment could all be the first victims. The Bill is a totally inadequate corrective. In any circumstances, this would surely be folly. Whether Covid-19 will be still fully with us or will have begun to fade by December, to charge over the cliff without even extending the transition would be ludicrous lunacy.
Lord Krebs (CB) [V]
My Lords, in Gulliver’s Travels, Jonathan Swift wrote of the King of Brobdingnag:
“And he gave it for his opinion, that whoever could make two ears of corn or two blades of grass to grow upon a spot of ground where only one grew before, would deserve better of mankind, and do more essential service to his country than the whole race of politicians put together.”
That is precisely what Norman Borlaug and his fellow scientists did in the middle of the 20th century. The green revolution was a miracle. A combination of genetics, agrochemicals, irrigation and mechanisation meant that between 1960 and 2000, although the world population doubled, the amount of food produced per person increased by 25%. But we now know that this revolution came at a cost: damage to habitats, biodiversity, soils, the climate, freshwater, and farm animal welfare. That is why this Bill is so important and welcome. It gives us the framework for resetting agriculture in this country—for embarking on what has often been called the doubly green revolution. This means harnessing all the power of science and technology to produce more with less: more food with less impact on the environment, the climate and animal welfare. However, the Bill leaves as many questions as it provides answers. Here are just some of the points that should be explored in more detail in Committee. Other noble Lords have also mentioned them in their speeches.
First, how will the delivery of the public goods listed in Clause 1 be measured, who will do the monitoring and enforcement, and what sanctions will be applied to farmers who fail to comply? Will the office for environmental protection have a key role in this?
Secondly, there will inevitably be trade-offs. For instance, increasing productivity may imply extracting more from the land for our consumption and therefore leaving less for the rest of nature. By whom and by what process will these trade-offs be computed? For example, the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, mentioned the debate about land sharing versus land sparing. Will there be a transparent analysis of this approach to managing the trade-off?
Thirdly, the delivery of a cleaner, greener, more productive agriculture will require investment in science and technology, as well as knowledge transfer. What is the Government’s plan for enhancing the necessary science base, including gene editing, and ensuring that this new knowledge will be taken up by farmers?
Fourthly, as many noble Lords have already said, the Government claim that food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards will be the same for domestic and imported food, but what independent scrutiny of this commitment will there be?
Finally, it is often said that the UK has high animal welfare standards. However, we should be aware of the reality that many other European countries are already ahead of us. For example, beak trimming of hens is banned in six other European countries but not here. France and Germany will ban the castration of piglets without anaesthetic by the end of next year, but we have not made this commitment. Does the UK intend to catch up with the best in the world, or will it join the race to the bottom in the pursuit of new trade deals?
The Earl of Lindsay (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing the Bill. In the time available I will raise four brief points and then turn to the important role that standards will play in negotiating trade agreements.
First, do the Government intend to publish an impact assessment before the Bill has finished its parliamentary stages? It is irregular for a Bill, even a framework enabling Bill—and especially a Bill of this consequence —to be sent to Parliament without a primary-stage impact assessment at the very least.
My second question arises from the welcome inclusion of food security. However, like others I believe the required reporting cycle should be more frequent than at least every five years. I also believe it should include reference to emissions, climate change impact and supply chain sustainability to ensure a more complete understanding of the realities. Will my noble friend consider this?
My third question is a United Kingdom question, and I declare my interest as a Scottish farmer. While fully accepting that trade is a reserved matter, I believe the Bill has missed an opportunity to clarify the involvement of devolved nations in setting WTO-compliant ceilings and the assessment of impacts from quotas and tariffs. Will my noble friend look again at these arrangements? In the same vein, I add in passing that this Bill is also an opportunity to embed the principles of fair funding for intra-UK allocation—as detailed in the review by the noble Lord, Lord Bew—to add some transparency to the methodology of how any future budget will be allocated.
My fourth point is that, like many others, I believe this Bill is an opportunity for the Government to adopt an amendment that would enable future access to precision-breeding tools such as new gene-editing technologies.
I now turn to the important role that standards will play in negotiating trade agreements. I have two points. First, I ask my noble friend whether the Government’s welcome commitment that trade negotiations will not compromise the UK’s high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards can be understood as referring to UK production standards as a whole. This is critical as, where any production standards are lower than those required of UK producers, imports will impact on the ability of UK producers to compete on a level playing field.
My second point relates to how the importance of maintaining standards in negotiating trade agreements might best be addressed. The UK’s enviable reputation for high standards in food and farming has been achieved through successive Governments’ support for a national framework of standards, measurement and accreditation, collectively referred to as the United Kingdom Quality Infrastructure, UKQI. Here I declare an interest as the chair of the UK Accreditation Service, UKAS, which is the UK’s national accreditation body and a key component of the UKQI. UKAS accreditation is central to ensuring the effectiveness of standards through underpinning their implementation with a robust verification and certification system.
Furthermore, UKAS and BSI—the national standards body—operate within an international framework, as accreditation and standards are global activities. This mutual recognition of standards and accredited conformity assessment underpins many international trade agreements. Should a trade standards commission be established—and I believe there is a good case for doing so—one of its roles could be to look at how accreditation and linked mutual recognition arrangements underpinning standards should be utilised, protected and, where appropriate, enhanced, as a central part of trade negotiations and agreements.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, in a nation where 50% of food is currently imported—fully 30% from the European Union—the protection of high standards on imported food cannot be overestimated. Anyone who cares about the quality of the food we eat, animal welfare and the environment should be very worried about this Bill, which threatens the very survival of British agriculture, putting both its UK market and its important export markets in the European Union in jeopardy and sacrificing Britain’s high food and animal welfare standards and with them our farming industry.
Legal protections to guarantee animal welfare, food hygiene rules, agricultural workers’ rights, environmental protections on the food we import and targets for reaching net-zero emissions for the agriculture industry are all deliberately omitted from the Bill. Presumably, this is to preserve the prospect of future post-Brexit trade deals with the United States and Pacific Rim countries, which may initially lead to cheaper imports but at a devastating long-term cost to both UK producers and consumers.
The truth is that if existing food standards are not maintained for imports, the UK’s agricultural sector will be unable to compete and our farmers will be faced with a choice of either lowering standards or going out of business. Import prices would then rise, leaving the country dependent on food imports of compromised quality.
Sadly, a majority of MPs voted against proposed new Clause 2, an all-party amendment requiring new international treaties on the import of agricultural and food products to comply with World Trade Organization safety rules and the UK’s own standards. Significantly, it was proposed by the chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Conservative MP Neil Parish, and backed by the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers’ Union, the RSPCA, the Wildlife Trusts, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the Soil Association and the World Wildlife Fund.
Speaking against the proposed new Clause 2 on 13 May, former International Trade Secretary Liam Fox gave the game away, saying that
“the US would walk were the proposals to become law in the United Kingdom, and it would be swiftly followed by others … They do not want the incorporation of UK rules to become a prerequisite to trading agreements with the United Kingdom.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/5/20; col. 323.]
Our high standards are viewed by some outside the EU as a barrier to trade, but having a requirement to uphold environmental standards as part of the Agriculture Bill would surely help prevent a race to the bottom.
The Financial Times reported on 14 May that
“the Department for International Trade was preparing to offer a ‘big concession package’ to US negotiators in the coming months that would reduce the cost of some agricultural imports to unlock a trade deal with Washington.”
Such concessions to the US would effectively impede the prospects of a comprehensive trade deal with the European Union, which provides vital export markets to British farmers. For example, nearly three-quarters of all Welsh food and drink exports and over 90% of Welsh beef and lamb exports were destined for the EU in 2018. I therefore ask the Minister to give a categorical commitment to negotiate agreements with the Welsh and other devolved Governments at all stages of future negotiations.
I agree with my noble friends Lord Whitty and Lady Quin on the need to prioritise a trade deal with the European Union to protect our farmers’ important export markets and our food and environmental standards.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his undoubted commitment to this area. I speak as the daughter of a tenant farmer and having had the privilege to serve in Defra during the coalition. The Bill lists potential public goods and its environmental emphasis is welcome, but little is actually mandated, measured or enforced, as we have heard, and so much will come via secondary legislation. We know that SIs cannot be amended and are almost never rejected.
Above all, as again we have heard, there are a number of elephants in the room, and the prime one is our departure from the EU—our biggest market and the source of much agricultural labour. Minette Batters, the NFU president, rightly identifies the uncertainties here. We do not know what our relationship with the EU will be in only a few months’ time, quite what our immigration system will be, or the nature of any trade deals with other countries. There will be huge challenges for any Government with a huge public debt that will need to support health, social care and our failing industries. Agriculture and the management of land might slip as a priority, however important food security may seem at the moment. That is the backdrop to this Bill, affecting an industry that is, by its very nature, long term and less flexible than others.
There is the seven-year commitment on direct payments, but the notes explain that these could in fact be reduced. The transition becomes meaningless. Can the Minister clarify that? The Bill mentions that financial and other assistance might be made available in exceptional market conditions, but, by implication, it might not. The EU has been strong on rural support. All the powers here seem to be what the Secretary of State no longer needs to do. Can the Minister comment?
The Bill states that high standards will be set regarding food safety, animal welfare and environmental management, but without it being mandated, as we have heard. Where is the regulator here?
We are not in a strong position in trade deals, yet, for example, the standard use of antibiotics may mean that simple infections become untreatable—the next and even more lethal pandemic. That is something to tackle globally, which we were better able to do as part of a large bloc, the EU.
The tenanted sector farms one-third of the agricultural land of England and Wales. That is very vulnerable now. I recall the frequent and long walks my father took with the bank manager. Can the Minister tell us how tenants will be better protected under this Bill—not just tenancies, but their business models, especially in less productive areas such as upland farms?
As we leave the EU, but without new trading arrangements, agriculture is in a very challenging situation. So much of how this industry will fare may depend not on the apparent intentions of the Bill and the undoubted intentions of the Minister, but on these wider decisions.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests. I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak at the Second Reading of such an important piece of legislation and congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his eloquent introduction to it.
We currently have the highest standards of production for animal health, hygiene and welfare. These standards must not be compromised or negotiated away. I refer to those of us who remember the unilateral sow stall and tether ban introduced by a Conservative Government in the late 1990s, yet we continued to allow imports from other EU countries and elsewhere that used them. Consumers voted with their feet, choosing the lower-priced, imported products that did not meet our high standards. As a result, 50% of our pig producers left the market. Now we face similar challenges to our home- produced chicken, beef and flour at the risk of inferior imports that are not produced to our high standards.
I have had a letter, as I am sure many have, from the chair of the FSA, Heather Hancock, in which she clearly states:
“The FSA will publish its risk assessments and its risk management advice to Ministers, who would then decide whether to accept this advice.”
After that, all that would be required to change the existing regulations or authorisations would be for statutory instruments to be laid in Parliament—a mere swipe of the pen and an SI, and our standards could be changed overnight. No primary legislation would be required. For the avoidance of doubt, let us put the case in the Bill for our current standards to be maintained and matched against any imports under any future trade agreement.
I raise the issue of vets and their capacity to meet increased demand for veterinary certification and supervision on import and export checks. This is a very serious issue. I hope my noble friend will today give the House a commitment that we will have enough vets in the UK to provide this service.
Many noble Lords have referred to the sketchy information available on ELMS at this stage. I welcome my noble friend’s commitment to introduce mitigation against flooding as a public good, from which farmers and others will benefit. We have certainly benefited in North Yorkshire from the Pickering Slowing the Flow scheme, but will my noble friend address the issue of reservoirs in the Bill and the stringent requirements of operation, particularly in its review of the Reservoirs Act 1975? How will water storage on farmland be regulated under ELMS? If pilot schemes for ELMS are to start only in 2021, when will the results be known?
I will also raise the position of tenant farmers, who make up 47% of farmers in North Yorkshire and the north of England. Will they continue to benefit under the scheme? Is there a danger that they might be excluded since they do not own the land? What, also, is the future for hill farming?
I pay tribute to our farmers, who work all hours and produce food in all weathers, particularly in this crisis. Now that we have left the European Union, we are not bound by public procurement rules. Will my noble friend ensure that all our schools, hospitals, prisons, care homes, shops, restaurants and homes source our food from the UK to our high standards of animal welfare and hygiene? Will he agree to set up an international trade commission, independent of government, to set the criteria to be met in any negotiation on international trade? Will he agree to defer the phasing out of basic farm payments for one year, particularly in the light of Covid-19? Will he agree that agriculture, horticulture and forestry activities must lie at the heart of farm policy under the Bill?
Baroness Henig (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we all agree that taking back control of our agricultural policy is a defining moment for British farmers and all of us in the United Kingdom. There is agreement that we must lay the strongest foundations possible in the Bill, based on existing high standards of animal welfare, food production, agriculture and environmental standards, which we have established. We must build on them for the future.
We know that we face a climate change emergency, which is having a global impact on land use and food production, and that there are great concerns about the harmful overuse of antibiotics and pesticides. We must all work together to develop sustainable environmental and agricultural policies to deal with the problems facing us and to help farmers to maintain and improve standards. We must not let them be undermined in any way.
Like many others, I am concerned that, having taken back control of our agriculture from the European Union, the Government appear to be on the brink of giving much of it away to the United States in a trade deal that will have little benefit for the United Kingdom, but which will pose grave threats to British farmers, who already face the likelihood of tariffs on food and animal exports to the European Union. The British public have made it clear repeatedly that they do not want to buy chlorinated chicken or beef treated with growth hormones, however cheap they are, so why are we discussing these products with the United States? In the other place, Ministers and government supporters argued that this was an issue for future trade Bills, not for this Bill, but issues of food standards, food hygiene and animal welfare are central to the Bill.
In the other place, there was an attempt to put the Government’s verbal assurances that no changes in standards were being considered into legal form. This was going too far for the Government, but I have no doubt that such an amendment, and many others, will be put forward here in Committee. To help me understand the Government’s position more clearly and guide me on how potential amendments might be framed constructively so as to gain government support, I should like to ask the Minister some questions. He does not need to answer them at the end of the debate, but I would grateful if he could come back to me in writing.
First, what advice have the Government received on the options available to the United Kingdom to set animal welfare and environmental standards for imports in a way that is consistent with World Trade Organization rules? As previous speakers have said, this is an important area where we urgently need clarification.
Secondly, to what extent do the Government’s plans to develop a 21st-century agricultural policy also incorporate international trade? Thirdly, have the Government analysed the impact of changing food standards on the United Kingdom’s farming and broader food sectors? If so, can this analysis be published?
Fourthly—and importantly, as many speakers have pointed out—to what extent do the devolved Administrations have powers over their own food standards? What discussions have so far been held on this issue? Have the Government discussed with potential trade partners an alliance to improve animal welfare and environmental outcomes through trade agreements?
Lastly, what analysis have the Government made of a typical United States text on food within a trade agreement and whether accepting it would mean the United Kingdom having to change our own food rules?
We should all be in agreement on this Bill in terms of grasping the considerable opportunities that it offers, but warm words and vague promises from the Government are not enough. We need greater certainty on standards and on the Government’s strategy in this area, which is what my questions are aimed at finding out. Depending on the Minister’s response, I might seek to bring forward, or support others who bring forward, a number of possible amendments in Committee to strengthen this most important framework Bill.
Earl of Devon (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be back in the Chamber for such a crucial debate. Thanks to many for their tireless work in getting us here in hybrid form; however, I am concerned that this key legislation is the guinea pig for our new system and that it will not get the scrutiny it deserves. I trust that the usual channels will be sympathetic and not rush it through this House. Many more expert voices than mine are silent today. They must be heard.
I refer to my interests as a farmer in Devon, a county renowned for its green and varied landscape, with an ancient tradition of livestock farming. Devon has many small family farms for which basic payments, through no fault of their own, have become key to survival. If we get this wrong, Devon will suffer, causing untold environmental, economic and cultural damage.
The transition to ELMs over the next seven years is particularly concerning. BPS payments decrease from 2021, but ELMs will not be in place until 2024 at the earliest, and 2028 for most. What do farmers do in the interim? Those on marginal farms may simply stop, abandoning farmland to scrub; perhaps this is government policy. Others will do what they can to remain solvent, which means intensifying production and increasing environmental degradation. Even those who farm profitably will hold off capital and environmental improvement—why risk investing now in things you may be paid for in five years’ time?
The result will be the exact opposite of what we need: a decrease in productivity and environmental outcomes, when both need dramatic improvement in the face of international competition and a net-zero target for farming by 2040. Will the Government recognise these dangers and adjust the transition period to avoid them?
Many people have noted that this is the first time since 1947 that we can legislate for agriculture as a sovereign nation—a Brexit dividend for our green and prosperous land. Given coronavirus, comparisons with 1947 are apt. Only months ago, Dieter Helm wrote:
“Food security is largely an empty slogan of lobbyists … It should not be taken seriously.”
He might not say that now, as the nation is acutely aware of food availability and food quality, given the ruthless effect of Covid on those with poor diet. Never has access to healthy, sustainable, affordable, local food been more important.
However, this is not 1947. We were not just an island on the edge of Europe then. We were the centre of the British Empire, with access to food from around the world on terms that we dictated. We lack that bargaining power now. As we negotiate trade deals, we must ensure that our domestic food supply is regularly—annually—monitored and strengthened and that our standards are protected.
The Government resist setting standards, citing existing legislation and a reluctance to tie negotiators’ hands, but both national opinion and history are against them. Ignoring the irony of this Government relying on retained EU law to defend their position, the suggestion that agricultural legislation is not the place to address international trade is just wrong. As Devon warmly remembers, we have been legislating the import and export of wool for more than 500 years, and it was through robust legislative intervention that British farming technology led the agricultural revolution. We did it then and we can do it now.
Finally, this is the Agriculture Bill, not the environmental land management Bill, and the focus must remain on farming. We need a long-term vision for our farms. With more time in Committee, I look forward to discussing soil, carbon, agricultural tenancies, young farmers, gene-editing, productivity and more. But I lack the time now.
The Duke of Wellington (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I declare my agricultural interests as detailed in the register.
It is because of my agricultural interests that I know how much anxiety there currently is in the farming industry, particularly among livestock farmers. Negotiations continue with the European Union to secure a free trade agreement, and we wish our negotiators every success. But, should there be no deal and we have to trade with the EU on World Trade Organization terms, the effect on livestock farmers will be most serious. There are tariffs on beef and lamb going into the EU. Currently, three-quarters of all beef exports from this country go to the EU; the proportion is even higher for sheep meat. Tariffs into the EU will inevitably reduce the prices that farmers receive. Most of the livestock farmers in the four nations of the United Kingdom are small to medium-sized, and they are the ones who will suffer most.
From the Government’s figures for 2018-19—the latest that are available—it is clear that nearly all livestock farms lose money. This is then compensated by basic payments and agri-environment payments, but even after these payments, in 2018-19, the average income of a livestock farmer in a less-favoured area was £15,500 per annum. This is substantially below the minimum wage, and farmers usually work very long hours. Despite these figures, the Government propose to reduce the payments by 5%, starting next year in 2020-21. I cannot see in the Bill any proposal that will support the small to medium-sized livestock farmer from now until the introduction of the environmental land management scheme, which will start in 2024. Therefore, will the Minister try to persuade the Treasury that the lowest band of basic payment—that is, up to £30,000 a year—should be frozen for the next three years?
Is it not in the public interest that the uplands of this country be farmed in a sustainable way, extensively grazed, mainly grass-fed and capturing carbon, as pastures do? This must surely be a public good deserving of public money. Then, while facing a reduction in public support, these same hill farmers are also threatened with tariffs on sales into Europe and a free trade agreement with the United States of America. The latter may well, as part of a larger deal, allow American beef into this country; it is produced to lower standards and will come in at a price that UK farmers will find it difficult to compete with. In the same way that UK fishermen were, we must admit, sacrificed to achieve our entry into the then European Economic Community, so our livestock farmers may still be sacrificed for a US trade deal and no deal with the EU.
When the Minister sums up, I hope that he will reassure me and other noble Lords that the prospects for our smaller hill farmers are not as bleak as they, and I, fear.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for introducing this important debate and I declare my interests as listed in the register.
As the second-largest net contributor to the European Union, for many years we have complained vociferously about the common agricultural policy, which still accounts for around 40% of the EU’s budget. The Government have undertaken to maintain the level of financial support received by farmers during the current Parliament, although the basis for the payments will change. Farmers need to plan for the future and they need to know how the Government’s new land management scheme will work. Can the Minister tell the House how farming businesses will be able to replace their lost income for the three years from 2021? I also ask him to resist the misguided calls being made by some noble Lords to introduce into the Bill measures that would bind this country into retaining full dynamic alignment with EU rules, including its controversial SPS regime. I am not advocating in any way that the UK should lower its food standards, but standards are not two-dimensional: higher or lower. The EU applies some unreasonably strict rules that do not make standards higher, but they do make them more expensive and cumbersome to comply with.
In some areas, the rules are protectionist in their effect, which means that EU consumers have to pay higher prices than they should. For many years, the EU has put too much weight on the precautionary principle. I cannot understand why we have become obsessed with chlorinated chicken as being symbolic of poor standards in animal welfare. Aside from the fact that US poultry farmers tend to use peracetic acid nowadays, the evidence shows that the incidence of campylobacter infection in the UK is nearly five times the level in the US, as already mentioned by my noble friend Lord Ridley. Further, the level of salmonella infections is significantly higher in the EU than in the US. If there was any doubt about the safety of using chlorine to wash vegetables for sale in supermarkets or to keep drinking water and swimming pools safe, it would obviously be banned.
I do not have time to mention the large number of myths which have been put about with regard to US animal welfare standards, but actually, permitted poultry stocking densities in the US and the UK are roughly comparable. As for beef, the UK Veterinary Products Committee concluded that it was unable to support the opinion of the European Commission that the risks from the consumption of meat from hormone-treated cattle may be greater than previously thought.
The UK, as an advocate for free trade and for proportionate regulation at the WTO, should ensure that its own SPS rules, unlike those of the EU, are compliant with the WTO’s SPS regime. This allows countries to maintain standards that are stricter than international ones, but only if those standards are justified by science or by a non-discriminatory lower level of acceptable risk that does not selectively target imports. The UK buys chicken from Brazil, Thailand, and Poland, which is an EU member state. Noble Lords who disagree with me should perhaps investigate stocking densities in any of those countries.
Our new free trade policy, including agreements with the US and Japan, will provide new opportunities for farmers to export their high-quality food products, especially those including lamb, to new markets where they will rightly find strong demand.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
Lord Judd. No? Lord Naseby.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box because I know that he is absolutely dedicated to the whole of the farming industry. I have lived in Bedfordshire for half a century or thereabouts and I represented a part of Northamptonshire for a quarter of a century or thereabouts. I talked recently to our local farmers and heard one simple message: they are worried. They are worried about the transition and climate change, but they wished me to communicate to the Minister that despite all that, they support the NFU’s proposal for a UK trade, food and farming commission.
I want to concentrate on three niche areas, the first of which is horticulture. It was once a thriving and booming industry until rising energy costs and competition with Holland almost killed it off. As you look around the landscape of Bedfordshire and the south of Northamptonshire, you see that it is one of decaying glasshouses. There must be a way to restore horticulture, which is so important to us for food production. This means that obviously we will have to work with renewable energy, and I hope very much that that will be done with further financial and other extra help from Her Majesty’s Government because it will help enormously on our food security. Alongside that, we must have an understanding of the need for temporary labour to be imported in and out of the country to help with harvesting.
The second area is forestry. I declare an interest as someone who has 40 acres of woodland where I have been working with the Forestry Commission through a 10-year management agreement with a small local company called Astwick Forestry, which is run by a wonderful man, Mr Hart. There are exciting opportunities in the world of forestry. The Urban Tree Challenge is strongly supported by my noble friend on the Front Bench, and we now have the exciting round two coming up for open and small woodlands. There is the woodland carbon scheme where others could buy the sequestration to offset their existing emissions. The market for this is one of huge potential and demand, and it is good to see that the Government have set up an additional scheme worth £50 million—the Woodland Carbon Guarantee scheme—to accelerate the growing of trees for carbon capture. That is an embryonic area of forestry which has so much potential for the future. However, I worry a bit about the frequency with which diseased rootstock comes into this country from, dare I say, the continent and other parts of the world.
Thirdly, I turn to a real niche industry. Here I declare another interest in that I have 100 vines at home, which make about 24 bottles of English sparkling wine a year, so I am a niche grower. But there are far bigger growers in Sussex, Kent and other parts of the United Kingdom. We should remember that the Romans produced wine here with great success, so I think that this is an excellent and exciting area. It is interesting to note that in a blind tasting, some of our best production comes alongside, dare I say, French champagne, although I am a member of the Ordre des Coteaux de Champagne. This is a young industry which needs understanding and I hope that the ministry will listen carefully to the pleas of this really niche industry.
Lord Burnett (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I live in a rural area and for many years I used to farm on my own account. I had the honour to serve as Member in the other place for Torridge and West Devon, where I still live. It is one of the most rural constituencies in England and part of it comprises a large swathe of the Dartmoor National Park. I have observed over many years how the United Kingdom’s agricultural industry has made substantial investments of time and money into animal welfare and environmental protection. We rightly have high animal welfare and environmental standards. We concentrate whenever possible on the extensive rearing of livestock and we produce high-quality products.
Given the time constraints in the debate, I shall concentrate on the beef and sheep sector. If there is no agreement with the European Union by the end of this year—and media reports suggest this is likely; even the Governor of the Bank of England has warned banks to prepare for no deal—then the prospects for UK agriculture are extremely bleak.
The sheep sector faces a very damaging period, lasting for years. Approximately 40% of our total sheepmeat production is exported to the European Union. We import very little sheepmeat from the European Union. If we leave the EU without a deal and on WTO terms, our exports to the EU will carry an ad valorem tariff of between 40% and 60%. This product is very price sensitive. Exports will be severely cut and there will be chronic oversupply in the UK. The price of sheepmeat will plummet, leaving our sheep farmers’ stock values decimated. The continuation of the basic payment scheme and other support will not even start to make up the difference.
As to beef, we are net importers from the EU. I understand that we are proposing an ad valorem tariff of approximately 12% on imports of beef into this country from the EU, whereas our exports of beef to the EU will carry an ad valorem tariff of between approximately 40% and 60%. This means that we shall be in the ludicrous position of subsidising imports. Trade in beef products will be severely disrupted, and with dire consequences for our farmers. Stock values may drop substantially.
The pressure will be on the Government to make alternative tariff-free or low-tariff arrangements with non-EU countries. There will be overwhelming pressure on the Government from other sectors of the economy to complete a trade agreement with the United States. My understanding is that any trade agreement would have to be ratified by both Houses of Congress. Senators and members of the House of Representatives from rural areas could refuse to ratify the agreement if the necessary access for their constituents to agricultural products from the UK was not included. The pressure on the Government to conclude an agreement with the US will be overwhelming. Despite their fine words, Ministers come and go. Unless we impose the most compelling and robust statutory prohibitions on the Government, we shall be flooded with cheap, hormone-fed beef that is reared with scant regard for animal welfare and with other products that are equally substandard. For example, there are many crop sprays permitted in the United States which have been outlawed in the EU, and therefore in Britain, for years.
The Government should agree an extension on the transition period until satisfactory arrangements between us and the EU have been agreed, for all businesses in the country not just the agricultural sector. It is not in our interests to import substandard food that will be damaging to the British people. Agriculture in the UK employs, directly or indirectly, approximately 4.1 million individuals. If the Government do not heed those of us who counsel caution, there will also be substantial consequential losses for rural and urban Britain, of jobs, business and other opportunities.
Our farmers produce, and should be encouraged to produce, the basic necessity of life: namely, food.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
Please can I remind the noble Lord of the speaking limit?
Lord Burnett [V]
We owe it to everyone in our country to ensure that we maintain an agricultural sector that continues to provide high-quality, safe food and which continues to respect the environment and animal welfare.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my farming and landowning interests.
I have a lot of good things to say about this Bill but no time to say them. The change to ELMS and the wider approach to the food chain are great—it is about more than just production on the land—but, despite the paper Health and Harmony: The Future for Food, Farming and the Environment in a Green Brexit, there seems to be little in the Bill about nutrition and health.
I will focus my remarks on my worries. First, I worry about the imminent vacuum in our support systems. ELMS is still a long way off. Farmers do not know what it will mean for them. Changes in land management take a long time to implement. A farmer would be mad to start preparing or training now for something that may or may not come in by 2027. Meanwhile, the single farm payment will be mostly gone before farmers know what the Government want them to do to survive. In all fairness, the Government cannot abandon one support system before the way forward on the next is clear.
Secondly, it must now be obvious to everyone, including the Government, that reviewing our nation’s food security only once every five years, after what we have just been through, is madness. I will say no more at this stage.
Thirdly, I would like a clear message in this Bill that we will move forward to allow gene editing in our research programmes. This is a way of speeding up the natural methods of farm breeding to ensure that we can improve the environmental and nutritional outcomes of feeding our ever-expanding human population, both at home and—more particularly, as far as I am concerned —in the developing world.
Fourthly, everyone knows that we must have a clause in this Bill that looks carefully at the importation of goods that would be illegal to produce in this country. Every department, including the DIT, is signed up to this red line, as is the Prime Minister and the vast majority of the voting public, so what objection could there be to putting something on the face of the Bill to make it more difficult for future Administrations to renege on that? In my view, it would make trade negotiations easier. If it is not a matter of discretion during discussions but is the law of the land, then everyone knows precisely where they stand and it disappears as an issue.
My final area for amendment is to introduce a clause allowing Ministers to support businesses and communities in rural areas. Why do we want such a clause in an Agriculture Bill? Because currently it is hard for a family farm to survive on food production or land management alone. We must help the farming households to find cash for jobs off the farm, to ensure the survival of the farm itself. I am not saying that the Government must spend their agricultural budget on the wider rural economy; I am just saying that Farming Ministers should have that arrow in their quiver for use in certain areas or circumstances, should it prove beneficial. To have it there can do no harm.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very clear introduction. An advisory speaking time of four minutes is not long to tackle the far-reaching provisions of this Bill, but I want to use a few of my precious seconds to protest to the Whip on duty about how the Bill is being handled. It is not just the four-minute limit; more importantly, a good number of our fellow Peers from all parties have been scrubbed from speaking at all. Things have reached a pretty pass when Members of your Lordships’ House are prevented from speaking at Second Reading of a Bill of this magnitude. Please do not play the pandemic card in reply. It will be perfectly possible to extend this debate by another half day to enable all who wish to speak to do so. Our fellow Peers deserve no less.
In my remaining time, I will focus on Clause 17 and food security. I remind the House that I am a controlling shareholder in a company that owns a modest amount of farmland. On 14 May, there was a very interesting debate in your Lordships’ House on food security, ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and equally ably replied to by the Minister. However, given the scale of the challenges we face to our future food security, through a combination of 40% increase in the world population—some 4 billion people—the impact of climate change and risks to the ability to move food around the world, Clause 17 is far too bland and unsecure. We need not expressions of hope but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, said, duties on the Government.
I will give three quick examples. First, there needs to be a stated government policy on what level of food security is sought. Currently, it is about 50%. Is that the right level? Should it be higher or lower? The public are entitled to know.
Secondly, the clause says nothing about water. The Environment Agency tells us that we will run short of water within 20 years, and that we are entering, in the words of the chairman of the Environment Agency, “the jaws of death”. Significantly for our food security, the shortage of water will be most acute in the south-east of England, where some of our most productive farmland is located.
Finally, the clause makes no reference to the number of mouths that will have to be fed 20 years or so from now. What will the population of the United Kingdom be? Those numbers are stark. The ONS mid projection suggests that the population of the UK 25 years from now will be 72 million people, an increase of about 6 million, equivalent to two and a half cities the size of Manchester today. To provide the necessary homes, offices and other space for those people is likely to require us to tarmac over an area the size of Bedfordshire.
One of the challenges faced by all Governments is the inevitable public bias towards the present at the expense of the future. People find it hard to give proper weight to problems that lie 20 years away and are, unsurprisingly, inclined to focus on the short-term challenges they face, but if the pandemic has taught us anything it is that an absence of strategic thought and planning can carry a heavy cost, so I shall end with that great Jewish saying, “Start worrying. Details to follow.”
Baroness Mallalieu (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as a small-scale upland sheep farmer and as president of the Countryside Alliance. This is potentially a good Bill that travels in the right direction, and I am grateful to my friend the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, for introducing it, but it is a very bare framework with far too many delegated powers and far too little real detail. It could and should be improved by some additions.
First, our current food, environmental and animal welfare standards were surely not put in place simply to protect the market for our farmers or because we were required to adopt them while we were in the EU. They are there for the benefit of our consumers and we are keeping them post-Brexit presumably because we think they are good and necessary. The Conservative Party’s manifesto at the last general election stated that there would be no compromise on them in our trade talks, and the letter we all got yesterday from the two Secretaries of State said the same, as did the Minister in opening. To allow products which do not meet our standards—even if, as has been suggested in the press, tariffs might be imposed on them to help our producers compete financially—would betray the promise made to the people of this country that they would have good, safe, ethically produced food to our own high standards. If, as we are being repeatedly told, there will be no compromise, will the Minister tell us why that is not simply being put in the Bill? As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, said, the amendment in the other place proposed by Mr Neil Parish was supported on all sides of the House and it, or one like it, needs to be put in the Bill.
At long last we have an opportunity to shape our own agricultural destiny, and the choice is stark, facing, as we do, the end of direct payments under the CAP. It is no exaggeration to say that the single farm payment has been the difference between a loss and break-even for many small and medium-sized family farms, particularly in the uplands where there is very little but livestock farming to turn to. That point was made by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. If you cut direct support to those small farms, as New Zealand did, they go under, and farming becomes the province of large commercial enterprises. Under the Bill, that direct support is reducing and is guaranteed for only a very short time. As others have pointed out, there is then a lacuna in support, and we have no details or figures with which farmers can plan for the future, as plan they must.
The Bill must recognise that the production of food to a high standard, which British farmers primarily do, is the main benefit to us all from our agricultural industry, as well as landscape maintenance and enhancement, wildlife habitat preservation, access to the countryside and so on. We, the public, directly or indirectly, derive benefit from that we should all contribute to its cost. However, productivity and profitability have to go hand in hand with the new environmental land management schemes or they will fail. In my area, Exmoor National Park, I am very encouraged by the trial and test called Exmoor’s Ambition, which is partly funded by Defra. It has been running since 2019 and goes on until next year. It works closely with farmers and land managers to define and develop the public good outcomes which will be required under the ELM scheme, and how farmers will be paid for them. We all want to know the results, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us how those trials are going and if anything is emerging from them as yet. Those schemes must be devised and designed—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
Perhaps the noble Baroness could bring her remarks to a close.
Baroness Mallalieu [V]
I hope they will be devised by farmers, not just by recent environmental studies graduates sitting in an office, which has sometimes been the case with other schemes.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB) [V]
My Lords, this Bill is silent on pesticides and herbicides, yet they are toxic to insects and wildlife. Some may prove carcinogenic, even at a very low dose, and the current regulations on these chemicals need to tighten, not lapse. Several noble Lords have addressed the urgency of this and said that we must value high-quality, ethically farmed UK food. Maintaining current standards and practices will not be enough.
Focusing on issues pertinent to Wales, I thank the Minister and his department for working with the Welsh Government to add to the Bill the powers requested to introduce an agriculture Wales Bill in the next Session. It will allow continuity of support for Welsh farmers and the effective functioning of the UK single market going forward. It will include powers to simplify or improve the basic payment scheme to farmers beyond 2020 and to modify retained direct EU legislation on the financing, management and monitoring of the common agricultural policy and support for rural development.
Schedule 5 to the Bill, the Welsh schedule, will enable Wales’ animal health and welfare framework to be supported by legislation. The framework is based on “prevention is better than cure”, with health improvements through the vet and farm plan that promotes joint working for animal welfare, linked to planned maintenance. The agriculture Wales Bill will echo the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act, with awareness of Wales’ global responsibilities, such as through the network of antibiotic champions to decrease antibiotic use.
The intention behind Clause 27 is to counteract unfair trading practices and to prevent market abuse—that is, larger players in the market exploiting those in relatively weak market positions. However, if this is a reserved power, there must be consent from the Welsh Government because those powers intersect with devolved matters for Wales, including agriculture and agricultural productivity and sustainability. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will strengthen the requirement to engage with the Welsh Government by amendment, as required in the legislative consent Motion, which my noble and learned friend Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd and I support? My noble and learned friend, being unable to speak today, has written to the Minister asking when the draft common framework on agriculture will be available and whether it will contain a dispute resolution mechanism. The UK internal market must function appropriately, enabling the devolved Governments to determine matters such as standards and subsidies.
Although the Explanatory Memorandum recognises that organic production is a devolved competence, the Secretary of State seems to be able to legislate on organics. This confusion needs clarifying by amendment to ensure that the Secretary of State can make organic production regulations falling within devolved competence only with the prior consent of Welsh Ministers.
Regarding the World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture, there remains disagreement between the UK Government and the Welsh Government on whether the WTO clause is wholly reserved. Can the Minister confirm that a bilateral agreement has been reached to require the UK Government to consult the devolved Administrations before bringing forward regulations under this power?
Subject to amendments ensuring consultation and such a framework, I hope we can support the Bill.
Lord Duncan of Springbank (Con) [V]
My Lords, I broadly welcome the Bill, which is timely. I have several questions on which I would like some clarification, if I may. At present, my noble friend will recognise that the agriculture funding system within the EU works to a seven-year timetable, allied to the multiannual financial framework. How will the future funding cycle then be determined within the UK itself, and how shall the devolved nations be involved in the determination of that cycle?
I note the important contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Bew. In his review of farm payments north of the border, he was able to restore a degree of amity between Scottish farmers and those in the rest of the UK. It will be recalled that this was simply because the then Secretary of State for Defra mistook his UK role for his English farming role. There will need to be greater clarity to ensure that this does not happen again.
I have only a few specific points. Coming this late in the debate, I am afraid that several noble Lords have raised them; I will therefore echo those points. First, I echo the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. Will there be a primary stage impact assessment? It will be important, given the scale of the change that the Bill represents, to have a full appreciation of how it will interweave with the future development of policy.
Secondly, I welcome strongly the notion of delivering support for public good. But public good is a nebulous concept and the measurement of it will be a challenge. Noble Lords will be aware that one of the great criticisms farmers have had of the common agricultural policy is its bureaucratic base, along with the measurements and involvement of bureaucracy in establishing conformity to policy. It is often this part that has caused the greatest frustration for farmers, so it would be useful to get some sense of how this public good will be measured and what sanctions might be anticipated for the failure to deliver public good.
My final point rests on perhaps the greatest question yet to come, that of climate change. Farmers will be at the forefront of decarbonising, so I would welcome my noble friend’s comments on how he anticipates the evolving agriculture support policy interweaving with the UK Government’s ongoing commitment to net zero. These elements will become very important and critical in helping farmers themselves to move in this direction. Those are my points.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, this is major legislation and I am sure that the goal of having a better set of arrangements for agriculture than we had under the common agricultural policy, including better environmental land management, has wide support on all sides of this House. However, it is easier to state these goals than to work out how you will make them work. The question just asked by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan, about how public benefit will be measured, regulated and rewarded is very relevant.
Within this policy are two big unresolved tensions. On the one hand, the Government want something better than the common agricultural policy and when Michael Gove was Secretary of State, he set out ambitious objectives for something better. On the other hand is the Government’s ambition for global Britain and their determination to use the new freedoms of an independent trade policy as a result of Brexit to make up for the loss of access, or more constrained access, which there will undoubtedly be, to the EU single market.
The Government tell us that there will be no detriment to the EU standards that are now incorporated in UK law. We have the letter before us from the two Secretaries of State. I am not trying to argue that they are in some way misleading us; in fact, I have great personal respect for the noble Lord, Lord Grimstone, who has become the Trade Minister in this place. But our Ministers are rather naive about trade negotiations and will find that in the force majeure of trade—particularly if we get a bad deal from the EU, which I think we will—they will be under enormous political pressure to demonstrate that they can do deals elsewhere. Those deals will generally be bad deals for British agriculture. They will involve either some sacrifice of standards or increased quotas—for example, for Brazilian beef, US beef and that sort of thing—which will cause a lot of competitive pressure in certain parts of the industry.
That brings me to the second tension—that between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations. Environmental land management strikes me as a matter that should ideally be devolved, but the UK will control the trade negotiations, which will determine a lot of the standards to be applied. My forecast, which I am afraid is pessimistic, is that what happens in the trade negotiations on agriculture will be a cause of huge tension with the devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It will set off political consequences that could threaten the unity of the United Kingdom. I am sorry to be so pessimistic but, while this is a good Bill, it is fatally flawed.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I regret Brexit, but I support the targeting of financial support to farmers to secure environmental enhancement, food security and safety, and the welfare of animals and plants. I hope that small family and hill farms will get a better deal, as opposed to the cereal barons and city-owned megafarms that the CAP seems to favour. However, I will put down a few markers.
First, I fully concur with my noble friend Lord Tyler’s concern over the protection of GIs. Can the Minister tell us the Government’s plans in this respect, whether for Cornish pasties or other products? Secondly, there should be no threat to the production and marketing of kosher and halal food in the wake of Brexit. Thirdly, I fear that the Government will torpedo British farmers’ and consumers’ interests by giving in to US pressure on food standards. As others have said, the US produces food to standards that many of us regard as very bad practice and which EU law prevents. Even if the response was, “We won’t ban them but will require them to be labelled”, that is not an adequate substitute in all cases—and anyway, we know from the experience over GMOs that the US will fight that tooth and nail.
The Government have made much of their manifesto promise, reflected in a letter from the two Secretaries of State, that they would
“not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
The problem is that this pledge was set in the context, and with the caveat, that the Government would not so compromise
“In all our trade negotiations.”
As we have heard, Neil Parish, the Conservative chair of the EFRA Select Committee, clearly did not trust the Government. Hence, he was among those—my colleague Tim Farron was another—who tabled amendments in the other place last month to try to avoid the commitments being, as he put it,
“traded away on the altar of cheap food.”
If the Government’s pledges meant anything, why did they rally their troops to defeat those amendments?
I fear that the Government are leaving themselves plenty of wiggle room. There are reports of a plan to apply tariffs on lower standard products, apparently with the idea that US producers would thus find it uneconomic to send them here. What is the state of play on this reported plan and how does it accord with the manifesto and ministerial pledges? In any case, as the Times columnist Clare Foges put it well on Monday, the pledge not to lower our standards through trade negotiations does not prevent them doing so through domestic legislation; hence the refusal to agree a level playing field in the EU negotiations.
Given the experience in the other place last month, it would seem that the Government could rely on their loyal lobby fodder to get a diminution of standards through. As it was put in the Financial Times yesterday:
“For Mr Johnson … a deal with the US is a strategic imperative … Washington’s price will be … a decisive British break with EU rules and regulations. It is looking more and more as if Mr Johnson is ready to pay this price.”
Mr Johnson might be ready to pay that price, but it is British farmers and consumers who would take the hit. As my noble friend Lady Parminter said at the beginning of this debate, Liberal Democrats are determined to stop that—as, apparently, are noble Lords across the House.
Baroness Worthington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to be able to participate in this important Second Reading debate on the Agriculture Bill and I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill. I would like to take a moment to echo comments from other noble Lords about the inability of our colleagues to participate in this Second Reading debate and to echo the hope there will be no further curtailment of debate around the Bill and the scrutinising of this important framework legislation. It represents a once in a generation opportunity to set a new framework for how we reward farmers and how we manage our land and food systems.
Time is short, as many people have commented. I want to address my comments to the issue of climate change and the ability of this Bill to help us to make some significant strides forward in how we domestically address this issue and by setting world-class policy standards for other countries to adopt and take on. This is the promise of the ELM that the Bill introduces—that we will be shifting from a system focused on public money to support production and move it towards supporting public good. I fully support the Government’s intentions here and, as others have mentioned, I would like to see more detail about the definitions of what ELM will cover and how it will operate.
The principle is a good one and, unlike many sectors of the economy where we are seeking to address climate change, there is often a large debate about how we can price in externalities of climate change—how we can add costs of greenhouse gas pollution to a sector which is currently not paying them. Here, with agriculture, we have the opportunity to redeploy public money that has already been allocated, so it is a fantastic opportunity to align our need to keep land productive, to support farmers, to increase our food security and to improve our balance of trade, and at the same time address climate change.
There is a need for us to explore where there is that great overlap between productive land and high-carbon land. I think it was the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, who pointed out there are different camps when it comes to how we should use our land. We should be trying to direct our public money towards those uses of land which achieve a triple bottom line: rural development and jobs, high-carbon stocks on our land, and increased food security. I think that points us towards investment in the whole system of agro-ecology, where we are producing food and maintaining high biodiversity standards on our lands. Those are the sorts of areas we can explore in Committee and hope to get more flesh on the bones of this important framework legislation.
In the time remaining I want to touch on the context of this Bill being passed with so much uncertainty, both in relation to the trade deal we are expecting with the EU and other potential trade agreements with countries such as the US. It does feel as if we need to be writing some clear legal standards into this legislation to enable to us to conduct those negotiations from a position of strength and not have the potential rolling-back of high environmental standards. In a sense, we need to ensure we can erect a green wall around our own high environmental standards and have those standards upheld for the benefit of the environment and for our rural communities.
The other issue I am concerned about is the shift away from the payment systems we have today; we will lose the stick, as it were, of cross-compliance, where if farmers receive a payment, they are required to adhere to certain environmental standards through cross-compliance. That will be removed, and I am concerned about potential backsliding and who will oversee any potential loss of environment benefit. We have to see a net gain in environmental terms from the Bill and we should be seeking to put in place clear measurements and enforcement mechanisms to make sure that we deliver the things we are expecting from the public money we will continue to spend in this area. I thank noble Lords and look forward to Committee.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I would first like to apologise to my noble friend on the Front Bench; there was a little confusion earlier and I was unable to be here for his opening remarks. I know that it does not fuss him, but I would like to apologise anyway. I also declare my interest: my earliest memory as a child is of my father’s business. He raised chickens and grew tomatoes and cucumbers, and even had a few pigs—until the business went bust.
I will start with three points. First, the fundamental purpose of farming, which we must never forget, is to feed the people. Secondly, the common agricultural policy is one of the worst food deals since Eve plucked the apple and handed it to Adam. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, competition and free markets have lifted vast parts of the world out of starvation and food shortage. Even more than that, competition has provided and continues to provide a wider range of food, at a lower price and of higher quality. It comes about through endless innovation rather than through endless regulation. It is a point that my noble friend Lord Ridley made with such passion and excellence, and it is the inexorable lesson of the last 200 years.
We owe our farmers a great vote of thanks; they form an exceptional industry, but I believe that the best is yet to come. Of course, they face a process of change, and that brings with it uncertainties—and opportunity. So I welcome very much the seven years of transition that the Bill offers—I think it will be needed—and I also welcome the emphasis on the environment. Good farmers do not need lectures on environmental standards —of course they do not—but I do welcome the encouragement to them that the Bill offers.
There is a game being played by some with this Bill; it is called a distraction technique. You will recognise it. Great magicians have it, yobs hanging around cash machines waiting for an elderly lady have it. Everything is not what it seems, and every argument is not what it seems. We hear, “We must stop the race to the bottom.” What race to the bottom? Show me it. “What about chlorine?” I hear. Good question; we wash a lot of our foodstuffs in chlorine anyway, we wash our children in chlorine in swimming pools, and we actually drink chlorine. Today, at a British supermarket down the road, you can buy a whole chicken for £1.87—a chicken which satisfies all our safety standards. It also satisfies consumers—and that, I remind you, is the first and finest purpose of agriculture: satisfying consumers.
One of the many advantages that Brexit will bring to us is better labelling. Imagine that on the shelf in your local supermarket you have a chicken labelled, “Bred in Britain and Produced with Pride”, and that alongside it there is a chicken that says, “Chlorinated in Kansas”. No doubt which one, if noble Lords will excuse the pun, is going to fly off the shelves. Chlorine is not a problem.
We are looking for a brighter, greener, more innovative future, and this Bill helps farmers produce that. I wish it well—even if it comes 60 years too late for my father.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
[Inaudible]—family farm in three counties of Wales, and in Suffolk.
My Lords, this Bill is a sea change from its ill-fated predecessor. That was heavily criticised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House, which expressed its dismay at the major transfer of powers from the EU to Ministers of the Crown, bypassing Parliament and the devolved legislatures in Wales and Northern Ireland. Not for the first time, Whitehall sought to claw back powers that I had won for the Welsh Office as Secretary of State for Wales and that formed one of the building blocks for the Welsh Assembly.
The briefing from Defra, for which I am grateful, makes it clear that leaving the CAP will enable the devolved Administrations to design policies that will meet their own needs. Wales and Northern Ireland have asked the Government to extend certain powers in the Bill to them. I ask the Minister to summarise what they are. Provided they do not undermine the principle of devolution—that it is the Welsh Government who decide what is best for Welsh farmers, the Welsh countryside and Welsh consumers—I would welcome them.
I support the emphasis placed by my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, on the need to involve the Welsh Government in any international negotiations which concern Welsh produce. I hope to expand on that at a later stage.
There is value within the United Kingdom single market for standards and assistance to be on the same lines if so desired.
My next point is on the maintenance of the high standards that we now have for food production and the protection of consumers in this country. The noble Earl, Lord Shrewsbury, raised animal health. We have our occasional epidemics and my family have been too close to foot and mouth in the past. Another problem has been BSE. Tuberculosis in cattle has not been properly resolved. We have gone backwards in this area. I do not want a lowering of our standards to accommodate a general trade deal, which the Government seem determined to get. The issue is not solely chlorinated chicken or hormone-fed beef; British farmers, wherever they are, are proud of the standards that we have in this country. We do not want to see the door opened to lower-cost, poorly produced food imports.
It was said in the Commons that imports produced to lower standards than ours pose a real threat to UK agriculture. Without sufficient safeguards, we could see British farmers significantly undermined, while turning a blind eye to environmental degradation and poor environmental standards abroad. Agricultural goods should be imported into the UK only if the standards to which they were produced are as high as or higher than the UK standards. I welcome the assurances on this point.
The small farmers of Wales, Cumbria and elsewhere operate on fairly thin margins. I welcome the emphasis on the environment for all our people, but we must remember that the countryside can be enjoyed by everyone only if there are people living there. I trust that in the disbursement of funds to agriculture, this will be borne in mind.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest: my stepson is a farmer in Scotland. I also associate myself with a remark made originally by the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, and followed by the noble Lord, Lord Duncan of Springbank: that it is surprising that no impact assessment is before us.
Noble Lords may, like me, have received a briefing from the National Farmers’ Union of Scotland—16 of the Bill’s clauses apply to Scotland—and it has sought to have a particular point made in this debate: that where the Bill, or indeed Brexit, creates new financial and regulatory frameworks, Scottish interests must be represented.
It is plain from the debate so far that there is real anxiety that little protection is offered to domestic producers from cheaper imported food produced to lower standards. We heard what the Minister said, which I of course accepted; we have seen what Ministers have written about, but I have had a lot of ministerial letters in my time and, to be quite blunt about it, their effect normally lasts only until the subsequent letter, which begins “In view of changed circumstances…” I cannot understand why the all-party amendment proposed by Neil Parish MP in the Commons was not accepted by the Government. At one step, they could have removed the anxiety and suspicion that the Bill has created in this matter.
But of course, it is more than ministerial letters; the Government’s manifesto promises that
“we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
We know the extent to which the Government feel obliged to meet the terms of their manifesto, so how can they possibly meet them in the circumstances that we are discussing? There is only one way in which it can be done, and that is that in any trade treaty it should be an essential—and I use that word in the legal sense—condition that the promise is met in terms.
I have already said that 16 clauses in the Bill apply to Scotland, and I want to finish by referring to Clause 17, on the duty to report to Parliament. Food security has been a live issue in recent weeks, but it seems to give the Government far too wide a measure of discretion that the obligation arising under that clause should be only at five-yearly intervals. I heard what the Minister said, that there might well be occasions when an earlier report was made to Parliament, but is this not a matter of such significance and importance that the obligation should be met annually? Food security is a strategic requirement of every Government; this Government should recognise that.
The Deputy Speaker
Before the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Trees, I should advise the House that the noble Lord, Lord Judd, will now speak as the first speaker in the second section of the Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill and before the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose.
Lord Trees (CB) [V]
My Lords, this Bill is of colossal importance. It will involve a revolution in our countryside and affect our food supply, the environment, the rural economy and the lives of many thousands of people. I have never before had so many emails from the public about amending a Bill. Thus, it is regrettable that we are given such little time to scrutinise it in the House.
That said, there is much to welcome in the Bill, but it also raises major questions. I will focus on those pertaining to animal health and welfare and the sustainability of livestock farming, notably of cattle and sheep.
The Bill proposes support for
“protecting or improving the health or welfare of livestock”.
As a vet, I welcome this. While it is intrinsically the ethical thing to do, it also addresses other key goals in the Bill, notably increasing productivity, safeguarding food security and mitigating climate change. Proper control of enteric worms in sheep, for example, can reduce greenhouse gases by 10% per unit of production. It would however be helpful to know more about how this support will be delivered, what the baseline is, and how improvement will be measured. I ask the Minister to answer those questions, if need be in writing.
Cattle and sheep farming are a pillar of the rural economy, particularly in our upland areas, and help maintain the countryside we love. But there are more than just aesthetic or sentimental reasons to value this activity. Cattle and sheep turn grass into products that we can eat, and which provide wholesome, nutritious food, contributing to our food security. Cattle and sheep are maintained at high standards of welfare and husbandry, from birth to slaughter. The use of antibiotics is minimal, and only for disease control. In the UK, across all animals, antibiotic use has fallen by 53% in recent years, and is well below the O’Neill commission target. What about greenhouse gases? Data from the FAO shows that UK cattle emit 75% less CO2 and methane per kilogram of meat than the global average. Finally, grazing animals put back into the soil nutrients and essential fibre.
Our grazing livestock enterprises are not only important for our rural economy and the maintenance of our countryside but are incomparably good for animal welfare, compatible with afforestation and initiatives to improve biodiversity, which I welcome, and produce food in a much more environmentally friendly way than many other global systems—think of cattle reared on cleared rainforest. Yet this aspect of our farming is most vulnerable to the reduction in direct payments. If we allow the importation of livestock products without requiring the same high level of animal welfare, environmental standards and food safety that we demand of our own farmers, we risk destroying our indigenous system. This would be to export poor welfare and poor environmental standards, and would be deleterious to climate change mitigation globally. It would be a classic example of knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing.
I would like to hear from the Minister how the Government will respond to calls either to enshrine legal minimum standards in the Bill, or to establish a trade, food and farming commission, to which a former Secretary of State was committed, and what powers it might have.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
Welcome back, my Lords. We resume debate on the Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill. The first speaker I will call is the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
We do not seem to be connecting with the noble Lord, so I shall call the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose.
The Duke of Montrose (Con) [V]
My Lords, I must thank my noble friend the Minister and his officials for the time they have spent briefing us on the interpretation of the Bill. I also declare my interest as a hill farmer and livestock breeder in Scotland.
The legislation before the House has not been shy in hiding that it is purely an enabling Bill for the Secretary of State. Fortunately, it allows us a fair bit of scrutiny but, at the same time, I am struck by the absence of any hint of common frameworks for the devolved Administrations. In April 2019, the Government reckoned that there were 21 policy areas where negotiation was needed on common frameworks. Can the Minister say in how many of those areas frameworks have been achieved and how many more are left in consideration?
One thing that has obviously been put to one side in the Bill is any sense of a common framework for carcass classification, which, given the quantities of the product that are traded between the devolved components of the UK, would seem like an obvious area for consideration. What effort will be made to achieve some common direction here? The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, pointed out the missing Dimbleby review of food policy. It is not easy to make sense of the finer points of an agricultural Bill without a clear assessment of the current role that both agriculture and food are expected to play.
The present message coming through to me is that farmers are being clearly told that we must guard the purity of any water and contribute to the national target for net zero carbon emissions, but much of the other side of the equation is missing. Unless there is a scientific breakthrough, there can be no doubt that this will mean a loss of land for productive capacity, and it is hard to see that happening without a loss of farm units and national self-sufficiency. The upside of Brexit is supposed to be trade. The farmers in this country would be very ready to compete but their basic request is for a level playing field.
I think that we all received the joint letter from the Secretaries of State saying how the Government promise to maintain our high standards, but they have already rejected the opportunity to put those on the face of the Bill. If the standards that we wish for come to be seen in any way as restrictive to trade, I am still puzzled to know how they will be enforceable in the face of any WTO charge. The boundaries that we are trying to maintain do not infringe any sanitary or phytosanitary issues. I hope that the Minister will make it plainer to us what the Government would like to see.
Another factor that we are dealing with centres around trading with the United States. We are in the middle of a drive for agriculture to contribute to net zero carbon equivalence. Money and research are going into this topic on both sides of the Atlantic and, in the US, much of it is to do with achieving faster growth rates and using additives that are not allowed under EU rules. The effect of this will be that United States beef could claim a lower carbon footprint than we can achieve in this country, especially if the US can find an ecological way of transporting it.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My apologies for the disruption to services, but I am afraid that my computer went down completely just before I was called. I record my warmest appreciation to everybody who has worked so hard to make sure that I am able to join the debate— thank you. My relevant interests are all unremunerated and are in the register. I should perhaps specifically mention that I am a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on National Parks and a vice-president of the Campaign for National Parks.
While there is a great deal to be welcomed in this Bill, and the Minister is personally to be congratulated on the part he has played in bringing it before us, there is still a great deal to be put right. Too much is aspirational or only indicative. With teeth and sufficient scope, ELMS could prove a significant step forward. Does the Minister therefore not agree that this must inescapably entail more effective alignment of the Bill with the Climate Change Act and Paris Agreement?
We need practical provision to meet the challenge of food security and muscular methods of enforcement to ensure that public payments for public goods are really delivered and not just a theory. We need specific identification of such public goods: for example, quality of air and soil, reduction of pollution, well-being of uplands, provision of our vital precious landscapes, enhancement and development of woodland and remaining wilderness, peat bogs, the countryside in general, public access to that countryside and rights of way, and urgent regeneration of biodiversity—plants, animals, insects and wildlife. As has been mentioned by several noble Lords, we need stringent regulation of imported foodstuffs, to make certain that our higher standards are not in any way undermined, not least in any trade deal with the United States. We should also spell out and reinforce the responsibilities and duties of the national parks, areas of outstanding national beauty and other special sites in developing a complementary policy in these spheres.
The National Trust has reminded us that soil degradation in England and Wales cost the economy £1.2 billion per year, that between 2009 and 2014 the distribution of British bee species declined by 49% and that farmland birds—
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
May I remind the noble Lord, Lord Judd, of the speaking time limit?
Lord Judd [V]
My Lords, it would be sad if this potentially very significant Bill were to become, in the end, just another recycling of good intentions. It needs muscle and teeth. This House must now get down to the task of providing that muscle and teeth. That is very much our responsibility in the weeks and months ahead.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to speak at Second Reading of the Agriculture Bill. As we have heard, it is the first major reform of agricultural policy for many years. As we form new relationships, it will determine new systems to support our farmers and growers and protect the environment. What is most important for agriculture is to maintain high standards of quality. Our aims should be standards at least as good as those of the European Union, if not better, and that we maintain food security.
There is no benefit for the UK in our farmers and growers seeking to deregulate, lower standards and take part in a race to the bottom. We want the highest possible standards for food produced and consumed in the UK. We also need to ensure that where we export food, it is recognised as some of the best in the world. I support my noble friend Lady Mallalieu’s point that Ministers’ welcome commitments should be in the Bill. I cannot understand why they are not prepared to do that.
I pay tribute to our farmers and growers and their work during the Covid-19 crisis. They have worked with others in the supply chain to keep food on the nation’s table. I support the aim of the Bill to provide public money for public good but, as my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone said, this must be for doing real public good and not a continuation of the old regime in all but name.
I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, confirmed that there is no possibility of chlorine-washed chicken or hormone-injected beef being imported and allowed to be consumed in the UK. It is good to hear that, but can he go further and confirm that, in all the food that we produce and import in the UK, there is no possibility of standards being any lower than those of the EU and that, in fact, the Government intend to go further and, where possible, introduce even higher standards? Will he confirm that, in looking for those higher standards, there will be no possibility of unintentionally weakening standards? The weakening of standards of imported foods would devastate the livelihoods of our farmers and growers and increase the risk to the general population.
I very much support the aims of the Bill to support and regenerate biodiversity and to support public understanding of the environment. Will the Minister set out for the House how he sees that being achieved? Further, will he outline how he sees the powers of the Bill helping to prevent, reduce and protect us from environmental hazards, such as flooding, which have been more and more of a problem in recent years?
Also, will the noble Lord set out how he sees public access to the countryside being maintained and improved? Will he confirm that farmers and growers will be able to receive financial assistance to create new public paths and make improvements to existing routes to enable more people to get outdoors and enjoy our wonderful countryside? The Bill should work to help our precious path network be better maintained. Where farmers and growers are encouraged to do that, they should be properly rewarded for doing so.
I am conscious that I have asked a number of questions. If the noble Lord cannot answer them today, I would appreciate a letter being sent to me and to other noble Lords, and a copy being put in the Library of the House.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, we are having a very long and complicated discussion on a Bill that is a framework. It is long and complicated because it is a framework. We basically have a series of good intentions here—and good intentions are the road to hell. If we do not get some clarification during the Bill’s passage, noble Lords will have a very busy time voting. I think the Minister knows that and he might want to have a chat with the person who drafted the Bill. Clause 1(1) goes up to paragraph (j); agriculture is first mentioned at paragraph (i).
The Bill talks about how we are to deliver all these wonderful things for the environment. How will we do that? The delivery system is potentially there: it is those who farm and work the land at the moment. They do not know, or are unsure, how they will be supported. British agriculture has needed support from the state, either multinationally or by the nation itself, to make itself productive since about 1870. It was called the great agricultural depression, when the steam engine opened up the prairie and the pampas to production. We have been in decline since then. We cannot compete. It is historically proven. There is a lovely document in the House of Commons Library that shows this.
How will we make sure that the farmer is there to deliver the public good for public money? We must make sure that they know what they are doing. Farmers are currently concentrated on food production. That is what they do, that is what they have been trained to do and that is the culture. To move away from that, they will need the support and encouragement of the state, and a degree of certainty. At the moment, that is not there.
We have another ritual dance when a Minister says, “I’m not going to do that”, but it is not in the legislation. We then come back to the Minister and say, “Yes, but you won’t be there for ever, although you have a wonderful attitude and we know you wouldn’t do it yourself.” It has always been true and it has always been there. We need something in the Bill that defines what we will do here and how the farmer should be supported.
To put it bluntly, we have had many sets of briefing come in. The NFU states the worries and problems of food producers. We should be able to carry on doing this; that is what we do. Then I got one from the Ramblers’ Association that says: if we are supposed to be providing access to the countryside as a public good, why do we not make sure that we pay landowners to make sure that there are public paths to be used, with all the public health advantages et cetera? If the farmer is there and told that they will be supported, that might just work. We might get gates and solid paths around the edge of the fields. If we do not know what is going on, we will not get interaction from the farming community and those who work the land. We have to try to build that trust and give it a firm basis. The fact that a Minister thinks that it is a good idea and will not change it will not help, very often.
Ministers generally last a couple of years in post and civil servants about the same length of time, but planning on this has to be decades long to really get it going. Will the Minister bear in mind, when amendments are moved during the passage of the Bill, that that is the sort of encouragement we will need to make sure that our delivery system, the farming community, is much more compliant?
The Earl of Sandwich (CB) [V]
My Lords, first, I pay tribute to all the farmers who have suffered during this pandemic, coming on top of last winter’s floods. Ambridge was slow off the mark, but after the initial shock, most farmers responded well. Many have found alternative local means of survival. They are complaining about lockdown less than others because they have to be outdoors, feeding the nation, but they rightly complain about some aspects of the Bill.
I come from a generation horrified by the food mountains and fortress Europe of the 1970s, with the obvious inequalities in farming, the waste and the lack of protection for developing countries. I belonged to organisations that campaigned against these things. We can now say that they succeeded, although there is always more to be done. The UK, among others, shifted the argument away from deserving French farmers to a wider demand for a greener Europe less dependent on subsidies. Here we are, still benefiting from the old system but gradually dismantling it at last in favour of policies that help the environment and the planet.
Since then, my wife and I have inherited largely tenanted farmland, and have come to see the other side of the picture: the continuing importance of direct farm payments in the family farm economy. The Bill is necessary but the gradual phasing out of these payments is absolutely essential, especially when you think about how much agriculture has been set back by the virus.
I will support any Lords amendments on standards and welfare. Noble Lords may have noticed that MPs from the West Country have been heading such amendments. They are no more than common sense coming from MPs who represent people who live and breathe farming. They also reflect the views of a large number of farming organisations, as has already been mentioned.
I read Victoria Prentis’s response to those amendments. She argued that they are “well-meaning” but will have “unintended consequences” and said that “all EU standards” will become part of domestic law by next year. These are merely reassurances. How can she know that? She said that the proposed new clauses would disrupt our food supplies and risk our potato and whisky exports. How can she know that? After the transition, anything could happen. We are already deep in negotiation with the US. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, and other noble Lords said—remembering TTIP and the EU’s own battles—we will be under considerable pressure to lower standards.
Vets are also concerned about the preventive use of antibiotics in farming, which is due to be banned in 2022. When George Eustice describes US animal welfare as “woefully deficient”, he is thinking of mass medication with antibiotics. I can understand differences between Ministers on these issues but this may be one that Defra got right and the Trade Secretary got wrong. I read the joint letter.
On forestry, I have sympathy with the successive government attempts to combine better management with more respect for wildlife and the environment—excluding squirrels, of course. Nowadays, there is no shortage of jargon in the Forestry Commission’s draft woodland plan.
What about the lack of investment? With climate change, there was euphoria about trees saving the planet —many organisations took advantage of that—but even before the virus came along, any enthusiasm in the Treasury had vanished. Where has the money gone? Perhaps too much goes into deer fencing, planning for deer fencing and consultancy of every kind.
Finally, I expect that the Minister has had a briefing from the Ramblers. The association makes a lot of demands but it has a point about funding for rights of way. As an owner, I have generally found RoW officers extremely co-operative, but the machinery seems to turn slowly. Can we have an assurance that rights-of-way matching grants will be more generous and more forthcoming?
Lord McCrea of Magherafelt and Cookstown (DUP) [V]
I draw noble Lords’ attention to my interests in the register and express my total disappointment that my noble friend Lord Morrow could not participate in this debate, even though he had prepared for it.
Under the Bill, the Government would be required to report on the state of the nation’s food security every five years. Surely this is a relevant and important measure in the light of the empty shelves and food queues that we have experienced in recent months—something that I had never experienced before in my lifetime. However, I am convinced that farmers throughout the United Kingdom believe that this should be strengthened in the Bill and made a yearly requirement instead of a five-yearly one. By doing so, the Government and producers would have a clear understanding of how much of our nation’s food comes from domestic producers, thereby assisting us in our endeavours to be as self-sufficient as possible. I believe that this would be in the national interest, and I encourage the farming industry to be both stable and efficient in future.
With Brexit, the United Kingdom is fundamentally reassessing its trade relationship with partners in the European Union and the rest of the world. I have no doubt that many see major opportunities for the United Kingdom but undoubtedly there are also challenges. These trade negotiations coincide with one of the most serious crises that the world has faced in a generation, in the form of the coronavirus, and the ongoing challenges of climate change and biodiversity decline. A future trade policy that undermines our farmers will mean that a common goal of a more prosperous, sustainable and nature-friendly food and farming sector will be made much harder to achieve, and our nation’s already declining food self-sufficiency and security will continue to be eroded. The UK will also have missed an opportunity to set out its stall as being serious about tackling its global footprint and being at the forefront of sustainable production and climate-friendly farming across the world.
If UK farming is to face a future as a vital strategic sector, producing the food that we eat and meeting the challenges of climate change, food and security and the high expectations of the UK public in the way that we treat our farm animals and wildlife, the Bill must not undermine that very goal by allowing in food imports that fail to meet its high ideals. As in Northern Ireland, farmers and growers across the United Kingdom are very proud of their high standards of production. It is important that UK farmers are not in any way unfairly disadvantaged through the imposition of high costs, direct or indirect, that are not shared by overseas competitors exporting food to the United Kingdom. It is therefore imperative that the Agriculture Bill is amended to ensure that agri-food imports are produced to environmental animal welfare and food safety standards that are at least equivalent to those required of producers in the United Kingdom, which are so highly valued by the British public.
The British Government stated that they had no intention of allowing the UK’s high standards of production to be undermined after the UK left the European Union, but that will be the outcome of allowing the import of food produced at a lower standard. UK consumers will be left hostage to food on the market that will be unsafe and our UK farming industry seriously undermined. If the Government fail to amend the Bill accordingly, I believe they will be failing not only our food-producing industry but the UK consumer.
Lord Jopling (Con) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House of my farming interests.
I must say that when I read the Bill I came to the conclusion that others have come to: I found it principally focused on environmental issues rather than farming issues. Of course I regard the environmental issues as vital; indeed, I remind the House that I was the first Minister ever to put agricultural chemicals under statutory control, and I was the instigator of the very successful environmentally sensitive area scheme that was later adopted throughout the CAP. However, this is an Agriculture Bill and, as others have said, it is, frankly, vague on the economic future of British agriculture.
I first worked in the industry as the 1947 Act was taking effect. I remind the House that it was introduced because, as a result of the war, we were perilously short of homegrown food—hence food rationing continued for many years after 1945. In the early 1970s, before we joined the EC, it was succeeded by support for the agricultural industry through tariffs on imports that matched the CAP arrangements that continue until today. Of course, that has been supplemented by the direct payments arrangements. It is strange that the objectives for agriculture in both the 1947 Act and the common agricultural policy bear significant similarities—the objectives of supporting food production and self-sufficiency—but the Bill, frankly, does not perpetuate these worthy aims.
True, the Government have committed to
“guarantee the current annual budget to farmers in every year of the Parliament.”
I welcome that—and ask the Minister if he will enlarge on that pledge—but after that period, at the end of the Parliament, the future is vague.
There is a question that worries me that I have been putting for four years. In our Brexit negotiations with the EU and other trading nations, we seem likely to move to a situation in which the industry is kicked in the teeth twice over, with the prospect of cheap foodstuffs being imported free of tariffs and, frankly, with dodgy safety guarantees. For instance, the Government tell me there is no scientific test to tell whether beef has been implanted with hormones, yet our post-Brexit exports to the European Union would have to jump its common external tariff.
Given this very serious double threat—together with the phasing out of the direct payments scheme, which is crucial to the farm incomes of a great number of farmers, particularly in the marginal and upland areas—it is hardly surprising that farmers view the future with anxiety and a sharp lack of confidence. The Government really must as soon as possible address this uncertainty and give us details of what the ELMS will provide. We need to know this now.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
We have been in lockdown now for over 11 weeks, and most people have remained in their immediate locality. For those able to do so, exercise and getting some fresh air has been an important ingredient of each day. Walking has staged something of a comeback, whether along local streets, in local parks or—for those fortunate enough to be close to more open countryside—along local footpaths, as people simply enjoy the pleasure of being out and about in such an environment. On top of the constraints of the lockdown, the good weather has clearly been a key factor.
From what I have seen in my locality, it looks as though numbers of people have discovered at least some public and permissive footpaths in their neighbourhood that they were not previously aware existed and have greatly enjoyed the pleasure and opportunity of more extensive walking in their own area than they had previously fully appreciated were there and available. This is something we should seek to build on as one of the few pluses from the constraints of the lockdown and is surely in line with government objectives of promoting walking.
I raise this in the context of this Bill because, as my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark said, one of its objectives is to protect and improve access to the countryside. Agriculture accounts for 70% of land use in the UK—land that contains a significant proportion of the nation’s paths. It is important that access to our countryside for all should be safeguarded, promoted and, where possible, extended. We do not want to see our network of public footpaths and permissive paths diminish. Indeed, we should be looking to grow the network.
In saying that, I appreciate that there can be tensions between those who want to visit and enjoy our countryside and those who earn their livelihood from the land. On the one hand, some owners of land or their tenants do rather less than they might to maintain ready and easy access to footpaths. On the other hand, there are people who cause problems for those who earn their livelihood from the land by not keeping to public footpaths and permissive paths, even where they are clearly marked and signposted—an issue made even more of a problem if they have a pet animal with them, usually a dog, which they fail to keep under control.
Can the Minister say how the Government intend to use the provisions of the Bill, not least with its focus on public money for public goods, to promote and further extend responsible, realistic access to our countryside for all? That objective must surely also be in keeping with the cross-government goals of improving the overall health and well-being of the nation. Is it the Government’s intention that farmers will be provided with proper financial support where they are making improvements to the accessibility of existing routes or paths on their land or where they provide new paths of value to the public: for example, to avoid the need to walk on adjacent country roads with fast-moving traffic or to link up existing paths? Is it also the Government’s intention that those who receive public payment should be expected to fulfil legal duties to keep paths on their land clear? There is also the important issue of providing financial support for improving access to our countryside for those less physically able, including wheelchair users.
I would really appreciate a response from the Minister on the issues and questions I have just raised, either when he replies to the debate or subsequently.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
I was a party to the 34th report of the Delegated Powers Committee in the last Session, reporting on the previous, abortive Agriculture Bill. The committee viewed that Bill as a major transfer of powers from the EU to the Executive, bypassing Parliament and the devolved legislatures. A skeletal framework means that there is no policy content. That Bill contained some 40 separate regulation-making powers, exercisable for the indefinite future and with no sunset clause. To cap it all, the Minister could create undefined criminal offences with a penalty of up to two years’ imprisonment.
As the current committee makes clear in its 13th report, some of those criticisms have been met in the redrafting of the Bill, and we should be grateful for that. One important issue is that Defra has recanted on its desire to send farmers to prison and has reduced the proposed penalties for such criminal offences as it may dream up merely to an unlimited fine. Nevertheless, although there are desirable improvements, this remains a skeleton Bill, as the current Delegated Powers Committee points out and as my noble friend Lord Addington mentioned a moment ago. At some unknown future time, the Minister will slot a package of policies into this frame, as and when he has worked them out. He will introduce a series of unamendable SIs for minimum scrutiny and, save for one issue only, with no consultation.
The Government’s intentions with regard to the future shape of British agriculture as a whole remain obscure. We see it through a glass darkly, not face to face; as the noble Lord, Lord Jopling, said, it is vague. Clause 4 requires the Government to place before Parliament a multiannual plan, covering seven years in the first instance and setting out the Government’s strategic priorities—but this is for England. Will the multiannual plan even consider its implications upon Wales and Scotland? What about the relationships generally between Scotland, Wales and England—a point raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose? Three separate agricultural regimes will be developing in Great Britain. How will this internal market operate or co-operate? What will be the rules and how will they be determined? My noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem called for Scottish participation in fashioning these rules, and equally, there must be Welsh.
If in Wales we want to support upland family farms through generous subsidies, does the undercutting of Cumbrian sheep prices cause any problem? If the English Government want to subsidise, say, cheese production in Cheddar or Cheshire, what happens in Caerphilly? How level will the playing field be?
Since the border with the EU has now been firmly placed some 30 sea miles west of Holyhead, I will follow the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, in also asking how Northern Ireland agricultural production will be integrated with the rest of the United Kingdom, forms or no forms.
I have to say that these are terrible times for farmers in Wales. They are shortly to be cut off from their European markets, losing direct access for three-quarters of their exports. The pandemic has lost them supplementary income from, for example, restored farm cottages and buildings from which they can extract at least some income, simply from the view. They separately, and desperately, need support and an injection of confidence in the future. This Bill will not assist them.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
My Lords, my interests are as listed on the record. I have farmed as a tenant in Northumberland all my life. Much has been said already about the significance of this Bill: to take a blank sheet of paper and have the opportunity to shape how our countryside is going to be managed for the next two, three or four decades is a huge privilege and an immense responsibility. The Bill must be fit for purpose. The direction of travel as outlined in it is absolutely correct.
In 2001, I was responsible for a report on the future of food and farming, and on page 74 I wrote these words:
“Public funds should be refocused on public goods.”
I am therefore delighted that after nearly 20 years, we are making progress. This Bill, along with the Environment Bill, present an opportunity to create an exciting new vision for the management of our precious countryside. There is huge ambition within our farming and food sectors to re-establish ourselves as world leaders in agri-food science and to be innovators in sustainable food systems; to be renowned for our health, safety and high welfare standards and ethically produced food; to have consumers both here at home and abroad who value what we produce; and to be connected with the countryside and the value and the benefits that it delivers. We can clean up the water and the air and we can improve the quality of our soils and help to capture a lot more carbon. We can help to restore habitats and deliver a wide range of vital outcomes, targeted on a geographical basis. We can help to mitigate the impact of climate change. Why should we not be first past the post in achieving net zero carbon emissions? We can deliver these outcomes if the schemes are designed correctly and if the Treasury recognises the huge potential of investing far greater than the current level of spend in the countryside.
I would like to address three concerns and to support many more which have been referenced in this debate. First, we will not realise this exciting ambition if our market and our confidence are undermined by the importing of cheap food, negotiated in hastily signed trade deals which are not subject to our standards. Repeated reassurances by Ministers, even in recent letters, that this will not happen are not enough. We need a commitment in the Bill or a standards commission.
Secondly, I turn to the proposed timetable. Seven years of transition looked like a sensible approach when it was announced four years ago, but the distractions which have taken place since put that in serious doubt. The pilot ELMS have just got going. Farmers know that their current support systems are going to be dismantled but they have no idea how the new schemes will be designed. They have no knowledge of the definition of the value of the public goods that they will be encouraged to deliver, and there is much to do. The scale of the change is unparalleled and time is short. Farmers need advice and time to make correct decisions about their future. We are not ready. If the Government are wedded to the transitional process which is to start next year, an additional year should be added to allow a smoother transition—eight years instead of seven. The gap between the demolition of the BPS and the availability of ELMS in 2024 is a serious problem, so my plea to the Minister is, “Mind the gap.” It is better that we take time and succeed in delivering this exciting new programme, than rush it and fail. There is too much at stake.
Thirdly, despite the focus on productivity, there is no reference in the Bill to skills and training, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Carrington. Having a highly skilled and professional industry is essential to improving productivity, reducing carbon emissions, maintaining high welfare standards and the successful application of ELMS. This should be included in the Bill.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, I regret the fact that there is no impact assessment attached to the Bill. I also support concerns that have been expressed about tenant farmers, and will raise these in Committee.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I remind the noble Lord of the speaking time.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle [V]
In closing, I thank the Minister for his willingness to discuss the Bill in his usual open and friendly manner. It is appreciated.
Baroness Redfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction. I welcome this Agriculture Bill, executing as it does the most major reform of the industry for over 50 years. No doubt it may prove challenging during transition, but the Bill will help build a brighter, better, greener future for British farming, clearing away the rigidities, complexities and perversities of the CAP. Moving away from a focus on the amount of land ownership to outcomes, it will be a catalyst and a driver to prevent any further decline in our self-sufficiency. The Bill will make improvements and create more robust and resilient domestic agricultural and horticultural sectors, giving scientists, farmers, plant breeders and animal breeders the same access to new gene editing technologies as the rest of the world.
I welcome within the new framework the important inclusion of environmental protection and the health and welfare of livestock and plants. After years of being subjected to the rules of the CAP, our environment has suffered. Policy which has been implemented in England, for instance, has discouraged tree planting by farmers, and of course agroforestry is not a short-term investment, as forests and woodlands are vital to supporting valuable habitats which have been eroded in the course of different farming directives and quotas. Consequently, farmland bird populations have suffered.
The health of our soil, on which future food production depends—quality and quantity—has been eroded. This should have significant importance in the Bill. There is much greater emphasis on removing certain practices and improving sustainable farming practices, including removing the dependency on pesticides, to ensure the protection of not only soil but water and air, as climate change is reflected in our ecosystems coming under increased pressure.
I welcome the commitment to increase food security, and to improve transparency and fairness in the agri-food supply chain, together with increased protection for agriculture producers selling to business purchasers and the protection of market standards. Of importance in the Bill is the requirement for regular reporting to Parliament on food security, including on where food comes from, its availability and the resilience of the food chain.
With overall annual funding remaining at current levels for this Parliament, and with a transitional period to phase out direct payments in England, we will maximise the potential of land for food production and the delivery of public goods. To deliver all this, greater support has to be given to those trying to access jobs and to helping new, talented entrants get into the sector, ensuring that they will be the future custodians.
With agriculture occupying over 70% of the land mass, investment and growth is necessary in our rural economy, not only for food production but for diversified industries such as renewable energy, tourism and the manufacturing sector, which generates £121 billion for the UK economy. Investment in new technology and equipment will also be necessary, to reduce costs, drive up food production and increase profitability.
I cannot stress enough the importance of having in the Bill a provision that all food imported into the UK must have been produced to standards equivalent to ours. Endorsing high standards of animal welfare must be embedded in the Bill. The same is true of the environmental protections associated with good food production that are required of our producers, and there must be an ability to ban imports that do not meet these ethical high standards. I will be so pleased when shipments of live animals are banned. This is not protectionism; it is about welcoming future trade deals, so long as they are on fair and level terms.
Finally, there is a need to keep customers well informed, with attractive information and labelling, so that they can easily make informed choices. In supporting our industry, from farm to plate, we all can gain.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I do not have any interests in the register in relation to agriculture these days, but I have a lifelong interest in agriculture and farming, having grown up on my father’s small tenant sheep farm back in the 1960s and 1970s. Even now, I acutely remember the onslaught of the European Union in the mid-1970s and the way in which the common agricultural policy, even on small farms such as ours, almost immediately started to have an impact on the long-term decision-making of the farmers in our immediate community. While the European Union has been good for the UK in so many ways—obviously, it is important to maintain and, in my opinion, improve the high standards mentioned by other noble Lords in this debate—nobody should mourn the loss of the common agricultural policy. This is an opportunity for us to set our own agricultural policy and legislation in the United Kingdom.
The Prime Minister said in May, shortly after his return from hospital and when looking to the future out of lockdown, that we need
“a fairer, greener and more resilient global economy”.
He said that we need “to build back better” and that there is
“every need for us to work together to get our shared goals back on track, including … the Sustainable Development Goals”.
Those are the bold aims set out by our Prime Minister, and where better to start than in the Fisheries Bill and the Agriculture Bill that your Lordships’ House will debate over these coming weeks and months?
I was very pleased to hear the Minister’s commitment on behalf of the Government to link this legislation and our onward agricultural policies with the target of zero emissions. I would, however, be interested in how he sees this new legislation, and the policies that the Government will pursue, linking the agriculture and environment strategies to the sustainable development goals. It will be interesting to explore that in Committee and later debates on the Bill.
The second issue I want to raise is the relationship with the devolved nations. It is welcome that this newly drafted Bill makes appropriate amendments and rectifies some of the concerns over the earlier Bill, published in 2017, particularly on the red meat levy but on other issues as well. The Bill rightly respects Scotland’s autonomous jurisdiction in agriculture. Although agricultural policy and agricultural funding may be devolved to the Scottish Parliament and Government, there will be aspects of UK government legislation and policy, not least in relation to the operation of the internal market and on other standards, where what happens in Scotland, England, Wales and, indeed, Northern Ireland will have an impact on each other. The co-ordination of those policies and decisions will be vital.
Therefore, will the Minister say something more in his conclusions about how the Government see decision-making operating in the UK context, where the Bill does not relate specifically to English legislation but to UK-wide legislation? How will the UK Government ensure that, in determining the future steps in that legislation, the different devolved Governments will be involved properly—on a consensual basis, we hope—in helping to determine the way forward? If we can achieve that at the same time as securing higher standards and working towards the sustainable development goals, the Bill will be a very worthy transition from where we have been.
Lord German (LD) [V]
My Lords, I echo the views of many speakers in this Second Reading debate: we need to ensure that imported foodstuffs do not undercut the high standards of UK food production. Perhaps the Minister will say whether he supports the view of Liam Fox, who said that putting such matters in the Bill would mean that
“the USA would walk away”
from a trade deal with the UK. Having had responsibility for constructing a trade deal with the USA, he may well know how the Americans were thinking so, like the noble Lord, Lord Hain, I think Liam Fox gave the game away: support chlorinated chicken and the like, otherwise no deal with the USA is possible. Does the Minister agree?
I wish to address the devolution aspects of the Bill, particularly as they concern Wales. In Wales, direct payments to farmers account for a much higher proportion of farm profits than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Direct payments account for an average of 81% of Welsh farm profits. This is very understandable, given the small family farm and upland nature of the farming industry in Wales: 40% of all Welsh lamb produced is exported to the European Union, so Welsh agriculture needs a trade deal with the EU more than anything else, and the Welsh Government should be part of that negotiation.
The changes envisaged in the Bill to direct payments in England are clearly not wholly appropriate to Wales. There are some welcome signs that the Bill recognises this fundamental difference, but there are equally some areas where the current level of independent action accorded to the Welsh Government is not clearly carried forward. Like the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and my noble friend Lord Thomas, fundamentally I wait for a framework agreement between all parts of the United Kingdom that encompasses the wide areas of the Bill. For example, a framework agreement is needed to provide a replacement for the state aid regime. It is important that the Bill is able to accommodate any agreements reached in due course by the UK and the devolved Governments in respect of the common frameworks, which are to replace the areas where EU law intercepted with devolved matters. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what progress has been made on the proposed framework agreement.
There remain outstanding matters of difference between the Welsh and UK Governments, which require resolution if the legislative consent Motion in the Welsh Assembly is to be passed. In particular, what is the UK Government’s view on the disagreement surrounding Clauses 40 to 42, on the World Trade Organization? I understand that some bilateral agreements have been made regarding those clauses. Will the Minister provide me with a copy of that bilateral agreement and place a copy in the Library? I am concerned that written intergovernmental agreements sitting behind powers in the Bill will undermine the ability to change in the future. Governments change, and written agreements, which are not recognised in the Bill, cannot provide the certainty that the legislation requires.
Concerns also arise on powers between the UK and Welsh Governments in the areas of the identification and traceability of animals, agricultural tenancies and the regulation of organic products. Will the Minister, in his response or in writing, outline what progress has made in each of these areas?
Most powers over agriculture are currently devolved, and I hope that the Bill will respect that level of devolution in this important agricultural field.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest in beef and sheep farming in Scotland.
This is a framework Bill, enabling the principles but not providing the detail. It still leaves farmers facing a high degree of uncertainty. I want briefly to set out what I see as the key needs of livestock farmers following Brexit. First, they need a market for their products. More than one-third of British lamb is exported to the EU. Without a free trade agreement, there is a very real risk that that market will effectively be lost. It is frankly not credible to suggest that it can be replaced by other markets on any realistic timescale. The loss of this market is an existential threat to upland sheep farmers. Will the Minister tell us how the Government propose to help livestock farmers in the event of no deal?
Secondly, farmers need fair competition. We are, rightly, subject to a wide range of environmental, welfare and other regulations. Other countries do not all face the same rules. This issue is often confused, sometimes deliberately, with food safety standards, and the Government have committed to not reducing them. However, it is not just about food safety standards. UK farmers are not frightened by fair competition, but it would be unfair to expect them to compete against imports from countries that have lower environmental, welfare and other standards, and therefore lower costs, even if our food safety standards are met, so I greatly regret that the Government rejected the amendment in the other place that would have put their manifesto commitments into law.
Thirdly, farmers need predictability. Farmers have faced uncertainty for some years now and, even with the Bill, we do not know how the various financing arrangements will work. Farming is a long-term business. If farmers are to invest, they need to be able to see how things will work into at least the medium term, and preferably longer. If the financing arrangements set out in the Bill turn out to be a series of short-term or one-off projects, rather than multi-year financing schemes, investment for the future will not be possible.
Fourthly, there is simplicity. We have heard about the shortcomings of the CAP, and I do not disagree, but it does have the merit of being relatively simple. In this Bill, we have a list of nine different purposes of financial assistance, many of which themselves have further subdivisions. It is easy to see how this could become extremely complicated, with an even heavier administrative and compliance burden on farmers than the CAP if it is not carefully planned and executed.
Finally, there is consistency. I started by declaring that I farm in Scotland. Agriculture is a devolved matter and we will have our own rules. But that introduces another concern, which a number of noble Lords have raised. When the UK was a member of the EU, our internal market was kept consistent by the umbrella framework of EU regulations. With that gone, we face the risk of different parts of the UK producing under different rules and different financing arrangements, potentially leading to unfair competition even within the UK. So it must make sense that the Government and the devolved assemblies agree a UK-wide framework to ensure that our internal market continues to work fairly.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests and to my membership of the Farmers’ Union of Wales. I am delighted to follow the comments made by the previous speaker.
The House knows of my opposition to Brexit, but it is happening, and probably on a no-deal basis, so we must mitigate its negative impact on agriculture. Clearly, new legislation must establish a framework for British agriculture, so Plaid Cymru does not oppose a Second Reading of this Bill. I do welcome three features of the Bill: the linking of funding to sustainable farming, the repatriation of the red meat levy, and the framework enabling the Welsh Government to bring forward their own legislation.
Agriculture is devolved, reflecting Wales’s special characteristics. It is essential that new arrangements facilitate Welsh farming’s ongoing viability, particularly Wales’s livestock and dairy sectors. But there are deeply worrying aspects of this Bill. Notwithstanding the Minister’s assurances today, I am extremely concerned at the absence on the face of the Bill of the means to uphold Britain’s food standards. It must be amended so that imported agricultural and food products fully conform to our existing animal health and welfare standards, and our plant health and environmental protection standards. The need for such safeguards has united agricultural unions, environmental campaigners and animal welfare lobbies.
The Conservative Party committed in its recent election manifesto that:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
Therefore, this House has every right to insist on having such safeguards on the face of the Bill. To claim that it is inappropriate to incorporate these provisions is curious. It ignores the fact that Clause 36 of the Bill specifies such an approach for imported organic foods.
The EU has for many years tried to set high standards for food production. The EU’s Food and Veterinary Office regularly inspects farms and processing plants in third countries. The EU has insisted on an equivalence on food entering the single market from countries with which it has struck a trade deal. It is totally unacceptable for us to facilitate a race to the bottom at a time when environmental, animal welfare and human health issues are at the top of the international agenda, reinforced by the coronavirus pandemic. What will the Government’s response be if this Bill goes through without such safeguards, but if the Welsh, Scottish and Northern Ireland Governments insist on such provision?
Will the Minister also confirm that nothing in this Bill relating to sustainable farming will be used to dissuade farmers from diversifying in order to maintain viable income levels, and that nothing in the Bill will be used to hinder farmers in supporting efforts to decarbonise our economy? Will the Minister also give an assurance that the creation of a British market will not be used to undermine initiatives taken by the Welsh Government to maximise local procurement and support local processing of food to gain maximum economic benefit locally from its production?
I shall raise issues at later stages concerning the mechanics of enabling Wales to control its own farming. For now, finally, will the Minister confirm that, under this Bill, the Governments of Wales and Scotland will be treated as equal partners with Westminster in all agricultural issues that have a UK or international dimension?
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Bill, but none of us can be expected to discuss it during a pandemic. Indeed, going forward, the background against which we find ourselves will change our views about what is important to us.
Never have we been so grateful to farmers for making sure that our food retailers are well stocked during this uncertain period. It has highlighted the importance of sustainable, accessible and safe local food. As we move forward, our farmers want and deserve certainty about their future to enable them to carry on producing the high-quality food that we have all come to expect. However, that future must include continuing high welfare, food and environmental standards. Indeed, the Conservative manifesto stated:
“In all of our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards.”
I welcome the letter that was sent this week by the Secretaries of State for Trade and Defra confirming that food standards will not be lowered during future trade deals. We need to hold them to this commitment.
Animal welfare is obviously a high priority going forward. The APGAW released a report yesterday emphasising the importance of local abattoirs, many of which have closed. They are central in supporting the rural economy, keeping our food local and upholding good animal welfare. As such, they should receive capital payments in our agricultural framework. Can the Minister reassure me on this point?
This is our chance to make sure that our voice is heard globally on welfare and food standards. With this Bill, we are looking at a new future. Farming can thrive and diversify, with strong market opportunities both at home and globally. Ahead of us can be an opening of new export markets for our farmers, and these trade deals can influence standards worldwide. To that end, I welcome Clause 17, which requires the Secretary of State to report every five years on food security and consumer confidence in food.
At long last, farmers in the UK are free from the constraints of the CAP. We can develop our own agricultural policy, leading to farmers producing more food in this country, which in turn will make us self-sufficient going forward. The future is most certainly “public money for public good”. As is often said, farmers are the custodians of our countryside, and the Bill enables financial assistance for environmental farm practices, along with support for agritech that will enhance productivity in a sustainable way. The Bill allows us to level up the rural economy, providing grants to improve productivity in farm businesses so that they can become both resilient and successful.
In conclusion, I thank the Minister for keeping us informed and for answering our queries before reaching this stage today.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. The nearest I can come to making a declaration of interest is that I live on the Isles of Scilly next to a farm which grows all kinds of vegetables and fruit, and which has pigs, cows and chickens. That farm is really suffering at the moment because of Brexit and transport costs, and the farmer has had to kill most of the pigs and chickens. That is just one example of the problems, mentioned by many noble Lords, of bringing forward this Bill at the same time as the coronavirus pandemic and Brexit. I support the key tests proposed by my noble friend Lord Grantchester regarding safe and traceable food, support for jobs, investment in research, and high standards. The Bill needs to deliver those.
On jobs, many noble Lords spoke about the need to improve skills for agricultural workers, but I believe that our immigration policy is putting the ongoing viability of many farmers at risk. Noble Lords will have read that several flights of workers from Bulgaria and Romania came in a month or so ago. None of them had social distancing on the plane. They were all exempt from the 14-day quarantine period, because there are no workers in this country. I enjoyed reading about the equivalent problem in Germany, where the chairman of their fruit and vegetable pickers association said that Germans are no longer the right shape to bend down and pick vegetables. I do not know what we will do, but the Government must set up some kind of long-term arrangement to ensure that there is a proper supply of seasonal workers in the sector and make them welcome.
On finance, I would welcome any scheme for agriculture that gives more support to local farmers and hill farmers, particularly those who have sheep. There is a double whammy here: I understand that in six months’ time, according to Professor Fiona Smith from the University of Warwick, if we do not get agreement on Brexit there will be a 51% duty on the export of sheepmeat to the European Union. How will farmers deal with this? It might be that the sheep can be exported elsewhere, but we ought to know a bit more about these things at this stage, with only six months before Brexit happens. The House needs a lot more time and much more detail.
My last point is that a lot of this traffic goes between the EU and the UK in trucks. There is still no border operating manual to tell operators and customers how they are supposed to move these goods, whether they are temperature-controlled fresh fruit and vegetables, meat or animals. Many of these journeys need phytosanitary controls. It is no good trucks queueing up for several days at Calais or Dover, because most of the product will be inedible or dead, sadly, before they get to the other side.
I hope the Minister will tell us a lot more about the information that operators and customers will need. I hope that he actually cares. I think that he does, but an awful lot of other people in the Government do not seem to care at all as long as we can get Brexit done and all our exports to the EU converted to the United States.
Lord Greaves (LD) [V]
This is a very important and huge Bill, with lots in it. I will concentrate on one tiny bit of it, Clause 1(1)(b), which provides that one of the purposes of financial assistance can be for
“supporting public access to and enjoyment of the countryside, farmland or woodland and better understanding of the environment”.
Those are two important things. As a former geography teacher I could wax lyrical about understanding the environment, but I will talk about access. I declare my interests as vice-president of the Open Spaces Society and a patron of the British Mountaineering Council. I compliment the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, on his sensible comments on this, and my noble friend Lord Addington, who I see is in his place, also made some extremely sensible and balanced comments.
The nation’s path network is a treasured asset that everyone should be able to enjoy. It is the primary way in which people access the outdoors and connect with nature. Going walking is the main physical activity that people do. It brings huge benefits to rural communities, local businesses and tourism, and it helps to improve our understanding of farming and the natural world. What happens as a result of the Bill will set the agenda for access to the countryside for years to come.
While the Bill says what may happen, it has no detail in it whatever—not even a broad framework—on how it will happen. If we assume that the ambition is to enable more people to access and enjoy the countryside, while at the same time rewarding land managers and farmers for undertaking the activities to achieve this, I think we really need more from the Government on how this will work, particularly how they will work with local access authorities to help achieve this. The local access authorities and highways authorities that look after public rights of way are responsible for producing public rights of way improvement plans—they are not flavour of the moment—and for dealing with problems when a footpath is blocked or falls into the beck and making sure that the infrastructure for things like stiles exists.
The common agricultural policy was not all bad. It included cross-compliance which, in respect of rights of way, was useful to local enforcement and access authorities—they could use it to persuade recalcitrant landowners to provide the minimum standards necessary. It is not clear how this will be replaced under the new system.
One major absence from the aims of this Bill is landscape. One of the main public by-products of goods from farming is our wonderful British landscape in all parts of the UK. People think that they are wild landscapes, but they are not; they are the result of land management and farming. This needs attention in the Bill.
The Earl of Erroll (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have an interest to declare as I am now running my late wife’s farm until we get probate, and maybe for a bit longer. I am very glad to see in this Bill that there will be continuing support for farmers, as many have a very low net income. People always point at the ones who are bigger and better off, but they are also probably very efficient.
Many noble Lords have spoken most eloquently about standards and their intentions are good, so I want to make some observations about the barriers that put many farmers off the environmental schemes. We have had environmental schemes here since the early pilot schemes and the stewardship schemes, so we have been doing it for a very long time. Environmental protection is important, but it must be balanced with food production. The Secretary-General of the United Nations said yesterday:
“Our food systems are failing, and the COVID-19 pandemic is making things worse.”
That is at the global scale, but it is something we need to remember. If we get this wrong, we will not be able to feed people.
The real trouble is that compliance with rules costs money. Our producers need protection from competition from countries where they cut corners and to which we have effectively exported our consciences, so that we do not see where they are broken. We think we can do this by having strict rules on imports, but people launder import papers—it is amazing how things can move around so that they appear to be okay. Most realistically, we must continue to support our home production and underpin it in some way, as we have been doing with the basic farm payment system.
If we want to see good environmental outcomes—we all do; I do very much—we must remember that rules do not often recognise weather. They are very inflexible about certain operations, because very often they just look at one single issue of what is being protected. They also do not take account of local variations in flora and fauna and the normal behaviour of these things. Blanket provision for the whole country, from the lowlands of the south of England to the northern Scottish highlands, are often too crude—seasons move and things ripen at different times.
Inspections should establish whether a land manager is trying to get it right overall or whether they are taking the mickey. Inspectors ought to look at the environmental objective, rather than focusing on minor issues where a mistake, usually accidentally, has been made. Some rules actually hinder achieving the intended objective and we need to work out how to get around that. Inspections should be interactive, and advisory where this would be helpful.
My general theme is to get a good take-up of ELMS. It is important for systems to verify compliance work simply, too. I have been filing our cropping electronically since 2004 or 2005, when it was IAX, so I have some experience of this, and of running digital mapping. The online systems must work reliably and simply. Even now, the BPS is unreliable. It regularly loses one or two fields for us most years—I believe that they are called “parcels in the system”—and I cannot see why. The land use codes do not take proper account of the farming and environmental schemes that are overlapping one another, which can cause confusion. It is quite hard to get your EFA declarations right. Remapping is exhausting and disruptive, and causes problems between schemes, but thank goodness the helplines are very helpful.
I hope that in future the inspectors can also be helpful advisers.
Baroness Rock (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.
This Bill is the most critical piece of legislation for domestic agriculture for more than 50 years. I commend the Government on the significant improvements made in comparison with the Bill introduced to Parliament prior to the last general election. However, there are still some issues around food security, the importance of food production and supporting active farmers and tenant farmers that could be strengthened, alongside the important environmental priorities.
An issue of important debate relates to standards and trade. Although the other place voted to reject the amendment to the Bill, I know that my noble friend the Minister is sympathetic to the arguments that are being made. I am aware of ongoing discussions about establishing a trade and standards commission; this surely would provide a possible way forward.
The coronavirus pandemic has underlined the need to consider issues of food security. The Government’s own food adviser, Henry Dimbleby, has said that this must be included in the new food strategy. This Bill should have food security and the health and well-being of citizens at its heart by listing this as an objective within Clause 1. There is merit in the report to Parliament occurring more often than just once every five years. Is there any scope for that part of the Bill to be looked at?
In the context of this legislation being an Agriculture Bill, there is concern that the Bill does not adequately target either agriculture or farmers in the provision of financial assistance. In order to support our incredibly important farming industry, it must be necessary to restrict the financial assistance powers, such as they are, in respect of individuals who are operating units which are predominantly agricultural. Without changes to the Bill to introduce clauses to both define and target active farmers, how will the Government ensure that financial support goes to those individuals who need it most?
The Bill sets out the intention of a seven-year transition to phase out current direct payments, and that this period can be modified by the Government by regulation. Within the context of an uncertain trading environment with the EU beyond the end of the year, the impact of the coronavirus crisis and the significant delays that there have been in the development of the new ELMS programme, we need more time to develop the new agricultural policy framework, and we should be delaying the beginning of transition from 2021 until 2022.
On Schedule 3 on agricultural tenancies, as a tenant farmer myself, I am concerned that the provisions protecting tenants from landlords who refuse consent for them to enter a financial assistance scheme excludes tenants occupying under farm business tenancies. While I am aware that the government argument was that these tenancies tend to be shorter and more negotiable, I fear that this misses the point that they are often more restrictive than the tenancies let under the AHA 1986 and, as they now account for 50%—and growing—of all land let in England, these tenants need just as much protection. With these tenants facing some of the most restrictive clauses in their tenancy agreements, why have the Government chosen not to extend necessary protections allowing them to object to a landlord’s refusal to enter into a financial assistance scheme in the same way as their fellow tenants can under the Agricultural Holdings Act?
Our farmers and our agricultural industry are the lifeblood of our rural economy. We must support them.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction to the Bill and for his time, and that of his officials, in providing briefings in preparation for our debate today. I agree with noble Lords who have complained about the time limit and sympathise with those not able to speak. Had this been a Brexit debate, two days would have been allocated. I congratulate all who have managed to speak and made such vital contributions to the debate.
Like other noble Lords, I welcome the move away from payment for farmers based on the amount of land they are farming to a more equitable system of public money for public good. Under the previous CAP system, half of the payments in England went to only 10% of farms. Like the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester, Lord Teverson and Lord Carter of Coles, and other noble Lords, I look forward to hearing how the environmental land management pilots are progressing. Is the Minister able to give us an update?
To some extent, this public good is defined in the Bill, but there are gaps and the continued use of pesticides is one. A former friend who worked for Fisons many years ago warned that since man is much nearer to the physiology of insects than of plants, we would be wise to treat pesticides with more caution than we do weed-killers. The overuse of chemical-based fertilisers and pesticides does little to enhance the quality of the soil. I am sure we will return to that in Committee.
Like, I am sure, other noble Lords, I have received dozens of briefings in preparation for this debate, from large organisations and interest groups to individual members of the public. The vast majority welcome the Bill but are worried that an opportunity to make a real difference is being lost.
The Bill in its opening clause lists the Secretary of State’s powers on financial assistance. There is an extensive list of what this will include. But there is no mention of food production—a concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. Only in Clause 4 is the Secretary of State required to have regard to “encourage” the production of food. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young of Old Scone, does, I find this alarming. Now is a golden opportunity for agricultural land to be farmed in a sustainable and ecological way to produce healthy food for the whole nation.
Food security is the subject of a requirement for the Secretary of State to report at least every five years. I welcome the Minister’s assurance that this review will take place sooner than five years’ time, and I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay. Food security is vital and can alter dramatically with climate change and international conditions. It should be monitored more frequently, perhaps yearly.
I welcome the addition of measures to improve forestry productivity—as raised by the noble Lord, Lord Colgrain—peat restoration and soil quality. These are key in carbon sequestration and tackling flood prevention, providing a holistic approach to how land is managed for the benefit of farming and the public.
Turning to the section on agricultural tenancies, this is to be welcomed as it enables tenant farmers to benefit from their hard work and to receive the payments themselves. Not all tenant farmers have received this in the past. To encourage new entrants into farming, it is essential that tenant farmers should get the rewards they deserve for farming the land. The noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, have raised concerns about tenant farmers, and I agree with the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Rock, just made. Can the Minister say whether the measures in this Bill are consistent with the direction of travel in the renters’ reform Bill?
I turn briefly to Northern Ireland. In the Commons my Alliance Party colleague, Stephen Farry MP, introduced an amendment to provide for a sunset clause in regard to Clause 45 and Schedule 6, on some measures which relate to Northern Ireland. There is a sunset clause in the Bill for some measures applying to Wales, as my noble friend Lady Humphreys says, while Scotland has already indicated that it will bring forward its own policy. I am concerned that Northern Ireland will be out of step with the other devolved nations at a time when it needs to build a food and farming system that is resilient, healthy and regenerative. We will explore this further at later stages of the Bill.
The Bill cannot be seen in isolation; at least two other Bills are inextricably linked to it. The first is the Trade Bill, which allows for trade with countries outside the EU. It has the possibility of allowing food and animal products into the UK which are not produced to our own high standards of animal welfare. There is grave concern among organisations supporting agriculture and farmers that their produce will be undercut by these inferior imports. It is vital that all goods are clearly labelled with the country of origin and other details which will assist the purchaser to make informed choices, as raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, and the noble Baroness, Lady Redfern.
The majority of people buying food, whether for the domestic table or for the hotel, catering and restaurant trade, will wish to support food grown and produced within our shores, not imported from thousands of miles away. I am grateful to the Minister for circulating the letter from the Secretaries of State for Defra and for International Trade but, as my noble friend Lord Burnett said, Ministers come and go. Since the Government feel it is important to state their intention on food security and animal welfare, does the Minister agree that reassurance can be provided by an amendment to the Bill? Thirty-eight of your Lordships speaking today have supported this and only four do not.
The second Bill with links is the immigration Bill. We have heard much about the dearth of workers to harvest our vegetables and crops, as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic, and seen adverts on our television screens for workers to come forward to help. At first there was a good response but as British workers found the work was back-breaking—for 10 hours a day—the accommodation appalling and that they got very little pay in return, their numbers dropped off. There is an issue here about how we treat our agricultural workers. It is estimated that some 17,000 migrant workers are needed every year to fulfil the needs of growers. The immigration Bill allows for only 3,500 to come in per year. This is hopelessly inadequate. Are the Government going to allow fruit and vegetables to be left rotting in the fields, when people are crying out for fresh produce? Does the Minister agree that this is a scandal which the Government can easily avoid? Some effort must be made to see these three important Bills as a holistic package and not separate, if we are to protect agriculture and farming effectively.
The Bill has much to commend it but there is no mechanism for enforcement, as highlighted by my noble friend Lady Parminter, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and others. Can the Minister address this vital issue?
At a time when large numbers of people are dependent on food banks, it is a scandal that food is wasted from farms. My noble friend Lady Parminter and I will address this issue in Committee. I could say more but will save it for Committee, and I look forward to the Minister’s response to this important debate.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the Bill and for the very helpful briefings that he organised for Peers beforehand. I also thank all noble Lords who have spoken on such a wide-ranging and challenging set of issues in their very short speaking times. I should, at the outset, declare an interest as the chair of Rothamsted Enterprises. Like others, I regret that so many noble Lords were unable to participate in the debate today. We very much miss them. I hope that the Minister is able to confirm that future stages of the Bill will not be curtailed, and that we will have the opportunity to have a full debate in Committee and on Report.
When the civil servants were originally drafting the Bill, they could not have imagined that we would be debating it in such momentous times. The coronavirus pandemic has highlighted the strains that imperil our food and farming systems. Businesses are failing, including many rural businesses, and the risk of a recession is obvious for all to see.
Life for the farming community now is tough. Farmers are subject to price volatility and market pressures that continue to put their livelihoods at risk; the added uncertainty of future trade deals with the EU puts their future export markets at risk; and the decline in UK food sustainability to some 53% of food and drink consumed means an unhealthy reliance on imported food from the EU and beyond. All this gives farmers cause for concern.
At the same time, we are in a climate emergency. The Government’s net-zero target of 2050 has been criticised by the Committee on Climate Change for lacking ambition or urgent measures necessary to meet the targets. Biodiversity, which lies at the very heart of a farming renaissance, is in steep decline and the UK is on course to meet only five of its 20 biodiversity targets. In this context, our challenge is to balance the interests of farmers and the environment so that both can thrive and play their part in the new, post-Covid world.
There is much in the Bill that we support. For example, public money for public goods is an important principle that we welcome. It is right that we should incentivise those who work on our land to restore and improve the natural environment. Of course, noble Lords are right that these policies need to be properly measured and monitored before any payment is made, but it is also important that in doing so we do not lose the core intention of the CAP: to deliver stability of food and security for farmers.
We also have some serious concerns about the Bill. First, many noble Lords have quite rightly raised concerns about the danger of domestic producers being undercut in post-Brexit deals by countries with lower animal welfare and environmental standards. Contrary to what some noble Lords have said today, evidence shows that the level of bacterial food poisoning in the USA is much higher than in the UK and the EU. As we know, the trade deals also threaten the very livelihoods of UK farmers.
This is an issue that our colleagues in the Commons pursued doggedly to the end. Our amendments would have enshrined in law a guarantee that our high standards would not be undercut. Of course, we have read the letter from the two Secretaries of State about there not being a compromise on this, but if that is the case it is a great shame that the Government felt unable to support these amendments. I give notice now that, when the time comes, we will work with colleagues across the Chamber to pursue similar amendments. We will also want to explore the wider animal welfare implications raised by the Bill and the potential of such trade deals.
Secondly, while we welcome the inclusion in Clause 17 of a duty to report on food security, along with a number of other noble Lords we do not feel that this provision goes far enough. For a Bill about food production, it remains remarkably silent on action to reduce food poverty, promote heathy food and reverse the decline in UK food sustainability.
Protecting the UK from cheap, low-quality imported food is important, but we also need positive measures to deliver top-quality food standards, incentivise local and regional specialisms, address poor nutrition and obesity and build our national reputation as a world leader in food excellence. We need robust measures to protect public health from pesticides and the overuse of antibiotics in the food chain.
We urgently need a national food plan, and we look forward to the Dimbleby report due later this year. But we need the key elements of a food plan enshrined in the Bill, rather than waiting for the Dimbleby report or the Government’s five-year report, and we will take steps to amend the Bill to this effect.
Of course, the future funding for farming lies at the very heart of this Bill. Our concerns, like those of many other noble Lords, lie with the practicalities of the transition from direct payments to ELMS. Whatever the failings of the CAP regime, it at least provided some certainty for the farming community. The delays in spelling out the new funding regime, the uncertainty over Brexit and the impact of the coronavirus lockdown have created a perfect storm in which many farmers are contemplating whether they have a future in the sector.
Despite the Government’s reassurance that the total pot of money will be protected during the transition, many farmers fear that their existing direct payments will be phased out before the new ELMS system is fully functioning. The impact of the devolved nations having different payments systems for farmers adds to that uncertainty. We will therefore want to explore in Committee whether the proposed timetables are realistic and what reassurances about future income during the transition can be given to farmers. We will want to ensure that a disproportionate share of the money is not siphoned off for consultants and advisers. We will also want to ensure proper support for smaller farmers, tenant farmers and new entrants to the land. Ultimately, we will look to government to provide more details about how the new scheme will work and to enthuse sceptical farmers that it will work both for them and for the national interest.
We welcome the measures to introduce greater transparency and fairness in supply chains and to recognise producer organisations. These are long overdue, but, as the recent crisis in the dairy sector has shown, the supply chain disproportionality squeezes the farming community at the base, when it is doing all the work for very little reward. We will want to explore in Committee whether more could be done to redress the balance and give farmers greater control over their contracts and markets. We will also want to explore whether the Groceries Code Adjudicator, or similar body, could be given greater powers to intervene to ensure fair practice throughout the supply chain.
Several noble Lords raised the issue of the status and pay of agricultural workers, and we share that concern. Some 474,000 people work in agriculture on a permanent or casual basis. Many of those jobs are physically hard, low paid and precarious, with a poor safety record and few of the employment benefits that other workers take for granted. The impact of the lockdown and the Government’s failing immigration policies show how reliant we are on overseas workers to harvest our crops. It will be interesting to see how many of the UK volunteers for the Pick for Britain scheme stay the course, given the arduous nature of the work involved. We will want to explore in Committee what more can be done to address rising poverty and inequalities in rural communities, and whether the reintroduction of something akin to the Agricultural Wages Board could play a role in improving pay and making UK agricultural work more attractive. In this mix, a drive to improve skills and training will of course be key.
Finally, we remain concerned that the Bill does not address the number one challenge of the climate emergency and the role that agriculture needs to play in delivering net zero emissions. Agriculture currently accounts for nearly 10% of greenhouse gas emissions. We would expect to see in the Bill a plan of action, and targets, to tackle these emissions across the farming community. They should lie at the heart of the future funding framework. Without action on this scale, we have no chance of reaching even the Government’s unambitious 2050 deadline, so we will pursue amendments to make sure that agriculture steps up to the mark.
I have been able to touch on only a small number of the many important issues raised in the debate today, but I look forward to working with noble Lords across the Chamber in the weeks to come to make sure that this Bill really is fit to deliver a vibrant food and farming programme for the 21st century.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, what an exceptional debate. It will be impossible for me to answer all the questions that have been posed but I will say what I always say: I will seek to follow up in writing those questions either that I have not covered or which require further embellishment.
I was struck by some noble Lords’ words because there are some elements of this debate that I think have been unduly negative, but I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Grantchester and Lord McConnell, that there are great opportunities for what we are going to be considering in the coming weeks. The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, referred to a welcome approach and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to a balance between the environment and food production. The noble Baronesses, Lady Mallalieu and Lady Quin, emphasised that we have to work with farmers. None of this is going to work unless it becomes the farmers’ enterprise as well. That is what I will explain in further detail.
There were three Vs: “vision”, from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Lord, Lord Curry; “viticulture”, from my noble friend Lord Naseby; and “the veterinary profession”, from my noble friend Lady McIntosh. All this shows the interconnection, the jigsaw puzzle that is the countryside, which so many of your Lordships know about.
My noble friend Lord Dobbs referred to innovation. I think we are on the cusp of a further agricultural revolution. Of course we need to use that knowledge wisely. I am conscious of the institutions that we have in this country that we need to prosper.
I want to clarify a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and perhaps my noble friend Lady Rock, in referring to food. Of course food is essential. It is essential for everyone in the world. However, in our view food is a private good; it is bought and sold. This is the key distinction of the philosophy of the legislation, because its value is rewarded in the market. These new financial assistance powers are intended to reward farmers and land managers for those outcomes that the market does not currently recognise. Coming from traditional farming stock, I can say that the reason why we see beautiful countryside is that many landowners and farmers actually want to embellish their landscapes.
I turn to trade standards. So many noble Lords have referred to this that I am not going to mention everyone by name. However, I want to refer to what my noble friends Lady Browning and Lady Chisholm had to say: in the negativity that I came across, let us not forget the British leadership that there has been on many of the activities raising trading standards across the world. That has been our influence. I know that our ambassadors raise standards across the piece and across the world. We should be proud of that.
My noble friend Lord Ridley referred to exports. I think it is the UK’s reputation for high-quality products that drives the demand for UK goods. Our success in the global marketplace depends on us continuing to maintain this reputation. I have said this many times, and I am starting to believe that certain noble Lords are determined not to believe me when I say it, but all EU food safety, animal welfare and environmental standards will be retained and form part of our domestic law. I emphasise that that includes all existing import requirements. Any changes to existing legislative standards would require new legislation to be brought before Parliament.
I should also say that in the UK food safety is regulated by the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland. Decisions to allow new regulated food products or processes—for example, food of animal origin treated with certain substances—into the UK market will be taken by Ministers in the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, informed by the independent advice of the FSA and FSS. This is a point that I would make particularly to the noble Lord, Lord McCrea, and the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, and I emphasise it because I fear that we are getting into a determined position that everything is negative. That is why I refer again to my honourable friend the Minister for Farming, who stated in the other place that
“there can be no question of sacrificing the UK livestock or other farming industries for the US trade deal.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/5/20; col. 335.]
On labelling, raised by the noble Duke, the Duke of Somerset, and my noble friend Lord Dobbs, I highlight the Government’s commitment to a serious and rapid examination of what can be done through labelling to provide reassurance that we intend to promote high standards and high welfare across the UK market. The Minister for Farming said that
“we will consult on this at the end of the transition period.”—[Official Report, Commons, 13/5/20; col. 335.]
Obviously, the Government have ongoing trade negotiations with the EU, an issue which was raised, and we have committed to a free trade agreement, to ensure that there are no tariffs, fees or quotas across all sectors.
My noble friend Lord Naseby referred to horticulture. Clause 1(2) allows us to introduce support for anyone starting or improving the productivity of a horticultural activity. I should also say to the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that, when discussing productivity—I was struck by this—it is in the context of sustainability. It is not about allowing something that potentially improves productivity but then does environmental damage. That is not what is intended at all; this is about sustainable productivity.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, referred to the delivery of public goods and the measurement of such. The Baroness, Lady Bakewell, was right in what she said. The interconnected Environment Bill provides the office for environmental protection with the functions to scrutinise the Government’s environmental commitments, including those under Clause 1 of this Bill.
On the reference to our manifesto commitment, the UK Government’s election manifesto guaranteed the current annual budget in every year of the new Parliament, giving significant certainty on funding for the coming years.
I say to the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, that the first period of the multiannual financial assistance plan—in Clause 4—will cover a period of seven years, starting from 2021. It will set out the Government’s strategic priorities for agriculture policy during that period and describe which financial assistance schemes are expected to come into operation during that period.
My noble friends Lord Lindsay and Lord Duncan, and others, referred to future funding allocations for the devolved Administrations. In response to the Bew review, the Government committed to engage with the devolved Administrations to develop a fair approach to future funding allocations, and to consider the needs of farmers in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, recognising that agriculture policy is, and will remain, devolved. This work in ongoing.
On arrangements for Northern Ireland, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, that the deal with the EU makes it clear that Northern Ireland is, and will remain, part of the UK customs territory. This allows the UK to ensure unfettered market access for goods moving from Northern Ireland to GB. The arrangements we introduce will reflect this. The Prime Minister has been clear that, beyond the limited changes introduced by the protocol, there will be no changes to GB-NI trade. Northern Ireland remains part of the UK’s customs territory.
Under the protocol—I say this wearing my biosecurity hat—agri-food checks and assurances will be required for the movement of goods from GB to Northern Ireland. This is to protect supply chains and the biosecurity of the island of Ireland, as a single epidemiological unit. The protocol establishes that Northern Ireland will align with EU sanitary and phytosanitary rules, including in relation to the movement of animals and products of animal origin.
I should say also to the noble Lord, Lord Kilclooney, that we will want to bring down the level of checks to a pragmatic, proportionate level that recognises the high standards across the United Kingdom, in line with the protocol provision that both parties must use
“their best endeavours to facilitate … trade”,
and avoid controls at Northern Ireland ports as far as is possible. We will actively seek to simplify and minimise electronic documentary requirements for this trade.
As for the wider state aid framework after the transition period, this is a matter on which the Government will set out their position in due course. The Government will continue to ensure that agriculture support schemes, now and in the future, are compliant with the UK’s domestic legal framework. If necessary, the Government will work on any domestic legislation required, once they have set out their position on subsidy controls.
I turn now to Wales and the devolved Administrations. I emphasise that the reason I am so pleased to bring forward provisions for Wales and Northern Ireland is that they are at those Administrations’ request. The devolved Administrations have asked us to do this, so I can confirm to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon, the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Humphreys, and the noble Lord, Lord German, that Defra and the Welsh Government reached agreement on the WTO agreement on agriculture. The bilateral agreement was published on GOV.UK and the Welsh Government website in March 2019. My officials continue to work closely with the Welsh Government, the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland and officials from the Scottish Government to agree and implement an administrative UK agriculture support framework. The aim of the framework is to ensure effective co-ordination and dialogue between the Administrations on agriculture subsidy, marketing standards, crisis measures, cross-border holdings and data collection and sharing. My experience is that, beyond the hyperbole, the arrangements and conduct of business with officials and Ministers between the devolved Administrations and the UK Government are very positive, and on these matters we are working very much to a common objective.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, that it has been agreed that a joint approach on organics is beneficial to the sector and we consider a UK-wide power the best way to achieve this. I also say to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord McConnell, that we want to see consistent protection against unfair trading practices for farmers, wherever they are in the United Kingdom. We continue to consult widely and meaningfully with everyone who will be affected by our new codes of conduct, including the devolved Administrations and producers in those territories. Their views will be listened to and respected.
The noble Baroness, Lady Humphreys, asked about the Livestock Information Service. This is a very important part of the programme. We shall work with the devolved Administrations to ensure that we share data to allow seamless traceability across the UK. Each territory’s tracing system will be able to communicate with each other to support day-to-day business operations such as cross-border movements.
I turn to the issue of new entrants. As I made clear in my opening remarks, it is very important that we ensure that there are new entrants and that they remain for the long term. The industry relies on attracting new talent and we will offer funding to councils with county farms estates, landowners and other organisations that want to invest in creating opportunities for new entrant farmers.
On financial assistance for active farmers, a point raised by my noble friend Lady Rock, we anticipate that farmers will receive a large proportion of the financial assistance provided for in the Clause 1 schemes.
I turn now to the focus of the Bill. I emphasise what many noble Lords have said: a strong environment is the way in which you can farm well. If your soils are not in good heart, you will not produce the food we need for both domestic and export production. That is why it is important that we work together on ensuring that farmers will, as we hope and believe, help the nation in achieving our environmental goals and in producing food for people both at home and abroad.
A number of noble Lords raised the issue of agricultural transition. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said that the period was too long, while other noble Lords said that it was not long enough. We think that the seven-year period gives sufficient time for the sector to adapt to a new model. Delaying the start of the agricultural transition would just delay the many benefits of moving away from direct payments, which we believe are poorly targeted. The phasing out of direct payments will free up money so that we can start to introduce new schemes, which will be a more effective way of rewarding farmers for the work that they do and help to prepare them for the future. For most farmers—around 80% of them—our maximum reduction in direct payments for 2021 will be no more than 5%. I should also say that this is well within the usual payment fluctuations caused by exchange rate changes that farmers faced under the CAP. In this context, I have also referred to the manifesto pledge about funding.
However, I am very struck by what a number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Earl, Lord Devon, said about what has been described as the gap. I want to concentrate on this and will express my understanding of the points that have been made. We will offer a simplified countryside stewardship scheme for 2021-24 alongside productivity grants. Countryside stewardship will provide an additional long-term income stream whether it is for, for example, new hedges, wildlife offers, managing ponds or, particularly, livestock yards and manure storage to reduce pollution and improve water quality. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, referred to that point and to how we work with farmers to achieve the climate change goals we set ourselves. Productivity grants will be available to invest in equipment, technology and infrastructure, such as efficient irrigation systems and precision slurry application equipment. The Government will ensure a smooth transition into the ELM scheme and no one with an environmental stewardship or countryside stewardship agreement will be unfairly disadvantaged when we transition to the new arrangements.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, and particularly to the noble Baronesses on the Front Benches, that work on the collaborative design of the ELM scheme is well under way. There are 53 tests and trials up and running, and funding of more than £6.6 million has already been given. The ELM national pilot will commence in late 2021 and will run until 2024, when we intend to launch the full ELM scheme. A number of noble Lords raised upland and hill farmers and also lowland farmers. There are many environmental benefits, such as clean air and water, which will help, and benefits to landscape, to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, referred.
A number of points were made on results. We will be working on that because we want to ensure that the approach achieves the results we need. On access, of course, all farmers and land managers will continue to comply with the regulatory standards, including those on public rights of way. We think the ELM can fund the creation of new paths and the maintenance of footpaths and bridleways, which will be very beneficial.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, mentioned GIs. The Government are setting up new domestic schemes which will provide protection for GIs after the transition period.
On the impact assessments, we will be providing analysis and will publish further evidence in the form of impact assessments at the point of secondary legislation or when we consult on new schemes under Clause 1: that is how we are undertaking that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Worthington, asked about cross-compliance. Again, we wish to retain standards. On forestry, again there are many points to be made. My noble friend Lord Shrewsbury and the noble Lord, Lord Trees, asked about animal welfare schemes. We will be working on that and considering different forms of animal welfare schemes. On the issue of food security, I am very happy to discuss this, but I will highlight that the report will draw on a range of regularly reported and publicly available statistics and data. The majority of data covered will be available between the reports—but I understand the points that have been made.
Data on food waste is one of many aspects that will be considered when assessing the global availability of food. Skills are very important. In the wider educational area, there are currently 28 high-quality apprenticeship standards available in the agriculture, environment and animal care sector, and I will write further on that.
On gene editing, again the Government agree that the EU approach is unscientific. We are committed to adopting a more scientific approach to regulation in the future. I have to say that the Government will not adopt a new approach without proper consultation, which I hope will provide assurances. On tenants and their eligibility, of course tenants will be eligible and will be part of the ELM pilots.
Change can be testing, so the Government will work closely with farmers to ensure that schemes work for the farmer and the country. Farming is the backbone of the countryside; farming communities are at the heart of the wider community. The food and drinks industry is vital to this country; so is a resilient and healthy environment. They must go hand in hand. I look forward to further stages of the Bill; I have a fair idea of the collision points that may transpire; and I hope we will do it in a spirit of friendship and, indeed, as an endeavour to do the right thing. However, I commend the Bill and I beg to move.