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, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
Essential and urgent cancer treatment has continued throughout the pandemic and cancer specialists, as always, are discussing the best treatment options with their patients. We are working to ensure that referrals, diagnostics and cancer treatment are back at pre-pandemic levels across the whole of England as soon as possible. Due to covid-19, the 21 cancer alliances in England have established hubs to ensure dedicated cancer care away from hospitals dealing with the virus. From the end of April, local systems and cancer alliances have continued to identify ring-fenced diagnostic and surgical capacity for cancer in line with issued guidance. Regional cancer senior responsible officers must now provide assurance that these arrangements are in place to help minimal regional variation.
Andrew Gwynne [V]
I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply, but she knows that people living with cancer are experiencing cancellation and delays to treatment all over the country, and that is causing anxiety and distress to many families. In getting people urgently back into treatment, will she look at the 12-point plan for restoration, recovery and transformation of cancer services outlined by Macmillan Cancer Support, Cancer Research UK and 23 other cancer charities, to ensure that cancer does not become the forgotten C during the coronavirus crisis?
Jo Churchill
I regularly engage with cancer charities and would be delighted to look at them to see where we are making good headway and where, perhaps, we could have discussions about other things that need to be targeted. While I have the hon. Gentleman on the screen, I would also like to highlight the fact that the Greater Manchester cancer alliance has led the way in its response to this pandemic. It was one of the first to establish a surgical hub model to ensure that cancer surgery was able to continue and that the local cancer system as a whole responded well. The alliance has also been looking to accelerate the rapid diagnostic centre to help promote diagnostics, so I thank everyone for that.
Mary Glindon [V]
As the Minister knows, being diagnosed with cancer is devastating, and one of the most important things to get patients through this difficult time is for them to be able to focus on their treatment. What message does the Minister have to comfort those people who are worried and stressed because they still cannot access the treatment they need because of covid-19?
Jo Churchill
I would say that, as soon as people notice any signs that might worry them, they should seek help. We have worked at pace to ensure that services have been resumed and are able to deliver for patients. Ensuring both early diagnosis and that patients can access the treatment that they need swiftly is our key ambition. We know that, following the guidance that has been delivered, we are achieving that throughout the system. Covid-19 has upended all our lives, and some decisions have been made to ensure the safety of patients, but we are now firmly back on track and will ensure that patients get the care they need.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Yesterday, the One Cancer Voice network of 25 charities published plans for restoring vital cancer services. I wrote to the Minister on 17 April with my own suggestion. Ideas included advanced radiotherapy, new models of chemotherapy, better cancer pathways and renewed screening and communication plans. This is not just about rebuilding what we had, but about making services better. If the Government are slow to do that, we face a cancer bubble that risks thousands of lives. Will the Minister commit to working with those charities and with me and other interested parliamentarians to form a cancer recovery plan to head off this looming crisis?
Jo Churchill
I assure the hon. Gentleman that, just as we have seen from working closely on the Medicines and Medical Devices Bill that is going through Parliament, there are lessons to be learned. There have been improvements in certain areas of radiotherapy in which it has been determined that fewer treatments actually mean a quicker and—I would not use the word “gentler”—an easier path for the patient. I would be happy to continue working both with him and with the cancer charities to ensure that we can improve that pathway for patients.
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I know how difficult it has been for people with learning disabilities and their families during lockdown, particularly without the back-up of day centres. I want to see those important services reopening as soon as it is possible and safe to do so, but that decision will need to be made locally. We are talking to the Local Government Association and others about what guidance and support may be needed to get day services up and running again.
Mrs Latham [V]
I thank the Minister for that answer, and I would like to wish her a happy birthday. Unlike schools, day centres such as Whitemoor in my Derbyshire constituency are normally open throughout the summer to provide desperately needed stimulation for many adults with special needs. What measures will she introduce to ensure that staff working at day centres are adequately supported to function as safely as possible, as soon as possible?
Helen Whately
I thank my hon. Friend for her birthday greetings. She makes a really important point: as day centres reopen, they need to be safe for staff and users. Risk assessments will need to be carried out, and some may need to use personal protective equipment. Public Health England is developing guidance on the use of PPE in community settings. Local authority-run services should have PPE provided by the local authority, and services provided by other organisations that struggle to get PPE from wholesalers should be able to access emergency local supplies.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
The Minister for Health (Edward Argar)
The most recent performance data published by NHS England for April 2020 shows an 8% reduction in the size of the waiting lists compared with April 2019, from 4,297,571 to 3,942,748. However, it is important to note that reduced referrals due to covid-19 are likely to be the cause of that, and there are a number of people waiting longer.
Ruth Cadbury [V]
To address the inevitable increase in waiting times for non-covid treatments, back in March the Government contracted private health providers to supply some 8,000 bed spaces at a cost of millions of pounds to the NHS and taxpayers. It was reported that a significant proportion of that capacity has been paid for but underused. The Government are now considering further contracts with private sector hospitals. How can we be confident that money will not be wasted again and that those waiting will get the treatment they so badly need?
Edward Argar
I gently say to the hon. Lady that I do not think that contracting to ensure sufficient capacity in our NHS at all times, so that it was never overwhelmed, which it has not been, was a waste of money. In response to her substantive point, we continue to work with the independent sector and the broader NHS to get elective surgery and other non-emergency procedures restarted at pace.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
There was a passionate debate on this issue last Thursday. As I said then, there is no doubt that covid-19 has upended our lives. The virus cruelly discriminates by many factors, including age, gender and ethnicity. There are still gaps in our understanding of occupational risks and co-morbidity that need attention. My hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities will be taking forward important cross-Government work with the Equality Hub, Public Health England and others.
Ms Buck
We now know the full extent to which covid and other health inequalities affect black and minority ethnic communities, and the extent to which that is reflected in regional inequalities, but does the Minister also understand how much such inequality prevails within boroughs? In my local authority, there is a 16-year life expectancy gap between the poorest communities and the wealthiest, which reflects the disparity with black and minority ethnic communities. Will she ensure that an equalities review tackles inequality within boroughs as well as between them, and will there be funding to support that?
Jo Churchill
We know that health inequalities are stubborn, persistent and difficult to change—we knew that before covid-19, but that is not a reason to accept them. We fully agree that more needs to be done to reduce the disparity in health outcomes within the BAME community and the broader community. That is why we will ensure that the work on health inequalities goes on at pace.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
NHS Test and Trace was introduced on 28 May, working with local authorities to prevent and contain the spread of covid-19. I am encouraged by the early results, which show that in the first two weeks of operation 87,000 people were contacted by NHS Test and Trace and agreed to self-isolate.
Meg Hillier
The Secretary of State will recall that I wrote to him a little while ago suggesting that an approach that was a bit more Shoreditch and a little less Whitehall might be effective. Given the lack of success of the app, maybe he could have taken that advice. I am pleased that Hackney Council is one of the five areas that is piloting this, working with GPs and other health professionals in public health and so on, but the critical thing is that we are not getting the data locally that we need to do the proper tracing of those who were close to someone who has tested positive. When will that data arrive? Without it, it is like working with one arm tied behind our back.
Matt Hancock
The amount of data flowing to local authorities has increased substantially over the past few weeks since the start of the operation at the end of last month, and there will be more coming very, very soon.
Lilian Greenwood
We all want to see lockdown eased, but that reopening will only be safe if the system to test, trace and isolate is working effectively. As more people return to work, start to travel on public transport, and perhaps even go to pubs, cafés and hairdressers—albeit keeping their distance—the ability to trace contact people we do not know will become much more important. The Secretary of State initially said that the app would be rolled out in mid-May; it is now the end of June. When are we actually going to see the app in action?
Matt Hancock
Obviously, as soon as possible. I agree very strongly with the hon. Lady about the importance of contact tracing—the Test and Trace programme is one of the largest of its kind—to ensure that, as we manage to lift national measures, which we can because the disease is clearly under control and the number of cases is coming down, we can then respond through local action.
Dr James Davies
NHS Test and Trace will play an important part in our continued fight against covid-19, but efficient co-ordination across Great Britain will be vital to its success. What steps has my right hon. Friend taken to ensure effective joint working between England, Wales and Scotland?
Matt Hancock
That is an incredibly important question. Of course, I would add Northern Ireland to that group. We have regular meetings. I have a weekly call with my counterparts in the devolved Governments. Of course, the devolved Governments have a huge role to play in this. I will give whatever support I can to help the Welsh Government to make sure that they can deliver contact tracing, and indeed the wider testing programme, as well as possible.
Mrs Hodgson [V]
Will the Minister urgently set out a plan to support local authorities to implement local lockdowns if needed, along with providing them with all the resources they need to implement this?
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
NHS Test and Trace is currently tracing the contacts of about 700 people every day who have the virus, but the Office for National Statistics says that 2,500 new people are being infected every day, which means that since the programme started, up to a quarter of a million people have not been asked to isolate who should have been. It is a big achievement to get the programme going, but that is also a big gap. What are the Secretary of State’s plans to close it?
Matt Hancock
I am not sure I agree with my right hon. Friend’s figures in terms of the assumptions that underpin them. We have had this discussion and this exchange before. There are a whole number of asymptomatic cases. The critical thing about Test and Trace is to find as many of the asymptomatic cases, and as many of the positive test result cases, as possible. We need to do that over time by expanding the programme.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
While a proximity app would assist in identifying casual contacts, many people were concerned that a centralised model would harvest their data. In the trial, this one failed to detect 96% of contacts. So why did the Secretary of State persist so long with an app that simply did not work on the majority of phones?
Matt Hancock
I am afraid the hon. Lady is wrong. The trials in the Isle of Wight showed that the app worked on Android phones, but was blocked from working effectively on Apple phones; hence we are now working with Apple and Google, as we have been over the past few weeks, to find a system that can be effective. But I will not sign off on an app where we do not know and have not been told by some multinational company what it is recommending to people because, after all, the critical thing that matters in test and trace is that people isolate to break the chain of transmission.
Dr Whitford
I would gently suggest that iPhones are actually quite common, so it is important that it does work on iPhones. The boss of Serco has admitted that its contact tracing system will not be fully functioning until the autumn, and we find that actually local public health teams are carrying out the vast majority of contact tracing, so would Government money not be better spent reversing five years of budget cuts to public health?
Matt Hancock
It is very strange taking these questions from the SNP spokesman, given that I am working with the SNP Government on resolving exactly these problems in Scotland, and maybe the SNP would do better to focus there. In response to the second question, honestly, we have put £300 million of support into local directors of public health to tackle this pandemic, and I know that her colleagues in the Scottish Government are working hard with local authorities in Scotland as well in exactly the same way.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Prime Minister promised that 100,000 people a day would be tested by the end of April, so since that date, on how many occasions have more than 100,000 people been tested on any single day?
Matt Hancock
I have not got those data exactly—[Interruption.] If the Opposition would care to engage on the substance, rather than not taking this seriously, yesterday, we delivered the 8 millionth test in this country. We have delivered more than 100,000 tests on almost every day since the end of April and at the end of last week we were delivering 230,000 tests a day. I think what we need from the Opposition is support for the testing programme, because that is what people care about.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
I understand that Infant Mental Health Awareness Week was a great success. There is much to be gained from seeing the world through a baby’s eyes.
Tim Loughton
I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that short answer. We have heard much about the impact of lockdown on school-age children away from school, but little on the impact on babies and new parents facing particular challenges on their emotional wellbeing. Has the Secretary of State or the Minister, if she has got her voice back, seen the research published during Infant Mental Health Awareness Week by the First 1001 Days Movement last week, suggesting that three quarters of parents with children under two are feeling the detrimental impact of the lockdown, particularly BAME parents? What are the Government doing to put this crucial cohort on the radar and provide support before they grow up and take the problems to school and beyond?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right on this. I applaud the work of the First 1001 Days Movement. It is incredibly important. I strongly support the work that it has done to highlight the importance of the early days of life and the time before the birth of children. I have seen that report. I have discussed it with the Minister and we are working very hard to put that into effect.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
Social care is at the frontline of this cruel global pandemic here in the UK and around the world. We have brought together support across Government, the NHS, Public Health England, local health protection teams, the Care Quality Commission and local authorities, and done our utmost to help care homes and home care services to look after those in their care. The majority of care providers have been covid-free. Our support includes access to testing, PPE, guidance based on evidence from around the world, improved oversight and funding.
Lee Anderson
I have received many emails from constituents who are desperate to see and visit their family members in care homes, after months of not seeing them. Will my hon. Friend assure me and care workers in Ashfield and Eastwood that the Government will do everything they can to ensure that care homes have the right support and guidance, so that they are prepared to deal with an influx of friends and family visitors as they begin to open their doors in a safe way?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that the current restriction on visiting is hard for residents in care homes and their families, and has a real impact on health and wellbeing. We are updating our visitor guidance and intend to publish it soon.
Liz Kendall (Leicester West) (Lab)
I, too, wish the Minister a very happy birthday.
I am sure the Minister will agree that lessons must be learned from what has happened so far, because the virus is not over for social care. With 13,375 deaths from covid-19 in care homes, what does she think she should have done differently?
Helen Whately
The hon. Lady is absolutely right that there will be a time when we will look back and learn lessons, and I wish that not so many people had died in social care, but right now we are looking ahead. We are making sure that we have in place the plans to support the social care sector through the months ahead, and we are also pressing ahead with work on social care reform.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I thank the hon. Gentleman and the other members of the all-party group on radiotherapy and cancer for meeting me and officials recently. It is expected that each of the 50 NHS trusts that provide radiotherapy will be able to deliver stereotactic ablative radiotherapy no later than 31 March 2021. Increased external quality assurance capacity means that we could complete the roll-out process for all commissioned indications quicker than that. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that such a result would be fantastic.
Tim Farron
I very much welcome the Minister’s response and thank her personally for her excellent attention to this matter and the progress that she has helped to make possible. Of course, with a 60% drop in the number of cancer referrals and a 20% drop in the number of people starting cancer treatment, we have late diagnoses and a backlog that could, tragically, kill more people than covid. Will the Minister therefore go further and faster and deploy expanded radiotherapy treatment this summer to clear the backlog? Will she commit to appointing a radiotherapy tsar and to a rolling radiotherapy fund, so that we can stop more lives being unnecessarily lost?
Jo Churchill
The hon. Gentleman will know which parts of that are still open for discussion between us, but we are of course driving hard to make sure that patients get their radiotherapy and treatment as quickly as they can. The NHS has a “Help Us Help You” campaign: it is open for business and people should make sure that they attend any appointment they are called to.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con)
Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
Our NHS workers—from the doctors, nurses and allied health professionals to the healthcare assistants, porters and all those who work behind the scenes—are truly heroes. I wish to say a special thank you to students: thank you to the medical students and nursing students who courageously stepped up to work at the frontline in a global pandemic. I am determined to do all that we can for our NHS workers. We have set up a round-the-clock mental health support line, which includes a freephone helpline run by the Samaritans and an out-of-hours text support service provided by Shout.
Cherilyn Mackrory
I thank the Minister for her answer and wish her a very happy birthday.
Due to physical challenges with geography in rural communities, such as much of my Truro and Falmouth constituency, there can be higher incidences of mental health issues, loneliness and isolation, and that has been intensified by the covid-19 pandemic. Will my hon. Friend provide an update on departmental plans for support for mental health issues in rural communities?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: we anticipate an increase in demand for mental health support, including in rural communities, as a result of the pandemic. We are working with the NHS and a wide range of stakeholders to understand the need for mental health support all over the country and to make sure that that support is in place.
Jane Stevenson
In my regular meetings with the Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, the issue of staff mental health has been repeatedly raised as a serious concern, especially among staff who are working with covid patients. Will the Minister join me in thanking those staff at New Cross Hospital and reassuring them that mental health support will be available for all staff who need it?
Helen Whately
I would be delighted to join my hon. Friend in thanking the staff at New Cross Hospital for all that they have been doing in these incredibly difficult times. Mental health support absolutely should be, and is, there. There is the mental health support helpline and the text messaging service. It is also really important that NHS trusts take steps locally to ensure that their staff have the support that they need.
Sir Oliver Heald
When we stood with our neighbours and clapped for the carers, we showed solidarity across the nation with them and recognised the strain, stress and anxiety under which many of them were working. Can the Minister assure me—and say what practical steps can be taken to ensure—that, as they work through the experiences they have had, they will get the care and support necessary for them, and that we care for our carers?
Helen Whately
The clap for carers initiative was fantastic because it was a moment when we showed, as a nation, our support for our health and social care workers, but my right hon. and learned Friend is right that clapping is not enough. One thing that I want to do in the months ahead is bring forward the people plan—work that had to be paused because of covid—and to ensure that it includes all possible support for the NHS workforce, so that the NHS can be the best place to work in the world.
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) (Lab)
Even before the covid pandemic, our frontline NHS and care staff were already working in overstretched and under-resourced settings. It is heartbreaking to see how the virus has taken its toll on them. They have had to deal with redeployment, not enough PPE, a fear of losing patients and getting ill themselves. These are all factors leading to staff burnout and very poor mental health. After all their sacrifices, our frontline staff deserve their mental health to be taken seriously. Is the Minister satisfied with the Government’s current package of support for frontline NHS and care staff?
Helen Whately
The hon. Member is absolutely right about how hard it has been for NHS staff stepping up, and we cannot say enough how grateful we are for what they have done. I also recognise the mental health burdens on the NHS workforce who have worked in these really stressful circumstances. It is important not only that the package of support is there now, but that it is there for some time to come, because we know that the trauma and effects of working in these environments may take a while to play through.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
As my hon. Friend knows, one of our key commitments was to diagnose more cancers earlier. Through NHS England and NHS Improvement, the Government have committed over £1.3 billion to deliver this, including with an overhaul of screening programmes and new investment in state-of-the-art technology to transform the process of diagnosis and to boost research and innovation. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that 18 rapid diagnostic centres towards our target of 40 are already up and running, as well as the introduction of personalised care plans, which he and I both consider very important.
Steve Brine
I do welcome that; I have visited many of the centres. Before the pandemic, we were battling to meet the cancer targets that I helped to set and that my hon. Friend now looks after so ably. Would she confirm that we have not lost sight of the 75% ambition in the long-term plan, and whether there will be a revision to the cancer section of the long-term plan in the light of the backlog of the stuff that we know? Of course, there is also plenty of stuff that we do not yet know that we know, as a result of presentations not coming forward through primary care.
Jo Churchill
There are lessons to be learned; that is essence of my hon. Friend’s question. I have met both Cally Palmer and Professor Peter Johnson throughout the crisis, and our focus on cancer has remained. Ensuring that we deliver on the long-term plan is a key objective, and I am sure that my hon. Friend will work with me on that.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
Our health and social care workforce are at the frontline in fighting this cruel disease. I would particularly like to talk about social care workers, who in the past have not had the same recognition as NHS workers. Let this pandemic be the moment when that changed and when we, as a society, recognise the skills, compassion and commitment of our entire care workforce. We have sought to put in place the same support for social care workers as there is for NHS workers and funding to local authorities to pass on to care providers, so that they can pay social care staff full wages for isolating due to covid-19.
Paul Holmes
I wish the Minister a happy birthday. The coronavirus pandemic has highlighted how vital social care workers are to our nation, and we as a House should thank them for the job that they do. Unpaid carers in particular have borne a huge weight throughout this pandemic, so will my hon. Friend tell the House what steps she has taken to support unpaid carers during this period?
Helen Whately
Unpaid carers are vital in our society. Being an unpaid carer is hard at the best of times, but even harder during this pandemic, and my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to that. During the pandemic, we have published guidance specifically for carers. We provided funding to extend the Carers UK helpline, we made unpaid carers a priority group for testing, and we are working with local government to support the reopening of day care services as soon as it is safe to do so.
Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
We know that people who have been very ill with covid will take some time to recover and may need ongoing help after they have left hospital. At the moment, as part of the covid emergency measures, continuing healthcare assessments are not required, which means that people can be properly discharged when they are well enough and have access to the ongoing healthcare they need.
Harriett Baldwin
Happy birthday to the Minister. Our wonderful NHS staff have helped so many people recover from this terrible disease and leave hospital, and many of them will have been ventilated for a long time. Is the Minister planning to set up a specialist service that helps with those very difficult cases where a lot of rehabilitation will be needed?
Helen Whately
My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are still learning about the impact of this horrible disease, but we know it may take people some time to recover and they may need extra help after they have been discharged from hospital. We are indeed doing work to ensure that the right support is there for them.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (SNP)
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
Gareth Davies (Grantham and Stamford) (Con)
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
Thanks to unprecedented action, we have protected the NHS. It was not overwhelmed during the peak of this crisis, and all covid-19 patients admitted to hospital were able to receive urgent treatment that they needed. We remain vigilant.
Joanna Cherry
I thank the Minister for his answer, but after the end of the Brexit transition period, all four health services in the UK and Northern Ireland will face increased bureaucracy and increased costs to import drugs from Europe. On top of that, it has been estimated that a trade deal with the United States of America could increase the drugs bill from £18 billion to £45 billion. How will the Secretary of State prevent these extra costs from hampering NHS capacity?
Matt Hancock
First, there is no reason at all why the exit from the transition period should have the impact that the hon. and learned Lady describes. We have put in place a huge amount of work to ensure that Brexit works positively for our life sciences industry and indeed, as we do now, that we can buy pharmaceutical products from around the world, not just from within the European Union. As for the idea that somehow a trade deal will increase prices of drugs, that is flat wrong.
Gavin Newlands [V]
With the need for additional infection control measures, how can the Secretary of State ensure sufficient staff to support parents to spend time with their babies in special care baby units, when covid-19 is creating additional barriers to parents being with their baby as much as they want and need to be? Moreover, will he look at an emergency form of neonatal leave and pay, or a subsistence fund similar to Scotland’s, to allow parents affected by covid-19 to have the time they need with their baby?
Matt Hancock
We are putting in a huge amount of support for maternity services and other services across the NHS in England. Of course, when it comes to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents in Glasgow, he will have to ask the SNP Government.
Simon Jupp
Local construction firms are working around the clock to build the NHS Nightingale hospital in Exeter, based in my constituency of East Devon. I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that we all hope it will never have to be used. Can he assure my constituents that the Nightingale will help the Royal Devon and Exeter Hospital, our community hospitals and our health and wellbeing hub to continue to focus efforts on delivering the superb services that they are well known for across East Devon?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. My hon. Friend is a great advocate for Devon, and for East Devon in particular. The Nightingale Hospital in Exeter will have more flexible uses than the previous Nightingales, so, for instance, it will be usable should there be extra winter pressures. This is all part of protecting our NHS. At the heart of our response to this dreadful disease, we protected the NHS, making sure it was always there for everyone. That has been down to, and is a testament to, the work of so many people, who delivered on that requirement.
Gareth Davies
Yesterday, our local NHS trust, the United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust, temporarily downgraded and closed emergency admissions at Grantham and District Hospital, in response to covid-19. After many years of uncertainty, there is understandable scepticism about this latest move by the trust. Will the Secretary of State join me in calling on the trust to ensure that these changes are indeed temporary and that covid is not used as cover to make them permanent?
Matt Hancock
Thanks to my hon. Friend’s assiduous work on behalf of his constituents in Grantham, and at his suggestion, I discussed this issue directly with NHS officials. Grantham’s unit will be open, 24/7, as an urgent treatment centre; this is part of plans to ensure that covid and non-covid services are kept as separate as possible. In addition, thanks to his intervention, we will ensure that that position will be reviewed quarterly.
Tommy Sheppard [V]
The NHS in England had more than 40,000 nursing vacancies at the start of the covid pandemic, but student nurses stepped forward to contribute to the response. So why are many of their contracts now being terminated, given that they may well be needed this autumn? Would a better approach not be to increase nursing bursaries to £10,000, as they are in Scotland, where nursing vacancies are half those of England?
Matt Hancock
We have increased by about 10,000 the number of nurses in the NHS in the past year, and during the crisis that number increased further. We also set out at the start how we are paying student nurses, as they stepped up to the mark, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said. I am delighted that so many of them did, and we are sticking to the agreements that we set out with the student nurses at the start of the crisis.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
We are doing all we can to help care homes control and prevent covid outbreaks, and the majority of care homes have not had outbreaks. Testing is an important part of that. On 11 May, we launched a programme of testing all staff and residents in care homes, starting with older people and those with dementia, based on public health guidance. We met our target of offering tests to all these care homes by 6 June, which involved sending more than 1 million test kits to 9,000 care homes. We are now getting tests out to all the other Care Quality Commission-registered care homes for adults that ordered them on the testing portal.
Sir David Amess
Further to what my hon. Friend has said, will she confirm that there is a rolling programme to test for covid-19 in our care homes? Recently, a care home in my constituency had a whole-home test and found that someone was positive. When it then asked for another test for everyone, it was told by NHS England that it was not eligible, and that cannot be right.
Helen Whately
I will say two things on that. First, when a care home has a new outbreak, either for the first time or after having recovered from a previous outbreak, it should contact its local health protection team to arrange for initial testing of symptomatic residents, in order to confirm the outbreak. The local health protection team or the director of public health can then refer the care home to the national testing team so that it can be prioritised for whole-home testing.
Giles Watling (Clacton) (Con)
The Minister for Patient Safety, Mental Health and Suicide Prevention (Ms Nadine Dorries) [V]
Departmental officials have been working with NHS England and NHS Improvement to establish means of specialist support for those women requiring it. NHS England is in the process of commissioning a number of mesh removal centres, which it hopes to be operational later this year. We urge anyone who has concerns about their treatment to speak to a clinician.
Giles Watling
I thank my hon. Friend for her answer, but I understand from constituents that many women have to travel miles for their operations in great discomfort, and that when they get there, they are told they are not eligible. As the Minister said, the mesh recovery centres have not yet been opened. I have met women who are going through utter pain and torment as a result of surgical mesh surgery. There are concerns that English and Welsh patients do not get the same monetary help as their Scottish counterparts. What is the Minister doing to address these issues?
Ms Dorries
On access to services, NHS England advises that it is aware of the negative impact that covid-19 is having on patients during what is a very challenging period. As a result of my hon. Friend’s question, I will ask officials to look into why women may or may not be eligible for services during this time. As healthcare is devolved, the Scottish element of his question is a matter for the Scottish Government. I would advise anyone who intends to make a claim for compensation or is having difficulty seeking services to seek independent advice or see a clinician. It is important to reiterate that NHS England is currently in the process of commissioning those specialist services for mesh removal, which it hopes will be operational later this year.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
Vaccine development is progressing well, with human clinical trials underway by both the University of Oxford and Imperial College London. We are also exploring how other vaccines, both from the UK and internationally, can be deployed here should they show promise.
Craig Williams
Can my right hon. Friend reassure me, the House and my Welsh constituents in Montgomeryshire that if and when a vaccine for covid-19 is developed, it will be rolled out in a UK-wide partnership? Will he work with the devolved healthcare systems but ensure that the vaccine is UK-accessed?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course. That is an incredibly important question for anybody living in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, like my hon. Friend’s constituents. The vaccine programme is being taken forward on a UK-wide basis. Of course people living in the devolved nations should have access to vaccines according to a prioritisation that is clinical and not based on where people live. We will absolutely work with the devolved authorities on the delivery and deployment of that vaccine. Of course, we want the whole country to get the vaccines, if they become available, according to clinical priority.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
Yesterday, clinicians set out our advice for those who are shielding because they are clinically extremely vulnerable. The whole House will want to pay tribute to the enormous sacrifice of that group, who are among the most vulnerable to covid-19. Very shortly, the Prime Minister will set out to the House the next steps to get the country back on her feet.
Edward Timpson
There is no doubt that lockdown has taken its toll on the mental health and wellbeing of many children of all ages, whether by way of social isolation, physical inactivity or a sense of loss. I know that my right hon. Friend is very exercised by that, so, as we understand more about the impact, will he look again at the long-term NHS plan to establish whether it is really able to meet what will be a more acute challenge in the future?
Matt Hancock
That is a very important question on supporting children’s mental health. We absolutely reiterate the long-term plan ambitions for service transformation and expansion. Indeed, one of the things we have learned during coronavirus is that when it comes to paediatric mental health, telemedicine can actually have a better and more effective impact than face to face. That is a good thing to have learned and will help the roll-out further.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
On the app, the Secretary of State told us it was crucial and would be ready by mid-May. Experts warned him it would not work. He spent three months, wasted £12 million and has got nothing to show for it. It is a good job he is a tech-savvy expert on apps; otherwise, this would be a right shambles now, wouldn’t it?
Matt Hancock
On the contrary, ensuring that we use technology to its best possible effects is incredibly important. I would have thought that the shadow Secretary of State would want to side with and support the efforts of all those, including in the NHS, who are doing the work to ensure that we can get this up and running as quickly as possible.
Jonathan Ashworth
In the past few days, I have been listening to the Secretary of State’s excuses. He is like the Eric Morecambe of the Commons: he has been playing all the right notes, just not necessarily in the right order. On test and trace, local areas such as Leicester, which has had a spike, still do not have local data; GPs still cannot refer people for testing; and NHS staff are still not tested regularly. He has spent £100 million on a Serco and Sitel call centre where the tracers are saying they have nothing to do. This is not a “world-beating” system; it is more like a wing and a prayer. When are we going to get a functional test, trace and isolate strategy?
Matt Hancock
The shadow Secretary of State is far better when he supports the Government than when he pretends to oppose them. We have all seen him explaining why the steps that the Government are taking are the sensible ones, why it is important to move from a national lockdown as much as is safely possible to local outbreak control, and why test and trace is important. When he gets on to saying that the money we have spent to protect the NHS and put in place the actions needed to get us out of the lockdown is wasted, I think that that is opposition for opposition’s sake.
Robert Courts (Witney) (Con)
Matt Hancock
As we sign trade deals around the world, we will have enhanced animal and food standards in this country, and of course the Food Standards Agency plays a vital role in ensuring that those standards are upheld.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
Matt Hancock
We are putting this policy into action and it will be retrospective to the date of the announcement by the Prime Minister.
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) (Con) [V]
Matt Hancock
I am absolutely delighted that my right hon. Friend will be able to follow guidance and take more steps out after 6 July. The decisions on shielding were all based on the best clinical advice. Dr Jenny Harries, the deputy chief medical officer, has led the medical advice on this programme with great élan and wisdom. The reason that we are able to make these changes and recommend these steps to my right hon. Friend and the 2.2 million others in his situation is that we have protected the NHS and got the virus right under control.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Matt Hancock
Of course it has been necessary to have tight controls over visitors in hospitals during this crisis, because people picking up nosocomial infections in hospital has been one part of the epidemic that we need to get under control. My heart goes out to those many people who have made sacrifices, including the hon. Member’s constituent, and of course we always keep this under review.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend makes an important point. She may have seen this morning that in Germany, North Rhine-Westphalia has been put back into lockdown because of a local outbreak. So far, the local outbreaks we have seen have essentially been clusters in very small areas, and we have been able to bust those clusters and tackle them. We do, of course, hold the powers to have wider local lockdowns. Those will be based on judgments based on the epidemiological advice and advised by the joint biosecurity centre, working with all the relevant agencies.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Matt Hancock
We will bring forward that White Paper. The work has been ongoing even while we have been dealing with coronavirus. As far as I am concerned, the Wessely review is one of the finest pieces of work on the treatment of mental ill health that has been done anywhere in the world.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. When we set up the loneliness strategy in 2018, when I was the Culture Secretary, I had no idea that covid-19 would make it so vital. I very much hope that, in England at least, the measures the Prime Minister is due to set out very shortly might help in that regard. Covid has underlined the importance of loneliness as an issue that we must directly and actively tackle.
Karin Smyth (Bristol South) (Lab)
Matt Hancock
Because this is a big team effort by a combination of public and private sector partners. I pay tribute to Deloitte, without which the testing programme would not be possible. I pay tribute to all the pharmaceutical companies and I pay tribute to Amazon, which has delivered the home testing with remarkable success. Instead of trying to divide, we should unite and bring people together.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Matt Hancock
Yes. David Rosser is a great leader of a very, very impressive trust. I was speaking to him only last week. There is an important lesson from covid, which is that many of the NHS central rules and much of the bureaucracy was lifted to allow local systems to respond as a health system. That has worked well. We need to learn from that. We need to not only make that permanent, but see where we can go further in that sort of system working.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Matt Hancock
We were scrupulously fair in the allocation of funding to local authorities, ensuring, for instance, that the support for social care went according to the number of beds. We have taken a great deal of care to make sure we get this right.
Mr Speaker
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.
Covid-19 Update
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Prime Minister (Boris Johnson)
Before I begin, I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our deepest condolences to the families and friends of James Furlong, Joe Ritchie-Bennett and David Wails, who were brutally killed in Reading on Saturday. To assault defenceless people in a park is an act not simply of wickedness, but of abject cowardice. We will never yield to those who would seek to destroy our way of life.
With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the next steps in our plan to rebuild our economy and reopen our society, while waging our struggle against covid-19. From the outset, we have trusted in the common sense and perseverance of the British people, and their response has more than justified our faith. Since I set out our plan on 11 May, we have been clear that our cautious relaxation of the guidance is entirely conditional on our continued defeat of the virus. In the first half of May, nearly 69,000 people tested positive for covid-19 across the UK; by the first half of June, that total had fallen by nearly 70% to just under 22,000. The number of new infections is now declining by between 2% and 4% every day.
Four weeks ago, an average of one in 400 people in the community in England had covid-19; in the first half of June, the figure was one in 1,700. We created a human shield around the NHS, and in turn our doctors and nurses have protected us. Together, we have saved our hospitals from being overwhelmed. On 11 May, 1,073 people were admitted to hospital in England, Wales and Northern Ireland with covid-19; by 20 June, the figure had fallen by 74% to 283.
This pandemic has inflicted permanent scars, and we mourn everyone we have lost. Measured by a seven-day rolling average, the number of daily deaths peaked at 943 on 14 April. On 11 May, it was 476 and yesterday the rolling average stood at 130. We have ordered over 2.2 billion items of protective equipment from UK-based manufacturers, many of whose production lines have been called into being to serve this new demand. And yesterday we conducted or posted 139,659 tests, bringing the total to over 8 million.
While we remain vigilant, we do not believe that there is currently—currently—a risk of a second peak of infections that might overwhelm the NHS. Taking everything together, we continue to meet our five tests, and the chief medical officers of all four home nations have downgraded the UK’s covid alert level from 4 to 3, meaning that we no longer face the virus spreading exponentially, although it remains in general circulation.
The Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland hold responsibility for their own lockdown restrictions, and they will respond to the united view of the chief medical officers at their own pace, based on their own judgment. But all parts of the UK are now travelling in the same direction, and we will continue to work together to ensure that everyone in our country gets the support they need.
Thanks to our progress, we can now go further and safely ease the lockdown in England. At every stage, caution will remain our watchword, and each step will be conditional and reversible. Given the significant fall in the prevalence of the virus, we can change the 2-metre social distancing rule from 4 July. I know that this rule effectively makes life impossible for large parts of our economy, even without other restrictions—for example, it prevents all but a fraction of our hospitality industry from operating. That is why almost two weeks ago I asked our experts to conduct a review; I will place a summary of their conclusions in the Libraries of both Houses this week.
Where it is possible to keep 2 metres apart, people should. But where it is not, we will advise people to keep a social distance of 1 metre-plus, meaning that they should remain 1 metre apart while taking mitigations to reduce the risk of transmission. We are today publishing guidance on how business can reduce the risk by taking certain steps to protect workers and customers. Those include, for instance, avoiding face-to-face seating by changing office layouts, reducing the number of people in enclosed spaces, improving ventilation, the use of protective screens and face coverings, closing non-essential social spaces, providing hand sanitiser, or changing shift patterns so that staff work in set teams. We already mandate face coverings on public transport.
While the experts cannot give a precise assessment of how much the risk is reduced, they judge that those mitigations would make 1 metre-plus broadly equivalent to the risk at 2 metres, if those mitigations are fully implemented. Either would be acceptable, and our guidance will change accordingly. That vital change enables the next stage of our plan to ease the lockdown.
I am acutely conscious that people will ask legitimate questions about why certain activities are allowed, when others are not, but I must ask the House to understand that the virus has no interest in such debates. Its only ambition is to exploit any opportunities to recapture ground that we might carelessly vacate, and to reinfect our communities. There is only one certainty, which is that the fewer social contacts someone has, the safer they will be, and our duty as a Government is to guide the British people, balancing our overriding aim of controlling the virus against our natural desire to bring back normal life.
We cannot lift all the restrictions at once, so we have to make difficult judgments. Every step is scrupulously weighed against the evidence. Our principle is to trust the British public to use their common sense in the full knowledge of the risks, remembering that the more we open up, the more vigilant we will need to be. From now on, we will ask people to follow guidance on social contact, instead of legislation, and in that spirit we advise that from 4 July, two households of any size should be able to meet in any setting, inside or out. That does not mean that they must always be the same two households; it will, for instance, be possible to meet one set of grandparents one weekend, and the other set the following weekend. We are not recommending meetings of multiple households indoors, because of the risk of creating greater chains of transmission. Outside, the guidance remains that people from several households can meet in groups of up to six, and it follows that two households can also meet, regardless of size.
Mr Speaker, I can tell the House that we will also reopen restaurants and pubs. All hospitality indoors will be limited to table service, and our guidance will encourage minimal staff and customer contact. We will ask businesses to help NHS test and trace respond to any local outbreaks by collecting contact details from customers, as happens in other countries, and we will work with the sector to make that manageable. Almost as eagerly awaited as a pint will be a haircut—particularly by me, Mr Speaker—and we will reopen hairdressers with appropriate precautions, including the use of visors. We also intend to allow some other close-contact services such as nail bars to reopen as soon as we can, once we are confident that they can operate in a covid-secure way.
From 4 July, provided that no more than two households stay together, people will be free to stay overnight in self-contained accommodation, including hotels and bed and breakfasts, as well as campsites, as long as shared facilities are kept clean. Most leisure facilities and tourist attractions will reopen if they can do so safely, including outdoor gyms and playgrounds, cinemas, museums, galleries, theme parks and arcades, as well as libraries, social clubs and community centres.
Close-proximity venues such as nightclubs, soft play areas, indoor gyms, swimming pools and spas will, I am afraid, need to remain closed for now, as will bowling alleys and waterparks, but my right hon. Friends the Business Secretary and the Culture Secretary will establish taskforces with public health experts and those sectors to help them to become covid-secure and reopen as soon as possible.
We will also work with the arts industry on specific guidance to enable choirs, orchestras and theatres to resume live performances as soon as possible. Recreation and sport will be allowed, but indoor facilities, including changing rooms and courts, will remain closed, and people should only play close-contact team sports with members of their household.
I know that many have mourned the closure of places of worship, and this year Easter, Passover and Eid all occurred during the lockdown. I am delighted that places of worship will be able to reopen for prayer and services, including weddings, with a maximum of 30 people, all subject to social distancing.
Meanwhile, our courts, probation services, police stations and other public services will increasingly resume face-to-face proceedings. Wraparound care for school-age children and formal childcare will restart over the summer. Primary and secondary education will recommence in September with full attendance, and those children who can already go to school should do so, because it is safe.
We will publish covid-secure guidelines for every sector that is reopening, and slowly but surely these measures will restore a sense of normality. After the toughest restrictions in peacetime history, we are now able to make life easier for people, so that they can see more of their friends and families, and to help businesses get back on their feet and get people back into work.
The virus has not gone away, however. We will continue to monitor the data with the joint biosecurity centre and our ever more effective test and trace system. I must be clear to the House that, as we have seen in other countries, there will be flare-ups, for which local measures will be needed. We will not hesitate to apply the brakes and reintroduce restrictions, even at national level, if required. I urge everyone to stay alert, control the virus and save lives. Let us keep washing our hands; staying 2 metres apart wherever feasible, mitigating the risks at 1 metre where it is not; avoiding public transport where possible and wearing a mask when we have to use public transport; getting tested immediately if we have symptoms; and self-isolating if instructed to do so by NHS test and trace.
Today we can say that our long national hibernation is beginning to come to an end. Life is returning to our streets and to our shops, the bustle is starting to come back and a new but cautious optimism is palpable, but I must say to the House that it would be all too easy for that frost to return. That is why we will continue to trust in the common sense and the community spirit of the British people to follow this guidance, to carry us through and to see us to victory over this virus. I commend this statement to the House.
Keir Starmer (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)
I thank the Prime Minister for advance sight of his statement. I join him in sending our condolences to the families and friends of those who died or were injured in Reading on Saturday. This was a truly appalling attack, and I extend our thanks to the police officers and members of the public who showed incredible bravery in response. I spoke to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) at the weekend and I am sure that I speak for the whole House in saying to the people of Reading that we stand with them at this incredibly difficult time.
When I was elected leader of the Labour party, I said that I would offer
“constructive opposition, with the courage to support the Government”—[Official Report, 22 April 2020; Vol. 675, c. 41.]
where they are doing the right thing. We will, of course, scrutinise the details of the announcement and study the guidance, and there are obviously a number of questions that need to be answered, but overall I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement. I believe that the Government are trying to do the right thing, and in that we will support them.
There are no easy decisions to be made here. Any unlocking carries risks. It has to be phased, managed and carefully planned; it needs to be based on scientific evidence, properly communicated and accompanied by robust track and trace systems; and there must be support for local councils and communities to respond quickly and decisively if there are any fresh outbreaks. But there are risks of inaction as well—of keeping businesses and schools closed, of keeping our economy closed, and of keeping families apart. We all need to recognise that today.
I have a number of questions about the basis for these decisions, which I hope the Prime Minister will address in a constructive way. First, on the scientific evidence, I listened carefully to what he said about the 2-metre rule and the 1-metre rule. Can he assure the House that the package of measures is agreed by the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser? What assessment has been made of the overall impact on transmission of the virus and on the R rate, both nationally and regionally?
On preventing a second spike and reintroducing measures as needed, the Prime Minister knows that local authorities will have to be central to that, but they need the resources and the powers. What additional support is he providing to councils? What new powers for swift local lockdown will be needed should there be a spike in infections?
On protection of those working, particularly on the frontline, we all want people to go back to work, but it has to be safe and standards have to be enforced. What enforceable measures will the Prime Minister put in place to give confidence to those who are returning to work?
On support for businesses, these changes are necessary, but they will be complex. Many businesses have already spent thousands of pounds preparing to operate at 2 metres. These changes will particularly be felt by small businesses and those on the high street, so what support can be given to them to address that?
On schools, I do think that it is safe for some children to return. I completely support that; the question is how quickly we can get all children back to school safely, the sooner the better. It was the Education Secretary who told the House on 9 June that it would not be possible to bring all children back to school before the summer. One of the reasons we support today’s announcement is that it will make it more possible, and easier, to get children back to school more quickly. We will support that, and my offer to work with the Prime Minister on that stands.
Finally, on test, track and trace, the Prime Minister will know that we have very serious concerns about the gaps in the current system, including the absence of an app. Getting this right is essential to unlocking in a safe manner, and it is important that the Prime Minister clarifies when the full track, trace and isolate system will be in place.
Today is an important step in the fight against this virus. We will scrutinise the detail, and we do want more clarity, but we welcome the thrust of the statement.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the spirit, the manner and the constructive way in which he has responded. On his points, we do believe that all five tests have been met. That means that the chief medical officer and the chief scientific adviser have been intimately involved in every stage of developing the programme, and they believe it to be a step in our plan that allows us to go ahead while meeting that crucial test of not triggering a second wave.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about support for local councils, and I have said that we are putting in another £3.2 billion to support them, as well as £600 million to support their responsibilities for social care. Clearly their responsibilities have not ended, but neither has our support. We will get this country through this crisis by doing everything it takes.
That brings me to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s question about businesses. I do not think there is another country in the world that has done quite so much to support our workforce and our employees. Under the coronavirus job retention scheme, we have supported 11 million people. We have supported 2.6 million self-employed people and £26 billion in bounce-back loans alone have been given out by the Government, to say nothing of the huge support in grants. We are very confident that it is one of the most extraordinary packages to be provided by any Government around the world, and we will continue to support our businesses.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentions track and trace and isolate. Of course it is perfectly true that it would be great to have an app, but no country currently has a functioning track and trace app. The great success of NHS test and trace is that, contrary to some of the scepticism that we heard—alas—from those on the Opposition Benches, so far it has contacted 87,000 people who have been in contact with those who have coronavirus, and they have elected voluntarily to self-isolate and stop the disease from spreading in the community. That is a fantastic success by our NHS test and trace operation, and we will continue to develop and improve that so as to crack down on local outbreaks and enable our country to go forward.
May I finally say how welcome it was to hear from the right hon. and learned Gentleman that he actively supports children returning to school and that he believes that returning to school is safe? I think he said that.
The Prime Minister
I do not want to accuse the right hon. and learned Gentleman of making a U-turn, but there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth and so on. It is good to have his support on that matter today. I welcome the spirit and the manner in which he has responded to this statement today.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
With continuing relatively high rates of infection across Bedford borough, I welcome the Prime Minister’s balanced transition from over-reliance on regulation to greater reliance on the common sense of British businesses and employees. Will the Prime Minister now build on the exceptional programme of economic support provided to businesses with an ambitious acceleration of his levelling up programme, in particular drawing on and unlocking the creativity of our entrepreneurs, our small businesses and our innovators?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is on the money on that point. He will be hearing a lot more about exactly that in the course of the next couple of weeks, not only from me, but from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (SNP) [V]
May I associate myself with the remarks of the Prime Minister and the leader of the Labour party on the outrage that took place on Saturday in Reading? Our thoughts are very much with the family and friends of James Furlong, of Joe Ritchie-Bennett and of David Wails. We give grateful thanks to all our emergency services for the work that they continue to do. On this day, we also acknowledge the sad death of Harry Smith, the former political reporter for ITV and Scottish Television. He will be sadly missed.
I thank the Prime Minister for an advance copy of his statement. Today’s announcement will be understandably welcomed by many, but for every word of welcome, there must follow words of caution. The virus has not gone away. The margins for ensuring it does not take off again remain tight. Keeping people safe remains the first priority. We cannot put a price on human life. China and Germany are right now dealing with spikes in cases as a result of significant outbreaks. Health officials in South Korea have said they think the country is now experiencing a second wave. A similar experience here would amount to not just a health disaster, but an economic disaster. It would wipe out all the hard-won progress and self-sacrifice over recent months. It is vital that our collective efforts remain focused on preventing the disaster of a second spike.
We must remain cautious, too, because the public are well used to hearing grand announcements from the Prime Minister, only for a U-turn to follow days or weeks later. Not only have the UK Government wasted precious time on introducing a botched test and trace system, but they have wasted millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money in the process. That is why it is essential that the next steps are directed solely by the science, rather than political pressures. Can he confirm, therefore, that he will publish not just the conclusions but the full review on social distancing measures and the scientific advice given?
We know that a review of quarantining measures following foreign travel was due next week. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the introduction of any air bridges will be based on public health assessments, not economic assessments? Can he also confirm that the devolved Governments will be closely involved and party to any arrangements with any country on air bridges? Finally, to maintain full clarity, will he reaffirm that the announcements today are solely for England and that the citizens of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland should continue to follow public health advice from their own Governments?
The Prime Minister
On that last point, of course I can confirm that, as indeed I said in my statement, although I observe that the harmony between all four home nations is much closer than one might sometimes believe from listening to the right hon. Gentleman. But I agreed with a great deal of what he said. He is right to express caution and to anticipate the risk of second spikes. We will, I am afraid, see future outbreaks. I must be absolutely clear with the House about that. We will see future outbreaks and we will be in a much better position now to control them. I will of course publish the measures on social distancing and how the decision was reached on social distancing, and as I said we will place that in the Libraries of both Houses.
Mr Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman had one more question, which I am afraid I cannot remember. What was it—about public health? I cannot remember. I will write to him. [Hon. Members: “Air bridges.”] Air bridges! Thank you. Sorry, Mr Speaker. He asked an important question about air bridges. We will ensure that the devolved Administrations are kept in close contact as we develop our plans, and our plans for quarantine will be based entirely on public health, as he rightly suggested they should be. That will be our criterion. We will not be led by any excessive desire to risk life by opening up the economy too fast. We will have a policy on air bridges that is based on public health, as he rightly says we should.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I very much welcome the changes that my right hon. Friend has announced to the 2 metre rule, which is great news for pubs and restaurants such as the Moat House and the Staffordshire Bull, which are at the heart of the community in Staffordshire. Can he give me an assurance that, as we move to 1 metre-plus, it will be safe for us to trust in the common sense of the British people to reduce transmission? May I take this opportunity to invite the Prime Minister to have a pint in my constituency?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I am happy to take up her invitation.
Sir Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
I join the Prime Minister in sending our condolences to the family and friends of the victims of the appalling attacks in Reading. The Prime Minister wants to reassure us that lockdown can be safely eased, while rightly warning that there is a danger of a second wave of coronavirus later this year. If he is right and there is breathing space now, surely it is urgent that we learn the lessons. So I ask him this again: will he urgently set up an independent inquiry into the Government’s handling of this pandemic?
The Prime Minister
I am sure there will come a moment when lessons need to be learned—indeed, we are learning them the whole time—but I do not consider at the moment that a full-scale national inquiry is a good use of official time.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I warmly welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, which reflects very closely the advice that my Select Committee has taken. He has a new advisory group, which I am glad about, because the best role for SAGE is on broad questions of science rather than every minute policy. Can he specify whether the ban on cricket has come to an end? Cricket is perhaps our most socially distanced team sport. We have lost half the summer, but there is another half left to be enjoyed by players and spectators alike.
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. This goes to the point that I was trying to make to the House earlier—everybody will want to add something to the great wheelbarrow of measures that we are taking, and at a certain point, there will come a straw that breaks the camel’s back. The problem with cricket, as everybody understands, is that the ball is a natural vector of disease, potentially at any rate. We have been round it many times with our scientific friends. At the moment, we are still working on ways to make cricket more covid-secure, but we cannot change the guidance yet.
Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)
May I echo the comments in relation to the victims of the terrible atrocity in Reading? Our thoughts are with their families. I support the Prime Minister’s contention that a four-nation approach is very important. In that context, will he commit to share the rationale, data, scientific evidence and advice upon which these decisions are based with the Northern Ireland Executive and our chief medical officer and chief scientific adviser, to ensure that we continue to take that co-ordinated approach?
The Prime Minister
As I informed the House, the chief medical officers of all four home nations were unanimous in their view that the alert level should go down from 4 to 3, and we will continue to work together and share information as we go forward.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
This news will be a relief for so many pub owners in Hyndburn and Haslingden, whether it be the Green Squirrel or the Heys Inn. The relaxation of the 2 metre rule will make it that little bit easier for micropubs such as the Vault, Hustle Bar and the Knuzden Tap. Can the Prime Minister assure me that the Government will work closely with local authorities so that pubs and restaurants are able to utilise their outdoor space, and will he visit Hyndburn and Haslingden?
The Prime Minister
There is hardly any area of the country that I do not intend to visit in the course of the reopening of pubs and hostelries. There is a massive opportunity now for our pubs, with all their inventiveness, to think of ways of making their businesses covid-secure, exploiting hitherto unloved and unvalued outdoor spaces that may become havens for tables and chairs and using their ingenuity to open up in all the ways that they can.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
People crave confidence and competence. With England’s so-called world-beating app scrapped before it even launched, contact tracers unable to reach a third of positive cases and no financial scheme to support workers when public health requires them to self-isolate, what assessment has the Prime Minister made of the risks to business and public confidence if local lockdowns or a second peak prove beyond his Government’s ability to manage?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady knows very well that the Government have invested record sums in protecting businesses, by comparison with any other country. We have done more to protect businesses around the whole of the country, including in Wales. I said that we are proceeding as one UK, and we are. I have my doubts about the 5 mile rule in Wales and wonder whether that might be something that was reviewed. But she makes a very important point about the need to protect against a second outbreak and to make sure that we are in good shape to crack down on flare-ups. I believe that we are and I believe to an extent that perhaps we did not think possible a month ago we are able to do local whack-a-mole in the way that she has described.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
May I congratulate my right hon. Friend? This announcement, particularly the reduction of the distancing rule, will save hundreds of thousands of jobs, so he has already done a good day’s work today. May I ask him to ensure the practicality of future guidance? Complex rules about who can do what and where and when they can do it may seem rational when discussed around a table in Whitehall, but if they are too complex and too unclear, people will not obey them, so can he make sure that the rules for the future are as clear, simple and understandable as possible?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is entirely right. A message such as, “Stay at home. Protect the NHS” is very simple. Everybody can see what they have to do. Getting into the easing of the lockdown is much more complex, but I think that the guidance that we have set out today is intelligible. People will understand what they need to do. The British people have shown massive common sense so far and I am sure that they will continue to do so.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week in my constituency, in Cleckheaton, we had a covid-19 outbreak in a meat processing factory. Kirklees Council acted swiftly and efficiently. My concern is with the Government’s easing of lockdown. We will see these localised outbreaks. With the Health and Safety Executive having its budget cut by 50% since 2010, can the Government ensure that Kirklees and other councils will have all the money they need to keep our communities safe? And what investigations are going ahead from Government to look at why meat processing particularly is exposed to covid-19 outbreaks not just in this country, but around the world, so that we can keep those members of staff safe?
The Prime Minister
We will certainly look into what is happening to meat processing, and the hon. Member is right to draw attention to that phenomenon. We have seen it in Anglesey and in Germany. We need to get to the bottom of what is happening. We are putting more into the Health and Safety Executive, as she knows. We are giving another £14 million to bolster it, and local councils will be fortified in implementing local lockdowns by central Government and the joint biosecurity centre so that we are able to crack down very efficiently on these flare-ups as they happen.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Going to the pub is a great British institution and vital if we want to get our economy back on track. Will the Prime Minister therefore join me in calling on people from the 4th of July to do their patriotic best for Britain and go to the pub?
The Prime Minister
Yes. I do encourage people to take advantage of the freedoms that they are rightly reacquiring, but I must stress that people should act in a responsible way. I know that that is where the public are and that that is what people want to see. They want to see this reopening happening gradually. They want to see the frost leaving the tundra slowly. They understand the risks that we still face. So yes, I want to see people out in the shops—it is a fantastic thing to see. Yes, I want to see people taking advantage of hospitality again—a wonderful thing. Yes, I want to see people enjoying friends and family again, but they have to do it in a responsible way and observe social distancing.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) [V]
As we attempt to move people back into the workplace, the job retention scheme is being abused by some companies to make employees redundant before August, when employers would have to pay a percentage of their salary. Moreover, others, like British Airways, are threatening to fire tens of thousands of loyal workers and rehire them, some on slashed pay and poorer conditions. The Prime Minister said that he was looking at what we can do, so will he back my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Gavin Newlands), whose Employment (Dismissal and Re-employment) Bill addresses this iniquity?
The Prime Minister
I will of course study the Bill to which the hon. Gentleman alludes. [Interruption.] I will cause it to be studied. He knows very well that this country has given unprecedented and unequalled support to workers and to businesses. I think that 1 million companies have taken advantage of the job retention scheme, and 2.6 million self-employed people. There is nothing like it around the world. We should be very proud of what the UK has done, and we will continue to ensure that no one is penalised for doing the right thing to beat this virus.
Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend has said, the primary aim of policy was to stop the NHS being swamped, and that was met, which is a great achievement. But will he take this opportunity to restate that in the absence of a vaccine or a cure, the virus will stay in circulation? What people refer to as a second wave is in fact a continuation of the first wave—it has not gone away. We can expect flare-ups, as we have seen in Germany. While the measures today are welcome—incidentally, they give a whole new meaning to the phrase “safe drinking”—their observation will be vital if we are to avoid a widespread second lockdown, which would be an economic and social disaster for the country.
The Prime Minister
That is absolutely right. There have been two important changes in our arsenal in the past six weeks or so. The first has obviously been NHS test and trace, which is getting better the whole time, and is invaluable in fighting the disease. The second is the treatments. Dexamethasone, which was tested in this country, really does make a big difference to the mortality of the disease, and I have no doubt that other progress will be made. He is right to be reserved about the possibilities of getting a full vaccine; that is going to be very difficult. But in the meantime, we will have to remain extremely vigilant and extremely cautious.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) (SDLP) [V]
Today, despite a strong test and trace regime, a region in Germany had to impose a specific lockdown on several hundred thousand people due to a dangerously high R number. We know that unfortunately, while we are progressing, we are only at the end of the beginning of our restrictions. The Prime Minister is right to say that the job retention and self-employed schemes have been vital to many people. What contingency does he have in place for ad hoc localised lockdowns that may be required, and will he roll out localised versions of job retention schemes for those areas?
The Prime Minister
I shall repeat my previous answer: we do not want to see anybody penalised for doing the right thing.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
There are approximately 1 million 16 to 18-year-olds in England, and some 700,000 study in colleges. Astonishingly, this week’s education catch-up plan omitted those colleges, including many in my constituency of Cambridge. Can the Prime Minister explain the Government’s thinking behind this, and will he sort it out?
The Prime Minister
We will of course do everything we can to ensure that not just our schools but our colleges get the attention that they need. As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is massive investment now going into the rebuilding of further education colleges and ensuring that our FE college sector gets the investment it deserves.
Simon Jupp (East Devon) (Con)
I warmly welcome the news from the Prime Minister regarding the tourism sector, which will be especially well received in East Devon. Of course, he is more than welcome to visit any time. Can he confirm that the Government will publish full guidance to ensure that businesses can keep themselves and their customers safe while keeping the virus under control?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. The guidance, as I say, will be published later today.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
The Prime Minister has highlighted examples around the world where restrictions have been relaxed and where there has been a subsequent resurgence of the virus, and he has said that he will not hesitate to reintroduce restrictions if required. I would just like to get an unambiguous commitment from him about not seeing anyone penalised for doing the right thing to combat this virus. If it was necessary to continue with the furlough and self-employment support schemes beyond October, would his Government do so?
The Prime Minister
We have said what we have said about the furloughing scheme. It is our intention, obviously, to make sure that we are not in a situation where we have to keep those national schemes going. That is why the furlough scheme is tapering off in October. But, clearly—and I have said what I have said—if there are localised outbreaks or, indeed, if it is nationally necessary to put the brakes back on, then nobody should be penalised for doing the right thing.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
In the last few weeks, we have seen a real outpouring of love and kindness across our communities across the country for our older citizens, and that is quite right, but we have not seen the same thing for our youngest citizens. Can the Prime Minister tell me what the Government are doing for those who have had a baby during lockdown or, indeed, who are struggling to cope—as he might be—with the challenge of having a new baby with so little face-to-face support?
The Prime Minister
Oh, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am personally coping fine, thank you—[Interruption.] Well, thank you. What we are doing, as she will have heard in my statement, is that wraparound childcare is coming back for the summer and, as she knows, early years is open and reception is open—and would it not be a fine thing to hear from the Labour party that it is safe for all young kids to go back?
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
This morning, I met those from Disability Rights UK who are worried that support for shielded people is being removed too quickly. In their words, “If Government can be sensitive to business until October, why can’t they be sensitive to personal needs?” Throughout this crisis, communication with shielded and disabled people has been poor. Will the Prime Minister commit to working closely with these groups to ensure clearer, more regular communication as we move out of lockdown and towards planning for a second wave?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Member raises a very important point. In fact, we have extended the shielding programme, as you know, Mr Speaker, till the end of July, and 3 million food parcels have already been delivered to shielded people. What we want to see is a situation in which the prevalence—the incidence—is so low that the shielding programme no longer needs to continue in its current way, and I think that should be a shared ambition around the House and around the country. Too many elderly, vulnerable people have been kept in close confinement for too long, and we must help them to a new way out.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
This statement paves the way for Britain to bounce back with most of the hospitality sector reopening, and it gives us more confidence for the 10th anniversary Gloucester history festival in September. Does my right hon. Friend agree with me that, while many of us want to see cricket played again safely and air bridges established as soon as possible, the absolutely crucial goal is for all children, and pupils and students at FE colleges and universities to be able to go back to school, college and university in the autumn absolutely safely?
The Prime Minister
Absolutely. A point I perhaps could have made to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who I think is no longer in his seat, is that it is our intention to get not just schools but FE colleges back as well in September, and get our young people back where they need to be—in education and preparing for their future.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
It seems the Prime Minister has given up working with all four nations. Cobra has not met for weeks, daily communications have ended and I am pretty sure the First Minister of Wales has forgotten what the Prime Minister even looks like. Does he not believe that his actions are leading to a disjointed rather than united Union, and given that recent data suggest that the people of Wales have far more confidence in the Welsh Government’s handling of this pandemic than the people of England do in his, should he not perhaps be following the strategy championed by the Labour Government of Wales?
The Prime Minister
I make no comment on the blessed amnesia that has descended on the First Minister of Wales, except to say that, actually, when we look at the facts and what the UK is doing together, we can see that we are in much closer harmony than someone would suspect from what the hon. Lady says. One detail—one wrinkle—to which I respectfully draw her attention is that I am not sure that the five-mile limit rule is entirely necessary; perhaps that needs to be rethought.
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con) [V]
I thank my right hon. Friend for the clarity he has given today to the hospitality and tourism sector in the great south-west. Will he also give a glimmer of hope that the Government will look sympathetically at more support over the winter, if necessary, to ensure that this very seasonal sector can survive such a restricted season?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed—although, as my hon. Friend already knows, we are doing a massive amount to support businesses of all kinds, particularly by getting rid of business rates for the whole of next year. One thing that I would say, respectfully, to all those who represent tourist areas of this country, is that now is perhaps the time to send out a welcoming signal to those from other parts of our country and to roll out the welcome mat, rather than the “Not welcome here” sign. That is something that we could do together.
Miriam Cates (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Con)
My right hon. Friend’s announcement will be welcome to hospitality businesses in Penistone and Stocksbridge, which are keen to reopen after a difficult period, but many workers and business owners are parents as well and cannot return to work until their children are back at school. Does my right hon. Friend agree that in order for those businesses to recover, we need all children to be back at school in September? Also, will he confirm that this announcement means that in the meantime people can start to ask friends and family for help with childcare?
The Prime Minister
Yes, it does mean that, but we are also committed, as my hon. Friend knows, to getting all our schools back in September. I do believe it that will be possible, if we stick to the plan and the guidance, to do so in a safe way.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
We are witnessing even countries such as Germany, with good control of covid-19, develop outbreaks that centre around meat processing plants. What explanation has the Prime Minister been given for this trend, and how on earth does he think it will be improved by cutting the safe distance from 2 metres to 1 metre?
The Prime Minister
That is a very good question. We are looking at exactly what is happening in meat processing plants. Currently, two theories have been advanced to me: one is about the cold environment in the plants, which may be propitious to the virus, and the other is the possibility that staff are congregating in such a way as to spread the virus. We do not know what it is, but we are investigating. Wherever outbreaks take place, we will use local cluster-busting techniques to stamp them out.
Sir Graham Brady (Altrincham and Sale West) (Con)
I warmly welcome the statement and strongly endorse the move to relying on common sense and the responsibility of the British people from 4 July. However, the blanket quarantine proposal is not common sense when it applies to countries that are entirely safe and have no coronavirus. I urge my right hon. Friend to ensure that air bridges are in place no later than 4 July.
The Prime Minister
The House will have heard what I have had to say about air bridges repeatedly since the quarantine announcement was made. We do understand the balance, but we also understand the vital necessity of protecting our country from reinfection from abroad. Every serious country that has got this disease under control has had to introduce a quarantine for people coming into or back into the country.
Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)
A number of countries will be surprised by the Prime Minister’s claim that they do not have a functioning track and trace app.
Given that it is costing Britain thousands of jobs and millions of pounds a day and has no basis in the science, why is the Prime Minister waiting another two weeks to scrap his disastrous blanket quarantine policy?
The Prime Minister
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer that I just gave. We have a very sensible policy and we do not wish to see our country reinfected, after all the efforts of the British people, by travellers coming in from abroad.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Marina and Seagull theatres in Lowestoft, and the Fisher theatre in Bungay, play lead and irreplaceable roles in their local communities and economies. I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement that the Government will work with the arts industry so that theatres can reopen as soon as possible. However, they are really struggling, so may I urge him to look at putting in place specific support until the time that viable reopening is possible?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. I know how valuable the theatre sector—and the whole entertainment sector—is to our economy. My hon. Friend should be in no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is talking to those sectors right now to see what we can do to help them, while ensuring that they can come back in a covid-secure way.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
What is the public health message that the Prime Minister is conveying by opening pubs ahead of the full opening of schools?
The Prime Minister
I think that most people will understand that we want as much of our business sector and economy to open as possible, in a covid-secure way. The hon. Lady will also understand that we want our schools to open in a safe way. That is why we have done what we have done and made the announcements that we have made. It has only been possible to open schools to some classes before the summer break, alas; but we are ahead of many other countries in Europe in doing so. As she will know, there are other countries that are not opening any of their schools. I must say that I welcome the logic of what she is saying, because if she is now actively going to encourage kids to go back to school and stop the long silence of the Opposition on this matter, that will be a great thing.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Will the Prime Minister cause his experts to be worked night and day until they find the fix and, when they have got it, to straightaway allow spas and nail bars to reopen? And when there are flare-ups, will he eschew the temptation to return to collective punishment?
The Prime Minister
That is a very good way of putting it. We want, so far as we possibly can, to confine our action to the localities where the flare-ups have happened. That is why it is vital that everybody listens to the balance of this guidance today, follows the guidance on 2 metres and on 1 metre-plus, continues to observe social distancing—and we will get this thing done.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
It is good news that people can start socialising and meeting in public again, but what is the Prime Minister going to do to ensure that destination communities, such as the one I represent in Brighton and Hove, are extra safe? People will be meeting and drinking at places such as on the seafront and in parks, where it will be impossible to get the names and addresses of every customer. There will be other pinch points where lots of people from various destinations will be rubbing up against each other. What will he do, in the absence of the promised app, to ensure that these communities are destinations for investment and not destinations for covid?
The Prime Minister
I will be calling on local representatives such as the hon. Gentleman to show some guts and determination, and to champion their communities as venues for people to return to and support. He can do that with confidence because, as I say, we are introducing a sensible package of measures that allows businesses gradually to reopen while ensuring social distancing. It is that mixture—plus the NHS test and trace scheme—that allows us to go forward; that is the formula that I believe works. As for the issue of putting names behind the bar or registering in restaurants, I do think that that is something that people get. As far as possible, we want people to do that and businesses to comply with it. We believe that it will be very important for our ability to track back and stop outbreaks happening. The hon. Gentleman should encourage all businesses in his constituency to take the names of customers.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I very much welcome the statement from the Prime Minister, but he will be aware that my constituents will not get the benefit of the measures announced today, as the First Minister of Scotland is delaying Scotland’s release from lockdown. Does the Prime Minister agree that the First Minister should share the evidence to justify why Scotland has taken a different approach from the rest of the United Kingdom?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has his finger on the pulse. I was earlier informed that the First Minister of Scotland was about to make a statement uncannily similar to the one that I have just made, as she has done several times before, but I may be misinformed about that. It remains none the less the case that the similarities between our approaches greatly outweigh the differences.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
The Prime Minister referred to support for local authorities. The Rhondda, during this period, has had three very severe bouts of flooding, including last week. Many homes have lost absolutely everything because they have no insurance. The local authority now faces a bill of somewhere in the region of £67 million to repair culverts, drains, pumping stations and gullies, and replace many bridges. We also have a landslide from an old coal tip, which is in danger of doing very significant damage if we cannot remove the 60,000 tonnes of earth. That is still a Westminster responsibility. The Prime Minister may not have the answer now, but will he please make sure we get the £2.5 million very swiftly so that we can do that work quickly? We do not want another Aberfan.
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and I am aware of those risks. We are working with Mark Drakeford and the Welsh Government on those problems. As he knows, we are putting £4 billion into flood defences. If we face real problems of unemployment—no doubt we will—getting to work on putting in better flood defences for the future will be an important way of driving job creation.
Holly Mumby-Croft (Scunthorpe) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that many people have been unable to attend routine hospital appointments throughout the lockdown. The reasons for that are many and varied. As the lockdown eases, what measures can be put in place to support hospital trusts as they work hard to catch up? Will he work with me to secure an upgrade to Scunthorpe General Hospital, which is needed now more than ever before?
The Prime Minister
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way she represents her constituency. We will do whatever we can for Scunthorpe General Hospital. I have no doubt that it is on one of the lists of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. As she knows, we are investing record sums: £34 billion into the NHS—the biggest ever cash boost for the NHS. We are going to do 40 new hospitals—that remains an undimmed ambition. If anything, we are going to double-down on our ambitions for the NHS, so she should watch this space, particularly as regards Scunthorpe General Hospital.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
Published evidence indicates that indoor environments account for 97% of the spread of covid across the world. The closer the contact and the greater the length of time of the contact, the greater the risk of virus transmission. SAGE said that the evidence indicates that it is inappropriate to reduce social distancing at this stage of the infection, when there are typically more than 1,000 new covid cases a day. Rather than make decisions behind closed doors on unpublished evidence, why will the Prime Minister not publish his exit strategy with threshold approaches on infections, and wait until the test, trace and isolate system is fully operational, as countries that have successfully emerged from lockdown have done?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, but I must repeat what I have said to the House several times now. We will of course be putting the argumentation about the change in the 2-metre rule—the 1-metre-plus rule—in the Libraries of both Houses. I must say, I am not at one with her on her view of NHS Test and Trace. I think it is a massive achievement by this country. It is starting to work better and better, and it will be indispensable to our future success.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
The operators of pubs, hotels and restaurants in England will be feeling considerably relieved by the Prime Minister’s statement, but that relief will not be shared in Wales, where hospitality is an enormously important part of the economy and yet the Welsh Government have yet to make a statement of their own. That is, of course, legally the consequence of devolution, but the practical consequence is despair and frustration. Will my right hon. Friend say what work the Government are doing with the devolved Administrations to try to secure a more uniform approach as we depart from the lockdown restrictions?
The Prime Minister
I say to my right hon. Friend—I should have said this to the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts)—that we are in very regular contact with all the devolved Administrations. We are much more in lockstep than might be thought. On the particular matter of hospitality in Wales, I hear him loud and clear, and I think that point will be heard loud and clear in Cardiff. We look forward to hearing further announcements.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
If people are to take advantage of this freeing of restrictions, they must have confidence in the judgment of the Prime Minister and those around him. He must surely realise that recent events have done some damage in that regard. If he wishes to repair some of that damage, will he end the much-ridiculed quarantine period for people coming here from overseas?
The Prime Minister
First, may I apologise to the right hon. Gentleman for last week mistakenly believing him to be someone who wanted to break up our United Kingdom? I unreservedly withdraw that aspersion. I know that he and I want to keep our Union together. On the quarantine issue, however, I must say to him that I think it is very sensible for this country to have measures in place to protect our population from vectors of disease coming back into the UK from abroad. That is the right thing to do.
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
I assure the Prime Minister that there will be a warm welcome for his measures today in Rugby, not only from the pubs and restaurants but in particular from the town centre traders. To accommodate 2-metre social distancing, there are works under way to provide an unwelcome one-way system and the removal of on-street parking. The welcome move to 1 metre on 4 July means that those measures will no longer be necessary and that it will be easier for customers to get into our town centre and spend money with our fantastic local retailers.
The Prime Minister
I certainly encourage customers to go to the fantastic local retailers in Rugby, and I am delighted that these measures obviate the need for the cursed one-way system that my hon. Friend describes.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op)
We do welcome the restrictions being eased up, and a number of businesses across my constituency and along the south bank, including in the hospitality, leisure and cultural sectors, will see this as a step in the right direction, but it will still be hard for them. Businesses need to see detailed guidelines now. Research by the Federation of Small Businesses shows that the vast majority of small businesses say they will need to make changes in their premises for this to work, but there will be significant costs attached to that. What can the Government do to support small restaurants, cafés, hairdressers and other small businesses employing 10 or fewer people, whose balance sheets have been so impacted over the last few months, to make necessary adjustments to make their staff and customers safe?
The Prime Minister
As the hon. Lady knows, businesses have been eligible for £25,000 in grants. We have had 11 million people supported under the coronavirus job retention scheme and spent huge amounts of money— £26 billion in bounce-back loans alone. We will support businesses large and small for the duration of this crisis, but the best way to get all the hairdressers and nail bars—all these businesses—back on their feet as fast as possible is to make sure that we continue to depress the virus, keep it under control and keep the incidence down, and that way we will go forward. Our vision for the country is to try to get back to normality for as many as possible as fast as possible.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. I am looking forward on 4 July to dropping in at the Wheatsheaf in Ewell to thank them for moving from being a great hub of the local community to a great virtual hub of the local community in the last few weeks. However, my right hon. Friend and I both represent a large number of people who work in the creative industries, and although today’s announcement is very welcome, it is inevitable that many parts of those industries, such as the exhibitions sector and small theatres, will still be held back for a period of time. Can my right hon Friend assure me that he, the Chancellor and other Ministers will continue to look at ways in which we can ease the pressure on one of our most essential sectors?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend is a great champion of those industries and, as I have said to colleagues in the House already, we are doing a huge amount to engage with them and to support them.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister said in his statement that he is keen to get people back into work, but we have also seen the benefits of home working, particularly in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, with staff having gone the extra mile to support business through the schemes. However, the Prime Minister will be aware that HMRC has now launched a massive redundancy scheme, which could affect 2,000 staff. What message does he believe he sends when he says that people should get back to work but Government Departments want to put people out of work?
The Prime Minister
I think that people have to work from home if they can. That remains the guidance, and of course it is up to employers and employees to decide whether they need to get back to their workplaces to do their jobs. On HMRC and the sad redundancies that the hon. Gentleman mentions, I will certainly look at that, though I think that, obviously, it is also important to cut the cost of government.
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)
It will come as no surprise to Members to hear that I wholly endorse the Prime Minister’s announcement on the end of the hairdressing hibernation. That has been made possible by the change to the social distancing rules, which will help hundreds of thousands of businesses across the country. To help them further, will my right hon. Friend look at reducing VAT and national insurance contributions for employers, so that we are not just cutting hair, but cutting taxes, too?
The Prime Minister
I will certainly look at all such measures, but I do not wish to anticipate anything that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor may say,
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
The Prime Minister will be aware of The Deep, in Hull, which is a landmark centre for marine research and the world’s only “submarium”. No mention of aquariums was made in his speech, but I noted that he talked about a taskforce, so when will it give reports? How quickly can we get the aquarium open? In the meantime—if that cannot happen—will he look at providing it with extra, specialised financial support?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady has heard what I have had to say. We will do everything we can to get all such venues—aquariums and seaquariums—open as fast as we can and make them covid compliant. I am sure we can get there.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
People and businesses across Hertford and Stortford will rightly welcome the Prime Minister’s announcement. Does he agree that we should also continue to support the development of new technologies and those already in use, such as apps and QR—quick response—codes, which will help many companies, especially those in the arts and technologies sector, and the hospitality sector, to benefit from the measures he has outlined today?
The Prime Minister
Absolutely. I know I can rely on the incredible ingenuity of every sector in the UK, including the arts, retail and hospitality sectors, to use technology now to bank the changes and to make further progress in taking our economy forward and letting this country bounce back.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Prime Minister. Sorry, thank you, Mr Speaker —it would perhaps be much better if you were Prime Minister. Let me thank the Prime Minister for a welcome statement. We have a plethora of small businesses in Brighton. I have just spoken to our lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender businesses, along with Gscene, our LGBT magazine, and they, and, in particular, our bars and clubs, are keen to get open. However, they are worried at the moment that the furlough scheme, which will rightly be closing for new entrants this month and which will allow part-time working, will not allow people to come off furlough to see whether the business is viable and then be put back on it. Will he consider some flexibility, such as for a two-week trial, with people then able to be put back on furlough for the remainder of the scheme, so that businesses can test the water? Otherwise, many businesses say that they will just stay shut completely, which would be a real disappointment.
The Prime Minister
I hope that businesses will recognise that now is the moment to get going and to get their valued staff back working again, doing what they want to do and love doing. I have no doubt that all the bars in Brighton have every reason to be confident, provided that we do this in a sensible way. I think everybody in the House understands the balance of what we are trying to do today and can join together in expressing that balance to the public.
Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con) [V]
It is lovely Lancashire, Mr Speaker. May I welcome the measures that the Prime Minister has announced today, which will be a real boost to the visitor economy? Other Members have invited him to come for a drink in their constituency, but may I invite him to Fylde to get his hair cut? While he is here, he will have an opportunity to realise why it is very important, as part of the levelling-up agenda, to give the green light to projects such as the Lytham St Annes M55 link road, which will ensure that the visitor economies of areas such as Fylde are connected and well served for years to come.
The Prime Minister
I am not sure I can wait until I get to Fylde to have my hair cut. Certainly, my hon. Friend’s appeal for the M55 relief road is well judged and has been heard by those on the Government Benches, and of course he should look forward to the further steps in the infrastructure revolution that we will be unveiling.
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Hairdressers, restaurants and pubs in Manchester will warmly welcome today’s announcement. If the Prime Minister does not mind, I will not follow suit in inviting him to join me for a drink in one of them. He will be aware, however, that 80% of the more than 3 million people who work in hospitality and leisure are currently furloughed. How does he expect businesses such as gyms, nightclubs, theatres and others that have to remain closed to contribute to the furlough scheme at the beginning of August without causing mass redundancies?
The Prime Minister
That is why we have set up the various taskforces that we have, to ensure that we work with everybody in the sectors to enable them to open as fast as possible in a covid-compliant way; that is our ambition.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
This announcement will be warmly welcomed by the pubs, restaurants, holiday parks and attractions that, along with the stunning coastline, make North West Norfolk the ideal place to visit and take a staycation; but alongside these measures, does my right hon. Friend agree that Hunstanton and other coastal areas in Norfolk need to benefit from investment, as part of our levelling-up agenda, so that we can bounce back for the long term?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed, and we will be doing a huge amount for coastal communities that have been left behind, as my hon. Friend knows. But one thing I think we can all do now is ensure that we send out a very positive and welcoming message from coastal communities around the UK. Now is the time, folks, to have a staycation in the UK—Hunstanton or elsewhere.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The fastest-growing languages in Hornsey and Wood Green are Mandarin Chinese and Latin American Spanish. The diversity within Hornsey and Wood Green is a real strength; they even chose an Australian-speaking MP—but my question is serious. What personal steps will the Prime Minister take to stop black and minority ethnic communities getting covid, so that we can save more lives in the next few months? It has been a really tragic few months for my constituency.
The Prime Minister
I thank the hon. Lady, and she is absolutely right to raise the point that she does. She will have heard that we want enhanced, greater, more immediate and more efficient testing for those high-contact groups. Over the past few months, we have seen black and minority ethnic people very, very substantially represented in trades and professions that have been very much exposed to coronavirus, and we want to make sure that we help immediately, by targeting those groups with extra testing. But I think there are more lessons to be learned for the future, and that is why we have set up the commission that we have and will be drawing further conclusions in due course.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
Wycombe will rejoice. I want to thank the experts who have guided us through this crisis, but I observe that when information is incomplete, when information and knowledge is uncertain, experts disagree with one another. For the sake of the public, the Government and, indeed, the experts themselves, will my right hon. Friend have a meeting with me and with Professor Roger Koppl, a scholar in the field of expert failure, to discuss how things can be done better in the future?
The Prime Minister
I think I know Roger Koppl and I would be very interested to hear what he has to say, but I must say I think that the guidance from our scientists has been incredibly valuable. It has helped us throughout the period. But be in no doubt—I am sure my hon. Friend will understand—that the decisions that we have taken are decisions that we as Government have taken, and for which we take full responsibility.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I have many large leisure facilities in my constituency that could open now—gymnasiums, swimming pools and even an outdoor lido, but they fear that they have been lumped in with smaller facilities that would find it difficult to open. They could open now, meeting social distancing regulations, whether 2 metres or 1 metre. How long will they have to wait for the taskforce to enable them to open?
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman makes a very powerful point, and I am sure that that kind of point will be echoed in multiple ways around the country today, as people look at apparent inconsistencies. All I can say is, we will work as fast as we can with him, with the gyms and swimming pools that he mentions, to try to get them into a state where they can open as fast as possible.
Huw Merriman (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The 2 metre social distancing rule has meant that only 15% of tube passengers are able to travel. That figure will now rise to 25%, with the Prime Minister’s welcome reduction of the rule to 1 metre. In the event that demand exceeds that 25% supply, the R rate continues to fall, and PPE is used, will the Prime Minister look again at the distancing rules, to ensure that our economy and customers can move around?
The Prime Minister
Absolutely. The guidance remains that people should avoid public transport if they can, but if they must use it, they should wear a face covering. I think that is the right balance at the moment.
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP) [V]
The Prime Minister has just spoken about making difficult judgments, but it was his judgment not to sack Dominic Cummings. Does his judgment extend to understanding the damage that that decision did to confidence in England’s public health messaging, and the consequences of that for people’s lives? What is his judgment now of how he can repair that damage?
The Prime Minister
I must say that, in spite of the kind of comment we have just heard, I have been overwhelmingly impressed and fortified by the common sense of the British people, who heard our messages and understood what to do. Let me remind the House of one statistic that shows the power of community spirit in this country at the moment: 87,000 people have been contacted by NHS test and trace, and they have voluntarily agreed to self-isolate to prevent the transmission of the disease. That is a fantastic thing. People understand what to do, they are doing it, and the common sense of the British people is going to get us through this.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Last week I spoke to hospitality and tourist businesses in my constituency. They have worked extremely hard to implement social distancing measures, and they are desperate to get back to work. Will the Prime Minister continue to work closely with the devolved Administration in Wales, and ensure that Wales joins up with the rest of the United Kingdom? In particular, will he encourage the Welsh Government to scrap the 5 mile rule?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point, and the House will have heard what I have already said on that matter. We will continue to work closely with our colleagues in Wales and across the DAs.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
Now that we are moving to 1 metre-plus which, as I understand, applies only where 2 metres is impossible, what does the Prime Minister say to all those businesses that have expended considerable sums to comply with the 2 metre guidelines? Should they stick with 2 metres, or can they move to 1 metre? Will we see any changes in this place?
The Prime Minister
The second point is, of course, a matter for you, Mr Speaker, and it is for the House authorities to establish how to proceed, but I would encourage as much progress to be made as possible. For businesses the guidance is there and will be published later today. I hope they will take advantage of that guidance, and that it will make those businesses more manageable.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
I welcome this statement. Harrogate and Knaresborough is in the top 10% of constituencies in this country for the hospitality sector, as measured by the number of people employed in it, which is almost 9,500 in our case. Many local authorities are looking to use streets and pavements for cafes and other hospitality businesses, which I support. Does my right hon. Friend agree that councils should be encouraged to use available spaces to help the hospitality sector reopen, while of course ensuring social distancing?
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is totally right: this is the moment for ingenuity. I hope that councils will be broad minded and creative, as there is plenty of space to be found.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) [V]
Welsh councils are reporting a shortfall of around £170 million in the first quarter of this financial year, due to the crisis, and we will need the UK Government to step up and provide more funding to the Welsh Government, to ensure that we do not suffer big cuts to services just when they are needed most. Will the Prime Minister commit to that?
The Prime Minister
It is, of course, up to the Welsh Government to spend money properly, but the hon. Lady should be in no doubt that this Government continue to commit sums to help all the devolved Administrations. As I think our friends from the SNP will know, the UK Exchequer has already contributed £3.7 billion extra in Barnett consequentials for Scotland alone—[Interruption.] I am sure that point is seldom off the lips of the hon. Member for Gordon (Richard Thomson). We will continue to support every part of the United Kingdom.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
I got covid-19 on the same day as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Yesterday, I was given a free test by a company called Pyser Testing, which is an excellent company run by military veterans. Many of us have had the disease. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if we can be identified to make sure we are in those statistics, we could move faster and more efficiently? We have to get tested.
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am delighted to see him looking so well, having made such a great recovery. At the moment, one of the difficulties the country faces is that it looks like only 6% or 7% of the population have had the virus, which raises questions about the risk of a second spike and the disease coming back. The answer is: testing, testing, testing. He will be pleased to know that this country is now testing roughly twice as many people per head of population as any other European country.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
The former chief scientific adviser has said that tens of thousands of lives could have been saved if the Government had acted differently. If we had had the same death rate as South Korea, a country whose population and income are not very different from ours, we would have had a few hundred deaths, not the many tens of thousands we have had. Is not today’s announcement, which is really just about appeasing right wingers on the Tory Back Benches, once again this Government gambling with people’s lives?
The Prime Minister
I understand why the hon. Gentleman makes that point, but he is wrong. By contrast, I welcome the more constructive approach from the Labour Front Bench.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I welcome the statement and its caution but also its optimism, which the country badly needs right now. Many thousands of our constituents should be heading to Somerset this weekend—perhaps the Prime Minister was going as well—for the 50th Glastonbury festival. Will he speak to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport about working with the independent festivals sector over the summer to ensure that that thriving industry, which is worth about £2.6 billion to the economy each year, still exists in 2021? Right now, many people working in the sector fall foul of the generous schemes put in place and for obvious reasons cannot trade their way out of their situation.
The Prime Minister
Having performed briefly at Glastonbury myself many years ago—not to much acclaim, I may say—I am a keen admirer of that wonderful festival and of the whole sector that my hon. Friend identifies. As I have said several times in this statement, we are doing whatever we can to support that very valuable sector.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the Prime Minister’s statement, particularly on the support for hospitality, which has been a concern raised by many small businesses in my constituency, but I want to ask about schools. He will know that even with 1 metre social distancing, some small Victorian school buildings in my constituency, which often have limited outdoor space too, will find it difficult to educate all children returning in phases. How will he work with those schools, the local education authority and the academy trusts to ensure that in these circumstances all children can get the education they deserve and need?
The Prime Minister
Between now and 1 September, when all pupils and students of schools and colleges will return, we will work with the sector to ensure that we have a clear understanding of how to minimise the risk of transmission of the virus. Our objective, as the House will understand, is by then to have got not just the rate of transmission but the incidence down so far that we can go forward in a much more normalised way. As for what we can do in the next few weeks, I am glad the hon. Gentleman supports schools returning. Those classes that can go back now should go back.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
This statement will be widely welcomed in Britain’s premier resort, Scarborough. I hope that Scarborough will very soon be firing on all cylinders, as the Prime Minister is today. One sector that has been disproportionately affected by lockdown is that of pleasure cruises and charter angling vessels. Will the Prime Minister assure me not only that the sector will have covid-secure guidelines for operating with 1 metre social distancing, but that those guidelines will be applied consistently around the country?
The Prime Minister
Yes, indeed. We will make sure that the valuable sector of pleasure cruises and charters is helped to become covid-compliant as fast as possible.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP)[V]
The Prime Minister has spoken with great pride about the 2.6 million self-employed people who have been supported through covid by Government, but, scandalously, his Treasury has excluded a greater number—3 million—of self-employed entrepreneurs, taxpayers and owners of small companies. That includes many in my constituency who have been excluded from Government help with no income for three months. Will the Prime Minister please offer an urgent financial lifeline to these blameless victims and their families?
The Prime Minister
We have done a huge amount to support employees and the self-employed across the country with loans, grants and the coronavirus job retention scheme, as I have said. I am conscious that the hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. There are some people who perhaps have not got the support that they felt they needed, because of the difficulties in identifying what is appropriate and because of technical difficulties of all kinds. The single best solution is to get our economy moving cautiously and safely forward, and that is what this package is intended to do.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
The statement from the Prime Minister will be warmly welcomed right across the UK, particularly in London. During the lockdown, many of my constituents have followed the advice to work from home where they can to avoid unnecessary travel. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the advice to those constituents is still to work from home if they can to cut out unnecessary travel, so that those who have to travel to work can do so in the safest possible manner?
The Prime Minister
Yes, my hon. Friend is completely right; as I said earlier, people should avoid public transport if they can. In determining whether they need to go to work, it is important for employers to discuss it with their employees as we go forward, but of course people should work from home if that is possible.
Lucy Allan (Telford) (Con)
On behalf of my constituents in Telford, I welcome this fantastic statement, and I am grateful to the Prime Minister. Will he devote his wonderful energy, enthusiasm and optimism to ensuring that we now have a bold, confident recovery plan so that we can rebuild our economy and safeguard jobs, opportunities and livelihoods in Telford and across the country?
The Prime Minister
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her description of the plan that we are about to unveil. In the next few weeks, she will be hearing a lot more about how the UK intends not just to bounce back, but to bounce forward.
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.
Windrush Compensation Scheme
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
With permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the Windrush compensation scheme.
Yesterday, we celebrated Windrush Day, which marks the 72nd anniversary of the arrival of the Empire Windrush at Tilbury docks. The ship carried hundreds of people who had left their homes to build a new life in the United Kingdom, and to help this country rebuild following the destruction of the second world war. These men and women built their lives and went on to build their homes in the United Kingdom. They, alongside with many thousands of others who made similar journeys, and their descendants, have made an immeasurable contribution to the social, economic and cultural life of our country. When Britain was in need, they answered the call.
Yet as we all know, they were the very people who went on to suffer unspeakable injustices and institutional failings spanning successive Governments over several decades. I have apologised for the appalling treatment suffered and, on 19 March, I made a statement after I received the long awaited Windrush lessons learned review from Wendy Williams. I have apologised for the appalling treatment suffered by the Windrush generation.
The review was damning about the conduct of the Home Office and unequivocal about the
“institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness towards the…race and the history of the Windrush generation”
by the Department. There are serious and significant lessons for the Home Office to learn in the way it operates. I and the permanent secretary are currently reviewing its leadership, culture and practices, and the way it views and treats all parts of the community it serves.
These reforms are only the start. I was clear that when Wendy Williams published her lessons learned review, I would listen and act. I have heard what she has said, and I will be accepting the recommendations that she has made in full. I am committed to ensuring that the Home Office delivers for each part of the community it serves and I will come back to update the House before the summer recess on how we will be implementing the recommendations. I look forward to discussing the plans further with Wendy this week.
We have been working tirelessly to support the most urgent cases and those most in need. In April 2018, the Home Office set up the Windrush taskforce to ensure that those who needed documentation immediately could get it. A month later, the Windrush scheme was launched, providing free citizenship to those eligible for it.
The Home Office has a dedicated vulnerable persons team in place to provide immediate support to people suffering with a range of vulnerabilities, including the financial hardships and destitutions that have been well documented. The team also administers the urgent and exceptional payments scheme, which provides immediate financial payments. To the end of March this year, the team has made 35 payments, totalling more than £46,000.
Work is continuing unabated to ensure that those who suffered receive the documentation and the compensation that they need. So far, more than 12,000 people have been granted documentation by the Windrush taskforce, including more than 5,900 grants of citizenship, and the compensation scheme continues to make payments to compensate the losses and impacts that individuals suffered as a result of not being able to demonstrate their lawful status. The scheme was set up and designed with the backing of Martin Forde QC, in close consultation with those who were affected by the scandal, and in February I announced that I would extend it until April 2023 to give those who need our help as much time as they need to apply.
We are continuing to process individual claims as quickly as possible. The first payment was made within four months of the scheme launching, and many interim awards are being made where parts of the claim can be resolved more easily and more quickly than others. But let me be clear: it is not a blanket one-size-fits-all scheme. It was deliberately designed with community leaders and Martin Forde QC so that the claimant is at the heart of each and every claim.
Cases deserve to be processed individually with the care and sensitivity that they deserve, so that the maximum payment can be made to every single person. I simply will not call for targets when it comes to dealing with claims. These are incredibly personal cases—individual cases—that must be treated with the care, the dignity and the respect that they deserve.
I want everyone who has been wronged to get the maximum compensation to which they are entitled, and through this bespoke scheme, we are working to achieve that. This compensation covers a very wide range of categories—far more than any comparable compensation scheme. It covers immigration fees; it covers loss of earnings; it covers benefits; it covers homelessness; it covers destitution. Overall, it covers 13 separate categories. Assessing claims in this way is ultimately beneficial to those who are making them, but it takes time to assess them and it takes time to get it right. While claims are being processed in full, many interim and exceptional payments have been made to make sure that people have access to money—to the funds that they need now.
Clearly, I share the desire to see more claims completed. The rate of claims has already increased significantly in the past few months: as of the end of March, more than £360,000 had been awarded, and further offers have been made of approximately £280,000. I can confirm today that more than £1 million has been offered in claims so far, and more payments and offers are being made each week, but we can—and of course we must—do more. My determination to right the wrongs and the injustices suffered by the Windrush generation is undiminished, and I will do all I can to ensure that more people are helped and more people are compensated in full. If additional resources are needed, they will be provided.
Now is the time for more action. We all have a duty to help those affected by this terrible injustice. Individuals will benefit from the compensation scheme only if they are sought out and encouraged to apply. We are working extensively with community groups and leaders to raise awareness of the Windrush taskforce and the compensation scheme, including with vulnerable people through the vulnerable persons team. Anyone who needs help or support to make a claim will receive it. The Home Office has funded Citizens Advice to provide free independent advice and support, and has hosted or attended more than 100 engagement and outreach events throughout the United Kingdom. As Members know, my door is always open, so I urge Members of the House to ensure that their constituents’ cases or concerns are raised immediately with me and my team so that they are progressed and resolved.
Throughout the coronavirus pandemic, I have made sure that no one is left behind. Working with community leaders, I have launched a digital engagement programme so that outreach can continue despite the current social distancing measures. The first virtual support event was held on 21 May, and on 19 March I announced a dedicated new communications campaign to promote the Windrush schemes, as well as a £500,000 fund for community organisations to run outreach, promotional and support activities to increase awareness.
We know, however, that there are a range of other issues and injustices affecting the Windrush generation and their families. Yesterday, I announced a new Windrush cross-Government working group, which I will co-chair with Bishop Derek Webley. The group brings together community leaders with senior representatives from a number of Government Departments to address the challenges faced by the Windrush generation and their descendants, spanning programmes on education, work, health and much more. The Prime Minister and I spoke to members of the group yesterday to discuss many of the actions needed and to deliver solutions. The first formal meeting of the group will take place this Thursday. I look forward to taking the work of the group forward, alongside the inspirational co-chair, Bishop Derek Webley.
Northing can ever undo the suffering experienced by members of the Windrush generation. No one should have suffered the uncertainty, complication and hardships brought on by the mistakes of successive Governments. Now is the time for more action across the Government to repay that debt of gratitude and to eliminate the challenges that still exist for them and their descendants. Only then can we build a stronger, fairer and more successful country for the next generation. I commend this statement to the House.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I am grateful to the Home Secretary for her statement and for advance sight of it.
I would like to start by celebrating the enormous contribution the Windrush generation and their families have made. The arrival of the Empire Windrush at Tilbury docks in 1948 was an important moment in our nation’s history: people from the Caribbean answering the call to help to rebuild the nation recovering from the second world war. Since then, the Windrush generation and their families have had a huge impact on every facet of national life: our NHS, our transport system, across public and private sectors, the arts, culture, religion and sports. But we also know that many who made new lives here did not get the welcome they were expecting. Many faced appalling racism, were locked out of jobs and homes, and were subject to terrible abuse in the streets.
We may have hoped that all aspects of that had been consigned to the past, but 70 years later we have seen an incredibly strong reaction to the Black Lives Matter movement’s call for change here in the UK and little wonder. Compounded injustices over generations have created deep frustrations and hurt. The brave testimonies black people have shared about the impact racism has on their lives and their family histories has underlined that there is an undeniable case for action. Addressing unfairness and injustice begins at the door of the Home Office, with the appalling mistreatment of the Windrush generation.
The Windrush scandal is a cause of national shame and the Wendy Williams lessons learned review is a damning indictment. It exposes callousness and incompetence that caused deep injustice, while making clear the impact of jobs lost, lives uprooted and untold damage done to many individuals and families. The review sets out 30 important and urgent recommendations, a number of which speak to a deeply worrying culture that has been allowed to develop over the past 10 years. Frankly, it is shameful that one of the recommendations called for the Department to develop
“a clear purpose, mission and values statement”
rooted in
“fairness, humanity, openness, diversity and inclusion”,
and that such a statement was not in place already. There are also recommendations which show the work required on issues relating to race and the need for better community outreach and engagement. It is, frankly, shocking that it took a scandal on this scale to bring such core failings to light.
I welcome what the Home Secretary said about accepting all 30 recommendations, but the reality is that we need yet another statement before the summer recess before we even move towards implementation, when this report has been available since March. I welcome the commitment to appointing Bishop Derek Webley as co-chair of a cross-party working group, but that cannot be a substitute for action. The truth is that we have to see far more in the way of action from this Government to give the impression that they actually take this issue seriously. That is why we will be looking very carefully at the Government’s response to the recommendations of the Williams review. As with the Lammy review, I am afraid that the Government too often call for reviews; they are too slow to act and too slow to right the wrongs. The Government’s Windrush compensation scheme managed to compensate just 60 people in its first year of operation. The Home Secretary talked about more progress today, but she must know that that rate of progress is just too slow, given the number of years that have elapsed since the scandal first came to light and the fact that the scheme has already been in operation for over a year.
It is little wonder that the reception was so bad for the Prime Minister’s recent announcement of yet another review on racial inequality, when the case for urgent action and the steps needed are abundantly clear. The reality is that, yet again, the Prime Minister was found wanting; in an important national moment, it is always words, not action. The anniversary of Windrush is an opportunity to celebrate and thank the Windrush generation, but while injustices persist, this is not enough. To ensure that such a national scandal never happens again, surely the Home Secretary must accept that the time for action is now.
Priti Patel
As I outlined in my statement, I have been unequivocal on the change that is required at the Home Office. When I made my original statement following the publication of the “Windrush lessons learned review”, the hon. Gentleman was not in his current role, so he would not have heard the full statement that I gave then, or the answers that I gave to the many questions. I apologised for the absolutely appalling scandal that took place and I will continue not just to apologise but to ensure that the Home Office in particular learns the lessons and fundamentally changes its culture, the leadership and the way in which it treats people, and becomes far more representative of the communities that it serves. I said that back in March and I will continue to say it until the Home Office fundamentally shifts its own way of working and ultimately learns the lessons.
Of course, that will take time. There is no silver bullet to do this overnight, but the first step that we can take is to ensure that we continue to work together collaboratively across our society and across Government to tackle the injustices that were suffered. That is my mission, that is my aim and that is why I am accepting the recommendations. I think it is right, as I said back in March and as I have said in previous statements, that I continue to speak to Wendy Williams, which I am doing this week, and to work with her and with people in the Home Office to implement the recommendations in the right way. In fact, when the report was published earlier this year, Wendy Williams herself said that we should not just come out and accept the recommendations, but work through them. That is exactly what we are doing. That is the right response. That is the responsible way in which we do this, to understand the delivery.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the compensation scheme, and I agree: the payments and the way payments have been made have been far too slow. I am not apologising for that at all. I have outlined in my statement that it is right that we treat each individual with the respect and dignity they deserve. These are complicated cases. In fact, last week when I was here in the House answering oral questions, the issue came up and I put the offer to many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches to come into the Home Office and to spend some time with our casework team in order to understand the complexities of the various cases, particularly constituency cases that they themselves may have raised. That offer is absolutely open to each constituency Member of Parliament. They should come in and look at the case handling. These are bespoke cases, and each one is handled in a sensitive way.
For the benefit of those Members who are not aware of this, when offers of payments are made to individuals, those individuals have a period to consider the payment they are being offered. If they would like to discuss the payment or if they decline it and want a review, that review is conducted not by the Home Office but by HMRC, an independent body. Again, it takes time for HMRC to do the review, but that is the right approach. It was agreed with Martin Forde and the individual stakeholders who were consulted before the scheme was set up.
My final point in response to the hon. Gentleman is that, although we know that the Windrush generation has faced many, many injustices, recent events have shone a spotlight on a whole range of injustices across many communities in our country. The Prime Minister’s new commission is very much looking at how we can level up and at how we can address and tackle those injustices. We should be doing that collectively as a House, working together in a responsible way to look at how we can support individuals, communities and minority groups of all faiths and backgrounds. That is the right thing to do, and I hope that all Opposition Members, including the hon. Gentleman, will work in a collaborative and constructive way to move forward on these issues.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I commend the Home Secretary for her typically robust, no-nonsense approach of taking control of this issue and for her personal dedication to righting the wrongs of the past, which is extremely important. I welcome the cross-Government working group. Can she confirm that the work of this group will complement the race equality commission, headed by the highly competent Munira Mirza?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That commission is absolutely complementary to the work that we are doing with the Windrush lessons learned review. We must look at all these issues in the round, in a consistent way, to develop the right approaches so that we can work together and solve the root causes of many of these issues and social injustices. I am here, with the Home Office, to work across Government, and that is our aim and objective.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Windrush scandal brought shame on the United Kingdom and shame on the Conservative Government, who caused it to happen. Make no mistake about it, Mr Deputy Speaker, what happened was a direct result of the hostile environment policy. The Government must know that and yet, before dealing with Wendy Williams’ recommendations, they have pressed ahead with plans to extend the reach of the hostile environment policy to European Union citizens in the immigration Bill.
I am concerned that, in today’s statement, the Home Secretary does not unequivocally commit to the sort of root and branch review of the hostile environment policy recommended by the lessons learned review. It is all very well to agree that black lives matter, but actions speak louder than words, and the reality is that many of this Government’s immigration policies continue to have disproportionate impacts on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. If the Home Secretary does not carry out a root and branch review of the hostile environment policy, this will continue.
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has correctly identified that policies such as the right-to-rent scheme, which outsource the enforcement of immigration control to untrained members of the public, cannot be adequately reformed in such a way as to avoid the sort of discrimination that we have seen result. It is these policies that have resulted in real suffering for people from the Windrush generation and beyond, with people losing their jobs, unable to rent their homes and denied hospital treatment, including for serious diseases such as cancer.
Can the Home Secretary tell us, in direct terms, that she will be carrying out the review of the hostile environment that was recommended by Wendy Williams? Wendy Williams said that the review should approach the measures of the hostile environment individually and cumulatively and demonstrate a plan to mitigate any particular cohorts impacted. She said that the review must be carried out with reference to equality law and the public sector equality duty. There have been calls for the right-to-rent scheme to be paused in the meantime and for the Government to consider pausing all other hostile environment measures until their effectiveness and impact can be evidenced. Will the Home Secretary state unequivocally for the record that this review of the hostile environment policy will happen, and will she give us a timescale today? Will she tell us whether the measures, such as the right-to-rent scheme, will be paused pending the outcome of the hostile environment policy? Finally, if assisting victims of the Windrush scandal is so complicated, why not extend legal aid to the lawyers who are trying to help them? That would be far more effective than inviting Members of Parliament into the Home Office.
Priti Patel
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Lady takes that tone. We have resourced third-party organisations, stakeholder groups and citizens advice bureaux to provide outreach and help and support. She may have constituents who have suffered from Windrush injustices, but I appreciate that she does not want to take up the offer to work in a constructive manner to find justice for her constituents.
The point that I make to the hon. and learned Lady is that Wendy Williams was clear in her report that lessons must be learned at all levels by all political parties. She described very clearly—I appreciate that the hon. and learned Lady is selectively quoting and reading from Wendy’s report—a set of measures that evolved under Labour Governments and the coalition and under Governments covering decades.
The reasons the scandal occurred are more complex and can be traced back not just to the Department. The root causes can be traced back to legislation from the 1960s and 1980s, much of which is complex. I appreciate that the hon. and learned Lady has not fully read the report and is quoting selectively. As I said, I will come back to the House before the summer recess to discuss the specifics as to how we will be implementing—
Priti Patel
As I have said, I will return to the House to outline how we will be implementing the recommendations from the lessons learned review.
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
The UK has always welcomed those from other nations, and we can rightly be proud of our open and inclusive society. [Interruption.] We can also be thankful for the contribution of those who have chosen to make the UK their home and who add greatly to our society. I speak as somebody who is married to one such person who emigrated here to work for our fantastic NHS. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that improving the uptake and awareness of the schemes supporting those who were directly affected is a priority for her Department? Will she outline the steps she is taking to achieve that?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and his questions, and he is right. I am really sorry that Members on the SNP Front Bench want to belittle my colleagues when they are speaking on these very important and sensitive issues.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right when it comes to the compensation scheme, which is complex. The Home Office is spending resources and time looking at how cases can be delivered and dealt with in a respectful way to ensure that individuals’ situations are fully assessed and that there is an accurate assessment of how they themselves experienced the injustices that took place through the Windrush scandal. It is right that we treat everybody with respect and dignity in the handling of their case. That is my objective, and he will have heard today that the money that has already been offered has now reached £1 million. Significant sums of money are being offered to individuals.
It is right that we take the time to provide the compensation in the right way. We have a good scheme in place. We have a scheme that was developed by Martin Forde, QC, in consultation with other stakeholders, and many of those stakeholders suffered the injustices of the Windrush scandal themselves.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
May I warmly welcome the Home Secretary’s commitment to accept all of Wendy Williams’ recommendations, but also ask her about the compensation scheme, because she did not include the latest figures in her statement? She will know that in our Home Affairs Committee report on Windrush two years ago, we raised four personal cases of injustice. Sadly, two of them have since died without receiving anything at all. I have heard from several people who were told in January that their case was near finalised and was in quality assurance, but have had no progress since, including Anthony Williams, who served in our armed forces for 13 years, and Andrew Bynoe, who was made homeless as a result of the Windrush scandal.
Does the right hon. Lady accept that keeping people in hardship and waiting in limbo like this compounds the injustice that they have already felt? Will she tell the House how many cases have now received payments? What proportion are still outstanding? Is it true that that is still over 90%? How many people have been waiting more than a year? Will she increase the staffing of the compensation unit, so that we can urgently get people support and compensation for the injustice that was so wrongly meted to them?
Priti Patel
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right. I have seen her letter, which I thank her for, and she will get a response to the specific points that she has just raised. She is right about the two claims she mentioned, and I have the details of one of them in front of me. The claim is going through the quality assurance process, which has taken time. As she will have heard in my statement, where individuals are waiting for a final settlement through the vulnerable persons scheme, we are still able to release financial assistance and cash directly before the final claim is assured and accepted. But she is right in terms of the process. I am reviewing all the claims myself, and I have here a bundle of individual claims that Members have raised with me directly.
I have been specifically told by the permanent secretary overseeing this at the Home Office that additional resources are not required for the Windrush compensation claim team. I check that every single week. These claims take time, for the reasons that I have outlined. The right hon. Lady is right about the gap in time for people who need help and support, which is why we have the vulnerable persons team, who are resourced to effectively triage and provide support, equipment, help and funds in the way I have outlined. I will get to her the details for which she asked for her Committee, and if she wishes to raise any specific cases with me, which I think she outlined in her letter, I will be more than happy to look at those and see what stages those claimants are at.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
We debate in this place how firm an immigration system should be and the exact parameters of it, and sometimes we take that debate out to the country, as we did in December. But I think it is common cause across the House and the country that an immigration system must be fair, and that is why what happened to the Windrush generation was such a scandal—it was manifestly unfair. I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. Can she reassure me and my constituents that, while the Home Office under successive Governments has failed the Windrush generation, it is her highest priority and that of the Government to put this right?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is right. For all Members who have read the Wendy Williams report, it is devastating reading—there are no two ways about that. That is why we should all come together to understand the sense of injustice, because the cases in the report are absolutely devastating. It is my priority to ensure that we give people the justice and support that they desperately need and deserve. My hon. Friend touched on the future immigration system. We have to make our system less complicated; it is far too complicated. The review touches on immigration policy throughout the ’60s, ’70s and ’80s, as more legislation and more complexities were put in place. We need to start streamlining that, to make it firm but fair.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
The Windrush generation gave so much to rebuild our country. The Government’s hostile environment policy, “Go Home” home vans and disgraceful treatment of the Windrush generation, deeming thousands of them illegal immigrants, is tantamount to institutional racism. Is it not time that the Home Secretary called it out for what it is? Is it not time that she took urgent action to implement the review—not in the months ahead, but right away—and ensure that the many thousands who have not received compensation get it as a matter of urgency?
Priti Patel
I refer the hon. Lady to my statement and the comments I have made already. I am sure she has heard my commitment to getting compensation to individuals—she sits there and shrugs her shoulders, but that is exactly what I am doing. She may have particular cases that she would like to raise with me. I am more than aware of what has happened. That is why I am here today, and that is why I have been unequivocal in my commitment to ensuring that the injustices suffered are addressed and dealt with. We have to right many of the wrongs. We cannot do that in a perfect way, but we will work hard to ensure that we get people the justice and compensation that they deserve.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
I join the Home Secretary in paying tribute to the Windrush generation, and thank her for her statement and for the approach she is taking to addressing this matter. I welcome the emphasis on community engagement in this process. Back in 2018 when this appalling treatment first came to light, I met a group of church leaders who impressed on me the role that churches play in many of these Caribbean communities, and the way in which they can help their congregation members to find redress and closure. Will the Home Secretary confirm that church leaders—and other faith leaders, where appropriate—will continue to be engaged in the process?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have been humbled by many of the representatives I have met from community groups and churches. I mentioned Bishop Webley, who will be co-chairing the new working group with me. It is absolutely right that we work with communities. Engagement and outreach have to be from the bottom up, and I make no apology for that. When I came to this Dispatch Box in March to give my view on the Wendy Williams lessons learned review, I clearly said that there has been a fundamental and inevitable breakdown in trust between the Windrush generation and the Home Office because of the treatment that these individuals and the community received. To rebuild that trust, we have to work with the community—with the leaders of the community and with trusted representatives from the community. It is by building those bridges that we will achieve some justice for those individuals, and, importantly, address a wide range of inequalities and issues around social justice in addition to compensation.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
The immoral Windrush scandal occurred because of the Tory Government’s hostile environment policy. Despite hon. Members and community organisations demanding justice for more than two years for the tens of thousands of victims, of the mere 1,275 people who have claimed compensation thus far only 60 payments have been made, and 529 people have had to wait for more than a year. Does the Home Secretary concede that this neatly sums up the attitude of the Government and the contempt in which they hold long-suffering individuals? Just like with the hapless victims of the deadly Grenfell fire tragedy, this callous Government have no intention whatever of delivering full, proper and timely justice for those who have been so unconscionably wronged.
Priti Patel
I dispute and disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s tone and his comments. I am not sure whether he has read Wendy Williams’s review; I do not think so.
Priti Patel
Would the hon. and learned Lady let me respond to the question from the hon. Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi),without intervening?
There are plenty of examples in the report, as stated by Wendy Williams, showing that lessons should be learned by all political parties. In fact, the report contains quotes attributed as far back as 2009—to a previous Labour Government—on the hostile environment. There are many quotes with regard to members of the then Labour Government who expressed a desire to make the UK a hostile environment, including wanting to make those living here illegally ever “more uncomfortable” and the need to flush out illegal immigrants. That is the type of language that, right now, we should not be using. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, having listened to my statement, understands the complexities around individual cases, and how we are working to get justice and provide compensation to individuals. That approach is the right one. It has been based on stakeholder engagement with victims from the Windrush generation. I am very sorry that he has chosen to politicise the issue in such an unhelpful and unconstructive way.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I welcome the way in which the Home Secretary has acknowledged the seriousness of this scandal and taken personal ownership of finding solutions. I particularly welcome the fact that she is taking on board Wendy Williams’s 30 recommendations; her report was honest and robust. I note one comment from it, in which she said:
“What will make this review different is if, in 12 to 24 months’ time, we can see evidence of deep cultural reform, with changes in behaviour at all levels and functions throughout the organisation”—
the Home Office. What does the Home Secretary think that reform and change will look like? How confident is she of the capacity in the Home Office actually to deliver it, particularly with the other current pressures?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to speak specifically about the changes required in the Home Office. We have already set that work in train—we did so straight after the publication of Wendy’s review—primarily because the review itself is called the “Windrush Lessons Learned Review”. It was a very humbling moment for the Home Office, in which to reflect on the previous conduct and the approach that the Home Office has taken, even in terms of corresponding to individuals, the way people were treated, and the way in which the Department and representatives have spoken to people, whether face to face or on the telephone. There are many, many stories—too many—of individuals who have been treated appallingly. In fact, when the Prime Minister and I met representatives of the working group yesterday, we heard awful examples of individuals being treated in a really inappropriate way, with the wrong kind of language, and being dismissed and belittled. That is simply not acceptable.
There is a long way to go internally in the Home Office. The review will lead not only to culture changes but to changes in working practices. At a leadership level, I feel very strongly about ensuring that the Home Office is far more diverse and representative of the community that it serves. Sadly, at this particular stage, across all leadership functions, it simply is not. There is a long way to go in terms of making that change, and that is something that I am absolutely determined to make sure happens.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
If anyone wants to see a masterclass in institutional racism, they should just go and watch “Sitting in Limbo”, a shocking BBC drama based on the experience of my constituent Anthony Bryan, who was wrongfully detained by the Home Office and threatened with deportation. Even with that treatment, he has received only a partial payment from the compensation scheme. Will the Home Secretary publish the criteria used by the Department to determine compensation claims? Will she announce a deadline by which all compensation will be paid up in full?
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady refers to a dreadful programme that was aired just 10 days ago which, as she says, involved her constituent. I understand that an interim compensation payment has been made to her constituent and he has accepted it. I am sure that her constituent has discussed the process around the actual claim itself. I would be very happy to share the criteria—I think they should be in the public domain—and the hon. Lady is very welcome to come into the Home Office to discuss any details, if she would like to.
I come back to my core point: there is more work to do in terms of compensation. I am determined to make sure that people get the compensation they deserve, but to achieve that we have to work with each and every individual to understand the circumstances that have affected them.
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con) [V]
Will my right hon. Friend join me, as one of the Members of Parliament for Thurrock, where the Empire Windrush landed, in expressing serious regret that this injustice was ever allowed to happen? Will she assure me that her Department is committed to ensuring justice for members of the Windrush generation, who have given so much and been so badly treated?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have clearly outlined today the work that is required, not only by the Department but culturally, in terms of leadership and dedicating the resource to and the focus on getting justice for individuals, not only through the compensation scheme but through our wider work in Government to make sure that social injustices and inequalities are addressed and that people from the Windrush community in particular are given the support that they deserve.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
The banner that we saw flying over the Etihad football stadium in Manchester last night; the response of the hard right and even the Foreign Secretary to the legitimate Black Lives Matter protests; and the disgusting replies to the Conservative party Father’s Day tweet that showed a black father and son. In the light of the Prime Minister’s previous racist comments and the hostile environment created by this Government, deep cultural reform is indeed needed, and not only in the Home Office. Why should the public believe that this Government have really learned their lesson?
Priti Patel
Because I am here today giving an unequivocal commitment to ensuring that the recommendations are implemented and to ensuring that we bring about justice for those individuals who suffered great injustice and hardship.
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) (Con) [V]
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the tone that she is taking in this matter and the fact that she is taking it head on to implement all the outcomes of the review. I have a constituent who was involved in Windrush. She spent her life since coming to the UK working in the NHS. Fortunately she was successful in her case and has had compensation. However, it took weeks for decisions to be made. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made about the progress the Home Office is making with successfully resolving cases? What further measures have been identified to ensure that decision making and awarding compensation are done with minimal delay and minimal issues?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend has heard what I have said about the compensation scheme. He is right: there is a process. That process already has 13 separate categories where considerations are given to looking at every single claim. As ever, we can obviously try to speed up processes, but at the end of the day we have to work with the individual to provide background to the injustice they have suffered, such as issues around their employment or any financial hardship they have experienced. I know that my hon. Friend will understand that it is right that we have this bespoke process to ensure that the right level of compensation is awarded. We want the maximum levels to be awarded to individuals. That does take time. We are working through this right now to ensure that we can speed up processes to make them as fast as we can.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
My constituent is a grandfather who came to the UK as a child. He lost his job in 2015 when he was asked to produce a passport. The Home Office’s prejudices were clear. It said that his parents’ marriage was a
“customary one, and not a legally recognised one”.
When it found out that his siblings had passports, it said:
“If it transpires that the passports were issued in error, then it will ultimately be a decision for Her Majesty’s Passport Office as to whether or not the passports can be retained”.
The Home Secretary blames consecutive Governments, but blame lies firmly at the feet of this Tory Government. My constituent is over £60,000 out of pocket. He has had his claim in for compensation for nearly two years. When will he receive his money?
Priti Patel
If the hon. Lady would provide the details of that claim, I will look at it. My door is always open, as I have made quite clear every time I come to the House of Commons.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Members will know that a relatively small number of foreign and Commonwealth armed forces veterans have slipped through the net in applying for indefinite leave to remain, despite otherwise being entitled to do so. May I thank the Home Secretary for her gracious work to find a solution and ask, in the spirit of her statement today, whether she would be able to update the House on that when she is ready to do so?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, but also for the work that he is doing in support of our armed forces on this issue. I would be more than happy to follow it up with him. I know he has had conversations about it. There is work taking place on it. In due course, when we are able to progress it, I will of course update him and the House.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I welcome the recognition by the Home Secretary that the problem with regard to the Windrush generation is not a single decision or series of decisions but a cultural and systemic problem within the Home Office. We have all seen it for years in our own casework, right down to the attitude that entry clearance officers take towards applications in-country. The right-to-rent checks to which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) referred were criticised in March last year in the courts, but they are still there. The arbitrary refusal to allow foreign crews from outside the European economic area to work on fishing vessels inside our own waters is a case that has been clear for years but just ignored by the Home Office. So when the Home Secretary returns, will she bring back the list of utterly irrational immigration policies that we now have, along with a commitment to get rid of them?
Priti Patel
First and foremost, my priority is to implement the Windrush recommendations. As the right hon. Gentleman and the House have heard me say, there are many complexities in the immigration system, and I want to simplify it and ensure it is firm but fair. That is the Government’s objective with the immigration reforms that we are undertaking.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
As the son of people of the Windrush generation, I have witnessed the huge contribution that they have made to our society. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking my parents’ generation for their contribution to this country? Will she assure the House that lessons have been learned so that the mistakes that were made in relation to that generation are not made again?
Priti Patel
I thank my hon. Friend. As ever, he succinctly and clearly highlights the contribution that his family and his parents’ generation made to our incredible country. As Members have heard me say previously, we live in an open and tolerant society. It says a great deal that the children of immigrants are now represented in the House of Commons, given the hardships that our parents and previous generations dealt with when they came to this country. They made a great success of their time here. We should celebrate the successes of all communities, and yesterday Windrush Day was a celebration. We should not lose sight of that.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab) [V]
My constituent Dorian Green came to the UK 52 years ago at the age of nine. In 2008, the Home Office wrongly told his employer that he did not have the right to work. He has been in a battle with the Home Office ever since, and crucial documents were lost or deleted. I am pleased to say that he finally has his British passport, but only after suffering the shame of being unable to work and the indignity of being treated as a second-class citizen. Does the Home Secretary think that £1,000 is enough to compensate Mr Green for his ordeal in proving what was always true: that he was and is a British citizen?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman has just highlighted a case going back to 2008. If he would like me to look at it in further detail, I would be very happy to do so.
Chris Grayling (Epsom and Ewell) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on her commitment to this issue and her tone in setting out this statement. What happened should never have happened, and her commitment to righting wrongs is very welcome indeed. The reality is that this country has benefited enormously from the contribution of the Windrush generation and those who have arrived since. We have seen that in recent weeks in our health service, where the work of people from different migrant communities has been invaluable in fighting this dreadful virus, which has raised all kinds of other issues that need addressing. Will the Home Secretary confirm, for a more recent arrival to the country, the Prime Minister’s commitment that those who have arrived and are applying for visas will not pay the immigration surcharge on health, and that those who are already mid-application will get that money refunded?
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That work is under way, as the Prime Minister instructed, with the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Care. He is right to highlight the great contribution that individuals from migrant communities are making to the NHS. That work is under way right now, and we will be publishing more details on that and how the scheme of refunds will work.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
People of the Windrush generation were deported as a result of the Government’s hostile environment policies, including the healthcare surcharge, no recourse to public funds, the illegal working offence, immigration detention and the right to rent checks, which have been found to cause racial discrimination. The Home Secretary has not answered the question yet: why are those policies still in place, and when will they be abolished?
Priti Patel
I refer the hon. Lady to my earlier comments. I have already made it clear to the House that our immigration system is far too complicated. The work that we are taking forward in the Home Office is to simplify the immigration system, which will mean changes to our policy to make the system firm but fair.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
I warmly welcome the statement from the Home Secretary. When we think of the Windrush generation, we naturally think of the arrivals from the Caribbean, but, of course, the generation was not limited only to the Caribbean—it included the wider Commonwealth. Will my right hon. Friend set out clearly that those from other Commonwealth countries who feel that they have been wrongly treated can also apply for the compensation scheme, and will she set out the numbers of people who have applied from other Commonwealth countries under the scheme?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is right to recognise that this scandal affected people from Commonwealth countries. We do have that information, and I can confirm that people were affected from Pakistan, India and a range of Commonwealth countries. I would be very happy to share that information with the House.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
His school had been demolished more than 30 years before and he had never been in trouble, so there was no record of him with the police either. We searched the archives at Kew, the central NHS and Brent Council. It was difficult going back 54 years, because most records had been destroyed or the systems had changed, but after three years, the Home Office accepted that Mr Breedy had arrived—as he said, freely landed—aged nine in 1962 and had paid his national insurance contributions for 45 years until the Home Office had written to his employers in 2016 and put him out of a job. I will accept the Home Secretary’s offer to come in and work with her officials, because it is unforgivable that after accepting that he was right all along, the Government have still not sent him the British passport that he applied for five years ago, and they have not even begun to compensate him for his lost earnings or lost pension entitlement, let alone his pain or suffering. If the compensation team at the Home Office does not need more staff, as the Home Secretary has just assured the House, why has my constituent still not been contacted? He is now 68 years of age. How long will he have to wait?
Priti Patel
I would be very happy to work with the hon. Gentleman. If he can provide me with the background that he just shared in the House and some contact details, we will pick that up, and I will absolutely get some answers to his question.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
First, the Home Secretary, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr Dhesi), conflated something that the previous Labour Government had apparently said about people who were here illegally with the Windrush generation. One of the reasons that what happened with the Windrush generation caused such public outrage was that they were all here legally, and it is important that we do not conflate those two matters. Secondly, on the time that it is taking, the Home Secretary is clearly committed to this and is taking on these cases herself, but can she do more to convince us that she has the resources at her disposal. Frankly, she should not have to have a file with all these cases on her desk; she should have people who are working for her who can process them.
Priti Patel
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Gentleman’s comments about the cases. I have been categorically told that by the Department, but I do feel, in terms of the scale of the injustices and the scandal that has taken place, that it is my responsibility as Home Secretary to look at these cases. It is simply not good enough for me to return to the House of Commons each time when we have these discussions to hear of further cases and further injustices. I want to make sure people receive the compensation, which is why I am giving this my personal attention. It is too important to delegate to others. I just conclude by saying that the Williams review goes back over several decades. It does refer to a previous Labour Government, but we should not conflate language at this particular time, and I think that was the point that I was trying to make. We want to get on and get justice for these individuals, and that is why I am giving this so much of my personal attention.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for her hard work on the compensation scheme. She has acknowledged this afternoon that it has been too slow, but equally, she has made a very firm commitment to increasing rates of claims being decided, which has to be good news. I well recall that some of the most important, most moving and most difficult meetings I have had since I have been in this place have been with members of the Windrush generation. I hope that she will undertake to continue that engagement. It is absolutely crucial, and we have heard this afternoon about cases outstanding since 2008. Will she consider extending the scheme beyond April 2023 if it still looks like there are cases that need to be decided?
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend understands some of the challenges associated with the Windrush generation and the compensation scheme and the exceptional work of community representation and organisations whose passion and commitment is incredible. That work will absolutely continue, primarily because it is important for the Home Office to continue that engagement and dialogue with the community. If cases have not been resolved by the deadline of April 2023, of course we would look to extend it, but my objective is to ensure that we find these claimants. The rates are still incredibly low. Hon. Members have referred to individual cases they know of, but there are many we still do not know enough about, which is why we have this extensive community engagement. It is the right and proper approach.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The Home Secretary has just admitted that successive UK Governments were institutionally racist and that the hostile environment resulted directly in the Windrush scandal. What exact actions will she take to change the culture of government in Whitehall to ensure it never happens again, and will she unpick the odious and repressive hostile environment?
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I thank the Home Office and in particular staff in Sheffield for resolving the case of a constituent who came to the UK not long after he was born, not from the island of Jamaica, but from Tasmania, after his parents changed their mind about emigrating. Despite a paucity of documentation, not only was a face-to-face meeting quickly organised, but the Home Office even paid for the rail ticket to Sheffield. Does the Home Secretary agree that this clearly demonstrates that we have learnt the lessons of Windrush and that where such cases emerge we can react sympathetically and quickly?
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right that this is a bespoke scheme. We have to treat individuals on a case-by-case basis and to understand their circumstances and the injustices. He mentioned the Home Office paying for travel. That also includes flights in some cases. Everybody has a different experience and story, so it is right that we work with every individual to make sure they get the justice they deserve and the support they need.
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) (Lab) [V]
My constituent, Sarah O’Connor, one of the Windrush generation, came to Britain when she was six. At 56, having always worked, she was made redundant and told she had no right to live here. She lost the right to work and had no income. She sold her car, was issued with a notice to quit and even had to stop the precious swimming lessons that meant so much to the granddaughter she cared for. In 2018, she was finally granted British citizenship, but she tragically died last September, at just 57 years old. In one email, she wrote:
“I don’t think I have the strength to keep going any more”.
We have been pursuing her compensation claim for almost two years. Complexity is not a good enough explanation for the delay. Can the Home Secretary please tell me: is it a deliberate element of her Government’s hostile environment policy, or is her Department simply dysfunctional?
Priti Patel
First, I am aware of the case the right hon. Lady refers to. I understand that the claim on behalf of the deceased’s estate is under consideration right now. There is nothing deliberate about complexity. She will have heard me say in my statement and in my explanations to other hon. Members that the compensation scheme was set up in conjunction with the Windrush generation based on the needs they themselves outlined. It is the right approach to have that bespoke scheme. It takes time, but every claim is handled in a very bespoke way by an individual case handler. If she has specific points she wants to make about this compensation claim, which is under consideration right now, she is welcome to speak to me directly.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Given what we saw in Wendy Williams’s report about the failings of administration, together with what we learned from the Post Office Horizon programme and, before that, Equitable Life, does my right hon. Friend agree that we should fully and fairly compensate all those affected, but remember with humility the limits to the effectiveness of Government and reduce the size and scope of the state wherever possible?
Priti Patel
This compensation scheme is not comparable with any other type of compensation scheme that has been constructed by Government. I have explained already to the House how the scheme came about and what type of consultation was involved; obviously, members of the community were part of that. That was all led by Martin Forde QC. My focus is to ensure that this scheme works and that money goes to people. It is complex—that has been the basis of our discussion this afternoon—but fundamentally, we need to make sure that it is done case by case, that people are treated in the right way and that their particular circumstances are reflected in the final compensation that they receive.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I am pleased that the Home Secretary accepts Wendy Williams’s call for “major cultural change” in the Home Office. One of the things that needs to change is the over-dependence on immigration detention, which many Windrush victims experienced. It has been too easy to detain, and for too long. Will the Home Secretary update the House on the Department’s work on community-based alternatives to detention? Does she agree that ending indefinite detention, for which there is support on both sides of the House, would contribute significantly to that cultural change in the Home Office?
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman makes a thoughtful comment about community-based detention and detention as a whole. Detention is there for a reason. Obviously, other discussions and debates have taken place around this, but importantly when it comes to the Windrush lessons learned review, the way in which people were treated and, through the Home Office and immigration enforcement, put in detention was completely wrong. We have to make sure that that does not happen again and that we do not have cases like that again. Clearly, that is part of the wider work with the lessons learned review.
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
The recommendations state that the Home Secretary should urgently review all “compliant environment”—in other words, hostile environment—measures “individually and cumulatively”. Will she apologise for the hostile environment’s role in this and follow the recommendation to review it to the letter?
Priti Patel
I have spoken about the recommendations and implementing the report, and obviously I will update the House on how we will implement those recommendations.
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) (Lab) [V]
Two years ago, the then Home Secretary promised that the victims of the Windrush scandal would get citizenship and receive compensation. We have heard today that only 60 people have received compensation, with thousands waiting. The Home Secretary agreed earlier that the compensation scheme is incredibly slow; it relies on lengthy forms and documentation without access to legal aid. What will she do to make it easier to access compensation? It must seem to the Windrush generation that the bureaucracy that was part of the hostile environment is now being used to delay or avoid compensating them.
Priti Patel
The hon. Lady’s last point is absolutely incorrect. The compensation scheme was designed in conjunction with representatives of the Windrush community—the Windrush generation. They themselves contributed to the design of the scheme. That was the right way forward at the time. My predecessors worked very hard on developing the scheme with Martin Forde QC.
On how we continue to engage with members of the community, that is exactly why we have such extensive outreach work. We are supporting Citizens Advice and other third-party organisations, and funding community activities and groups to have outreach to ensure that people feel they can come forward. The House has already heard me say that, in addition to the cases that Members have raised directly, there are many other individuals who have yet to come forward. That is why we are doing extensive community engagement and outreach work.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and the proactive approach she is taking. Will she join me in expressing serious regret that this injustice was ever allowed to happen to the Windrush generation, and will she assure me that her Department is absolutely committed to ensuring justice for all members of the Windrush generation who were so badly treated?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I have spoken extensively about the scale of the injustice, the issues specific to the Home Office, the cultural change that is required and, importantly, the lessons that have to be learned collectively if we are to move forward and make sure justice is served.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I appreciate what the Home Secretary has said about the complexities of the scheme, but what assessment has she made of how much, on average, a victim can expect to have to spend on obtaining medical records, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs records, Home Office records and other documentation in order to support a compensation claim?
Priti Patel
That is a legitimate point about the documentation and evidence that has to be provided, but every claim is different and so there is no one-size-fits-all or simple figure for this. Of course if we can find ways in which we can simplify the process, we will do that. This is an iterative process and if we have to make changes, we will look at that.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I find so many of these cases really sad and incredibly distressing. It is shocking and unacceptable that so many Windrush families were treated appallingly by successive Governments, so I urge the Home Secretary to make it clear that nothing like this can ever be allowed to happen again.
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. The review shows so many aspects of every strand of the Windrush generation and the injustices that are just so awful. It is my priority to ensure that we can implement the recommendations, deliver compensation for the victims and move forward in a constructive way. That involves all of us working in a responsible way, to look at the number of injustices across society, which cover all communities, and how we can give voice to people who feel that they do not have a voice on many of these challenging issues.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
The contribution of the African and Caribbean communities to my constituency is invaluable; our rich diversity is our strength and we are very proud of it. The review’s sixth recommendation sets out the need to accurately teach Britain’s colonial history, as part of a wider strategy to tackle institutional racism. What action has the Secretary of State taken so far regarding such a colonial history educational programme in the Home Office? How many additional resources have been committed? By what date will such a programme be in place? By what date will the annual review be available to Parliament?
Priti Patel
First, I say to the hon. Lady that I will come back on the recommendations and the implementation. She makes an important point about the institutional thoughtlessness that Wendy highlighted in her report when it came to an understanding of race and history within the Department. Progress has been made since the report was published in March, and work has taken place on awareness, education and sharing history. That is being done internally with our staff, through all the usual channels, not only the internet, but engagement sessions as well, where we are able to put those on through this restricted period. That work will be accelerated, and will grow and develop going forward.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
I thank the Home Secretary for inviting Bishop Derek Webley, a well-respected Birmingham church leader, to engage as co-chair of the working group. May I ask that as part of the group’s work people such as Bishop Desmond Jaddoo, a well-known Birmingham campaigner, will be reached out to, so that we can all work together to tackle the issues that so disproportionately affect those in black, Asian and minority ethnic communities?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is right about that and we will do exactly as he suggests. Bishop Webley has a significant standing within the local community and he has worked on many issues, such as youth gangs and individuals, and a range of social justice issues. These are exactly the type of leaders we want to work with. I will continue to work with anybody who wants to make a difference and who leads the community as a figurehead in the community, because we absolutely need to pull people together at a community level so that they can help inform our approach, to ensure that we provide the justice that individuals are looking for.
Point of Order
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. On 8 June, the Minister responsible for children, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford), advised that the data regarding the number of children who have been reported missing from care since lockdown will not be available until 2021. On 10 June, the same Minister assured this House that she was closely monitoring the relaxation of legislation under statutory instrument No. 445, which weakened the statutory timescales for visits to children in care. Yesterday, in Education questions, she advised that the number of children missing from care had decreased throughout this pandemic.
These are children in the care of the state. Charities are reporting a significant rise in missing children, particularly those who are unaccompanied and trafficked. They are also reporting that these children are missing for longer time periods than they have been historically. These children are vulnerable to criminal gangs and sexual exploitation. Mr Deputy Speaker, do you know how I can get some clarity from the Minister regarding whether she does or does not know how many children are missing from care; if she does know, how many; and what exactly she is doing to find them?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for her point of order and for giving me advance notice of it. I trust she has also given notice to the Minister to whom she has referred. While it is not a point of order as such, she has taken the opportunity to draw the House’s attention to the matter, and I will make sure that those on the Treasury Bench pass on her views to the Minister so that she can respond. If she does not respond in the usual way, I am sure that the hon. Member will find other ways to pursue this particular matter.
I will now suspend the House for three minutes.
Desecration of War Memorials
Tuesday 23rd June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Desecration of War Memorials Bill 2019-21 View all Desecration of War Memorials 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
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I beg to move
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to create the offence of desecrating a war memorial; and for connected purposes.
I find myself in the unique position of standing here presenting this Bill, with the Government in support of the cause and aims behind bringing such legislation before the House. It is the week of Armed Forces Day, and I say to all our servicemen and women: I salute you.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) and I have had constructive discussions with our right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary about the potential for this Bill to be put into statute. Such a Bill should not be contentious, and I and my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell, my “co-sponsor” of the Bill, are delighted to have support from across the House for our ambitions.
I stress that this Bill should not be perceived as a knee-jerk reaction to recent events, as some in the media have suggested. Back in 2009-10, the former hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, David Burrowes, introduced a similar Bill, with the same intention of protecting our war memorials. My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell and I wish to place on record our thanks to him for his efforts, and for having reached out to us and thrown his full support behind our work. We also wish to thank Lewis Fielder and James Clark, members of Conservative Friends of the Armed Forces, for their efforts in researching, drafting and aiding my hon. Friend and I in putting this Bill to the House.
Every war memorial in every village, every town and every city across our country is sacred and serves to remind us of the immeasurable gratitude that we must afford to our armed forces, both past and present. The passage of time always presents the danger of dimmed collective recollections. Let us not forget the sacrifice and bravery of those who paid the ultimate price: young men and women who gave up their futures, loves, lives and dreams to ensure that the freedoms they once knew were protected from tyranny—for us, the unborn generations, who now sit idly by as monuments dedicated to their eternal memory are desecrated. I will not sit idly by, and neither will I be silent.
A lack of comprehensive reporting on vandalism of this nature means that it is difficult to ascertain the exact number of incidents each year, although the War Memorials Trust does an excellent job of documenting such incidents. It reports that seven memorials have suffered from criminal activity since April, including the Cenotaph in Whitehall which has been graffitied and climbed on, and recently the Union Flag was nearly set alight. In 2017, a woman was arrested for urinating on a war memorial in Essex for the second time. During her arrest she became abusive towards emergency workers, and was sentenced to one month’s imprisonment for the first count of outraging public decency, three months for the second count, and three months for assault and abusive language. How that punishment fits the crime, I do not know.
The Bomber Command Memorial in Green Park has been attacked four times since Her Majesty opened it in 2012. In 2013, it was desecrated with graffiti that referenced the murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby. The perpetrator was sentenced to just 12 weeks’ imprisonment. Those who vandalise and abuse these monuments do not have the capacity to comprehend the strength, courage and bravery that it must have taken for, in this case, teenage boys to overcome the terror of midnight missions across occupied Europe in a tin can thousands of feet in the sky. More than 50,000 British, American, Canadian and Commonwealth young men lost their lives under Bomber Command to preserve and protect the liberties of democracy. Had the allied forces not been successful in their mission, let us make no mistake: we would be living under the tyranny of totalitarian, fascist insanity.
The price of war is immeasurably high. I saw that first hand when a young man from Stratford-upon-Avon, Private Conrad Lewis, lost his life in Afghanistan back in 2011. The pain felt by friends and the community stays with me to this day. Those of us who value freedom of thought, speech and expression know that we can never repay the debt we owe to these men and women; all we can do is immortalise their memory, and display our gratitude for their sacrifice.
Memorials stand in great, solemn, eternal remembrance of the glorious dead. We cannot bring back those lives, or erase the grief of families and communities, but the least we can do is ensure that memorials are adequately protected, and punish those who would deface, urinate on, spit on, defile, or graffiti them. Such actions, which have included swastikas spray-painted on statues, and Nazi salutes in 2020 before the Cenotaph, are the price we pay for ignorance and inaction.
A blessed bond is formed between our present and our past through memorials. We see ourselves in the names and images of our fallen heroes, and perhaps we pause to reflect whether we would have had their courage and their nerves of steel in the face of evil itself.
My great-great-uncle Allan Gullis, who still lives today, is a D-day veteran. I could not possibly speculate whether I would have had the sheer guts and bulldog spirit that he and his brothers in arms embody so fully, but the least that I can do is stand before the House today and try to secure the protection of their memory. My grandfather, Terrence Gullis, served in the Royal Marines during the Suez canal crisis, and my grandfather on my mother’s side, William Beacham, served in the RAF, undertaking his national service in Egypt. It is an honour to have such brave and committed men in my family. I would have liked to follow in the footsteps of those heroes but, alas, due to deafness in one ear, it was not my destiny.
I am delighted, however, to represent the great town of Kidsgrove, where the Royal British Legion, on its own initiative, has set up a beautiful war memorial garden that is used every November to lay wreaths and remember our fallen. It has been an undoubted pleasure to attend the veterans breakfast club in Smallthorne, run by Martyn Hunt and Paul Horton, which serves all veterans across Stoke-on-Trent as a way of bringing our heroes together to share their stories and lend support to one another. Dotted across this country are extraordinary examples of individuals and community groups banding together to honour the dead. Every year, as I don my poppy, it brings me a great sense of pride and joy to see so many others doing the same.
I am asking the House to do the respectable thing—the right thing—and back this Bill to create an explicit offence, distinguishable from damage to public property. Let us join our friends in Australia, the United States and Canada, and pay the respect that we owe to those who died in the freedom fight against tyranny. Although there is provision in existing legislation to hold criminals to account for damage to property, and offenders have been successfully prosecuted, relatively few are held to account for the severity of the aggravating circumstances that come with criminally damaging something as sacred to the nation as war memorials.
In addition to the designation of a specific offence relating to unlawful damage to a war memorial, the Bill proposes the exemption of damage to war memorials from the £5,000 damages threshold required under the Criminal Damage Act 1971; the removal of a maximum fine in favour of an unlimited fine; and the establishment of a maximum custodial sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. Despite some media reports, we are not calling for all offences to be met with 10 years’ imprisonment; we are enabling our judiciary to use their discretion over whether the offence is worthy of being moved to a Crown court, without the £5,000 threshold barrier blocking its way.
Finally, I take the opportunity to praise my partner in this proposal, my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell. He has an outstanding record as a public servant, with 27 years of military service under his belt. In this House, he serves as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the armed forces covenant, and he remains unrivalled in his passion for veterans, the Commonwealth and remembrance. It is a privilege to know him and work with him as a fellow member of the 2019 intake. My hon. Friend will perhaps be blushing at such unreserved praise, but it is certain that he is cut from the same cloth as those whose memories I stand here advocating to protect and preserve. I thank him wholeheartedly for his service and for his help in laying the Bill before the House.
I want to see the deterrence of criminal damage to the memory of our glorious dead. I hope that the House will support me in that endeavour.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Jonathan Gullis, James Sunderland, Andrea Leadsom, Bob Seely, Esther McVey, James Gray, Tracey Crouch, Mr Peter Bone, Theo Clarke, Jim Shannon, Tom Tugendhat and Lee Anderson present the Bill.
Mr Jonathan Gullis accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September, and to be printed (Bill 144).
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I thank my great friend, my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis), for his kind words and his outstanding speech? I was very humbled to hear it.
While preparing to submit this ten-minute rule Bill, we became aware of a perceived anomaly in parliamentary procedure. Given that such Bills require a minimum of 12 signatures, it seems odd that only one Member is permitted to present one to the House. As a member of the Procedure Committee, might I place on the record my aspiration for a review of parliamentary procedure whereby co-sponsors of ten-minute rule Bills could be allocated a discrete share of parliamentary time?
May I also record my thanks to all who have supported us through this undertaking, and in particular to the Conservative Friends of the Armed Forces?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank the hon. Member for that point of order, and for giving me forward notice of it. I have been a Member of Parliament for 28 and a bit years—[Interruption.] I know; I thank the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) for that reaction. Some procedures seem to go back centuries, and others 10 weeks. I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman some hope, at least, that when it is discussed by the Procedure Committee, what he desires can be analysed and, if it is the will of the House, those procedures can be changed.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As a former long-standing member of the Procedure Committee, may I say, when it comes to changing procedure, “Be careful what you wish for”? In my experience over 37 years, the ten-minute rule procedure has worked extremely well. It allows a Back Bencher to set out his case over 10 minutes, and it might be quite dangerous to muck around with it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
When my right hon. Friend said, “37 years”, Marie Rimmer did not gasp—I do apologise for that! As James Sunderland can see, the discussion has already begun.
Medicines and Medical Devices Bill
Tuesday 23rd June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead 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: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 23 June 2020 - (23 Jun 2020)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Jo Churchill)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 21, in clause 1, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(5) In making regulations under subsection (1), the appropriate authority must give primary regard to the safety of human medicines.”
This amendment requires the appropriate authority to consider patient safety first when making regulations under subsection (1).
Amendment 20, page 1, line 5, at end insert
“for a period of three years following the day on which this Act is passed.”
This amendment provides a sunset provision for the Bill requiring the Government to return with primary legislation.
Amendment 19, in clause 2, page 2, line 26, at end, insert—
“(o) the origin and treatment of human organs used in the process of developing or manufacturing medicines”.
This amendment empowers the appropriate authority to make provisions on the process of developing or manufacturing medicines in relation to the origin and treatment of human organs.
Amendment 22, in clause 8, page 5, line 34, at end insert—
“(5) In making regulations under subsection (1), the appropriate authority must give primary regard to the safety of veterinary medicines in relation to animals, humans and the environment.”
This amendment requires the appropriate authority to consider animal, human and environmental safety first when making regulations under subsection (1).
Amendment 23, in clause 12, page 7, line 27, at end insert—
“(3) In making regulations under subsection (1), the appropriate authority must give primary regard to the safety of medical devices.”
This amendment requires the appropriate authority to consider safety first when making regulations under subsection (1).
Government amendments 1 to 18.
Jo Churchill
This Bill is an opportunity. It is necessary to ensure that we have the ability to continue to update our regulatory frameworks after the end of the transition period. We must ensure that we continue to be able to respond swiftly to pressing need. This is not a standstill Bill, however. It is designed to underpin the way in which the UK approaches the life sciences sector and innovation in health from 2020 onwards—an approach where we promote, to the best of our ability, patients’ access to cutting-edge treatments and encourage the cultivation of new, safe and patient-focused technology, balanced with the need to take swift and effective regulatory and system action, to ensure that patients do not experience adverse outcomes.
I put on record my gratitude to Members from all parts of the House. On Second Reading and in Committee, they have approached the Bill with a consensus that I hope will continue in the other place. We have all understood the principles behind the Bill, and any differences of opinion and scrutiny have been firmly in the best interests of patients and in the interest of ensuring that the Bill goes to the other place in good shape.
Our experience of the health system is a personal one. We have relationships with our GPs and clinicians, and some of us have long-term health conditions or short-term immediate needs that require surgical intervention. We all want to know that the health system is taking all possible steps to prevent harm to patients and that the regulator and the health system work in partnership to identify when something is going wrong and to take swift corrective action. We would hope that in the event that we experienced an adverse outcome or reported concerns to our doctor, GP or surgeon when something was not working properly, the patient, system and statistical significance of that outcome would be understood and properly addressed; and the clinician, the system and the regulator would engage with the patient on required action.
We also want to ensure that, where required, the regulator will continue proactively to engage with the manufacturer of a medical device and ensure that information is supplied alongside that device or improvements are made so that we learn from the patient experience. Finally, we want to ensure that data is available to drive regulatory or system action, to limit the use of that device or remove it from the system so that our experience as patients results in changes to prevent future harm and suffering, even if that risk cannot be removed completely.
I will first speak to the amendments tabled in the name of the Secretary of State for Health and Social care, before I move on to those tabled by hon Members present. I thank all those who have shown an interest in this area, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) and the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who put forward their own amendments. Both were extremely well intended and thoughtfully drafted and there have been further thoughtful contributions from all parties and both Houses in thinking about what an amendment to that effect might need to deliver.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a thrill for a Government Minister to move my amendments, although that might be giving me false hope. But I just wanted to put on record for colleagues that the purpose of amendment 21 is to make patient safety the uppermost priority.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We are in completely unusual times: I get to respond to his amendments before he has actually spoken to them himself, but we will crack on.
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman said at the time that he wished to return to these issues during the proceedings and I was expecting him to do so. We agree that patient outcomes and patient safety are matters that we would expect the House to consider very seriously.
Amendments 21, 22 and 23 all seek to establish a hierarchy of considerations applied by the Secretary of State or the appropriate authority when making regulations under the Bill, making safety the primary consideration. It is important to say at the outset that there is a consensus on both sides of the House on patient safety. It matters to us as individuals and as MPs representing our constituents, who rightly wish to know that their safety and their animals’ safety is of uppermost importance when we look to make regulatory change.
Alex Norris
It is a pleasure to resume proceedings on the Bill. The exchanges in Committee were of a high quality in both content and tone, and I look forward to more of the same afternoon. I was proud to take the lead for the Opposition in Committee, as I am during the remaining stages of the Bill, and I thank my predecessor in the early rounds, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson).
Let me turn to new clause 1. I am so pleased to see the Government introduce what we spoke of in Committee as a device registry, which is now called the information centre. Bad medicines and devices cause exceptional harm. The noble Baroness Cumberlege is looking at the impact of three of these: Primados, sodium valproate and surgical mesh. I pay tribute to the campaigners and their allies in this place for all their work to ensure that those who are suffering, or who have suffered, are not forgotten. Clearly there have been devices that, knowing what we know now, we would not have used. There is a risk of similar things happening in the future, and it is a risk that we cannot fully mitigate, so an information centre will at least put us in the strongest possible position to react quickly and clearly.
I am personally grateful to the Minister for the level of engagement from her and the Government in general. I and my colleagues in the other place are committed to continuing to develop the idea. I know that the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford)—who will be watching proceedings, and whose expertise and creativity are missed—is ready to do the same. I can tell from my inbox that there is considerable interest in the sector in making this work, and I hope the Minister will commit to full consultation with it.
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for providing us with sight of her letter to the Minister for Asia. As she committed herself to doing in Committee, she communicated it to all Committee members. I sincerely thank her for that.
Amendment 19 would empower the appropriate authority to make provisions for the process of developing or manufacturing medicines in relation to the origin and treatment of human organs. This is necessary because of the actions by the Chinese Government in Beijing. The China tribunal, headed up by Sir Geoffrey Nice QC, launched the first independent legal analysis of all evidence relating to organ harvesting in China and found beyond reasonable doubt that forcible organ harvesting was taking place. China was invited to provide evidence to this tribunal but failed to do so.
Further, a study by the medical journal BMJ Open has raised ethical issues on over 400 Chinese medical studies, and there is clear evidence that China is abusing the human rights, including the right to life, of Uyghurs, practitioners of Falun Gong, conscientious objectors and political prisoners. There is no reason to believe that China is not also experimenting on such prisoners without consent and then harvesting organs to examine the results of such experiments, and we must protect the UK health system from being morally compromised by this.
The Minister stated in Committee that my amendment was not required as regulations are already in place under the Human Tissue (Quality and Safety for Human Application) Regulations 2007 and the Human Tissue Act 2004. There are codes of practice in respect of the 2007 regulations, but section 1(4) of the 2004 Act explains that subsection (1) does not apply for a body to which subsections (5) or (6) apply:
“Subsections (1) to (3) do not apply to an activity of a kind mentioned there if it is done in relation to…a body to which subsection (5) applies”—
which includes a human body that has been imported—
“or…relevant material to which subsection (6) applies”,
and that applies to “relevant material” if has been imported. “Relevant material” means material consisting of human cells, so imported human tissue does not require appropriate consent.
The importing of human body tissue for medical research does not require any consent or traceability—it is only advised, not required—meaning that human tissue from countries like China can legally be imported to the UK for the purpose of medical research without traceability, documentation or consent. Imported human body tissue for use in medicines requires traceability from donor to recipient. Although technically consent documentation does not legally require consent, in reality it would be difficult to demonstrate donor selection requirements without it.
Without my amendment, we have no assurance that harvested organs cannot find their way into our national health service. Although the legislation and regulations provide guidance, it is just that: guidance. Why should we not want to make it clear that harvested organs will not find their way into this country? International checks on the system are failing, with the World Health Organisation’s assessment of the Chinese organ transplant system actually being one of self-assessment, as stated by the WHO to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Thus, the regime breaking the ethical standards is also assessing whether it meets them.
The British Medical Association has called on the Government
“to reconsider its position on this issue in light of the findings of the Tribunal”.
My amendment would empower the Government to do just that and close the hole in the existing legislation. It aims not to shut down the trade in medicines between the United Kingdom and China, but to ensure that it is ethical. It would not force the Government to implement the regulations now; it would merely empower them and the relevant authorities to take the steps necessary to regulate on this issue, when and if they are prepared to do so.
I do not intend to push my amendment to a Division today, although frankly, I should not have to: the moral and practical case is as clear as day, and the Government should accept it. It seems that they will not do so at this stage, but they should when the Bill is debated in the other place. I want to make it abundantly clear that I will not let this matter lie. A growing group of cross-party parliamentarians, both here and in the other place, are determined to stop this from happening. We now need the Government to do their bit. I will leave it there.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to be able to speak on this issue. The Minister knows how pleased I am to see her in her position. I have always followed her progress, and she has done very well. I am pleased to note how capably she responds to the issues that are raised in the debate. What a pleasure it is, too, to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North (Alex Norris), in his place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I call Tim Farron. [Interruption.]
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
Jim, you could have carried on a bit longer, couldn’t you? It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
When it comes to the regulation of the introduction of new, innovative medicines, treatments and technologies, I am bound to say that cancer will be at the forefront of many of our minds. It is an area that deeply concerns every single one of us, and it could be severely impacted if we do not get the negotiations right. The NHS long-term plan, which is full of very good and wise things, recognised the significant problem that we have in the United Kingdom with our cancer survival rates. Our survival rates, and it has been the case under many Governments of different colours, are among the worst in Europe. We have the second lowest survival rate for lung cancers and below average survival rates for nine of the 10 major cancers. The terrifying statistic for us personally is that one in every two of us is likely to get cancer at some point in our lives. That means we will, all of us, almost certainly be touched by cancer in some way in our families at some point during our lives, if we have not been already.
The need to step up our efforts to fight this horrific disease is amplified by the current context. We have seen a 60% drop in cancer referrals and a 20% fall in the numbers of those starting treatment during the covid crisis—for obvious reasons, and some of them justifiable reasons. Clearly, there are people who are at risk of their immunity being suppressed during the virus or who could gain the infection via surgery during the pandemic, so we understand why clinicians make such decisions.
Jim Shannon
The week past was Men’s Health Week, and I know the hon. Gentleman is of the same opinion as me about the importance of highlighting prostate cancer. Bowel cancer is another example. Those are two of the cancers that take people out of this world very quickly. I know the Minister will respond very positively, but is it his understanding that those are two of the cancers that, critically, we need to address early on?
Tim Farron
The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. The two statistics I rattled out—and not for the first time, even today—are the 60% drop in referrals and 20% drop in treatments beginning. The referrals one is broadly down to people not coming forward because they do not want to trouble the NHS. It is massively important to amplify what I know Ministers and clinicians are saying around the country, which is that if people are even the remotest bit concerned, they must come forward and seek advice, because the NHS undoubtedly is open. Some of the cancellations of treatment have been for other reasons, such as not having had full access to kit and, in the early days, NICE advising against it taking place when perhaps it could have done. However, I am pleased that the Government have managed to make significant progress in recent weeks.
The statistics on the reduction of people coming forward for treatment and for referral, and on the reduction in treatments beginning, are, of course, all true, yet the numbers of people with cancer at this point is the same as it would be in any other year, give or take. That tells us that we are in danger of seeing a serious peak in late diagnoses, and, therefore, sadly, in people tragically not living as long as they would have done otherwise.
In the context of the Bill, removal from the European Medicines Agency would do our people harm. Choosing to go from being part of an organisation that represents 25% of medicine sales on the planet to one making up only 3% will inevitably see us fall down the list for those applying for new drugs and treatments. In that case, the wisest course of action would be to negotiate associate membership of the European Medicines Agency. We must be at the cutting edge of cancer treatment, yet we will hobble ourselves if we reduce access to new treatment and scale back research and development.
Of course, Britain’s membership of the EMA is no guarantee of progress. I am thinking particularly of radiotherapy technology. NHS England has just agreed to roll out the commissioning of stereotactic ablative radiotherapy—SABR technology—and to bring it forward by a year. This comes after an arduous 10-year battle for this precise and powerful treatment to be rolled out to every cancer centre in the country. To be clear, 100% of radiotherapy centres are equipped to give this treatment, but only half of them are currently commissioned to do so. I am very grateful to Ministers and in particular to the one in her place, who intervened to ensure that all centres will now be commissioned. We are very grateful.
The reason given time and again by NHS England for wasting this resource was that it did not have enough data. This is relevant, because this was a treatment being used effectively across Europe with significantly improved outcomes. If this is the case when the data is there, I dread to think what the impact will be of having reduced access to data on medicines and medical devices when we are outside the EMA.
If effective and co-ordinated implementation does not follow regulation, regulation becomes utterly meaningless. Many colleagues have rightly raised concerns about maintaining access to the best possible treatment for those in the UK, but we also need to recognise that countless people are not able to access the treatment that they need and that has been approved even now. The idea that this could be further curtailed and cost further lives is deeply troubling. Indeed, it would be an outrageous injustice. The process between the approval of a medicine or medical device and its use to treat illness and save lives is hugely important, as the experience of the development of radiotherapy in this country proves.
Jo Churchill
I am most grateful to hon. Friends and hon. Members for their contributions. This is not a stop-gap Bill to get us through the transition; it is a proportionate approach to regulating an industry that moves quickly, with regulators that want to take effective action but are renowned for working with the industry in the best interests of patients. It is about setting a new direction and making clear what the UK wants after the end of the transition period.
Let me turn to the points that hon. Members made. I reiterate to the hon. Member for Nottingham North the commitment to consult when the Cumberlege report is published. We are keen to take account of its recommendations and ensure we are taking the necessary steps to protect patients, as patient safety is paramount to the future of medicines and medical devices regulation. We have of course had routine engagement with the review team, as would be expected, to ensure it is adequately supported and resourced to conduct its review.
I believe that the situation for pharmacies is quite the contrary to what the shadow Minister outlined. For hub-and-spoke dispensing, we intend to give smaller community pharmacies the same opportunity that large pharmacy businesses already enjoy. We will support them, and remove the legal barrier that allows such an arrangement only when the spoke pharmacy and the central dispensing hub are part of the same retail pharmacy business. That would level the playing field for smaller community pharmacies, rather than put them under threat. As I outlined in Committee, particularly during covid, all 11,600 of our community pharmacies have gone above and beyond. They have kept their doors open and have been there every single day for our constituents. I thank them once again. We have committed to consulting before making regulations, and that applies to any changes to rules on pharmacy registration. It means that no changes can be made without first undertaking proper consultation.
I understand the passion of the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer) on the subject she raised. As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) alluded to, we are talking about a thoroughly abhorrent process. As I indicated, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office regularly raises concerns with China, including on the extensive use of the death penalty, and on the treatment of religious and ethnic minorities, which sit at the heart of this. I look forward to having a conversation with her after she has had that meeting, in order to understand what was discussed and to continue the conversation further.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford for his kind words and for highlighting that we have a unique ecosystem here; we have brilliant academics, such as those he mentioned from Queen’s and others from right across the UK. We have a world-leading life science industry, employing some 240,000 people, and they are working to bring the best products to patients. We want to ensure that in and around clinical trials we have a regulatory system that maintains and enhances the UK as a site for global co-operation in research and allows us flexibility to achieve what is best for patients.
On clinical trials, the Government value the strong, collaborative partnerships we have across Europe in the areas of science, research and innovation, and we want to continue to support those opportunities. We are committed to ensuring that the UK maintains its position as a global science superpower and continues to collaborate with Europe on scientific research. The Prime Minister has made it clear that the UK sits ready to consider a relationship in line with non-EU member states’ participation in Horizon Europe, provided that that represents value for money and is in the UK’s interest.
The Bill, as drafted, does not breach the Northern Ireland protocol and the powers in the Bill are capable of being exercised compatibly with the protocol. We will ensure that that is the case. We are clear that the protocol provides that where a GB authority currently approves goods for sale, it will continue to be able to do so, in order to have that free-flowing movement.
To the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), who never misses an opportunity to remind me that he would like more services close to his constituents, I say: I hear you, again. Following Health oral questions this morning, I can say that I know we both share that commitment to drive patient access to radiotherapy and treatments together. Many hon. Members know that that is dear to my heart, having had cancer on more than one occasion. I came here to try to get more cancer nurse specialists and to make sure that on their journey those who have metastatic cancer, which is rarely spoken about in this place, are treated as people who still have full lives to live. Living with and beyond cancer is something we should embrace. The next round of negotiations with the EU will start shortly and we will continue to explore with the EU what future relationship arrangements can look like.
In conclusion, I would like to thank everyone for their efforts in getting us to this place.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I was not in the Chamber earlier, but just before the Minister comes to a conclusion, I wish to thank her for her comments about the engagement she has had with my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford), who has not been able to participate in person in the process of this Bill. I know, however, that my hon. Friend has been grateful for the engagement on a cross-party basis, for the comments the Minister made about the amendments tabled by the Scottish National party in Committee, for the commitments the Government made in response to them and for their engagement with the Scottish Government. I just want to place on the record our thanks for all that and my sympathy with the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston (Ms Rimmer). A number of my constituents, like those of several other Members, have raised concerns about these issues of forced organ harvesting, and I hope some of that can be considered as well.
Jo Churchill
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. These are unusual times, so it was my pleasure to work with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Dr Whitford) to do what we could to ensure that the Bill proceeded with a degree of consensus, as it was to work with her on access to off-licence drugs some years ago.
Our consideration of the Bill has been led by good sense and common ground, and by general understanding and consensus about its purpose. I am grateful to everyone who contributed along the way. I think the themes we heard today and in Committee—the paramount importance of patients; the need to ensure that we carefully consider and scrutinise legislation and that it is made after consultation; and the use of data to underpin better regulation and improve safety—were the right ones for us to consider. Although it is not necessarily part of regulatory scrutiny, I am grateful to the hon. Member for St Helens South and Whiston for raising the important issue of the UK’s continued promotion of human rights and ethics.
I am grateful to the Clerks for their help; these are unusual circumstances, but I have felt no less supported and, working towards ensuring that we can make progress in the other place, we will continue to use imagination. The Bill is a framework for where we want to go. It will allow us to ensure that the regulation that governs critical areas that matter for us all and are likely to affect us all indirectly is up to date and supports the thriving life sciences sector and patients. To that end, I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 1 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Clause 14
Fees, information, offences
Amendment made: 1, page 8, line 35, leave out “efficacy” and insert
“performance, including the clinical effectiveness,”.—(Jo Churchill.)
This amendment clarifies the matters relating to medical devices the recording of information about which may be the subject of provision in regulations under Clause 12(1).
Clause 35
Offence relating to information
Amendments made: 2, page 18, line 36, at end insert—
“(2) A person to whom information is disclosed under regulations under section (Information systems) commits an offence if the person uses or discloses that information in contravention of those regulations.”
This amendment and Amendment 3 provide that a person who discloses information in breach of regulations made under the new clause inserted by NC1 commits a criminal offence.
Amendment 3, page 18, line 37, after “subsection (1)” insert “or (2)”.—(Jo Churchill.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 2.
Clause 38
Power to make consequential etc provision
Amendment made: 4, page 21, line 41, leave out “and 12(1)” and insert
“, 12(1) and (Information systems)(1)”.—(Jo Churchill.)
This amendment enables regulations made under the new clause inserted by NC1 to make consequential and other provision.
Clause 40
Consultation
Amendments made: 5, page 22, line 11, leave out
“sections 1(1), 8(1) or 12(1), or paragraph 9 of Schedule 1”
and insert
“a provision of Part 1, 2 or 3”.
This amendment and Amendment 6 have the effect that the Secretary of State is required to consult before making regulations under the new clause inserted by NC1.
Amendment 6, page 22, line 29, after “section 12(1)” insert
“or (Information systems)(1),”.—(Jo Churchill.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 5.
Clause 41
Procedure
Amendments made: 7, page 22, line 32, leave out
“section 1(1), 8(1) or 12(1), or paragraph 9 of Schedule 1,”
and insert
“a provision of Part 1, 2 or 3”.
This amendment has the effect that regulations made under the new clause inserted by NC1 are to be made by statutory instrument.
Amendment 8, page 22, line 42, leave out
“section 1(1), 8(1) or 12(1)”
and insert
“a provision of Part 1, 2 or 3”.
This amendment and Amendments 9 to 17 enable regulations under powers in the Bill which are subject to negative procedure to be combined in a single statutory instrument with regulations under powers which are subject to affirmative procedure, or with regulations under powers in other legislation which are subject to negative procedure.
Amendment 9, page 23, line 12, leave out
“to which subsection (9) applies”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 10, page 23, line 13, at end insert
“if the only regulations under a provision of Part 1, 2 or 3 that it contains are regulations to which subsection (9) applies”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 11, page 23, line 14, leave out
“to which subsection (9) applies”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 12, page 23, line 16, at end insert
“if the only regulations under section 1(1) or 8(1) that they contain are regulations to which subsection (9) applies”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 13, page 23, line 18, leave out
“to which subsection (9) applies”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 14, page 23, line 23, at end insert—
“, if the only regulations under a provision of Part 1, 2 or 3 that it contains are regulations to which subsection (9) applies”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 15, page 23, line 24, after “to” insert
“—
(a) ”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 16, page 23, line 36, at end insert
“, and
(b) regulations under paragraph 9 of Schedule 1”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Amendment 17, page 23, line 37, leave out subsection (10).—(Jo Churchill.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 8.
Clause 43
Commencement
Amendment made: 18, page 24, line 15, at end insert
“, and
(d) section (Information systems)”.—(Jo Churchill.)
This amendment provides for the new clause inserted by NC1 to come into force two months after the Bill is passed.
Bill read the Third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I will now suspend the House for three minutes.
Business of the House (Today)
Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:03 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 243 / Noes: 238 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With the permission of the House, motions 4 to 6 will be taken together. Before I call the Leader of the House to move the first motion, and speak to all three motions, I confirm that the Speaker has selected amendment (a) to motion 5 in its corrected form. I will call amendment (a) to motion 6, if amendment (a) to motion 5 is agreed to. The selected amendments will be debated together with the three motions, and the questions necessary to dispose of the motions will be put at the end of the debate. Colleagues will see that a number of Members wish to speak, so I intend to impose a five-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
I beg to move,
That this House reaffirms its commitment to the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (ICGS) and to tackling bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct on the part of anyone who is or was a member of the parliamentary community; accepts the recommendation in the report by Dame Laura Cox QC on The Bullying and Harassment of House of Commons Staff that complaints against Members should be determined by an independent body; agrees with the proposal brought forward by the House of Commons Commission to implement this recommendation; accordingly agrees to the establishment of an independent panel of experts which shall operate in accordance with the principles of fairness, transparency and natural justice; and expects all Members of this House to cooperate with the Panel’s work and comply with its decisions.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this we shall consider the following:
Motion 5—Independent Expert Panel—
That the following Standing Orders, amendments to standing orders and amendments to the Code of Conduct be made:
A. Independent Expert Panel
(1) There shall be a Panel, to be known as the Independent Expert Panel for the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme (the “ICGS”), whose members shall be appointed by the House in accordance with Standing Order (Appointment of Independent Expert Panel Members).
(2) The Panel shall consist of eight members, of whom a quorum shall be four.
(3) The functions of the Panel shall be:
(a) to determine the appropriate sanction in ICGS cases referred to it by the Parliamentary Commissioner on Standards;
(b) to hear appeals against the decisions of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards in respect of ICGS cases involving Members of this House;
(c) to hear appeals against a sanction imposed under paragraph (a);
(d) to report from time to time, through the Clerk of the House, on the operation of the ICGS as it relates to Members of this House
(4) The Panel may elect its own Chair.
(5) The responsibilities of the Chair shall include:
(a) ensuring that the Panel and its sub-panels comply with the provisions of the relevant resolutions and standing orders of this House;
(b) the appointment of sub-panels to consider individual cases;
(c) co-ordinating the work of the Panel with that of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards;
(d) referring any report from a sub-panel which determines a sanction that can only be imposed by the House to the Clerk of the House who shall lay it upon the Table of the House;
(e) informing the parties concerned of the outcome of any other case reported to the Chair by a sub-panel and ensuring compliance as appropriate with its recommendations;
(f) establishing the procedure for an appeal against the findings or determination of a sub-panel in cases referred under (3)(a) above;
(g) reporting to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards any case of noncompliance under sub-paragraph (e) above by a Member of this House;
(h) ensuring publication of an Annual Report on the functioning of the Panel and its sub-panels by referring the report to the Clerk of the House for laying on the Table.
(6) The Panel and any sub-panel shall have power
(a) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;
(b) to order the attendance of any Member before it and to require that specific documents or records in the possession of a Member relating to its inquiries, or to the inquiries of the Commissioner, be laid before it;
(c) to appoint legal advisers, and to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Panel’s order of reference.
B. Independent Expert Panel: Sub-panels
(1) Cases referred to the Independent Expert Panel under Standing Order (Independent Expert Panel) shall be considered by a sub-panel appointed under paragraph (5)(b) of that order.
(2) A sub-panel shall consist of three members of the Panel and shall have a quorum of three.
(3) Sub-panels shall sit in private.
(4) A sub-panel may request the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards to conduct further investigations in respect of a case referred to it and may specify the matters to be covered in that investigation.
(5) In respect of each case referred to it, a sub-panel shall make a report of its findings to the Chair of the Panel.
(6) Where an appeal is made against a finding or determination of a sanction by a sub-panel, a new sub-panel shall be established to hear that appeal. No member shall be eligible to hear an appeal against the decision of a sub-panel on which they have served.
C. Appointment of Independent Expert Panel Members
(1) Members of the Independent Expert Panel shall be appointed by a resolution of the House on a motion made under the provisions of this order and shall remain as members in accordance with the provisions of this order.
(2) The period of appointment of each member shall be specified in the resolution of the House for appointment and shall not exceed six years. The appointment of a member is not terminated by any dissolution of Parliament.
(3) No person who has once been a member may be appointed for a further term.
(4) No person may be appointed as a member if that person is or has been a Member of this House or a Member of the House of Lords; and any person so appointed shall cease to be a member upon becoming a Member of this House or of the House of Lords.
(5) No person may be appointed as a member unless that person has been selected on the basis of a fair and open competition.
(6) A person appointed as a member may resign as a member by giving notice to the House of Commons Commission.
(7) A person appointed as a member shall be dismissed from that position only following a resolution of the House, after the House of Commons Commission has reported that it is satisfied that the person should cease to be a member; and any such report shall include a statement of the Commission’s reasons for its conclusion.
(8) No motion may be made under the provisions of this order unless—
(a) notice of the motion has been given at least two sitting days previously, and
(b) the motion is made on behalf of the House of Commons Commission by a Member of the Commission.
(9) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on motions made under the provisions of this order not later than one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.
(10) Business to which this order applies may be proceeded with at any hour, though opposed.
D. Motions consequent on the ICGS
(1) A motion may be moved by a member of the House of Commons Commission to implement a sanction in respect of an individual ICGS case determined by a sub-panel of the Independent Expert Panel.
(2) The Speaker shall put the questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on a motion under paragraph (1) of this order not later than one hour after the commencement of such proceedings.
(3) Business under this order may be proceeded with until any hour, though opposed.
Amendments to other Standing orders
(1) Standing Order No 149 (Committee on Standards)
Paragraph (1)(a): after “Standards”, insert “except in relation to the conduct of individual cases under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme”.
(2) Standing Order No 150 (Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards)
Leave out paragraph (2)(f) and insert:
“(2) (f) to oversee investigations and make findings in cases against Members under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme; to refer such cases to the Independent Panel of Experts where a sanction beyond her powers is contemplated; and to assist the Panel and its sub-panels in its work.”.
Delete paragraph (4)(c).
(3) Standing Order No 41A (Deferred divisions) Paragraph (2)(d): at end of sub-paragraph 5, delete “and” and insert:
“(vi) paragraph 1 of Standing Order (Motions consequent on the ICGS); and”.
Amendments to the Code of Conduct
In the Code of Conduct for Members of Parliament (HC (2017–19) 1882):
(1) in paragraph 19, at end add “and for the Independent Expert Panel acting in accordance with Standing Order (Independent Expert Panel) in relation to the determination of cases under the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme.”.
(2) in paragraph 21; at end add “Failure to comply with a sanction imposed by a sub-panel of the Independent Expert Panel shall be treated as a breach of the Code.”.
Motion 6—Matters Raised on Motions Consequent on the ICGS—
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, the House shall apply the following rules in proceedings on matters raised by the Independent Expert Panel or its sub-panels:
(a) The name of any complainant may not be referred to in any motion, debate or question.
(b) Details of any investigation or specific matters considered by a sub-panel of the Independent Expert Panel shall not be referred to in any motion, debate or question.
(c) The findings and determination of sanctions of a sub-panel of the Independent Expert Panel may not be called into question.
Mr Rees-Mogg
This is a dreadful position for us to be in as a House. The behaviour of a small number of Members of Parliament over years and decades has disgraced and shamed our parliamentary democracy, of which I, and many hon. Members, are so proud. Our ancient right that we should look after our own affairs is to be sacrificed, because the importance of restoring the trust of the British people in our system makes that the right thing to do. How we treat each other matters at all times in all places, but particularly in Parliament. It matters wherever people work together, for everyone should be able to perform their roles in an atmosphere of courtesy and respect, and it most certainly matters in the Palace of Westminster.
There are about 13,000 passholders with access to the parliamentary estate. In recent years, we have been trying hard to create the kind of culture that prioritises having a safe working place where people are afforded respect and which enables them to speak out and be confident that they will be listened to. My predecessors, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), made an enormous contribution to that effort by achieving cross-party agreement for the establishment of an Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. That we had to do so is an indication of how far some in this institution had failed and had not lived up to the standards required of them.
The ICGS has already been approached by a large number of people, receiving 201 calls and emails in the first quarter of this year alone from those who feel that they have faced bullying, harassment or sexual harassment. However, there are some complaints that have not yet come forward because of the concerns of the complainants that Members continue to play a role in the sanctions process. This is where we have the greatest challenge in restoring trust: not just between us and voters, but between us and those who work in this place.
The approach I am putting forward today is motivated by supporting those who need to make complaints and allows for the restoration, I hope, of our reputation. Since becoming Leader of the House, I have spoken to a number of complainants and potential complainants about the progress made so far. Every conversation I have had has left me profoundly moved and, in some cases, shocked and appalled by some of the things that have happened to people in this House, some of which seem to me to reach the threshold of criminal activity. This place, which ought to be the epitome of good behaviour, has been besmirched by that. I am therefore determined to do more to continue the momentum for sustained culture change that was begun in the previous Parliament.
I, of all people, cannot pretend that I like abandoning some of the ancient responsibilities and rights of Parliament, but it is our fault that we have to do this and so it is right to change. There is a problem of the power dynamic which can occur wherever those in a position of influence assume that they are able to act without consequences, so it is right that we seek to change the culture in order to challenge that assumption. In Westminster, we have introduced a behavioural code; established the “Valuing Everyone” training; replaced the Respect and Valuing Others policy with the ICGS; and extended the scheme to include historic allegations of some former members of the parliamentary community. The latter two steps were the result of Dame Laura Cox’s recommendations made in her report on the treatment of House staff. Her third recommendation, however, remains outstanding: that Members of Parliament should no longer be able to determine the sanctions imposed.
It is no coincidence that that outstanding recommendation is by some distance the most constitutionally challenging and the most significant, too. Under our current arrangements, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards has the power to determine cases and impose sanctions up to a certain level of severity. Until now, more serious cases, including suspension and expulsion from the House, have been for the Committee on Standards to determine. In February, the House of Commons Commission agreed its preferred option of those presented by the staff team on a means of changing that: that there be an independent chair and seven expert panel members, none of whom will be MPs. The panel should be empowered to determine ICGS cases, decide on sanctions, and hear appeals by either party against the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards’ conclusions. That proposal has been the subject of consultation over recent months and Dame Laura Cox herself was among those who supported that approach.
While I am taking steps to strengthen it further, I am supportive of the House of Commons Commission’s proposed solution overall. Placing decisions of this kind in the hands of an independent expert panel is a fundamental break with the past that reflects our continuing efforts to make Parliament a better place to work.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con)
I wholeheartedly welcome the momentum for having a system that is fair and transparent. The Leader of the House referred to the constitutional significance of the creation of this new independent body. Is he aware of an independent body in any part of the UK with such sweeping disciplinary powers over its members that is not justiciable? My concern is that if an accusation is made against Members, they will not have any recourse to a court of law, whereas if an accusation of bullying against a member of House staff or Members’ staff is upheld by the panel, they would have recourse to a court of law or an employment tribunal.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The question of parliamentary privilege applying to the ICGS is one that will have to be determined by a court, and it is not entirely clear whether they would be covered by the article 9 rights. The reason we have to have a final vote in this House is that there is no court outside Parliament that can question the proceedings in Parliament. That is at the heart of the constitutional dilemma that we have been facing. It is also why we are making this fundamental break with the past.
In allowing an independent body to take such action we are making a really important constitutional change. We are doing this—and we are right to do this—because of the way that some Members have behaved, and we have to stop that happening in the future. As Leader of the House, I am ashamed when people come to see me and tell me what they have suffered; I am appalled at the stories they tell me and shocked sometimes that they have not been to the police about them when they are so awful. That is why we have to have this change, which hits at the heart of our constitution. The House knows that I have an admiration and affection for our constitution that does not seek to change it lightly.
Let me come to the panel and the level of member that we expect. The panel’s members must bring significant expertise to the process, and we will expect it to be led by somebody who has a standing equivalent to that of a High Court judge. It must also include knowledge of human resources, employment law, bullying and harassment cases and sexual harassment cases. In a serious case, three of the independent experts would consider the sanction in the light of the report and recommendation of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards. A further three would act as an appeal panel if necessary.
In cases considered by the panel that propose sanctions requiring action by the House, the panel would report directly to the House. At that stage, a motion would be moved by a member of the House of Commons Commission to implement the sanction, and it is at this stage where we find ourselves on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, it is constitutionally proper that a decision of this magnitude—the expulsion or suspension of a Member—can only be taken by the House as a whole. It is removing, in effect, albeit temporarily, the democratic representation of tens of thousands of people, and we can only take away that democratic representation by a motion of this House. It does not seem right that a decision that could overturn the result of an election in a constituency could be taken by unelected individuals.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
All bullying is horrible and goes against traditional good manners; we all accept that. I hope that the Leader of the House will emphasise the point that he just made: the fundamental difference between Members of Parliament and all other staff members is that we are elected by the people. We are responsible to the people, and the people must have the final say on whether we come here in the first place, when we leave and how we leave. That is very important. However distinguished an independent panel, only the people have the final say.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend makes a crucial point: we are elected by the people, and we are answerable to them. That is why I support the principle that only the House of Commons holds the authority to make the decision to suspend or expel.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
The Leader of the House is making an excellent speech. To pick up on the previous intervention, we may be democratically elected, but we are also employers, and we have a duty of care to the people we employ. Does he agree that that is equally important?
Mr Rees-Mogg
It is of fundamental importance, and I say again that I have had people come to see me who have been treated in a way that makes my skin crawl. You cannot believe that senior people would have behaved to people subordinate to them in such a way in any workplace, let alone in the House of Commons, which ought to be a model of good behaviour. That is why we have to have the counterbalancing bit, but we cannot give MPs an opportunity to delve into the personal details of a case and try it effectively a second time. The other place offers a cautionary tale in this regard.
Having listened carefully to views expressed to me in recent days, I am proposing that we establish a convention that the Commission member moving the motion will do so formally. This means the expectation will be that there will be no detailed debate, while maintaining the constitutional right to debate. In addition, I am asking the House explicitly to restrict what it is permissible to refer to during any further proceedings on severe ICGS cases in the Chamber.
To that end, motion 6, in my name, emulates the sub judice resolution, which the House carefully and successfully observes to avoid prejudicing any current criminal proceedings and which is enforced from the Chair. The motion sets out that the names of any complainants may not be referred to. The details of any investigations or specific matters considered by a sub-panel of the independent experts panel, in any motion, debate or question brought to the House, may not be referred to. Furthermore, the findings and determination of sanctions of a sub-panel may not be brought into question. The motion will ensure that any debate that does occur, which is something of a misnomer in this instance, is merely a short, factual exposition of the process, not the circumstances involved.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I seek some clarification because I have been looking through the amendments that have been tabled, and the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) has tabled what I believe is an excellent amendment, which would address this issue. Is the intention to bring that forward?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. That amendment has not been selected.
Mr Rees-Mogg
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I turn to amendment (a), tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) , who has been very helpful in this process and in the discussions I have had with him. I understand that some Members remain sceptical about the approach that I have set out and whether it is the right one, and this amendment seeks to remove entirely any possibility for debate in these circumstances. I am not entirely unsympathetic to this view, because our priority is to restore confidence in the ability of the House to achieve the standards that are reasonably expected of us and to ensure that people making complaints, some of whom, as I have said, have been treated in the most appalling way, feel that the system will not add greater pain to that which they have already suffered.
However, it is my view that it would be wrong for the Government to have tabled a motion that denied the House the opportunity to consider a matter of this gravity. It should be for the House, not for Ministers, to decide that they wish to curtail the ability of Members to conduct debate. The House can set its procedures as it wishes, but it would not be constitutionally right for the Executive to seek to limit free speech in this House.
I believe that this curtailment can be avoided and have set out how we can meet our constitutional requirements, while reassuring those wishing to access the ICGS who have not yet done so that they will have their confidential information preserved and protected. But if the House agrees to this amendment, it will willingly and knowingly have taken this approach, and in those circumstances, motion 6 will not be moved.
While the amendments tabled today differ in terms of the means, I think we are all entirely united in the ends, signalling our collective determination to make a break with the past. Above all, this is a matter for the House, which this House must get right to show that we are genuinely committed to change.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Leader of the House has taken us very deftly through the constitutional and procedural aspects, but there is a further test that I think the House needs to apply: whether the outcome of the decisions that we make will make it more or less likely that the people whom he has met and whose complaints he has heard will have confidence in the system to see it through to a conclusion. I suggest gently that that is why the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) is a sensible one.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I believe that the proposal that the Government have put before the House balances the constitutional needs and the protection of the individual complainants, but I make no criticism of those who have come to a different conclusion. I absolutely share his concern not only that we must ensure that people are not discouraged, but that we must all—in our own way, when we can and when it comes to us—encourage people to use these systems, because they are there to protect people who are vulnerable. That is very important.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
The tone of this debate is in the right direction, but I really do have concerns about a bully pulpit being used in this Chamber. Even if people are not named, there will be gossip and innuendo about who is being referred to. I hate to refer to this, Madam Deputy Speaker, but a predecessor of Mr Speaker, in a published book, named Members of this House. If people of position and power do that, what confidence will people have if we still have an open debate in this Chamber, even if people cannot be named?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Lady makes a very fair point. I think the answer is that not having a debate in this Chamber at the end of the process, subject to very strict rules, does not mean that people may not write books saying things that they should not say or that they may not use other opportunities within parliamentary privilege. It is the question of constraining what can be done within parliamentary privilege that is essential, which is why I believe that something that is controlled and clearly set out in the rules is, on balance, preferable to trying to prevent this House from debating. However, I understand that others come to a different conclusion on what is a serious level of constitutional change because of past behaviour that has besmirched the name of this House and of politics and politicians generally.
Taken together, the provisions have the effect of acting decisively to uphold the spirit of our efforts towards culture change, while respecting the traditions and requirements of our parliamentary democracy. They aim to build the confidence of complainants by ensuring that these matters will be treated with the sensitivity and professionalism that they deserve. We simply have to give people who feel that they have been abused the confidence that they need to come forward. Adopting Dame Laura Cox’s recommendation by establishing the independent panel of experts will help us to do that. I commend the motions to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Before I call the shadow Leader of the House, I should tell hon. Members that although I said that I thought the time limit would be five minutes, it will probably be four minutes.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
I thank the Leader of the House for bringing the motions to the House today.
I want to start by thanking all the staff for their work on the independent complaints and grievance scheme, which is a testament to them all and to their hard work: they were working to tight deadlines in addition to their own work.
At the start of the process, it was about serious cases of sexual misconduct; it was then extended to bullying and harassment. We are now at the stage where there is a behaviour code. We have Valuing Others training in place, and I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members have signed up. I am not quite sure what is happening now, with covid—whether the training can be undertaken online or whether it is still going on.
I have mentioned numerous times at the meetings that we also need to have racial awareness training. Now that the Black Lives Matter movement is becoming centre-stage, I think that it should be an important addition to that training. The Leader of the Opposition has instructed everybody from the shadow Cabinet to undertake unconscious bias training. He has given us a deadline to do that, and the same should apply to the House.
Motion 4 confirms our commitment to the ICGS. It is worth hon. Members reading the ICGS annual report, which covers its first year and ends in June 2019. It was undertaken by Lee Bridges, the senior responsible owner. He and his staff have done a fantastic amount of work to ensure that the scheme is in place, and we owe them a great debt. The next report is due in October. Alison Stanley undertook a six-month review, and she has come up with recommendations. It would be helpful if the Leader of the House could set them out in a grid and tell us when Ms Stanley is likely to conduct the 18-month review, which I think is due in June.
I am concerned about the changes to the helplines, because I notice on the intranet that the two helplines have merged. The view when they were set up was that particularly for those who had experienced sexual misconduct, a specialist was required in the first instance so that the first person they spoke to could deal with them and they did not have to tell their story over and over again. I hope that that has not changed.
The other motions deal with setting up the panels, and that is about the end of the process. As the Leader of the House has said, and as we have discussed, the panels should have a level of judicial experience. They will set their own rules and processes, and it is important that transparency applies and everyone knows the rules.
Alberto Costa
The right hon. Lady and I have spoken about this over the last few months and years. As a lawyer, does she share my concern about the fact that, as she just said, the panel will make its own rules on disclosure of evidence? None of these procedures will be subject to review or oversight by a court of law. Why are MPs being denied recourse to the law in the event that they are subject to a complaint?
Valerie Vaz
The hon. Gentleman and I have had this discussion. The House can, by resolution, decide how it wants to conduct its business, and the House has decided, for the reasons that the Leader of the House has set out, that this is extremely urgent. We are trying to say that if the process is transparent and fair, and if the rules of natural justice apply from the start to the end of the process, there should be confidence in it. Let me explain what that means. Both parties to the dispute should be heard, the hearing should be a fair one and the Human Rights Act should be engaged. The point is that the panel at the end has the expertise to look at that. The Leader of the House is right to say that this is a big moment for the House because it is letting go of a process, but that can be done within our constitutional settlement.
I encourage hon. Members to support the amendment that has been selected, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I understand that on motion 6, the Leader of the House tried to come to a compromise. I thank him for trying to ensure that the name of the complainant and the details and findings of the investigation cannot be called into question, but I do not think that that will give those who use the system confidence that their case will be heard confidentially. I will come on to that.
Max Freedman, the chair of Unite, representing staff of MPs, and Georgine Kester, from the Members’ and Peers’ Staff Association—both have vast experience of dealing with cases and with other people in the community—have said that there should be no debate. They, too, have been at the meetings of the ICGS, and they have had tremendous input over the years. I thank them for their work. I have been, as has the Leader of the House, contacted by a complainant in what I would describe as a completely horrific case. The complainant said:
“I do not want this serious case”—
I will not say what it is, but it is very serious—
“being debated…being named…being called a liar or slandered”.
If complainants feel that that will happen if the report is debated, they will not come forward, because they will be too scared. There cannot and must not be a re-hearing of the case, nor should complainants be identified in any way by association when a report is discussed. This is a confidential process from the start until the end. Having no debate would mean that that confidential process is preserved.
I ask hon. Members to put themselves in the shoes of the complainant: what would they expect of the process? This way, we can give a voice to the voiceless and those voices can be heard. The House has made huge attempts to change the culture, starting with the respect policy. There have been various discussions about how the bars operate and about changing the drinking culture. I hope we will look at unconscious bias and racism and awareness training.
Everyone who works here knows how important our work is for our country. We have seen the House rise to the challenge of a pandemic and make sure that democracy works; I know that the whole parliamentary community will rise to the challenge of working together in mutual respect.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
I support the motions tabled by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I have also added my name to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), who is Chair of the Committee on Standards, on which I serve. The amendment would mean that the House would ratify the decisions of the ICGS independent expert panel without debate.
Evidence of the mistreatment of the staff of this House, of right hon. and hon. Members’ staff and even of Members of the House themselves was for far too long managed out of public view to avoid proper scrutiny, meaning that those responsible were never held to account. That is why the ICGS must be as it describes itself: independent. Unless we understand how we MPs have forfeited the trust of victims, we will fail to learn the lessons of our past and fail to honour our obligation to put matters right.
Sir Edward Leigh
So my hon. Friend thinks it is alright to pass control of who is here from the people—from this House; this House is responsible to the people—to an independent body. He thinks that is okay, does he?
Sir Bernard Jenkin
To expel or even just suspend an MP voted in by their electors is a serious matter. It is perfectly sensible for my right hon. Friend to test the opinion of the House on whether the House should debate a decision by the IEP, but the delegation of such decisions has no bearing on our sovereignty, whether we debate the matter or not. By voting for the amendment we will not only demonstrate our commitment to the ICGS. By deliberating and then deciding on these matters, we make sure that there can be no legitimate complaint about there being no debate when at some future date we are asked to approve the IEP decisions.
I do, however, wish to put down a caveat. If the wrong kind of panel is appointed, this delegation of a very serious constitutional responsibility to unelected people will not last. The IEP must inspire the trust and confidence of the House as well as of staff and the public. The legitimacy of such decisions taken by such a panel will be the issue. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, it needs to be chaired by the equivalent of a High Court judge.
I would say that it should be a retired senior judge who chairs this panel, supported by relevant people of similar standing with juridical experience of the assessing and weighing of evidence and of interpreting the meaning of rules. The IEP should itself be sufficiently judicial in character to provide the same assurance as a proper court. Its decisions need to be as unimpeachable as the High Court would be. If this works well, there is much that the Standards Committee might learn from the ICGS about how to improve the House of Commons code of conduct, which we still have under review.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House talked about changing the culture. That is something that the House of Commons code has never really succeeded in doing. What do we mean by culture? We mean changing people’s attitudes and changing their behaviour, and that is a very personal and difficult thing to discuss. It is about not just talking about that, but approving of the good behaviours and the good attitudes and calling out the bad long before people have actually broken rules. I suggest that promoted alongside that is a positive conversation as well as a holding to account. It is not just about the enforcement of rules. Our challenge on the Standards Committee is to reform the House of Commons code so that it begins also to promote a positive change in attitudes and behaviour.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
It is a real pleasure to speak in this debate. I have had the great privilege of having served in all the various ICGS working groups since their inception, and it is particularly good to be here today to say a few remarks on behalf of the House of Commons Commission on what hopefully will be the conclusion and the implementation of all the recommendations that have been made to the ICGS.
As I look around the Chamber today, I can see several colleagues who have served on the various incarnations of the working group, and I pay tribute to them for their contribution and dedication. In particular, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), whose vision, leadership and guidance at the inception of all this helped to guide us through this process, so I thank her for her contribution today.
Today, we are here to bring the ICGS in line with the third recommendation of Dame Laura Cox. It is worth briefly reminding ourselves of what Dame Laura Cox actually said about this House in her most damning report and the litany of issues that she uncovered. She talked of an
“excessively hierarchical, ‘command and control’ and deferential culture, which has no place in any organisation in the 21st century.”
That is what Dame Laura said.
It is two years since Dame Laura Cox presented her report to the House. It was in October 2018 that the Commission overwhelmingly agreed to all three of her recommendations. We have heard that the first two have been implemented. One was, of course, the behaviour code, which has been put in place. The second was looking at historical cases, and today we are considering the third recommendation. Let us just remind ourselves what that is. It is to put in place the mechanism whereby complaints of bullying, harassment or sexual harassment brought by House staff against Members of Parliament would be an entirely independent process in which Members of Parliament will play no part. For this to happen, the Commission set up a working group to put together how we should respond to this and to bring this House in line with that recommendation. That was met with the Commission’s unanimous agreement to establish the independent expert panel to replace the Committee on Standards in considering cases brought under the ICGS.
At our last meeting of the Commission, we confirmed our support for the implementation of the independent expert panel, and we asked for this matter to be brought before the House. The new panel will determine sanction in cases where the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards does not have the power to invoke sanctions. As we have heard, this could include the suspension or expulsion of a Member of Parliament. These serious cases will be referred to the panel and will be considered by a sub-panel of three independent experts, supported by specialist advice. When decided and concluded, a Member of the House of Commons Commission, probably me, will move a motion to allow the House to implement the sanction determined by the IEP. Lastly, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that the Commission agreed that the House would be asked to consider whether there should be a time-limited debate in these circumstances, and that is where we are today, with the motions in the name of the Leader of the House.
The motions accurately reflect the considerations of the House of Commons Commission, and its members are pretty much in line and in step with what Dame Laura Cox expects in the implementation of her third recommendation. That is, of course, until we get to paragraph D(1) in motion 5, where the Leader of the House makes that provision for the debate. If it is helpful to the House, what the Commission decided in our consideration of this issue was that we would let the House decide whether it wanted a debate. I think the expectation was that a couple of motions would be brought by the Leader of the House, which would give us flexibility in our options. Instead, we have this one determination of the Leader of the House, which is that we are now invited to a yes or no. I do not think that I am giving away any secrets, Madam Deputy Speaker, when I say that the Commission was almost split down the middle when we were considering this matter, and that was why we felt it was appropriate that the House should decide and determine this.
My view as a Member of the House who has been involved in the ICGS for the past two and a half years is that what the Leader of the House suggests in paragraph D(1) breaks practically every principle and the whole spirit of the third Cox recommendation. It is little wonder that there is profound disappointment among House staff today. Such are the concerns that Dame Laura herself has felt the need to respond to some of the representations from staff. She notes the fears that a debate could result in a complainant’s confidentiality being compromised and speaks of
“the chilling effect that this will undoubtedly have on complainants reporting cases of harassment or bullying”.
There are real concerns that MPs will debate the findings of an independent judgment on one of their colleagues while protected by privilege, with staff having no equivalent platform. That cannot be right.
The Leader of the House seeks to assure us with motion 6, but we cannot escape the overwhelming conclusion that Members and complainants could be identified inadvertently in a debate. Colleagues and friends of somebody who has been complained against will feel the temptation to get up there and defend them.
Mr Carmichael
The hon. Gentleman is drilling down into an important part of the issue, which is about procedural fairness. It goes to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). Once we got into a debate, it is inevitable that we would get into the merits of the issue; how, procedurally, could we expect not to?
Pete Wishart
I think that concern has been expressed by the House staff after looking at the motions presented by the Leader of the House today.
As was mentioned by the Leader of the House and shadow Leader of the House, the House should make the ultimate determination about the expulsion or suspension of a Member of Parliament. That is right, but it should not be done through a debate. That is why I will be supporting the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), and I really hope that the rest of the House will too.
It is disappointing that this little issue has presented itself after we have come all this way with full agreement, full consensus and the involvement of the House staff, and are just at the point of doing this. I say to the House: stick with the principles of Laura Cox and support the amendment this evening.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
It was on 19 July 2018 that we introduced the ICGS to this House, and I said:
“Our ultimate ambition is for a culture where people can work and visit Parliament and take part in our democracy free from unacceptable behaviour and free from bullying or harassment and where individuals are free to thrive and make a difference.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 633.]
That must apply to everyone who works in this place—from cooks to Clerks, from Members’ staff to security staff, and from cleaners to Members of Parliament. I pay tribute to so many people in this place, from cross-party Members to House staff to Members’ staff, who supported that huge piece of work, and to the many brave victims who came forward to give their story and tell their side.
When we established the ICGS, the cross-party team that worked on the Committee sought to uphold two key principles: first, that confidentiality for the victim must be at the heart of any successful complaints procedure; and secondly, the democratic convention whereby elected Members of Parliament should not be removed by unelected institutions. I had hoped that my amendment would be selected today, because it would have addressed those two red lines.
First, it would have protected the confidentiality of victims. It would have ruled out any debate in the Chamber that, notwithstanding the constraints included by the Leader of the House, will result in a complainant feeling re-victimised—therefore inevitably undermining confidence in the complaints procedure itself. Staff and trade union side representatives have already publicised their concerns very clearly.
Secondly, my amendment would have sought to preserve the key democratic principle that an elected person should not be removed from office by an unelected person. To ensure that the democratic convention was adhered to, under my amendment we would have had—instead of a debate in the Chamber—a constrained debate on process, not on the case itself, in the Committee on Standards. That would have happened within five sitting days of the independent expert panel’s findings, and the final recommendations, which could not go against the findings of the IEP, could have been for expulsion or suspension up to and including invoking the Recall of MPs Act 2015. That is something that will not be available to the independent panel on its own if it does not go through the Committee on Standards. That conclusion of the Standards Committee would then have been put to the House for a vote without any further debate.
I am deeply disappointed that my amendment, which seeks to uphold the two fundamental principles behind the ICGS, has not been allowed for debate and a vote today. For my own part, I will have to vote for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), which would not allow a debate in this Chamber, because we cannot not stand by those victims. I feel that we will rue the day that we enable Members of Parliament in this way. In the last period of office, we had cases where members should have invoked recall and not been expelled, and that will not be possible in future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. After the next speaker, I shall introduce a time limit of three minutes in order to try to get as many people in as possible.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
That normally happens before I speak, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a delight to follow the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), because she has done so much work on this. Everybody who works in this place surely has a right to know that this is a safe workplace. That is a fundamental principle. A second fundamental principle is that everybody has a right to a fair hearing. For complainants, that must mean that they have confidence in the system and that it is not loaded in one direction against them. Of course, we know that in recent years many complainants have felt that they have not had the chance of a fair hearing, and that is why the work we are doing is so important. I would also say, however, that MPs have a right to a fair hearing. That is why it is so important, as the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), who sits on the Standards Committee, said, that a full, fair, judicial or semi-judicial process is engaged in and that MPs have the right to due process and independent adjudication, the right of appeal and the right to a fair hearing.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling his amendment, which I shall be supporting. On the point about due process, politics can be a dirty business, and sometimes complaints that turn out to be unfounded can be deployed against politicians for political reasons. Is he satisfied that our new independent process will be robust enough to deal with those sorts of complaints fairly?
Chris Bryant
I think it will, but that will obviously depend on the quality of the people that we appoint to it. I very much hope not only that the House will go through a thorough process to ensure that we get good people, but that good people around the country will seriously consider taking on this role, because it will probably be a fairly thankless task. We need to ensure that we have the right people.
I warmly commend the Leader of the House on bringing forward his motions today and on the way he has approached today’s debate and the discussions that have taken place over recent days. I should say, as Chair of the Standards Committee, that I have deliberately not spoken to any complainants, because it is perfectly possible that something might be coming to my Committee, and it would have been inappropriate for me to have done so. I have only one issue with the Leader of the House, which is about the one-hour debate, as he knows—hence the amendment that I have tabled. His motion 6 is effectively a sort of self-denying ordinance. It sort of says, “There are lots of things that you will not be able to address in the debate”, and I commend him for tabling it, but in the end you cannot be half-chaste. It is a bit like when you decide to give up chocolate for Lent. You cannot decide on Ash Wednesday to stock the fridge with chocolate, because that shows that you have not really decided that you are going to give up chocolate for Lent.
The point about a self-denying ordinance is that it has to be absolute, and in this case we have to declare an absolute self-denying ordinance in relation to debating a decision that has already been reached by an independent body, that has an appellate process within it, where all the evidence has been considered, where both sides of the argument have an equal opportunity to put their case, and where both sides have equal forces. That is not the case in a debate in the House of Commons, and many complainants would be frightened that they would be re-victimised—to use the word that was just used by the former Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire—and that they would be put through a second ordeal. Even words that the Speaker might allow, because they did not understand that it was a subtle way of getting a dig in, could be terribly, terribly wounding to an individual who had made a complaint. It is terribly easy in this small world to reveal what is meant to be confidential.
Chris Bryant
I will not, if she does not mind, because I have very little time and I know others want to speak.
It is important that there is equality of forces when it comes to a process such as this, and I say to those who worry that non-elected people will be making decisions about whether somebody can be suspended or expelled from the House that that is already true. It is already true, for instance, of an election court, a criminal court that decides to give somebody a sentence of more than 12 months or, I think, a bankruptcy court.
I fully understand that we are making a very significant change to our constitutional process, but my amendment would simply mean that the motions would be taken forthwith. In 1910, Asquith was absolutely blind drunk at the Dispatch Box and nobody ever knew about it. Churchill wrote home to his wife Clemmie that it was
“only the persistent freemasonry of the House of Commons”
that meant it never became a scandal. That is the fear that many complainants would have. We must not have a debate.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who deserves huge credit for moving this agenda on in the way it should have been, and the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), to whose amendment I will return.
First, I declare an interest as a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Although the Committee takes no collective view on the specific questions put in the motions before us, it undoubtedly welcomes the determination of complaints against Members of this House, particularly serious ones, by a body that is wholly independent of it. I have spoken to my Committee colleague, the right hon. Member for Derby South (Margaret Beckett), who cannot participate in this debate, and I know that she shares the views I am about to express.
I support the establishment of the independent expert panel and its determination of these cases, but it is right, as the Leader of the House said, that as a matter of constitutional principle the act of suspending or expelling a Member of this House can only be done by the House itself. There must therefore be a vote on the use of the most severe sanctions.
I am not, however, persuaded that there should be even the prospect of a debate about the sanctions, and I therefore declare my second interest as a former practitioner in the criminal courts, where I took part in a large number of sentencing hearings, which is in effect what we are discussing here. The panel would return a verdict, and we as the House of Commons would consider whether to impose the penalty that the panel had recommended.
Alberto Costa
My right hon. and learned Friend uses an excellent example, but in that example he must also accept that there is an appellate structure, which is being denied to MPs and only MPs in this proposal.
Jeremy Wright
I absolutely understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, which he has made before in this debate. I only say to him that he may find less comfort in his argument than he thinks, because as a distinguished lawyer he will know that the courts are extremely reluctant to involve themselves in the processes and penalties imposed by this place. It may be that the courts will not be as much help to him as he thinks.
I was going to go on to say that sentencing hearings can only be effective and fair if we have two sets of information: first, the mitigation available to the defendant, but secondly, information about the seriousness of the offence. More recently, the criminal courts have access to a third set of information, which is the effect of the offence upon the victim.
For good and sensible reasons, the Government are seeking in motion 6 to exclude from the debates we are considering not just the name of the complainant, but also
“Details of any investigation or specific matters considered”
by the panel. That is doubtless correct, but it would make it extremely difficult to assess the seriousness of the offence, and we would—again, quite properly—have no information at all on the effect of the offence on the victim.
I do not then see how we could do justice to what would effectively be a sentencing process in such a debate, and I do not therefore see what good having such a debate would do. It would certainly give rise to the risks that others in this debate have already set out, without deriving significant benefit. For that reason, I will be supporting the amendment of the hon. Member for Rhondda.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am introducing a time limit of two minutes.
Jess Phillips (Birmingham, Yardley) (Lab)
Worry not, Madam Deputy Speaker; I can say it in two minutes.
I very much welcome the Leader of the House’s comments. I do not think he expected at the beginning of his career that he would be changing the constitution quite so much; it must be a tiny bit painful. I simply want to say that a debate in the House, even with the constraints that the right hon. Gentleman has attempted to introduce, will stop people coming forward. That is what the victims, the staff and Dame Laura Cox are saying. It will simply stop people feeling confident.
As a slight rebuttal to the interveners in this debate, it is a delight to see people so concerned about MPs having employment law, but I do not remember the same voices speaking up for maternity leave, for example. In this instance, they are right there with us on the employment law issue.
On the idea that our constituents’ rights would be taken away, because they have voted for us, we are talking about the most severe cases, which will have gone through a process. Does any hon. Member honestly think that their constituents would complain if this House takes action on something that is abhorrent enough to mean expulsion? Good luck selling that on the doorstep—“I’ve been found completely wanting, but you voted for me so you should carry on getting your say.” It is nonsense, and it is not what our constituents are calling for. No constituent has been in touch with anyone in this House to say, “Do you know what? I really want my right to keep my slightly wrong ’un MP in place”—not a single one. I will be supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) because that is what the victims have asked me to do.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on the work that she has done and I warmly welcome the Leader of the House’s remarks. I want to talk briefly about why I will be supporting the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I am an employment law barrister, and I have previously been instructed by the House of Commons Commission in a number of employment disputes, most recently last year. None involved current elected Members of this House. I support the amendment because, as a matter of employment law, any process that invites Members to speak up for colleagues against a background of party allegiance and personal loyalties is fundamentally problematic.
That is not just a theoretical objection: the debate on Lord Lester that took place in the House of Lords in 2018 prompted 74 members of staff employed in the House of Lords to write a letter of complaint the following week. The next month, that letter was reviewed by the Committee for Privileges and Conduct. I believe that this may answer the point made by the Leader of the House, who said that any such debate should be a short, factual exposition, dealing purely with process. The Committee’s conclusion was that the debate had
“inappropriately strayed beyond points about the process and into implied and explicit criticisms of the complainant.”
It said that the word
“‘reputation’ was invoked (positively) 15 times to describe Lord Lester. It was not invoked once to describe the complainant.”
The debate led Naomi Ellenbogen, who undertook the independent inquiry into bullying and harassment in the Lords, to conclude in paragraph 181 of her report:
“On numerous occasions, I was told that any earlier belief that a complaint…might be worth pursuing had vanished…ultimately powerful members would protect their powerful friends, at the expense of the complainant, whose public humiliation would be immortalised in Hansard. Making a complaint was not only pointless; it was devastating”.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I commend the hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) for that insightful contribution.
We are in a different place from where the constitution set us up to be. There is a line that, unfortunately, Members have crossed and transgressed in the past. That means that, if we have to clip the wings of our constitutional position, so be it. I listened very carefully to the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), and it is with some pain that I have come to that position too, but we need to consider the victims. I have had the privilege of being contacted by a number of victims. Some have done so face to face, but some have emailed me because their outlet was to leave this place, because that was the easiest thing to do. The impact on their lives has been immense.
We need to stand up and make this place transparent, proper and modern in the way that we employ people and that we treat people, and that means that we all individually need to step up. I reiterate, as I conclude, that it is important we actually stem this before it gets to the point of the independent panel. I would advocate again that we have properly paid, properly trained and properly accredited office managers or heads of office—whatever we want to call them—who call us out on the slightest transgression. Staff would have the confidence to go to them so that Members who are learning to manage staff, often for the first time, and who have often come from very different working environments, learn what is proper in this place.
If we cannot set the example of good employment practice and protection for people who call it out here, and good management—let us face it, sometimes staff may complain because they are asked to do something that they do not want to do, and vice versa; it is not always clear cut—what does it say? It is important that we manage our staff well, that we are trained to do that and that we have the mechanisms in place.
This is part of it, but it is only the beginning. I will of course be backing amendment (a) tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), because we cannot have a debate, as I mentioned in my intervention, where we refer to such things. For anyone who was wavering, I think the hon. Member for Newbury has nailed it.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
As a new MP with a background in human resources, I would echo some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier). I have often thought about the job description of an MP and what it looks like—the behaviour, knowledge and skills required to carry out this role effectively—even though our recruitment process is fairly unique. For me, they fall into three broad areas: the skills to be a candidate in order to be elected in the first place; the skills to be an MP in terms of a role in this place and our engagement with constituents; and, finally—I would argue this is both the most important and the most overlooked—the skills as a people manager.
Although I am incredibly grateful for the support I received at the time of my election, the reality is that Members recruit staff themselves and, as the email inbox quickly fills up and this place sits, the process must be completed as quickly as possible. I would argue that this is not necessarily the right environment for the best recruitment decisions to take place. The fact is that, too often, staff either working here or in our constituencies are let down. Too often, Parliament is not a good or even, appallingly, a safe place to work for our staff. Scenarios presented during the commendable Valuing Everyone training that all MPs should complete seem, sadly, to be all too common.
Dame Laura Cox’s inquiry was a vital step forward, which was welcomed by many of the staff members I have spoken to, and I fully agree with the report’s recommendations. Fundamentally, having a debate on the Floor of the House on the rare occasions when a finding of suspension or expulsion is made is grounded in our roles as democratic representatives in the traditions of this place, but that is not the point of the Independent Complaints and Grievance Scheme. The point of the scheme is effectively to execute our responsibilities as employers. What business would allow its powerful executive to debate a complaint against one of their own without any right of reply? What business would allow staff members—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I ask all hon. Members other than Front Benchers and Tellers to leave the Chamber by the doors behind me. Members should join the queue to vote in Westminster Hall. To vote, Members should enter the Lobby and swipe their pass on one of the pass readers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We now come to motion 6 on matters raised on motions consequent on the ICGS—not moved.
Business without Debate
DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Petitions
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before we move to the presentation of public petitions, I remind the House of the established practice when presenting a petition in the Chamber. When called to present a petition, Members may make a statement, not a speech, about who the petition is from, and how many signatures it has. Members should summarise the content of the petition, and then read the request or prayer contained at its end. If Members make speeches about the subject matter of the petition, they will be called to order by the Chair.
Windrush Day 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
In 2018, to mark the 70th anniversary of the arrival of the Empire Windrush at Tilbury, 22 June was designated Windrush Day, an annual day of celebration of the enduring contribution of a remarkable generation to the UK. Yesterday saw the third national celebration. I want to start by paying tribute to Patrick Vernon, who led the campaign for Windrush Day for many years.
I am proud to represent a constituency with one of the strongest connections to the Windrush. Around 200 of the original Windrush passengers made their way from Tilbury to Clapham, where they found temporary accommodation in the deep shelter on Clapham common. From Clapham, they came to the labour exchange on Coldharbour Lane in Brixton in my constituency, where they found work in many different occupations, including with London Transport, in the construction industry and in the NHS. Many then settled in Brixton and a community grew, bringing food and music, and establishing local businesses and churches. Their identity is inextricably linked with the Brixton we know today.
It is easy for celebration of the Windrush generation to become sentimental, commemorating the positive story of people who came at the invitation of the British Government and helped to rebuild a country decimated by the second world war and to establish the NHS. Yet that is to ignore the hardship and racism the Windrush generation suffered: the signs in homes to rent that read, “No blacks, no Irish, no dogs”; the humiliation of bus conductors, whose passengers would leave their fares on their seat to avoid contact—the pervasive, oppressive, grinding discrimination encountered in so many aspects of life.
The first official Windrush Day took place against the raw open wounds of the Windrush scandal. The Home Secretary had resigned and the Government had promised to right the wrongs that so many have suffered.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this to the House for consideration. Does she feel the angst that many of us feel that in December last year only 1,108 claims had been made and only 36 people had received money from the £200 million fund? Does she agree with me and others that it is disgraceful that those who need the money most cannot get anything?
Helen Hayes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He makes the important point, which I will come to later, that as we celebrate Windrush Day we must also be mindful of the justice that so many of the Windrush generation are still waiting for. Two years on from that first Windrush Day, only 60 Windrush citizens, as he says, have received compensation from a Government scheme, which is complex and hard to access and far too slow to deliver.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way to allow me to amplify that point. My understanding is that the compensation claims of people who applied in November-December time are still outstanding, and that is inexcusable, six months on. Perhaps I might join with her and put my name to her remarks about just how extraordinary that generation were, coming over here in the immediate aftermath of war, when we had lost so many men from the population. They contributed so greatly to rebuilding this nation.
Helen Hayes
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. That mismatch between the contribution that Windrush citizens made to this country, and their appalling treatment at the hands of the British Government and the wait that so many still have for compensation is something to which we must urgently turn our attention.
The Windrush generation are still living with the pain and devastation of the Windrush scandal. Stephen S. Thompson’s powerful drama “Sitting in Limbo”—based on the experience of his brother, Anthony Bryan, who lost his job, home and mental wellbeing as a consequence of the Home Office’s refusing to accept his status as a British citizen, despite his having been in the country since the age of eight—was devastating to watch. Even more excruciating was the news that Anthony Bryan still had not received compensation from the Windrush compensation scheme and was only contacted by the Home Office days before the drama was due to be screened.
Anthony Bryan’s experience mirrors that of so many of my constituents. The common experience of the victims of the Windrush scandal is that the Government’s compensation scheme does not function effectively or deliver the redress that they are due. I and other Opposition Members have voiced concerns about the scheme many times, and those have all too often been dismissed out of hand by Ministers.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, and I thank her for securing tonight’s debate. It is timely, and it is very important for me and many of my constituents across Newport West and across Wales. Does she agree that to show that black lives matter, we need the Government to show both urgency and compassion? They must right the wrongs of the Windrush scandal once and for all and pay those affected the compensation they deserve now.
Helen Hayes
I thank my hon. Friend for her powerful intervention. She makes a very strong and important point—that it is hypocritical for the Government to offer warm words in celebration of Windrush Day when, of the many thousands who were impacted by the Windrush scandal, only 1,275 have even applied for compensation so far, and of those, only 60 have received any money. There is still so much that the Government must do to put right the wrongs of the Windrush scandal.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Lady has just mentioned the figures for now. In the six months that it has taken for 100 claims to be lodged, only 14 have actually been processed. That underlines the issue, does it not?
Helen Hayes
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I have sat with constituents and filled out the form with them, compiled the documents, gone through that process, submitted the application, and we are still waiting months and months to hear anything from the Home Office.
I welcome the establishment of the new, cross-Government Windrush working group, and particularly the involvement in the working group of the Black Cultural Archives based in my constituency. Black Cultural Archives is a trusted organisation with deep roots in the UK’s black communities, and it has done so much to support the victims of the Windrush scandal. I pay tribute to its work. It is absolutely vital that it is funded to continue to provide that support, yet it is still waiting for applications to open for the £500,000 fund that the Government announced to support grassroots organisations. I hope the Minister might mention a timescale for that fund in his response.
I also welcome the Home Secretary’s announcement today that she has accepted the recommendations of Wendy Williams’ lessons learned review. However, the Government have been far too slow, not only in relation specifically to the Windrush scandal, but in delivering the much wider reforms that are needed to address structural racism, including implementing the recommendations of the Lammy review on the over-representation of black men in the criminal justice system. I hope that the Minister understands just how low confidence currently is in this Government to tackle racism and structural racial inequality, and that there will not be confidence until sustained and meaningful action is delivered.
This year’s Windrush Day is celebrated against the backdrop of a new and additional scandal: the disproportionate impact of coronavirus on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. The stories of the Windrush generation and the NHS are intertwined. The Empire Windrush arrived at Tilbury just weeks before the founding of the NHS. In my constituency, that connection is embodied in a single street. At one end of Coldharbour Lane was the labour exchange; at the other end is King’s College Hospital, which was and is still substantially sustained by the commitment, skill and care of BAME nurses.
Yesterday, I took part in an event organised by the Runnymede Trust to mark Windrush Day by celebrating the role of BAME workers in the NHS. We heard from academic researchers who had captured the historic experience of migrant women working in the NHS. During the event, the chat bar filled up with devastating first-hand stories of racism and racial discrimination. They included the experience of migrant nurses who were prevented from training as state-registered nurses, meaning that they could only take the inferior career path of the state-enrolled nurse—effectively a structural limitation on promotion and pay—and stories of patients being allowed to wait to be treated by white staff instead of equally qualified BAME staff, reinforcing racist views.
In 2020, it is now BAME NHS workers who are dying from coronavirus in disproportionate numbers. The Government are once again being too slow to protect them: they have announced another review, which will report at the end of the year, rather than taking the immediate protective action that is needed and demanded now. Earlier this month, thousands took to the streets in a heartfelt cry for justice and reform in response to the horrific death of George Floyd in the USA, because his death resonated so powerfully with their own experience here in the UK.
This Windrush Day must be both a celebration of the contribution of the Windrush generation to our communities, culture, economy and public services in the UK, and a moment of deep national reflection. We must reflect on how, more than 70 years since those first Windrush citizens began to work in our NHS, BAME health workers have died in disproportionate numbers as they administered treatment and care during the coronavirus pandemic.
We must engage communities across the country in learning about their own history, even when it is painful, and find ways to ensure that our town squares and public spaces reflect the diversity of our communities, including by moving statues that glorify shameful periods of our history from public spaces to museums where they can be contextualised as artefacts from the past. We need reform of the history curriculum in our schools, so that every child is taught a truthful and inclusive version of British history, including colonialism and the transatlantic slave trade.
The Government must deliver a functioning and effective compensation scheme for the victims of the Windrush scandal and urgently implement the recommendations of Wendy Williams and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy). They must give confidence that such a scandal can never happen again.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
I am enjoying the hon. Lady’s speech. She mentions the Lammy review; I have just had an answer to my parliamentary question to the Lord Chancellor about the review, which I will tweet out in a moment. It tells me that
“of the 35 recommendations…16 have been completed … 17 recommendations are still in progress, of which… 1 recommendation is in the initial stages…11 recommendations aim to be completed within 6-12 months…5 recommendations will take longer than 12 months”.
I really think that the Government are making serious progress on the Lammy review, and I think that the Minister is to be congratulated.
Helen Hayes
I think the test of the Government’s progress in this area is the experience of BAME residents up and down the country, and the protests in recent weeks tell us loudly and clearly that they do not have confidence in this Government. I hope that the Government will start to rebuild that trust and confidence, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise exactly how far they have to go.
We must see urgent, meaningful action to protect BAME frontline workers from coronavirus and address the underlying health inequalities that left them at risk in the first place. The Government must end the hostile environment and reform the history curriculum so that every child learns about British history as a story of migration and is taught about the UK’s shameful role in the transatlantic slave trade. Windrush Day is a national celebration, but also a day for asserting the truth that black lives matter and for redoubling our efforts to create a society free from structural racism and discrimination in which everyone’s contribution is fully recognised.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Luke Hall)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) on securing this debate and the tone in which she has conducted it. I know that this issue is close to her heart. She laid out very eloquently at the start of her speech the story of how many of those who arrived on the Windrush took temporary shelter in Clapham South and then went to find jobs at labour exchanges, including, as she said, at Coldharbour Lane in her constituency. She raised issues that are so significant and so personal to Members of this House and to many of her constituents, and I congratulate her on the way in which she did so.
This is, of course, the second annual national Windrush Day, and the third year in which the Government have supported celebrations since the 70th anniversary. It absolutely right that the Government and this House celebrate the enormous contributions of the Windrush generation to our social, economic and cultural history. After the ship’s arrival back in 1948, those brave individuals helped to rebuild our country after the ravages of the war. They found work in sectors such as health and transport and formed the backbone of our national health service, as the hon. Lady said.
Today, as history repeats itself, we see a different threat, and many of the Windrush generation’s descendants continue to protect and rebuild our country in the midst of covid-19, carrying the legacy of many of their forebears. Their remarkable contribution to our national health service, to care and to many other key sectors during this crisis has been absolutely staggering—it has been integral to stemming the tide of this virus. The whole country is grateful for their contribution, and I certainly add my own tribute today. However, the hon. Lady is absolutely right that while we celebrate the Windrush generation and how they shaped this country, and most recently how their descendants have helped to defend it, we must candidly acknowledge the difficulties that many have endured. I wish to take this opportunity to explain how we have been working to try to right the wrongs.
Windrush Day this year did not look like Windrush Day last year. I thank the Windrush Day advisory panel for its support in ensuring that we could still mark the day with the enthusiasm and importance that it deserves. Preparations for the celebrations have of course been altered by the unique social and health challenges presented by the pandemic, but that has not stopped people and organisations holding events throughout the country and organising innovative ways to make sure that we can continue to celebrate the important contribution I referred to and the importance of this day, which has of course gained a huge amount of traction, interest and passionate debate. Most of the celebrations yesterday were digital—the hon. Lady talked about an event that she attended—but there were still plenty of them up and down the country. We had only to look at the media or social media yesterday to see the incredible variety of debates.
Our Department is still keen to support publicly the marking of the day: we provided a £500,000 grant to support some of the organisations that are celebrating and commemorating the Windrush generation, alongside educating people about them. Earlier this year, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government agreed that the funding would be distributed across 49 charities, community groups and local authorities. In the midst of some extremely challenging circumstances, that guarantee has demonstrated our willingness, passion, aptitude and innovation to deliver the events in the way that they have been delivered.
From Bristol, Birmingham, Leicester and Leeds, we have received some incredible feedback on the workshops, radio documentaries and Zoom meetings that have been held over the past couple of days. A children’s charity, Barnardo’s, launched an oral history project to celebrate the impacts of the achievements of the Windrush generation and their descendants, fronted by its vice-president Baroness Floella Benjamin.
Several projects funded by the Windrush Day grant were based in the hon. Lady’s constituency, including Reprezent Radio, which trains second generation Windrush individuals to develop a week of specialist radio programming shining a light on the impact of the Windrush generation. I have not managed to catch any yet but I will make an effort to do so in the next day. I know that that admirable local organisation is doing a lot of good work, and I was pleased to hear that Lambeth Council had its own itinerary to celebrate Windrush Day and get people involved locally. I commend it for that work.
The day was also very well recognised in local, national and international media, including on the BBC’s “The One Show”, and I think CNN was live in Brixton. There was a message from his excellency the high commissioner of Jamaica, and our great national institutions took up the call to commemorate the arrival of the Windrush generation. I believe that the National Theatre has made the adaptation of Andrea Levy’s “Small Island” free to view until tomorrow. I saw that the Church of England marked Windrush Day in an online service, I think very candidly reflecting on its troubling recent history, which once saw Anglican churchgoers barred from participating in worship due to the colour of their skin. I encourage anybody who is able to to head online and find out how they can continue to take part in some incredible celebrations.
Mr Steve Baker
I am very grateful for what the Minister has said. There was a fantastic virtual celebration in High Wycombe over the weekend, and I was absolutely delighted to join it. I put on record how very proud I am of the Windrush generation in High Wycombe and their descendants. They make a fantastic contribution to our community and my eyes have really been opened to how people do still face racism in their lives. I am very glad that the Government are taking steps to implement the Lammy review, but, of course, there is much more that we all need to do.
Karl MᶜCartney
I thank the Minister for giving way, given the shortness of time. The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) did well to secure the debate and gave a very moving speech. I am sure that like me, she is waiting for some timescales for when the cases will be dealt with, and I hope the Minister will address that shortly.
Luke Hall
I will turn to that in a second, and I add my congratulations to the organisation responsible in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker).
Of course, it is right that as we celebrate and recognise the Windrush generation and their descendants, we also have to reflect on the wrongs that they have experienced. It was nothing short of a moral failure that those who helped to lay the foundations of the country that we know and love today had to endure so many injustices.
On 19 March, the Home Secretary published Wendy Williams’ Windrush lessons learned review. It was an essential publication, and I hope that it will be part of a long healing process. The Home Secretary updated the House today by saying that she has accepted all 30 recommendations from that report. She has set up a Windrush lessons learned implementation team and will lead the response to the report, working with teams across the Government and externally. She will also bring an update to the House on implementing the recommendations before the summer recess.
To support this, yesterday, we announced the Windrush cross-Government working group and, as the Home Secretary aptly said, we know that the best way to make sure we reach all those affected is by listening to them and hearing their voices. Only in that way can we learn how best to address the wider challenges that disproportionately affect those from BAME backgrounds. This group will support the Government to deliver practical solutions across the themes of education, work and health, advising also on the design of the Windrush community fund scheme and the response to the lessons learned review. We will work together to implement these recommendations and make good on our commitment to learn from past mistakes.
The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood and a number of other Members have referenced the compensation scheme. We do think that this is an important part of the action that we are taking to address the injustices that have been faced. It was developed to ease the burden of the unacceptable mistreatment that some of the generation have faced, and so far significant progress has been made. We have helped over 12,000 people to obtain documentation confirming their status, including 5,900 grants of citizenship. In the Home Secretary’s remarks to the House earlier today, we heard that as at the end of this March, more than £360,000 has been awarded through the compensation scheme.
Luke Hall
The Home Secretary updated the House today on the fact that over £1 million has been offered through the compensation scheme, and more payments are being made each week. While this is progress, and claims continue to be processed as quickly as possible, the Home Office is committed to getting more people to come forward and claim. That is exactly why we are setting up the new working group and community fund. We encourage all those who are eligible to apply for compensation to do so. We completely understand how integral this is to our work as we move forward to try to right the wrongs of the past.
We also want to publicly acknowledge how the Windrush generation have enriched our nation’s history, so we are constructing a permanent monument at Waterloo station that will be a tribute to the generation that has come to be defined more broadly than the original pioneers who arrived in 1948. It will be erected in London but will stand as testament to the contribution of Caribbean migrants in communities across the United Kingdom. It will create a permanent place of reflection and inspiration for Caribbean communities and the general public. It will be a symbolic link to our past—a permanent reminder of shared history and heritage.
Ruth Jones
I appreciate that statues are lovely, but people who are watching outside want to know when they are going to get their money. They have waited a long time; they need to know. Will the Minister give a timetable?
Luke Hall
That is exactly the purpose and point of the measures that the Home Secretary has announced—to make sure that this work will be brought forward speedily and accurately. I understand the hon. Lady’s concerns, but I do think it is right to put on record the importance of things that can be done, like the permanent memorial. I know that the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood has been a passionate advocate for having the national memorial in her constituency. I hope that she accepts the Government’s rationale for having it at Waterloo station and the symbolic nature of that.
Helen Hayes
I could not let mention of Waterloo as the location for the memorial pass without saying how strongly so many of my constituents and the Windrush Foundation feel that the proper location for that memorial is on Windrush Square outside the Black Cultural Archives—a location still within London and still within zone 2 that still has such a strong connection to the original Windrush passengers and to the community of so many who followed them here.
Luke Hall
The hon. Lady continues to make a passionate case and she is quite right to do so. There are a number of examples of more local tributes that are being set up. Hackney is a great example of a local authority that has commissioned a local public artwork to be placed in its town square to celebrate and honour its Windrush generation. I know that she does not quite see eye to eye on the location of the national monument, but if there is anything that our Department can do to set up conversations or to provide further advice about what could be done within the local authority, we would be very happy to do so at any time. My door is always open to discuss that further.
The hon. Lady referred to the Windrush generation overcoming incredible adversity. They and their descendants have proved to be some of the most inspirational role models. I heard some stories of those individuals yesterday. RAF veteran Sam King returned to London from Jamaica on the Empire Windrush and not only built a life here but volunteered as a circulation manager on the West Indian Gazette and supported the organisation of the carnival at St Pancras town hall in 1959. He was the first black mayor of Southwark—a position he took up just six months after being elected to the council. Euton Christian served in the RAF as well, and settled in Manchester. He was not only the first black magistrate in Manchester but helped to set up the West Indian Sports and Social Club in Moss Side and was one of the founders of the Manchester Council for Community Relations. Those are just two examples I heard yesterday of the incredible contributions that the hon. Lady has talked so passionately about.
The hon. Lady also mentioned the impact of covid-19 on black and minority ethnic communities, and she is right to do so. We have to acknowledge that these have been difficult times for so many people. Professor Fenton’s review, on behalf of Public Health England, on the impact of covid-19 on black, Asian and minority ethnic communities highlighted some of these challenges so starkly to so many of us, and I know what an emotional moment that was for so many people. The pandemic has amplified long-standing inequalities; BAME groups have been found to be more likely to have pre-existing conditions that worsen the effects of covid-19. In response, the NHS has created a new centre to investigate the impact of race and ethnicity on people’s health. My hon. Friend the Minister for Equalities is taking forward further work, following the PHE review, so that we can better understand the disparities, which I know we all agree should not exist in the 21st century.
As has been discussed, Windrush Day this year also took place in the midst of a wider social movement to challenge racism and injustice. As a south Gloucestershire MP, I saw the scenes in Bristol, just next door. I saw the passion of the communities in not only Bristol, but the surrounding areas. It is so important that we listen to the thousands of people who have marched peacefully for Black Lives Matter. That is why the Prime Minister committed to establishing that new cross-party commission to explore these issues, as well as to champion the success of BAME groups. That new commission on race and ethnic disparities will examine continuing racial and ethnic inequalities in Britain. It will build on the work of the Race Disparity Unit, but it will go further, to understand why disparities exist, and what works and what does not. It will present recommendations for action across government and other public bodies.
The Windrush generation answered the call to help rebuild our nation after the war. They and their descendants have inspired as entrepreneurs, nurses, musicians and athletes. The hon. Lady has said that she attended the Runnymede Trust’s virtual event on the contribution of BAME people to the NHS, and I wish to restate my personal thanks and the whole Government’s thanks to those from minority backgrounds who are working in our NHS, and in shops, delivery services, local authorities and other key positions around the country, on the frontline against this virus. Through this national effort, we are turning the tide and getting control of this virus. I know she has made a passionate case for the importance of making sure that the compensation schemes are delivered at the pace she has suggested. Of course, I will be discussing this with my colleagues in the Home Office.
Windrush Day has been a fantastic success in the past couple of years. I welcome the hon. Lady’s constructive comments about how we can make it a success in the future. I encourage everyone to find a Windrush Day activity to get involved with, either online or locally near them, later this year. I will certainly be looking at the radio project happening in her constituency, and I thank those involved in that. By taking part in Windrush Day, people will be playing their part in celebrating, commemorating and educating about the Windrush generation, their descendants and their contribution to Britain’s social, cultural and economic life, and of course, they will be helping to build a stronger and more integrated Britain for the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) | Jim McMahon |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) | Eddie Hughes |
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) | Stuart Andrew |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) | Chris Elmore |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) | Patrick Grady |
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) | Kim Johnson |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) | Clive Efford |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) | Chris Elmore |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) | Patrick Grady |
Ian Blackford (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) | Patrick Grady |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) | Stuart Andrew |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) | Stuart Andrew |
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) | Chris Elmore |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Byrne (Liverpool, West Derby) | Chris Elmore |
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) | Chris Elmore |
Dan Carden (Liverpool, Walton) | Alex Norris |
Sir William Cash (Stone) | Leo Docherty |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) | Chris Elmore |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) | Patrick Grady |
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) | Chris Elmore |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) | Chris Elmore |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) | Alex Burghart |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) | Bambos Charalambous |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) | Chris Elmore |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) | Caroline Nokes |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) | Chris Elmore |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) | Chris Evans |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) | Chris Elmore |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) | Caroline Nokes |
Dave Doogan (Angus) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) | Chris Elmore |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) | Jeremy Hunt |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) | Conor McGinn |
Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Farry (North Down) | Mr Alistair Carmichael |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) | Patrick Grady |
Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) | Chris Elmore |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) | Chris Elmore |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) | Theo Clarke |
Gill Furniss (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) | Caroline Nokes |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) | Chris Elmore |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) | Chris Elmore |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) | Aaron Bell |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) | Chris Elmore |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) | Julie Marson |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) | Chris Elmore |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) | Patrick Grady |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) | Chris Elmore |
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) | Chris Elmore |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) | Fay Jones |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) | Wes Streeting |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) | Chris Elmore |
Kate Hollern (Blackburn) | Chris Elmore |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) | Maria Caulfield |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) | Chris Elmore |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) | Stuart Andrew |
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) | Chris Elmore |
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) | Chris Elmore |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) | Ruth Edwards |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) | Chris Elmore |
Afzal Khal (Manchester, Gorton) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) | Kate Osborne |
Chris Law (Dundee West) | Patrick Grady |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) | Rosie Duffield |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) | Stuart Andrew |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) | Lee Rowley |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) | Stuart Andrew |
Holly Lynch (Halifax) | Chris Elmore |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) | Patrick Grady |
Craig Mackinlay (South Thanet) | Robert Courts |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) | Chris Elmore |
Alan Mak (Havant) | Stuart Andrew |
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) | Chris Elmore |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) | Chris Elmore |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) | Chris Elmore |
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) | Cat Smith |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) | Chris Elmore |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) | Sir David Amess |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) | Stuart Andrew |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) | Chris Elmore |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) | Chris Elmore |
James Murray (Ealing North) | Chris Elmore |
Gavin Newlands (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) | Patrick Grady |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) | Rebecca Harris |
Brendan O’Hara (Argyll and Bute) | Patrick Grady |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) | Florence Eshalomi |
Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) | Patrick Grady |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) | Alex Norris |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) | Peter Aldous |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) | Chris Elmore |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) | Chris Elmore |
Christina Rees (Neath) | Chris Elmore |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) | Chris Elmore |
Rob Roberts (Delyn) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) | Chris Elmore |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) | Chris Elmore |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) | Patrick Grady |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) | Patrick Grady |
Henry Smith (Crawley) | Stuart Andrew |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) | Robert Courts |
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) | Chris Elmore |
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) | Patrick Grady |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Central) | Chris Elmore |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Mel Stride (Central Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) | Chris Elmore |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) | Patrick Grady |
Owen Thompson (Midlothian) | Patrick Grady |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) | Olivia Blake |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) | Chris Elmore |
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) | Patrick Grady |
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) | Chris Elmore |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) | Ben Lake |
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) | Rachel Hopkins |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) | Chris Elmore |
Trade Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 23rd June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Trade Bill 2019-21 View all Trade Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 June 2020 - (23 Jun 2020)
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. Before we start, I remind Members that the Hansard reporters would be grateful if you emailed electronic copies of your speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. At 11 o’clock, I will invite the Committee to observe a one-minute silence in memory of the victims of the knife attacks in Reading on Saturday.
Clause 2
Implementation of international trade agreements
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 14, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) to make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement may only be made if—
(a) the provisions of section [Parliamentary scrutiny of free trade agreements before signature] were complied with before the United Kingdom had ratified the agreement;
(b) the requirements under subsection (3) and under paragraph 4(1) to (1D) of Schedule 2 have been met;
(c) the requirements under subsection (4) and under paragraph 4(1) to (1D) of Schedule 2 have been met; or
(d) the requirements under subparagraph 4A(1) to (1D) of Schedule 2 have been met.”
This amendment would put in place a structure for Parliamentary scrutiny of proposed international trade agreements.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
“(3) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 shall apply to any regulations under subsection (1) which make provision for the purpose of implementing a free trade agreement if the other signatory (or each other signatory) and the European Union were signatories to a free trade agreement immediately before exit day.
(4) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 shall apply to any regulations under subsection (1) which make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement other than a free trade agreement if the other signatory (or each other signatory) and the European Union were signatories to an international trade agreement immediately before exit day.
(4A) Paragraph 4A of Schedule 2 shall apply to any regulations under subsection (1) which make provision for the purpose of implementing any international trade agreement not falling within subsection (3) or subsection (4) above.”
This amendment would apply the provisions of the Bill to trade agreements other than EU rollover trade agreements.
Amendment 6, in schedule 2, page 13, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert—
“4 (1) A statutory instrument containing regulations of a Minister of the Crown acting alone under section 2(1) in respect of an international trade agreement which meets the criteria under section 2(3) or 2(4) may not be made unless all provisions of sub-paragraphs (1A) to (1D) have been satisfied.
(1A) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
(a) a draft of an order to the effect that the agreement be ratified, and
(b) a document which explains why the Secretary of State believes that the agreement should be ratified.
(1B) The Secretary of State may make an order in the terms of the draft order laid under subparagraph (1A) if—
(a) after the expiry of a period of 21 sitting days after the draft order is laid, no committee of either House of Parliament has recommended that the order should not be made, and
(b) after the expiry of a period of 40 sitting days after the draft order is laid, a motion in the terms of the draft order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(1C) If a committee of either House of Parliament recommends that an order should not be made under subparagraph (2), the Secretary of State may, after the expiry of a period of 60 sitting days after the draft order is laid, make a motion for a resolution in each House of Parliament in the terms of the draft order.
(1D) If a motion in the terms of the draft order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament under subparagraph (1B)(b), the Secretary of State may make an order in the terms of the draft order.
(1E) A free trade agreement to which this paragraph applies shall not be deemed to be a treaty for the purposes of Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
(1F) In section 25 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, after subsection (1)(b), at end insert “but does not include an international trade agreement to which paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2 to the Trade Act 2020 applies.”
This amendment would establish a form of super-affirmative procedure for scrutiny of an international trade agreement before ratification and before regulations implementing the agreement could be made.
Amendment 7, in schedule 2, page 13, line 25, at end insert—
“4A (1) A statutory instrument containing regulations of a Minister of the Crown acting alone under section 2(1) in respect of an international trade agreement which does not meet the criteria under section 2(3) or section 2(4) may not be made except in accordance with the steps in subparagraphs (1A) to (1D).
(1A) The Minister shall lay before Parliament—
(a) a draft of the regulations, and
(b) a document which explains why the Secretary of State believes that regulations should be made in terms of the draft regulations.
(1B) The Minister may make an order in the terms of the draft regulations laid under subparagraph (1A) if—
(a) after the expiry of a period of 21 sitting days after the draft regulations are laid, no committee of either House of Parliament has recommended that the regulations should not be made, and
(b) after the expiry of a period of 60 sitting days after the draft regulations are laid, the draft regulations are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(1C) If a committee of either House of Parliament recommends that the regulations should not be made, the Secretary of State may—
(a) lay before Parliament revised draft regulations, and
(b) after the expiry of a period of 40 sitting days after the revised draft regulations are laid, make a motion for a resolution in each House of Parliament for approval of the revised draft regulations.
(1D) If a motion under subparagraph (1C)(b) is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State may make the regulations.”
This amendment would establish a form of super-affirmative procedure for scrutiny of regulations implementing all trade agreements covered by the bill. The procedure would apply to agreements other than EU rollover trade agreements if amendments extending the application of the bill were agreed to.
Amendment 19, in schedule 2, page 13, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert—
“(3A) A statutory instrument containing regulations of a Minister of the Crown acting jointly with a devolved authority under section 2(1) in respect of an agreement which falls within the description in section 2(3) or section 2(4) may not be made except in accordance with the steps in subparagraphs (1) to (1D) of paragraph 4.
(3B) A statutory instrument containing regulations of a Minister of the Crown acting jointly with a devolved authority under section 2(1) in respect of an agreement which falls within the description in section 2(4A) may not be made except in accordance with the steps in subparagraphs (1) to (1D) of paragraph 4A.”
This amendment would extend the super-affirmative procedure under former Amendment 19 to regulations where the Minister was acting jointly with a devolved authority.
New clause 5—Parliamentary scrutiny of free trade agreements before signature—
“(1) The United Kingdom may not become a signatory to a free trade agreement which does not meet the criteria under section 2(3) unless—
(a) before entering negotiations on the proposed agreement, the Secretary of State has—
(i) laid before Parliament a sustainability impact assessment carried out following consultation as prescribed by section [Sustainability impact assessments], and
(ii) published a response to any report which a committee of either House of Parliament may have published expressing an opinion on the sustainability impact assessment, as long as that report is published within 30 sitting days of the day on which the sustainability impact assessment is laid before Parliament;
(b) both Houses of Parliament have passed a resolution authorising the Secretary of State to enter negotiations on the proposed agreement as prescribed by section [Parliamentary consent to launch of trade negotiations];
(c) during the course of negotiations, the text of the agreement as so far agreed or consolidated has been made available as prescribed by section [Availability of agreement texts];
(d) the Secretary of State has, within ten sitting days of the close of each round of negotiations on the proposed agreement, laid before Parliament a statement detailing the progress made in each area of the negotiations and the obstacles still remaining at the close of that round;
(e) the text of the agreement in the form to which it is proposed that the United Kingdom should become a signatory has been made available to Parliament for a period of 21 sitting days; and
(f) a resolution has been passed by the House of Commons approving the Secretary of State’s intention to sign the agreement.
(2) “Sitting day”, for the purposes of subsection (1)(a)(ii) shall mean any day on which both Houses of Parliament begin to sit”.
This new clause would set out a structure for parliamentary scrutiny of negotiations on proposed trade agreements.
New clause 6—Sustainability impact assessments—
“(1) A sustainability impact assessment laid before Parliament under section [Parliamentary scrutiny of free trade agreements before signature] (1)(a) shall be carried out following consultation.
(2) A consultation under subsection (1) shall—
(a) be carried out in line with any guidance or code of practice on consultations issued by Her Majesty’s Government, and
(b) actively seek the views of—
(i) Scottish Ministers,
(ii) Welsh Ministers,
(iii) a Northern Ireland devolved authority,
(iv) representatives of businesses and trade unions in sectors which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are likely to be affected by the proposed international trade agreement, and
(v) any other person or organisation which appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of interests affected by the proposed international trade agreement.
(3) The Secretary of State shall ensure that public bodies, non-governmental organisations and the public may be made aware of the consultation by circulating and publishing details of it prominently on relevant government websites.
(4) A sustainability impact assessment under subsection (1) shall be conducted by a credible body independent of government and shall include both qualitative and quantitative assessments of the potential impacts of the proposed trade agreement, including as a minimum—
(a) the economic impacts on individual sectors of the economy, including, but not restricted to—
(i) the impacts on the quantity and quality of employment,
(ii) the various regional impacts across the different parts of the UK,
(iii) the impacts on small and medium-sized enterprises, and
(iv) the impacts on vulnerable economic groups;
(b) the social impacts, including but not restricted to—
(i) the impacts on public services, wages, labour standards, social dialogue, health and safety at work, public health, food safety, social protection, consumer protection and information, and
(ii) the government’s duties under the Equality Act 2010;
(c) the impacts on human rights, including but not restricted to—
(i) workers’ rights,
(ii) women’s rights,
(iii) cultural rights and
(iv) all UK obligations under international human rights law;
(d) the impacts on the environment, including but not restricted to—
(i) the need to protect and preserve the oceans,
(ii) biodiversity,
(iii) the rural environment and air quality, and
(iv) the need to meet the UK’s international obligations to combat climate change;
(e) the impacts on animal welfare, including but not restricted to the impacts on animal welfare in food production, both as it relates to food produced in the UK and as it relates to food imported into the UK from other countries; and
(f) the economic, social, cultural, food security and environmental interests of those countries considered to be developing countries for the purposes of clause 10 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, as defined in Schedule 3 to that Act and as amended by regulations.
(5) The elements of the sustainability impact assessment to be undertaken under (4)(f) must be sufficiently disaggregated so as to capture the full range of impacts on different groups of developing countries, and must include both direct and indirect impacts, such as loss of market share through trade diversion or preference erosion.
(6) A sustainability impact assessment under subsection (1) shall include recommendations for possible action to maximise any positive impacts and to prevent or offset any negative impacts foreseen, including the possible limitation of the negotiating mandate so as to exclude those sectors most at risk from the proposed trade agreement.”
New clause 7—Parliamentary consent to launch of trade negotiations—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall not commence negotiations relating to a free trade agreement which does not meet the criteria under section 2(3) unless all provisions of this section have been satisfied.
(2) A Minister of the Crown shall lay before Parliament a draft of a negotiating mandate relating to the proposed international trade agreement.
(3) The draft mandate under subsection (2) shall set out—
(a) all fields and sectors to be included in the proposed negotiations;
(b) the principles to underpin the proposed negotiations;
(c) any limits on the proposed negotiations, including sectors to be excluded from the proposed negotiations; and
(d) the desired outcomes from the proposed negotiations.
(4) The Secretary of State shall make a motion for a resolution in the House of Commons in respect of the draft, setting out the elements listed in subsection (3), but such a motion shall be made—
(a) no earlier than 25 sitting days after the day on which the draft of the negotiating mandate is laid under subsection (2), and
(b) not before the Secretary of State has published a response to any report which a committee of either House of Parliament may have published expressing an opinion on the draft negotiating mandate , as long as that report is published within 20 sitting days of the day on which the draft mandate is laid before Parliament.
(5) A motion for a resolution under subsection (4) shall be made in such a way as to permit amendment of any of the elements prescribed under subsection (3).
(6) A motion to enable consideration of the negotiating mandate shall be laid before the House of Lords.
(7) The terms of any negotiating mandate authorised by a resolution under subsection (4) shall be binding upon the Secretary of State and anyone acting on his or her behalf in the course of negotiation.
(8) “Sitting day” shall, for the purposes of subsection (4), mean any day on which both Houses of Parliament begin to sit.”
New clause 8—Availability of agreement texts—
“(1) The text of any proposed international trade agreement which is being negotiated shall, so far as it is agreed or consolidated, be made publicly available within ten days of the close of each round of negotiations.
(2) Every—
(a) document submitted formally by the United Kingdom government to the negotiations, and
(b) agenda for each new round of negotiations
shall be made publicly available by the Secretary of State.
(3) All other documents relating to the negotiations and not falling within the descriptions provided in subsections (1) and (2) shall be made publicly available by the Secretary of State, subject to subsection (4).
(4) The Secretary of State may withhold from publication any document of a kind falling within the description in subsection (3) but must publish a statement of the reasons for doing so.
(5) In the case of any document withheld under subsection (4), the Secretary of State shall provide full and unfettered access to that document to—
(a) any select committee of either House of Parliament to which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the proposed agreement is relevant, and
(b) any other person or body which the Secretary of State may authorise.
(6) In the case of a document to which access is provided under subsection (5), the Secretary of State may specify conditions under which the text shall be made available.
(7) The Secretary of State shall maintain an online public register of all documents published under subsections (1), (2) and (3) or withheld under subsection (4).”
New clause 19—Report on proposed free trade agreement—
“(1) This section applies (subject to subsection (2)) where the United Kingdom has authenticated a free trade agreement (“the proposed agreement”), if—
(a) the other party (or each other party) and the European Union were signatories to a free trade agreement immediately before exit day, or
(b) where the proposed agreement was authenticated by the United Kingdom before exit day, the other party (or each other party) and the European Union were signatories to a free trade agreement on the day the proposed agreement was authenticated by the United Kingdom.
(2) This section applies only if the proposed agreement is not binding on the United Kingdom as a matter of international law unless it is ratified by the United Kingdom.
(3) Before the United Kingdom ratifies the proposed agreement, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a report which gives details of, and explains the reasons for, any significant differences between—
(a) the trade-related provisions of the proposed agreement, and
(b) the trade-related provisions of the existing free trade agreement.
(4) Subsection (3) does not apply if a report in relation to the proposed agreement has been laid before Parliament under section (Report to be laid with regulations under section 2(1))(2).
(5) The duty imposed by subsection (3) applies only at a time when regulations may be made under section 2(1) (see section 2(8)).
(6) In this section a reference to authenticating a free trade agreement is a reference to doing an act which establishes the text of the agreement as authentic and definitive as a matter of international law.
(7) In this section—
“the existing free trade agreement” means the free trade agreement referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (b);
the “trade-related provisions” of a free trade agreement are the provisions of the agreement that mainly relate to trade.”
New clause 20—Report to be laid with regulations under section 2(1)—
“(1) This section applies where a Minister of the Crown proposes to make regulations under section 2(1) for the purpose of implementing a free trade agreement to which the United Kingdom and another signatory (or other signatories) are signatories.
(2) A draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations may not be laid before Parliament unless, at least 10 Commons sitting days before the draft is laid, a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a report which gives details of, and explains the reasons for, any significant differences between—
(a) the trade-related provisions of the free trade agreement to which the United Kingdom and the other signatory (or other signatories) are signatories, and
(b) the trade-related provisions of the existing free trade agreement.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if, at least 10 Commons sitting days before a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations is laid, a report in relation to the agreement has been laid before Parliament under section (Report on proposed free trade agreement)(3).
(4) In this section—
“Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons begins to sit;
“the existing free trade agreement” means the free trade agreement to which the European Union and the other signatory (or other signatories) were signatories immediately before exit day;
the “trade-related provisions” of a free trade agreement are the provisions of the agreement that mainly relate to trade.”
Gareth Thomas
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair once again, Mrs Cummins. We had an interesting sitting in your absence on Thursday afternoon, at which three Conservative Members of Parliament applied to join the Co-operative party, the Government Whip tried to shut down a debate on what we could do to tackle an anti-northern bias in procurement, and the Minister gave the first hint that he recognises the Bill is in need of improvement.
Let me say at the outset that I want Britain to be ambitious in trade, in the deals we look to achieve, and in our determination to help imaginative and innovative businesses access new markets. However, I do not want us to sell ourselves short. That is why the amendments are so important.
Trade agreements done well create new economic opportunities. They can help inspire the generation of thousands of new jobs and expand the horizons of the very best of British businesses. They can and have helped to lift thousands out of terrible poverty and hunger, and they have helped to generate substantial tax revenues for better public services.
Trade deals done badly, however, cause myriad problems. They can lead to the loss of markets for vital companies, and in turn create left-behind communities and a race to the bottom in wages and conditions. When done well, trade agreements can help to generate competition, giving more consumer choice and lowering prices for consumers, but there needs to be fair competition. When done badly, trade agreements can entrench unaccountable corporate power and miss vital opportunities to improve our environment. That is why it is essential that we have effective, detailed scrutiny, with a Trade Ministry that is determined to be open and transparent, if we are secure the trade deals that can fulfil the country’s potential and avoid creating the worst of all worlds.
As the Committee will know, Parliament has its legions of critics, but the structures it provides for scrutiny—if Ministers are willing to allow both Houses to do their job—can help to create the consensus behind trade policy that business organisations are desperate to see, as they set out in our first witness session. Ministers have told us repeatedly that the Bill will provide the basis for the country’s future trade policy once we have left the European Union. In the debate on the Queen’s Speech, it was said that the Trade Bill would
“put in place the essential legislative framework to allow the UK to operate its own independent trade policy upon exit from the European Union.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 June 2017; Vol. 783, c. 437.]
If one potential trade deal serves to underline the failure of the Bill to meet that ambition and the need for proper parliamentary scrutiny, it is the deal that the Department seeks to negotiate with Donald Trump’s Administration. There are already a huge number of public concerns around food standards, the national health service, the use of investor-state dispute settlement mechanisms, the future of geographical indications and whether the Bill will help to cement action on climate change. Let me run through some of those concerns. The Soil Association has very helpfully charted a series of concerns that highlight the need for proper scrutiny—proper scrutiny that is not as yet locked into the Bill—of a future US trade deal. We know that US negotiators are pushing hard for the weakening of UK food and farming standards, describing EU farming—and therefore, implicitly, UK farming—as the “Museum of Agriculture”.
The UK Government have made repeated commitments, including at Trade questions last Thursday, to high environmental and animal welfare standards, but those standards could be undermined by a US trade deal, as a series of Members from across the House have noted. That underlines the need for proper parliamentary scrutiny of a UK-US trade deal, which the Bill does not currently allow for. That is why our amendments are so important.
The Soil Association has a list of the top 10 risks for the US trade deal. The first is anti-microbial resistance. Experts are warning that by 2050, as many as 10 million people could die annually from anti-microbial resistance. The use of antibiotics per annum in US farming is, on average, five times higher than in the UK. Investigations have shown that antibiotics crucial to human medicine are still being used in unacceptable quantities on US livestock farms, despite rules being brought in last year to try to curb their use and combat the spread of deadly superbugs. A US trade deal risks undermining the efforts that UK farmers have been making to reduce antibiotic use, fuelling further anti-microbial resistance, with potentially grave consequences for public health. Surely we, the House of Commons, and indeed the other place, should have the opportunity to scrutinise on the Floor of the House and in Committee whether there is adequate protection from such an eventuality.
Secondly, a number of farmers’ representatives in the unions, a number of Conservative Members of Parliament, as well as Opposition Members, and a former UK ambassador to the US have warned of the threat to the UK farming industry if British farmers are forced to compete against cheap low-quality food imports. If UK farming is forced to compete on price with countries such as the US that operate to different or lower standards, UK farming may become unprofitable. That could create a race to the bottom, putting pressure on Ministers to lower existing standards here in the UK, including standards of food quality, environmental protection and animal welfare.
Thirdly, a US trade deal could affect EU market access for our farmers. The UK currently holds a suite of significant and valuable agri-food trade relationships with the EU27. A weakening of UK food standards or a future lack of alignment with EU standards resulting from a US trade deal could result in barriers to UK farmers and food companies wishing to export their products to the EU single market. In turn, those barriers would pose significant risks for food businesses and farmers’ livelihoods. Why would we not want, as the House of Commons, to have the opportunity to scrutinise whether that fear about a potential UK-US deal merits rightful concern?
Then there is chlorine-washed chicken. The American poultry industry is more intensive, with lower animal welfare standards than in the UK. The chicken produced has high levels of bacteria, so the industry has resorted to acid and chlorine washes at the end of the meat production chain, producing chicken that may not be safe for consumers to eat. Recent comments from a senior representative of the US Government have suggested that the US is “sick and tired” of UK concerns over chlorine-washed chicken, but it remains an important issue for UK citizens, who, I suggest, have no desire to see welfare standards lowered after the UK leaves the European Union.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend puts his finger on the point. For many people, quite rightly, this is about not lowering animal welfare standards. Has he seen reports from trade unions in the United States that, in order to speed up processes, there are now fewer inspections of the meat production process, particularly around chicken, which increases the likelihood that the acid or chlorine wash is less effective? There are not only animal welfare concerns, but concerns about the safety of food that we have been told we should not be concerned about because the chlorine wash removes the threat of food poisoning.
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend makes a good point. Not only is there a multitude of expert analysis that chlorine washing chicken is ineffective at getting rid of the risk of infection but, as he rightly points out, there are concerns that the inspection regime for the chlorine washing of chicken is not remotely as effective as we had been led to believe. That is all the more reason why it is so important that amendments 4 and 5, and the subsequent amendments, are added to the Bill.
The fifth concern that the Soil Association helpfully sets out concerns hormone-treated beef. The US Food and Drug Administration allows steroid hormone drugs for use in beef production, which we banned in the UK and the European Union in 1989. Cattle producers use hormones to induce faster, bigger animal growth, but there is a cost to that: an EU scientific review back in 2003 concluded that one of those commonly used hormones is carcinogenic. In the event of a UK-US trade deal, hormone-treated beef could be sold in the UK, posing potential public health risks. Surely it is the responsibility of the House to understand and scrutinise in detail a UK-US trade deal, to ensure that there are no such potential public health risks for UK consumers.
Lee Rowley (North East Derbyshire) (Con)
I am hugely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene. He is right that a US trade deal needs to be scrutinised, but I remind him that we are not debating a US trade deal. We are debating what is effectively a continuity Bill, and while much of what he says is incredibly interesting—although I disagree with it—it is not relevant to the scope of the discussions.
Gareth Thomas
With due respect, the coffee that the hon. Gentleman had this morning may not have quite kicked in at the beginning of my remarks, when I set out what the Queen’s Speech defined as the purpose of the Trade Bill. As I said, it made clear that the Bill was designed to set the tone for the future of UK trade policy post Brexit, which it quite clearly does not if all the Bill serves to do is to explore the scrutiny of roll-over agreements. Our contention is that we need a proper parliamentary scrutiny process for future trade deals that we negotiate, including with the US and the Trans-Pacific Partnership—on which more anon.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes some powerful points. To broaden this a little, because it would be easy to become extremely focused on the US-UK trade deal, he knows very well that these sort of issues—food standards and production, and safeguards for consumers—apply to other countries, such as Australia. Any UK-Australia trade deal will face exactly the same issues as those we are talking about between the UK and the US.
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is not the option at the moment for proper parliamentary scrutiny of a trade deal with Australia. If the Government were to bring forward a trade deal with China, there is as yet no scope in Parliament for proper scrutiny of such a deal. That is why amendments 4 and 5 and those linked to them are so important.
Matt Western
I just want to elaborate on that point. It is really important that the public are fully aware of what we are talking about. Hormone-fed beef applies to Australian-produced beef as much as to US beef. When it comes to egg production in Australia, they use battery hens, caged hens and so on. It is really important that consumers are made fully aware of what will happen with these trade deals if they are opened up in the way that the Government would like.
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend remakes my point for me. We need to have proper parliamentary scrutiny locked into the Bill. As we have been told, this the only trade legislation that is likely to come before this Parliament. There has been no hint of any other legislation to improve the parliamentary scrutiny of future trade agreements. That is why this group of amendments is so important.
Bill Esterson
Just for the benefit of the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire who intervened, if he looks at the explanatory note to amendment 5, he will see that the amendment would apply the provisions of the Bill to trade agreements other than the EU roll-over trade agreements, so it covers trade agreements that go beyond those that were originally in the scope of the Bill. As my hon. Friend said, this is relevant, not only because of what the Queen’s Speech—
Bill Esterson
I do not think the hon. Gentleman is allowed to intervene when I am already intervening on my hon. Friend. He will get his chance to make a speech later. The important point is that we have tabled amendments precisely because of the need for the Bill to cover more than the narrow scope that clause 2 originally envisaged. My hon. Friend is right to highlight what was in the Queen’s Speech, but I want to remind the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire that it is actually in our amendments. They have been allowed by the Clerks and must therefore be within the scope of our debate.
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend makes his point to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire, who intervened on me very well. I do not know whether the long title of the Bill was as badly drafted as some other parts of the Bill, allowing as a result for our amendments to be in scope, but they are. The hon. Member for North East Derbyshire in his heckle suggested that I was making a series of hypotheses. I would not use his phrase, but I gently suggest that that is surely the purpose of parliamentary scrutiny—to test the concerns that the wider public and organisations outside the House have about particular pieces of legislation.
The Soil Association highlighted a further concern about nutritional labelling—so-called traffic light labelling—which has been a very important tool in supporting improvements in UK public health. The US is clear that it considers nutrition labelling a barrier to trade, and it has an ongoing dispute with the European Union over this. Imported US food already enjoys a voluntary concession to the UK labelling requirements. Any trade deal could weaken those consumer labelling efforts still further. A US trade deal could result in low-cost, ultra-processed foods flooding the UK market, placing a potential double health burden on UK citizens. That is one of the concerns of the Soil Association, and it is right that parliamentary scrutiny should give us the opportunity to test that.
There are serious concerns about the public health implications of genetically modified foods and pesticide regulations, which we will come on to under amendment 11. Incidents of food poisoning in the US affect 14% of the US population annually—10 times greater than in the UK, where just 1% is affected. Again, surely, it is the purpose of Parliament to allow our amendments to test whether or not a deal with the US or any other country in the world is likely to lead to an increase in food poisoning. Those are the Soil Association’s concerns around food standards.
There is a series of other concerns about a potential deal with Donald Trump’s Administration. Let us take the national health service, where Ministers have been desperate to try to reassure the public. If investor-state dispute settlement clauses were to be included in a UK-US trade deal, or any other post-Brexit trade agreement, there is a real chance that the corporate giants that had bought the right to run part of the national health service might be tempted to challenge a decision by a future Government about the provision of that part. If a future Government wanted to favour a public provider over the big private corporate provider, or renationalise parts of the health service that have been privatised, that could be challenged by the corporate giant using the investor-state dispute settlement system, potentially at huge cost to the British taxpayer and resulting in huge damage to the national health service.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the challenge of ISDS. The debate about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, which was dragged into the public domain when negotiating texts were eventually shared with the public, was the only way for the potential problems that he has highlighted to come into the public domain. The initial lack of scrutiny poses a great threat of the kind that he has set out.
May I add to the list the concerns about the negative list system, where every single service has to be named, and about ratchet clauses and standstill clauses? In addition to ISDS, they are a real threat to the ability of this country’s Government to have control over what is in the public sector and what services are delivered, whether the health service or other public services.
Gareth Thomas
Not surprisingly, my hon. Friend is ahead of me in making that concern clear. I underline the issues about negative listing that he sets out, which I will come to. To finish the point about medicine pricing, Donald Trump’s chief negotiator has made it clear that they wish to use a trade deal to challenge the NHS’s current purchasing model for NHS drugs. That could be done through them securing specific market access provisions or other clauses aimed at helping the US pharmaceutical industry. Again, surely it is the responsibility of the House, and indeed the other place, to have in place the scrutiny mechanisms to check whether that concern is justified.
My hon. Friend set out the concerns about standstill clauses and ratchet clauses in trade agreements, which can lock in levels of privatisation and other forms of liberalisation and accelerate them, which will limit the scope of future Governments to take sensible steps, when services are not being properly provided, to bring them back into the public sector. He rightly set out concerns about negative listing, which emerged in particular in the EU-Canada deal, which we will explore in more detail in the debate on amendment 9. There are concerns that NHS management data services could be opened up to US corporate giants as a result of a UK-US trade deal. Surely it is Parliament’s responsibility to explore those concerns.
If a UK-US deal were concluded by the Government, MPs would not be guaranteed a vote or a debate on the signed deal. The proposals in the Command Paper, which Ministers were forced to publish in February last year, allow a scrutiny Committee to recommend one, but leave it at the Government’s discretion whether to hold one.
The deal is being negotiated in secret, even though it could have huge implications for Britain’s post-Brexit future. Negotiations with the US are particularly controversial, yet after six rounds of preparatory talks and one round of formal negotiations, we still are in the dark, at least from a UK perspective, about the substance of what is being debated. It is true that the Secretary of State made a statement to the House. However, apart from listing the major areas of the talks, which were hardly revealing, and reassuring us all that the meetings were positive and constructive, again, no substance was offered on the real concerns that members of the public and organisations outside this House have set out on food, import standards and medicine prices. As Mr Lawrence from Trade Justice Movement reminded us all in last Thursday morning’s witness session, there will have been more scrutiny of the decision to proceed with High Speed 2 than there will be, as things stand, of a UK-US deal. Our amendments would help put that situation right.
Matt Western
When those of us on the International Trade Committee were hearing evidence about potential trade agreements with Japan and South Korea and the Government’s failure to be transparent, to be open, to set objectives and to consult, we discovered in that process, online, that the Koreans had already shared publicly what was going on and where they were in the negotiation. It was secret from our side but open on theirs. It was not until we discovered that information online and Google Translated it that we knew what the Government were up to. Isn’t that extraordinary?
Gareth Thomas
That is an extraordinary position, but sadly, it is becoming clear that that is how Members of Parliament are likely to find out about the substance of these trade negotiations. Let us again take the US as an example. We are finding out through evidence to Congress what many of the concerns of UK business organisations are in terms of the desire to secure access to UK markets, which is surely an entirely outrageous situation for the House of Commons. We were promised we would be taking back control after Brexit, yet the Houses of Parliament and the British public are being left in the dark.
There are real concerns from a UK-US deal about the potential for ISDS.
Bill Esterson
Before my hon. Friend moves on from the point about where evidence comes around what is a negotiating text, he will remember the evidence from Rosa Crawford from the TUC that the unions in this country are finding out what is in the negotiating texts for the US-UK talks from unions in the United States, which have access to those texts from the US Government. That is completely absent in this country. Is this not yet another example of how absurd it is that we have different approaches to scrutiny in this country compared with others? Surely those approaches need to be equivalent to ensure proper scrutiny and the right outcomes in the interests of the people of our country?
Gareth Thomas
We should thank the TUC for its work with American trade unions to help inform British workers and the British House of Commons, and for that little bit more of an insight into what is really going on in the UK-US negotiations. I hope Ministers will be sufficiently embarrassed by the British people’s reliance on what is being told to Congress to open up more scrutiny opportunities for this Parliament.
ISDS clauses have been favoured by the US in many of its existing trade deals. They potentially allow new investors, if included in a UK deal, to sue our Government over measures that harm their profits. We know that ISDS lawyers are already talking up the possibility of compensation for corporate giants whose profits have been hit by Governments taking lockdown measures to tackle the covid pandemic. In case Government Members think that is not a real threat, the American firm Cargill won more than $77 million from the Mexican Government after they introduced a tax to deter high-fructose syrup to tackle serious health issues in Mexico.
ISDS provisions create regulatory chill—the temptation for Governments not to introduce necessary public health or, indeed, other environmental measures, for fear of being taken to an ISDS tribunal by a big overseas investor. They create a two-tier system, since it is rarely small and medium-sized enterprises that are able to access these secret courts. There is normally no appeals system for the Government to access, and there is extraordinary secrecy around the nature of the settlements.
The irony is that there is little obvious benefit to businesses from those clauses being included in trade agreements. Indeed, the Government under David Cameron published an analysis of the pros and cons of ISDS clauses and could not find any great pros to champion. Business organisations tell us—although this tends to be in private—that ISDS clauses do not matter much to them; what they take serious notice of is the business environments.
There are real concerns about the labelling of geographical indicators, where products in the UK have a geographic indicator that prevents their being imitated: one thinks of Welsh lamb, Scottish salmon and Armagh Bramley apples, for example. The American negotiators do not like those types of food label and will seek to get rid of them. Surely it is the responsibility of this House of Commons to explore whether those concerns have merit and to push the Government to protect those labels.
Matt Western
That labelling is so important because throughout this process the public have been led to believe, because the Government have insisted on this point, that they as consumers will always be informed about what it is that they are buying. The only way they can be informed of that is by labelling, but that is not going to happen because, as my hon. Friend says, the US negotiators will not allow it to. When I approached KFC—other leading fast-food outlets are of course available—and asked, “Will you be informing the consumer where the chicken has come from that has gone into those nuggets or whatever the product is?” there was no reply, but clearly it will not be doing so, which must be a profound concern.
Gareth Thomas
I have made my point already about chlorinated chicken, and my hon. Friend raises that concern again.
The point that I was specifically referring to is the significance of GIs for many British products, and I think particularly of Welsh lamb and Welsh beef, where the Welsh Government have concentrated much of their promotional effort around the agriculture industry in Wales on talking up the benefits of those GI-protected products. There is real concern that that is at stake in some of the trade negotiations that the Government are taking part in.
It is surely right that this House have the opportunity to scrutinise whether such concerns would be appropriate with respect to a UK-US deal, a UK-Australia deal or a UK-Japan deal. At the moment, we, as the House of Commons, will not have the chance to explore in detail whether that is a concern, or have the opportunity to force Ministers to take action. Our amendments would put that right.
One last concern to flag about a UK-US deal is Donald Trump’s hostility to action on climate, and therefore the possible lack of potential for Ministers to make progress on bringing carbon dioxide emissions down and helping to tackle the climate and nature emergencies that the world and our country face. Those are the potential concerns being talked about around the headline free trade agreement being negotiated by Ministers, which merit proper parliamentary scrutiny.
Amendment 4 would put in place a structure for proper parliamentary scrutiny of free trade agreements. New clause 5 sets out the process for scrutiny of those free trade agreements before they could be signed, including giving parliamentarians a vote on whether to approve the start of negotiations. That would help to lock in scrutiny of trade negotiations from the very beginning of the process.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
May I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his damascene conversion to parliamentary democracy and scrutiny of trade, which are things that, as part of our membership of the European Union, we would never have been able to engage in? It is only because the Government are getting Brexit done that we can even entertain these ideas.
Gareth Thomas
The hon. Gentleman opens up a whole new area for discussion and I am grateful to him for doing so. Let me confess in these secret discussions here in this House that the biggest mistake that I made when I was a Minister was to agree in 2007—in the run-up to the general election in that year that never was—to appear before seven Select Committees in the space of two weeks, confident in the knowledge that a general election was about to happen and that, actually, I would instead be spending my time with the great people of Harrow West.
Imagine my horror when I discovered that we were not going ahead with a general election and that I would have to appear and talk about our trade policy to seven Select Committees, one after the other over a two-week period. Boy, did I know the detail of trade policy by the end of those that two weeks, and crucially I also had confidence that the negotiating teams working on the EU negotiations knew the detail, too.
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs mentioned Brexit. The decision of the British people to go ahead with Brexit gives us the opportunity to rewrite the UK’s deal with Canada, which we will consider when we debate amendment 9—I suspect that the whole House could potentially be grateful for that opportunity. I look forward to hearing the hon. Gentleman’s interventions then, too.
As well as seeking a mandate, the amendments would require Ministers to be much more open and transparent with the British people about the likely impact of the negotiations and, crucially, how each round of the negotiations have gone. They would require the consent of the British people through their representatives in this great House of Parliament to agree to any trade treaty. In short, our amendments would genuinely help the British people to take back control of who the businesses they work in can trade with and on what terms. They would give, for example, key workers a say in how the services that we all recognise as essential—such as medicines and drugs and our health services—are delivered, and whether trade agreements should impact on them or not. They would give British people the chance to say, “These are the standards that we want those selling goods and services to us as consumers to abide by.”
I do not think it is unreasonable to expect Ministers to put their plans and their record for securing better trade terms to the House of Commons for approval. Under cover of lots of offers of consultation, Ministers seem determined to keep for themselves and No. 10 a power to decide with who and on what terms a trade deal gets done. The picture is painted already, but let us imagine for a moment that the Prime Minister decides to ignore the concerns of Government Members as well as Members across the House about a potential trade deal with China. The negotiated plans would not need the approval of the British people. We would not have access to any of the detail of how those negotiations were going, and potentially only a handful of MPs would have a say. Parliament would in effect be sidelined. The British people, as a result, would be sidelined.
Let us be honest: Government Ministers would pack any statutory instrument Committee with ambitious young Turks, such as the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, who recently intervened on me, who are desperate for advancement and so inclined to ask tough questions that they would sit on their hands throughout the entire process. If the Prime Minister would not listen to Conservative MPs’ concerns over Dominic Cummings’s future, what confidence can we have that he would listen to their concerns about a future free trade agreement with China or anyone else?
Modern trade agreements are wide ranging and comprehensive. They do not only cover tariff reductions, but a whole range of regulatory issues, including issues of public health, social standards, labour rights and environmental standards, so detailed parliamentary scrutiny, making Ministers work to convince the British people of the merits of a deal, should be seen as entirely appropriate.
There is a need to properly consider the trade-offs in a trade agreement. The Committee might have heard of a book that five-year-olds like called “The Enchanted Wood”, which I am currently reading with my five-year-old. In it there is a magic faraway tree. At the moment the central characters are going up the magic faraway tree and out through a hole in the clouds to a new land: the land of take-what-you-want. I gently suggest that that is the way in which Ministers are presenting the merits of the trade negotiations that they are seeking to do at the moment. They are not seeking to explain the difficult trade-offs that such negotiations involve. They seek to give the impression that it is all wins for the British people and that there are no downsides to trade agreements.
Once they are signed, trade agreements are very hard to unpick. They are not benevolent arrangements.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful argument with many different opinions on how important scrutiny is. I can add to that the voices of three other groups. One is the constituents and businesses of Putney: 39% of businesses will be affected by these trade negotiations, but I as their representative would be shut out from scrutinising those negotiations by the lack of scrutiny afforded by the Bill. Another group is the Institute of Directors, which we heard from in our evidence session. It has concerns that it will not know about the standards that will feature in the negotiations. It is concerned about immigration policy, temporary labour mobility, e-commerce and digital commerce and how wide the Bill will go. The final voice is that of the Confederation of British Industry which, in its paper, “Building a world-leading UK trade policy”, said:
“Governments worldwide are finding that public concerns on trade are necessitating an opening up of transparency, and it is becoming increasingly crucial for ratification of trade agreements”
and for building public support for trade agreements that will last. While the rest of the world is opening up its trade scrutiny and getting better trade deals as a result, we are going in the opposite direction.
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend is right. I fear that if Ministers persist with their refusal to give the House of Commons greater opportunities to scrutinise and vote on trade deals, her membership of this Committee may be her only opportunity to vote on concerns about a future UK-US deal. She rightly also opens up a concern about immigration. One of the trade-offs in trade deals, under so-called mode 4 agreements, is often the requirement for Governments to give ground on immigration requirements, yet we hear no mention of that from Ministers.
Ministers give the impression that it is a win-win-win and there are no trade-offs, but trade agreements are not benevolent arrangements in which our negotiators can simply rock up to another country’s trade ministry and pick up some wonderful new bargain deals. We cannot just take what we want. That is the nature of negotiations.
Another analogy might be that Ministers talk about trade agreements as if they were the Christmas sales; they only have to turn up and there are amazing bargains to be had. They have not bothered to explain that the negotiator sitting opposite them will want something in return, which will not necessarily be a comfortable choice for us as a country. All the more reason, therefore, for us to have proper scrutiny to consider whether the downsides of a potential trade agreement are not as significant as the gains.
To listen to some sceptics about a UK-US deal with Donald Trump’s Administration, our farmers will be undercut, standards of food production will be lowered, the NHS will be on the table, climate change will not feature, big corporates will be even more powerful and labour rights will be undermined. Ministers will say that is an outrageous and scurrilous description of the likely benefits of a UK-US trade deal. Those are the potential downsides, however, so we should be able to consider whether the trade-offs of a UK-US deal, or indeed any deal with any other country, outweigh the benefits and therefore should not be approved, or whether, in fact, the benefits outweigh the downsides.
It is certainly the job of the Government to try to negotiate the best possible terms for a free trade agreement with another country, but surely it is for the people of this country to decide in the round, through their Members of Parliament, whether, on balance, it is the great deal that it has been set out to be. I ask the Committee why Ministers are apparently desperate to exclude the British people from having the final say, through their MPs, on whether a trade deal goes ahead.
Trade agreements can take a long time to negotiate and can seem like great prizes to have. I recognise the potential desperation of the Secretary of State to rock up to the signing ceremony for a new free trade agreement and bask in the positive glow from newspapers such as The Daily Telegraph and the Daily Mail, and maybe even the Daily Mirror and The Guardian, which will provide all sorts of photo opportunities for Members of Parliament. That desperation to get a deal, however, might sometimes take ministerial eyes off the downsides of a deal. It is surely the job of the House to look in the round at whether a trade agreement is genuinely in the interests of the country.
Surely Ministers having to work a bit harder to convince us that they have a genuinely good deal can be only a good thing in law. Giving the British people back control through a series of votes in this House and the other place on future free trade agreements will help to lock in high standards of deal making. Ministers seem to be taking the George Bush approach—the “Read my lips: taxes won’t rise” approach to trade. They are saying, “Trust us, we won’t reduce standards; we will protect the NHS and we will deliver the most amazing opportunities for British business.”
Let us pretend for a minute that I am willing to believe such a message from this particular Minister and this particular Secretary of State. The trouble is, Ministers change. Governments change. A commitment may not outlast the next Minister or Secretary of State who comes along. That is why it is essential to underpin in law a right for the British people, through the people they have chosen to represent them in the House of Commons, to agree to start negotiations and to vote on the final result of those negotiations.
Even over the last three years, ministerial attitudes to trade have shifted back and forth, as we shall discuss in debates on other amendments. One moment, the Government are opposing the idea that they should produce a report on a proposed free trade agreement, then they agree to do it voluntarily but oppose the idea of having that written into law; and then they agree, on Report on the 2017-2019 Trade Bill, to write it into the Bill. Today, we are back to a voluntary process—a commitment given by a Minister who is no longer Trade Minister. If the Executive’s line can change on such a simple point in so short a time, it is essential that the interests of the British people are protected by a lasting lock in law on a clear and sensible process to give the people through their representatives in the House of Commons a direct say on trade agreements that will have a lasting significance for their lives.
Ministers have a record of promising the earth on trade deals. Who can forget the last Secretary of State, who said in October 2017:
“I hear people saying, ‘Oh we won't have any free trade agreements before we leave’. Well believe me we’ll have up to 40 ready for one second after midnight in March 2019”?
Sadly, as the Minister knows only too well, the reality is very different. One of my favourite trade quotes has to be from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, then the Secretary of State for Agriculture I think, who said:
“There is a free trade zone stretching from Iceland to Turkey that all European nations have access to, regardless of whether they are in or out of the euro or EU. After we vote to leave we will remain in this zone. The suggestion that Bosnia, Serbia, Albania and the Ukraine would remain part of this free trade area—and Britain would be on the outside with just Belarus—is as credible as Jean-Claude Juncker joining UKIP.”
We all know what has happened since.
My final quote demonstrating what Ministers have said on free trade agreements is from the now Foreign Secretary, who said:
“I hadn’t quite understood the full extent of this, but…we are particularly reliant…on the Dover-Calais crossing”.
If Ministers do not understand the basics about the nature of British trade, it is even more essential that we lock into law a process for giving Parliament the right to scrutinise free trade agreements.
Governments make mistakes. Ministers make mistakes. Let us think about this Government: too late to the lockdown, a failure to protect care homes, a failure to stockpile personal protective equipment, the chaos over schools reopening and now the test-and-trace app fiasco. Ministers make mistakes. Scrutiny in the House of Commons helps to minimise the damage that those mistakes can have. Given the long-term significance of trade agreements, and to help to prevent mistakes being made, we need to lock in a tighter, stronger process of parliamentary scrutiny.
Matt Western
To amplify that point, irrespective of where we currently sit in the House—whether on the Front Bench or the Back Bench, or on the Government or Opposition Benches—it is important that we have some say. That is not simply about scrutiny and holding the Government to account; it is about asking the questions that ultimately lead to better governance. Surely that is what this place is all about.
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend is right. I recognise the temptation, having been a Minister for Trade, to fear scrutiny—to fear being asked detailed questions about rules of origin and things like that. However, that fear helps to make Ministers and officials get over the detail of those hugely important technical questions on trade agreements, which as a result helps to make government better, helping to make trade deals much better as a result.
As I indicated, Ministers had to be dragged kicking and screaming to publish the February 2019 Command Paper on future scrutiny of free trade agreements. A series of commitments were implicit in that Command Paper, but we have heard in recent times that some of those commitments may no longer enjoy ministerial support. Indeed, there seems to be some suggestion that Ministers will no longer publish reports at the end of negotiating rounds. Perhaps the Minister can clarify that point in his wind-up remarks.
Certainly, there has been zero progress on agreeing to give a Committee of this House access to confidential information and briefing from negotiators. If ministerial views on parliamentary scrutiny of new FTAs have changed since the publication of that Command Paper, surely the British people have a further justified claim for ensuring that a process for scrutinising all trade agreements be locked in to law. If Ministers are determined to row back on that commitment to work with a dedicated Committee in both Houses, providing confidential information and private briefings from the negotiating teams, there is even more need to lock into law new powers for Parliament to have more leverage over Ministers regarding those trade agreements.
The amendments would also widen the scrutiny requirements for continuity trade agreements that Ministers are negotiating with countries that already have a trade agreement with the European Union. Many agreements already notionally negotiated have small but significant differences from the original EU agreement on which they are based. At the moment, the British people do not have a say, through their representatives in the House, on whether those changes were appropriate.
It is slowly becoming clear, from the little we are able to glean from those negotiations on continuity trade agreements, that the agreements that have been signed, and indeed being negotiated, are slowly making the terms of trade for British businesses and our existing partners and allies worse. As Professor Winters made clear in his evidence last Tuesday, in conversations about how negotiations on the so-called roll-over agreement with Japan were going, Ministers and negotiators were being studiously vague about what was really going on.
The detail of concerns expressed about what has been negotiated only underlines the need for increased scrutiny—not only of all future FTAs but, crucially, of existing continuity deals. Nick Ashton-Hart of the Digital Trade Network noted that the UK-Swiss deal that has been negotiated has only three mutual recognition chapters, compared with the EU-Swiss deal, which has some 20. It will be interesting to know from Ministers why the UK-Swiss deal had just three mutual recognition chapters whereas its predecessor, the EU-Swiss deal, had 20. Apparently, there are similar problems with customs arrangements. In the case of Norway, only a goods arrangement was rolled over, so British companies have no idea at the moment what they will be able to access in terms of services markets in Norway from 1 January next year. There is a similar position with Switzerland—much has not been rolled over. Companies operating in services markets will have little idea at the moment what access to those markets in Switzerland they will have from 1 January.
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is quite right to highlight the vulnerability of UK automotive manufacturing, particularly with Japanese plants, and the consequences of that throughout the entire sector. The Japanese clearly want to hold off on any negotiation with the UK until there is clarity on our future position with the EU. I recall attending a Japanese ambassador’s event two and a half years ago, at which the Japanese chamber of commerce said, “We will be watching you very closely to see what you decide to do, particularly in relation to your arrangements with the EU. If you get it wrong, watch this space.” The UK is incredibly vulnerable. That is why the Japanese are treading very carefully around any trade deal with us and why they will only come to high-line arrangements; they are going to hold off until they can see what happens with the EU.
Gareth Thomas
That is a very good point. Specific Japanese automotive manufacturers such as Nissan have been very public with their concerns about the way trade negotiations are going. In that sense, they amplify the case for proper parliamentary scrutiny of our future trade agreements.
A series of witnesses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Putney mentioned, made clear the lack of proper parliamentary scrutiny of trade agreements. Indeed, it would be fair to say that a majority of the witnesses who appeared before us in the three evidence sessions we had last week noted the lack of proper parliamentary scrutiny for free trade agreements and expressed serious concerns about it.
I remember that Sam Lowe from the Centre for European Reform suggested that our scrutiny of trade is very poor and not particularly democratic when compared with the US and the European Union, and he gave the UK parliamentary process for trade treaty scrutiny less than five out of 10. He made it clear that some agreements that Ministers have negotiated are purely continuity agreements and alluded to those with the Faroe Islands, Chile and Jordan. He thought there would be substantially different trade agreements with Turkey, Norway, Switzerland and Ukraine, and in effect fundamentally new agreements—surely they are not within the terms of the Bill, if it is limited merely to agreements we have through the EU with existing trade allies—with Japan, Canada and the stage 2 deal with South Korea, which will merit a different, more robust parliamentary process.
David Lawrence from Trade Justice Movement said he has heard “nothing new” billed by Ministers on scrutiny of trade agreements. He described the process as archaic, dating back to the first world war when it was used for secret defence treaties. It has not changed in about 100 years. Trade Justice Movement made clear that it has relied on reports from Washington and Brussels to find out what is going on in trade talks that the UK is a part of, which again underlines the point that surely the British people, through their representatives in the House of Commons, should have access to much more detail.
The principal justification that Ministers have deployed and hidden behind to resist giving the British people more control over such agreements is a decades-old convention first articulated, I believe, by Arthur Ponsonby in 1924. One can understand why Ministers look to Mr Ponsonby for inspiration as he was a Labour Member of Parliament, from whom Ministers get their best advice. Trade then was very much with the different parts of the empire; it looks completely different now, with the drastic changes we have seen to world trade and, of course, our exit from the European Union.
That convention was formalised in part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which no one conceived would still be in use should Britain exit from the European Union and need to negotiate all sorts of future free trade agreements on our own, without our EU allies. CRAG does not require Parliament’s approval for the Government to ratify treaties. Indeed, as a House of Commons Library briefing helps to make painfully clear,
“it gives any parliamentary objection to ratification (or similar processes like accession) a limited”—
limited is crucial—“statutory effect”. There is a theoretical power for the House of Commons to block ratification, but in practice that power does not amount to much. The briefing continues:
“Parliament does not have to debate or vote on the treaty, and indeed time to do so is hard to secure given the Government’s control over the timetable of the House of Commons.”
That the Conservative Government have a large majority underlines how it is entirely in No. 10’s gift whether a debate and a vote takes place on a UK-US deal, a UK-China deal, UK membership of the transatlantic partnership or on a deal with Australia or New Zealand. Why should not Members of Parliament have a vote on those free trade agreements?
It is worth underlining that Parliament cannot make amendments to a trade treaty under the CRAG process as the treaty will have already been signed. Parliament can only object to ratification of an entire treaty, and that is very much a theoretical power—it is fantasy. There is also the slightly less than theoretical option of Parliament refusing to put into domestic law the different elements of a new trade agreement. Again, with a Government with an 80-seat majority, it is difficult to see how that, in any way, could be anything other than a fantastical possibility.
The Chair
Going forward, I am happy for Members to remove their jackets if they feel the need to do so.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West has given the Committee a tour de force that is worthy of parliamentary history. The Minister says it lasted an hour and a quarter. I hate to correct him on this occasion, because there are plenty of other opportunities to do so, but I made it one hour and 23 minutes, or possibly one hour and 24 minutes. It was slightly longer than an hour and a quarter but was very good anyway.
My hon. Friend made some incredibly important points about the amendments we have tabled, and about exactly why putting a proper set of parliamentary scrutiny procedures in place is so important. He described the 19 or 20 agreements that have gone through already, the lack of scrutiny of those procedures—some are more significant than others, such as the agreement with South Korea—the remaining 20 or so agreements that have to go through, and the prospect of having a scrutiny system for future international trade agreements. As he quite rightly pointed out, the framework of the Bill is to:
“Make provision about the implementation of international trade agreements”,
which provides the opportunity to get this right and to get it in place. That is why our amendments are so important.
In an intervention, my hon. Friend the Member for Putney absolutely nailed this as well. I do not want to play down in any way the importance of the one-hour-and-23-minute contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West, and her single intervention did not go into the depth that he did, but she made a very good point about the scrutiny of trade policy in this country and the fact that it is going in the opposite direction to that taken by almost everybody else in the world, at a time when international trade agreements are so significant and so far reaching. They are about so much more than trade, which is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West made later in his speech, when he described the way that our current procedures are based on the 1924 Ponsonby rule.
In an intervention, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs, who is no longer in his place, made the Brexiteer point about taking back control, in all its lack of glory, yet I am afraid he was wrong. The European Union had full scrutiny arrangements. This is one of the points about our amendments. We are now left with a complete absence of those arrangements, and the fact is that we should be looking to replicate, at the very least, what we inherit from the EU.
I will read from the EU’s step-by-step guide to trade deals:
“After both sides sign, the Council examines the proposal for conclusion and sends the agreement to the Parliament for its consent (approval)…The Parliament receives the agreement. The Parliament and its trade committee (‘INTA’) consult with representatives of industry, trade unions, environmental groups and other outside experts about the agreement. The committee:
• writes up a report on the agreement
• votes on it
…The whole Parliament votes on whether to give its consent to the agreement. This is a ‘Yes/No’ vote.”
We have nothing on that scale of detailed scrutiny to replace such arrangements in order to look at the agreements to which the Government want to confine the Bill, or for future agreements. We are left with a process of rubber stamping, not scrutiny. In his analysis, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West set out the dangers of that lack of scrutiny when he described in detail the evidence presented to us that only three of 20 mutual recognition agreement chapters from the Swiss-EU deal are in place in the UK-Swiss deal; that only the goods element of the Norway deal has been rolled over; that the South Koreans want to renegotiate after two years; and that only two of 11 products from the equivalent EU-South Korea deal have been included at the same zero tariffs for export to South Korea.
My hon. Friend also made some good points about the lack of trade negotiating expertise, which he said has been raised by the Japanese and South Korean negotiators. It has also been raised by the US and Canadians as a reason that they are reluctant to engage with the UK. They feared that the quality of negotiations would be so weak as to affect the outcome of those negotiations so badly that it simply was not worth engaging. Things have moved on a bit on the American side since they raised those reservations last year, but we still await signs of progress with Canada. It must be the role of scrutiny, as my hon. Friend said, to try to avoid mistakes that we will regret for years to come.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington made several good interventions, including on the need to avoid mistakes. He is quite right about that. If we do not get it right now, we will pay for years to come. However, this place is about not only governance, but representing constituents. We are the only 650 people in the United Kingdom with the ability to scrutinise and potentially vote on such matters in Parliament, which is why it is so important that we have access to that level of scrutiny and that Parliament is able to play its full part. That European system is a good place to start.
On Second Reading and on other occasions, the Minister described this as a continuity Bill, and he described my speech—I do not know whether kindly or unkindly—as a continuity speech on a continuity Bill. He is keen to play this as a continuity Bill, and of course, for many of those agreements, it is; where there have been only changes of wording to reflect that the agreement relates to the UK rather than EU, that is true and we have acknowledged it. However, for many other agreements, it is not true—it is far more than that.
That is also true of scrutiny, because we have not applied continuity to the system of scrutiny. If this was a continuity agreement, that EU system’s level of scrutiny would be replicated as far as possible, by having a Committee with those responsibilities, having that level of engagement and consultation on the content of the deal and having those kinds of vote. However, that is not what is being offered. That is why our amendments cover it as one option, because that is precisely what we should be doing.
The Library note is a good place to go to as it sets out what is going on elsewhere in the world. We have no formal role in scrutinising most treaties while they are being negotiated, but while they are being negotiated is the only point at which the terms of the proposed treaty could be amended. The Minister may well want to say this, but I will say it for him; I will anticipate what he might say. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West mentioned the statement on the mandate for the US deal. There was a statement on the mandate for the EU deal. There was a statement on the first round of negotiations—
The Chair
Order. I will now suspend the Committee for one minute of silence in memory of the victims of the knife attack in Reading.
Sitting suspended.
Bill Esterson
It is appropriate to pause and reflect at this time to remember that terrible attack. The thoughts of all present in the Committee are with those affected—the victims, their families and the emergency services and civilians who intervened.
I was referring to the processes of scrutiny on trade agreements, as the Minister might describe them. The statements that we have had—statements in general—permit him to say what the Government are going to do. They allow for a five-minute response from the Opposition, a three-minute response from the SNP and individual questions from Back Benchers. That is not thorough scrutiny. It does not allow cross-examination. It does not allow scrutiny beyond the Chamber.
There is a limit to what a parliamentary statement can achieve and what it does achieve, and the idea that written parliamentary questions deliver very much other than a stonewall from Ministers—this Minister is very good at that—would be laughable, if that were to be used as an example of detailed scrutiny. Questions in the Chamber are invariably met with an ability by Ministers to avoid answering them, rather than shedding very much light. The Government control the timetable, so the ability to debate in detail is limited. Of course, we have Opposition day debates, but we are competing for time with so many other urgent and important topics, which limits our ability to scrutinise.
Committees are important and they can carry out scrutiny, but without access to negotiating texts and without detailed engagement in the development of mandates, all these processes are limited by definition. At this time, when other countries are looking to expand—whether that is Canada, Australia, New Zealand or the United States—in all those countries there is far greater access throughout the process of the development of mandates and in the scrutiny of negotiating texts, and greater engagement of industry, trade unions, civil society, environmental groups and elected representatives.
There is a lack of continuity in scrutiny from what we have now, but, as the Library note sets out, there are at least four possible ways for Parliaments to be involved in treaties: first, by setting the negotiating mandate; secondly, by scrutinising negotiations; thirdly, by approving or objecting to ratification; and fourthly, by passing implementing legislation for treaties that need changes to domestic law. All those are covered by amendments. All those are what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West has covered in great detail, so I shall not go into that same detail on the amendments. That is set out for us in the Library note and covered by these proposals.
International trade agreements cover so much now that they deserve that level of domestic scrutiny. I thought the example of HS2 and the way its development has been subjected to massive scrutiny, compared with the minimal scrutiny of international trade agreements, made a pretty good argument about what is wrong and why there is the need to put this right. If not in the Bill, when?
Gareth Thomas
There is perhaps an even better example to use in comparing the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of a potential UK-US deal, or any other free trade agreement deal, with existing legislation. The Minister, as a London Member of Parliament, will remember that Transport for London sought additional powers in a private Bill and there was substantial scrutiny of that private Bill on the Floor of the House of Commons. That is vastly more than Ministers are planning for a UK-US deal or, indeed, any other free trade agreement.
Bill Esterson
That is another good example. I thought for a minute my hon. Friend was going to mention Heathrow, because the Minister, last time he was in this job, had to resign from it to vote against the Government. However, I think we are in different territory and the current Prime Minister and he were in the same place there, although I do not know whether the Prime Minister is talking of lying down in front of bulldozers these days—[Interruption.] I do not know whether the Minister will want to respond to that.
The Library note also mentions the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, or CRAG, provisions. The point about CRAG is that it does not require Parliament’s approval for the Government to ratify treaties. That is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West made. There is such a democratic deficit here, which is why these matters need to be set straight. In the previous debate on this in Committee, the point was made that Labour introduced CRAG. Yes, we did, but we introduced CRAG in the context of being members of the European Union and in the context of the scrutiny system that I described a few minutes ago.
CRAG is no longer suitable precisely because we are no longer party to that European Union system of scrutiny—which, by the way, we were entirely able to contribute to and to access as much as any other nation, and which was far ahead of what is being offered now, albeit concerns were raised about the level of engagement over the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership under that system. That is why we should be pushing for a better system than that of the European Union and the one we have just left. TTIP showed that we need to continue to improve the level of scrutiny and engagement, and the involvement of wider society.
There is no continuity in scrutiny, whatever the degree of continuity may be in the agreements being considered. The House of Lords amended the previous Bill to give Parliament a role in setting the mandate for trade negotiations and approving the final agreement, which goes to the point made in the Library note. The Command Paper that my hon. Friend referred to was produced in time for the Report stage in the House of Lords. Although the Lords felt that the Command Paper did not go far enough, it started to make progress, so I am keen to hear the Minister’s response to my hon. Friend’s question about what has happened to the recommendations in the Command Paper.
There is quite a lot of support on the question of what good scrutiny looks like, as set out in the House of Commons Library paper and as in the evidence from David Lawrence, who described broadly similar points. The written submissions from a number of organisations make the same point about debates and votes on objectives; reports back to Parliament on progress; ideally, the publication of texts from each round; a debate and vote on the deal after negotiations; a public consultation; and an independent impact assessment that looks at social and environmental factors, which is why we tabled new clause 6.
As my hon. Friend said, we have scrutiny measures from world war two that are completely inappropriate. There is no way, as David Lawrence told us on Thursday, that trade deals can meet high standards without more scrutiny. As to future trade agreements, he told us that unless we get this right now, there will not be an opportunity to revisit how we approach scrutiny.
David Lawrence said on Thursday that sequencing issues are not being addressed in the Bill and that there should be priorities in respect of when we legislate. That goes back to my hon. Friend’s point about the response from Japan, South Korea and Canada. They want to know what is in the EU deal before they reach an agreement with us. The EU deal, because of its impact on the agreements that we were party to through our EU membership, should come first before the US deal.
We need a level of scrutiny in place for those agreements and for the US deal, which will concern public services, digital services and regulations on health and food standards, which are the subject of a series of amendments that I imagine we will reach this afternoon. There are similar concerns about Canada, which is why greater scrutiny needs to be agreed to in the Bill. We should be able to consider the exact consequences of that deal. The scrutiny should be of the same degree and nature as that described by my hon. Friend earlier.
My hon. Friend mentioned Sam Lowe’s evidence and his three boxes. The problem deals are in box 3: Japan, Canada, Mexico and Ukraine. Those countries want the certainty of an EU-UK deal before they negotiate with us, for reasons related to future arrangements for mutual recognition or rules of origin. The examples that my hon. Friend gave of what has already been agreed in the deals with South Korea and Switzerland show what those concerns might be.
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend will remember that Professor Winters described the information he got back from negotiators about how the UK-Japan talks were going as “studiously” vague. Is that not a fair description of all the information we have had back from Ministers thus far about the progress on free trade agreements? That is all the more reason why this group of amendments needs to be in the Bill.
Bill Esterson
The arguments set out by my hon. Friend were extremely well made by our hon. Friend the Member for Brent North two years ago. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West has surpassed the formidable nature of the arguments made on that occasion.
Bill Esterson
Having sat and listened to both speeches—as did the Minister—my hon. Friend’s contribution has taken us to a whole new level, and the point he just made is exactly right.
George Peretz, QC made the point that scrutiny can help negotiators. Parliament just will not accept that point in this country, but the US uses that tactic. It is a strength to have the buy-in of Congress for the US trade negotiators, because they can say “I cannot agree that because Congress will not support it.” That is a standard negotiating tactic used across the world. It is used by trade unions that go back to their members. It is how good negotiators operate. They do it by having engagement, by building trust from their stakeholders and by using the strength of that engagement, trust and support as a negotiating tactic. There are many good examples around the world. We should be seeking to emulate them. These amendments give a good guiding light on how to do so, and I suggest to Members and to the Government that they seriously consider taking them on board in the same way as the House of Lords did last time.
Gareth Thomas
I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the document that he briefly referred to: the Command Paper, “Processes for making free trade agreements after the United Kingdom has left the European Union”. He will remember from that Command Paper Ministers’ commitment to have a close relationship with a specific parliamentary Committee in each House. They proposed
“to work with the House Authorities to establish which committee”
it should be,
“including the possibility of creating a new one”.
They go on to say that the Committee
“could have access to sensitive information”
that would not be more widely available. Has my hon. Friend heard of any update on the progress of establishing such a—
Parliamentary Constituencies bill (Third sitting)
Tuesday 23rd June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 View all Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 June 2020 - (23 Jun 2020)
Tuesday 23 June | Until no later than 9.55 am | Dr Alan Renwick, The Constitution Unit, University College London Professor Robert Hazell, The Constitution Unit, University College London |
Tuesday 23 June | Until no later than 10.20 am | The Green Party |
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
On a point of order, Sir David. Can I perhaps ask that Members be given priority to sit, so we can hear the evidence?
The Chair
That is what I thought would have been done. Surely the Members should be in the main body.
Mrs Miller
Further to that point of order, Sir David. Actually, perhaps the Whip can make room. Thank you, Sir David.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Robert Hazell and Dr Alan Renwick gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Professor Robert Hazell and Dr Alan Renwick, both from the constitution unit at University College London. We have until 9.55. They are appearing virtually, in audio only. Professor Robert Hazell, can you hear me?
Professor Hazell: Yes, I can hear you, and I apologise for being a disembodied voice. Can you hear me?
The Chair
We can hear you loud and clear, professor. Dr Alan Renwick, can you hear us?
Dr Renwick: Good morning. I can hear you very well.
The Chair
You have probably never taken part in one of these sittings before, and I do not think that any of us have done so in these circumstances, so it is a big learning curve for us all, but please relax and enjoy the sitting. Colleagues are not here to interrogate you. They are trying to get information out of you to enrich the deliberations that the Committee will begin on Thursday. Professor Hazell, would you briefly introduce yourself, please?
Professor Hazell: I am Professor Robert Hazell. I was the founder and first director of the constitution unit at University College London and I am professor of government and the constitution.
The Chair
Dr Renwick, would you introduce yourself, please?
Dr Renwick: I am Dr Alan Renwick. I am the deputy director of the constitution unit at University College London and I lead our work on elections and referendums.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
Q
“among the best in the world”?
Dr Renwick: Perhaps I can kick off. Thank you, Minister, for that question, and thank you to the Committee for inviting us this morning.
As you say, the boundary commissions in the UK are unusual in international comparison in the degree to which they uphold the principle of independence. They are appointed in a process that, on the whole, upholds that principle. As we said in our submission, we have some concerns that the safeguards should be enhanced, but the process that the commissions follow is independent of Government and of Parliament, as it should be. The principle that should be followed is that those who have a direct interest in the outcome of the review process should not be able to determine the outcome of that process, so it is proper that Parliament sets the overall rules but that the process is then conducted by the independent boundary commissions. Of course, it is also proper that MPs should be able to make submissions to the boundary commissions, as they do, but that the final decisions ought to be made by the commissions.
At present, the reviews are conducted by the boundary commissions, but it is then up to Parliament to decide whether to implement those reviews. It seems to us that that is simply a very clear breach of the principle of independence. There have been three cases now—in 1969, 2013 and 2018—when the review was blocked in one way or another. That is not a desirable outcome. Whether or not partisan or personal interests were involved in those decisions, at the very least the perception is created that they could have been. That is undesirable, and we now have boundaries that at least in England are based on electoral registers from 2000—clearly, they are very out of date.
We have a strong view that it is correct to have automatic implementation of reviews, which already works very well and without any problem in Australia, New Zealand and Canada. It ought to be introduced in the UK as well, alongside better safeguards to ensure that the current independence of the boundary commissions from Government cannot be taken away by Government in the future.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Q
“safeguards against a government that wanted to interfere are relatively weak.”
Of course I am not suggesting that that is the position of the current Government, but obviously when we legislate we need to safeguard against any interference by future Governments who may wish to interfere with the process.
You explained that you have various concerns about the Bill and you suggest various solutions to strengthen it. What action do you think could be taken to improve the Bill, in order to safeguard us from political interference? Also, can you expand slightly on some of the solutions that you outlined in that blog, for example an amendment perhaps to legislate to bar members of or donors to political parties from appointment to the commission, as is the case with local government?
Professor Hazell: Shall I answer that question? The first point to make is that the greatest risk of political interference is the one that Alan Renwick referred to in his first answer—namely, the ability of Parliament at the final stage to vote down the orders made by the boundary commissioners for their proposed changes. The strongest single point in our submission to the Committee is that in future the boundary commissions’ reports should be implemented automatically, without any opportunity for Parliament to intervene at that final stage.
As we also argue in our submission, however, there is a risk that once Parliament loses the ability to control the final decision, the Government may seek to influence the work of the boundary commissions prior to that final stage. I think, Ms Smith, that was the burden of your question, and in our submission we propose four ways in which the independence of the commission in future should be strengthened, mainly through tightening up the appointments process.
Briefly, those four ways are as follows: first, that in future the commissioners should be appointed for a single, non-renewable term, as with many other constitutional watchdogs, which I can enumerate if you want further details; secondly, that they should be subject to the same political restrictions as members of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, which performs a very similar boundary defining function; thirdly, that the deputy chair of each commission should sit on the appointments panel, as indeed they did last year in the selection of two new boundary commissioners; and fourthly, that the appointing Minister should be required to appoint only from the names recommended by the panel.
Therefore, we are recommending that paragraphs 3.2 and 3.3 of the “Governance Code on Public Appointments” should be disapplied for these appointments. I remind members of the Committee that those paragraphs allow Ministers in some cases to appoint someone who has not been deemed appointable by the assessment panel, and in exceptional cases Ministers may decide to appoint a candidate without holding a competition.
Mrs Miller
Q
Dr Renwick: One impact is simply the delay that is introduced into the process. As I said, at present we have boundaries that were first used in 2010, and in 2005 in the case of in Scotland, which are based on electoral registers that in England’s case date from 2000. Those registers are now 20 years old, and clearly that delay is undesirable.
Secondly, as I suggested, there is at least a danger of the perception that the process is not as impartial as it should be, and it seems to me clearly undesirable to create that perception.
Thirdly, there is the danger of the reality that the process is not as impartial as it should be. I do not think it is helpful for me to speculate on what the motivations might or might not have been for the decisions that have been taken on those reviews. Perhaps it is safer to go back to the 1969 case, given that no one involved in that decision is present any longer. I think it is fairly universally accepted that that review was blocked because the Labour Government at the time thought that they would lose seats as a result of the implementation of the review and therefore they did not want that to go ahead.
There are similar perceptions in the case of the 2013 decision not to proceed with the review and the decision in 2018 not to go ahead with the review, but I do not want to speculate on whether those perceptions are correct.
The Chair
We have at least six colleagues wishing to ask questions and only 14 minutes left.
Mrs Miller
Q
Dr Renwick: Some people have expressed a concern that, because the boundaries are old, they have had a marked biasing effect on election results. The evidence shows that, in fact, the effect is quite small. There are a number of factors that can mean that a vote cast for one party has more weight in the overall results than a vote cast for another party. The main factors that shape that are turnout. Turnout in Labour seats tends to be lower than turnout in Conservative seats, and therefore Labour MPs tend to be elected with fewer votes than Conservative MPs.
The second big factor is the efficiency of the distribution of votes across the country. Between 1997 and 2005, the Labour vote was much more efficiently distributed than the Conservative vote. Labour had tended to win more marginal seats and did not waste, as it were, lots of votes in constituencies that it lost, whereas in the last several elections the Conservatives have had the more efficient distribution of votes across the country. Those are the main factors that lead to biases in terms of the overall election result.
There is also some effect from the distribution of constituencies—both the distribution between the countries within the United Kingdom and the distribution within those countries. At recent elections those effects have produced small biases in favour of Labour, but those are fairly small biases. I am sure you will hear much more on this when you hear evidence from Charles Pattie and David Rossiter, who are the real experts on this, but the consensus in the literature on this is that that effect is fairly small. The effect that really matters is the effect on the democratic principles, not the outcome of elections.
The Chair
I thank our witnesses for their full answers, but I am afraid we will have to have very brief questions and responses.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Q
Dr Renwick: Both of the principles that you have just mentioned matter, and so does the principle that there should not be too much chopping and changing of constituency boundaries from election to election. There is no single correct answer to the question of how those different principles should be balanced. The Venice Commission from the Council of Europe recommends a maximum deviation from perfect equality in numerical terms of 10%. Currently, under the UK rules we have 5%. The evidence from Charles Pattie and David Rossiter, which I am sure you will hear this afternoon, suggests that something like a deviation of 8% would allow much greater account to be taken of local community ties and much less chopping and changing between elections.
Clive Efford
Q
Dr Renwick: I think there should be a maximum, but there is a good case for saying that the maximum could be extended a little bit without undue cost to the equality of the vote.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Q
Dr Renwick: What I am referring to is the guidance from the Venice Commission. My reading of that is that it implies a 10% deviation from the average. If we look at other countries, we see that in New Zealand the deviation is permitted as 5% from the average, and in Australia it is, so far as possible, 3% from the average, and not more than 10%. Therefore, numbers around 5% to 10% seem to be fairly standard. There is no answer that an academic can give you as to what is the correct number, but something in that region is appropriate.
Alec Shelbrooke
Q
Dr Renwick: The difference between Scotland and England is in the practice of the Boundary Commissions with respect to splitting wards. The Boundary Commission for Scotland is much more willing to split wards than the Boundary Commission for England. As I understand it—and you heard evidence on this last week from Tony Bellringer—it is very difficult for the Boundary Commission for England to split wards, because it does not have sufficient evidence to do that. It seems clear to me that, if you can split wards in a way that does not break community ties, that is a better way of achieving the balance between the principles of equality of votes and maintaining community ties than by increasing the margin. If the Boundary Commission for England were able to split wards more often, that would certainly help the overall process.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Q
Dr Renwick: No, I do not think so. I think the principle should be that Parliament sets up the rules in the first place that will allow the boundary commissions to produce a satisfactory set of recommendations, and that those recommendations should then be implemented.
Christian Matheson
Q
Dr Renwick: Yes, I certainly agree that 650 is a better number than 600, but it was Parliament that legislated to go to 600, so it needs legislation to make a decision to move back to 650.
Christian Matheson
Q
Professor Hazell: Perhaps I could answer that, if I may? We are suggesting both. We strongly support automaticity, as Alan Renwick has said. In conjunction with that, to bolster the independence of the boundary commissions, in our submission we propose four important changes to the way in which the commissioners are appointed. Some of those are already matters of good practice, which I am glad to say are followed—for example, that the deputy chair was on the panel for the appointment of junior commissioners last year. To prevent any backsliding, we argue that those four changes should be written into law, so we are inviting the Committee, if it supports the principle of automaticity, to say that we should also have those further safeguards written into the same Bill, in order to strengthen the independence of the boundary commissioners.
The Chair
Order. We have three people wanting to ask questions and three minutes left. Mr Linden?
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Q
The Chair
Before that is answered, can we finally have Jane Hunt’s question as well, please?
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Q
Dr Renwick: I can take David Linden’s questions and perhaps Robert can take the second question. I think the New Zealand process is too fast. In a sense, in New Zealand it matters a little bit less because the constituencies are only part of the overall electoral system—it is a more complex electoral system, so they can get away with it in New Zealand. I do not think that would be appropriate in the UK.
In New Zealand there is essentially one set of draft recommendations, then the consultation and then the final set, whereas in the UK we go through several steps. The UK system, which the Bill proposes to maintain, provides the appropriate safeguards and assurances that MPs and others can make representations if the original recommendations are not quite right.
Professor Hazell: To answer the question from Jane Hunt, yes, it is the case that although the boundary commissions are formally chaired by the Speaker, in practice he plays no role and never has. The commissions are led by the deputy chair, who, in each of the four nations of the UK, is a High Court judge, or equivalent. To assist the deputy chair, other commissioners are appointed by the Government; for the Boundary Commission for England they are appointed by the Cabinet Office Minister. The commissioners appointed last year, for example, were appointed for a five-year term, which is renewable. In our submission, we argue that future boundary commissioners should be appointed only for a single non-renewable term, because that is now best practice in relation to other important constitutional watchdogs.
I will mention three recent changes to the law to make the appointment of those people non-renewable. The parliamentary ombudsman is now appointable for a non-renewable seven-year term; that law was changed in 2006. In 2011, the Comptroller and Auditor General appointment was made for 10 years, non-renewable. In 2012, the Information Commissioner appointment was made non-renewable for a single term of seven years.
The Chair
Professor Hazell and Dr Renwick, on behalf of the Committee, I thank you very much for the time you have spent with us. We all feel cheated that we could not see your faces; nevertheless, we are very grateful for the evidence you have given us.
Examination of Witness
Chris Williams gave evidence.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
Chair, before we come on to that, we have had several references in evidence to the OSCE report. Would it be possible for the Clerks to get the link for that and send it through to members of the Committee?
The Chair
That is a splendid idea. Thank you for that suggestion. It will be done sooner rather than later.
I am delighted that Chris Williams is here in person. He is the head of elections and field operations for the Green party. We have until 10.20 am for this session, not as was indicated on the Order Paper. Mr Williams, please briefly introduce yourself.
Chris Williams: I am Chris Williams. I work for the Green party of England and Wales as head of elections and field operations.
Chloe Smith
Q
Chris Williams: I can run through our thoughts briefly. Thank you for the involvement we have been invited to have with yourself and civil servants.
We are supportive of the change to 650 MPs. We are also pleased that the electoral register data to be used has moved back to March 2020. A minor improvement would have been to move it to December 2019, but that is still a good move. Changing the future reviews to every eight years is positive.
I have some concerns around how the constituencies will end up looking in terms of representation of the communities that we want to see well represented as part of the system we operate within. The 5% tolerance limit is potentially challenging. We have some concerns around how all this will be perceived in Wales. The last speakers spoke about automaticity. I have commented on perception and the perception that any involvement from the Government could be seen as problematic without the ability for Back Benchers to stop any recommendations once they come back from the commissions.
Finally, if I have understood things correctly, in future reviews, the Bill says the deadline in any year for the commissions to report back to the Government or the Speaker is 1 October. In future, there would not be very long before a general election—just seven months. That does not give a great deal of time for reselection and candidate selection to take place and for smaller parties and independents to get their act together, so to speak. I think moving the date forward to something more like July before a general election would provide a bit of protection there.
Cat Smith
Q
Chris Williams: That is a good question. I guess I should say—I appreciate it is beyond the scope of this Bill—that the Green party does not support the first-past-the-post system, but one of the benefits of it is the very strong link between Members of Parliament and the communities they represent. If members of a community perceive that their constituency is of a very bizarre make-up, or that they have been stuck together for some convenience, that breaks down that benefit that currently exists with MPs.
Certainly from my experience last time around, when we were seeking 600 constituencies with a 5% tolerance limit, some very bizarre constituencies were put together. I looked at the west midlands make-up in some detail, and some of the constituencies were incredibly bizarre, with an awful lot of complaints. One was effectively a sausage-shaped constituency that was very, very long—I think it was the Birmingham Selly Oak and Halesowen constituency. The only thing that the boundary commission, bless them, could find to operate within the tolerance limit that had a community tie was a canal, but of course if you take that to its extremity, you will end up connecting some places that are very far away from each other. Giving the Commission the flexibility to have a 7.5% variance in extreme circumstances, where it is necessary, would help avoid some of those problems. I can see some real problems in rural areas as well, where I think a greater tolerance would really help.
The Chair
Just before I turn to Mrs Miller, I want colleagues who are sitting in the Public Gallery to realise that I am aware that they are part of the Committee. If they want to ask a question, they should indicate to me and then speak from the microphone, as Mrs Miller has done.
Mrs Miller
Q
Chris Williams: There is an argument to be made, particularly around Ynys Môn. I am worried about how all this is going to be perceived in Wales, with a drop of about 20% in the number of MPs, and I think it would be a softener if they see they have been treated equally with England and Scotland, with Ynys Môn seen as a protected constituency. There is an argument about taking into account other geographical features when protecting constituencies, but if you start to look at mountains or rivers, you then start to look at the height or width of mountain ranges, and you get in a complete mess. Certainly, there is a sea in the way between Ynys Môn and the mainland, which is exactly the same criterion that is being used for the Isle of Wight, the Western Isles and Orkney and Shetland. I think it should be applied in Wales as well; otherwise there would be a rightful feeling of wrongdoing to Wales.
David Linden
Q
Chris Williams: Our Scottish Green colleagues will have a similar position to you on the Union. I guess we come from a perspective of wanting every vote to have the same weight and potentially the same impact on an election, in terms of determining the future Government. The difficulty we have is that whatever we do with the process and with first past the post, there is always going to be some inequity between the constituencies, even if we have no tolerance or variance limit at all. By the time they come in, the numbers will still be different, because the data is always historical and never accurate enough. If we are going to go down the line of every vote being pretty much equal, and trying to make that as equal as possible within the system, it is very hard to argue for a great deal of difference between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I would say that a vote in Hartlepool is as equal as one in Ogmore but, at the same time, I can see that this might well bring greater arguments for further devolution.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Q
Chris Williams: I guess I argue that there should not be that inequity, except for protected constituencies. Every vote should be as equal as possible in terms of being able to influence the future make-up of the Government.
Chris Clarkson
Q
Chris Williams: Yes, unfortunately, but I think that we need to consider the Ynys Môn example. Giving the commission the flexibility of a greater tolerance limit will perhaps mean that places like Wales will feel a little less hard done by, and constituencies will be a little more representative of communities.
Chris Clarkson
Q
Chris Williams: I would agree with them.
Chris Clarkson
Q
Chris Williams: Unfortunately, yes. I dare say that England as a whole will not necessarily feel a huge benefit from about 10 extra MPs, but an area like Greater Manchester might well do so.
The Chair
No other colleagues are indicating that they wish to ask a question so, if that is the case, Mr Williams, before leaving, do you wish to add anything?
Chris Williams: I think I have made the key points. Thank you for having me.
The Chair
On behalf of the Committee, we are very grateful for the time that you spent with us. Thank you.
Examination of Witnesses
Professor Iain McLean and Professor Sir John Curtice gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Professor McLean: Thank you, Chair. I am Iain McLean, professor of politics at Oxford University. John—as he will say in a moment—and I are academics who have been working in this area for decades. I have been a witness at various boundary inquiries, at the fourth and fifth English reviews, never on behalf of political parties, but always on behalf of local authorities. I have published academic papers pointing out that the former rules were mutually contradictory. That was fixed in the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, and it is important that the Bill should not unfix it. I will leave it there.
Professor Sir John Curtice: I am John Curtice, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde. I have written, as Ian was implying, for about 40 years on the way in which the single member plurality electoral system works in the UK and the way in which the geography affects and has changed its operation in the post-war period. That therefore meets my interest in this area, which has been rather more to do with political ramifications of the commissions’ work and the boundary redrawing rather than some of the more technical side, on which you will find Iain much more expert than I, but I am more than happy to share my observations from the stats in which I am interested. I have written about how the electoral systems operate in virtually every election since 1979.
The Chair
Sir John, your voice is very familiar to us all. Again, at least as Chair, I feel cheated that we cannot see you, but never mind. Just so colleagues realise, you do not have to take the time, but we have until 11.25 am if you so wish.
Chloe Smith
Q
Professor McLean, you began in your introduction by referring to the rules having been put right in the earlier Bill and said that you would not change them again. Could you go into a little more detail on that? I am taking you to mean the rules that we find in schedule 2 to the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, which, as you will know, the Bill predominantly leaves unchanged. We—perhaps like you—think that they flexible enough to allow the commissions to do their work, but perhaps you could elaborate on that. If I may, I would then like to ask Sir John a question once Iain has had a chance to speak.
Professor McLean: The rules, as originally drafted in 1986, were mutually contradictory. Rule 1 said that you should not expand the size of the House of Commons, and there was an equality rule, the unintended effect of which, as it was then written, was to tend to increase the size of the House of Commons after each review, for mathematical reasons that I hope I do not have to go into now, although I can.
They are now expired because two things in the 2011 Act fixed that problem. It gave total priority to a fixed number of seats in the House of Commons, and because that overrules everything else in schedule 2 to the 1986 Act, the creeping enlargement of the House of Commons, which some people thought a problem, is no longer a problem. Secondly, within the other rules, the 2011 Act amends the 1986 Act by giving equality of constituency size priority over the other criteria, including local ties and respect for local government boundaries. Once that priority has been set—I am speaking mathematically, not politically—the contradictions in schedule 2 as it originally operated have disappeared.
I have looked at—with some difficulty during lockdown—the text of the Bill and I have it and the explanatory notes in front of me, via a rather dodgy connection to my iPhone. I have looked rather nerdily at the proposed amendments to the vital schedule 2 to the 1986 Act. From my reading—though I am not a lawyer—I would say that they do not upset the changes that were made in 2011 and, therefore, they should be left as they are. I think that will do at the technical level, although the Committee may have further questions.
Chloe Smith
Q
Thank you for that helpful explanation. To clarify it further, do you think that rule 5(1), the list of factors, does a good enough job of providing flexibility to the boundary commissions, given its place in the hierarchy of rules that you have just gone through?
Professor McLean: I may need a moment, Minister; I have just collected paper copies of the documents. Would it be in order to ask you to park that question and ask John in the meantime?
Chloe Smith
Of course. I am still driving at schedule 2 to the 1986 Act, which admittedly you do not have there in your papers.
Professor McLean: I have the Bill here; the amendments to schedule 2 to the 1986 Act are at the back, in the schedule to the Bill.
The Chair
Shall we go over to Sir John to give you time to absorb it all?
Professor McLean: Okay. I will be ready to answer your question, Minister, when you have asked the next one to Sir John.
Chloe Smith
Q
Sir John, thank you very much for joining us. I wonder whether you might be able to help us with our understanding of the data used for boundary reviews. They are based on electoral registration data; could you give us your views on the adequacy of that?
Professor Sir John Curtice: The short answer is that over the long run, from the various exercises—most recently by the Electoral Commission, and before the commission was created, by the Office for National Statistics—that have looked at the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register, we know that there are inadequacies in the register that have increased over time. Those inaccuracies are also related to certain circumstances such as having recently moved house, living in private accommodation or being unemployed. The Electoral Commission’s most recent report, for the December 2018 registers, said that they were 85% complete, meaning that only 85% of those people who should be on the register are on it, and 89% accurate, meaning that about 11% of entries relate to people who should not be on the register at the place that they are at.
The Bill makes no difference at all for all practical purposes to the rules for redistribution that were passed in the 2011 Act, but that Act places a premium on allocating constituencies with respect to electorates. We know that those electorates are less than perfect; I guess that if we are really now concerned about the mathematical accuracy of boundaries, what we should probably be worrying about is not the rules for redistribution, but ensuring that those rules are implemented more effectively by improving the accuracy of the electoral register. But that is a long-running problem, and I am not trying to argue that it will be easy to resolve.
Chloe Smith
Q
Looking at electoral registration data with its ins and outs, as you have just outlined, is it the right kind of data to base boundaries on—as opposed to census data, for example, or other kinds that you could conceive of being collected?
Professor Sir John Curtice: The problem with census data, obviously, is that it is now nearly 10 years out of date. You might want to argue that the ONS produces a mid-year population estimate over time, but it does not necessarily have the detail required to set up boundaries.
The second problem is that there is a disjuncture between residency and citizenship. If you went in the same direction as the Scottish Government by giving anybody who is permanently resident in the United Kingdom the right to vote, you might want to consider population as a reasonable proxy for that. However, as long as we are going to limit the franchise to British, Irish and Commonwealth citizens, given that this country has a substantial resident non-citizen population, you are probably not going to want to go down the route of using population. That, again, is tied up with the issue of the franchise.
Chloe Smith
Q
Professor McLean: Thank you Minister, and thank you Chair, for your forbearance. It is quite a jigsaw puzzle, but on page seven of the Bill are what you call “Minor and consequential amendments”. That is a mistaken heading; one of them is neither minor nor consequential. I will not comment on the addition of the county of Blackpool in paragraph 4 of the schedule; the only material amendment here is in paragraph 4(2): “for ‘596’ substitute ‘646’.” As Members know, that is one of the consequences of keeping the House of Commons’ size at 650. The number 646 appears in the paragraph because of the four reserved constituencies, which are islands exempted from the equality criterion. That is all good. What is not in here are the changes to the schedule of the 1986 Act introduced by the 2011 Act. I was in a position to check that yesterday.
The Chair
Order. I am slightly embarrassed, but I have to share with the Committee that the Bill available in the room is the wrong Bill. Quite how that has happened, I do not know. The Clerks will make sure that the right Bill is available for the next sitting. I was completely unaware of that, and unfortunately there is nothing I can do about it, I am afraid. It is a pity. Professor McLean, one of the Committee members will get the right Bill; it is on its way, and everyone will have the copies.
David Linden
On a point of order, the Bill that I am working from is the one we used for the Second Reading debate. That is not the Bill in the Committee Room. I do not know if I am the only person in the Committee using the Bill from Second Reading. Will you clarify that, Sir David?
The Chair
The ones that were on the table at the side of the room were wrong, but Bills from elsewhere are accurate. I am very sorry about that.
Mrs Miller
On a point of order, Sir David. Could I ask for clarification on the difference between the Bills? Is it material to our discussion? Does it affect the answer we might get from witnesses?
The Chair
My view is that it does not really affect that materially, but I felt that I should place on record the fact that the Bill that we had was not the right one.
Chloe Smith
Further to that point of order, Sir David. The Bill we should be talking about is the Parliamentary Constituencies Bill. The incorrect one is the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, a private Member’s Bill put forward by none other than my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone).
The Chair
This is surreal. I thank the Minister for enlightening the Committee. It was an innocent mistake. The hon. Member for the City of Chester has kindly now made sure that we all have the correct Bill. Professor McLean, are you now in a position to respond?
Professor McLean: It turns out that I always was; my document is the correct Bill. To reiterate, for those who are looking at the correct one, paragraph 4 of the schedule to the Bill, “Minor and Consequential Amendments”, addresses schedule 2 to the 1986 Act. That is the one that does all the work. The only material change that is introduced is one of the consequences of keeping the size of the House at 650 Members; after subtracting the four protected constituencies, that is 646. This ensures that the House’s size continues to be fixed absolutely. That removes one of the sources of the incoherence of the schedule as originally drafted.
The other source of the incoherence was that the electoral equality criterion, until the 2011 Act, had no priority over the local ties and local government boundaries criteria. Amendments to the 2011 Act, which is not further changed and is therefore not in front of you here, gave the equality criterion priority over the local ties and local government boundaries criteria. That remains unchanged by the Bill. Ministers and parliamentary drafters have not, therefore, by any mistake reintroduced any of the inconsistencies in the original 1986 Bill. I hope that that is sufficiently clear to Members, but I can expand further if people wish.
The Chair
There we are: the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Wellingborough inadvertently got some further scrutiny from the Committee.
Cat Smith
Q
Professor Sir John Curtice: The short answer is that the Bill is not concerned with the process of electoral administration. The process of electoral registration deals with electoral administration. As Professor McLean has just pointed out, frankly the Bill does nothing material to change the rules on redistribution, including on the basis on which the electorate is used to do that. I simply pointed out in my response to the Minister that there are limitations to the data. We know that those limitations are somewhat greater in, for example, inner-city constituencies with a highly mobile population, than in constituencies with lots of older voters and a more stable population. That, undoubtedly, is correlated to some degree with the political proclivity of constituencies.
As I indicated earlier, as long as we wish to make a distinction between permanent residence and the right to vote, and as long as we do not wish to have a national identity card system, it is difficult to think of an alternative to the system we have. The question therefore is whether there are ways of improving the accuracy of the register. One thing we can note is that although we moved from household registration to individual registration—a somewhat controversial move—it is not obvious that it has fundamentally changed the character of the problem before us.
Cat Smith
Q
Professor Sir John Curtice: The answer to that question, to be honest, is technically beyond my competence, in the sense that I guess the question that the boundary commissioners would ask is whether it is possible to get DWP data—which refers to the right to work, not necessarily to the right to vote—at the level of local government wards, which are the principal building block used by the boundary commissioners in building parliamentary constituencies. I would not be surprised to be told that the answer is no, but I do not know. Again, DWP data might rely on whether people have a national insurance record, but that is not the same thing as citizenship.
Cat Smith
Q
How can that balance be struck? Is the 5% tolerance most appropriate, or if we are not moving towards a system of proportional representation, should there be a larger tolerance, so that community ties are considered more important?
Professor McLean: For clarity, it is important to separate the question of proportional representation from that of the 5% tolerance, because they are different questions. As I evidently said in 2010—you have better recall of what I said than I do—a single-member district system cannot be proportional. That is a mathematical truth. Legislators must make a choice, and the choice that the UK Parliament has made is reflected in this Bill and many others: the single-member district system.
I do not think that it would be a good use of this Committee’s time to talk about whether the UK should switch to proportional representation; with your permission, Chair, I would rather duck that part of the Member’s question.
On equality, the Member poses an important question: is it correct that the equality criterion should override the other ones—the ones on local ties, and on the constituency boundaries following local government ones where possible? My view, which is an arithmetical view, not a political one, is that it is right for the equality criterion to override the others.
Becoming somewhat more political, my observation of boundary inquiries is that since local ties are not further defined in the Act, I have observed on several occasions that for a number of very shrewd operators, who will be well known to members of this Committee, Conservative local ties go one way, Labour local ties go another, and Liberal Democrat local ties go yet another. Each of them, because they are paid to do so, makes a plausible case before a commissioner, who in England is deliberately chosen not to be from the area. Moving on from the mathematics, my view as a political scientist is that the local ties criterion is eminently manipulable, whereas the plus or minus 5% criterion is not.
Is the criterion wide enough? In the United States the courts have said that as near as possible to 0%— not 5%—is the accepted tolerance for US congressional districts. So, it is possible to have a tolerance lower than 5%, but that is not in this Bill and it is not in the earlier Acts.
John Spellar
Q
Professor McLean: Well, since we have more time than we thought, we could have a discussion about US congressional districts, but Members may wish to move on.
Alec Shelbrooke
Q
Building on what you have just said, Professor McLean, about keeping the right size and in terms of communities, about which one can always argue, can we look at rule 5(1)(c) in the 1986 Act, which is about keeping boundaries in existing constituencies? My question, to both witnesses, is about whether the Bill needs to have some clarifications put in it, especially around what we are struggling with regarding the Boundary Commission for England. The evidence from the Boundary Commission for England was pretty much, “We are always going to try and do it with wards, and we will just get the numbers to work.” That overrides almost all the rules in clause 5, including geographic considerations. I gave the example of a North Yorkshire ward that one can only get to by completely leaving the constituency and spending a considerable amount of time on the road, but it would make the numbers work.
Can I probe your minds on the resistance to building outside of the wards, or, in other words, splitting wards down, as they do in Scotland, in order to try to keep existing communities together? What are your views on the different definitions of county constituencies and borough constituencies? How does that play into the building of constituencies? Does the Bill need further guidance to try to equalise the United Kingdom’s approach to how it builds constituencies, with the gold standard of Scotland being a good example?
Alec Shelbrooke
Yes or whoever feels it is more appropriate for them to answer it.
Professor McLean: If John is willing, I will go first, but John will wish to add something about the practicalities of the Boundary Commission for Scotland, which he has written about in academic articles.
The presumption against disturbing existing constituencies is no longer sustainable because these are based on electorates in 2000. Population movements, in what will be 24 years before the new constituencies are implemented, will make it impossible, in more than the odd coincidental case, to give any priority to the maintaining of existing constituencies preference. I think 5% plus or minus should be enough for the boundary commissions and the county-by-county inquiries to deal with difficult situations, such as the one the Member mentioned of a large, empty area in the middle of a constituency. I take it that that is the geographical problem that the Member mentions.
There are other well-known problems of estuaries, such as the problems in the Wirral area last time. Plus or minus 5% should be enough to cope with that. At the risk of sounding like a stuck record, I think it is right that in the 2011 Act, which this Bill importantly does not modify, the plus or minus 5% is given priority over the other local ties rules.
As to whether local government wards are the essential building blocks, that is non-statutory. It is the practice of the English commission, but it has not been the practice of the Scottish commission. I will now hand the floor to John to answer that part of the question.
Professor Sir John Curtice: There is a crucial difference these days between local government wards in Scotland and those in England. Scottish local government is run under the single transferable vote in multiple constituencies system. When that system was introduced, it was introduced without changing the number of local government councillors significantly. All the wards elect three or four members. As a result, every ward in Scotland was increased by three or four. That means, therefore, that the building blocks in Scotland are large, making it difficult for the Boundary Commission to respect more badges. There are one or two instances in England, such as Birmingham, where that issue can also arise, but it is relatively limited.
It is also true—this is not the area of my own expertise—that some entrepreneurial past secretaries of the Boundary Commission for Scotland have ensured that the Boundary Commission has a much better geographically-referenced database than the one in England. I was reading some of the evidence given to the Committee last week and that came out. I am tempted to say that that is one of the advantages of living in a small country: it becomes possible to administer things in finer detail. We have referred to county and borough constituencies. That only relates to the rules for expenditure. It does not otherwise make a great deal of difference.
Beyond that, I simply observe that in this conversation and this morning, and in much of what the Committee seemed to be talking about last night, seems to be about what this Bill is not about, as opposed to what it is about. The Bill does not fundamentally change the rules of redistribution that were introduced by the 2011 Act and implemented by the Boundary Commissions in their 2013 and 2018 reviews—sadly, neither of which were implemented. Apart from changing the number of MPs, it does nothing to change that—apart from a minor and perfectly sensible change with the rules about respected local government boundaries. I suggest that at some point the Committee might want to focus on the significant changes the Bill does introduce as opposed to the areas that the Bill does not propose to change at all. I understand, of course, that some Members may wish to unpick the provisions of the 2011 Act.
Alec Shelbrooke
Q
This comes down to guidance. As you pointed out, the large wards and the way they are managed in Scotland has allowed a more detailed approach. When you get to the arguments of whether it should be plus or minus 10% or 5%, I am seeking your view as to whether the arguments about the variations can be overcome by the guidance, which goes more explicitly to the Boundary Commission for England in splitting wards.
In the past, there has been a habit of them trying to form some strange shapes, like American congressional districts, just to get the numbers right, forming very strange communities. They have almost always then changed the first draft significantly in the second draft. The guidance that will go in this Bill, especially for the Boundary Commission for England, should try to avoid that situation.
The parliamentary oversight is going, which I believe is the correct thing to do. But we must get this right the first time and use this Bill to iron out these issues. Is this Bill strong enough, in terms of the Boundary Commission for England, to construct constituencies, which have an eye to what has gone on in the past, but do not end up with peculiar shapes and communities just to make the numbers work?
Professor Sir John Curtice: Can I respond to that? It is true that the current arrangements for parliamentary oversight do not make it very easy for the House of Commons to change the detail of the provisions. It basically has to say yes or no, and only after it has said no can the Government attempt to change the provisions of the Commission. That is the first point; otherwise, it is a guess on my part, but I would anticipate that now we are going to a House of 650 seats rather than one of 600, some of the difficulties with supposedly major constituencies may be less sharp.
The final thing to say is that even with us going for 650 seats rather than 600, the next boundary revision is bound to be a major one. Because Parliament has blocked both of the last two redistributions that it ordered, we now have boundaries that are 20 years out of date. We are also finally getting around to dealing with the differences in the allocation of constituencies to England, Scotland and Wales, so this is bound to be a disruptive redistribution. It will be somewhat less disruptive than it would have been with 600 seats, but it is bound to be disruptive, in much the same way as the one that was introduced in 1983, because that got affected by the direction of local government.
You might want to investigate the forces that have resulted in boundaries going out of date—that is, population movements, which historically for most of the post-war period meant people moving out of the inner city into more suburban and rural areas. The last analysis of this I read, which was by the expert Tony Champion, indicates that this has been going on to a lesser extent; it is notable that somewhere like London is now gaining population and is certainly not going to lose out from the current redistribution. Of course, nobody knows what is going to happen in the wake of the pandemic, but it is worth being aware that some of the demographic forces that have given rise to the kinds of inequalities we have been used to may no longer have quite the same force as in the past.
Professor McLean: If time permits, Chair, may I come in on part of the Member’s question, which was to do with whether the guidance in the Bill should be more explicit than this current draft? My view is no, for the following reasons.
The legislation is UK-wide, as you all know. As this discussion has revealed, the English and Scottish—and, may I say, Northern Irish—commissions have all taken different approaches to the local government boundary question. Those different approaches are all legitimate within the text of the Act that this Bill amends, and it does not amend that Act in any material way. Therefore, I do not think there is any need to give guidance to the Boundary Commission for England that, if it wishes, it can be more flexible in Birmingham and West Yorkshire than its predecessors have been. It already has that discretion; that discretion is exercised by the Boundary Commission for Scotland, and to pick up a point of John’s, if at the last review the Boundary Commission for England had invested in geographic information systems that were as up to date as the Scottish commission’s, some of the problems that the Member mentioned—which I know concern a lot of Members—could have been avoided. My view is that as the existing statutory framework gives the commission the authority to ignore local government boundaries if it has to, there is no need to change the draft Bill in that respect.
Clive Efford
Q
Professor Sir John Curtice: The research on this goes back quite a way, and the answer is “to a degree”. For the purposes of answering this question, I will go back 20 years psephologically, because the psephology of party support has changed so much over the past 20 years that this is not necessarily true now. If we go back 20 years, to an era when a middle-class person was markedly more likely to vote Conservative than Labour, and the opposite was true of someone who was working class—that, by the way, is not currently the case—historically, it had long been demonstrated that if you were a middle-class person living in an area that was predominantly populated by people in working-class occupations, you were more likely to vote Labour than if you were a middle-class person living in a more middle-class area.
There were two potential forces going on there. One is that, to some degree, middle-class people who choose to live in a more working-class area may actually already be rather more of a Labour disposition, but equally, it has certainly long been argued that to some degree, you are influenced by the social interaction to which you are exposed, so if you are living in a working-class community, you are more likely to be exposed to pro-Labour arguments than if you were living in a Conservative one.
Of course, the world has moved on in terms of the demography of party support, which is much less clearly structured by class, and social interaction is no longer as geographically bound as it once was and can now take place over social media. Iain may know more than me, but it has certainly been a while since I have seen anybody doing anything major on the extent to which community makes a difference. The only thing that I would say is that, undoubtedly, one of the reasons why MPs will always be concerned about any redistribution is that it upsets the connection between them and their existing electorate.
One of the things that we certainly do know—again, this may also be relevant to your question—is that if somebody has been elected for the first time at the last election and defeated the incumbent MP from another party, there is a fairly consistent tendency now whereby, in view of the next election, that new Member, who has probably just won a marginal seat, has a great deal of incentive to be representing their community and to be visible and so on, to get something of a personal bonus. You can see that in the way that the Labour party defended some seats in 2019, with newly incumbent, first-term Labour MPs doing well, and it was similar for the Conservative party in 2017. To that extent at least, yes, you can certainly also argue that a minority of voters—in some instances a crucial minority—will vote for their individual MP rather than for the party, but of course, if you get a boundary redistribution that carves up an individual MP’s constituency, that link is broken.
In truth, in our electoral system, there is a continuous and perpetual tension. We want our electoral system to do two things: on the one hand, we want it to provide local representation, and on the other, we want it to be a system that provides a means by which the electorate can choose between alternative Governments. I am afraid that I have spent the last 40 years pointing out the potential conflict between those two objectives and that, if you wish to ensure that the system is fair in the ability of voters to choose between alternative Governments, at some point you have to let go of the emphasis on local representation.
In a sense, the debate that we are having now about mathematical equality versus respecting community ties is a sub-part of that broader debate. Decide what your elections are about: if they are about the election of individual MPs and less to do with Governments, you can focus on representing communities; if you think that it is a system for enabling us to choose between alternative Governments, which is the traditional defence of the single member plurality system, I am afraid that local representation has to be given a lower priority.
Clive Efford
Q
Professor Sir John Curtice: That is what we used to have in the system of parliamentary representation when both boroughs and counties were represented and they were often of considerably unequal size. That comes back to the fundamental question about what we think elections should be about. Are they about providing MPs who represent communities, or are they a mechanism for choosing between alternative Governments? I am afraid that is just an inherent tension within the electoral system that we are looking at.
Clive Efford
Q
Professor Sir John Curtice: Well, you are assuming that the current decisions of parliamentary constituents in some way already play out in—[Inaudible.] As Professor McLean has pointed out, what we regard as our community is sometimes in the eye of the beholder.
Clive Efford
Q
Professor Sir John Curtice: There is a certain geographical concentration of voters who may or may not feel a sense of community, or who may in fact feel that they are an aggregation of many different communities. For example, I expect that relatively few of the constituencies in the far north of Scotland necessarily think that their constituency represents one agreed community, as opposed to a collection of villages. Indeed, if we go out to the Western Isles, where even the concept of village does not really exist, they will not necessarily think that the constituency is some clear, single, coterminous and homogenous community.
Clive Efford
Q
Professor Sir John Curtice: The truth is that whatever set of rules you come up with, you may discover that you have got a choice about exactly how you try to represent community interest. At the end of the day, you may well simply discover that whatever rules you come up with, you end up dividing some places that you think—acknowledging that there is a question mark—might be a community.
Clive Efford
Q
Professor Sir John Curtice: I think my answer is that, while you might make it somewhat easier to avoid some of the cries that “This community is being divided”, the fact is that—if you go back to the current constituencies—communities are divided. Do we think that some of the lines that are drawn down the middle of Birmingham or London boroughs necessarily represent a community boundary? I suggest that they do not always do so.
Clive Efford
Q
Professor McLean: I would urge Members not to go down that road. Of course, it is a political judgment for the Committee and the House of Commons. This is somewhat of a knight’s move answer to Mr Efford, but paragraphs 86 to 89 of the explanatory notes have a section about compatibility with the European convention on human rights. The criteria to be met are in paragraph 88 of the explanatory notes:
“The Bill maintains the principle of equal suffrage”.
The wider the margin, the less equal is the suffrage. That is the trade-off, which Parliament must decide to make. My view is that plus or minus 5% is ample, given that we have the device of protected constituencies. Of course, Members may wish to add to that number. I see that an amendment has been tabled that Ynys Môn should be added to the list, and Members might feel that Wirral should be added. Those are further instances of geographical peculiarities that might make the application of the 5% plus or minus more difficult. That is a political judgment for Members; as political scientists, or electoral mathematicians, we cannot say anything about it, except that those might be plausible cases. I would be against relaxing the plus or minus 5%, in the light of compatibility with the European convention on human rights, among other things.
The Chair
Before asking Mrs Miller to put her question, in a moment the Division bell will ring. Please stand to observe a minute’s silence for those murdered in Reading.
Mrs Miller
Q
What comments can be made about trying to future-proof any proposals, to take into account any proposed developments and house building, while noting that those cannot be taken into any analysis of the quota? Do our experts have any views on whether that should be taken into account with regards to the geographical boundaries, so as to avoid unnecessary disruption in the future?
Professor Sir John Curtice: There is a difference between the rules of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England and the parliamentary boundary commissions. The local government boundary commissions are permitted to take into account anticipated housing developments. I have had the occasional private conversation with people about this. You may want to quiz the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. The question that arises is how accurate the forecasts of house building and demolition activity are and the extent to which that ensure that the local government ward boundaries do not get out of date.
The answer to you is that it is certainly possible—see the rules of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England—but regarding the extent to which it is effective, you should ask the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, because I am not certain. There is a difference and you could anticipate doing a degree of that.
Professor McLean: May I add to that? It is rather unfortunate that there are two sets of boundary commissions with different operating rules. Although it is not in the Bill, I do not understand why there needs to be a separate local government boundary commission, in particular one that operates under different rules, as John has just highlighted, from those used by the parliamentary boundary commission.
If one had to choose between these sets of rules—the Local Government Boundary Commission for England permitting evidence about future housing developments and the rules currently before you not permitting them —I would go with the rules that are in front of you, for the same reason that I gave in an earlier answer. One person’s likely housing development, which may just happen to favour that political party could be countered by another person’s likely future housing development, which may favour another party. I feel for the poor inspector, who is, by construction, not a specialist in the area, and is faced with claims that are very hard to adjudicate. You can adjudicate numbers, but future housing development is much more difficult.
David Linden
Q
Professor Sir John Curtice: That is not difficult. Turkeys were persuaded to put Christmas in the calendar in 2011 but, when Christmas eve came along, they decided to abandon it. There was always going to be a question mark about the willingness of MPs to vote for their own demise.
The reason why we were to have the cuts in the first place is that in 2010 both parties in the coalition proposed reductions in the size of the House of Commons. That was a populist response to the MPs’ expenses scandal. In the end, the cut to 600 that they introduced was less than those in the two parties’ manifestos. Then, of course, implementing it became a victim in 2013 of the spat within the coalition over the failure to reform the House of Lords, and in 2018 of the anticipated inability of the then Conservative Administration to get the provisions through—because they were asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. I am indicating that that is a classic case of how, at the end of the day, it is difficult to persuade Members of the House of Commons to engage in a radical reform that will make their lives difficult.
By the way, given that you have asked this question, let me expand its scope slightly. This is an aspect of the Bill that matters, and this is the question of the attempt at automaticity. To make it clear, there is an issue about automaticity—that is, the ability of Parliament to intervene. Parliament intervened in 2013 and stopped the boundary commissioners working—that was the work of Labour and the Liberal Democrats together—and in 2018 the Conservative Government failed to push the provisions through. Back in the late 1960s, the then Labour Government got their MPs to vote down the provisions. To that extent, there is clearly an issue. Although we have a process of neutral boundary proposals operating under rules set by the House of Commons, in effect the Commons has on three occasions, under different Administrations, ended up not implementing the rule, so there is an automaticity question.
My concern, however, is that although the Bill might make it more difficult for that to happen again, it will not stop it happening again. Given that in clause 8 the Bill stops implementation of the 2018 review, going on to have provisions that supposedly make it impossible for Parliament to overturn things in future, the truth is that the same is perfectly possible for a future House of Commons—a boundary review comes along, the current Administration does not like it, saying, “Actually, we should delay it”, and all they need to do is to introduce a quick piece of primary legislation to overturn it.
As we saw with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act, it is very difficult to introduce provisions that discipline the House of Commons to keep to a set of constitutional rules, given that we do not have an entrenched constitution. Although all of us would laud the fact that the provisions of the Bill are an improvement, reducing the ability of Parliament to stop things, we should not fool ourselves into thinking that it will necessarily stop Parliament, not least because even within the terms of the Bill an order has to be laid—instead of
“as soon as is reasonably practicable”
at the moment—under the new provisions,
“as soon as may be reasonably practicable”.
I am not a lawyer, but the distinction between those two things still strikes me as rather fine on whether or not we could still be left in the situation that we had in the last Parliament, when the provisions were simply were not put before the House of Commons in a timely fashion. That could be repeated.
Professor McLean: I have very little to add. The automaticity may look worrying to some, because it removes the rule from Parliament, but parliamentary supremacy is mentioned in the explanatory notes and of course the Bill could be enacted and then repealed by a future Parliament. That is the nature of parliamentary supremacy. It would be very embarrassing—the mother of Parliaments, one of the oldest parliamentary democracies and so on: it is already very embarrassing that it is operating on the basis of 20-year-old boundaries and therefore we did not have equal suffrage in the 2019 general election, to put it at its most blunt. I would concur with John that Parliament could do it again. It would be embarrassing, and I rather hope it does not.
David Linden
Q
Professor McLean: It was bound to be disruptive once a uniform electoral quota was introduced for the four nations of the UK. John, the Minister, or others can correct me, but I think that that was done by the 2011 Act. The fact that, as has already been mentioned, the two instances of review that should have happened under the 2011 Act have not yet happened, means that that bomb, as it seems to some in Scotland and in Wales, was primed in 2011. It has not yet exploded, but it will with the implementation of this Bill; but that is a necessary consequence, as all Members know, of a uniform electoral quota for the United Kingdom. I cannot say any more than that.
Professor Sir John Curtice: Can we go back a bit on the history of this? The truth, as Iain will explain much more eloquently than me, is that he original over-representation of Scotland and Wales was entirely the product of accident rather than design. When the Scottish Parliament was introduced in 1999 by the Labour Administration one of the things that was done as a result was indeed to reduce the size of Scotland’s representation in the House of Commons—although it was done in a manner that was arguably technically deficient, and did not necessarily deal with the possibility that there would be future disparities between the growth in population in Scotland and that in England.
The principle of basically saying that Scotland’s representation should be proportionate to England’s representation was already embodied by the Labour party and Labour Administration at the beginning of the century. The same thing was not done for Wales because of course when the then Welsh Assembly was first created it had only secondary legislative powers, and it was therefore felt that the devolution was not on a scale that justified the reduction in the number of Welsh MPs. Given that we now have a Welsh Senedd that has primary legislative powers that are not commensurate with, but not that dissimilar from, those of the Scottish Parliament, as it were, what has already been done for Scotland seems to be relevant for Wales.
As to the actual effect, now we are talking about a 650 Parliament: by my calculation, which is based on the electorates as of the election—but, given we are now going to do the electorate on 1 March it will be slightly different, but will not be very different—Scotland is probably going to lose three seats. It is the last seat, I think, at the moment, that is tight between Scotland and England. At worst Scotland loses three seats. Effectively, Scotland is affected at the edges but not fundamentally, and the fact that Scotland’s political system and political representation is now very different from that in England and Wales is still likely to be heavily reflected in any new House.
This is essentially a redistribution from Wales to England, and then within England it is a redistribution really from a line from East Anglia southwards—as opposed to the northern parts of England. Of course one of the ironies of the situation we are now in is that because the Conservative party gained so many seats—they had the so-called red wall seats in the north of England and so on—actually the disparity in the size of the electorate between constituencies that are represented by the Labour party and those represented by the Conservatives is smaller than it has been at any point during these current set of constituencies. In other words, changes in electoral geography are changing the politics of redistribution. London is one of the places that will benefit; it is now a Labour city. The north-east of England, which now has a non-trivial number of Conservative MPs, will lose out heavily. Therefore, actually the redistributive consequences politically are perhaps not quite as toxic as we might have imagined 10 or 15 years ago.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Q
Professor McLean: A problem is caused when you are going by a regional area. The practice of the English commission has been to go by counties for some of its units, including administrative counties such as the former metropolitan counties that were abolished in 1986. That is a defensible practice, because the larger the unit within which you operate, the easier it is to reconcile conflicting criteria. Therefore, if you are in a unit of, let us say, three constituencies, one of which by happenstance is the right size and the others are not, it might be difficult to maintain the right-sized one and observe the other rules. If you are in a unit of 15 constituencies, one of which is the right size, the commissioners have more freedom to draw a map that retains the constituency that happens to be the right size while altering the others.
I said earlier that it is likely—I do not have the data, but John may—that there are now very few constituencies anywhere in the UK that are the right size, which is to say, one 600th of the House, given that we have had 20 years of migration and the disruption mentioned in Scotland and especially Wales. So I think it will be very hard to preserve existing constituencies.
Professor Sir John Curtice: All I can add is that I did look quickly at what statisticians call the standard deviation of constituency size—that is simply a measure of the extent to which the number of registered electors in a constituency varies between one seat and another—and that number is constantly increasing. Basically, there is now a greater difference in the size of constituencies than there was in 2017, there was a greater difference in 2017 than in 2015, and there was a greater difference in 2015 than in 2010. Although politically this redistribution may not be as dramatic as people on both sides of the House might imagine, there is no doubt that getting the constituencies to reflect electorate sizes is bound to be disruptive.
Bim Afolami
Q
Professor McLean: That is going to be up to the operating practices of the Boundary Commission for England if it remains non-statutory, and it is not proposed in this Bill that it should be given statutory instructions different from those in the 1986 Bill. Thinking on my feet, I think that with the exception of the Isle of Wight, which is not a true exception because it is one of the preserved areas, county populations in the south of England are sufficiently large that—sorry, we are not here treating Rutland as a county—
Bim Afolami
It is not a proper county anyway.
Professor McLean: If we take out the Isle of Wight and possibly Rutland, it should be reasonably feasible for the English commission to operate at county level, but that is an operating matter for the commission. At present it is not in the Bill. If an amendment to give greater respect to county boundaries were introduced to the Bill during its progress, that might imperil the equality rule, which the current law gives as trumps.
Bim Afolami
Q
Professor McLean: The only one of the four commissions that has possibly felt itself at risk under those conditions in the past is the Northern Ireland one, where there are deep issues of community and sectarianism. I am all for protecting commissions from that sort of pressure. Having observed the operations of county inquiries in England—I have never done a Scottish inquiry—I would say that the boundary commissions’ staff and inspectors have always maintained great professionalism. I would not expect that to change under the sort of behavioural issues that you raise.
Professor Sir John Curtice: I would trust the boundary commissioners much more than I would the House of Commons on this subject, to be perfectly frank with you.
The Chair
I would like to take the two final questions together because we have only three minutes left. First, Mr Matheson and then Mr Clarkson.
Christian Matheson
Q
Chris Clarkson
It is fine, Chair. My question is far too long for the time we have left.
The Chair
Splendid. Witnesses?
Professor McLean: To Mr Matheson’s question, I am not too concerned about this Bill, perhaps precisely because this Bill does not go into the level of detail that some people might have wanted. It does not give instructions to the commissions, for instance, to always respect local government boundaries or not. The commissions have that discretion. If this Bill is enacted in the rather spare form in which it is in front of you, I would not be too worried about the sorts of issues that the Member has just raised.
Professor Sir John Curtice: Yes, of course you are right that the rules for redistribution are always politically contentious. That said, and to give him due praise, the rules that are now being devised, in so far as how you allocate seats to the parts of the United Kingdom and within England, do follow the rules that Professor McLean was crucial in persuading the Electoral Commission were the right rules to use for allocating MEPs to the regions in the European electoral system. That can be shown to be the fairest way of doing it. On the first point, yes, you are right.
On the second point, as I have been keen to point out to you, if at the end of the day the House of Commons thinks a boundary commission has fouled up, it can still stop the boundary commission. Any new Administration, in particular, can stop it by simply passing new legislation, so you still have the nuclear weapon if you want it.
On the subject of political aspects, that is a part of the Bill that should be discussed; I am concerned that there is some political consideration going on here. Nobody has raised the point that the next review under this is supposed to end in July 2023 rather than in October 2023. No justification is given for that in the Cabinet Office memo or in the explanatory notes. The only explanation that I can think of—maybe I am being unfair—is that somebody is wanting to pave the way to make it possible to hold a general election in autumn 2023 rather than in spring 2024. Certainly, somebody needs to explain why the next procedure is going to be foreshortened by three months for a set of boundaries that are then going to be in place for another eight years, and this is not going to happen thereafter. There is no justification so far, and I encourage the Committee to inquire further.
The Chair
On that final note, which the Committee will have time to reflect on, on behalf of everyone, I thank you, Professor MacLean, and you, Sir John, for the time you have spent with the Committee. We have greatly enjoyed listening to you both.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Eddie Hughes.)
Parliamentary Constituencies bill (Fourth sitting)
Tuesday 23rd June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 View all Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 June 2020 - (23 Jun 2020)
The Chair
We will now hear from Peter Stanyon, chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, and we have until 2.30 pm for this session. Mr Stanyon, would you briefly introduce yourself to the Committee, please?
Peter Stanyon: Certainly. I am chief executive of the Association of Electoral Administrators, or AEA, and we are the professional body that represents those who deliver the electoral process across the United Kingdom. It includes some returning officers and some registration officers, but primarily it includes those who many of you will have come across, who actually deliver the nuts and bolts of the electoral process in the field. We are a body that represents their interests, such as liaison, training and the like, across the board.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
Q
Peter Stanyon: Certainly, Minister, and thank you. The key point is that these are the building blocks of the democratic system. The hard work is not necessarily directly to do with the elections process, but is more to do with the production of the electoral register. In terms of how the process works for administrators, the actual involvement in whether the proposals are right, wrong or whatever is not quite at the same level as that for local government boundary reviews. It is more about providing support to elected representatives and others regarding statistics and the like, to make sure that all the relevant needs are met so that the boundary commissions can come forward with their proposals, and councils and the like can make representations through the various processes available to them.
When presented with the final outcomes, the task starts. The key point is to revise the electoral register, so a lot of work goes on to ensure that the building blocks are correct. That does not just mean the parliamentary constituency boundaries—how they interrelate with local government ward boundaries, council divisions, parishes and the like—but, following on immediately from the constituency boundary changes, there is a need to look at all the polling districts, polling places and polling stations for the elections themselves. A lot of technical work goes on behind the scenes to make sure that on polling day, the elector arrives at their polling station in the correct area, with accessible venues and things like that.
One of the huge challenges—this goes back to the outcome of the previous review, which obviously is being effectively terminated—is the fact that each individual registration officer works in the individual building block of their local authority, but parliamentary constituencies do not follow those boundaries. One of the dangers of the previous review was that an awful lot of cross-boundary work needed to take place, which means liaising with neighbouring local authorities. That sounds reasonably straightforward, and in most instances it is, but it often means that different software systems are used for the electoral register and there are different working practices.
Although we all work according to the same legislative background, there are different ways of interpreting that locally. That means trying to ensure consistency across the piece, with the electors and candidates at elections receiving the right level of service and being able to be involved. Where there is more cross-boundary work, more elements of risk come in. Effectively, when it is under their self-control, it is a lot easier for local authorities to deal with those sorts of things. It is really a communication beast between individual registration and returning officers once the actual boundaries are agreed.
Chloe Smith
Q
Peter Stanyon: Absolutely. That came from Sir Ron Gould, who did an investigation into—I think, from memory—the Scottish independence referendum, where there had been some very late changes to legislation. Anything can be planned for. With elections, as you all know, the period ahead of the polls becomes very pressurised. A longer lead-in to any significant change—a constituency boundary change would be significant—is welcome, and six months is certainly the minimum that an election administrator would want.
In the case of these boundaries, the fundamental point to bear in mind is that the electoral registers will need to be reshaped and put into their new building blocks. Whatever the case, we have 1 December as the date the revised versions of registers are published. That is often the logical date at which we would want parliamentary constituencies to be reflected in the electoral roll, simply because it means a full change in the register, which helps political parties and candidates. It can be changed later on but, again, that makes it more complicated. The sooner it is said—the Gould principle is six months—makes it far easier for that communication and working across boundaries with different administrators. De-risking the process is far easier if we have that lead-in time.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Q
Peter Stanyon: If I were to ask for tomorrow, that would be helpful, but I am not sure that is going to happen. In terms of the lead-in periods, we welcome the proposed spring timescale for boundary commissions to submit their reports to the Speaker. An ideal timescale would be elections taking place in May 2023, with preparations for an electoral registration cavass kicking on immediately after those May elections finish. We would then certainly look to have something by early summer at the very latest, so that, over that autumn period, as the canvass takes place, the amendments can be introduced to registers in the time for the revisions to be published on or by 1 December 2023.
Cat Smith
Q
Peter Stanyon: Yes, I did. Ironically, the most accurate register of electors is arguably the register that is published with the additions the month after a major poll. In the case of the December 2019 general election, applications were flooding in, but what happens over the elections process is that people are deleted from the register as a result of returned poll cards information coming through to registration officers. Ironically, it is usually the month after an election, when the updates are made, that we have the most accurate version of the register. You may well see drop-offs from the register because your processing-through information has been returned to registration officers as part of poll cards going out, postal votes for deceased electors being returned, and other such issues.
One of the huge things with regards to the 1 December register is that it is not the most accurate and complete register—any registration officer will tell you that. Since the introduction of individual elector registration, the canvass does not register people any longer; it identifies potential applicants. As a result, whereas prior to individual registration everything took place during the canvass period and the register was as complete as it could be on 1 December, now the canvassing process seeps into January, February and March as it runs towards the traditional May dates. You will see fluctuations in registers that mean that the snapshot taken in December is not necessarily the most complete or accurate register; it is more likely to be among the ones that you mentioned.
The register on 2 March, which is being proposed, would provide a more accurate figure than that provided by the register in December, simply because it has taken account of all the additions that were made through the canvass and that went through as part of rolling registration ahead of the general election, and then cleansed the register as a result of the information gleaned from both the canvass and the fall-out from the general election. I hope that answers your question. I am not sure whether I got everything covered there.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Q
Peter Stanyon: Yes, certainly. The legislative background is that a local authority must subdivide every constituency in its area into polling districts, and then designate a polling place for polling stations. If there are changes to boundaries within a local authority area, they might not replicate the situation that is currently in place, so there would need to be a review of the provision to ensure that the newly defined constituencies and the building blocks within them are still applicable to the electorate at that stage.
We have just come to the conclusion of the statutory period for polling district review. The next one is due during the period between 1 October 2023 and 31 January 2025, when every single local authority must do this job. If a significant change to constituency boundaries meant that it was sensible to make those changes, there would be an additional layer to be done. Those same polling district boundaries are generally used for local government elections as well. It is about trying to get all the different layers of boundaries together so that the elector is, generally speaking, always going to the same polling station. If there is a combined poll, it is about getting the ballot papers for them in that particular station.
Alec Shelbrooke
Q
Peter Stanyon: There are instances where a review would be needed—whether that is a full review or a light-touch review—to ensure that the scheme is appropriate for the electorate at that stage. There are examples—this is from my personal experience—of where a boundary change has a polling station in one constituency but it moves to another constituency in a shared district because of the nature of the buildings available. That will add a degree of complexity, with two constituencies going in where previously there had been one, so there would be a need to make sure that each of the layers there still related to the constituency.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Q
Peter Stanyon: It is a local authority decision, generally in full council. It depends on how individual local authorities approach this, but there is a need within the statutory process to seek views from those affected in the area and those with special skills with regards to accessibility and disability, for example. Ultimately it is, in effect, a geographical and numbers exercise, but it also takes into account what is best for the needs of the electorate in that area, which is where the political aspect comes in, with the council making that decision for the subdivisions.
Christian Matheson
Q
Peter Stanyon: That much depends on the relationship between the local authorities. On the split wards situation, the returning officer responsible for running the parliamentary election in that area must comment on the review potentially undertaken by the other local authority. It very much depends again on what local practices are. The ideal situation for an administrator would be to have full control of all the areas—the subdivisions, polling stations, districts, staffing and so on —as that makes life easier for administrative arrangements. It is not insurmountable; it is purely about the local practice.
It gets slightly more complicated when we talk about combined polls. If you have a local government election and a parliamentary election taking place side by side, that adds to the degree of complexity. If it is a stand-alone parliamentary election, it is not quite as difficult to administer.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Q
Peter Stanyon: We welcome the fact that the Bill provides for an understanding of the situation closer to when the decisions are recommended by the boundary commissions. One of the big issues is that where ward boundary changes have taken place and the new constituencies follow the old ward boundaries, there is an awful lot of complication in trying to explain that to electors and trying to change systems to reflect a system no longer in place. When you look at a map and see a boundary going straight through the centre of a ward, you are sometimes puzzled about why that is the case. You go back to how it was, based on the previous situation. It is far preferable for the parliamentary constituency situation to be closer to that of the local authority, purely for the administrative reasons of ensuring that you de-risk the possibility of sending electors, postal votes or ballot papers to the wrong area. We would always welcome the latest situation, which is as close as possible to the review, being the one that is enacted and rolled out in the electoral registers themselves.
Chris Clarkson
Q
Peter Stanyon: In many respects, it is the certainty of what the boundaries are. One of the difficulties of the 2018 boundary review was that the boundaries had changed so significantly in some areas that it was trying to replicate them back to the areas themselves. Where registration officers are aware that a previous system—for want of a better phrase—will be the preferred system, as long as that is known well in advance, it is easier to administer than if there is a sudden change to something later on.
Chris Clarkson
Q
Peter Stanyon: Absolutely. It comes back to the electoral figures that are being dealt with. Certainly, the proposed reduction of seats from 650 to 600 exacerbated it. It is 20 years since the review was undertaken, so there will be significant changes in some areas. Over time, hopefully they will be negated as we go forward, but yes, it is difficult to cope with at the moment because it has been a long time since the last boundary review.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Q
Peter Stanyon: In local authority A, the electoral registration officer will cover the area for that local authority, maybe giving that register away. That is reasonably straightforward in terms of polling stations and the like, but slightly more complicated with absent votes and postal votes. There need to be agreements about who will be leading on each individual process. In some areas, the give-away authority will administer parts of the process for the authority that has taken it in, because of software incompatibility or different approaches being taken.
Most of the challenge is about: how do you mirror local authority A’s working practice on to local authority B? Despite the fact that the law that everybody is working to is exactly the same, there are local practices that are slightly different. That comes down to the real nitty-gritty of things like how many staff are appointed to polling stations, the processes used for the opening of postal votes and things like that. It is more an administrative approach that is difficult, which means that the respective returning officers need to communicate very closely with each other, to make sure that there is no element of doubt as to the way in which processes are administered.
Clive Efford
Q
Peter Stanyon: It would really depend on the nature of the split in the area, but, generally speaking, it is far easier to manage a constituency within a local authority area in which you are normally running elections. Equally, splitting down to polling districts, and going lower than the ward building block, may be preferable in some areas, but it could add different issues, depending on the nature of those splits. We would probably be able to cope with the odd one here and there, but if it were across the board of a local authority on a consistent basis, I could foresee that being as complicated as it would be across boundaries.
Clive Efford
Q
Peter Stanyon: Much of what is going on as we speak in terms of the changes to the canvass process is about data. As you are aware, the new IER process involves inviting people to register. More access to data that allows registration officers to target those who could potentially be on the register would be welcome, be that local, national or regional. It depends on the type of data source; equally, it needs to be the right sort of data so that register updates can be done in an accurate and convenient manner.
Clive Efford
Q
Peter Stanyon: I think the Department for Work and Pensions database is, at the moment, pretty robust in terms of checking. The Electoral Commission has done a lot of work on other sources that we have been a party to, including HM Passport Office and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Each comes with its positives and negatives; there are lots of pros and cons. One of the things we want to avoid is the provision of data for the sake of the provision of data, because sometimes the data that we already have is more accurate than the data coming in, throwing EROs off course in terms of registration.
Clive Efford
Q
Peter Stanyon: There are potential sources. We need to see the quality of those data sources before we can jump that way.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
Q
Peter Stanyon: It will vary across the UK. A statutory review must be undertaken every five years. One has just finished, and the next one is due to report between October 2023 and January 2025. In some local authorities, polling district reviews are undertaken after each major poll, just to make sure that the scheme is suitable. It depends on the fluidity of local authority areas.
Mrs Miller
Q
Peter Stanyon: They are separate, as some local authorities will have access to far better mapping tools than others. The simple answer to the question is that basically the polling districts are left to each individual local authority. How they are reported to a national sub-dataset may be inconsistent across the UK, unlike ward boundaries and constituency boundaries, which are on the public record. Because it concerns local authorities, they do report these things but there is no up-to-date central database of every single polling district sub-division, as far as I am aware.
Mrs Miller
Q
Peter Stanyon: I am not sure that I am qualified to say that GIS would be the answer to that sort of situation. Better and more complete reporting of where changes have occurred would be beneficial to all those involved in the delineation of boundaries, whether that involves GIS or something else.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Q
Peter Stanyon: That is a fair summation. The legislation is currently worded to say that you start at the top and work down; the reality is that most polling district reviews are based on working upwards, based on the availability of premises. The key point for any review of polling districts is that the locations—the polling places—must be accessible to the majority of electors. In the case you have described, the decision, which was presumably made by the local authority, is that there are two good venues with good accessibility, so it would make sense to use both venues in that situation. In other cases, there will be a surfeit of venues, making it far more difficult. It really depends in many respects on what premises or locations are available. In some locations you see temporary buildings, such as portakabins and caravans, because there is physically nothing else for returning officers to use.
The Chair
Colleagues, I know there are more questions to ask, but I must end the session now. On behalf of the Committee, Peter, I thank you for your time and the evidence you have provided. We are very grateful.
Examination of Witnesses
Andrew Scallan gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Andrew Scallan, who is the deputy chair of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. Andrew, please introduce yourself.
Andrew Scallan: Thank you. There is not a lot more to say. I am the deputy and I have been for a couple of years now.
Chloe Smith
Q
Andrew Scallan: We have a rolling programme of reviews. Typically, we start 25 reviews each year. Each review, of whatever type, has a certain process resulting in a set of final recommendations. Those recommendations are turned into an order, which is signed by our chief executive after they have sat in Parliament for 40 days under the negative procedure.
Our programme has been worked out. Our reviews take about 15 months. We have a very good idea of where we will be by the beginning of December., and we know where our timetables will take us with our further reviews. The reviews take a long time. We have some contingency because some of our reviews do not finish when we expected them to, because we put in a further set of consultations where there has been something particularly contentious.
Chloe Smith
Q
Andrew Scallan: It depends on how you define prospective, because for us it is our work in hand. We anticipate that 19 reviews covering 3.3 million people will be made before 1 December. Our work programme, at the moment, includes a range of reviews that will not be completed by 1 December. There are around 13 reviews covering 2.1 million people that will be close to completion but will not be ready by 1 December.
Cat Smith
Q
Andrew Scallan: Yes, we think that is exactly the case. It presents the opportunity to challenge; since 2010, there have been three discussions about our orders, but none has been overturned. They are either accepted or overturned, and the 214 that we have done since 2010 have all been approved.
Cat Smith
Q
Andrew Scallan: No. The polling districts are a very useful tool. Our relationship is very different from the parliamentary process. We engage with the local authority, and, as you will know, a feature of our work is forecasting five years from the date of our final recommendations, which is not a feature of the parliamentary boundary commissions’ work. We engage very closely with local authorities and talk through the methodology for doing that forecasting, and the polling districts are a useful building block. When people come to us with proposals, they will often use the existing polling districts to shuffle around, either to create new wards or consolidate thoughts on what ward proposals should be.
Polling districts can change—I know Peter Stanyon was explaining to you the process—but for us it is very rare that we have a change of polling district during our review process. Once we have come up with our new wards, there is the need for new polling districts to be created.
Alec Shelbrooke
Q
Andrew Scallan: From my previous life, the reasons for changing polling districts vary a lot. Sometimes councils take a policy that they do not want schools to be used for polling districts, which then requires other public buildings or even locations for temporary buildings to be thought through.
In terms of what goes through our mind, the legislation is clear that we can carry out a range of reviews. Some are periodic, and those are the ones where we try to go around the country, bearing in mind the number of authorities that we deal with. We also include two-tier county councils, which do not feature in the stats that the parliamentary boundary commission will use, but they are nevertheless a feature of our workload. We have periodic reviews, we have those that can be asked for by Ministers, and local authorities can sometimes request a review because they have chosen, for example—perhaps as part of an election manifesto—to reduce the size of the council. We will go in and start the review process, which for us has a series of starting points.
First, what will the council size be? Unlike with the parliamentary boundary commissions, that is a local discussion that takes place, during which we invite local authorities to think about what their governance arrangements should be. A figure is then arrived at, and we use that to divide the forecast electorate to work out what the average number of electors per councillor should be. That sets the ball rolling.
The other features involved will be whether a local authority has one, two or three-member wards, or a mixture of those. In the starting of our process, we invite local authorities and others to put in their suggestions about what the warding arrangements might be using those divisors, because we cannot claim to know every local authority in detail. We invite wide representation for local authority-wide schemes, but also from residents’ groups and community groups, who are only concerned about their own particular patch within their local authority.
Alec Shelbrooke
Q
“Whilst we support the concept of using the most up-to-date local government boundaries, the Committee will appreciate our concern that doing so should not, unintentionally, compromise the independence and integrity”
of our review programme, which I entirely agree with. Is it your opinion that it is vital for the boundary commission to try to stick to wards, or do you think that is irrelevant? It is useful, but with your five-year timetable and their eight-year timetable and things moving apart, do you think it really matters to constituents if the ward boundaries change and do not quite match constituency boundaries? Do you think that we are trying to blend a round hole and a square hole together?
Andrew Scallan: I am trying to work out what a round hole and a square hole together might look like. There is a real challenge. I do not wish to complicate matters, but in the work that we do, we also take a strong view about the arrangements that exist for parish councils, which vary enormously in size and scope. As well as polling districts, as part of our test around effective and convenient local government, we try not to cause too much disruption to parish councils.
People’s strength of feeling varies enormously and I would not like to generalise. We know that people are concerned about the names of wards. We often get people very agitated about that, which you would not necessarily expect, given that they are overlaid on the real map of any local authority area.
The important point for any organisation dealing with boundaries is to try to explain why they have arrived at the decisions that they have arrived at. For a ward, it might be entirely appropriate to include a ward that has, for example, a major road down the middle of it. If that ward is split by that major road for parliamentary purposes, that needs to be properly explained in the formulation of it. It may well be that that will cut a community in two, but it may also be the only way to balance the criteria that we always juggle with, which is trying to get the electorate as close as possible to whatever quota we work to.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Q
Andrew Scallan: The strength of views in Cornwall is well known. In terms of our work, it was all self-contained in Cornwall. We try not to get involved in discussions about parliamentary boundaries when we are doing our reviews, not least because we do not want to confuse anyone, especially the community groups that we are dealing with. We have no view about crossed boundaries. We work to our legislation, which basically tells us to stay within local authority boundaries.
The Chair
If there are no other questions from Committee members, I thank you, Mr Scallan, for the time you have spent with us. We are most appreciative of the evidence you have given us.
Examination of Witness
Darren Hughes gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Darren Hughes: Good afternoon, Chair. My name is Darren Hughes. I am the chief executive of the Electoral Reform Society. We are an independent, non-partisan research and campaigns organisation founded in 1884. Basically, we work towards fair voting rules, principally through proportional representation in the House of Commons, but also on other democratic issues where we can encourage participation. We have quite a strong belief that we should write rules that are technical and fair and that will suit political actors and players when times are good and bad, so that there is never any question about their being written in a way that favours one particular side.
We referred to accents. My accent is a New Zealand one. I served three terms in the New Zealand Parliament, so I am happy to answer any questions that Members might have about New Zealand’s experience with boundaries as well.
Chloe Smith
Q
Darren Hughes: Sure thing. We welcome the change to go back to the future, as it were, with the 650 number. We were quite concerned, at the time that was being looked at, that it would have resulted in quite a high proportion of the Commons being MPs who were also on the Government payroll, which would lower the scrutiny aspect of the legislative side of the role of Members of Parliament. It would also have made the Commons even more out of proportion with the second Chamber, the membership of which gallops along at an alarming pace. I think it is better to have gone for 650.
On some of the differences, in New Zealand there has been more of a philosophical decision that a Member of Parliament’s local duty is to every citizen resident in their constituency, regardless of their age and so on, so constituency size is entirely based on the census figures, rather than on the number of people on the electoral register. We have a long-held view that a lot of constituency casework is irrelevant to the age or electoral status of the citizen in front of the MP. That is a difference.
Another difference that may be of interest is that it is so important that these things are done in a clear, straight, technically correct, robust and honest way. If you lose control of these sort of things, you will live to regret it for a very long time indeed, so it is so important to get it right. However, we also cannot deny that there is a political dynamic to the entire process. Very few industry players get the opportunity to sit around and come up with the rules for their own industry in quite the way that parliamentarians do. You are the guardians of the whole society, so recognising some of the realities there can sometimes take some of the tension out.
In New Zealand, on the Representation Commission, which is a boundary commission equivalent, in addition to those members chosen based on the positions that they hold, such as the surveyor general for mapping, the Government Statistician from our Office for National Statistics equivalent and so on, the Prime Minister is asked to nominate a representative on behalf of governing parties—I say that plural, because in New Zealand a collection of parties run the Government—and the Leader of the Opposition is invited to appoint somebody to represent Opposition parties, or to at least bring their perspectives to bear. They are obviously rightly in a numerical minority, but that blends some of those technical aspects with the political reality.
I should also say that there are reserved constituencies like those discussed this morning, in that seven constituencies are reserved for Maori indigenous voters who register on that roll. Again, taking into account some of the unique identifying features of our polity is quite an important point.
Chloe Smith
Q
Darren Hughes: Yes. Forgive me; I should have touched on that. That is very important. That takes it out the perception or, in some examples, as Professor Curtice pointed to, the reality of political interference, based on what was happening at that particular time in politics.
As I said earlier, there are a handful of laws and rules and conventions that really need to be able to stand the test of time, regardless of any particular party’s fortunes—whenever you start to decide based on that, it is not long before it blows up in the face of those who have done it; they certainly regret it down the line. Putting that in place is important.
That is at the end of the process, and I think it creates a huge responsibility at the beginning of the process to get the scope right and the membership of the commission right, because it is handing a lot of power and say, in a democratic sense, to that institution. That is why you need to spend some time thinking about who should go on it, how long they should be there for and how you balance the need for straight demographic information versus community interests versus the political dimension that exists.
One thought I had on that was that we have consultation periods, but as we all know, consultation can be a small number of very squeaky wheels that take up the opportunity, and are then painted as being “the community”. Given the recent narrow interest in parliamentary boundaries, this might be an area for some of the more innovative techniques for consulting publics, such as citizens’ juries and deliberative democracy mechanisms, where you could take randomly selected citizens for a particular region and use them as a way of consulting. Then actual people could tell you whether they thought a bridge being in one constituency or another really mattered, as opposed to those who take the initiative to write the letter and subsequently take on a cloak of authority when they may represent a tiny fraction of the real population.
Chloe Smith
Q
Can I round off my international comparison questions by checking whether New Zealand or any other countries that you are aware of also run with a judge-led process, securing a high level of independence, as we do in this country?
Darren Hughes: That has been a feature in New Zealand, and I know it is in other jurisdictions as well. One of the dilemmas to resolve is whether you draw up a list of positions you want to serve on the commission and to make the decisions—and in that sense you are blind to whoever the postholder happens to be when the review is done—or whether there are particular people who you think have the skills and strength and integrity to run the decision process for that particular round. That is something for the Committee to think about, because if you nominate particular positions, you always know who will be responsible for the decision, seeing as there will not be that final parliamentary vote, and that may have an impact on recruitment decisions, because those extra responsibilities are thought about. Alternatively, if there are particular people deemed appropriate for that time, that might reflect on whether or not it is judge-led, or whether there is some other structure that might be important.
Rounding off on that point, what you have to have at the back of your mind when coming up with these systems is what happens if they fall into the hands of a bad actor or a disruptive actor, or somebody who says, “This is just a bunch of conventions. It’s not really written down anywhere. We can drive a lorry through this.” The UK system is so trusted and has not gone down the Americanised gerrymander system, so that has got to be protected at all costs. That might lead you to want to be a little bit more prescriptive at the beginning, seeing that you are conceding that final vote at the end.
Cat Smith
Q
Darren Hughes: There are so many strong arguments on the threshold question. We would come down in favour of a higher threshold than the plus or minus 5%, to be able to offer some flexibility in that sense. There are two competing ways of looking at this. On the one hand, who are the people for whom communities of interest are important with respect to parliamentary boundaries? The answer is: every single Member of Parliament and all the people who are in that orbit of representation, democratic work and politics. Outside of the campaign periods, the boundaries themselves, for the most part, do not have enduring appeal or identity. It has always struck me that, on a basic thing that people need to do all the time—think about where they are going to rent or buy a property—Zoopla does not make a big thing of telling you what parliamentary constituency you will be in if you move to this particular accommodation, whereas it will talk about the borough, the schools and the other services that are available. It makes sense to, as best as possible, come up with sensible communities for a constituency because the Member of Parliament will need to be doing a lot of important work there. However, I do not think you want to stretch it too far to pretend that people’s connection to a particular constituency is the most important thing. One way of dealing with that might be to look at the threshold question.
Chris Clarkson
Q
I want to pick up on a couple of points that have been raised. In terms of the 5% electoral quota and splitting communities, going back to the Maori electorates—which I think are arrived at by dividing the South Island’s population by 16 and then applying to the Maori electoral register—they do lead to some splitting of communities and they still stay within the 5% boundary. Is that correct? I am thinking, for example, of Te Tai Tonga, which covers the entire South Island and only part of Wellington.
Darren Hughes: That is mostly right. The number of constituencies for the South Island is set: the population on the census is taken, divided by 16, and that gives you your quota for North Island seats, plus or minus. That number is demand driven by the number of Maori New Zealanders who decide to register on the Maori electorate. For a long time, only about 50% of people did that. It has gone up a lot more in recent times and that is why it has gone from only four seats up to seven, because it is demand driven. It comes off the back of that quota formula that you quote. Therefore—remembering that New Zealand is the same geographic size as the UK—one constituency is the entire South Island plus Wellington in the North Island.
Chris Clarkson
Q
Darren Hughes: Well, they have to work incredibly hard, not just because of the geographic size, but because those constituencies will cover more than one iwi—one tribe. Finding a single Member of Parliament to represent such a broad number of Maori interests, views and citizens is a tough challenge. However, Maori electors are also on the general roll and so will have access to a general electorate Member of Parliament. Also, because New Zealand has used proportional representation for the last quarter of a century, all the political parties of size will have a significant number of Maori Members of Parliament on the list as well. I think that mixed model has certainly led to more Maori Members of Parliament being elected than there were under the previous system. For the actual geographic seats, the burden of size is absolutely something they would all willingly concede.
Chris Clarkson
Q
Darren Hughes: With the boundaries here we have to talk about the single-member “winner takes all” voting system. That means that many millions of people either vote for a candidate who does not win or a winner who did not need their votes. Those votes are not translated into representation. If we had the single transferable vote, you would draw the boundaries differently. Of course, they would be geographically bigger, but you would be electing a team of Members of Parliament to cover that geographic area.
That could also be of assistance for local government. As you are aware, Scotland has had the single transferable vote system of proportional representation for local government for quite some time, and that has better reflected the political views of Scotland, in terms both of parties and of communities of interest. I think it would be great to have parliamentary constituencies for which we did not expect just one person, on a plurality of the vote, to represent absolutely everybody in the area. That is too big a challenge for just one person when such quality alternative arrangements exist.
Chris Clarkson
Q
Darren Hughes: I think that ties into the way in which the boundaries are drawn up. Using the electoral register imposes a responsibility to make sure that it is as accurate and complete as possible, so that those decisions about fairness can be looked at. In that respect, we know that, no matter how you slice it, millions of people are not on the register. Some of the work that has been done on promoting automatic voter registration—the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust published a paper in April looking at how we can make sure that we find as many citizens as possible and get them on the electoral register—would achieve a lot for a fairer electoral administration, which would then leak through into the kind of decisions that would need to be taken by the boundary commissioners.
Chris Clarkson
Q
Darren Hughes: Yes, provided that we are talking about things such as the electoral register being more accurate and complete by taking proactive measures, for example automatic voter registration. Keeping the number of seats at 650 adds to that argument. So yes, but with the important caveat that you mentioned: this is not a system that we would choose if it were over the last—[Inaudible.]
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Q
Darren Hughes: These questions on the Union are very interesting. In our three most recent general election reports, we have been tracking the movement between the nations at elections. In addition to some of the class voting changes that Professor Curtice talked about this morning, we think that those issues of the politics and the psephology of the nations of the UK are certainly worth more attention than they probably get.
The most obvious point with respect to the Bill is that it makes a bad situation slightly better, in the sense that at once stage Wales would have fallen to 28 seats from its current 40 under the cut to 600 seats. I guess that it is important to recognise the effects of the Bill in that regard. Even so, the impact on Scotland is not exactly clear, but it would certainly be a reduction, maybe in the order of two or three seats, while in Wales, it would be more like eight. That becomes quite a significant proportion of the representation.
One thought that we have had about that, though, comes back to the previous answer that I gave to Chris Clarkson about the electoral register and making sure that more people are on it in areas where there might be under-registration or non-registration, in order to boost the entitlement to more constituencies.
David Linden
Q
Darren Hughes: I think that is exactly right. These processes give us the opportunity to say, “What would the rules be and how would they apply in the majority of cases?”, and then, “Where are the outliers, whereby if we did apply the rules we could congratulate ourselves on the consistency?”, but actually we are creating a brand new representation injury, by making politics and representation so distant from people.
As we were discussing with the last set of questions, if we had multi-Member wards, these things could be addressed. Obviously, you cannot change the geographic challenges of some areas—they simply cannot be addressed by any system—but you can make decisions to make the situation worse, and sometimes that is what tends to happen.
If there was a multi-Member system, that would be of assistance, but it is also important to carve out the ability for the commissioners to look at a particular constituency and say, “This just doesn’t make sense.” Equally, you could not make a decision based on those examples and then necessarily apply it to the rest of the UK, because that would create further injustices as well. Until we know more about the effect of the new regime, given that by the time we get to the next election it will be nearly a quarter of a century since the 2000 dataset that is being used, that needs to be part of the consideration. But you point to examples or rules that you could use that would minimise that.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
Q
One of the things we heard this morning was that US congressional districts had close to zero margin of deviation around population size, and one of the points that you made was that when people buy a house, or look on Zoopla, they are not given information about their political constituency, but they are given other very local information, for example school proximity. I just wondered whether there was any sort of empirical basis that you had in mind when you said that you thought that the 5% range, if I can call it that, was not sufficient.
Darren Hughes: Sure. The American examples are obviously the extreme ones, but they are ones to bear in mind, because they are examples of what can happen if you set hard and fast rules, so they apply everywhere no matter what, and then you also allow for a rampant politicisation of the process.
There is an author called David Daley who has written a couple of books, which are incredibly readable and accessible, about how the boundary system in American got to the state it is in. Unfortunately, one of them has such a colourful title that you will need to google it; I could not possibly say it in this forum.
However, regarding your point about the 5% versus the 10% range, these are the areas where you can go round in a lot of circles, because there are arguments in favour of each range. I just feel that if you could offer reasonable flexibility to the commission, what you would hope is that the practice would develop and that it gives them an extra tool when a particular geographic situation confronts them, as opposed to just starting out by saying, “We’ll flex our muscles wherever we can.” The thinking on that was that they are the final line in the arguments, but because you are not having that final parliamentary vote and you are not getting the commissions to do the work, it might make sense to offer them those tools.
Laura Farris
Q
Darren Hughes: I do agree with that analysis. Sometimes things are important but not very popular, or not very—[Inaudible]— or not very engaging. When we conduct elections, they are very important to millions of people, which is why around two thirds of people on the register turn out. We all wish that that was higher, but there is still a lot of interest in elections. Some of the mechanics of how we build the demographic architecture does not result in a huge amount of engagement. I think that on parliamentary boundaries, if you were wanting to involve them in a submission process, you either hire somebody to run that for you or you ensure that tweets and letters go out and so on. As I said before, it takes on an incredible cloak of authority for that community, even though it might not be entitled to the status that it receives. I agree that it is possible to happen, and I think in some cases the community argument is very strong, but in a lot of cases it is a shield for more of a partisan argument for that particular electoral cycle, which, as I say, is the sort of thing we should avoid.
Being able to have things like citizens’ juries or —[Inaudible]—citizens who are asked to come together to assist the commissions with information, with their feelings and the values of that area, and with people saying what they think the community interests really are, might be a more real way of being able to include the community, getting better quality information and ensuring that the final decisions reflect the reasonable view of the public, as opposed to those who knew that the consultation was on.
Clive Efford
Q
Darren Hughes: I do not know, is the answer to that. I assume not, but sometimes when these processes are going on for a long period of time, and if people are appointed who might not have a lot of experience in dealing with active organised citizens pushing a particular view, these are the risks you run. It might not be the case in every cycle, but you would want to make sure that organised political activity dressed up as the concerned citizen was not able to take hold. That is an important thing. Secondly, if there are mechanisms to get very good quality information about what the general public think, like deliberative consultation processes enable you to do, that is pretty rich information for the commissioners to receive in addition to the demography data that they would be using as well.
Clive Efford
Q
Darren Hughes: Not that I can provide you with right now, no. I have never sat on one of those commissions, so I do not have personal experience there. There is plenty of both academic and more political-style literature that is available to describe some of the tactics that can go on. All I am saying is that those things are really easy to avoid, and we should build it into the process.
Clive Efford
Q
Darren Hughes: The main suggestion I have on that would be to move proactively to an overt position of automatic voter registration where we basically said that every time a citizen makes contact, or touches base in any way, with the Government or Government agencies, there is an ability to register—and that that is proactively put to people: we do work with people before they attain registration age to explain what democracy is, why participation is important and how you can have your say, and we really try to increase the amount of information that our younger citizens have. Then, with an automatic voter registration model where they would go on the register, you would hope that that would lead to participation in elections. Even if it did not, it would then get more accurate and complete data for the drawing up of boundaries.
I think some improvements were made by using other sources of Government data and requiring DWP involvement when the IER changes were made. That is coming up to 10 years ago, so now the next step is to say, “What could we do to be more proactive?” I think this paper that the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust has produced on automatic voter registration would be a good place to start.
Clive Efford
Q
Darren Hughes: I suppose it would be political involvement at both levels, would not it? It was the decision to propose going from 650 to 600, and then another decision to reverse that and go back. I think that there was a political element to that. I guess the other thing is, right at the very beginning, making sure that these things are written for all time, not just one time, one particular cycle or one particular Government or Opposition—just doing these things in a very straight way so that if you are up it works for you and if you are down it works for you as well.
I do not think the decision to go from 650 to 600 was driven by any particular democratic principle. It was part of a response to a crisis at the time, and that has not stood the test of time because it was not grounded in much more than that. Also, probably it is easy to agree to a cut in the number of MPs until you realise that it also involves the boundaries of the remaining 600. That might have focused minds a wee bit.
Alec Shelbrooke
Q
Darren Hughes: That is a good question, because I guess it is philosophical. The duties and responsibilities of being a citizen do not actually require much, but being on the electoral register means that you can, right at the last minute, decide whether you will vote. It also helps us with the way we structure democracy and ensures that the way the boundaries are done is open and transparent. For people who want to be involved in elected politics, it is important to know the number of people in the country for whom they can campaign with their ideas and policies. Those are all some basic responsibilities that just come with the duty of being a citizen.
Alec Shelbrooke
Q
Darren Hughes: Yes, we have. We have done work on that in the past with organisations that try to reach people who are not on the register. Often there is a mixture of reasons. Some people do not know about it and are just oblivious to the fact that it exists or that it is a legal requirement at the present time. Other people have not engaged with the question of why politics matters, which is why we think citizenship education is so important. Once you get people into a discussion on that, it can change things. In a large, dynamic society like this, there are always a lot of people who are in the middle of things. Their hectic lives and situations sometimes mean that registration falls off the bottom of the to-do list. We should be doing positive things, such as showing people that registration is simple and free, to promote politics as being a good thing for the country and a good thing for society.
Ben Lake
Q
Darren Hughes: Yes, that is correct. It uses the census, so everybody is taken into account for the drawing of the boundaries. There are different qualification rules to being an elector, but the way that the constituencies are put together is based on the number of people who were living in an area when the census was done.
Ben Lake
Q
Darren Hughes: If that is where they are on census evening, that is correct, although students are able to register at their family address, depending on when they started their study. I hesitate on that, because there was a court case about it once and I would not want to give you the wrong information. I will come back to you on that. It does take into account the place people were when the census was held.
Ben Lake
Q
Darren Hughes: The list system helps in a peripheral sense, in that it is a way to ensure different styles of representation beyond just geography, but the commission itself has to deal with the majority of the Parliament, which consists of geographic constituencies, and it can take into account factors such as rurality. There is a threshold that enables it to do that, which is the same as in the legislation before you: plus or minus 5%. But there is always a very alive debate about whether that figure is high enough for parts of the country that are outside main population centres. As I mentioned before, New Zealand is geographically the same size as the whole UK, but it has a similar population to that of Scotland. There are far-flung places where, to be an effective Member of Parliament, a lot of travel is required.
The Chair
If there are no other questions from Committee members, I thank Mr Hughes very much indeed for his evidence. We are very grateful.
Examination of Witness
Gavin Robinson MP gave evidence.
The Chair
We now move on to one of our colleagues, Gavin Robinson. Gavin, we know what you look like, but we cannot see you. Will you please introduce yourself and tell us why you are giving us evidence?
Gavin Robinson: Certainly, Sir David. I thank you and all our colleagues for hosting this session. I am a Member of Parliament and my party’s director of elections. Therefore, I was tapped on the shoulder and asked if I would participate as part of your proceedings, so I happily give evidence on that basis, as director of elections for the Democratic Unionist party.
Chloe Smith
Q
Gavin Robinson: Thank you for that curveball. I am very happy to speak on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party. I am a little more curtailed in hoping to assist the Bill Committee as to the position of other parties. We had engagement at party level with you, Minister, and we are grateful for that. Some of the other parties participated in that engagement. We had separate engagement with the Northern Ireland Office as well, as part of the overall consideration.
One of the perennial issues with and concerns about the previous proposals before Parliament was the reduction from 650 to 600, with the impact that it had on the parliamentary constituencies in Northern Ireland. We have 18; we were proposed to be reduced to 17 and—[Interruption.]
The Chair
Gavin, may I interrupt you for a minute? There is a three-minute suspension. We cannot hear what you are saying clearly, so please hang on until the bell has stopped ringing.
Gavin Robinson: There was concern about the reduction from 18 seats to 17, which was consequential on the decision to move from 650 to 600. Given the acute political divisions that we have in Northern Ireland and the history, people are easily led into surmising how that might have impacted on one community or another. I am happy for the Committee to explore that further. At least in the initial stages, it formed part of a court case that concluded within the past month on the previous boundary proposals.
In these proposals, we are satisfied and pleased to see that the 650 figure will remain, albeit highlighting the fact that in the previous Parliament legislation was introduced in 2018 that sought to solidify in legislation the 18 seats for Northern Ireland, with 632 for the rest of the United Kingdom. That is a commitment that was there two years ago, although it did not leave Committee. We believe that it is important to solidify the constituency and boundary arrangements that we have at present in Northern Ireland.
Chloe Smith
Q
Gavin Robinson: The particular rule that we can rely on in Northern Ireland is rule 7. That rule is important for us, given the geographical nature of Northern Ireland, with the urban dimensions and restrictiveness of our small part of the United Kingdom. Rule 7 allows us, where there is unreasonable infringement, to go beyond the 5% tolerance. We wish to see that important rule maintained. That is maintained.
We are mildly concerned that the consequence of the judicial review that just emerged from the Court of Appeal may inject a level of chill in the Boundary Commission’s ability to rely on rule 7. It is an important flexibility that it should use, with the need ultimately to demonstrate the rationale for doing so.
Cat Smith
Q
Gavin Robinson: I do not think it compromises the integrity of the Union in the longer term, but I do see that some of the arguments that could be used for retaining 18 seats in Northern Ireland could naturally apply to some of the other devolved Administrations. Fundamentally, the Northern Ireland Act 1998 provides for Assembly constituencies to be contiguous with our parliamentary constituencies. Without elections occurring at the same time, you could have a situation where you have representatives for a parliamentary constituency that no longer exists remaining in the Northern Ireland Assembly. I assume that unless there was some co-ordination between election times and reviews, that anomalous situation could occur, with representation for areas that no longer exist, depending on a boundary change and the configuration at that time. That is important for us.
You cannot really go beyond our boundaries unless you are prepared to go into extraterritorial application or the sea. Land boundaries with Scotland and Wales are obviously a little less constrained, but when you consider the impact on the devolved Administrations, I do think there is an argument that you can extrapolate from Northern Ireland to others.
Cat Smith
Q
Gavin Robinson: I believe it is wrong to move away from parliamentary approval. I see the proposal is to remove the ministerial ability for amendment and to remove the ability for Parliament ultimately to approve the proposals. Parliamentary approval is an important constitutional dimension that should be retained. It is a bulwark against proposals that do not rest well with our body politic, and I do not think the removal from Ministers of the ability to amend is in any way commensurate with the removal of Parliament’s ability to approve the proposals. The Minister will know better than I, but I am unaware of any fundamental use of the Minister’s ability to amend. We are all aware, however, of Parliament’s ability to inject itself and determine one way or another whether proposals should proceed. So we are concerned about the loss of parliamentary approval in the process.
David Linden
Q
Gavin Robinson: Arguments can be made for solidifying the number of constituencies in other parts of the United Kingdom, but I do not think there should be any rationale that precludes me from advancing an argument that is important for Northern Ireland on our political context and make-up. On our number of electors, at this moment in time we have sufficient electors for 17.63 constituencies, leading to the 18 constituencies, and we have that additional flexibility on rule 7.
Mr Linden, you are more than capable of advancing arguments that are important for Scotland, as indeed is Mr Lake for Wales. I think it is appropriate that the concerns highlighted about a cyclical reduction that could potentially arise through future reviews—a cyclical reduction or increase of parliamentary boundaries, and the knock-on consequence that would have for devolved Administrations—should be considered more generally, but I will advance the argument on Northern Ireland’s behalf.
David Linden
Q
Gavin Robinson: I am sure it could be. Again, that is an argument that could and should be advanced, and I would not hinder someone in making that argument. When we went through the process within the past two years, with the various iterations of Boundary Commission proposals for Northern Ireland, the rationale for using rule 7 was incredibly clear. The Boundary Commission’s initial draft proposals brought forward constituencies that were not in any way consistent with geographical localities, urban dimensions or local ties, and were outwith the legislative framework that I believe the commission had in its process. They commenced with a false premise, and ended up with a real mishmash of parliamentary boundaries.
I was pleased that they invoked rule 7. I mentioned the chill effect earlier: that use of rule 7 was struck down by the Court of Appeal within the past month in the case of Patrick Lynch. It was not struck down because rule 7 was used inappropriately, but because the Boundary Commission simply failed to articulate the rationale for using it. It has been proven to be an incredibly important tool to ensure the fundamentals of achieving good boundaries within Northern Ireland were attained in the last process.
David Linden
Q
Gavin Robinson: I think you imbue me with greater knowledge, Mr Linden, and considerably more power than the circumstances merit.
Chloe Smith
Q
As you will have seen from a close reading, this Bill makes provision for a buffer period between recommendations from a boundary review that would come into effect for the UK, and the point at which the Northern Ireland Assembly constituencies would change to reflect those new boundaries. I wonder if you might be able to give us a little more insight into the impact of such a scenario—that is, what effect not having that kind of buffer and protection would have on constituencies and electors in Northern Ireland.
Gavin Robinson: I think as currently outlined, with a projected Assembly election in 2022, the process is manageable. There are two considerations for further reflection; we will reflect on them, and I am sure others will as well.
The first would be a cyclical reduction in uplift from 17 and 18, which I think would be unhelpful given the knock-on consequences that would have for the Assembly elections. Fundamentally, given the difficulties we have faced over the past three years—the stagnation in the effective operation of our devolved institutions—I do not think we have fully reflected on or resolved what would happen should there be an early or emergency Assembly election and how that may be impacted by this boundary process.
Chloe Smith
Q
Gavin Robinson: Only that, as I indicated at the start of the answer, as currently drafted, the process will be entirely manageable.
Chloe Smith
Thank you very much indeed. I was keen for the Committee to note that, so I appreciate your help on that.
The Chair
There are no other questions from the Committee to our witness. Gavin, I thank you very much indeed for enlightening us on the views of your party on the Bill and for sharing how other parties in Northern Ireland feel about this particular piece of legislation.
Examination of Witness
Dr Jac Larner gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Dr Larner: It has been very interesting, actually; certainly not boring at all. I am a research associate at the Wales Governance Centre at Cardiff University. My research focuses on electoral behaviour—how people behave around elections. A big part of that is that I am a research associate on the Welsh Election Study and the Scottish Election Study, which are big surveys around election times.
Chloe Smith
Q
Dr Larner: The Bill has particularly drastic changes and implications for future elections in Wales. The planned change to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600 has now obviously been rethought, but proportionally, that does not really make much difference in the reduction for Wales. If we have 600 MPs, there is a planned reduction of around 12 seats. In the new plan to stay at 650, Wales’ seats will drop by eight. Either way, the proportional representation of Wales in the Commons will be around the 5% mark. That is obviously of concern.
Wales is the biggest loser here. At the same time, it is also worth bearing in mind that, in pretty much any set-up, Wales will always be, proportionally, a very small part of the representation in the Commons. It might also be important to consider things such as really strengthening intergovernmental relations between the devolved Administrations and Westminster going forward.
On whether I outrightly support the Bill or disapprove of it, that is slightly more complicated. I will leave my answer at that, if that is okay.
Cat Smith
Q
Dr Larner: That is a very important question, and particularly relevant where I am from, for example, in south Wales. People talk about the valleys as one block, but I can assure you that people from one valley to the next, no matter how small, consider themselves quite different. There is the importance of people feeling that their community is being represented, without being interfered with by what they might see as people from other, different communities.
There is also the important uniqueness of Wales’s being particularly rural in its population. Given the tolerance at the moment, doing some quick maths, at the lower bound of what is being suggested at the moment— around the 69,000 voter mark—depending on which data source you use, there are only either two or four constituencies in Wales larger than that lower bound. That would necessitate really big boundary changes, and we know from some of our research that people like do not like the idea of constituencies being merged in different areas. It is really a balancing act in terms of how much importance you give to that kind of intuitive feeling of, “Oh no, I want boundaries to stay as they are,” versus the idea of fairness in the size of constituencies.
Cat Smith
Q
Dr Larner: Don’t get me wrong, not everyone will feel like this, but there is a certain feeling that yes, the Rhymney valley is very different from the Rhondda. There is that kind of feeling—although, when confronted with anyone from north Wales, you are from the valleys, the whole thing. It changes depending on who you are talking to, of course.
Cat Smith
Q
Dr Larner: Absolutely. There is a lot of very well-backed-up evidence in Wales that Welsh speakers, particularly fluent, first language Welsh speakers, tend to hold slightly different opinions on a whole range of ideas. They see themselves slightly differently from other people; they tend to identify not particularly as British, but more overwhelmingly as Welsh-only, whereas in more English-speaking areas there is more of a mix of Welsh and British identity. I would absolutely say that the ability to speak Welsh is a really important part of some people’s identity.
Ben Lake
Q
Dr Larner: In terms of those who are interested in a solid Welsh representation in the Commons, I would not say that this Bill is particularly good news. On the other hand, if we took a hypothetical situation where the number of Welsh MPs was increased by 10, you would still be looking at a very small proportion of the total representation in the Commons.
Specifically with the Bill, it is tricky to see how that can be fixed. More broadly, if we want to take the nations approach seriously, we need to think about how we do devolution. We need to think about doing that properly in Wales, which has had what my colleague Ed Poole likes to call salami-sliced devolution, as opposed to Scotland. We need proper inter-governmental relations baked into Whitehall processes. Another idea commonly talked about is House of Lords reform. I know that is far beyond the scope of the Bill, but those are the things we need to think and talk about.
Ben Lake
Q
The panellist from the Liberal Democrats suggested that there should be no reduction in the number of seats without further devolution. I think his point was that the devolution settlements across the UK—especially if we compare Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland—are very different. There are perhaps more policy issues decided in Westminster that directly impact Wales.
A recent change that I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on is the UK leaving the European Union. Things that were previously decided on a European level, where Wales had four MEPs, are now being decided at Westminster. Some aspects of that touch, indirectly or directly, touch on policy fields that are commonly considered to be devolved to Wales. Should this new dynamic, now that the UK has left the European Union, in which more things will be directly or indirectly influenced at Westminster, be borne in mind when we allocate seats across the nations of the UK?
Dr Larner: I certainly think that is something to keep in mind, not only with the allocation of seats, but with the general operation of Government. There is another important idea—related to that and other points made earlier by your colleagues—about voter knowledge in Wales: it is important for people to know who is responsible for what.
Another idea often talked about in academia is that a reduction in the number of MPs in Wales, given that people are aware that more constituencies in Wales are being scrapped than in other places, will cause people to give less importance and salience to Westminster generally. That would be the message coming from the centre, if you like. The idea is to make it very clear who is responsible for what, and that should always be taken into account.
Ben Lake
Q
The automaticity of the Bill, should it pass, would mean that Wales would not only lose eight seats in this particular review but a further couple of seats at the next review, unless something drastic happens and everybody wants to live in Wales—there is a welcome in the hillsides, by the way. Should that scenario come to pass—I appreciate it is a hypothetical scenario at the moment—could it have any impact on sentiments within Wales and perhaps attitudes towards the Union?
Dr Larner: It is of course hypothetical, but as I have said, there is the idea—I should point out that we do not have firm evidence on this—that a reduction in the number of MPs is seen by some in Wales as meaning that Westminster is no longer as important to them politically. I know that Professor Wyn Jones has some quite strong views about the importance of rural dynamics and things like that, which I disagree with slightly. It is certainly something to bear in mind, however, especially given the real and rapid increase in the visibility and general salience of the Welsh Government and the Senedd in the last couple of months.
Christian Matheson
Q
Dr Larner: We have done some research on that. There is not really much geographical variation in terms of general support or attitudes towards the Senedd. Certainly among some people, there is the idea that devolution has largely profited Cardiff. I would not say that that is a unique feeling in Wales. In most systems, there is a general feeling that the further you are geographically from the centre of power, the more fed up you might feel about it.
In those areas, although people might not look to places such as Liverpool and Manchester politically, those areas and cities have a significant impact culturally. There are also more people working across the border in those areas. In a lot of those constituencies, a higher number of people were born in England and might still consider themselves to be English or British, not necessarily Welsh. That is a big divide in Wales. National identity does determine—well, not determine in a lot of ways, but is a good predictor of—your general attitude to devolution.
Christian Matheson
Q
We have already heard about the south Wales valleys and there are parts of Snowdonia that are very mountainous. I suspect that Wales is more badly affected by losing so many seats because we are focusing solely on the numbers, and that the areas of sparsity and the geographical barriers would lead to much larger constituencies in area. How would you strike a balance between geography, sparsity, rurality and numbers?
Dr Larner: There is an understanding that Wales is the most rural nation in terms of population in the UK. As you say, there are very large constituencies. The issue with the plus or minus 5% rule is that these areas are badly affected. I do not necessarily have a problem with the idea of levelling up constituencies in terms of population size, but I think there are certain geographic limits to what is a manageable constituency. There could be the inclusion of an upper band for the number of square miles in a constituency, or something as simple as that. I know that is a down-the-middle answer.
Mrs Miller
Q
Under these provisions there are four protected constituencies, as you know: two are on the Isle of Wight, near my own constituency of Basingstoke, and two are in Scotland, but there are none in Wales. When the proposal was to reduce to 600 constituencies, it was difficult to give protection to Ynys Môn, yet under this proposal it is easier to do so and stay closer to the potential threshold for constituency sizes. I have tabled an amendment to that affect, which I do not know whether you have had a chance to look at. Can you see any problems with introducing such an amendment into this legislation? I declare an interest as I was brought up in south Wales.
Dr Larner: On the face of it, I certainly do not see any problems. I have also seen some people discussing the idea of some of the constituencies on the west coast of Wales, where there are far more Welsh speakers and very rural constituencies, being considered for something like that. Obviously, Ynys Môn is not as isolated geographically as some of the Scottish constituencies, but, when you consider that the Isle of Wight is involved in these protections, it is reasonable to suggest that Ynys Môn should be too.
Bim Afolami (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)
Q
Have you come across any evidence from the last few boundary reviews on what a more disruptive boundary review does to voting behaviour, as regards the parties or candidates people vote for, or whether they vote at all?
Dr Larner: Not necessarily in the way you put it, but there is interesting evidence if you compare strategic voting in Scotland and Wales, especially at devolved elections. In Wales, constituency boundaries for devolved and UK general election elections are coterminous, which is a silly word meaning the same, and in Scotland, they are different; they do not overlap. There is a lot of very interesting evidence on those elections. When people are faced with different boundaries, how do they calculate who they will vote for? There is some evidence from Scotland that there is more confusion when faced with different boundaries and boundary changes. For example, people are not always sure which is the strongest candidate, or which is the favourite or second favourite candidate. There is evidence that those boundary changes, which are consistent and repeated—they are not one-off events—cause some confusion among voters.
The Chair
Dr Larner, you waited a long time, but the Committee had plenty of questions for you, and we are very grateful for the time you spent with us. Thank you.
Examination of witnesses
Dr David Rossiter and Professor Charles Pattie gave evidence.
The Chair
Colleagues, we come to our final session this afternoon. We have Dr Rossiter and Professor Charles Pattie. Could you please introduce yourselves, gentlemen?
Professor Pattie: I am Charles Pattie, professor of politics at the University of Sheffield. I have been studying elections and boundary reviews for something like 30 or 35 years.
Dr Rossiter: My name is David Rossiter. I do not want to outdo Charles, but I have studied and published on the process of redrawing boundaries for about 40 years. I was the lead researcher on a Leverhulme-sponsored study on the work of Boundary Commissions in the 1990s, and was responsible for much of the modelling for the McDougall Trust report on the impact of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 in 2014.
Chloe Smith
Q
I noted that you and your late colleague, Professor Ron Johnston—we send you our condolences on his loss—looked into claims of bias in prior reviews. You were very clear that there is a function here for levelling the playing field by ensuring updated and equal boundaries. Could you please go into that?
Professor Pattie: Thank you for your words on Ron. Do not take it amiss, but I think both David and I would, in some respects, prefer it if Ron were here to talk to you in person. I mean that in the best of possible senses.
Your question about bias is very interesting. Obviously, it has been the cause of some concern. There has been a particular party political concern about the extent to which the system has become substantially biased in Labour’s favour. Part of the concern is around constituency size effects, which the current legislation and the 2011 Act deal with.
You heard earlier today—I think John Curtice also discussed it this morning—that there are two things to bear in mind. First, we are talking about bias between Conservative and Labour. As long as we have a first-past-the-post system, there is in-built bias against small parties with equal vote shares. The Conservative-Labour bias in particular does have an element around the constituency size effect, which the legislation largely removes. Most of the bias that has caused comment and concern in recent years has come from other sources that are nothing to do with the constituency size issue. They are to do with things such as preferential abstention rates, third-party effects in different seats, and in particular the efficiency with which parties’ votes are spread.
In the last few elections—every election since 2015—the relative Conservative-Labour bias has run in favour of the Conservative party and not Labour, largely because the Conservatives have become much more efficient in how they campaign and where they win the votes. To that extent, the legislation deals with one of the sources of bias. However, as a few witnesses this morning pointed out, that is one of the smaller components of the bias picture, and the bigger elements of bias are not really dealt with by this legislation—and I suspect cannot be dealt with by any legislation.
Dr Rossiter: The change to a UK-wide quota quite clearly deals with the fact that there were higher levels of representation in Scotland up to 2005, and still are in Wales. If you look back to when the current constituencies —the ones you are representing—were first defined using 2000 data, there was no bias at that time in favour of either party in terms of the size of the seats. The 10 largest seats defined at that stage included Hornchurch and Upminster as well as Croydon North; one was Conservative, one Labour. If you look at the 10 smallest seats, again, there is a completely equal mix. So for every Hexham, there was an Islington South and Finsbury. It is not that the commissions were unable to provide equality at the date of enumeration—that is, the date they have to work to. It is the demographic change that took place in ensuing years that has caused the big disparities that were more evident in the 2005 and 2010 elections than in 2000.
That demographic change was already slowing down in the 1990s, and over the past decade it has effectively ground to a halt. That process is no longer continuing. From that point of view, the pre-2011 legislation was able to deal with an awful lot of the difficulties that come from differently sized seats. The issue was: how, if at all, can you deal with the fact that certain areas grow in size and certain areas reduce in size? Reducing the period between reviews—the Bill suggests eight years—seems the best way to achieve that.
Chloe Smith
Q
Dr Rossiter: Yes.
Professor Pattie: Absolutely.
Cat Smith
Q
Professor Pattie: I guess we can break that down into two constituent parts. One is whether we should have a principle of priority within the rules, as in the 2011 Act and in the Bill, with some notion of equalisation of electorates being the top criterion rather than the medium criterion, to avoid some of the confusion and tension of the earlier rules. To that extent—Dave may feel differently about this—I would certainly endorse the notion of having an equalisation rule as the top priority.
The second element of this is where to draw the tolerance. Should it be 5%, 1% or 10%? On that point, I think you have a rather more open debate on your hands. Dave referred, when introducing himself, to the work that we did for the McDougall Trust in 2014, looking at the process around the sixth review—the first under the 2011 legislation. In that work, we tried to estimate how much disruption different tolerances would cause in the system—how much breaking of ties and breaking up of existing seats there would be. Inevitably, there will be quite a lot, both in the first review under the new rules and in any subsequent revision. However, on our estimates, if you set the tolerance at around 7%, 8% or 9%, disruption is reduced, and you do a better job of maintaining existing ties and links.
Yes, equalisation is important, but the question is what tolerance you should work to, and how wide you set that tolerance. Our estimates suggested that 8% starts to get you into the compromise zone and makes life a bit easier.
Cat Smith
Q
Dr Rossiter: Yes. I am afraid that it is probably a rather technical point, but it is quite important, in terms of the effect that the rules will have on future reviews. The 2011 Act created the UK quota and laid down the rules for allocations to countries and regions, but if we look at registration statistics over the last 20 years, we can see how those national and regional entitlements vary over time. We know that in an average eight-year period, we would be likely to see about eight changes to either national or English regional entitlements—that is between each pair of reviews. With a fixed Parliament size, that would necessarily mean that four new seats would be created in the UK and four abolished.
In the case of an abolished seat, you will have to redistribute 60-odd thousand electors to neighbouring constituencies. That in itself will take most, if not all, of those neighbours over quota. Any seat over quota will need to lose one or more wards to compensate for the addition. The process continues in this way, much like ripples on a pond, until all seats are within the 5% tolerance. Several of the affected seats will need to become participants in the process, even though they were within quota; they act merely as transit stations.
You can think of the scale of the impact of this process, which is required by the 2011 rules, as inversely proportional to the level of tolerance. As a rule of thumb, which is always useful in such circumstances, dividing 100 by the level of tolerance give you a rough idea of the number of seats that will be affected. By contrast, under the previous rules, which allowed the commissions far more discretion, the process would affect just a handful of seats and would typically be contained within a county. In the fifth review, Cornwall gained a seat, but that had no knock-on effect whatever on Devon. That is simply not possible under the current rules.
If we assume eight changes of entitlement in eight years, and if we take the existing 5% tolerance, the rule of thumb would suggest that, every eight years, 160 seats will require significant and often major change. To that has to be added the 100-plus other seats that have drifted outside what is a much tighter quota than has ever existed before. This is something that I have not heard mentioned as part of what the 2011 Act effectively ensured. The critical point to take away is that the interplay of the rules with such a tight tolerance will effectively guarantee a major redrawing of constituency boundaries at every subsequent review.
Cat Smith
Q
Dr Rossiter: Back in 1998, we wrote a proposed new set of rules that would have achieved what I think would have been a rather better way to work—I would say that, wouldn’t I? We felt at the time that the differences between national quotas, and the discrepancies between constituencies across England, were too large. We suggested that a new set of rules could say, “Yes, we’ll have a UK-wide quota, and we will have a target size for Parliament of whatever number of seats you wish.” It is 650 in the present case. We then said that a commission should be restricted to no more than 10% variance around the UK-wide quota, but that it should aim to get constituencies as near to that quota as was practical. That would give commissions the extra latitude that they would need to avoid many of the difficulties that were so evident in the 2013 and 2018 exercises.
At the same time, we would make it clear that electoral equality is a very important thing to aim for, and it should be the goal in all circumstances. I believe that having a degree of flexibility is extremely important, and I fear that not having it will inevitably cause consequences further down the line.
Cat Smith
Q
Professor Pattie: One of the areas that I was quite pleased to see in the Bill was a re-examination of how the inquiry and hearings are held, because that is problematic.
However, there is still a bit of a challenge for the public hearing process, because the areas in which those hearings now operate are just so incredibly large. There was some discussion earlier in your deliberations about ways in which the process might be improved to allow greater flexibility in local discussion. But you must remember that you are talking about entire regions, and about entire countries in Scotland and Wales, and people can turn up at a hearing in one corner of the region or country to talk about a seat in quite another part, and the chances of having a meaningful conversation about those proposals are remarkably small.
I am not sure that I have a clever proposal for you, but I think that is something to worry about; the extent to which those hearings really produce helpful information in all bar a few cases would be a concern that I have. I cannot suggest a fix for you, but if you want to look at something, that is another area that it is worth just having a bit more thought given to it.
Bim Afolami
Q
Professor Pattie: Big is the very short answer. This is liable to be one of the most disruptive reviews that we have seen for quite some time. As Dave mentioned earlier, on our estimates you are looking at major disruption again, and again, and again, into the future, especially if you hang on to that 5% tolerance. So, this will be big. Further reviews will also be big, so this will become a feature of the system going forward.
Dr Rossiter: If I can just add to what Charles has said, when we did our 2014 exercise we estimated that approximately half of seats would experience major change at this first review, but we based that on 2010 data, because that was the data that was available at that time. So, we were looking at rectifying changes that had taken place over 10 years, plus the change to the rules. We will now be looking at an exercise that has to rectify the changes over 20 years and I think that we will be looking at something like two thirds to three quarters of seats experiencing very significant change at this coming review.
Contrary to what I think are some of the optimistic views that were expressed earlier in proceedings, I see little chance of county boundaries remaining intact in large parts of the country. I think that most county and unitary authority boundaries will need to be breached. I also think that many more constituencies will be split across local authorities, and vice versa, and many more seats will have orphan wards in them.
Again, looking at this in an historical context, there have not been that many reviews that have had to deal with 20 years of changes, so it is probably not too helpful to concentrate on the disruption this time round; it was always going to be like this. I think that what is much more worthy of consideration in terms of legislation is realising the longer-term implications of it, because the danger is that if these changes are not realised, you only have to go back to the 1954-55 debates in Parliament, when MPs suddenly realised what had happened in the previous legislation and said, “We do not want our constituencies changed on this basis. Why are we having all this change?” Four years later, legislation was introduced to reduce the need to change to meet an arithmetical standard. My fear, obviously, is that that will be repeated.
Bim Afolami
Q
Dr Rossiter: I do not have that figure to hand. One of the problems is that this affects different parts of the country differently, so, for example, during the 2018 review, the south-east of England was little affected because it was set to lose only one seat during that review. Now that we go back to 650 seats, because of the growth in the south-east of England, the south-east will gain seven seats. Gaining seven seats inevitably results in a huge amount of change.
So, it can be helpful to look at what happened in 2013 and 2018 as exemplars of what results from this, but this is the problem: the devil is always in the detail. It is always in the specific geography of the area. It is always in the specific number of electors—whether a county, for example, has an integer entitlement or a non-integer entitlement. I have near me the example of East Sussex. East Sussex at the moment is entitled to eight and a half seats. With a 5% tolerance either way, that will mean that the East Sussex boundary has to be bridged. Kent is perfectly okay. West Sussex is perfectly okay. Therefore, in sorting out the problem in East Sussex—this is all provisional on 2019 data not changing an awful lot—we will need to see something that goes across the county boundary in one way or another.
Until we know the final figures, we will not be able to be absolutely certain on any of these issues. At least half of seats were changed during the 2013 and 2018 reviews, and when I say that the forthcoming review would be between two thirds and 75%, that is simply a reflection of the fact that it is trying to deal with that extra amount of time. What seems surprising is that maintaining 650 seats does not necessarily help a huge amount. It helps slightly, but not a great deal, in minimising the disruption that is going to happen. I hope that that is helpful.
David Linden
Q
Professor Pattie: This is an interesting issue, isn’t it? The issue here again is obviously over, partially, the practice of splitting wards—which clearly can be done—and partially the pragmatics, if you like. I know you have had lots of evidence already about data sources, software availability, etc. I will leave that to people who are more expert in handling those data systems, but clearly that causes an issue. I think I would raise just two points, here. First of all, harking back to our 2014 McDougall Trust report, we did try there to estimate the relative effects on disruption of playing around with the tolerances versus playing around with ward splitting. Ward splitting certainly helped to reduce the amount of disruption, but in our estimates it did not reduce disruption anything like as much as widening the tolerances moderately. The second thing you have to bear in mind here is that we are talking about disruption to communities. Remember how the Boundary Commission’s local government wards operate. It tends to be quite strong on the idea that, in building the ward suggestions, it is trying to represent people, so when you split a ward, arguably you are splitting a community—you are doing the very thing that you are trying to avoid, to avoid the thing that you are trying to avoid, if that makes sense. You end up in a strange circular process in which you disrupt a community to save a community. Where the white line is on that is anyone’s guess, but ward splitting is neither technically a global panacea, nor conceptually a panacea, precisely because in splitting a ward, you might well be splitting a community.
David Linden
Q
Professor Pattie: At the risk of sounding flippant, the Durack division in Western Australia is 1.63 million sq km. The north highlands is large, but there are much larger seats out there. It is how you strike the balance, I guess, but where it is can be tricky. I would not want to minimise the workload of an MP, in particular working in any area as large as the north highlands. Where one draws that line is a judgment call. I do not think that you will find an easy answer. To use a phrase much bandied about at the moment, I do not think that this is an area where one can defer to the science, because there is no clear science to this.
Chris Clarkson
Q
At the moment, Wales has an electoral quota of about 54,500, as opposed to about 72,000 in the north-west. Within Greater Manchester, where I am an MP, the number ranges from about 63,000 to 95,000. To take the concept that you just put forward of not splitting communities, in my borough are two seats that are prettily evenly divided: mine is Heywood and Middleton, and the neighbouring one is called Rochdale. From the sound of things, they are self-contained communities, but, in reality, I represent about a third of Rochdale. If you were not to split the communities, my neighbour would represent 103,000 people to my 57,000. Taking that to the logical extreme, do you not accept that, at some point, you will have to split some communities in order to achieve electoral equality?
Beyond that, talking about disruption in future reviews, would you accept that, to a degree, splitting wards would minimise that, reducing the amount of absolute disruption? Most of the disruption that will come from this review relies on the fact that the electoral figures we are using are 20 years out of date.
Dr Rossiter: If I take your second point first, I do not think that the difficulties that are going to come with the current review will be of such a scale that anything really can be read into them—too much should not be read into that, if you see what I mean. To take your first point, the commissions have always been capable of producing constituencies that are very close to quota. The problem you are identifying—these large differences in constituencies—has largely come not because of an observance of local ties, but from demographic change within and between regions. I am totally comfortable with the concept of trying to achieve equally populated constituencies—I have always thought that should be aimed for. My concern is the unintended consequences of a set of rules, which I think is the territory we have entered.
In terms of principles, absolutely every person’s vote should be treated as equal in so far as that can be achieved in a constituency-based system. There is no reason why either between or within areas that should not be achievable. Where local authority boundaries have to be crossed to achieve that, I have no problem with that. I remember writing a paper back in the 1980s about how we needed to look at crossing London borough boundaries, which were being observed as almost sacrosanct at the time, causing quite significant difficulties and an over-representation effect.
What I think we are looking at is how you strike the right balance. I do not disagree at all with where you are coming from and what you are trying to achieve; it is just that by placing in a rule as strict as 5%, you are removing a degree of discretion that will not benefit anybody either politically or in their sense of connection with a constituency and their MP.
Professor Pattie: To add to that, the point I was trying to make earlier was not that one must never split communities. That is going to happen, and it always has happened under the boundary review process; there have always been communities split. My point is to recognise that splitting wards in itself is not a solution, because that may involve another form of community split. But we must also remember—Iain put this nicely this morning when he described the different directions in which community can run, depending on how it serves different people’s interests—that community is very much in the eye of the beholder. I am sure we all recognise, even in areas that we know well, that we could quite quickly generate quite a few different views of what a local community really was. They are often genuinely held. So, one should not be too—how can I put this?—precious about community versus size. I think David is absolutely right: the issue is where to strike the balance and how one achieves that as relatively painlessly as possible.
Chris Clarkson
Q
Professor Pattie: We would argue it is better because it involves less disruption to the boundaries of existing constituencies, so you get more continuity of representation over time.
Chris Clarkson
Q
Professor Pattie: Well, you still have equalisation and a fairly tight parameter in terms of the size of seats, but one does not have to artificially flex things too much. You are trying to strike the balance between the rules of equalisation and rule 5 conditions. One is trying to hit that balance point between equal electorates and not too much disruption.
Chris Clarkson
Q
Professor Pattie: Yes, but it will not be at that sort of level.
Clive Efford
Q
Professor Pattie: You heard evidence from John Curtice this morning on this and I would not disagree with him. There certainly is evidence that people are influenced by the context in which they live and by what is happening around them both in terms of the economic and political environment and in terms of the climate of opinion around them. People who in a sociological sense look very similar, but live in different areas, can go in very different ways much more akin to other people within their area. Is it the biggest influence on people’s voting? No, probably it is not. Does it have an effect? Yes, it does.
Clive Efford
Q
Professor Pattie: That is rather harder to argue, to be honest. The extent to which people would see themselves as acting for their local area in a constituency sense is quite a hard one to argue. People have a sense of “my area” [Inaudible], but is that the constituency? That is much less obvious.
Dr Rossiter: Over the years, for my sins, I have attended an awful lot of what were local inquiries and I have listened to a very large amount of evidence put forward about local ties. I tend to agree with Professor McLean, who gave evidence this morning, that one person’s local ties go in diametrically opposed directions to another person’s local ties, depending on their political preferences, so I am not at all upset at the idea that arguments in terms of local ties might take a lower role in the hierarchy. In fact, I think that that is a sensible thing.
What I do think—this also goes back to the previous question—is that where you have got local government boundaries and existing seats, you have inconvenience when you cross those. I listened to the evidence earlier from the person representing the electoral registration officers and I have also heard evidence given at inquiries from Members of Parliament who have repeatedly referenced the difficulties that they have when they have to deal with multiple local authorities. People deal with four. or, as recommended in one of the recent reviews, five local authorities for one Member of Parliament. That aspect of discretion is something that the Boundary Commissions over years and years have shown great ability to recognise. Again, I come back to my point: that is where their discretion and their ability to address those concerns is being curtailed.
Clive Efford
Q
Dr Rossiter: Speaking personally, it would depend on the evidence in the particular case. I do not think that one is necessarily better than the other. I have noticed, when we have been looking at this, the significant help that increasing that tolerance by very small amounts will provide. As soon as you go from 5% to 6%, you have a big payback from going up by that one percentage point. That payback increases to around 8%, which is why we came to the conclusion in our previous report that a figure of 8% would be much more helpful. Beyond 8%, the advantage begins to flatten off, because you are reaching a point at which any sensible commission can reach solutions.
In all this, we accept and understand entirely that the 5% introduction was not an attempt to be cussed or anything of that nature. It is simply that 8% and 5% are not worlds apart. If you are able to achieve far more when you adopt one rather than the other, you have to wonder why you would want to go for the lower figure, unless there is some major negativity in that regard. Again, as people who write published papers, we have to do our research, and we have looked for anything that would support 5% in any of the previous discussions regarding the 2011 Act and so on, and we have struggled.
I know you have had reference to the standards related to the “Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters”, and there seems to have been some confusion over what that says. I am not sure whether that confusion has been sorted out; I was very surprised by what I heard the other day. I think there is probably an understandable source for this confusion, because an earlier edition of an OSCE publication did indeed say that a 10% tolerance—quite reasonably taken to mean no more than 5% either side of the norm—should be aimed for, but that was never referenced in that version of that booklet; a subsequent edition of that observer handbook has come out, and that reference is no longer in there.
Probably the best statement of what is best in this area is the OSCE’s “Guidelines for Reviewing a Legal Framework for Elections”, which specifically endorses the “Code of Good Practice” and states that proximate equality—no more than 10% between electorates—should be the aim, but interestingly goes on to say that
“frequent changes in the boundaries of constituencies should be avoided”.
If we are looking for international standards on this, there is a clear suggestion that going right down to 5% is not necessary, and in so far as it causes change to boundaries, we would not fall foul of OSCE reports. They all seem to find that UK elections fail in one respect or another, but at least we would not fall foul on that.
The Chair
Are there any other questions from Committee Members to put to our two witnesses? If there are no other questions, I would like to thank Dr Rossiter and Professor Pattie for the evidence you have given us this afternoon. We are very grateful. I am grateful to Members for their cooperation during this virtual session in these somewhat unusual proceedings.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned—(Eddie Hughes.)
Trade Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 23rd June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Trade Bill 2019-21 View all Trade Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 June 2020 - (23 Jun 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
“(3) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 shall apply to any regulations under subsection (1) which make provision for the purpose of implementing a free trade agreement if the other signatory (or each other signatory) and the European Union were signatories to a free trade agreement immediately before exit day.
(4) Paragraph 4 of Schedule 2 shall apply to any regulations under subsection (1) which make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement other than a free trade agreement if the other signatory (or each other signatory) and the European Union were signatories to an international trade agreement immediately before exit day.
(4A) Paragraph 4A of Schedule 2 shall apply to any regulations under subsection (1) which make provision for the purpose of implementing any international trade agreement not falling within subsection (3) or subsection (4) above.”
This amendment would apply the provisions of the Bill to trade agreements other than EU rollover trade agreements.
Amendment 6, in schedule 2, page 13, leave out lines 13 to 16 and insert—
“4 (1) A statutory instrument containing regulations of a Minister of the Crown acting alone under section 2(1) in respect of an international trade agreement which meets the criteria under section 2(3) or 2(4) may not be made unless all provisions of sub-paragraphs (1A) to (1D) have been satisfied.
(1A) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament—
(a) a draft of an order to the effect that the agreement be ratified, and
(b) a document which explains why the Secretary of State believes that the agreement should be ratified.
(1B) The Secretary of State may make an order in the terms of the draft order laid under subparagraph (1A) if—
(a) after the expiry of a period of 21 sitting days after the draft order is laid, no committee of either House of Parliament has recommended that the order should not be made, and
(b) after the expiry of a period of 40 sitting days after the draft order is laid, a motion in the terms of the draft order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(1C) If a committee of either House of Parliament recommends that an order should not be made under subparagraph (2), the Secretary of State may, after the expiry of a period of 60 sitting days after the draft order is laid, make a motion for a resolution in each House of Parliament in the terms of the draft order.
(1D) If a motion in the terms of the draft order is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament under subparagraph (1B)(b), the Secretary of State may make an order in the terms of the draft order.
(1E) A free trade agreement to which this paragraph applies shall not be deemed to be a treaty for the purposes of Part 2 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010.
(1F) In section 25 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, after subsection (1)(b), at end insert “but does not include an international trade agreement to which paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2 to the Trade Act 2020 applies.””
This amendment would establish a form of super-affirmative procedure for scrutiny of an international trade agreement before ratification and before regulations implementing the agreement could be made.
Amendment 7, in schedule 2, page 13, line 25, at end insert—
“4A (1) A statutory instrument containing regulations of a Minister of the Crown acting alone under section 2(1) in respect of an international trade agreement which does not meet the criteria under section 2(3) or section 2(4) may not be made except in accordance with the steps in subparagraphs (1A) to (1D).
(1A) The Minister shall lay before Parliament—
(a) a draft of the regulations, and
(b) a document which explains why the Secretary of State believes that regulations should be made in terms of the draft regulations.
(1B) The Minister may make an order in the terms of the draft regulations laid under subparagraph (1A) if—
(a) after the expiry of a period of 21 sitting days after the draft regulations are laid, no committee of either House of Parliament has recommended that the regulations should not be made, and
(b) after the expiry of a period of 60 sitting days after the draft regulations are laid, the draft regulations are approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(1C) If a committee of either House of Parliament recommends that the regulations should not be made, the Secretary of State may—
(a) lay before Parliament revised draft regulations, and
(b) after the expiry of a period of 40 sitting days after the revised draft regulations are laid, make a motion for a resolution in each House of Parliament for approval of the revised draft regulations.
(1D) If a motion under subparagraph (1C)(b) is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State may make the regulations.”
This amendment would establish a form of super-affirmative procedure for scrutiny of regulations implementing all trade agreements covered by the bill. The procedure would apply to agreements other than EU rollover trade agreements if amendments extending the application of the bill were agreed to.
Amendment 19, in schedule 2, page 13, leave out lines 33 to 35 and insert—
“(3A) A statutory instrument containing regulations of a Minister of the Crown acting jointly with a devolved authority under section 2(1) in respect of an agreement which falls within the description in section 2(3) or section 2(4) may not be made except in accordance with the steps in subparagraphs (1) to (1D) of paragraph 4.
(3B) A statutory instrument containing regulations of a Minister of the Crown acting jointly with a devolved authority under section 2(1) in respect of an agreement which falls within the description in section 2(4A) may not be made except in accordance with the steps in subparagraphs (1) to (1D) of paragraph 4A.”
This amendment would extend the super-affirmative procedure under former Amendment 19 to regulations where the Minister was acting jointly with a devolved authority.
New clause 5—Parliamentary scrutiny of free trade agreements before signature—
“(1) The United Kingdom may not become a signatory to a free trade agreement which does not meet the criteria under section 2(3) unless—
(a) before entering negotiations on the proposed agreement, the Secretary of State has—
(i) laid before Parliament a sustainability impact assessment carried out following consultation as prescribed by section [Sustainability impact assessments], and
(ii) published a response to any report which a committee of either House of Parliament may have published expressing an opinion on the sustainability impact assessment, as long as that report is published within 30 sitting days of the day on which the sustainability impact assessment is laid before Parliament;
(b) both Houses of Parliament have passed a resolution authorising the Secretary of State to enter negotiations on the proposed agreement as prescribed by section [Parliamentary consent to launch of trade negotiations];
(c) during the course of negotiations, the text of the agreement as so far agreed or consolidated has been made available as prescribed by section [Availability of agreement texts];
(d) the Secretary of State has, within ten sitting days of the close of each round of negotiations on the proposed agreement, laid before Parliament a statement detailing the progress made in each area of the negotiations and the obstacles still remaining at the close of that round;
(e) the text of the agreement in the form to which it is proposed that the United Kingdom should become a signatory has been made available to Parliament for a period of 21 sitting days; and
(f) a resolution has been passed by the House of Commons approving the Secretary of State’s intention to sign the agreement.
(2) “Sitting day”, for the purposes of subsection (1)(a)(ii) shall mean any day on which both Houses of Parliament begin to sit.”
This new clause would set out a structure for parliamentary scrutiny of negotiations on proposed trade agreements.
New clause 6—Sustainability impact assessments—
“(1) A sustainability impact assessment laid before Parliament under section [Parliamentary scrutiny of free trade agreements before signature] (1)(a) shall be carried out following consultation.
(2) A consultation under subsection (1) shall—
(a) be carried out in line with any guidance or code of practice on consultations issued by Her Majesty’s Government, and
(b) actively seek the views of—
(i) Scottish Ministers,
(ii) Welsh Ministers,
(iii) a Northern Ireland devolved authority,
(iv) representatives of businesses and trade unions in sectors which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, are likely to be affected by the proposed international trade agreement, and
(v) any other person or organisation which appears to the Secretary of State to be representative of interests affected by the proposed international trade agreement.
(3) The Secretary of State shall ensure that public bodies, non-governmental organisations and the public may be made aware of the consultation by circulating and publishing details of it prominently on relevant government websites.
(4) A sustainability impact assessment under subsection (1) shall be conducted by a credible body independent of government and shall include both qualitative and quantitative assessments of the potential impacts of the proposed trade agreement, including as a minimum—
(a) the economic impacts on individual sectors of the economy, including, but not restricted to—
(i) the impacts on the quantity and quality of employment,
(ii) the various regional impacts across the different parts of the UK,
(iii) the impacts on small and medium-sized enterprises, and
(iv) the impacts on vulnerable economic groups;
(b) the social impacts, including but not restricted to—
(i) the impacts on public services, wages, labour standards, social dialogue, health and safety at work, public health, food safety, social protection, consumer protection and information, and
(ii) the government’s duties under the Equality Act 2010;
(c) the impacts on human rights, including but not restricted to—
(i) workers’ rights,
(ii) women’s rights,
(iii) cultural rights and
(iv) all UK obligations under international human rights law;
(d) the impacts on the environment, including but not restricted to—
(i) the need to protect and preserve the oceans,
(ii) biodiversity,
(iii) the rural environment and air quality, and
(iv) the need to meet the UK’s international obligations to combat climate change;
(e) the impacts on animal welfare, including but not restricted to the impacts on animal welfare in food production, both as it relates to food produced in the UK and as it relates to food imported into the UK from other countries; and
(f) the economic, social, cultural, food security and environmental interests of those countries considered to be developing countries for the purposes of clause 10 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, as defined in Schedule 3 to that Act and as amended by regulations.
(5) The elements of the sustainability impact assessment to be undertaken under (4)(f) must be sufficiently disaggregated so as to capture the full range of impacts on different groups of developing countries, and must include both direct and indirect impacts, such as loss of market share through trade diversion or preference erosion.
(6) A sustainability impact assessment under subsection (1) shall include recommendations for possible action to maximise any positive impacts and to prevent or offset any negative impacts foreseen, including the possible limitation of the negotiating mandate so as to exclude those sectors most at risk from the proposed trade agreement.”
New clause 7—Parliamentary consent to launch of trade negotiations—
“(1) The Secretary of State shall not commence negotiations relating to a free trade agreement which does not meet the criteria under section 2(3) unless all provisions of this section have been satisfied.
(2) A Minister of the Crown shall lay before Parliament a draft of a negotiating mandate relating to the proposed international trade agreement.
(3) The draft mandate under subsection (2) shall set out—
(a) all fields and sectors to be included in the proposed negotiations;
(b) the principles to underpin the proposed negotiations;
(c) any limits on the proposed negotiations, including sectors to be excluded from the proposed negotiations; and
(d) the desired outcomes from the proposed negotiations.
(4) The Secretary of State shall make a motion for a resolution in the House of Commons in respect of the draft, setting out the elements listed in subsection (3), but such a motion shall be made—
(a) no earlier than 25 sitting days after the day on which the draft of the negotiating mandate is laid under subsection (2), and
(b) not before the Secretary of State has published a response to any report which a committee of either House of Parliament may have published expressing an opinion on the draft negotiating mandate , as long as that report is published within 20 sitting days of the day on which the draft mandate is laid before Parliament.
(5) A motion for a resolution under subsection (4) shall be made in such a way as to permit amendment of any of the elements prescribed under subsection (3).
(6) A motion to enable consideration of the negotiating mandate shall be laid before the House of Lords.
(7) The terms of any negotiating mandate authorised by a resolution under subsection (4) shall be binding upon the Secretary of State and anyone acting on his or her behalf in the course of negotiation.
(8) “Sitting day” shall, for the purposes of subsection (4), mean any day on which both Houses of Parliament begin to sit.”
New clause 8—Availability of agreement texts—
“(1) The text of any proposed international trade agreement which is being negotiated shall, so far as it is agreed or consolidated, be made publicly available within ten days of the close of each round of negotiations.
(2) Every—
(a) document submitted formally by the United Kingdom government to the negotiations, and
(b) agenda for each new round of negotiations
shall be made publicly available by the Secretary of State.
(3) All other documents relating to the negotiations and not falling within the descriptions provided in subsections (1) and (2) shall be made publicly available by the Secretary of State, subject to subsection (4).
(4) The Secretary of State may withhold from publication any document of a kind falling within the description in subsection (3) but must publish a statement of the reasons for doing so.
(5) In the case of any document withheld under subsection (4), the Secretary of State shall provide full and unfettered access to that document to—
(a) any select committee of either House of Parliament to which, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the proposed agreement is relevant, and
(b) any other person or body which the Secretary of State may authorise.
(6) In the case of a document to which access is provided under subsection (5), the Secretary of State may specify conditions under which the text shall be made available.
(7) The Secretary of State shall maintain an online public register of all documents published under subsections (1), (2) and (3) or withheld under subsection (4).”
New clause 19—Report on proposed free trade agreement—
“(1) This section applies (subject to subsection (2)) where the United Kingdom has authenticated a free trade agreement (“the proposed agreement”), if—
(a) the other party (or each other party) and the European Union were signatories to a free trade agreement immediately before exit day, or
(b) where the proposed agreement was authenticated by the United Kingdom before exit day, the other party (or each other party) and the European Union were signatories to a free trade agreement on the day the proposed agreement was authenticated by the United Kingdom.
(2) This section applies only if the proposed agreement is not binding on the United Kingdom as a matter of international law unless it is ratified by the United Kingdom.
(3) Before the United Kingdom ratifies the proposed agreement, a Minister of the Crown must lay before Parliament a report which gives details of, and explains the reasons for, any significant differences between—
(a) the trade-related provisions of the proposed agreement, and
(b) the trade-related provisions of the existing free trade agreement.
(4) Subsection (3) does not apply if a report in relation to the proposed agreement has been laid before Parliament under section (Report to be laid with regulations under section 2(1))(2).
(5) The duty imposed by subsection (3) applies only at a time when regulations may be made under section 2(1) (see section 2(8)).
(6) In this section a reference to authenticating a free trade agreement is a reference to doing an act which establishes the text of the agreement as authentic and definitive as a matter of international law.
(7) In this section—
“the existing free trade agreement” means the free trade agreement referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (b);
the “trade-related provisions” of a free trade agreement are the provisions of the agreement that mainly relate to trade.”
New clause 20—Report to be laid with regulations under section 2(1)—
“(1) This section applies where a Minister of the Crown proposes to make regulations under section 2(1) for the purpose of implementing a free trade agreement to which the United Kingdom and another signatory (or other signatories) are signatories.
(2) A draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations may not be laid before Parliament unless, at least 10 Commons sitting days before the draft is laid, a Minister of the Crown has laid before Parliament a report which gives details of, and explains the reasons for, any significant differences between—
(a) the trade-related provisions of the free trade agreement to which the United Kingdom and the other signatory (or other signatories) are signatories, and
(b) the trade-related provisions of the existing free trade agreement.
(3) Subsection (2) does not apply if, at least 10 Commons sitting days before a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations is laid, a report in relation to the agreement has been laid before Parliament under section (Report on proposed free trade agreement)(3).
(4) In this section—
“Commons sitting day” means a day on which the House of Commons begins to sit;
“the existing free trade agreement” means the free trade agreement to which the European Union and the other signatory (or other signatories) were signatories immediately before exit day;
the “trade-related provisions” of a free trade agreement are the provisions of the agreement that mainly relate to trade.”
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
On a point of order, Sir Graham. By the way, it is very nice to have you back. During the interval, I have come under pressure from a Government Member to speak again at length. To do so comfortably, it would be appreciated if you allowed us to take off our jackets.
The Chair
I was minded, given the forecast of a warm week, to allow Members to remove their jackets, but the way the argument has been advanced is making me wonder. I think, on balance, that Members may remove their jackets if that makes them more comfortable. I gather that we had this morning a thorough examination of the topics, so I anticipate that we may be poised to make progress at this point, but I also understand that Mr Thomas had just come to the conclusion of an intervention and has been eagerly anticipating in the intervening hours the response from Mr Esterson.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
Welcome back, Sir Graham. It was getting warm for those of us standing up and holding forth, so I am grateful for your ruling. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West intervened before the break and asked me to comment on the Command Paper and the indications in it about reports on changes to agreements that have been made. In his speech earlier, he pointed out that the Government have changed their mind several times on this matter, and I think we are none the wiser.
The point is that it is desirable to have the reports on the differences between the existing EU agreements and the so-called continuity agreements that replace them, but more important is what we do with the information. Unless there is adequate scrutiny and proper analysis of it by having the right processes in the House and outside, it is very difficult to do anything meaningful with them.
I had just one or two more pieces of evidence that we had been presented with and I was reminded of a cautionary tale from Australia about what happens when international trade agreements are not properly analysed and scrutinised before they are signed. In Australia, there used to be a car industry and there is no more, in large part because of the international trade agreements—the free trade agreements—that Australia signed, including the one with Thailand in 2005, in which Australia agreed to lift the import tariff on cars from Thailand. Since then, more than 2 million Thai-made vehicles have been imported into Australia. They are familiar brands: Ford, Holden, which is familiar to Australians, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Mazda and others. In return, Australia ships to Thailand just 100 Ford Territory SUVs. The reason for that imbalance in trade is the hidden non-tariff barriers that the Thais maintained while Australia opened its borders completely. It is a cautionary tale of what goes wrong when international trade agreements are not properly implemented, when they are not adequately scrutinised and when one party does not get it right. We would do well to learn from that example.
Bill Esterson
I was hoping that we would be able to accept the advice from the Chair and move on, but I will briefly give way.
Robert Courts
The hon. Gentleman mentioned Australia and the vehicle tariff, and he is right that Holden was the last big Australian manufacturer, but is it not the case that there is a 5% tariff on imported vehicles for Australia? Is not the cause of the demise of Australia’s vehicle industry in fact the protectionist tariff that was imposed? I think it lingers on.
Bill Esterson
I think that we will be in a rather worse position if we do not sort out our agreements in this country, where we would face a 10% tariff, with rather more devastating consequences for the car industry here. Anyway, we dealt with the car industry at some length this morning; I do not anticipate spending longer on it.
Gareth Thomas
Is not the significance of the intervention from the hon. Member for Witney the fact that it underlines the need for a proper opportunity for the House to consider the impacts of free trade agreements and all their tariffs—10%, 5% or whatever—on British industry?
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is quite right. That was the point he was making this morning at slightly greater length. If we want to get these things right and avoid unintended or adverse consequences, scrutiny is the answer. I thank my hon. Friend for pointing that out again.
I want to remind the Committee of the work of the International Chamber of Commerce UK. Its coalition of business groups, trade unions, consumer groups, environmentalists, other non-governmental organisations and civil society more widely produced a paper in 2017, “A Trade Model That Works for Everyone”, in which there was consensus about the need for proper scrutiny from elected representatives and wider stakeholders. It is a point made right across society. In its written evidence to the Committee, the ICC UK points out:
“The Bill ignores the seriousness of the situation we face regarding trade. Public trust in the system is at an all-time low—this is an opportunity to acknowledge the failures and get it right if the UK wants to set new global standards, ensure everyone benefits and future proof trade governance.”
The Bill is the chance for this country to set new global standards—to lead the way and show the rest of the world what is possible, by creating a new gold standard.
As George Riddell from Ernst and Young told us last week, business wants certainty, political security and support across the board, so they know trade deals will last. That means proper parliamentary and non-parliamentary scrutiny. That is how we can achieve the new global standards that the ICC recommends.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir Graham. I rise to speak very briefly. I concur with all the comments made by my hon. Friends and will not rehearse many of them. I would just say that we should remember the famous line from the film, “Infamy! Infamy! They’ve all got it in for me!” There is something about scrutiny and more scrutiny. We have to keep repeating the word, because it is so important for all of us, wherever we sit. Whether we are Government Back Benchers or Opposition Members, the opportunity for scrutiny is important. Trust and transparency are in short supply and it is critical for the validity of this place that they are restored. There is likewise a matter of competency, which I will come on to. How do we face the challenges of the trade deals before us and ensure that we have sufficient competency and capacity?
The issue is secondary legislation and what Ministers are permitted to do that allows them to avoid full scrutiny. As such, the affirmative process in the Bill will not allow us the checks and balances that our constituents require, irrespective of the territory, geography or community that we represent. There will be serious issues that will fall to Government Ministers, and it should be a great concern for hon. Members on both sides of the Committee to make sure that Ministers can be held to account.
The process should be iterative. A great thing that we found out when the International Trade Committee visited Canada and the US was how involved their Parliament and Congress are in the process of determining and setting parameters for their trade representative bodies. That is what we should be pushing for: from the beginning, we as parliamentarians should have more say on the direction that the trade representatives take in negotiating our position.
We mentioned the situation with vehicles and what that means for our automotive sector, but irrespective of the sector or region that is up for discussion, trade deals will have an impact. It is about understanding those impacts through modelling, so a value decision or judgment can be made. Understanding and appreciating the consequences of that sort of trade deal was important in the evidence given to us by the Australian trade people and, likewise, the US and the Canadians.
I mentioned what we discovered several months ago from the South Koreans about where they were in their negotiations and discussions with the UK. It was all published online but there was nothing from our side, which should not be the case. I do not see how any of us, Back Benchers or Front Benchers, in government or in opposition, can face constituents or the major businesses that each of us have in our constituencies and say that we are unaware of what is going on on their behalf. In contrast, the Koreans—in the case of vehicles, the Kias, Hyundais, Samsungs and so on—will be totally aware of what is going on in the negotiations.
Trust and transparency are important because, without scrutiny, the process will lead to poor governance. As has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West about events in the recent crisis, if more had been put into the parliamentary domain and if there had been more involvement across the House, perhaps we would have avoided some of the difficulties that we have experienced. We have to avoid a bunker mentality. It is not healthy for the Government or for the reputation of Parliament.
As has been said, while we are sitting here, many trade deals are being discussed, such as the UK-Japan deal, the UK-Australia deal, the UK-US deal and so on. They are seriously huge undertakings. In our evidence sessions in the International Trade Committee, we discovered that many such trade deals typically take six to eight years, yet the Japanese are telling us that they want a trade deal within six weeks. That is terrific—good for them—but they are holding us in a difficult position. They know that we need a trade deal, but it will be on their terms, because we are in a weak position. None of us want to be in that weak position.
The Australians are saying, “Yes, we will have a trade deal within a year.” Again, that will be very much on their terms. That is the sort of understanding that we need to share with the public and that needs to be shared in this place, so that we fully appreciate what the consequences of those decisions will be.
As we heard in the evidence sessions last week, there is no real rocket science about it. The ideal approach to negotiating trade deals is that there is involvement through parliamentarians, through consultation with trade unions, with business sectors and so on. It is understood, through some sort of guaranteed debate, what is trying to be achieved. Then, during negotiations, texts are published and updates are given. That is what the US, the EU and other nations such as Australia do. The negotiated deal can then be put to a formal voting process for ratification. However, it seems the Government do not wish to do that. Looking across the room here, that has to be of concern, irrespective of the constituencies we represent, because of what it means economically and what it means for some of our businesses, the agriculture sector and so on.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
It is four years to the day since the referendum vote to leave the European Union and here we are, hardly oven ready. The stripping out of scrutiny is the most alarming of the many alarming parts of the Bill. A world-leading trade Bill must contain strong parliamentary scrutiny and transparency. The amendments and new clauses would enable debates to be held before, during and after negotiations, and the meaningful involvement of businesses, trade unions and interest groups across the country and around the world to assess the impact of any negotiations and help us make the best decisions.
The coronavirus crisis has shown the importance of proper parliamentary scrutiny. For example, the Chancellor’s economic support package—while I commend and welcome the support on offer—has been flawed in many crucial areas. I do not think that would have happened if there had been time—and there was not, I can see that—for much longer parliamentary scrutiny. That would have allowed self-employed people, people who had new contracts and limited company directors to say where they needed support from the economic support package. That is an example of where there needed to be better parliamentary scrutiny—there should have been more, catching up—and of where there are failings when we do not have time to look at the Bills we pass.
In the post-Brexit world, trade has been catapulted from the margins of public debate into one of the major talking points of political discourse. Trade agreements will have huge implications for our economy and future prosperity, and cut across huge swathes of public policy. They are of interest to all parliamentarians and to all areas of public policy, and are not to be done in secret in smaller areas. Future trade deals should be developed democratically. As such, it is wrong that the Bill does not address the gaping democratic deficit in trade policy. That is what the amendments seek to address.
The system under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 is entirely inadequate and has not kept up with the times. It is no surprise that it has been criticised by no fewer than five parliamentary Committees. As the Minister himself has said:
“Parliamentary scrutiny is crucial for trade agreements, and we have seen the difficulties in recent years with trade agreements that have been insufficiently scrutinised, or where there was a feeling that there had been insufficient scrutiny—the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership perhaps being the most important example.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 281.]
Under the current system, MPs will have less say than our counterparts in Brussels and in Washington. In my constituency, 39% of jobs are in sectors identified as being directly and severely impacted by the continuity agreements. I am angry that, as an MP, I will have little say and little opportunity to prevent that. Moreover, given the profound effect that trade deals will have on jobs in Putney and Wandsworth, in London and across the country, it is troubling that under the Bill there will be no formal assessment of the impact of trade deals on different sectors of the economy and different regions of our nation, or consultation with businesses and trade unions.
New clause 6 lists all the different impact assessments: economic, social, human rights, environmental, animal welfare and food standards. Those things are of immediate concern to constituents, and yet we will not have an assessment of the impact of trade deals on them—or, if it does happen, it will happen behind closed doors and will not be open for public debate and scrutiny.
The CBI has noted:
“A trade policy that provides a clear, meaningful way for businesses to feed in all their experience and expertise into government will create the greatest value from the UK’s opportunities across the world—and ultimately support prosperity across the country.”
Surely that is what we want. There are expert groups, of course, but they need parliamentary scrutiny to lock in their feedback.
It is concerning that the Bill only addresses EU roll-over agreements and does nothing to set the parameters of future agreements with non-EU nations such as the United States. The Bill is a huge missed opportunity to establish a framework for future trade negotiations. The scope of the Bill is just too narrow.
For four years, we have been repeatedly told by Trade Ministers that the world is queuing up to do business with the UK. Last year, the then Secretary of State for International Trade declared to the Future of Trade and Export Forum that
“the UK has an untapped potential of £124 billion in the export of goods alone.”
The current Secretary of State has triumphantly announced:
“We are growing wheat more competitively than the Canadian prairies. We’re producing more varieties of cheese than the French. And we are even selling tea to China.”
If the Government are so confident in our attractiveness to prospective trading partners, as they should be, why is there such reticence about codifying the high standards and regulations that have been promised by the Prime Minister? Why are the Government so intent on ensuring the lowest common denominator in trading standards—a rush to get it through without an ambition to get through the best?
There is a constitutional point to be made here as well. The Trade Justice Movement, which represents 60 organisations, noted in its evidence to the House of Lords Constitution Committee that proper parliamentary scrutiny of trade deals is far more compatible with
“the UK’s traditional constitutional division between executive and legislative powers, where the executive is responsible for foreign policy.”
The crucial point is that, when it comes to trade, it is impossible to distinguish between the international and the domestic. The two are intricately linked, so to take trade out of the hands of Parliament runs contrary to hundreds of years of constitutional precedent. To ensure that Parliament is sovereign over domestic affairs, it is essential that it is given a role in scrutinising trade agreements.
To summarise, the amendments and new clauses that my colleagues and I have tabled would address the democratic deficit and create a stronger trade policy, which would ensure greater prosperity across our country. They would ensure a meaningful vote and debate for MPs on the Government’s negotiating objectives from the start, and a much-needed widening of the scope of a Bill that is silent on too many crucial issues. They would ensure far greater transparency during the negotiations, proper public consultation and meaningful engagement with civil society, businesses and trade unions, and the introduction of much-needed impact assessments that look beyond economic metrics to include the impact on the environment, human rights and developing countries. The Trade Bill would be far better for them.
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
May I start by welcoming you again to the Chair this afternoon, Sir Graham? In an oversight, I was not able to welcome Mrs Cummins this morning, because there had yet to be a contribution from the Government Front Bench, thanks to the expansive efforts of the two chief Opposition spokesmen, the hon. Members for Harrow West and for Sefton Central.
Let me start by being in complete accordance with the words the hon. Member for Sefton Central said at the end of our minute’s silence, in paying tribute to the first responders and the emergency services in Reading at the weekend. We owe them all a debt of gratitude for the public response that took place.
Amendment 4 would mean that, before regulations were made under clause 2, the process of parliamentary scrutiny set out by the Opposition in new clause 5 or amendments 6 or 7, as appropriate, would need to be completed. I take this opportunity to remind hon. Members that the power in clause 2 is needed to provide for the continuity of existing trading relationships, not to implement free trade agreements with new trading partners. It will ensure that the UK continues to benefit from the EU-third country agreements to which we were a signatory before exit day.
During the evidence sessions, we heard from a very diverse group of witnesses, ranging as widely as the Institute of Directors, the CBI and ClientEarth, that the Government’s continuity programme was sensible and reasonable. Indeed, Parliament has so far ratified 20 continuity agreements with 48 countries. That accounts for £110 billion-worth of UK trade in 2018, which represents 74% of the trade with countries with which we were seeking continuity before the withdrawal agreement was signed. Those agreements were, of course, subject to extensive scrutiny in their original form as EU agreements. The main purpose of the power in clause 2 is to replicate existing obligations in current agreements. Additional new scrutiny, on top of what we already have in place, would not be a proportionate use of parliamentary time for existing agreements.
To reassure Parliament, we are going further and providing additional measures to constrain the power in clause 2 and provide extra scrutiny for any resulting legislation. All regulations made to implement obligations under these arrangements will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and the power is also subject to a five-year sunset period, which can be extended only with the consent of both Houses. We will discuss the sunset clause under a later group of amendments. Moreover, we have voluntarily published parliamentary reports—alongside continuity agreements—outlining any significant differences between our signed agreements and the underlying EU agreement.
Gareth Thomas
The Minister is referring to the voluntary tabling of reports. At Report stage of the last Trade Bill, Ministers were going to put that on the statute book. Why the change this time?
Greg Hands
I will come on to that shortly, but in brief, the proof has been in the pudding. For each of those 20 agreements, we have published the report. The reports have been available for Members of both Houses to study. A few of the reports have been made subject to a debate in the Lords. None of those Lords debates resulted in a motion to regret on the ensuing agreements. I would say this: rather than trusting in our word, trust in our deeds. We have published those reports and we will continue to do so.
Gareth Thomas
I simply make the point that the most significant of the so-called continuity trade agreements—with the exception of Singapore and what Sam Lowe described as phase 1 of the South Korea agreement—have yet to be rolled over. Locking into law reports on the significance of those agreements would, I suspect, attract substantially more interest than the other reports have attracted so far.
Greg Hands
More than half of the continuity agreements have already been ratified, each with a report. The intention is to carry on producing those reports. I will deal with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised earlier, including his quite technical points in relation to the roll-over of the South Korea and Switzerland agreements. I will come back to him on the points he raised about differences between the EU version and the UK version.
The reports have enhanced parliamentary scrutiny, and I can confirm that we will continue to publish reports for the remaining continuity agreements.
Bill Esterson
A moment ago, the Minister mentioned that the Lords had held debates on previous agreements that have been subject to these reports. That did not happen in the Commons; that has gone. Given that the Government set the time, will the Minister take this opportunity to promise that the Government will create time in the Commons for debates on the remaining so-called continuity agreements, not least because agreements such as the one with Japan are significantly different to the ones we were party to as members of the EU?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but there is no way of knowing whether the UK-Japan agreement will be significantly different, because it is yet to be negotiated. We are trying to get an enhanced agreement with Japan, but that negotiation is under way. It is be impossible to speculate in what way, or to what degree, it will be different from the EU agreement. We are hoping for an enhanced FTA, and we believe there is further to go with Japan on that, so I do not think the hon. Gentleman’s request would be appropriate.
Stewart Hosie
Taking what the Minister has said at face value, it is true that reports have been published, but the affirmative resolution process that he spoke about is effectively a “take it or leave it” option. There is no ability for Members to amend what the Government have proposed. If the Government were to use clause 2(6)(a) to modify retained legislation, we would be given no more than the opportunity to take or leave something that may look considerably different from the pre-existing arrangement we had through the European Union.
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I plan to come to constraints on that power shortly. He rightly said that on the face of it, the power is broad, but there are significant constraints on its use. We must not forget that the continuity agreements are already in effect, and have already been scrutinised through previous processes in both the Commons and the Lords.
I draw the Committee’s attention to our track record. Of the 20 signed continuity agreements passed through CRAG, their lordships have recommended six for the attention of Parliament, most recently the UK-Morocco association agreement on 9 March 2020. As I have said, not a single one of those debates carried a motion of regret. Due to the limited scope of the continuity agreements for which we intend to use the clause 2 power and the existing opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny, the scrutiny procedure set out by the Opposition in new clause 5, to which I will turn in due course, would be disproportionate and unnecessary. That consequently means that amendment 4 is unnecessary.
I will now turn to amendment 5, which would seek to bring new FTAs within the scope of the Bill. The Government are only seeking a power in this Bill to ensure the continuity of trading relations with our existing partners, with whom we previously traded as a member of the EU. The Bill is not, and never was in its previous form, a vehicle to implement agreements with partners, such as the USA, that did not have a trade agreement with the EU before 31 January 2020.
Gareth Thomas
In relation to amendment 5, will the Minister confirm that there is no current legislative requirement for the Government to hold either a debate or a vote on any UK-US deal they negotiate?
Greg Hands
We have been absolutely clear in the process we have laid out. The publication of the negotiation objectives and the economic impact assessment, the fact that we have reported back at the end of the first round with a written ministerial statement, and the fact that we will publish an impact assessment at the end of the deal all show our commitment to parliamentary scrutiny of deals as we go forward.
Then, of course, there is the procedure under the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. I would have thought that the hon. Member for Harrow West would be rather more proud of that procedure, because I had a look around at the members of this Committee and studied their dates of arrival in this place quite carefully. I worked out that two members of this Committee voted for that procedure in 2010: myself and him. The only member of this Committee who was here in 2010 and did not vote in favour of CRAG is the hon. Member for Dundee East. Not only that: the hon. Member for Harrow West was a member of the Government at the time, in an international-facing Department to which CRAG was highly relevant, so he would have been part of the team that put forward CRAG 10 years ago. Miraculously, he is now against it. Perhaps he could explain that.
Gareth Thomas
What the Minister’s brief may not have told him was that the provisions that implemented the relevant CRAG power came into force as a result of his Government’s decision in November 2010, but that is by the bye.
The Minister gave a skilful and studious non-answer to the direct question I posed. Let me give him another opportunity to confirm that there is nothing in legislation at the moment that requires a debate or a vote on any future UK-US deal that his Government may negotiate.
Greg Hands
Sir Graham, you will know that under CRAG it is up to Parliament to determine whether to have that debate. Parliament’s ability to scrutinise the agreement and its ability to study the economic impact of that agreement are absolutely clear. On top of that, any legislative changes that would need to be made as a result of any future trade agreement would have to go through both Houses of Parliament in the usual way.
It is understandable that colleagues are keen to make their voices heard on new FTAs, and as a result the Government have said repeatedly that we will introduce primary legislation to implement new FTAs where necessary. As I have just said, that primary legislation will be debated and scrutinised by Parliament in the usual way, and I can assure Members that Government will draw on the expertise and experience in Parliament when delivering our trade agenda.
Those are not just warm words; I invite the Committee to look at our track record. If we take the current negotiations with the USA as an example, before negotiations began, we launched a public bundle, including our negotiating mandate and a response to the public consultation that we had conducted as well as an initial scoping assessment. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement in the House, and she and I have engaged with colleagues intensively. During negotiations, we have committed to keeping Parliament updated. Indeed, the Secretary of State provided a statement to Parliament on 18 May with a comprehensive update on progress in the US talks. These updates will continue as the negotiations proceed. We have said that once negotiations conclude, we will introduce implementing legislation, if it is required. Any agreement will also be subject to CRAG, which will provide further opportunities for parliamentary scrutiny.
I must stress that scrutiny of FTAs with new countries is a conversation that must take place separately from consideration of the Bill. Hon. Members such as the hon. Members for Harrow West, for Sefton Central and for Dundee East have expressed valid concerns about what will happen, and my door remains open to discuss such concerns at a future date. Nevertheless, we must not threaten this essential piece of continuity legislation by having discussions about the future.
Gareth Thomas
In the spirit of openness about future free trade agreements to which the Minister says he is committed, can he confirm to the Committee, given the concerns that exist about a potential UK-US deal, that there will not be any investor-state dispute settlement provisions in a future UK-US deal?
Greg Hands
I was being very generous in saying that my door was open, but it is not open to discuss the content of the current negotiations with the US. That, of course, is a matter—in the proper way—for statements to Parliament, but that is a live negotiation, so what may or may not be in that negotiation is probably a matter for that negotiation.
We laid out our negotiation objectives, in a document that I commend to the hon. Gentleman, on 2 March. It lays out our objectives in the talks, which are live at the moment, so it would be inappropriate for me to go down that road. However, my door remains open to having further discussions with all the Opposition parties about the scrutiny of future free trade agreements.
Stewart Hosie
I think the Minister is inadvertently getting to the nub of the concerns of many people both in Parliament and outside. It is all very well him saying, “We have published this, and we have made these statements to Parliament”, but does he not recognise that simply publishing what are no more than heads of terms for negotiations, and then updates that say “Everything’s going swimmingly”, really does not cut the mustard?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and I am glad that he made it, because I will take him back five years to a very interesting negotiation that I had with his friend, John Swinney, which was a negotiation between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. It related to the Scottish fiscal framework: how exactly Scotland’s finances and support from Westminster would work in coming years. We—John Swinney and I—agreed that it was a negotiation between two Governments, and it was not appropriate to publish text during the course of the negotiation. We would both provide general updates on the progress of the negotiation, rather than constant updates on text. That approach led to us getting a good agreement between the UK Government and the Scottish Government. I think both Governments were not entirely satisfied with it, but both could live with it. That shows the way forward, rather than publishing after each negotiation round, or mid-negotiation, what the latest text or approach is.
Matt Western
I hear that, and it is terrific, whatever happened between Scotland and the UK in that arrangement, but nub of this is essentially: how can it be that the EU informs and updates, providing not just heads of terms and whether things are going okay or badly or whatever, but the detail? That is what the US does and what Australia does. Why is the UK the only nation that will not give that detail to its public?
Greg Hands
Sir Graham, I think a comparison of how the UK and European Union do international treaties is a debate for another day. I do not think the two political systems are comparable. The approach proposed by the UK has greater parliamentary scrutiny than that of many Commonwealth counterparts that use the Westminster system—it is more extensive than that of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Gareth Thomas
The Command Paper that the Minister’s colleagues published last February committed the Government to publishing reports at the end of each negotiating round. Is that still a commitment and practice that the Minister recognises, or has his Department and new Secretary of State gone back on that?
Greg Hands
I was going to return to the Command Paper, because the hon. Member for Sefton Central asked me a direct question about it. If the hon. Gentlemen will bear with me, I will return to the status of the Command Paper in due course. I want to make a bit more progress in setting out why we think this approach is not right overall for the Bill.
The Bill focuses on ensuring continuity of trading relationships with existing partners. Businesses and consumers are relying on the consistency that the Bill provides. Amendment 6 would disapply CRAG to international trade agreements and instead seek to apply a super-affirmative procedure to scrutiny of continuity agreements before regulations could be made under clause 2. Like other Opposition amendments, that would undermine the constitutional balance and upset an established, well-functioning system of scrutiny. It would also create a two-tier system of scrutiny for international agreements, whereby trade agreements on the one hand, and other important international agreements on the other, are scrutinised in an entirely inconsistent way. It is worth reminding ourselves that CRAG was designed to cover international treaties of all the types we would expect.
Bill Esterson
The Minister has said that many times. CRAG was designed and passed in this place when we were a member of the European Union. It was designed when international treaties were an EU competence, to complement the system in the EU. I read that out earlier; I will not read it out again. He wants this to be a continuity Bill, but what is the equivalent continuity of scrutiny and parliamentary process for what we were party to where CRAG was part of that European process?
Greg Hands
It is simply not correct to say that all international treaties are subject to EU competence. Many international treaties are, of course, subject to a UK competence, and CRAG has worked well. It is worth remembering that CRAG was arrived at after an extensive period of consultation—and it may be, Sir Graham, that you voted for CRAG in 2010 as well. It was backed by both the Government party of the day, represented by the hon. Member for Harrow West, and the main Opposition of the day as a sensible way of codifying what he referred to earlier as the 1924 Ponsonby rule. The whole purpose of CRAG was to codify that long-standing rule that has served as well, including over the past 10 years. An extensive change such as this would add significant and unnecessary risk to the Government’s ability—
Bill Esterson
Yes, it is an international trade agreement, absolutely correct. Where is the equivalent to the EU process that we have been party to? CRAG was party to that international trade bit of it, and yes, I accept that it applies to other elements of international treaties. Where is the continuity from the EU process to what we have now? That was the other half of my question.
Greg Hands
Again, we are talking about continuity agreements that have already gone through a process of scrutiny in the House. I was a member of the European Scrutiny Committee pretty much exactly when the hon. Member for Harrow West was a member of the Government. There was an established process by which treaties were recommended by the European Scrutiny Committee for scrutiny in this House. Most have already been through an established process of European scrutiny.
On future trade policies, I would say that the EU has a fundamentally different constitutional set-up from the United Kingdom. Our most similar constitutional set-ups are in countries such as Canada, Australia or New Zealand, which have very successful independent trade policies, and have done for a number of decades. I am confident that our scrutiny system, as proposed, stacks up well—in fact, it exceeds those, and stacks up very favourably—against those systems in making sure that our Parliament can have its say on future trade agreements.
I stress again, however, that this Bill is not about future trade agreements; it is about the continuity of our existing arrangements. Such an extensive change as proposed in the amendment would add significant and unnecessary risk to the Government’s ability to secure and bring into effect the remaining continuity agreements by the start of 2021. That situation was not advocated by any of the witnesses we heard from. None of them said, “We want to junk all those 40 agreements and pretend that we have never had them”, from ClientEarth right the way across to the Institute of Directors. Only the Opposition seem to want to junk those agreements by voting against Second Reading of the Bill and by not having the continuity agreements in place.
Gareth Thomas
I am sure that the Minister would not wish to imply that the majority of witnesses simply supported the existing parliamentary scrutiny processes for trade agreements in general. It was clear that we heard a majority saying that, for new free trade agreements, the current parliamentary scrutiny set-up was not good enough.
Greg Hands
I am not saying that; I am clearly saying that the witnesses we heard from were, I think, unanimous in saying that the continuity agreements were important for the UK economy and trade. They would share my surprise at the opposition of the Labour party to rolling over those agreements, many of which were negotiated when Labour was in government, including the hon. Member for Harrow West. He was the Trade Minister when two of the agreements were negotiated by the European Union. I would love him to tell us what he was doing at the time. If he finds the agreements so objectionable in 2020, what on earth was he doing in 2008 or 2009 being party to the negotiations that led to those agreements being put in place in the first place? Perhaps he will tell us, or write to the Committee to explain.
Gareth Thomas
What we find objectionable is the lack of proper scrutiny in the process. That is the significant issue. I gently say to the Minister, he has not so far advanced an answer—I am agog to hear it—to the criticisms of a whole series of witnesses, from the business community and the trade union movement to trade exporters, about the failure of the Government to give Parliament a proper debating and voting opportunity on big new free trade agreements, such as a UK-US deal.
Greg Hands
We are going slightly around in circles, conflating the continuity arrangements and future free trade agreements. I will happily debate with the hon. Gentleman the merits of our proposals for future free trade agreements. I reiterate that my door remains open to his suggestions as to how we might scrutinise future free trade agreements. However, the Bill is about continuity arrangements for the 40 or more EU agreements that we currently have. Many of the witnesses, whatever they said about future trade agreements, were unanimous in talking about the importance of the continuity agreements.
Robert Courts
I am conscious of what the Minister has said about the Bill being a trade continuity Bill and that being its purpose. We have heard a great deal of debate today about scrutiny of future trading relationships. Would the Minister comment on something that seems to me is the case? We have parliamentary government in this country, where a mandate is derived from a general election. We do not have government by Parliament and any such scrutiny proposal needs to be considered very carefully in terms of its constitutional ramifications.
Greg Hands
My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I was going to come on to describe the Opposition’s panoply of amendments taken in their entirety; at the moment, I am still going through the deficiencies in each of the amendments. When we put them all together, they seek fundamentally to rewrite the constitutional balance in this country in terms of international agreements. That is properly a matter for the Executive and for royal prerogative, as scrutinised by Parliament.
Once again, I remind colleagues that continuity agreements have already been subject to significant scrutiny as underlying EU agreements. I say again that we believe that the existing constraints in the Bill are proportionate and provide Parliament with sufficient opportunities to scrutinise agreements. I have drawn Members’ attention to the 33rd report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee on the 2017-2019 Trade Bill, which raised no concerns about the delegated powers of the Bill and welcomed our move to introduce the affirmative procedure for any regulations.
I turn to amendment 7, which seeks to apply the super-affirmative procedure to any regulations made under clause 2 to implement FTAs with new countries, if the other amendments were to be carried. I will not recap why new FTAs are not included in the application of the Bill. However, I reiterate that we will introduce implementing legislation for new FTAs, if required, which would mean the proposals in the amendment are unnecessary.
Amendment 19 would extend the aforementioned procedures to any regulations made jointly with the devolved authorities. I have outlined the reasons why we do not believe those procedures are necessary. I can also assure colleagues that our approach with the devolved Governments is based on regular dialogue and consultation.
I thank Opposition Members for tabling new clause 5, which outlines in some detail the Opposition’s proposal for how current and future trade agreements might be scrutinised. I have already remarked that this is a continuity Bill and therefore not the place for discussing our wider priority FTA programme or our approach hereto. However, I am happy to reiterate to hon. Members the Government’s commitment to appropriate parliamentary involvement.
I believe we share common ground, insofar as we agree that Parliament should be able properly to scrutinise trade agreements and have sufficient information available to it in order to do so. The Government have ensured that that information is provided through sharing negotiating objectives, responses to public consultations and economic assessments. The amendments go beyond what is needed and, as hon. Members will be aware and as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney pointed out, cross the line that separates the powers of Parliament and the Executive.
We must respect that initiating, negotiating and signing international agreements are functions of the Executive, exercised under the royal prerogative. New clause 5 would have serious consequences. It would both undermine that cornerstone of our constitution and limit the Government’s ability to negotiate effectively and in the best interests of UK businesses, consumers and citizens.
To be clear, the prerogative power is not just a historical throwback or a constitutional quirk. It serves an important purpose in enabling the UK to speak with a single voice as a unitary actor under international law. It ensures that our partners can trust in the position presented during negotiations. It is the same principle that applies in similar Westminster-style democracies with sophisticated trade negotiating functions, such as Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Setting aside for a moment the significant constitutional issues that we have just examined, the proposals are also unworkable in a practical sense. First, treaty texts are liable to change significantly right up to point of signature. As they say, “Nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.” Sharing texts as we go might be a waste of parliamentary time, as they could quickly be made redundant. It is also not in line with the practice of our FTA partners, including the US, let alone Australia or New Zealand. Those countries will have legitimate expectations of confidentiality around key negotiating texts in our trade negotiations with them.
Final texts of agreements—which, after all, are what matters—are already laid in Parliament for 21 days under the CRAG process, and the Commons has an option to restart CRAG, potentially indefinitely. The Government have gone well beyond the requirements of CRAG and its statutory obligations, in line with our commitment to transparency and scrutiny, by providing Parliament with extensive information on negotiations. For the trade talks with the US on a new FTA and with Japan on an enhanced FTA, the Government have set out their negotiating objectives alongside a response to the public consultation, as well as an initial economic assessment prior to the start of the talks. Ministers have also held open briefings for MPs and peers both at the launch of the US talks—I held one myself—and after the conclusion of the first round.
We will continue to keep Parliament updated on negotiations as they progress, including close engagement with the International Trade Committee in the House of Commons and the EU International Agreements Sub-Committee in the other place. We are committed to publishing full impact assessments prior to the implementation of the agreements. That provides Parliament with more than sufficient information to scrutinise the Government’s trade agenda properly.
Turning to new clause 6, I hope that on the issue of consultation, the Opposition will note the Government’s strong record of consulting widely with the public and key stakeholders on our trade agenda. The Government’s consultation on our priority FTA programme attracted 600,000 responses, making it one of the largest consultations ever undertaken by Government.
Gareth Thomas
I want to press the Minister on the proposals that were in the Command Paper last year. He has not quite answered us on that. The Command Paper said clearly that the Government would work with a Committee and give it access to sensitive information that is not suitable for wider publication, including private briefings from negotiating teams. On the record, is the Minister willing to confirm that they will do that with the International Trade Committee and the relevant Lords Committee, or not?
Greg Hands
I should be clear that the Command Paper was published by a previous Government in a different parliamentary context. However, we have in our approach so far followed what was set out in the Command Paper in relation to publishing negotiation objectives and impact assessments, and reporting back after the first round. I would again ask for confidence in our deeds, in terms of our overall commitment to parliamentary scrutiny.
In line with our commitment, we have published the Government’s response to the consultations on FTAs with the US, Australia and New Zealand, and on an enhanced FTA with Japan. In relation to sustainability impact assessments, as the EU calls them, the Department has published, and will continue to publish, our own scoping assessments for each of our new free trade agreements, prior to negotiations commencing. As with the published UK-US, UK-Japan, UK-Australia and UK-New Zealand scoping assessments, those include preliminary assessment of the potential economic impacts, the implications for UK nations and regions, the impact on small and medium-sized enterprises, the environmental impacts, and the effects on different groups in the labour market, including whether there are any disproportionate impacts on groups with protected characteristics, arising from an FTA with the partner country.
The scoping assessments attracted quite a bit of attention, not least because of all the nations and regions of the UK that would benefit from the US trade agreement, Scotland would benefit the most, followed by the west midlands and then the north-east of England. Those are good things. We are proud of that, and of the fact that we published the assessment.
We are committed to publishing full impact assessments once negotiations have concluded and prior to the implementation of the agreements, when the effects of an agreement can be better understood.
On the point about standards raised in new clause 6, I encourage hon. Members to look at our record on negotiating agreements. We said we would not lower standards, and we have not, as can be seen from the parliamentary reports we published on each of the 20 agreements. None of the 20 agreements that have been signed to date involved any reduction in standards.
Gareth Thomas
In the Command Paper published in February last year, the Government committed during negotiations to publish and lay before Parliament a round report following each substantive round of negotiations. Does that commitment still stand or has it been axed, like the commitment to give sensitive information to a Select Committee of the House of Commons?
Greg Hands
Nothing has been axed; all I am saying is that the Command Paper was produced at a different time. What we have done is to follow the Command Paper in publishing, for example, the written ministerial statement at the end of round one of the talks with the US. That has greatly enhanced parliamentary scrutiny, as has publishing the negotiation objectives and the scoping assessment of who would be most likely to benefit from the agreement.
Greg Hands
I will make a bit more progress.
As with new clause 5, new clause 8 contains a number of practical flaws in the proposed system. Those flaws would undermine negotiations and disadvantage the UK. I understand that colleagues are keen to remain abreast of negotiations, and the Government are supportive of that endeavour, as I have outlined. I point hon. Members not just towards our commitments to share information but towards our record on the recent US negotiations, which I have mentioned.
Ultimately, this debate boils down to whether we believe that it is right that the UK Government, supported by experts, civil service negotiating teams and advisers, are able to negotiate international agreements on behalf of those who elected them, drawing on the expertise and views of Parliament and of the devolved authorities, via strong scrutiny mechanisms. Or do we believe that Parliament itself should be in control of the negotiations, determining who we negotiate with and how, and within what timeframes?
It seems clear to me that in the national interest, the former scenario must be right. It ensures that when our partners face the UK around the negotiating table, they know that it has a credible single voice—one that is represented by the UK Government alone, after they have consulted with the devolved Administrations and drawn on the extensive expertise in this House and the other place, via close engagement and scrutiny processes, such as those we have here for international agreements.
Matt Western
I understand that point. The EU has 27 nations, and yet it manages to achieve that. It has a coherent position from 27 nations, but it can still carry out talks. Surely, it is possible for us to have the involvement of Parliament to scrutinise matters and to be updated about them, and to have its engagement in this process. Can the Minister just answer that one point?
Greg Hands
I have already outlined in immense detail, probably three or four times now, the involvement that Parliament will have in future trade agreements. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Bill is about the continuity of existing trade agreements. I may be the only person in this room—perhaps the hon. Member for Harrow West has done so as well—who has represented the UK at trade Foreign Affairs Council meetings of the European Union. I can reveal to the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington that the EU does not always speak with one voice when it comes to trade. I can tell him of many a fruity row at those meetings involving different member states—rows between the Commission and the European Parliament and so on in relation to EU trade policy. I am afraid that the idea that the EU is one happy whole as it goes into trade agreements, with total uniformity of opinion across the EU27, is for the birds.
I hope that I have provided Members with some assurance that the amendments are unnecessary and impractical, and will unquestionably limit the UK Government’s ability to negotiate in the best interests of UK businesses, consumers and citizens.
On a slightly different topic, new clause 19 seeks to oblige the Government to publish parliamentary reports on continuity agreements, which the hon. Member for Harrow West has already drawn attention to, outlining any significant differences between the signed agreements and the underlying EU agreements. I am aware that, in the last Parliament, the Government introduced an amendment to that effect to the previous Trade Bill. However, Members will be aware that, despite the previous Bill falling, we have committed to publishing such parliamentary reports on a voluntary basis, to assist the House with the scrutiny of agreements.
We have published such a report for each of the 20 continuity agreements we have signed, outlining any significant differences from the underlying EU agreement. That process affords parliamentarians extra transparency on our continuity agreements, above and beyond the statutory framework set out in CRAG. As is demonstrated by the measures we have taken, and by the inclusion of a sunset clause and the affirmative procedure for any secondary legislation, we will ensure that Parliament’s voice is heard when clause 2 powers are exercised. I reiterate the commitment that we will continue to publish parliamentary reports for all remaining continuity agreements.
I suspect the Committee will be glad to hear that I am finally turning to new clause 20, which stipulates that the parliamentary reports must be published at least 10 sitting days before any statutory instruments are made under this power. Members will be aware that trade negotiations, and indeed many other international negotiations, have a habit of going down to the wire. I have only to remind colleagues of the negotiations surrounding the EU withdrawal agreement as evidence of that fact, although that negotiation is not included in the scope of the Bill, perhaps thankfully. As such, it is possible that we will be unable to sign continuity agreements until very shortly before the transition period ends.
I stress that that is possible. We have already signed 20 such agreements, but some may well finally be negotiated and signed in the last days before the UK once again becomes a fully independent trading country. That would make it very difficult to leave a period of 10 sitting days before any SIs are introduced. I assure colleagues that we will leave as much time as possible for essential parliamentary scrutiny. I point again to our record: we have published parliamentary reports alongside all signed agreements entering the CRAG process, meaning that that information has been available for at least the full duration of CRAG. I remind colleagues that CRAG allows a period of 21 sitting days for our agreements to be scrutinised in Parliament before they can be formally ratified. That provides an effective period of time for parliamentarians to scrutinise the agreements.
Turning to a few of the more technical matters that have been raised, the Opposition said that the South Korean and Swiss agreements have not been signed. They have both been signed and have both gone through CRAG. The House of Lords European Union Committee called the Swiss agreement for debate but, as I said earlier, no motion of regret was passed. The hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) loved to talk about the Ponsonby rule, which is exactly what CRAG sought to codify. The Ponsonby rule, if it exists at all today, is there only through the living embodiment of CRAG.
The Opposition talked about the mutual recognition agreements incorporated within the Swiss agreement. The MRAs that have been signed and are part of the agreement cover 70% of our trade flow. On a technical point, we have in place a memorandum of understanding to continue discussions about trade continuity before the UK-Swiss trade agreement comes into effect on 1 January. We are committed to aiming to put in place mutual recognition of conformity assessment bodies in time for the agreement coming into effect.
The sectors not covered by the MRAs are underpinned by international standards regimes, not by EU standard regimes. There is therefore greater regulatory confidence in conformity assessments within these. On tariffs and the South Korea agreement, the hon. Member for Harrow West effected some kind of melange between tariffs and tariff-rate quotas. A tariff is the rate of tax at which we charge a product coming into the country; a tariff-rate quota is the quantity of that product that would be allowed on either a lower tariff or on no tariff at all.
Tariff-rate quotas have been resized from the original EU agreement. That is an entirely normal and expected part of the process. The TRQ stated that a certain volume of this, that or another product—the example of Cheddar cheese was used—is allowed to enter from the EU into South Korea without a tariff or with a lower tariff being applied. That volume is apportioned in the ensuing agreements: this part of the tariff-rate quota belongs to the European Union, and this part of the tariff-rate quota belongs to the UK.
How do we determine which part goes to which? Generally, the way in which to do this, which the European Union has agreed, is to look at recent trade patterns, take the average of recent years and say that a part should be determined to be the EU’s and another part should be the UK’s? If no UK products have been exported to South Korea under the tariff-rate quota, the effect will be that the tariff-rate quota ends up going to zero in the ensuing UK agreement, but it may well be that we end up with far more than the UK overall trade flow in the ensuing South Korea agreement in other areas. It simply is not the case that we have lost our tariff-free access, if it is a product that the UK does not currently export to South Korea under the tariff-rate quota.
Crucially, the tariff reductions are in the ensuing UK agreement. Whereas the tariff-rate quotas divide up, the agreed tariff reductions carry on. That is particularly relevant to Cheddar cheese. Tariffs on Cheddar cheese entering South Korea under the EU-Korea agreement have been coming down steadily each year since 1 July 2011. From 1 July 2021, UK Cheddar cheese will be free of customs duties entirely as a result of that gradual stepping-down process, which affects Cheddar made in the EU as much as it affects the UK. There has been no change in that and no loss in our preferential tariff treatment in the UK-Korea agreement.
I have talked at length about the Command Paper and one or two other things. I have responded to each of the points made by Labour Members, possibly to their satisfaction. I find various things a little bit rich. I think I heard regrets from the Labour Front Bench that we will not be able to transition the EU-Canada agreement. I remember, because I was doing this job at the time, a large part of the Labour party, including current Front Benchers, voting against the EU-Canada agreement even coming into effect. So Labour was opposed to the agreement three years ago, but now they suddenly complain that we are not being quick enough in transitioning it to a UK agreement. If there was any consistency in the Opposition’s approach, they should be cheering any delay to an agreement that they do not agree with. I find their position typical of the chaos still present on the Opposition Benches. They complain that we have not rolled over an agreement that they did not want to be part of anyway.
The hon. Member for Putney, who started off regretting the vote four years ago today to leave the EU, then made a speech questioning the trade agreements negotiated by the European Union that we are seeking to roll over. There must be more consistency.
I appreciate that the Labour party has had a leadership change. I thought that the whole basis of the new leader’s approach was to bring organisation and method to its opposition, but instead, we have seen continuing chaos. We see a shadow Front-Bench spokesman who now objects to the agreements that they presented when in government, and a shadow Front-Bench team who now want to roll over the Canada agreement that they originally voted against. Those on the shadow Front Bench regret the Brexit vote but now want to vote against our transitioning the very agreements that the EU, with UK participation, negotiated successfully. That is a recipe for chaos and one that the Opposition would do well to reflect on.
Gareth Thomas
At the risk of disappointing the Government Whip, I shall be brief in my concluding remarks. We had a very strong contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central, who underlined that, at present, we will find out more on a UK-US deal from Congress than from anywhere else. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington rightly raised, among a series of other points, concerns about our ability to scrutinise the impact of a new free trade agreement on the automotive sector. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney rightly drew attention to the significance of scrutiny, or otherwise, of the roll-over agreements, given that some 39% of jobs in her constituency depend on trade with countries where there are roll-over agreements.
We also heard interesting interventions from the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire, who I hope has used the lunchtime adjournment to look up the reference in the Queen’s Speech to the Trade Bill. It makes it very clear that the Trade Bill’s purpose is to put in place the essential and necessary legislative framework to allow the UK to operate its own independent trade policy on exit from the European Union. I appreciate that the Minister has sought to somewhat change the stated purpose of the Trade Bill, to provide some cover for not being willing to give Parliament proper scrutiny arrangements for future free trade agreements, but that is what the Queen’s Speech said.
Other interventions included that from the hon. Member for Witney on Australian cars. In their own different ways, hon. Members supplemented the arguments that we were making for greater scrutiny of free trade agreements.
Perhaps the most striking revelations were in the Minister’s winding-up contribution. In the previous Parliament, the Government committed to make limited improvements to the Bill by allowing parliamentary scrutiny in the form of reports and sunset clauses. Having witnessed them backslide on those commitments, we have now heard the Minister step back from commitments made in the Command Paper less than 15 months ago on scrutiny of free trade agreements. The Minister appeared to be clear that Parliament, including the International Trade Committee, will not have the opportunity to scrutinise the negotiators, receive private briefings from them, or access sensitive information, as was promised in the Command Paper. He was also studiously vague as to whether the commitment in the Command Paper to publish and lay before Parliament a round report following each substantive round of negotiations will be maintained or not. One can only conclude from his answer that that commitment is not being maintained, albeit one report, on the UK-US deal, has already been published.
This Bill is lamentable in the lack of proper opportunities it offers to scrutinise the continuity agreements, in particular the bigger ones, which have yet to be negotiated, on Canada, Japan and Turkey. It is also lamentable, as a series of witnesses and hon. Members have stated, in the arrangements for scrutinising new free trade agreements. On that basis, I intend to press the amendments to a Division.
Bill Esterson
On a point of order, Sir Graham. Is it in order to make a further speech at this stage? I understand that it is, but I stand to be corrected.
The Chair
It is in order, but given that the amendments have been moved, if you could do so briefly, that would be appreciated.
Bill Esterson
I shall be brief. I speak purely because the Minister made a number of comments that need further attention. He talked about our approach to the need for these agreements to be implemented. Our reasoned amendment said:
“That this House recognises that upon leaving the European Union, the UK will need effective legislation to implement agreements with partner countries corresponding to international trade agreements of the European Union in place before the UK’s exit”.
That is what it said and that is what we voted on, and we are clear in our commitment to doing just that.
The significance of the six times that the Minister’s hon. Friends asked questions of various witnesses last week was not lost on us—they wanted it clearly on the record that there is a desire for the continuity agreements to be concluded. We accept that, which is why we put it in our reasoned amendment. It is important that the Minister is under no illusion on that point. Our concern is that they are done properly, scrutinised effectively and that mistakes are not made, which is why we tabled these amendments.
The Bill has to go through this year. It was in the Government’s gift. They could have passed the Bill—or a very similar version of it—last year, as amended. They could have brought back that version, as amended, this year if it was so important to them. More than two years ago, we were in a nearby Committee Room having very similar debates on very similar amendments. The Government had the chance to do this. It is on them that there has been a delay in getting to this point. In some of the evidence sessions, we heard that, while the Bill is not perfect, the witnesses wanted it to go ahead. Last year’s Bill was not perfect either, but the Government could have brought it back and got it through earlier to address the witnesses’ concerns. It is important that these things are said.
The Minister distinguished between future trade agreements and existing ones. He tried to use some clever language right at the start of his remarks. He pointed out that the Bill, as drafted, does not cover free trade agreements with new trading partners. That is correct, although it has scope to do so, which is why our amendments are in scope. However, the Bill does cover new free trade agreements with existing trading partners, which is why our amendments are entirely appropriate in calling for scrutiny of the corresponding agreements.
The Minister used the phrase, “Parliament should be able to properly scrutinise trade agreements”, in the context of new trade agreements and the framework, and said that his door was always open. He did not say when we could expect to see that new framework. The United States agreement is already under way without that new framework. If not now, when? Why is that US trade agreement going through without that new framework in place, given that the Minister and the his colleagues deem it so important in enabling proper scrutiny? As he knows, the CRAG approach relies on the Opposition using one of their Opposition days within a 21-day period. There were occasions in the previous Parliament when there was not an Opposition day for a period of greater than 21 days. It is entirely dependent on the Government making time available in Parliament for CRAG to be applied. It is one of a number of flaws in our scrutiny process, and one of a number of reasons why changes are needed—because the Government are not addressing it at this stage.
I have no doubt that the Lords will table amendments similar to those tabled last time. The Minister’s colleagues in the Lords are going to have to face this question. The Government are going to win every vote in this House, but it could be a different story in the Lords. If not now, when? And why not take on board the scrutiny that we have suggested? Why not accept and retain the amendments from last time, including that dealing with the publication of reports?
My final point is that if it is the Government’s intention to always publish reports on the difference between the existing agreements and the new ones, why not keep that amendment in the Bill? At the moment, they have the option to not publish if they so choose or if a new Minister has a change of opinion. Given what the Minister has said, there are so many places in which what we have proposed has been justified, and the Government will need to consider them in the Lords even if they do not today.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Gareth Thomas
I beg to move amendment 9, in clause 2, page 2, line 15, leave out subsections (3) and (4) and insert—
“(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing a free trade agreement only if the other signatory (or each other signatory) and the European Union had ratified a free trade agreement with each other immediately before exit day.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement other than a free trade agreement only if the other signatory (or each other signatory) and the European Union had ratified an international trade agreement with each other immediately before exit day.”
This amendment would require previous ratification of a trade agreement before regulations could be made to implement it.
Amendment 9 excludes from the scope of clause 2(1) those international trade agreements agreed between the UK and a third country where the corresponding agreement between the EU and that third country has been signed, but not ratified, as of 31 January this year. My understanding is that this would apply to the EU-Vietnam free trade agreement and the EU-Canada comprehensive economic and trade agreement, or CETA. Both agreements merit further detailed scrutiny, even if only through the CRAG process.
The new UK-Vietnam agreement would be a treaty in its own right, legally distinct, and therefore should surely face proper scrutiny. Under the Bill’s terms, any future UK-Vietnam agreement would be counted as a roll-over agreement, because the EU signed an agreement with Vietnam shortly before we left the EU on 31 January this year. That EU-Vietnam agreement has not been ratified, and indeed the scrutiny processes in this House had not been completed by 31 January. A future UK-Vietnam deal could be hugely different from the EU deal, but it would none the less be covered by this Bill, with its minimal scrutiny arrangements.
Greg Hands
I was intrigued by the amendment, but let us pause for a moment on what it would do. Amendment 9 would stipulate that agreements are in scope of the clause 2 power only if the underlying EU agreement were ratified, rather than signed, by end of the transition period. For the benefit of the Committee it might be useful to explain the difference. Something can be signed—but the dates on which a trade treaty can be signed, come into effect and be fully ratified are three different dates. A trade treaty can come into effect—this is the way the EU does it—when a certain number of EU countries have ratified it. I forget what that number is, but if about half of EU countries have ratified the agreement it comes into effect. Those three things—being signed, coming into effect, and ratification—happen on three different dates. Under the amendment, the clause 2 power that we currently say must relate to an EU agreement signed before 31 January 2020 would relate to an EU agreement ratified before that date.
Opposition Members will realise—I think, to be fair, the hon. Member for Harrow West covered that in his speech—that the amendment would restrict the scope of agreements that we could implement using clause 2. It would make the scope much narrower. However, it would do so in an entirely unreasonable manner. Important agreements such as the Canada one that he has mentioned would be excluded, as CETA has not been fully ratified by each individual member state of the EU, despite having been in effect for some time now.
Development-focused agreements would be similarly affected. The important matter of international development has yet to feature in discussions of the Bill—with the exception of something that the hon. Member for Putney said about it in passing. However, many development-focused agreements—those important economic partnership agreements—have been signed but not yet ratified. One example, involving the countries of the Caribbean, is the CARIFORUM agreement. In 2017 I signed an agreement with the CARIFORUM countries. We all gathered together—17 countries, I think, which was basically CARICOM—plus the Dominican Republic. We gathered together in Brussels to sign a continuity agreement. The nations of the Caribbean recognise the importance of that trade agreement, and one thing that they mentioned was its importance not just to their citizens but to the Caribbean diaspora in this country.
Greg Hands
No, I am not going to give way.
I think that a Member with quite a big Caribbean community in his constituency has quite a lot of explaining to do about why he is now opposed to the CARIFORUM agreement. It is a great agreement that does major good work for international development in Caribbean countries. I represent a quite substantial Caribbean community. I think its members would be alarmed if they were to learn that the Labour party is opposed to that international development agreement, which does great work among our Caribbean friends.
Gareth Thomas
On a point of order, Sir Graham. As the Minister knows full well, we are not opposed to the agreement. We simply want better scrutiny arrangements. What arrangements are there for me to correct the record in that respect?
The Chair
Order. I think I have to respond to the point of order, in spite of the fact that it was not a point of order. As to what the hon. Gentleman asked about, as he knows, he has just done it.
Greg Hands
The point of the amendment is to rule out of scope agreements that have yet to be fully ratified, which includes not only the Canada agreement but the CARIFORUM agreement and important economic partnership agreements. The hon. Member for Harrow West was a DFID Minister, and I think that that might have been when some of those agreements were negotiated —with important countries such as Kenya, Côte D’Ivoire and Ghana. However, the incredibly important beneficial trade arrangements made for those countries could no longer be effective, for lack of the clause 2 power. The Opposition have a lot of explaining to do. Developing countries are as we know sometimes unable to ratify agreements fully before—
Bill Esterson
On a point of order, Sir Graham. The Minister has a number of times asked us to explain things and then refused to give way. Can you perhaps shed some light on how we might overcome that apparent stand-off?
The Chair
I think that the hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that these things happen.
Greg Hands
Truth be told, I was going to allow an intervention when I had fully laid out the case, and mentioned the number of people that the trade stance that the hon. Member for Harrow West is outlining today will irritate. I have only just got started on the agreements, and the apologies that the hon. Gentleman will have to make to his constituents, and, on behalf of the Labour party, to people the length and breadth of the United Kingdom.
Developing countries are sometimes unable to ratify agreements fully before they are brought into effect, often for procedural reasons in those countries, but that should not mean that we deny UK businesses the opportunity to continue trading with them, and I am sure Opposition Members would not wish to deny our world-class trade for development assistance to those states either.
Greg Hands
I will allow the hon. Gentleman to intervene. Perhaps he can explain and apologise for his position in relation to those countries.
Bill Esterson
The party that has just abolished the Department for International Development is not in a good place to be criticising anybody for their approach to international development. The Minister knows full well, as he did with the reasoned amendment, that we fully support international development—in a way that his party, apparently, does not. Perhaps, if this is a problem because of the drafting of our amendment, he will tell us that on Report he will come back with an amendment that deals with the problems that he is taking great pains to explain.
Greg Hands
I am certainly not coming back on Report with a drafting correction for the deficiencies in the hon. Gentleman’s amendment; that would be a novel approach to Parliament. The fact is that this amendment rules out of scope all these agreements for roll-overs. I have to say, in fairness to him, that some of these agreements were controversial; some people opposed these EU EPAs in the first place, and I imagined that it was the Labour party’s position that it opposed these EPAs. If we listen to one or two groups, for example, they think that the EPAs have been stacked too heavily in the EU’s favour.
However, I think the hon. Gentleman is now saying that actually that is not his intention, and that his intention was not to prevent their being rolled over. I think he is now saying he is suddenly in support of the continuity of these agreements, despite having voted against the Second Reading of the Bill and despite the fact that virtually every word that we have heard from the Labour Party in this Committee has been against these agreements and against these Bills.
Returning to my point about continuity, these agreements have been subject in this country to the full EU agreement scrutiny process. The delay to ratification is not in this country, but relates to individual country or state delays. There is no scrutiny gap.
Fleur Anderson
Returning to the issue of Canada and delayed negotiations, can the Minister confirm that if we do not secure the free trade agreement with Canada before 31 December, we will lose all the benefits of the current EU trade deal with Canada and revert to trading with it on WTO terms?
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, because I thought the Opposition were opposed to the Canada deal, so if we were to fall outside the Canada deal, they should be celebrating that. The Labour Front Bench opposed Canada in 2017, and I think they have opposed it again today. We are in discussions with Canada and we believe that there is time to do a roll-over agreement, but to do that we need the powers in the Bill. Amendment 9, which I think the hon. Lady has co-sponsored, would delete Canada from the list of agreements subject to the power, so if she votes for this amendment—if indeed there is a vote on it—she will effectively be preventing the roll-over of the Canada deal.
I will come to a conclusion. I was very surprised by this amendment. I praised the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sefton Central, last week for the attention he had given to oral questions earlier that day, but now I am not sure whether he really paid enough attention. He may have missed hearing the shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry), say from a sedentary position that she is in favour of CETA, the Canada agreement, and that she voted for it at the time.
The right hon. Lady is absolutely right: she did vote for it at the time, and that is obviously the Labour party’s new position. We know that sometimes in political parties, particularly when we are in opposition, there can be a new position and it takes a while for that new position to filter out across the whole party, but I am a little bit surprised that the new position has not filtered down to her own Front-Bench team, let alone the whole party, because they are trying to say they do not want to roll over the Canada agreement for an agreement that their shadow Secretary of State was praising only last Thursday. I find that approach absolutely bizarre.
If amendment 9 were to be accepted, there would be no UK-Canada trade agreement to roll over in the scope of clause 2. Labour said one thing in the Chamber last Thursday, but is saying precisely the opposite in Committee. Our Canadian friends will look on askance, as will our friends from the Caribbean, Kenya, South Africa, Mozambique, Ghana, Cameroon, Ivory Coast and so on.
This is a continuity Bill. There is certainly continuity in the Labour party’s confusion on trade. When it came to the original Canada agreement in the vote of February 2017, Labour split three ways: 68 of its members followed the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) in voting for the CT agreement; 86 broke with the right hon. Member for Islington North and voted with the right hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury in favour of the agreement; and the rest abstained.
I think I heard the hon. Member for Harrow West then say that he regretted the fact that there had not been a debate about the Canada agreement on the Floor of the House. I spent a few years in the Whips Office. One of the first rules of being a Whip in Opposition is never bring a debate on which your own party is divided to the Floor of the House, let alone something where you are divided three ways and your leader is in the minority view. Now he is saying that he regrets that it was not brought to the Floor of the House.
We should vote down amendment 9, because it would rule out of scope Canada, the Caribbean and many other important trade agreements that the EU has negotiated. The UK was part of that negotiating team. They are very important trade agreements. We would like to see the continuity of those trade agreements, as do our constituents and UK businesses. I urge hon. Members to vote against amendment 9. Indeed, I hope the Opposition withdraw the amendment.
Gareth Thomas
The Minister has been at his most diversionary with that characteristically chutzpah-led speech. As he knows only too well, constitutionally, the Government are able to sign and ratify international agreements. He went on at some length in his winding-up speech on the previous group of amendments about how wonderful that process was.
The Minister does not need the Trade Bill to sign agreements with CARIFORUM, Canada or Vietnam. The powers are already there for the Government to do so. If Ministers think the provisions in the Bill relating to those clauses are so important, one wonders why they did not bring the Trade Bill back in the last Parliament. It fell because Ministers chose not to bring it back, not because of opposition from the Labour party.
There were genuine concerns about the future of a UK-Canada trade pattern. On this side of the House, we repeat our concern that if Ministers cannot agree to roll over a deal with one of our oldest allies where the Queen is Head of State, it prompts questions about the effectiveness of the Department for International Trade. This was a probing amendment, which we will not push to a vote. The point about scrutiny remains on the record. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 10, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not conflict with, and are consistent with—
(a) the provisions of international treaties ratified by the United Kingdom;
(b) the provisions of the Sustainable Development Goals adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 25 September 2015;
(c) the primacy of human rights law;
(d) international human rights law and international humanitarian law;
(e) the United Kingdom’s obligations on workers’ rights and labour standards as established by but not limited to—
(i) the commitments under the International Labour Organisation’s Declaration on Fundamental Rights at Work and its Follow-up Conventions; and
(ii) the fundamental principles and rights at work inherent in membership of the International Labour Organisation;
(f) women’s rights and are in accordance with the United Kingdom’s obligations established by but not limited to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women;
(g) children’s rights and are in accordance with the United Kingdom’s obligations established by but not limited to the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and
(h) the sovereignty of Parliament, the legal authority of UK courts, the rule of law and the principle of equality before the law.”
I will give my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West a chance to rest his vocal cords. Amendment 10 is part of a run of amendments that get into the implications of domestic and international policy on everyday life here and abroad. Amendment 10 would ensure that regulations on an international trade agreement can only be made if the provisions
“do not conflict with, and are consistent with…Sustainable Development Goals…the primacy of human rights law…international human rights law and international humanitarian law;…obligations on workers’ rights and labour standards as established by but not limited to…the commitments under the International Labour Organisation’s Declaration on Fundamental Rights at Work and its Follow-up Conventions; and…the fundamental principles and rights at work inherent in membership of the International Labour Organisation;…women’s rights and are in accordance with the United Kingdom’s obligations established by but not limited to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women;…children’s rights and are in accordance with the United Kingdom’s obligations established by but not limited to the Convention on the Rights of the Child; and…the sovereignty of Parliament, the legal authority of UK courts, the rule of law and the principle of equality before the law.”
There are some things in there that sound very much like taking back control to me. They are very much about the rights of human beings here and abroad, whether workers, women or children. What is not to like? What is there not to support in the amendment? What is there not to support in getting behind sustainable development goals at every available opportunity?
In the previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West mentioned the difficulties in Vietnam. Trade unions and workers in Vietnam face a very difficult time. They face persecution and exploitation. A trade agreement with Vietnam should include labour provisions under the ILO, consistent with amendment 10. The measures in amendment 10 also protect UK businesses by avoiding undercutting.
For the sake of posterity, Sir Graham—I think that is the right way of describing it—I checked that the amendment is similar to one moved by your co-Chair two years ago. At the time, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) spoke about the human rights of the Sahrawi people and Morocco’s attempts to include them in international trade agreements. She set out the need for the ethical dimension in international trade agreements and talked about how poorest are left behind. She quoted Paul Collier’s work on the bottom billion and described how international trade agreements all too often lock the poorest in the world into the natural resource trap rather than benefiting them through export diversification, as is sometimes claimed.
It was a good speech then, and the points that my hon. Friend made remain good points now. That is backed up by what we were told in written briefings from Amnesty, which makes the point about the current Bill’s lack of provision in those areas, saying that
“the Bill as currently framed, makes it possible to alter human rights and equality protections using secondary legislation, in order to comply with renegotiated trade deals.”
Here we are again with the problem of Ministers’ use of secondary legislation because of the inadequate provisions in the Bill. The briefing goes on:
“Such powers should not be necessary if existing EU trade agreements, which are the subject of the Trade Bill, are to be rolled over primarily to ensure continuity, as claimed by the government.”
As such, the Government should not object to amendment 10.
The briefing states that the Bill grants
“extraordinarily wide powers to Ministers to amend retained EU law - including the Equality Act 2010, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Data Protection Act 2018 - leaving domestic rights protections open to alteration”
and that it lacks
“real parliamentary scrutiny and accountability throughout negotiations. This is essential because of the complexity and far-reaching implications of trade agreements for business and public policy”
in the areas of human rights. The briefing continues:
“Unlike the US and the EU, the UK looks set to conduct major elements of trade negotiations without any oversight role or negotiating mandate from Parliament.”
After the debates and votes that we have already had in this Committee, I think we can safely say that that is true.
Gareth Thomas
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be sensible to include in the Bill a commitment to trying to achieve the sustainable development goals, as this amendment seeks to do, not least because with their decision to abolish the Department for International Development, Ministers have thrown away some of their soft power and global reputation for being good on development?
Bill Esterson
That is an incredibly important point. Given the Government’s previous apparent commitment to SDGs, one might have thought they would be open to such a suggestion. The EU conducts sustainability impact assessments of all new trade agreements to assess their the economic, environmental and social impact, including their impact on human rights and labour standards. That is a similar point to the one my hon. Friend just made.
Once in force, EU agreements include a commitment to assess the effects of the agreement on sustainable development. Although those sustainability impact assessments could go further in terms of detail, with sector-specific impact assessments on human rights or labour standards, they nevertheless provide a clear commitment to human rights and labour standards that the UK should replicate and improve on. I thought this was a continuity Bill—the Minister has told us that enough times—so why are the Government not doing the same thing with sustainability impact assessments?
There is no provision in the Bill for undertaking social and environmental assessments of prospective trade agreements, or for conducting related studies and surveys. Decision makers will be operating without the evidence base to take full decisions on complex instruments that will bind the UK for many years. Methodologies for this are well developed, and the Government should commit to undertake them in legislation and to make them public. If not now, when?
Gareth Thomas
One concern that led me to want the Bill to refer to the sustainable development goals is the fact that both Ghana and Kenya have not yet felt able to sign a continuity agreement with the UK. As I understand it, that is because of their concern that the tariff regime that Ministers are suggesting under such a continuity agreement would hinder the scope for regional integration in eastern and western Africa. Although I do not expect my hon. Friend to comment on it, perhaps my intervention might encourage the Minister to give some clarity on my genuine concern about those two continuity agreements.
Bill Esterson
I am glad my hon. Friend has raised the issue, and I hope the Minister can give clarity on those two continuity agreements. If the Minister missed the names of the agreements, I am sure my hon. Friend will repeat them for him. It appears that that may be necessary.
I turn to what the TUC has said to us. It has particular concerns about trade unionists. In its briefing for the Committee, the TUC refers to the lack of consultation on the text of the 19 continuity agreements that have been finalised so far. That has been a concern, because many of the deals that have already been signed are with countries where labour and human rights abuses are widespread. The TUC refers to Colombia and South Korea:
“In South Korea, trade union leaders have been thrown in prison for peaceful protest for workers to claim their rights. Colombia, meanwhile, remains the most dangerous country in the world for trade unionists with around two thirds of murders of trade unionists taking place in Colombia.”
That is according to an ITUC report from last year entitled, “The World’s Worst Countries for Workers”. The TUC continues:
“Whilst the UK’s trade deals with South Korea and Colombia have commitments on paper to uphold ILO standards, similar commitments in EU trade deals with South Korea and Colombia have not been effective in improving rights as they have no mechanism for effective enforcement.”
We had that discussion with Rosa Crawford in the evidence session last week, and that is what she confirmed to me.
Compare that with what goes on elsewhere. The TUC states:
“Trade unions in a number of other countries are consulted routinely by their governments in the process of trade negotiations, such as the US, Austria and Sweden…The TUC believes it is crucial for trade unions to be consulted on the text of trade negotiations in order to ensure they have adequate provisions to ensure labour rights commitments are upheld, contain effective protections for public services as well as other social standards and do not contain Investor-State Dispute Settlement Courts that would allow foreign investors to sue governments for enacting policies for the public good”,
including in the areas of workers’ rights and human rights. The TUC continues:
“The TUC believes it is also crucial for MPs to be able to see and comment on the text of continuity deals so that negotiations are subject to proper democratic scrutiny.”
All that brings us back to the text of the amendment. If the Government are committed to upholding sustainable development goals and to supporting human rights, workers’ rights, women’s rights and the rights of the child, the amendment is an opportunity. If the Government do not support this amendment, they might, as I suggested to the Minister on another occasion, want to bring back their own drafting that civil servants can tell them is appropriate to deliver the goals that I have just set out.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
Can I say what an honour it is to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Graham? In the context of the debates about racial inequality that are taking place around the world, and the Government’s announcement that they will seek to absorb the Department for International Development into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, it is vital to ensure that we do not shy away from our international responsibilities. That includes ensuring that any future trade deals cannot be used as vehicles to undermine human rights and workers’ rights, either at home or abroad. The safeguards in the amendment are, frankly, common sense, and it should not prove any barrier to free trade agreements with a wide range of trading partners, as is the Government’s stated aspiration. However, it is important that those safeguards are explicit in the Bill.
To illustrate why that is the case, I will give an example. In the public evidence session, I asked the Digital Trade Network about the risk of the US exporting section 230-style provisions into trade deals. As members of the Committee will be aware, these provisions are pushed by the big technology firms, because they effectively restrict US trade partners from making domestic legislation that might introduce any regulation. Without the safeguards in the amendment, there is increasing concern that the UK will be bullied into accepting these provisions in the upcoming UK-US trade deal, which will gut the upcoming online harms Bill and its promise to increase protection for children online.
Ensuring consistency with children’s rights is essential, but the threat is not just to our children. The Community Security Trust’s report, “Hate Fuel: the hidden online world fuelling far right terror”, outlines the global threat of far-right terror, which has its own online language and subculture that are developed and sustained on these social media platforms. This material repeatedly and explicitly calls for Jews to be killed. Indeed, many of the most hateful things that I receive as a Jewish parliamentarian originate from the US and Canada.
Governments, law enforcement and technology platforms must co-operate internationally to combat the propaganda that fuels far-right terror, just as they have done previously to tackle the propaganda that encourages and promotes jihadist terrorism. Protecting the sovereignty of Parliament, the legal authority of UK courts, the rule of law and the principle of equality before the law will ensure that this place does not have one hand tied behind its back in its efforts to do just that.
As we discussed at length in debates on earlier amendments, because there is limited scope for parliamentary scrutiny of new trade agreements and because the Minister is unable to give guarantees on this issue today, despite being given repeated opportunities to do so by diligent Opposition Members, building these safeguards into the Bill will make sure that they cannot be missed out and that the scrutiny is sufficient to prevent adverse consequences that could result in a breach of one of the regulations set out in the amendment.
The amendment would also benefit our continuity agreements. The Minister mentioned that some of the predecessor agreements had been signed when Labour was last in Government. I was a teenager when Labour was last in Government, and a lot has happened since then—not just that my hair has started to go grey. I cannot understand the reluctance to ensure that continuity agreements that we are trying to secure are consistent with and do not conflict with these safeguards, given many of the seismic shifts that we have seen in geopolitics over the last decade or so; things have moved on considerably in that time.
It is only right that we ensure that continuity agreements remain fit for purpose. If they do not meet the criteria outlined in the amendment, why have we endeavoured to keep them? If the agreements do meet the criteria, there is really no need to oppose the criteria.
Fleur Anderson
This is, at last, a very uncontroversial amendment. I do not think that any of us in this Committee would disagree with the idea of complying with agreements that the Government have already decided to comply with.
For example, trade agreements and the UK’s commitment to the sustainable development goals are completely inseparable. In September, there will need to be a post-covid global rethink about, and recommitment to, the sustainable development goals to make it clear that we still aspire to attain them, so we will need to have this approach baked in to our trade negotiations.
“Transforming our world: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development” explicitly recognises international trade as an engine for inclusive economic growth and poverty reduction, and an important means of achieving the SDGs. Those goals include aims such as no poverty, zero hunger, gender equality, affordable and clean energy, decent work and economic growth, industry, innovation and infrastructure, reduced inequalities, responsible consumption and production, and climate action. All of these goals are intrinsically tied to trade. It is, therefore, worrying that the Bill contains no mention of the SDGs, and it is a relief to have the opportunity to vote them into the Bill with amendment 10.
More worrying still is the fact that while trade will be crucial in achieving these global goals, it can also act as a barrier to achieving them. The economic partnership negotiations in west Africa, for example, are very controversial because of the impact of packaging requirements, and the use of sanitary and phytosanitary standards as non-tariff barriers to trade and to an increase in industrial strategy that could lead to greater development and greater prosperity, both in west Africa and here.
Greg Hands
As we have heard, amendment 10 intends to prevent the clause 2 power from being used to implement agreements that do not comply with existing international obligations on human rights, the environment and labour rights. Let me be absolutely clear: our continuity programme is coherent with existing international obligations as it seeks to replicate existing EU agreements, which are, of course, fully compliant with such obligations. By transitioning these agreements, we reaffirm the UK’s commitment to those international obligations.
I have said it before, but I am happy to repeat it as often as the Committee would like: we seek to provide certainty and stability in trading relationships for UK businesses and consumers, not to modify or dilute standards. None of the 20 agreements already signed has reduced EU standards in any area. Committee members can consult the parliamentary reports that we publish alongside continuity agreements detailing any changes required to transition the agreement to the UK context. These will confirm precisely what I have said. We will continue to publish these reports for remaining continuity agreements, so that hon. Members can satisfy themselves that we have not defaulted on our commitment not to reduce standards. That includes the agreement with Vietnam.
I am happy to look into the specific complaints that some Opposition Members have made on labour rights, but it would be helpful for me to understand whether they are in favour of the EU-Vietnam agreement. That was not really clear to me. The Opposition keep wanting to have their cake and eat it, saying that they like EU agreements but then trying to pick holes in them and saying that we should not roll them over because of some of the arrangements within them. The EU-Vietnam agreement is scheduled to come into effect on 1 August, so UK businesses will be able to take advantage of that agreement from 1 August.
As the Prime Minister outlined in his Greenwich speech, the UK has a strong history of protecting human rights and promoting our values globally. We will continue to encourage all states to uphold international human rights obligations. The hon. Member for Harrow West asked for examples of primary EU law that will be transitioned as a result of using these powers. To be clear, we intend to use the powers only for a limited number of obligations, most principally in relation to fully implementing conformity assessments and procurement matters in domestic law via secondary legislation.
To be clear, the human rights commitments in the joint statement that we made with South Korea do not enable the suspension of any of those human rights dialogues that are under way. The Colombia agreement, which is part of the EU-Andean agreement that has also been signed, has seen no weakening of labour rights; there have been some technical changes to that agreement, but none relating to labour rights, so far as I am aware. The continuity agreements signed have not changed those in any way.
The hon. Member for Warrington North mentioned action against the far right and other hate groups preaching violence. I can tell her that the Government are wholly united in our approach to making sure that that is exactly the case, but it is worth reminding ourselves that we are talking about existing trade agreements with those counterparts, not a new agreement as such.
The hon. Member for Putney talked about the commitment to the sustainable development goals. The Government are absolutely committed to the SDGs, but again we are talking about existing trade agreements. I will plough on, because we do not have an awful lot of time. The hon. Lady and her colleagues need to work out what it is that they want. On the one hand they seem to strongly support the EU and perhaps want the UK to rejoin, but on the other she seems, by the sound of it, to oppose the detail of virtually every one of the EU’s trade agreements. Opposition Members need to get clear in their minds whether they are pro-EU—in which case they might be in favour of the EU’s trade agreements—or anti-EU. That was not clear to me at all.
The hon. Member for Putney rightly says that human rights clauses in international trade deals are very important. We agree, which is why we are preserving their effects in these roll-over agreements. The Government have been clear that any future trade deals must work for UK consumers and businesses, upholding our high regulatory standards. The UK will remain committed to world-class environmental product and labour standards. We will not weaken these protections after the transition period ends. Our continuity agreements will safeguard, not undermine, our international obligations. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Sefton Central to withdraw his amendment.
Gareth Thomas
I had not intended to speak and I will be brief. I wish to amplify and expand on the concern that I raised in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central regarding the continuity agreements for Kenya and Ghana. If those agreements are got wrong, they threaten the progress that both countries have made, and potentially that of other countries around them, in trying to achieve the sustainable development goals.
The concern is that what is currently being put to those countries by UK negotiators is a continuity agreement that requires them to sign up to something that risks regional integration in east and west Africa. Kenya and Ghana seek to work closely with the least developed countries that surround them as part of the trading blocs. Those LDCs want to continue to be part of a preference scheme, so Kenya and Ghana are caught in a trap between their desire to work very closely with their neighbouring countries and wanting to ensure that they can still trade on very good terms with the UK in, for example, bananas and cocoa.
Why is working with regional blocs so important? Because it is trade at a regional level in Africa that is likely to lead to faster development, more jobs being created, and, crucially, the development of more manufacturing jobs at a local level. When a no deal was about the happen last October, the UK Government proposed a transitional protection mechanism that would have included Ghana, Kenya and others in a similar position.
Greg Hands
I should apologise; I had not realised that the hon. Gentleman wanted to intervene on me on this issue. I undertake to write to him about Ghana and Kenya, and to copy in members of the Committee. The situation involving both those counterparts is complicated and would be best served not by a debate about this particular amendment, but more broadly were I to contact the hon. Gentleman.
Gareth Thomas
The Minister has made a gracious intervention and offer, which I am happy to accept. On that basis, I am happy to conclude my speech.
Bill Esterson
We had an excellent contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North, whose points about safeguards were well made. It is entirely common sense that we support the provisions of the amendment, but they need to be explicit. The Minister confirmed why in his remarks. The use of trade provisions to promote online hate is, sadly, all too familiar to my hon. Friend and to many other people in this country, including some in this Parliament. She described that extremely well.
My hon. Friend the Member for Putney rightly made the case for the sustainable development goals and ensuring that we deliver on them. The fact is that they are tied directly to trade. That point was reinforced by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West, who spoke on the importance of the Kenya and Ghana continuity agreements and the impact that they have on the LDCs. It reminded me of the reference, which I quoted in my remarks, that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford South made to Paul Collier’s book “The Bottom Billion”. I am glad that the Minister has offered to write to members of the Committee about those concerns.
I think the Minister used the word “replicate” regarding how the agreements are carried over from the EU. Unfortunately, the Bill allows for dilution and for weaknesses, such as those that I set out in the South Korean and Colombian agreements, to continue. Such weaknesses will not be addressed, and the question is: if not now, when? In the case of South Korea and Colombia, it is: if not then, when? Of course, we will have another go at South Korea, because it wants to renegotiate what has been passed already.
I am afraid that the Minister’s points about Colombia rather miss the point. The point I made, in reference to the International Trade Union Confederation report from last year, is that it is the most dangerous country in the world for workers. We cannot simply accept continuity without doing something about that situation. Such things need to be dealt with in international trade, as well as through the Foreign Office and other mechanisms of Government; otherwise the abuses will continue.
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 11, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not conflict with, and are consistent with the United Kingdom’s environmental obligations in international law and as established by but not limited to—
(a) the Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change;
(b) the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES); and
(c) the Convention on Biological Diversity, including the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety.”
The Government say they are committed to addressing the climate crisis and to net zero by 2050, even though they have missed the targets set by the fourth and fifth carbon budgets and the gap is getting worse, and even though their own analysis shows that their spend on nuclear export finance for energy projects has favoured the fossil fuel sector substantially, to the point where 99.3% of that budget spend over a five-year period went to fossil fuel projects, including recently to Bahrain. There is no sign of a real and meaningful switch away from fossil fuels and to renewables.
The Government can say that they are committed to something, but unless something is in legislation and in writing, and unless there are meaningful commitments, the situation does not change. That is why it is important to amend legislation such that we confirm our commitments to the Paris agreement, the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, and the convention on biological diversity, including the Cartagena protocol on biosafety.
Matt Western
What was telling about the evidence sessions was how everyone—including the Institute of Directors, the CBI, ClientEarth, the TUC—agreed that this type of amendment should be at the heart of what we do, and that they were disappointed that it was not included.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Bill really should be the framework for what a progressive international trade policy framework should look like. There was an opportunity. Given that the Government did not pass the Bill when they had the chance last year or the year before, they could have included the provision this time. This amendment would produce a framework of the order expected by the witnesses.
There are real problems in international trade that affect our ability to meet our climate obligations. Trade agreements are used to liberalise regulations, including environmental regulations. The Bill is an opportunity to redesign trade policy to support our environmental ambitions, as the Government set out. The target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050 and associated commitments are in our amendment. The opportunity is there for the UK to require trade partners to ratify and implement key climate change agreements, such as Paris, before entering into trade negotiations, and for us to suspend ISDS agreements.
Environmental policy has been the object of investor-state dispute settlement litigation. Companies that have fossil fuel interests have sued other companies’ Governments because of the impact of Government regulations and legislation on their interests. That undermines investment and support for the renewables sector, and efforts to decarbonise economies and meet our climate obligations. Similar points are made about the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, and the convention on biological diversity. If the Government want to address this agenda, they have an opportunity to do so with this amendment, and I hope they take it.
Given that the Bill is widely drawn and has the potential to address future trade agreements, let us look at what the US has been saying. This should worry us, given the damage that could be done by international trade agreements. In December, the US ruled out talk of a climate crisis in trade negotiations—yes, that is what trade representative Lighthizer said. He was categorical about that when the UK inquired—I am pleased that the UK did this—about the possibility of including reference to climate change in a future UK-US trade agreement, given that the UK has a strong historical stance on climate change and pushed strongly for the Paris agreement. The UK also highlighted in those talks the pressure for that that would come from civil society and non-governmental organisations. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington referred to the evidence that the Committee received.
What was the response from the US? It
“responded emphatically that climate change is the most”
politically sensitive
“question for the US, stating it is a ‘lightning rod issue’, mentioning that as of 2015,”
US trade representatives
“are bound by Congress not to include mention of greenhouse gas emission reductions in trade agreements. US stated this ban would not be lifted anytime soon.”
The US trade representative went further:
“we have an obligation to help real working people...there’s no point in being so ambitious we don’t end up with an agreement at all”.
The problem with that statement, of course, is that it is not one or the other. In the end, real working people need a planet that they can live on. They need the global temperature not to increase by more than 1.5°. They need the action on climate that will deliver that agenda. They need the jobs that will come from investment in low carbon industries now and in the future.
We should be worried about what the US is saying on this subject. We should take note of it and make sure that if the price of an agreement with the US is to oppose action on addressing the climate crisis, it is a price far too high for us to accept. I hope the Government will take the amendment on board, because there is nothing in it that is not in accordance with Government policy.
Fleur Anderson
Moving on from the sustainable development goals, and looking at the environmental regulations and the environmental issues that are baked into the Bill, we are already committed to climate action. The Minister has affirmed that we are and want to be compliant, and we aspire to see the achievement of the sustainable development goals. That means taking radical action and treating the climate situation as an emergency. To do that we need to add the amendment to the Trade Bill.
In doing so, we will be safeguarding life in water and on land. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister reaffirmed his Government’s commitment to achieving net zero by 2050 and boldly stated that “we will crack” the climate emergency. As a global leader on climate action, the UK must set an example to the rest of the world by honouring its international obligations under the Paris agreement and other multilateral environmental agreements. Trade policy is an integral part of that, so it should not be left out of the Bill.
Trade agreements can foster good climate action, but they can also impede Government implementation of climate commitments. They could threaten to increase fossil fuel use, for example, which we explicitly decided not to do in declaring a climate emergency. They could also hinder the sharing of green technology.
Trade agreements typically include national treatment for trade in gas, thereby locking in dependency on a fossil fuel with high greenhouse gas emissions, while incentivising increased fracking and fossil fuel infrastructure. We would not want continuity agreements that include those. The EU’s own impact assessment of TTIP—the EU-US trade deal—predicts that it would generate an additional 11 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. That is fundamentally at odds with our international climate obligations, so we must bring our trade policies up to date with our environment obligations.
The dangers that trade deals pose to the environment can be clearly seen in the EU-Mercosur trade agreement currently under negotiation. A fortnight ago, the Dutch Parliament rejected the agreement, due to a lack of enforceable agreements on the protection of the Amazon or the prevention of illegal deforestation. Conducting trade negotiations without clear environmental red lines on the statute book—which this amendment would provide—with countries led by individuals such as President Bolsonaro, under whom deforestation of the Amazon has increased by 27% according to the NGO SOS Atlantic Forest Foundation, poses a huge threat to the Government’s international, climate and environmental obligations.
As the WWF has noted, rushing into trade deals with partners that do not share our ambitions could undermine UK leadership on positive environmental outcomes, by allowing imports from industrialised agricultural systems or through supply chains that promote deforestation. “Risky Business”, a report by the WWF and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, demonstrates that the UK is already moving backwards on reducing the UK’s overseas land footprint, which increased by 15% between 2016 and 2018, suggesting that we are increasingly offshoring our environmental impact. We need to do better.
To conclude, the Bill gives us an opportunity to ensure that our trade policy supports our environmental ambitions by explicitly putting them into the Trade Bill, including the target of net zero carbon emissions by 2050. Amendment 11 is a positive step towards that goal and is consistent with the Government’s own commitments and obligations, so everyone should agree to it, to ensure that the UK complies with international law and that we remain a world leader on climate action.
Greg Hands
As I have set out, the Government’s continuity programme is coherent with existing international obligations, as it seeks to replicate existing EU agreements to secure continuity for businesses and consumers. As I have made clear, we have no intention of lowering standards—environmental, labour or otherwise. The Prime Minister set out that commitment in his Greenwich speech and I have repeated it on many occasions, including today.
The UK has often led the way and exceeded EU minima on environmental issues, such as greenhouse gas emission reduction targets. I predict that we will continue to do so, thus making the amendment redundant. For example, the UK was the first country to introduce legally binding greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets through the Climate Change Act 2008. We were also the first major economy to set a legally binding target to achieve net zero greenhouse gas emissions from across the economy by 2050. We have cut our carbon emissions by nearly twice the EU average since 1990—by 42%.
Put simply, the UK has an extremely strong record on environmental action. I hope that the Committee will agree that the amendment is unnecessary, as we will be safeguarding and promoting, not undermining, our environmental obligations. Consequently, I ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Bill Esterson
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Putney: it is absolutely right that we set an example to the world by honouring our Paris commitments, and honouring them in primary legislation is a formidable way of doing that. I am glad that she reminded me about fracking. There is fracking a mile from my constituency, and it causes enormous problems. Its relevance to the amendment is that the same companies engaged in fracking are able, under ISDS provisions if they are in place, to take action against the UK Government to defend their fossil fuel interests, even if the Government do not want to support such an industry and want to pursue a renewable energy agenda, so it is an important consideration.
That is why the amendment or something similar—if the Minister wants to bring it back, I will be very happy to look at it on Report—is the way to deal with this matter. We need to ensure that it is there, specified and clear in primary legislation, as part of our international trade framework, which is what the Bill should be. It is great of him to reference the Labour Government’s Climate Change Act 2008, but it is time for this Government to put such things into law as well, and this is their opportunity. I will press my amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 12, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations under subsection (1) may make provision for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement only if the provisions of that international trade agreement do not in any way restrict the ability—
(a) to make public services at a national or local level subject to public monopoly;
(b) to make public services at a national or local level subject to exclusive rights granted to private operators; and
(c) to bring public services at a national or local level back into the public sector for delivery by public sector employees.”
We have significant written evidence to support this amendment—from the TUC, the British Medical Journal and the Trade Justice Movement. It is about ensuring that international trade agreements do not undermine the ability of Governments at national or local level to run services in the public sector or in a public monopoly in the private sector. Importantly, it also has provision for bringing services that have been privatised back into the public sector—as we have just seen with the probation service—when they have failed after a botched privatisation. We have seen the desirability of doing that all too often with outsourcing, as more and more councils seek to bring services back in-house.
However, with negative lists, standstill clauses and ratchet clauses in international trade agreements, it is becoming increasingly difficult for Governments to do these things. Negative lists ensure that only those services that are specified can be considered in the public sector. Standstill clauses mean that services cannot be brought back into the public sector. Ratchet clauses mean that we see increasing privatisation, with no prospect of a reduction. Failure to abide by them enables overseas interests to take legal action against the Government in this country. The proposed provisions need to be included for those reasons; otherwise, we face real problems in our national health service and elsewhere in our public services.
The Conservative party pledged in its manifesto last year that the NHS would be off the table in a trade agreement, but the pledge did not specifically cover any of the aspects that I have just described, including negative listing and standstill and ratchet clauses. There is digital trade as well. I did not deal with digital trade in my earlier remarks, but it is important because it covers areas such as NHS data, including patient data, which is of great concern to many people.
There is an opportunity for Government Members to rectify that omission from their manifesto by voting for our amendment. If they are committed to the NHS and our other public services, they can support the amendment and ensure that the opportunities are available for the public sector to deliver public services in the public interest.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Greg Hands
Amendment 12 would mean that the power in clause 2 could not be used to implement agreements that might restrict the delivery of public services through public monopolies, exclusive rights or nationalisation.
The amendment is not necessary, because this is a continuity Bill. None of the agreements in question restrict our ability to deliver public services in that way. We have always protected our right to choose how we deliver public services in our trade agreements. Indeed, the UK’s public services, including the NHS, are often protected by specific exclusions, exceptions and reservations in the trade agreements to which the UK is a party. No trade agreement has ever affected our ability to keep public services public.
Colleagues will observe from our record of the signed agreements that the continuity programme seeks to preserve current trading relationships and not to alter the way in which our public services are designed or delivered. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, and I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.
Bill Esterson
Again, through secondary legislation the Bill enables the Government to do some of the things that we have described. More to the point, however, this issue is important because of the nature of the continuity agreements that will be renegotiated. We have discussed the agreements with Canada, Japan, Mexico and Turkey. I do not know whether any of those agreements would do what I have described, but they could potentially do so because they are not just continuity agreements.
The Bill sets the framework for trade agreements, because the Government are not bringing forward a different framework or alternatives on how trade agreements will be scrutinised and how they will end up. The Government are not challenging what the United States might do. We know the concerns that exist about how the US has expressed in the past its desire to intervene in public services in this country. We should be concerned and we should put this kind of commitment into law as it relates to international trade. I will press the amendment to the vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 13, in clause 2, page 2, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) Regulations may only be made under subsection (1) if—
(a) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are consistent with standards for food safety and quality as set and administered by—
(i) the Department of Health;
(ii) the Food Standards Agency;
(iii) Food Standards Scotland; and
(iv) any other public authority specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;
(b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that mechanisms and bodies charged with enforcement of standards for food safety and quality have the capacity to absorb any extra requirement which may arise from the implementation of the agreement;
(c) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are consistent with policy to achieve reduction in the risk of disease or contamination as set and administered by—
(i) the Department of Health;
(ii) the Food Standards Agency;
(iii) Food Standards Scotland; and
(iv) any other public authority specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;
(d) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are consistent with achieving improvements in public health through any food policy priorities set and administered by—
(i) the Department of Health;
(ii) the Food Standards Agency;
(iii) Food Standards Scotland; and
(iv) any other public authority specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;
(e) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are compliant with policy to achieve targets for farm antibiotic reduction set by the Veterinary Medicines Directorate;
(f) the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are compliant with retained EU law relating to food standards and the impact of food production upon the environment; and
(g) any food or food products to which the provisions of the international trade agreement apply meet standards of labelling, indication of provenance, and packaging specified by the Food Standards Agency or Food Standards Scotland.”
The amendment relates to food standards—food production standards and food safety standards. That is an important distinction, because the Secretary of State and the Ministers do not appear to appreciate that we are talking about both types of standards. We saw this during the latest International Trade questions, where the hon. Member for Dundee East and I both made a point that was about food production as well as food safety, but that seemed to escape the notice of the Secretary of State.
The reality is that the US Government have a rather different view of what is important. Their trade representative has told us that the US has the best agriculture in the world; he has also said that it
“has the safest, highest standards”,
and that we
“shouldn’t confuse science with consumer preference.”
One thing that worries me is that when the Paymaster General was answering questions on this topic in the House the week before last, she made the point that consumers will decide. That has made people on the Opposition side worried that perhaps the Government are not as concerned as about this as they might be.
Representative Lighthizer has also described chlorinated chicken as thinly veiled protectionism. He clearly wants that to be part of a deal—he has said so—and has told Congress that the American Government are looking for a comprehensive deal, not a more limited agreement. By “comprehensive deal”, they mean agriculture in a very significant way, with lower food production standards. He has expected a push for access to the UK market for American farmers, and he has said that on issues such as agriculture,
“this administration is not going to compromise”.
Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State, has made similar points, saying that chlorinated chicken must be part of the deal.
What do American standards mean? They mean a chlorine or acid wash to kill the pathogens in chicken, but those pathogens only need to be killed because of the poor animal welfare those chickens experience throughout their life. Other animal welfare concerns exist elsewhere, including the use of the feed additive, ractopamine, in pig farming and the use of injected growth hormones in cattle. Both give rise to significant welfare concerns for the animals involved; both are banned by the EU, and have been banned by the UK up to this point.
However, this is not just about food production standards, but food safety. The United States has 10 times the level of food poisonings that the European Union does, and one of the reasons is the allowable defect levels it has. It has a defect levels handbook, which sets out the maximum number of foreign bodies—such as maggots, insect fragments and mould—that can be in food products before they are put on the market. Chocolates can have insects in them, or parts of insects; noodles can have rat hair in them; and orange juice can contain maggots.
Bill Esterson
Those are just some of the horrors that UK consumers could be forced to accept if this country signs the kind of wide-ranging deal that Mike Pompeo and representative Lighthizer seem to be implying. I take it that the hon. Gentleman accepts that these things have been said by Mr Lighthizer and Mr Pompeo.
Robert Courts
The Opposition made the point about orange juice in a debate on the Floor of the House some months ago. It has since been completely debunked. Instead of using scaremongering about the standards of American food, could the hon. Gentleman address the facts?
Bill Esterson
The hon. Gentleman may want to withdraw that comment. I am not sure whether it was a bit close to the mark, but I know it has not gone over the mark; otherwise, you would have pulled him up, Sir Graham. The problem with what the hon. Member has just said is that the defect levels handbook says that US producers are allowed to include up to 30 insect fragments in a 100g jar of peanut butter.
Bill Esterson
The hon. Gentleman needs to get used to the idea that when someone takes an intervention, they have to answer that intervention before they take another one.
US producers are also allowed to include 11 rodent hairs in a 25g container of paprika, and 3mg of rat or mouse droppings per pound of ginger. There are similar rules for cocoa beans, cornmeal, ginger, oregano and spices. I will give way if the hon. Member wants to tell me that is not what is in the defect levels handbook.
Lee Rowley
I am happy to explain what I think is the case. Those are the thresholds at which the United States undertakes automatic prosecution against companies. They are not, as he is describing, the thresholds for what the US necessarily accepts in its domestic food production. That is a misrepresentation, as my hon. Friend the Member for Witney suggested. If the Labour party wants to have a mature and open discussion about trade in the future, given that we have just got these competencies back from the European Union for the first time in 40 years, it would do well to acknowledge those key and important nuances, which it is currently glossing over.
Bill Esterson
What is interesting about that intervention is that the hon. Member is right to say there are prosecutions above those thresholds, because it is illegal to cross them. However, US producers are legally allowed up to those thresholds, which is one of the reasons why food poisoning is such a problem in the United States. The difference between the United States, the EU and the UK is that we do not allow any of them. We have zero thresholds in this country, and I want that to continue. I am sure that everybody in the Committee wants that to continue, but unless we take action to provide safeguards in the event of international trade negotiations, there is a threat that such changes can be implemented.
We heard oral evidence from the NFU and have received written evidence from the RSPCA and the British Poultry Council to back up what I have just said. British and European standards are the highest in the world.
Gareth Thomas
Is not the broader significance of the intervention by the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire, when he asked whether the Labour party wants a mature and open discussion about trade, that we absolutely do want that? It is his ministerial colleagues and his Government who are preventing that from happening by denying a proper scrutiny process of future free trade agreements, including with the US.
Bill Esterson
A number of times, my hon. Friend has effectively reminded the Committee, in response to interventions from Government Members, that scrutiny will ensure that we do not have those sorts of problems. They would do well to take on board his advice and expertise, which is driven by his experience in government of looking at such matters. I daresay that when the Bill goes to the Lords, their Lordships will do just that. We might end with some changes to the Bill, even if we do not make any changes in Committee or on Report in the Commons.
We would do well to look at the evidence that was given to us. We would do well to look at what was said during the proceedings on the Agriculture Bill. We would do well to remember that some Government Members were led to believe that there would be an amendment to the Trade Bill that gave protections against the sorts of problems that I have just set out. That is why we have tabled an amendment later in proceedings to ensure that we deliver exactly that.
For now, the Paymaster General wants to leave it to the consumer. I want to ensure that the consumer is not put in a difficult position because, whereas in this country and in the EU we require labelling on meat about where it was hatched, reared and slaughtered, the US repealed similar legislation in 2015. If we do not want to have problems over the safety of our food—I will mention GM and some of the problems with vegetables as well—I suggest we attach an amendment such as this one to the Bill, or do as Ministers told their hon. Friends on the Agriculture Bill, and pass that amendment when we get there, probably, on Thursday.
Fleur Anderson
I have a few short remarks to make about food standards, which are of huge concern to my constituents. More than 100 people have written to me in the past week or so calling for a food standards commission to be set up, and they are watching this amendment carefully. I am sure this is another in a series of amendments on which we will hear from the Minister how much he agrees with what we are saying, and then he will go ahead and vote against it.
If so, and if we do not have these amendments in the Bill to say what our standards are, where would we have them? We could just have a note from the Secretary of State saying, “I am getting on with the trade agreements; let me carry on.” But no, we have a Bill, so we can set out what we want in those trade negotiations. The past few months have served as a reminder to us all to value our food, to think about where it comes from, its safety and its traceability, and to value our farmers and growers who produce it.
In a post-Brexit world, liberalised trade could expose British agriculture and mean that our farmers would have to compete with products that would be illegal to produce here in the UK. Now is the time for us to be world leaders and use that position to increase the animal welfare and environmental standards of food production across the world, in the continuity agreements and in others.
The chorus of voices in the food sector who are concerned about the future of food standards in our trade policy is deafening. The NFU has expressed concerns, noting that in our current and forthcoming trade negotiations other countries will not only urge the UK to follow their own sanitary and phytosanitary standards arrangements, which in many cases diverge from current UK practice, but resist any suggestion that their own producers meet the production standards and additional costs required of UK farmers, who will then lose out.
That leads us to the conclusion that it is hard to see how trade liberalisation will not inevitably lead to an increase in food imports produced in ways that would be illegal in the UK. In addition, the British Poultry Council believes that if food produced to lower standards is allowed to enter the British market, it will create a two-tier food system, in which only the affluent can afford to eat British food grown to British standards. That is unacceptable.
Turning briefly to animal welfare standards, it is important to understand that this is not a mere ethical luxury or a nicety—a nice-to-have addition to the Bill that we could have or not. Friends of the Earth has pointed out that intensive farming with few welfare protections is associated with deforestation, local pollution, poor workers’ rights and high emissions.
The Government have repeatedly assured us that they do not want to see regression in this area, and I am sure we are about to hear that again. Michael Gove committed on multiple occasions to ensuring that the UK was a global leader on animal welfare. That promise was reiterated in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. However, Friends of the Earth is concerned that future trade partners will want to water down the UK’s very high animal welfare standards, and that free trade agreements, which are the subject of the Bill, could pose a serious threat to the Government’s existing commitments to maintaining and improving UK standards.
The most effective way to prevent a regression in food and animal welfare standards, which is a worry for many different groups, and for the Government to keep their word would be to enshrine these standards in primary legislation before entering trade negotiations, taking them off the table altogether and therefore agreeing amendment 13.
Contrary to some commentators’ views, the amendment is not incompatible with global trade rules. Trade rules enshrine the rights of nations to regulate to achieve public policy goals, and to require that goods and services reach specific standards to qualify for import, as long as those requirements are applied fairly. The amendment would achieve that, and ensure that we have good food standards.
The Chair
I remind the hon. Lady to refer to Members of the House not by name, but by their constituency. I call Matt Western.
Matt Western
Thank you, Sir Graham. Very briefly, we have heard from Members across the Committee about our constituents’ concerns, and those of last week’s witnesses. We have only to think back to some of the extraordinary campaigns by Jamie Oliver, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall and others, who highlighted some of the terrible practices that were going on in the food chain, to realise that the public are very much in favour of an organisation such as the food and farming standards commission that has been proposed by the National Farmers Union, to ensure that our farming standards and food standards are maintained at the highest level.
We have some of the highest standards in the world. We also happen to have some of the cheapest food prices, due to the competition that we enjoy in this country. The question is what we would gain from not adding such an amendment to the legislation, and not including a food and farming standards commission. It is very easy to talk about the United States in isolation, and the concerns that the public have over such things as hormone-treated beef or chlorinated chickens. As I mentioned earlier, producers in Australia also supply that market, and have industrial-scale battery caged hens producing vast quantities of eggs.
It is likely that in any UK-Australia trade deal we would lose at least 20% of our current market of eggs produced in the UK to Australian producers. That is the sort of impact that we need to understand. I think the farming community is beginning to understand it fully. Consumers need to understand it as well because, at the end of the day, it is this sector that will be sacrificed in any future trade deal.
Just look at the YouGov poll that I think was announced in the last 24 hours. Some 80% of consumers do not want chlorine-washed chicken. They appreciate and enjoy very high standards currently and they do not want to see such standards reduced in a future trade deal, whether with Australia, the US or anywhere else.
Charlotte Nichols
Very quickly, the provisions in the amendment could prove to be some of the most significant debated today, particularly proposed new paragraph (e) regarding antibiotics. We have seen that antibiotic resistance is one of the greatest threats—perhaps even an existential threat—facing humanity. It is as significant as the climate crisis. As we have seen with coronavirus, it would wreak not just a public health impact but an economic impact on our country.
When we discuss the food standards that are laid out in the legislation, it is not only what we eat that is important; the conditions in which animals are kept can often be breeding grounds for diseases that can spread to humans. Ensuring that antibiotics are used appropriately and in line with current regulations is of massive importance.
Greg Hands
As the Committee will know, the UK’s food standards for both domestic production and imports are overseen by the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland. Those agencies provide independent advice to the UK and Scottish Governments and will continue to do so to ensure that all food imports comply with the UK’s high safety standards.
Through the work of those independent organisations, consumers are protected from unsafe food that does not meet our high domestic standards. I reassure the Committee that all imports, whether under continuity agreements, most favoured nation terms or new free trade agreements, must comply with our import requirements and food safety standards. Countries seeking access to our markets in future will have to abide by those food standards.
Bill Esterson
I am grateful to my hon. Friends for their contributions, as ever. My hon. Friend the Member for Putney reminded us to value our food and its origins, and of the threat to farmers in the UK if they have to compete with lower-standard food. She was right to do so.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington reminded us about the fact that the public are in favour of high animal welfare standards, as well as food standards. We have some of the highest standards in the world.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington North rightly raised the issue of antibiotics; the potential for diseases to jump species, in the context of covid-19; and why it is so important that we maintain not just food safety standards but food production and animal welfare standards, and that we do not allow imports of food that do not meet those high production and animal welfare standards. I noticed that the Minister referred to food safety in his answer. The Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland do that job, but their remit is food safety, not how the food was produced or the animal welfare under which it was produced. The point about antibiotics should alarm us all right now, given the nature of the crisis that we are going through.
The Minister and his colleagues should keep the promise that was made to colleagues in debate on the Agriculture Bill about the inclusion of provisions in the Trade Bill. Colleagues were told that that would happen, which is why they did not pursue things in the Agriculture Bill. It is essential that we maintain standards—yes, in the continuity agreements, but in future agreements too. That is the relevance of the amendment. That should be the framework for all trade agreements, not just so-called continuity ones. I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Gareth Thomas
I beg to move amendment 14, in clause 2, page 2, leave out lines 27 and 28.
The amendment is designed to remove the Henry VIII powers from the Bill. In its write up of the Trade Bill, Linklaters noted that constitutionally, the Government are already able to sign and ratify trade agreements with minimal reference to Parliament. The Trade Bill is designed to shortcut this process and to authorise the Government to implement the new agreements directly, by Executive act. To help them to do that, the Government seek to use Henry VIII powers to enable them to amend various bits of EU legislation, as they think appropriate, using regulations.
Liberty and others have argued that that represents a fundamental breach of Parliamentary sovereignty. The Committee has already debated the considerable weaknesses in the Bill in terms of opportunities for scrutiny. It is true that in comparison with the previous Trade Bill, Ministers have made a minor concession and agreed to the use of the affirmative process, but we can see no reason for the scale of the power grab represented by the Henry VIII powers in subsection (6)(a), and our amendment seeks to take them out.
Greg Hands
I will now address amendment 14. As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the amendment would remove the power to modify direct principal EU legislation, or primary legislation that is retained EU law, in order to implement obligations arising from continuity agreements.
It is important for Members to understand that without this power, we would, unfortunately, be unable to implement our obligations and we would risk being in breach of international law. It would also mean that our agreements were inoperable, adversely impacting upon UK businesses and consumers. I feel reasonably sure, Sir Graham, that that is not something that any Member of this Committee would support.
In addition, not only is this power necessary, but it is proportionate and constrained, because it only allows for the amendment of primary legislation that is retained EU law. Since trade continuity agreements will have been implemented substantially through EU law, the power is necessary to implement any technical changes that keep the agreements operable beyond the end of the transition period.
The Government have constrained the power as much as possible while ensuring that it is still capable of delivering continuity in our current trading relationships, which benefit businesses and consumers in every constituency represented by members of this Committee. To provide reassurance to Parliament, we have added a five-year sunset provision, which we will turn to shortly, and any regulations made under the clause 2 power will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
I ask Members not to take my word for it, but to take the word of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, who raised no issues with the delegated powers in this Bill, gave it a clean bill of health and praised the introduction of the draft affirmative procedure for any regulations made. I hope that, in the light of the explanation that I have given, the Committee is reassured that not only is this power necessary, but it is proportionate and constrained. As such, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Gareth Thomas
I do not intend to press the matter to a vote, in the interests of time. I am not convinced by the Government’s argument, and we may return to the matter at Report stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stewart Hosie
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 2, page 2, line 33, at end insert—
“(6A) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown, so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Scottish Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 6 of Schedule 1), unless the Scottish Ministers consent.
(6B) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown, so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of the Welsh Ministers (within the meaning given in paragraph 7 of Schedule 1), unless the Welsh Ministers consent.
(6C) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) by a Minister of the Crown, so far as they contain provision which would be within the devolved competence of a Northern Ireland department (within the meaning given in paragraph 8 of Schedule 1), unless a Northern Ireland devolved authority (within the meaning of paragraph 9 of Schedule 1) gives consent.”
This amendment would ensure that the consent of a devolved government is required for regulations under section 2(1) if those regulations contain matters which are within the remit of the devolved government.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 16—Role of Joint Ministerial Committee—
“(1) The Joint Ministerial Committee is to be a forum—
(a) for discussing—
(i) the terms upon which the United Kingdom is to commence negotiations with respect to any international trade agreement;
(ii) proposals to amend retained EU law for the purposes of regulations made under section 1 or section 2;
(b) for seeking a consensus on the matters set out in subsection (1)(a) between Her Majesty’s Government and the other members of the Joint Ministerial Committee.
(2) Before Her Majesty’s Government concludes an international trade agreement, the Secretary of State must produce a document for consideration by the Joint Ministerial Committee setting out—
(a) Her Majesty’s Government’s objectives and strategy in negotiating and concluding an international trade agreement;
(b) the steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to keep the Joint Ministerial Committee informed of progress in reaching an international trade agreement;
(c) the steps Her Majesty’s Government intends to take to consult each member of the Joint Ministerial Committee before entering into an international trade agreement and for taking the views of each member into account.
(3) Before concluding an international trade agreement the Secretary of State must produce a document setting out the terms of the proposed agreement for consideration by the Joint Ministerial Committee.
(4) In this section, ‘the Joint Ministerial Committee’ means the body set up in accordance with Supplementary Agreement A of the Memorandum of Understanding on Devolution, between Her Majesty’s Government, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive Committee.”
Stewart Hosie
Although it was not my intention to press any of our amendments or new clauses to a vote, such has been the public support for new clause 12 on the NHS that it is my intention, if and when we reach that stage of the debate—perhaps on Thursday afternoon —to divide the Committee. I am sorry to leave it so late to advise the Committee of that, but this is the first opportunity I have had to do so.
Amendment 8 relates to the powers of the devolved Administrations, or, more accurately, the ability of the UK Government to make regulations under subsection (1), which makes provisions within devolved competencies, without the consent of Scottish or Welsh Ministers or a Northern Irish devolved authority. It certainly strikes us as fundamental that, if we are to respect the devolved settlement in the UK, Ministers must gain the consent of the devolved Administrations before making changes to regulations that directly affect them, possibly negatively or in a way that runs counter to their policy objectives.
I am aware that the previous Trade Bill from 2017 to 2019 made provision for regulation-making powers to be available to the UK Government and the devolved Administrations within areas of devolved competence. That version of the Trade Bill contained a provision that prohibited devolved Administrations from using powers to modify retained direct EU legislation or any EU law retained by virtue of section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in ways that would be inconsistent with any UK Government modifications to retained direct legislation or EU law, even in devolved areas. As a result, the Scottish Government could not recommend giving consent to the previous Bill, and the Scottish Parliament’s Finance and Constitution Committee supported that position.
That Trade Bill did not complete its passage through the House, as Parliament was dissolved and the Bill therefore fell. The good news is that those provisions have been removed entirely from the reintroduced Trade Bill. However, there remains no statutory obligation for the UK Government even to consult, let alone to seek the consent of, Scottish Ministers before exercising the powers in the Bill in devolved areas.
During the partial proceedings on the previous Trade Bill, the UK Government made a commitment to avoid using the powers in devolved areas without consulting, and ideally obtaining the consent of, Scottish Ministers. The then Minister of State for Trade Policy at the Department of International Trade, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns), restated that commitment in a letter to Ivan McKee, the Scottish Government Minister, on 18 March, the day before this Bill was introduced. I asked on Second Reading whether those non-legislative commitments still stood, and I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm that today.
I know that the Minister is aware of those commitments, but I suspect that many other Committee members may not be. The non-legislative commitments I refer to are as follows. The first is that UK Government Ministers will not normally use the powers conferred by the Bill in devolved areas without Scottish and other devolved Ministers’ consent, and that they will never do so without consulting them. The second is that the UK Government will consult the Scottish Government and other devolved Administrations before extending the sunset for the power in clause 2—that is, before extending the period during which clause 2 powers can be used under the Bill.
The third is that in relation to the Trade Remedies Authority—the TRA—the Secretary of State will notify the devolved Administrations of decisions to initiate a trade investigation that will have a particular impact on the devolved nation. The fourth is that the Secretary of State will notify the devolved Administrations of the TRA’s recommendations to the Secretary of State at the same time as consulting other Government Departments, so that they can feed in their views. The fifth is that the devolved Administrations can proactively submit to the TRA any information that they consider relevant to an investigation. The final commitment is that the Secretary of State will seek the devolved Administrations’ suggestions on the optimal way of recruiting TRA non-executive members with regional knowledge, skills and experience.
I hope the Minister can confirm that those non-legislative commitments still stand. That would be particularly helpful. That would not remove the obvious need for an amendment of this kind, to ensure that devolved Governments have an input in statute to changes that directly affect them, and that, at the very least, consent is sought and received before such changes are proceeded with.
Gareth Thomas
New clause 16 would put on the face of the Bill a joint ministerial committee, and give it powers to discuss international trade issues with the devolved Administrations. The Labour party brought the devolution settlements into effect. It has continued to champion the rights of the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, through the devolved Administrations, to use to good effect the rights and powers devolved to them under the settlements.
In the new world, post-Brexit, we need the devolution settlements to be slightly updated to reflect the significance of the international trade agreements that will be negotiated. Putting into statute the joint ministerial committee and effectively establishing a ministerial forum for international trade seems to us to be the most sensible way to lock in proper consultation between Whitehall and each of the devolved Administrations.
One area of potential future negotiations where discussions on trade at joint ministerial committee level might well be needed is that of geographical indications, given the significance to the Welsh economy of Welsh lamb, for example, and to the Scottish economy of Scottish salmon and Scotch whisky. One recognises that the Administrations will understandably want to make sure that those industries are properly taken into account in future trade agreements, given the considerable number of jobs dependent on them in those countries.
GIs raise a further issue—the question of who has the power to legislate on them during the implementation of a trade agreement. My understanding is that that remains an issue. The most recent Cabinet Office revised framework analysis, published in April last year, stated that Ministers believed there were four areas that were reserved but subject to continued discussion. Two of those seem to me to have strong relevance to international trade. One is state aid and one is food GIs. If the question of who has power to legislate on those issues has not yet been fully resolved, it is surely all the more important to establish a formal forum for serious discussions between Ministers in the devolved Administrations and the UK Government on what should or should not be in a future trade agreement.
I have some sympathy with the argument that the hon. Member for Dundee East has advanced, but one of the problems with his amendment was encapsulated in an exchange in the fourth sitting of the Committee on the previous Trade Bill, between the former Trade Minister Mark Prisk and the then Trade spokesman for the hon. Gentleman’s party—I believe that that was the hon. Member for Livingston (Hannah Bardell). In column 116 of that sitting, the then Minister asked whether the hon. Lady thought that Welsh Ministers should have the power to veto a deal that was hugely in the interest of Scottish whisky. As a result, I gently suggest to the hon. Member for Dundee East that when we seek to press new clause 16 to a vote—perhaps on Thursday—he may be open to supporting that as a sensible route to managing the inevitable slightly differing priorities of each of the devolved Administrations and, potentially, the UK Government too.
Greg Hands
I welcome the opportunity to discuss the important issues raised in the amendments, which I think are fundamentally on different topics from those that we have dealt with for much of today. There is significant common ground between the Government and the Opposition parties. I welcome the hon. Member for Dundee East to the debate, for his first contribution today. It was noticeable that he chose not to take part in the chaos that ensued earlier when the main Opposition party’s Front Benchers struggled with whether they are for or against the Canada agreement and so on. He wisely decided to sit that one out.
Under the UK constitution, the negotiation of international trade agreements is, as I have already made clear, a prerogative power of the UK Government. It is also a reserved matter, where the UK Government act on behalf of the whole UK. When exercising that reserved power, the Government have made clear that they will deliver trade agreements that benefit all parts of the UK—I have already referred to the scoping assessment for the US deal, showing that Scotland would be the nation or region of the UK that benefited most—unleashing the potential of businesses from all four countries of the United Kingdom.
I recognise the important role that the devolved Administrations can and should play in that endeavour, not only as representatives of their respective nations’ interest, but because we know our trade deals will interact with areas of devolved competence. As such, my Department has worked and will continue to work closely with the DAs on our trade policy.
Turning to new clause 16, I will explain why I think it is unnecessary and impractical, although the principle of engagement behind it is one that I share. The new clause seeks to create a statutory role for a joint committee of the UK Government and the devolved Administrations as a forum to discuss trade policy, but such an arrangement is already in place.
During the passage of the Trade Bill 2017-19, the previous Secretary of State for Trade, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), committed to establishing a new bespoke ministerial forum for trade with the devolved Administrations, in recognition of the importance of this relationship. That forum had its inaugural meeting in January and meets regularly to discuss our approach to trade negotiations, including key areas such as our objectives for the US trade agreement.
I am also happy to put on record my commitment to continuing to work closely with the devolved Administrations at all stages of trade negotiations, not only through the ministerial forum for trade, but via bilateral ad hoc engagement to reflect the sometimes fast-paced nature of trade negotiations. Indeed, I spoke about the US free trade agreement with all my counterparts in the devolved Administrations last month and have also recently written about the Trade Bill and other trade policy issues.
My former ministerial colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) travelled to Belfast in February to meet colleagues in the Northern Ireland Executive to discuss trade policy. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Dundee East, I restate the commitments made by my right hon. Friend, when he was a Minister, in his March letter to the Scottish Minister Ivan McKee.
In short, we are already delivering the engagement envisaged by proposed new clause, and we have achieved that while continuing to observe the important constitutional principles enshrined in the devolution settlements. In contrast, this proposed new clause would give the devolved Administrations a statutory role in the reserved area of international trade negotiations, which would be constitutionally inappropriate.
Nor is this proposed new clause practical. It would lock us and the DAs into prescribed ways of working under the existing intergovernmental memorandum of understanding, a document last updated in 2013. It would constrain our ability to develop and adapt bespoke engagement mechanisms as we embark on negotiating our first UK trade agreements for more than a generation.
Turning to amendment 8, the powers created by this legislation will be used for the purpose of transitioning trade agreements with those countries that the UK had agreements with through its membership of the EU. That will ensure certainty, continuity and stability in our trade and investment relationships for businesses, citizens and trading partners in all parts of the UK.
As parts of these agreements touch on devolved matters, this legislation will create concurrent powers. We have sought to put in place concurrent powers to provide greater flexibility in how transitional agreements are implemented, allowing each devolved Administration to implement the agreements independently in some cases, while also allowing the UK Government to legislate on a UK-wide basis where it makes practical sense to do so. This approach permits greater administrative efficiency, reducing the volume of legislation brought through the UK Parliament and through the devolved legislatures.
I recognise that the devolved Administrations and members of this Committee seek reassurance that those powers will be used appropriately. The Government have already made clear that we will not normally use them to legislate within devolved areas without the consent of the relevant devolved Administration or Administrations, and never without consulting them first. I am, of course, happy to restate that commitment here.
It is not appropriate, however, to put that commitment on a statutory footing, as, like new clause 16, it would give the devolved Administrations a statutory role in the reserved area of international trade, undermining the important constitutional principles enshrined in the devolution settlements. We recognise that the technical implementation of international obligations in devolved areas is a devolved matter. However, as I have explained, the decision on which international obligations the UK enters into is a reserved matter and a prerogative power exercisable only by the UK Government. This rightly ensures that the UK Government can speak with a single voice under international law, providing certainty for our negotiating partners and the strongest possible negotiating position for the whole of the UK, for the benefit of all of the UK.
A statutory consent provision in the Bill would in effect give the devolved Administrations a veto over a reserved matter. This would be highly constitutionally inappropriate and could lead to a situation where international agreements applied in some parts of the UK but not others. This would be a fundamental weakening of our Union and the long-established principle that in the matter of international relations the UK Government negotiate for all parts of the UK.
Additionally, placing the commitment on a statutory footing could open us up to convoluted and lengthy procedures in which the courts were asked to determine in minute detail what was reserved and what was devolved. This is disproportionate and would create significant uncertainty for UK businesses, undermining the fundamental purpose of the Bill, which is to maximise certainty and continuity of trading arrangements. Our commitment to not normally legislate in areas of devolved competence without consent, and never without consultation, strikes the proper balance between providing sufficient reassurance to the devolved Administrations while preserving international relations as a reserved matter. It is a sincere commitment that we will honour, as we have honoured the commitments made to the devolved Administrations on the Trade Bill 2017-19.
For example, we committed to seeking suggestions from the devolved Administrations on the optimal way of recruiting non-executive members for the Trade Remedies Authority, which we will discuss on Thursday, with regional knowledge, skills and experience, and we fulfilled that earlier this year.
Our new independent trade policy absolutely calls for engagement with the devolved Administrations and respect for the important role that they can and should play, but it does not call for fundamental shifts in the nature of devolution or the weakening of powers that Parliament agreed should remain reserved to the UK Government. We have worked collaboratively with all the DAs to ensure that the Bill enables us to transition arrangements in a way that delivers for the whole UK. Our existing commitments, which I have restated today, provide sufficient reassurance to the devolved Administrations on the issues covered by the amendments. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Welsh Government have recommended consent to the relevant clauses of the Bill.
I hope I have been able to satisfy hon. Members that we have recognised and met their objectives in this amendment and that the hon. Member for Dundee East will withdraw it.
Stewart Hosie
I thank the Minister for reconfirming the non-legislative commitments made by his predecessor in his letter to Ivan McKee. That has genuinely helped. However, the Minister falls back on the argument that bespoke powers are better than a permanent credible structure. I disagree. I think a permanent credible structure provides more stability and certainty than the bespoke ad hoc use of powers and discussions from time to time. However, in the current devolved process, I recognise that international treaties are reserved matters. I absolutely understand and respect that, but he knows as well as anyone who might be listening that the interface of the intersection between an international trade treaty and a devolved competence might be fairly high. That is all the more reason for structured statutory formal engagement rather than an ad hoc bespoke process, which may or may not satisfy one or more parties, or one or more of the nations, in the UK about the Government’s actions over a given international trade agreement.
Although I do not intend to press the matter to a vote, and I thank the Minister sincerely for the commitments he has restated, there is a fundamental difference of opinion on the bespoke ad hoc approach being suggested and a formal statutory structure, and I am sure we will return to that theme on Report. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.— (Maria Caulfield.)
Written Statements
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Financial Services Regulation
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
The Working Group on Sterling Risk-Free Rates (RFRWG), the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and the Bank of England published joint statements on 25 March[1] and 29 April[2] relating to LIBOR transition. These statements underline the need for firms to continue to migrate away from LIBOR as a reference in their financial contracts and reiterate that firms cannot rely on the benchmark’s continued publication as the current voluntary agreement between the FCA and LIBOR panel banks will expire after end-2021 (as announced in 2017[3]). The Government have followed these and related global regulatory developments closely, including the Tough Legacy Taskforce report[4] published by the RFRWG.
The Government share both the regulators’ pragmatism in recognising the interim timetable for transition has been slowed by Covid-19 and their urgency that the market must continue actively transitioning away from LIBOR. It is in the interests of financial markets and their customers that the pool of contracts referencing LIBOR is shrunk to an irreducible core ahead of LIBOR’s expected cessation, leaving behind only those contracts that genuinely have no or inappropriate alternatives and no realistic ability to be renegotiated or amended. The Government recognise, however, that legislative steps could help deal with this narrow pool of ‘tough legacy’ contracts that cannot transition from LIBOR.
Unlike many jurisdictions, the UK has an existing regulatory framework for critical benchmarks such as LIBOR. The Government therefore intend to legislate to amend and strengthen that existing regulatory framework, rather than directly to impose legal changes on LIBOR-referencing contracts that are governed by UK law. The legislation will ensure that, by end-2021, the FCA has the appropriate regulatory powers to manage and direct any wind-down period prior to eventual LIBOR cessation in a way that protects consumers and/or ensures market integrity. The Government therefore intend to:
Amend the UK’s existing regulatory framework for benchmarks to ensure it can be used to manage different scenarios prior to a critical benchmark’s eventual cessation. In particular, the Government will introduce amendments to the Benchmarks Regulation 2016/1011 as amended by the Benchmarks (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 (the ‘UK BMR’), to ensure that FCA powers are sufficient to manage an orderly transition from LIBOR.
Extend the circumstances in which the FCA may require an administrator to change the methodology of a critical benchmark and clarify the purpose for which the FCA may exercise this power. New regulatory powers would enable the FCA to direct a methodology change for a critical benchmark, in circumstances where the regulator has found that the benchmark’s representativeness will not be restored and where action is necessary to protect consumers and or to ensure market integrity.
Strengthen existing law to prohibit use of an individual critical benchmark where its representativeness will not be restored, while giving the regulator the ability to specify limited continued use in legacy contracts.
Refine ancillary areas of the UK’s regulatory framework for benchmarks to ensure its effectiveness in managing the orderly wind down of a critical benchmark, including that administrators have adequate plans in place for such situations.
The Government intend to take these measures forward in the forthcoming Financial Services Bill. Following engagement with industry and global counterparts, the FCA will, where appropriate, issue a number of statements of policy relating to its approach to a range of new powers provided by the legislation before it exercises those new powers. The FCA may consider, among other factors, international impacts before exercising its new powers, given LIBOR’s global usage.
The Government agree with the RFRWG’s Tough Legacy Taskforce that active transition of legacy contracts remains of key importance and provides the best route to certainty for parties to contracts referencing LIBOR. Parties who rely on regulatory action, enabled by the legislation the Government plan to bring forward, will not have control over the economic terms of that action. Moreover regulatory action may not be able to address all issues or be practicable in all circumstances, for example where a methodology change is not feasible, or would not protect consumers or market integrity. This reinforces the importance of parties who can transition away from LIBOR doing so on terms that they themselves agree with their counterparties. The Government, the FCA and the Bank of England will continue to work closely to encourage market-led transition from LIBOR and to monitor progress.
[1] https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/impact- coronavirus-firms-libor-transition-plans.
[2] https://www.fca.org.uk/news/statements/further-statement- rfrwg-impact-coronavirus-timelinefirms-libor-transition-plans.
[3] https://www.fca.org.uk/news/speeches/the-future-of-libor.
[4] https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/ markets/benchmarks/paper-on-theidentification-of-tough-legacy-issues.pdf?la=en&hash= 0E8CA18F27F75352B0A0573DCBBC93D903077B6E.
[HCWS307]
Financial Services Update
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
Leaving the EU means the UK has taken back control of the rules governing our world-leading financial services sector. The UK has always championed and remains committed to the highest international standards of financial regulation. The financial services sector plays a crucial role in supporting the wider economy, creating jobs across the UK, supporting SMEs, contributing taxes, driving regional growth and investment, tackling climate change and embracing technology and innovation. The UK’s financial services sector has also been at the forefront of our response to the economic impact of covid-19, extending more than £35 billion of credit to provide fundamental support to businesses and offering crucial forbearance on mortgages and consumer credit products. Frontline staff have worked to keep bank and building society branches open throughout the pandemic, ensuring that people all across the UK could access the vital financial services they need.
The future success of the UK financial sector will be underpinned by a world-class environment for doing business. In turn, our future legislation will be guided by what is right for the UK, to support economic prosperity across the country, to ensure financial stability, market integrity and consumer protection, and to continue to ensure the UK remains a world leading financial centre. An enduring future relationship with the EU would help complement the UK’s leading global role in financial services. The Government continue to believe that comprehensive mutual findings of equivalence between the UK and the EU are in the best interests of both parties and we remain open and committed to continuing dialogue with the EU about their intentions in this respect.
There are now a range of important regulatory reforms in the process of being implemented at the international and European level that the UK needs to address before the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020. The purpose of this written ministerial statement is to set out how the UK intends to approach these, as well as a limited number of discrete areas for review to ensure relevant regulations remain appropriate for the UK financial sector. Today I would like to update Parliament on how the UK intends to approach these in the immediate term.
Last year, HM Treasury launched the Financial Services Future Regulatory Framework Review, a long-term review looking at how the UK’s regulatory framework needs to adapt to the future and in particular to the UK’s position outside of the EU. The next phase of the review will look at how financial services policy and regulation are made in the UK, including the role of Parliament, the Treasury and the financial services regulators, and how stakeholders are involved in the process. HM Treasury will consult on its approach to the next phase of the review in the second half of this year.
In the Queen’s Speech on 19 December 2019, the Government also announced their intention to bring forward a Financial Services Bill in order to deliver a number of existing Government commitments and to ensure that the UK maintains its world-leading regulatory standards and remains open to international markets. The Financial Services Bill will deliver our commitments to: long-term market access between the UK and Gibraltar for financial services firms based on shared, high standards; and simplified process which allows overseas investment funds to be sold in the UK.
In general, consistent with the UK’s position as a major international financial hub, the Government intend to implement immediate reforms in line with existing expectations of the industry and the approach of the EU and other international partners where relevant. Naturally there will be some defined areas where it is appropriate for the UK—as a large and complex financial services jurisdiction—to take an approach which better suits our market, while remaining consistent with international standards.
Today’s announcements provide clarity to all stakeholders about the UK’s legislative plans for the near future in relation to these forthcoming reforms, in relation to updating prudential requirements; maintaining sound capital markets; and, managing future risks.
Updating prudential requirements
The features that distinguish the UK as a leading global financial centre—openness, safety and transparency, innovative and resilient markets—are also in part anchored in international standards for financial regulation that the UK has had a significant hand in designing. Through organisations such as the G20, Financial Stability Board (FSB), and the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the UK has led the way in a number of key reform areas. Harmonised international standards are key to promoting the openness and resilience underpinning the UK’s sector.
The UK played a pivotal role in the design of EU financial services regulation. The Government remain committed to maintaining prudential soundness and other important regulatory outcomes such as consumer protection and proportionality. However, rules designed as a compromise for 28 countries cannot be expected in every respect to be the right approach for a large and complex international financial sector such as the UK. Now that the UK has left the EU, the EU is naturally already making decisions on amending its current rules without regard for the UK’s interests. We will therefore also tailor our approach to implementation to ensure that it better suits the UK market outside the EU.
The Government have previously announced their intention to use the Financial Services Bill to legislate to enable the implementation of a new prudential regime for investment firms and to update the regulation of credit institutions, including the implementation of the international Basel III standards. HM Treasury has today set out more detail on our legislative approach to prudential regulation in the document “Prudential standards in the Financial Services Bill: June update”. In particular, the Government intend to introduce updated prudential standards in a flexible and proportionate manner, as called for by industry and the House of Lords EU Affairs sub-committee. The Government intend to do this by delegating responsibility for firm requirements to the relevant regulator—the Prudential Regulation Authority (PRA) or the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)—subject to an enhanced accountability framework to ensure that the regulators have regard to competitiveness and equivalence when making rules for these regimes. Both the PRA and the FCA will set out further details on the substance of the proposed regimes in due course.
To minimise uncertainty, the Government and the Regulators propose to introduce the new Investment Firms Prudential Regime (IFPR) and updated rules for credit institutions in line with the intended outcomes of the EU’s Investment Firms Regulation and Directive, and the second Capital Requirements Regulation respectively for the IFPR, the June update further clarifies that the Government and the PRA do not intend to require PRA-designated investment firms to re-authorise as credit institutions, unlike the EU regime. It also clarifies that the Government do not intend to require FCA-regulated investment firms to comply with the requirements of the fifth Capital Requirements Directive (CRDV) in the period until the new IFPR applies. A consultation on our transposition of CRDV will take place in July.
During the transition period, and under the terms of the withdrawal agreement, the Government will implement EU legislation that requires transposition before the end of 2020. This includes the transposition of the fifth Capital Requirements Directive (CRDV), and the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive II (BRRDII) by 28 December 2020. BRRDII makes amendments to the original 2014 Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) provisions, in order to update the EU’s resolution policy and minimum requirements for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) framework.
However, HM Treasury is considering how best to implement aspects of files that do not come into force until after 31 December 2020. Given some of these changes do not come into force until the UK has left the transition period, it is right that the UK exercises its discretion when implementing these files.
For example, while we are committing to transposing most aspects of BRRDII, HM Treasury has considered how to ensure that it suits the UK market and we have today published a consultation document setting out more detail on this. In our transposition of BRRDII we are not intending to transpose the requirements in the directive that do not need to be complied with by firms until after the end of the EU Exit transition period, in particular Article 1(17) which revises the framework for MREL requirements across the EU. MREL is the minimum amount of equity and debt that a firm must maintain to absorb losses and provide for recapitalisation, in the event of resolution. The purpose of MREL is to ensure that investors and shareholders, and not the taxpayer, absorb losses when a firm fails. The UK already has in place a MREL framework in line with international standards. BRRDII states that the deadline for institutions and entities to comply with end-state MREL requirements shall be 1 January 2024. Given this is after the end of the transition period, it is right that the UK exercises its discretion about whether to transpose those requirements.
The Government also plan to bring forward a review of certain features of Solvency II to ensure that it is properly tailored to take account of the structural features of the UK insurance sector. The review will consider areas that have been the subject of long-standing discussion while the UK was a member state, some of which may also form part of the EU’s intended review. These will include, but are not limited to, the risk margin, the matching adjustment, the operation of internal models and reporting requirements for insurers. The Government expect to publish a call for evidence in autumn 2020.
Maintaining sound capital markets
Under the terms of the withdrawal agreement, the Government will implement EU legislation that comes into force before the end of the transition period. The EU is in the process of implementing a range of provisions on capital markets, with some aspects applying before and after the end of the transition period. HM Treasury has considered how to take forward this legislation in the way that is to the benefit of the UK sector, while maintaining high regulatory standards
The Government are committed to regulation that supports and enhances the functioning of UK capital markets. It will therefore consider the future approach to the UK’s settlement discipline framework, given the importance of ensuring that regulation facilitates the settlement of market transactions in a timely manner while sustaining market liquidity and efficiency. As such, the UK will not be implementing the EU’s new settlement discipline regime, set out in the Central Securities Depositories Regulation, which is due to apply in February 2021. UK firms should instead continue to apply the existing industry-led framework. Any future legislative changes will be developed through dialogue with the financial services industry, and sufficient time will be provided to prepare for the implementation of any new future regime
Additionally, the UK will not be taking action to incorporate into UK law the reporting obligation of the EU’s securities financing transactions regulation for non-financial counterparties (NFCs), which is due to apply in the EU from January 2021. Given that systemically important NFC trading activity will be captured sufficiently through the other reporting obligations that are due to apply to financial counterparties, it is appropriate for the UK not to impose this further obligation on UK firms.
In addition to these measures set out above, HM Treasury will continue to maintain a global outlook on regulatory best practices, regardless of where those practices come from. This approach will continue to be guided by a commitment to maintaining high standards and achieving the same or better prudential outcomes as today, in the way that works best for the UK. HM Treasury plans to set out further detail on upcoming legislation in due course, which will include:
Amendments to the Benchmarks Regulation to ensure continued market access to third country benchmarks until end-2025. HM Treasury will publish a policy statement in July 2020;
Amendments to the Market Abuse Regulation to confirm and clarify that both issuers and those acting on their behalf must maintain their own insider lists and to change the timeline issuers have to comply with when disclosing certain transaction undertaken by their senior managers (‘Persons Discharging Managerial Responsibilities’);
Legislation to improve the functioning of the PRIIPs regime in the UK and address potential risks of consumer harm in response to industry and regulator feedback. HMT will publish a policy statement July 2020; and
Legislation to complete the implementation of the European Market Infrastructure Regulation (REFIT) to improve trade repository data and ensure that smaller firms are able to access clearing on fair and reasonable terms.
Managing upcoming risks
HM Treasury has today also published a written statement relating to LIBOR transition. The statement sets out detail on the Government’s approach to legislative steps that could help deal with ‘tough legacy’ contracts that cannot transition from LIBOR before end-2021. In particular the Government will use the Financial Services Bill to introduce amendments to the Benchmarks Regulation 2016/1011 as amended by the Benchmarks (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 (the ‘UK BMR’), to ensure that FCA powers are sufficient to manage an orderly transition from LIBOR.
[HCWS309]
Student Support: England
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Universities (Michelle Donelan)
I am today confirming the eligibility rules for EU, other EEA and Swiss nationals and their family members who wish to commence courses in England in the academic year starting in August 2021. Following our decision to leave the EU, EU, other EEA and Swiss nationals will no longer be eligible for home fee status, undergraduate, postgraduate and advanced learner financial support from Student Finance England for courses starting in academic year 2021/22. This change will also apply to further education funding for those aged 19+, and funding for apprenticeships. It will not affect students starting courses in academic year 2020/21, nor those EU, other EEA and Swiss nationals benefiting from citizens’ rights under the EU withdrawal agreement, EEA EFTA separation agreement or Swiss citizens’ rights agreement respectively. It will also not apply to Irish nationals living in the UK and Ireland whose right to study and to access benefits and services will be preserved on a reciprocal basis for UK and Irish nationals under the common travel area arrangement. EU, other EEA and Swiss students, staff and researchers make an important contribution to our universities. I want that contribution to continue and am confident—given the world-leading quality of our higher education sector—that it will.
[HCWS310]
High Speed 2: Safeguarding Directions
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
Motions to revive the High Speed Rail (West Midlands–Crewe) Bill, known as the Phase 2a Bill, have now been passed in each House, and the Bill was re-introduced on 3 March. I look forward to the progression of the Bill as it nears its final stages.
I am today publishing revised safeguarding directions for the whole of the Phase 2a route. These safeguarding directions reflect the amendments (and therefore land requirements) which have been made to the hybrid Bill by the House of Commons as it passed through the Select Committee.
Through these revised safeguarding directions, the Government have protected land that we anticipate at this stage will be needed to build Phase 2a of HS2 and where there may otherwise be a risk of conflicting development. Planning restrictions put in place following the issue of previous safeguarding directions have been removed where we no longer expect to need that land.
Crucially, issuing revised safeguarding directions gives people affected more clarity on the route and allows eligible property owners to access statutory blight compensation. Under the statutory blight regime, qualifying property owners are able to apply to sell their home or small business to the Government from the time that their property is subject to safeguarding directions.
In addition to statutory blight compensation, the Government have implemented a package of non-statutory property compensation schemes that go above and beyond what is required by law. The schemes are open to qualifying property owners across the three phases of the HS2 route including Phase 2a. They will be in place until one year after each phase of HS2 is operational.
I want to ensure that those living near the route receive the right support at all stages of the project and that those affected are properly compensated and treated with compassion, dignity and respect.
Copies of these safeguarding directions will be laid in the both Libraries of the House.
Information on HS2 property compensation schemes are available at:
https://www.gov.uk/claim-compensation-if-affected- by-hs2.
Attachments can also be viewed online at: http://www. parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questionsanswers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-06-23/HCWS308/ .
[HCWS308]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, the Hybrid Sitting of the House will now begin. A limited number of Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing. 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.
Oral Questions will now commence. I ask that those asking supplementary questions to keep them short and confined to two points, and that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Fly-tipping
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Trefgarne
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps the propose to take to reduce the amount of illegal fly-tipping, particularly in rural areas.
The Minister of State, Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park) (Con) [V]
My Lords, fly-tipping is unacceptable and the Government are committed to tackling this crime. We have given local authorities powers to issue fixed-penalty notices, seize vehicles and investigate and prosecute fly-tippers. Fly-tipping has reportedly increased in some areas and decreased in others during the Covid-19 pandemic. We have worked with local authorities and published guidance to support the reopening of household waste and recycling centres, with more than 90% of local authorities now providing some level of service.
Lord Trefgarne (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for that reply. Is it not the case that, as he said in the Answer, a number of local authority waste disposal facilities have been closed in recent weeks, which has made matters worse? Can he use his influence with local authorities to reopen all the facilities that have been shut?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
Based on the limited data we have—there is a not a huge amount—there appears to have been an overall increase in reports of fly-tipping, although, as I said, in some areas it has decreased. It does not necessarily mean that fly-tipping has increased across the country. The good news is that, as a consequence of recent changes, more than 90% of local authorities are now providing some level of HWRC services.
The Earl of Shrewsbury (Con) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is grossly unjust that landowners should be fined and are also expected to bear the cost of disposal of materials illegally fly-tipped on their property? Illegal fly-tippers must be made to pay for this, not the landowner. It should include the seizure and disposal of their vehicles to help with remuneration.
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
We expect local authorities to investigate fly-tipping incidents on private land, prosecute the fly-tippers wherever they can and recover clearance costs wherever possible. On conviction, a costs order can be made by the court so that a landowner’s costs can be recovered from the perpetrator. Making landowners responsible for clearing fly-tipped waste ensures that there is no perverse incentive to dump waste and encourages them to take measures to prevent dumping on their land.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, are the penalties balanced correctly? On average, somebody is fined £450 for transgressing, but on average it costs the landowner some £800 to get rid of rubbish. Should we not have more council dumps? Would this not alleviate the problem in the first place?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
The noble Lord makes a good point. However, the Government are very much taking action and, I believe, are on the front foot. The resource and waste strategy commitments include a whole raft of measures to make it easier for waste to be used as a resource and harder for it to drop out of the system illegally. The Environment Bill has several measures to help tackle waste crime generally and to ensure that waste criminals are held to account. We will deliver on our manifesto commitment to continue working with magistrates, the Sentencing Council and the Judicial Office to deliver tougher punishments for people who engage in fly-tipping. In addition, local authorities have enhanced powers to tackle fly-tipping, including powers to search and seize the vehicles of suspected fly-tippers, and fixed-penalty notices—as the noble Lord said—of up to £400.
Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, following on from the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, does the Minister not agree that the number of recycling centres needs to be increased and that they need to be local and within easy reach of the public to encourage their use? What, then, is the Government’s response to the recent warning from Conservative council leaders that, without financial support, such services will have to be reduced on a grand scale?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
We recognise that, as a consequence of a lot of the initiatives that are coming in on the back of the Environment Bill and the waste strategy, there will be greater pressure on local authorities to recycle. We will therefore require them to have a more consistent approach—for example, with a guaranteed collection of a wide range of recyclable products. Although we recognise that local authorities will need to scale up, we are also committed to ensuring that they will not face an extra cost as a consequence of that legislation. Therefore, whatever the additional cost to them, it will be recouped either from the producers of waste or from central government.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, since the advent of lockdown, there has been, as others have said, an increase in fly-tipping. Although local authorities are now able to open HWRCs, some have chosen not to, and those that are open will not take garden waste. Will the Minister now put pressure on local authorities to ensure that garden waste is accepted at HWRCs so that it is not dumped in our countryside?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
As I said earlier, there has been progress in reopening facilities and the vast majority have now reopened. But we recognise that, for a whole host of reasons, local authorities are heavily stretched as a consequence of the impact of Covid-19. That is why the Government have announced £3.2 billion of additional funding to support them in responding to the pandemic, including in the core services that they provide in relation to the collection, processing and removal of waste. In addition, Defra has published guidance for local authorities on the prioritisation of waste collection services and managing household waste recycling centres.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, has there been a quantification of fly-tipping in rural areas since the onset of the pandemic and is there a comparative figure with this time last year?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
We have limited data on the increase, but it seems to us that in a large number of areas across the country, both urban and rural, fly-tipping has increased. The Government’s approach is not to take over the control or management of waste in each local area but to set a clear legal framework, to write the rules and to ensure that, where people transgress, the enforcement powers are there for local authorities.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, will my noble friend encourage local authorities to use the covert surveillance powers that they have, and will he make an assessment of whether the current level of fines is sufficient to enable local authorities to afford to do that?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
My noble friend makes a very important point. Of course, it is up to local authorities, often working with the local police, to determine whether and where CCTV cameras, for example, should be placed. Defra is of the view that CCTV has an important role to play. We are also encouraging private landowners to consider installing appropriate deterrent signage, as well as CCTV cameras.
The Earl of Erroll (CB) [V]
Does not the high cost of the landfill tax and the complexity of waste regulations make fly-tipping the easy, and therefore the chosen, option? Some desirable activities such as building cannot avoid producing waste. Can we reduce the costs for small businesses and individuals by simplifying the regulations? Do people not respond better to incentives than to penalties?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
I do not think that it is possible to avoid the perverse incentive for some to engage in fly-tipping while, at the same time, ramping up our ambitions in relation to the elimination of unnecessary waste across the system. The Environment Bill takes us much further in that direction, putting a huge onus on producers to take responsibility for the waste that they generate, abandoning all kinds of unnecessary single-use plastic items, introducing deposit return schemes and managing the export of plastic waste to countries that simply cannot cope with it. Alongside that, there will of course be some incentive for criminal activity, and that is why we are providing local authorities with the powers and tools that they need to eliminate, or at least minimise, that risk.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister accept that many fly-tippers are repeat offenders and often operate as part of a criminal gang? What discussions have taken place with the Home Office to ensure that policing in rural areas is increased and that rural crime is at last taken seriously?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
In addition to providing more powers for local authorities to tackle fly-tipping, including, as I said earlier, the power to search and seize the vehicles of suspected fly-tippers, and fixed penalties and so on, we have launched the Joint Unit for Waste Crime. Its purpose is not to deal with mundane or small levels of fly-tipping but to take on serious and organised criminality in the waste sector. That means bringing all the relevant agencies together and effectively stamping out the organised component of waste crime.
Baroness Thornhill (LD) [V]
In my experience, local authorities feel that an exceptionally high burden of proof is required to gain a prosecution. Since 2014, only two cases in the magistrates’ court have attracted the maximum fine of £50,000. Therefore, does the Minister agree that it is perhaps time to review the sentencing guidelines?
Lord Goldsmith of Richmond Park [V]
There has been an increase in the number of people who have been brought to justice on the back of fly-tipping, and that increase has happened year on year, so I think that we are heading in the right direction. In 2018-19, local authorities in England dealt with over 1 million fly-tipping incidents—an increase of 8% from the year before. Nearly two-thirds of that involved household waste but a very small component, around 3%, involved industrial-scale disposal of waste—of tipper lorry-load size or larger. Therefore, I think that the legal framework has been strengthened and it seems to be taking us in the right direction.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid that the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed. We come to the second Oral Question, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Collins of Highbury.
Rwanda
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Collins of Highbury
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what recent discussions they have had with the government of Rwanda and the Commonwealth Secretariat on (1) progress on implementing the action points since the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting held in London in April 2018, and (2) arrangements for exchanges with Commonwealth Heads of Government as a consequence of the postponement of the June 2020 meeting.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, as Chair-in-Office for the Commonwealth, we have worked diligently with the Commonwealth family to deliver the heads’ 2018 commitments and regularly update Members on this progress. We are also in close contact with the Government of Rwanda and the Commonwealth Secretariat on rescheduling CHOGM. Commonwealth member states have responded to Covid-19 collaboratively. Commonwealth Health Ministers met virtually on 14 May to discuss the pandemic, and on 28 May I briefed Commonwealth high commissioners on the UK’s international response.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
I thank the Minister for that response. Sadly, since Jeremy Hunt left office, we have had little debate or reporting on the Commonwealth. I hope that, through the usual channels, the Minister can put that right. As he said, as Chair-in-Office—and, actually, as Equal Rights Coalition co-chair—we are in a leadership position to ensure delivery on the Commonwealth commitments, especially on human rights. So when will the Government release the urgently needed resources for civil society to help LGBT people survive the Covid-19 crisis and continue to advance LGBT and human rights internationally?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
The noble Lord is right to raise the importance of the most vulnerable, particularly in the Covid-19 crisis. I assure him that the UK-funded Equality & Justice Alliance has already helped six Commonwealth Governments repeal or reform outdated legislation that discriminates against or fails to protect women, girls and LGBT people. We have a wide range of deliverables; I will, of course, update the noble Lord on the specifics of what we have achieved since 2018. This includes delivery on sustainability and prosperity, with more than 3,000 women-owned businesses having now been set up through British funding. On security, we have supported the completion of seven national cybersecurity reviews. On whether this remains a priority, we are proud of our role as Chair-in-Office; the Commonwealth is very much a priority within the existing department and, indeed, will remain so in the new department—the Commonwealth remains a key priority for Her Majesty’s Government.
Lord Desai (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this CHOGM will be the first that His Royal Highness Prince Charles will be presiding over. Would it not be a good idea to rethink the location of CHOGM to save any embarrassment to His Royal Highness, given the appalling human rights record of the Government of Rwanda?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the decision has already been made on where the CHOGM will be held. We work across the Commonwealth to ensure that the issue of human rights is brought under focus. We look forward, as do all member states, to the rescheduled Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Kigali, next year.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as a former employee of the Commonwealth and as someone in receipt of a Commonwealth Secretariat pension. The Commonwealth has never been in greater need of stability. Its funding, staff morale and governance are at an all-time low in the secretariat. As Chair-in-Office, the UK needs to announce a quick decision. Does the Minister agree that the current Secretary-General should be appointed until CHOGM next year, where Heads of Government can meet and retreat and arrive at a decision about the future appointment of the Secretary-General? The news media is full of speculation; we cannot avoid saying something about this.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the Government are very much committed to reforms within the Commonwealth. As the noble Baroness will know, we led a reform package in 2019. I presided over the Foreign Ministers’ meeting which agreed this across the Commonwealth 53—now 54. On the appointment, or reappointment, of the Secretary-General, that is very much a matter for the Heads of Government; it will be looked at in Kigali next year.
Lord Moynihan (Con) [V]
My Lords, the communiqué refers to the role that sport can contribute to the 2030 agenda. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that the work done by the 2022 Birmingham Commonwealth Games Organising Committee and the Commonwealth Games Federation on human rights, the accessibility strategy and the Games-wide sustainability plan is world-leading, showcases what can be done when we organise major international sports along these lines, and should be supported by the Government?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I am happy to agree with my noble friend; I also pay tribute to his leadership over many years in this area.
Lord Chidgey (LD) [V]
My Lords, tomorrow, the Institute of Commonwealth Studies is holding a Zoom conference across the Commonwealth, in what should have been Rwanda CHOGM week. There will be six thematic panels on subjects including Commonwealth responses to Covid-19, democratic government, media freedom, LBGT rights, and colonial reparations. What will be the UK Government’s representation at this virtual conference, to report progress since the London CHOGM and to put the UK position on Commonwealth issues, particularly in the context of the Black Lives Matter campaign?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I understand that there is a meeting taking place, but it does not hold any formal status within the context of replacing the Heads of Government meeting; that will take place in Kigali as it is rescheduled by the Rwandan Government. As regards our attendance, we have continued to liaise with the secretariat, and we will certainly be looking forward to the attendance of the Commonwealth envoy and distinguished diplomat Philip Parham, if the meeting mentioned by the noble Lord does go ahead.
Lord Howell of Guildford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as in the register. Does my noble friend the Minister recognise that the modern Commonwealth is about a lot more than Governments and officials? It is, of course, not even treaty-based, so even if the Heads of Government meeting is postponed, as it has been, a vast web of non-governmental Commonwealth activity continues and grows. Some would say that this is perhaps a greater and more important part of the Commonwealth network. Will the Government, while we are still in the chair, make an extra effort to support and encourage the mass of civil society grass-roots programmes and projects that make up today’s and tomorrow’s Commonwealth family, of which we are fortunate enough to be a member?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I am, of course, happy to confirm that arrangement with my noble friend—I work with him across these institutions. I also share with him that, notwithstanding the postponement of CHOGM, different Ministers, including Health Ministers and Trade Ministers, continue to meet, albeit, in the current climate, virtually.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, one of the priorities of the Government, along with others, was to drive the reform of the Commonwealth Secretariat. Can the Minister tell the House what progress has been made towards that end and how they will sustain the momentum going forward?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I have already alluded to the fact that Ministers adopted a package of reforms, which come into effect once endorsed by the Heads of Government; that will take place at the rescheduled CHOGM.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on the launch last Friday of the Murad code to help victims of sexual violence in conflict, which is named after Nadia Murad, the inspirational Yazidi survivor. Given the history of Rwanda regarding sexual violence in conflict, will the Government ensure that the Murad code is on the agenda for the Kigali CHOGM next year? Can he also update your Lordships’ House on progress towards prosecuting the ISIS individuals who were responsible for the capture and slavery of so many Yazidi women and girls?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, in the interest of time, I will write to the noble Lord on his second question, but progress is being made there. On the agenda, I thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks on PSVI. As we did previously in London, I am hoping that we will be able to convene a side meeting of leading nations during the Heads of Government meeting when it is rescheduled in Kigali.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
My Lords, when black rights matter, should not black and gay rights matter equally throughout the Commonwealth?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. All rights matter: black rights, gay rights, religious rights—all rights matter for the Commonwealth; that is what the Commonwealth is all about.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB) [V]
My Lords, I have a keen interest as a patron of Hong Kong Watch and as vice-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group. Following the call of 155 Members of both Houses for the UK to initiate a Commonwealth programme giving the beleaguered people of Hong Kong the opportunity of second citizenship and place of abode in a Common- wealth country, and with the continuing erosion of the Basic Law, what are we doing to secure Commonwealth backing for such an international lifeboat policy?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has already made a comprehensive announcement around BNO. We are obviously looking at the outcome of current Chinese policy on this issue and we will update the House accordingly.
Lord Polak (Con)
My Lords, for many reasons CHOGM 2020 was important to Rwanda, and now CHOGM 2021 will be possibly even more important. RwandAir has made serious efforts in recent years to cement UK-Rwanda relations by flying directly between Kigali and London Gatwick. Will my noble friend support the request by Rwanda Air for landing spots at Heathrow?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I should declare an interest as I was Aviation Minister when we gave landing rights at Gatwick to RwandAir, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Popat as trade envoy. The issue of slots at Heathrow is very much a matter for Heathrow Airport Holdings Ltd, but we regard our relationship with Rwanda as a strong one; indeed, only yesterday I spoke to the Foreign Minister of Rwanda about preparations for CHOGM 2021.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now come to the third Oral Question, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe.
House of Lords: Size
Lord Balfe
To ask the Senior Deputy Speaker what consideration has been given by the Procedure Committee to bringing before the House a resolution to amend Standing Orders to provide that the House should reduce the number of introductions of new Peers annually to the number recommended in the report of the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House.
The Senior Deputy Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith) [V]
My Lords, under the Life Peerages Act 1958, Her Majesty has the power to confer a peerage for life, and that peerage entitles the holder
“to receive writs of summons to attend the House of Lords and sit and vote therein accordingly”.
The House is therefore restricted in what it can do to limit introductions without undermining that Act of Parliament. It is the Government and the party groups who are best able to ensure that we continue to reduce the size of the House by accepting the recommendations in the reports from the Lord Speaker’s Committee on the Size of the House.
Lord Balfe (Con) [V]
I thank the Senior Deputy Speaker for his response, but if this House is to get back its reputation and remove the odour of disrespect from Downing Street, it has to put its own house in order and not wait for others to do so. Will he therefore support bringing before the House, for a vote in the near future, a resolution along the lines outlined in my Question?
The Senior Deputy Speaker [V]
That is a matter for the Procedure Committee. I made reference to our possibly undermining the Act of Parliament. However, I will refer the noble Lord’s question to the Procedure Committee when we meet.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, is it not the case that the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, which would abolish hereditary by-elections, would help to achieve a gradual reduction in the size of the House? I understand that this is a matter for the usual channels, but will the House authorities try to ensure that there is sufficient time to debate and pass this important Bill—perhaps third time lucky?
The Senior Deputy Speaker [V]
The noble Lord, Lord Grocott, has a question, and I presume that will add to what the noble Lord, Lord Truscott, has said. Again, the Burns report was set to ensure that we achieved change without legislation. That is a difficult issue, but the Procedure Committee will be looking at it and other issues.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con) [V]
My Lords, to implement the “two out, one in” principle, there have to be two out in the first place. Will the Senior Deputy Speaker commit to the Procedure Committee revisiting the whole of the Burns committee report to see what can be implemented through the rules of the House rather than relying on good will, to give effect to the recommendation to reduce the existing number of Members and achieve what the committee termed an accelerated “two out, one in” programme?
The Senior Deputy Speaker [V]
I inform the noble Lord that the Burns committee is still sitting. If it had not been for the lockdown, the committee would have been producing its fourth report. I am sure that will come shortly, so I await the comments of Burns regarding peerages in light of the new Government.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
Will the Senior Deputy Speaker join me in congratulating the House of Lords Appointments Commission on maintaining the highest standards in approving appointments, and in the hope that I express that it will extend its remit to considering the ability of appointees to contribute to the House? In relation to the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, will the Minister note that to do anything like that would open the appointments system to judicial review all the way to the Supreme Court, and would drag the Crown in as those appointments are made by the Crown?
The Senior Deputy Speaker [V]
That is a very perceptive point on this issue, and it feeds into the point I made about the limits on the House and the Procedure Committee. The Appointments Commission has done an excellent job on that issue, and I am sure that any further suggestions or initiatives it produces will be looked at seriously.
Lord Grocott (Lab) [V]
My Lords, since 23 March, when the House resolved to suspend any by-elections for hereditary Peers until 8 September, three further vacancies have arisen. Does the Senior Deputy Speaker agree that we cannot be serious about reducing the size of the House if we are to have a clutch of by-elections for new hereditary Peers in the autumn? Will he ask the Procedure Committee to recommend at least postponing these wretched elections or, better still, getting rid of them altogether?
The Senior Deputy Speaker [V]
The noble Lord has been both determined and courteous in his approach to this. I will certainly bring up this issue. Standing Order 10 was suspended for three months, and it has to be looked at again. I will include the noble Lord’s questions and suggestions on that.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, does the Senior Deputy Speaker agree that the central problem lies not in our House but in No. 10? Has any notification been received from Messrs Johnson and Cummings that they are prepared to stick with the promise made by the previous Prime Minister to abide by the suggestions and recommendations of the Burns committee, which were approved by the House?
The Senior Deputy Speaker [V]
The previous Prime Minister, Theresa May, most certainly showed restraint in her letter and her engagement with the Lord Speaker on that issue but, as the first Burns report stated, the proposal would work only if the Prime Minister undertook to appoint no more Members than there were vacancies. I look forward to the fourth Burns report looking at this issue and giving us its reflections.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con) [V]
My Lords, last July the Burns committee produced its third report with benchmarks for year 3, indicating by how much each group should reduce its numbers if we were to hit the target by 2027. Year 3 ended on 7 June. Does the noble Lord agree that when the Burns committee reconvenes, it would be helpful if it then set targets for the remainder of this Parliament, taking account of the recent election?
The Senior Deputy Speaker [V]
The suggestion of benchmarks is very sensible. The outline for the appointments was from 2017 to 2022. I am sure that the Burns committee will look at that issue when it reconvenes and reports, and we will certainly ensure that those comments are relayed to the committee.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, does the Senior Deputy Speaker agree that the continuing misuse of the appointments system to reward those who, through financial donations or in similar ways, support political hierarchies brings the whole House and Parliament itself into disrepute?
The Senior Deputy Speaker [V]
We have mentioned the House of Lords Appointments Commission, and it is doing an excellent job. I am sure it will have keen views and reflections on that issue as we go forward.
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, is there not a huge irony here? Here we are, Members of your Lordships’ House from all the different political parties and none, and we are the ones calling for reform as soon as possible, while the only reason that we have not got it is because the Government will not do it. The Burns report made a very modest and sensible proposal but, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, said, it has now been overtaken by events. Should we not be pressing the Government to say that this really cannot wait? We are more effective and useful if we are a smaller House. With rumours of a huge government appointment list coming, is there not some urgency to this situation now for both the Government and your Lordships’ House?
The Senior Deputy Speaker [V]
The House endorsed the Burns report. There is a keenness to ensure that we reduce the size of the House. Pressure or further lobbying on this issue can be made, whether in the Chamber of the House or in the Procedure Committee. As she is a member of the Procedure Committee, I have no doubt that the noble Baroness will be raising that at a future meeting.
Lord Hayward (Con) [V]
My Lords, the message has been quite clear in all the questions put that there is a general desire across the House that we keep numbers of new Members to a minimum, and thereby reduce membership levels. Can we have an urgent debate on the subject, so that we can clearly indicate the mood of the House and how the matter might be resolved?
The Senior Deputy Speaker [V]
That issue is outwith my remit, but the Government’s business managers are listening to this. Again, I will convey that to the business managers to reflect the strength of feeling in the House overall, and particularly on the Question today.
Lord Rennard (LD) [V]
My Lords, the problems with the size of the House are exacerbated by continuing the by-elections of hereditary Peers. By-elections and elections to local authorities have been postponed for a year, so will Parliament be given a say as to whether by-elections of hereditary Peers will resume in September? How can the opinion of this House be tested on this issue before then?
The Senior Deputy Speaker [V]
Standing Order 10(6) will have to be looked at again in September. I am sure that there will be an opportunity for the House to make comments to the Leader on that issue.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords. All supplementary questions have again been asked, and we now move to the fourth Oral Question. I call the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge.
Schools: Return of Students
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Randall of Uxbridge
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what consultations they have had with (1) education, and (2) health, professionals about plans to facilitate the safe return of students to schools as soon as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s ambition is for all education settings to open fully in September. Our approach and decisions continue to be based on the best scientific and medical advice. We have been working with Public Health England and the education sector, including the unions, and have provided guidance to support the sector in opening more widely. We will keep engaging closely and regularly with the sector as it plans to welcome back all learners.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
I thank my noble friend for her Answer. What provision will be made for the year 11 and year 13 classes leaving next year, and will there be thorough consultations with head teachers about that provision?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, the Government have recently updated the guidance and, where schools have capacity, we have encouraged them to have face-to-face contact with all students, particularly those in years 11 and 13. In relation to the particularly vulnerable in year 11 who are in alternative provision, there has been a £7 million fund because we recognise the risks of those young people not being in education or training.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister tell us how frequently she is meeting the organisations to which she referred in her—[Inaudible.]
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
We are having difficulty hearing the noble Lord, Lord Triesman, so we will move on to the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and come back to him if there is time to sort out the technical problems.
Lord Storey (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is good news that all schools are reopening in September and that all children and young people will be back in school, but God forbid that there was a localised outbreak. Who would make the decision to close schools, and what level would have to occur before that action took place?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, if a school has an outbreak where a number have tested positive for the virus, that is a matter for Public Health England, at regional and local level, to evaluate the situation on the ground. We have made “test and trace” available for all students and staff, and members of their household, so as to be able to deal with a situation like that.
The Deputy Speaker
I call the noble Lord, Lord Caine.
I am afraid that we cannot hear the noble Lord, so we will go to the noble Lord, Lord Laming.
Lord Laming (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am sure that it will be very good news if all our schools are fully open in September. I have a growing concern for those young people who just will not appear in September. What steps will be taken to make contact with these young people? Some of them may be extremely vulnerable, and we must not let them be lost in the system.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, the noble Lord is correct that it is not just about vulnerable children. There are those who head teachers will be aware have become vulnerable during this period; we have therefore always made school places open to those whom we call the otherwise vulnerable, which gives head teachers the discretion to offer school places. We have also funded Barnardo’s with £7 million to run a service called “See, Hear, Respond”, which is specifically aimed at reaching out to those children who are not in contact with statutory agencies but who we believe may need support at this time.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, last week schools and colleges in England were able to readmit students safely in their first year of studying for GCSEs and A-levels. Labour welcomes that, but we believe that the Government should have been much more ambitious. In Wales, every child will have some time in school before the summer holidays, allowing teachers to assess how their pupils have fared during school closures. Without that key information, valuable time would be lost when the new school year starts, as we all hope that it will in September. The Minister has just said that she is encouraging schools to have face-to-face time with their pupils. Why should parents in England have to accept lower expectations than those in Wales?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, it was of course the Government’s ambition for all primary-age children to be back in school before the summer, but that was not possible on the current medical and scientific evidence. The updated guidance allows schools to bring back students in all years and have some face-to-face contact, as long as they do that within the guidelines. For instance, at secondary school there should be no more than 25% of students on the premises at any one time. We agree with the noble Lord: we recognise that it is essential for pupils to have some contact with their teachers before the school holidays.
Lord Addington (LD) [V]
My Lords, will the Minister give some thought to implementing a better policy for online teaching just in case there is another call for a lockdown, either localised or national? We have learned that, where it is successfully done, people learn better. This must be part of the policy.
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, of the £1 billion catch-up premium, £350 million has been devoted to a national tutoring service for disadvantaged students. That will be face to face, as well as online, and we hope that the evidence base for it supports the idea that it is a key way for disadvantaged children to catch up. We hope that it will be a legacy for the system so that, going forward, it can be one way in which schools will use their pupil premium to support those students beyond the catch-up year.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister has in part addressed this, but can she say what discussions have been held with education unions to ensure that planning is in place for the academic year 2020-21 to cope with any second spike in the virus? How frequently are meetings taking place between the Government and education unions to discuss the detail of curriculum coverage and assessment for all young people from September?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, the Secretary of State meets the education unions weekly, and officials and other Ministers are in touch regularly with the unions. We have worked closely with them, particularly on developing the guidance. In the next two weeks, guidance will be issued to make it clear what is expected of schools regarding curriculum and attendance in September, so that they will have time to plan before the end of the summer term.
Lord Dobbs (Con) [V]
My Lords, six children have, sadly, died with Covid, yet nearly 2,000 children are killed or seriously injured every year in traffic accidents, which suggests that children suffer more harm from being driven to school than being in school. Does my noble friend agree that the scare stories circulated by some, including teaching unions, about the dangers of returning to school are as dangerous as the anti-vaccine lobby? Does she also agree that much more long-term harm will be inflicted on children from not going back to school than there could possibly ever be from them receiving their education?
Baroness Berridge
Indeed, my Lords. Away from the flurry of the headlines and speaking to academy trust leaders, I know that they do not just want their children back in school but are desperate for them to be back in school, because they know that it is the best place for them to be educated. They also know that it is best for their mental well-being to be in a school environment. They have been working tirelessly, many through the school holidays, to ensure that young children are in school. They are particularly concerned about vulnerable children who have not been in education. I agree with my noble friend: we want and look forward to welcoming all our children back to their education settings in September.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, a good education is fundamental to equal opportunities in later life. It is good to hear that all schools will open in September after the summer break. However, it is not sufficient just to open all schools. Will there be sufficient space for all pupils to attend?
Baroness Berridge
I think that the noble Lord is referring to the current situation regarding social distancing. As noble Lords will be aware, the Prime Minister has asked for a review of that and we will have the results within the next few days, but, of course, that influences greatly the capacity of schools to welcome students back.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]
Will all secondary schools be required in September to provide details of which pupils have disappeared from their rolls? Will those figures be provided to government?
Baroness Berridge
My Lords, schools would normally liaise with their local authority in relation to their rolls. As noble Lords will be aware, Ofsted is not currently carrying out routine inspections, but I am sure that pupil attendance and any off-rolling will be matters for it to address when it resumes inspections.
The Deputy Speaker
I am sorry that due to technical difficulties we are not able to go back to the noble Lords, Lord Triesman and Lord Caine. That completes the time allowed for this Question and it concludes hybrid proceedings on Oral Questions.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, some Members are here in the Chamber, and others are participating virtually, but all Members will be treated equally. 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. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. I ask noble Lords to be patient if there are any short delays as we switch between physical and remote participants. The usual rules and courtesies in debate apply. Please ensure that all questions and answers are short.
Reading Terrorist Attack
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I express our sincere condolences to the families of the three victims of the atrocity in Reading on Saturday. Our thoughts are very much with them, at what must be a heartbreaking and mind-numbing time. We send our very best wishes for a speedy recovery to our fellow citizens who were injured in the senseless attack, knowing that they are in the safe and caring hands of our magnificent NHS staff. It is clear that all the emergency services reacted to the sickening events on Saturday evening with speed, professionalism and a lack of regard for their own safety—in that final regard, particularly the unarmed police officer who apprehended the individual now under arrest. I express our appreciation of the courage and concern for others of members of the public at the scene who assisted those who were attacked.
The police have arrested an individual under terrorism powers. There are media reports that those who were murdered were members of the LGBT community and that the individual under arrest had mental health problems and was known to the security agencies. This is, however, an ongoing police investigation, and I appreciate that the Minister is constrained in what she can say, about either the specifics of this awful incident or the individual who is under arrest. But any further factual information she is able to provide would be helpful.
This is not the first violent attack by a lone individual, but rather an addition to what is a succession of recent such horrific incidents of this nature. In November, we had the attack at Fishmongers’ Hall, and in February at Streatham; now, in June, it is Reading. The public want answers about these appalling incidents.
We understand that the security services have some 30,000-plus people known to them, and a very much smaller, but nevertheless significant, number of people in whom they have to take a much closer interest on our behalf and in the interests of our safety. We are indebted to our intelligence and security services for the work they do to protect us all, and recognise that many acts of potential or threatened terrorism are thwarted thanks to their diligence and expertise. The murderous attacks that do occur will inevitably, and not surprisingly, always receive much more publicity than the very much larger number of potential or threatened acts of terrorism that are stopped and prevented.
If the investigation into the Reading atrocity, particularly in the light of the other, very recent incidents, reveals that more resources are needed by our counter- terrorism, intelligence and security agencies, I hope the Government will ensure that those additional resources are provided.
The atrocity at Fishmongers’ Hall raised issues surrounding the release of people from prison. The individual under arrest under terrorism powers following the Reading attacks had, it has been reported, served a short prison sentence. At some stage, questions will have to be asked about the nature and extent of risk assessments carried out in respect of people leaving prison who are known to the security services; levels of supervision, or otherwise, following release; and the workloads of probation officers, inside and outside prison.
Lessons will need to be learned from Saturday’s deeply distressing atrocity. That can only be done following a full investigation, but can the Government say in general terms whether any lessons have been learned and put into practice from either the Fishmongers’ Hall or Streatham attacks, and indeed from one recently in a prison, apart from the legislation enacted or being enacted regarding prison sentences, early release and controlled procedures? If any lessons have been learned from those earlier attacks it seems that they will not yet have been shared with the Intelligence and Security Committee, since the Government have not taking the necessary steps since the election at the end of last year to enable it to be reconvened. I hope that does not indicate a lack of the Government’s prioritising ensuring parliamentary oversight of security issues and our security agencies, particularly at the present time. When do the Government expect the committee to meet again?
There is also the continuing delay over establishing the review of the Government’s Prevent strategy. I believe that the closing date for applications for the post to lead the review was yesterday. We need real progress here too because legislation alone will not be enough. We have to take a thorough look at deradicalisation in our prisons, how people who pose a threat are risk assessed and how different agencies can work together to safeguard against tragedies and horrors of the kind witnessed in Reading on Saturday.
Community policing has been cut, yet the intelligence gathering it does as the eyes and ears of our society is vital. Will the Government commit to now build again the capacity required for law enforcement?
What is the position with the serious violence task force, which apparently has not met for a year? Does it still exist? If not, can the Minister at least refresh my memory as to when its demise was announced, and why?
More information will come to light as the police investigation continues and I hope that the Minister can commit to keeping the House updated, including on the lessons that need to be learned. Many issues will need to be considered and addressed in the weeks ahead, but we stand with the wider community in Reading at this desperately difficult time and remember particularly those who tragically lost their lives.
Lord Paddick (LD) [V]
My Lords, this was a dreadful attack on innocent people, and we condemn it. Our thoughts are with the families and friends of those who lost their lives, the injured, and the police officers, ambulance crews and members of the public affected by this terrible incident.
There has been much discussion in recent weeks about policing, in both this country and the United States. This incident, where unarmed officers ran towards, tackled and detained a dangerous and armed suspect, reminds us how police officers put their lives on the line to protect us every single day. It is right to ask probing questions, but it is also right to remember that we rely on the police for our safety. Our thanks should also go to the members of the public who supported the emergency services by administering first aid while waiting for paramedics to arrive.
The matter is under investigation, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, and I know the Minister will not respond to questions about the suspect. So, despite any reservations I may have, I will continue on the basis that this was a terrorist attack, rather than it being the result of mental illness or motivated by prejudice.
We have the best police and security services in the world. I was part of the Metropolitan Police Service for over 30 years and I was awestruck by the capabilities of the security services when I was briefed on the Investigatory Powers Bill by representatives of MI5, MI6 and GCHQ. We have also seen numerous pieces of legislation over the years to extend the powers of the police and security services, and the powers of the courts to sentence those convicted of terrorism offences and to prevent their early release. Indeed, there is legislation before the other place as we speak. Yet lone wolf terrorist attacks appear to be increasing. As my right honourable friend Alistair Carmichael said in the debate on the Statement in the other place,
“if the answer to this problem were to be found in a formulation of the law, we would have found it by now.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/20; col. 1089.]
The problem is this. Too many people—some traumatised by their experiences in war-torn parts of the world, but many British-born young men—are being radicalised, either in prison or online, and there is not enough collaborative work with communities to address the problem. It is neither possible nor proportionate to keep all of the thousands of people who may be of concern to MI5 under surveillance, and the overwhelming majority will do no harm. The tiny minority who decide to carry out so-called “lone wolf” attacks can change from “harmless” to “dangerous” overnight, and almost always only close friends, relatives or community members who are around them will notice that change.
In the same way that policing by consent relies on the public being the eyes and ears of the police so that we do not need a police officer on every street corner watching for criminal activity, so communities, friends and relatives need to be the eyes and ears of counter- terrorism. In the same way that policing by consent relies on the public having trust and confidence in the police, communities, friends and relatives must have confidence in the Government’s counterterrorism strategy generally and the Prevent programme in particular.
I have referred to him before and I do so again: my friend and the former head of the anti-terrorist branch, John Grieve, said that the police and security services cannot effectively tackle terrorism alone; they need the help of the public. As the current head of counterterrorism policing said today:
“If you see any suspicious activity, don’t hesitate to ACT—report it.”
Trust and confidence in the police and security services comes from genuine and comprehensive community policing, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, whereby concerned communities, friends and relatives feel safe in passing on their concerns to officers they trust. Trust and confidence in the police and security services comes from communities, friends and relatives feeling it is safe to pass on their concerns to the Prevent programme.
My two questions to the Minister are these. When will the Government reintroduce the genuine community policing that they have decimated over the past decade not just with drastic cuts in the number of police officers, which they are going some way to addressing, but with the devastation of police community support officers, so that there can be a dialogue of equals between the police and the communities they are supposed to serve, rather than the police simply explaining the policing they are imposing on those communities? When will the Government appoint an independent lead for the review of the Prevent programme, in whom communities have trust and confidence, to produce a programme that communities can feel safe passing their concerns to? Unless the police, community services and communities work together, these lone-wolf attacks will continue to be very difficult to stop.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
I join both noble Lords in expressing condolences to the families of those killed and in wishing a speedy recovery to those injured. I also join them in praising our emergency services, who ran towards danger to help those people whose lives were in danger, in particular the unarmed policeman who went to help. The noble Lords are both right to point out that I am very constrained in what I can say, and I thank them for understanding that constraint. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made the point that we have the best police and security services in the world. I wholeheartedly agree, as I do on policing by consent.
Both noble Lords pointed out that this was yet another lone attack. There have been 25 terrorist attacks thwarted since 2017, which is a tribute to the police involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about more resources. He will have heard my right honourable friend the Home Secretary say yesterday that an additional £90 million will be in place this year for CT policing, because we need the resources in place for police to be able to respond to these dreadful events. As for other types of policing, 20,000 additional police officers are due to be recruited over the next few years. On community policing, it is the PCC who decides on the type of policing required for a particular area; it is a decision at local level, and that is absolutely right.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, also asked about lessons learned from Fishmongers’ Hall and cited the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill; that is one thing. In February this year the Security Minister announced plans to introduce the legislative Protect duty. The proposals would require certain operators of public venues and organisations to consider their preparedness for and protection from a terrorist attack.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned on a couple of occasions the need for community engagement, and I could not agree more. This problem cannot be solved by any one agency or by government. As the noble Lord said, it is not just about legislation; we need interventions at all levels of society, including public vigilance and confidence in reporting to the police.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about the Serious Violence Taskforce. In the last few months it was replaced by the National Policing Board, which is an excellent forum for these sorts of things—the interventions we can make for our communities—to be not just discussed but actioned.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked when the Government will appoint an independent reviewer of Prevent. The process is under way and we aim for that review to be complete in September next year.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
We now come to the 20 minutes allotted for Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers be brief so that I can call the maximum number of speakers.
Lord Caine (Con) [V]
My Lords, in the aftermath of every terrorist incident there is inevitably speculation about whether more could have been done to prevent it. Does my noble friend agree that, by its very nature, intelligence is not an exact science, but rather requires many—often very difficult—assessments? Will she reiterate this Government’s fullest possible support for the police and the intelligence agencies? Overall, they do such a fantastic job in seeking to keep us safe from the ongoing terrorist threat.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend. He is right: intelligence is not an easy science at all. If we think about the 25 terrorist attacks thwarted, we can imagine what things would be like if the intelligence services had got it wrong. That is a staggering figure—25 terrorist attacks thwarted in just three years. As my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, say, our police and intelligence services are the best in the world.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB) [V]
My Lords, this is the first time the Government have so publicly revealed the sheer scale of the terrorist threat. The perpetrator seems to have been one of 40,000 on a Security Service B-list; another 3,000 are on an A-list. This is a massive threat to our society, mainly but not solely from Islamic extremists. Surely it is now time for a further step change in the resources devoted to this matter. It takes years to recruit, train and engage new members. Does the Minister agree that now is the time to take in hand this work?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I am sure that the noble Lord will realise that I cannot talk about any details of this case. On the terrorist threat, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked about additional money for counterterrorism policing, and I pointed out that there is an additional £90 million this year and that we intend to recruit 20,000 more police officers over the next few years. Of course, it is about how that resource is deployed. As my noble friend Lord Caine said, intelligence is a very difficult science. I pay tribute to our intelligence services which, despite some of these attacks, have kept us safe from 25 terrorist attacks over the last three years.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
The Minister has referred to the extra £90 million for counterterrorism. Is this ring-fenced and will it be continued in future years? Secondly, what reassurances and protections are being given to minority communities, which will be feeling very vulnerable at this point?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The answer to the first question is yes; the CT budget is always ring-fenced. I do not know whether the right reverend Prelate saw last night on the television the solidarity with which different faith communities in Reading came together immediately. It seems to be really crucial that different faiths come together in the immediate aftermath of things like that, to stand together against terror.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is another tragic loss of life apparently by the hand of a person recently in prison. Is the Minister confident that the Prison Service has the resources to recognise potential danger in those who pass through its hands? When I was on the ISC, that was the kind of issue we discussed with the heads of the intelligence and security services. My noble friend Lord Rosser raised the question of why the ISC has not been formed again since the last election. Can the Minister please give some reason as to why it has not been formed? When will it be? Is it not a disgrace that in these dangerous times we have no parliamentary Intelligence and Security Committee, amid reports in the media that one of the reasons for the delay is that the Government Whips are playing political games with who they are going to nominate from their own party?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, as the noble Baroness will know, I cannot make any comment on the individual from Sunday’s tragic events. She is absolutely right that enough resource must be given to prisons to put in place programmes—often multiagency programmes—to rehabilitate individuals and provide theological teachings to correct some of the more warped teachings they may have learned. On the ISC, I do not know the answer to that, so I will not pretend to know. I do not know when it is next due to meet, but I can certainly take that back.
Baroness Ludford (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Home Secretary said yesterday in the other place:
“There is always more work to do, and I am sure there is more that can be done in the future.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/20; col. 1087.]
I think we all take the point made by my noble friend Lord Paddick that it is neither possible nor proportionate to keep everyone of concern to MI5 under surveillance. When the Intelligence and Security Committee is up and running, which I too hope is very soon, can the noble Baroness and her ministerial colleagues encourage it to assess whether there need to be changes in the resourcing, operations or focus of the security and intelligence services and counterterrorist police to enable them better to keep track of people already on their radar?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, I have already gone through the figures for CT policing and for policing in general. I am sure the noble Baroness will have heard them. I am confident that our security and intelligence services have the resources they need. I concur with what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said about keeping people under surveillance. Not everything can be solved by legislation, but intelligence-led information is incredibly important. It will be at the heart of how we go forward so that people who are a danger to themselves and to others do not slip through the net.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, I endorse the comments of all the Front-Benchers and particularly those of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The challenge of the lone wolf attack was addressed recently by Met Assistant Commissioner Neil Basu. It is a real and growing threat. How can the Government seek the support of a community that it needs to deal with these challenges when it simply refuses to work with that community? My noble friend is aware from her own connections with the community that this is an issue, especially when this refusal of the Government to engage is ideological and political and neither factual nor practical. To tackle terrorism we need to work together. When and how is the Government’s policy of disengagement going to change?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The Government have been very clear that we will engage with people and communities that share our common values and wish to see a society that is safe for everybody. The Government keep decisions about disengagement under regular review, but it is very difficult to engage with those who wish to do us harm or do not share the common values of the wider society in which we live.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that religious leaders have a responsibility to explain that claims of God-sanctioned religious superiority and the denigration of others embedded in religious texts fuel terrorist activity and are not relevant in today’s times?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is right. It is very easy to take a piece of religious text and twist it so that it has a different meaning or to wind people up by saying that God wants something from them which is not the case. He has talked a lot about religious literacy and ensuring that those who preach whatever religion do so not in a biased or twisted fashion that takes away from the original text.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I share the concerns of my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lady Ramsay that the ISC has not met recently. It is too important to be messed up by internal party-political shenanigans. Having been deputy chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee for some three years, I have no doubt about the competence and dedication of the men and women in the agencies. They are in danger of being overwhelmed by the sheer numbers of potential threat suspects, whether additions from abroad or whatever. Is there not a need to further enable technology to assist us? This could include the greater use of CCTV and other electronic items, enabled by 5G; the use of artificial intelligence; utilising big data, and so on. Clearly, there are risks and we must not become a surveillance society. The Investigative Powers Act may need amending. Are these avenues being reviewed with some urgency, bearing in mind the numbers involved?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord makes a valid point. Technology has its place in keeping us safe. We need to advance that technology in a way that strikes a balance between privacy and protection. Sometimes by breaching people’s privacy, you give them their freedom. There is so much advanced technology available to help keep us safe and it is important that we use it.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I will not ask the Minister to comment on the ongoing investigation because I know that she will not. There have been reports that the detained person had been accessing mental health services. Will she assure the House that, if lessons are to be learned from this tragic incident, the availability of mental health services in the community beyond those in the criminal justice system will also be considered? Even before this crisis, the Government’s record on providing mental health services for those seeking them has been very poor. Can we be assured that mental health services, specifically for young people and for those coming out of a criminal justice or prison situation, will be included as part of her stocktaking exercise?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is right to point out that I will not comment on this individual case. There has been a lot of emphasis on mental health services in the last year or two. It is absolutely right that, if someone comes out from a prison—or indeed a hospital—with mental health needs, the wraparound service is there to protect them as they recover from it.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, as the mother of three grown-up sons, my heart goes out to the families of James Furlong, Joe Ritchie-Bennett and David Wails, to the Holt School and to all those who were injured. Searching questions arise about the integrity of the Prevent strategy, which has been seen to demonise and alienate large swathes of Muslim communities. The same is true of the leadership of the counterterrorism strategies, which has thus far allowed only the voices of the disconnected and discredited within the majority of the communities to be heard. Will the Minister consider setting up a cross-party task force to reach out to the community? This should include women, as well as the Arab community—which must now include Libyan people—with a view to addressing socioeconomic as well as health, housing, employment, education and mental health service inequalities. It could perhaps be led by the Minister, with the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I join the noble Baroness in offering condolences to the families and those who have lost loved ones. She talked about an issue which crosses society, religion and all sorts of boundaries. It is a multi-government effort to ensure that our communities feel included, safe and protected from violence.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register. I welcome the Minister’s reaffirmation of the intention to legislate on a protect duty. Reference has already been made to the bravery of the unarmed police officer who rugby tackled the alleged perpetrator. Can the Minister tell us whether any armed response units were scrambled to the scene and how long it took them to arrive? I am aware from my work on London’s preparedness that, in recent incidents in the capital, armed police have been on the scene within a small handful of minutes. London is resourced well in recognition of the higher level of risk. My purpose is not to criticise Thames Valley Police but to establish whether there are sufficient armed police outside London. What are the Government doing about this?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is right to ask that question. He will have heard my right honourable friend the Home Secretary talking about the events of Sunday. I cannot tell him in exact minutes, but the response was extremely quick. Some of the officers were student officers and ran towards the danger to help those in need.
I think the noble Lord is trying to come back. I cannot hear him; I think he has been muted. This is the beauty of Virtual Proceedings. I cannot speak about the armed response but it does appear that, on Sunday, the response was very quick, very brave and mitigated what could have been a far worse event.
Lord McNally (LD) [V]
My Lords, on 3 May in the other place, Theresa May, an ex-Prime Minister and ex-Home Secretary, expressed concern about the quantity and quality of data that will be available to our security and counterterrorism services from 1 January 2021, when we will have left Europe. She raised specific concerns about the Prüm arrangements covering fingerprints, DNA and car registration, the European criminal record system, the Schengen Information System and data accuracy, yet the response from the Prime Minister was, “It’ll be all right on the night”, or some such words. Are our security services advising on what will happen on 1 January, and how much assurance can the Minister give that these matters are being treated seriously?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My Lords, the noble Lord points to a crucial issue: those datasets for law enforcement purposes and national security need to be in place after our departure from the European Union. We have EU and other structures to use, depending on whether a negotiated outcome is agreed or not.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I agree that we saw the police at their very best in Reading a few days ago. I welcome the extra £90 million a year that will be allocated to counterterrorism policing. If I were a member of the intelligence and security services, I would want to find out from MI5 how many of the 30,000 people on a theoretical list it would like to keep under closer scrutiny. In other words, no matter what its resources are, is it in difficulty and does it not have enough resources to watch all those people? Will the Minister also comment on an added difficulty facing the security services? We have seen a resurgence of the threat from far-right terrorists as well, so the resources of the security services must be divided across a very wide spectrum indeed.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is right to point out that we need the resources to tackle people who are either a danger to others or assessed as possibly being a danger to others. I pointed out earlier, in answer to the question on police officers and CT policing, that both have had a big uplift in their resources, but it is about the deployment of those resources and the intelligence that adds to the mix in ensuring that we can tackle some of the people who pose a real danger to our communities.
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill
Tuesday 23rd June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 View all Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 114-I Marshalled list for Report - (18 Jun 2020)
16:33 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 14 - Ayes: 160 / Noes: 241 - Amendment 14 disagreed.
17:03 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 15 - Ayes: 136 / Noes: 220 - Amendment 15 disagreed.
18:29 - Division conducted remotely on Amendment 45 - Ayes: 155 / Noes: 326 - Amendment 45 disagreed.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
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 due 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 between physical 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.
I shall begin by setting out how these proceedings will work. A participants list for today’s proceedings has been published and is in my brief, which Members should have received. I also have lists of Members who have put their names to the amendments or who have expressed an interest in speaking on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order in which they are listed. Members’ microphones will be muted by the broadcasters, except when I call a Member to speak. Interventions during speeches or “before the noble Lord sits down” are not permitted, and uncalled speakers will not be heard. Other than the mover of an amendment or the Minister, Members may speak only once on each group. Short questions of elucidation after the Minister’s response are permitted but discouraged; a Member wishing to ask such a question, including Members in the Chamber, must email the clerk.
The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should give notice of that fact in the course of the debate. Leave should also be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group. We will now begin.
Clause 1: Moratoriums in Great Britain
Amendment 1
Lord Hope of Craighead
“(ca) a list by the directors of all known creditors of the company,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to assist the monitor in their duty to notify every creditor of the company of whose claim he or she is aware.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 1 in my name is the first of 32 in this group, but it has no connection with the others. Fortunately, I need to speak to my amendment only briefly and do not intend to press it, for reasons I will explain.
The amendment, which is in the same terms as one I moved in Committee, proposes an addition to the list of relevant documents that must accompany the director’s application for a moratorium. My concern has been that the system that the Bill lays down for informing creditors that a moratorium is in force, and when it will come to an end, is too weak, because the monitor’s duty is to notify only those creditors of whose claims he is aware. There is no suggestion in the Bill that he is under a duty to make inquiries. I proposed that, at the outset, the directors should provide a list of all known creditors of the company when making the application.
When the Minister replied, he gave reasons for not accepting the amendment that suggested that he had not understood my point. He said that it had never been the Government’s intention that the moratorium should be used to
“‘line up the ducks’ for a pre-pack administration”.—[Official Report, 16/6/20; col. 2092.]
He added that, as with all administrations, the likelihood of a substantial return to unsecured creditors was small. I, however, had made no mention of going into administration.
The purpose of the moratorium, as I understand it, is to keep the company alive as a going concern. However, freezing the debts for the period of the moratorium is bound to have consequences for the creditors. They might have to take urgent steps to avoid financial embarrassment until their bills are paid, such as adjusting their cash flow or seeking to extend their overdraft. They need to know what is going on. That is especially the case for creditors—many of them SMEs—whose debts are not secured. Unlike the banks and HMRC, they are likely to have nothing to fall back on if the moratorium does not succeed in rescuing the company.
The issue was too important to be overlooked, so I decided to raise it again on Report, and I wrote to the Minister to explain why. Happily, I have received his reply, which is most useful, and for which I am very grateful. The essence of it, which I want to put on the record, is that the Minister agrees that
“the monitor needs to have contact details for the company’s creditors at a very early stage … to enable the monitor to comply with their duty to notify creditors … In order that the proposed monitor can make the statements … that it is likely that a moratorium would result in the rescue of the company as a going concern, they will need to undertake enquiries into the financial position … of the company. … It is envisaged that the proposed monitor would … obtain a list of the company’s creditors”
and their relevant details as part of these inquiries.
“Guidance to this effect will be provided to insolvency practitioners … the monitor … will have to evaluate whether the information provided is of a nature they can rely upon, or whether they need to undertake further enquiries … to ensure they have a list of all creditors.”
They can also take further measures during the moratorium to obtain any information they require, and this could include information about creditors. Information and feedback on the effectiveness of the measures in the Bill will be monitored, and use could be made, if necessary, of the power in Section A6(4) to add to the list of relevant documents.
In the light of the information that the Minister has given me, I am satisfied that it would place an unnecessary burden on the directors to submit a list of the creditors when applying for a moratorium, as I was proposing. I would, however, ask the Minister to confirm two things: first, that my understanding of the position, as I have narrated it, is correct; and, secondly, that a copy of his letter to me has been placed in the Library. I beg to move.
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, there are seven amendments in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Trenchard: Amendments 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 16 and 17. All seven, however, address pretty much the same point, which is to allow the directors of a company, or its monitors—both those in the UK and those overseas—to enter into a moratorium, extend its life or end it, if they believe that, even if there is no hope for the company itself, the business operating within that company is likely to be saved.
I appreciate that the Government have never seen the moratorium as part of the administration legislation —they argue that the rules on administration are adequately covered elsewhere—but it is the job of this House to help the Government by explaining how events actually evolve in the world of business and fervently hope that the Government listen to us.
I am very sorry that so many amendments from Committee did not make it to Report, in particular those from the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and others. Wonderful real-world experiences were offered during Committee, primarily around the role, conduct and independence of the monitor, all of which have been lost, after being discussed in this House and the other place. That is a shame.
The issues raised in my amendment attracted quite some comment and, if I may so, approval from all sides of the Committee, I think I am right in saying. I remain very grateful to noble Lords from all sides of the House who spoke in support in the Chamber and to me directly subsequently. I am grateful to the Minister and his officials, with whom I have had some very open and helpful conversations in the past few days. I was not graced with a letter as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, was; none the less, we have had a discussion.
There seems to be a fixation with rescuing the company. The company is no more than a vehicle. I think all this stems from the Enterprise Act, where there was confusion in the debate, but I hope there is no confusion now and that we can all agree that we want to arrange matters as best we can so that businesses and jobs, not necessarily companies, survive a liquidity crisis and stay alive. It may well be that sometimes an administration is helpful and a sensible outcome, but the current drafting puts pressure on the monitor to try to save a company where, frankly, there may be no point.
Likewise, the desire to avoid pre-packs is misguided. Yes, there have been some abuses, which have been public and well-documented, but they are small and typically relate to small insolvencies, and the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act created the excellent pre-pack pool, which is now in real danger of collapse as a result of this Bill. I welcome Amendment 45, in a later group, which addresses this point.
There is concern that pre-packs favour one particular purchaser, the existing owners, as they have the advantages of knowing the business and speed, so a moratorium in those circumstances is perfect. The time extension allows the monitor to ensure fair play on information access and for new buyers to be sourced and approached. However, it will be very difficult for a monitor to tell the court that administration is not likely. In fact, it will be the reverse. I spoke to an insolvency practitioner only last week who is working on a particularly troubled business right now, with some 10,000 employees and more than 30 different companies. Not all of them will be saved; at least some will go. However, the rest could be saved and the entire business could be saved, but under these proposals he will not get a moratorium, despite being certain that a solution can be found. He cannot take a group approach because under English law each company is a separate entity. He is beside himself in despair at this proposed legislation. Very few real-world rescues are ever done with existing entities. It is not always a bad result that a business is bought through administrators. If creditors lose out, at least there is a chance to recoup some of those losses through future trade.
I am a little worried by the withdrawal of the Henry VIII powers in government Amendments 3, 8 and 11 in this group, as their removal may restrict the Government from making helpful changes. The Government are clearly more swayed by the appeal of the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, than by mine. I ask the Minister to think again about whether those amendments achieve what he seeks. I hope he will listen to petitioners, some of whom he has now met with me, and commit at the Dispatch Box to consider a change, as sought in these amendments, if it is clear that business recovery will be impeded without the proposals that my noble friend Lord Trenchard and I seek. If the Bill does not give sufficient time for directors and monitors to find a sensible way out for businesses, there will simply be closures and asset realisations. I look forward to hearing what the Minister will say and very much hope that he will give me some assurances that the Government will find a way to keep an open mind, because I believe that if there were a Division, the House would support these amendments.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I am also minded to support Amendment 1, moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, because it should not be too difficult a task for the directors to undertake and would be likely to save time afterwards, once the monitor starts his work. However, given that the noble and learned Lord has expressed satisfaction with what the Minister wrote to him, far be it from me to doubt his learned judgment on that matter.
I speak in support of Amendment 2 and the other amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Leigh, to which I have added my name. I declare my interests as listed in the register. I know a little about corporate restructurings, having worked in corporate finance and mergers and acquisitions for some 40 years. I thought that the amendments proposed in Committee by my noble friend made obviously good sense, and I have heard nothing from the Minister that causes me to change my mind—at least, so far.
As I mentioned in Committee last week, this question was discussed during the debates on the Enterprise Act 2002. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral said in the debate in Committee that
“the greatest asset of a company is the people whom it employs … I believe that rescuing the company on its own is a pointless objective … the objective of preserving all or part of the company’s business would be beneficial to the employees of the business, creditors of the company who may be paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the business or from future profits, and of course it would be beneficial to the economy as a whole”.—[Official Report, 29/7/02; cols. 764-65.]
My noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts said on Report that
“by inserting … ‘and the whole or part of its business’… an administrative receiver or administrator”
would be empowered
“to deal even-handedly with the whole or part of the company’s business.”—[Official Report, 21/10/02; col. 1102.]
Of course, the views of my noble friends in 2002 related to a different Bill from the one before your Lordships’ House today, but I nevertheless believe that their comments are equally relevant to the points we are considering now. New Section A6(1)(e) requires a monitor to say that in his view it is likely that a moratorium would result in the rescue of the company as a going concern. Even if the monitor thinks that the company’s business, or some part of it, would be rescued if the company could obtain a moratorium, this would not provide sufficient grounds for the court to grant a moratorium.
Under the Enterprise Act 2002, obtaining a moratorium through administration is not as restrictive as proposed under the provisions of the Bill. It is necessary for an administrator to show that there is a reasonable likelihood of achieving one of three statutory objectives: rescuing the company as a going concern; achieving a better result for the creditors as a whole than would be likely on a winding up; and realising property in order to make a distribution to secured or preferential creditors. The second of those objectives is the one most often relied on as it includes the rescue of a business or one or more of several businesses when, as is often the case, it is impossible to show that the company as a whole can be rescued.
Prior to 2002, the position was the same, although the purposes of administration were not precisely the same. They were: the survival of the company and the whole or part of its undertaking as a going concern; the entering into of a creditors’ voluntary arrangement; the sanctioning of a scheme under Part 26 of the Companies Act; and a more advantageous realisation of the company’s assets than would be effected on a winding-up. Again, the last of those four options was the one relied on where, even though a company was doomed because of the burden of debt, its business or a part of its business could be rescued.
Under the new moratorium procedure, the only type of restructuring proposal that can be advanced is one that involves a company rescue. This means that the options available in a moratorium are significantly more limited than they would be in an administration. Perhaps the Minister can tell the House whether the Government are deliberately trying to restrict the use of moratoriums and do not want to give the directors that degree of freedom if they are trying to save the business but not the company.
However, very often when a business is successfully rescued the company may also be rescued, although that category of company would not be able to use this new procedure. I understand that the Government believe that if rescuing a company’s business were sufficient grounds for a moratorium to be granted, the company would be tempted to use the moratorium to prepare for a pre-pack administration. If this is the case, perhaps my noble friend the Minister could explain to the House why the Government think so.
As my noble friend Lord Leigh has already explained, companies as legal entities are hardly ever saved in an insolvency situation and the connection between widening the grounds for entering a moratorium and the possible abuse of the pre-pack mechanism is, I believe, tenuous at best. Pre-packs have developed as a mechanism for selling a company’s business immediately after it goes into administration, so that the administrator—not the directors—is responsible for breach of duty if the business or assets are sold for less than fair value. The moratorium is surely intended to prevent creditor action, but creditor action has never been a check on an abusive pre-pack. It would be a pity if the moratorium were to be limited to cases in which a debt restructuring is the only way forward, rather than other forms of business rescue.
In conclusion, I think that the Minister has shown great wisdom in introducing so many amendments to dispense with Henry VIII powers, which the Government had thought they might wish to include—although I share my noble friend Lord Leigh’s reservations about some of them in the event that they may restrict the Minister from providing enough comfort on the points that he and I have raised.
Baroness Drake (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my entry in the register of interests and shall speak to Amendment 13 in my name. In this group the Government have brought forward helpful amendments to seek to prevent bank debts and other financial lendings that are accelerated during the moratorium from gaining super-priority status. This is a welcome change. However, serious risks remain of gaming to give current or future lenders access to super-priority, avoid pension liabilities and incentivise insolvency over rescue for certain creditors.
Amendment 13 would remove the exemption which payments in respect of pre-moratorium debts arising under a contract or instrument of financial services have from the payment holiday and from super-priority in the event of an insolvency process. Notwithstanding the Government’s amendments, real concerns remain that lenders may be able to circumvent their intent by the drafting of their lending agreements; the definition of accelerated debt could be sidestepped so that lenders can continue to bring forward debt and benefit from super-priority. It is unclear, for example, whether on-demand debt that is called during the moratorium would be caught by the definition of accelerated debt and debts accelerated prior to the moratorium would continue to be granted super-priority.
Adding to these concerns is the width of the definition of financial institution debt which would qualify for super-priority, covering intra-company loans, for example. In addition, finance debts due prior to or in the moratorium continue to be exempt from the payment holiday. Debts due to the pension scheme are not, would not be payable and would be outranked in subsequent insolvency. That exemption and the super-priority given to that financial debt, which are permanent provisions within the Bill, will inevitably lead to novel forms of moral hazard when it comes to pension liabilities.
This is a fast-track Bill containing permanent, major changes and scrutiny has consequently been fettered, but government Amendment 80 in this group gives a power enabling the Secretary of State, by regulation, to change the definition of moratorium debt and priority pre-moratorium debt. This is a welcome concession by the Government, because it implicitly recognises the arguments that many noble Lords have made that it allows the Government to respond to actual experience of gaming and perverse behaviours. Will the Minister confirm that the intention of Amendment 80 is to allow the Government to quickly address the risks other noble Lords and I have identified when they emerge and to change the definition of moratorium debt and priority pre-moratorium debt in response? Will the Government commit to monitor closely the impact of the provisions on moratorium debt and priority pre-moratorium debt, and to consult relevant bodies on the real concerns around super-priority status, the definition of accelerated debt and the implications for pension scheme debt?
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab) [V]
I added my name to Amendment 13 and I set out in Committee my concerns about the Bill. As I said then, I fully support the intention behind it—that the disruption caused by Covid-19 should not be allowed to trigger the failure of otherwise financially viable companies—but I was anxious, and I remain anxious, that some of the permanent and far-reaching proposals would be damaging to pension funds and to their members in the longer term. I assumed that this damage was unintended and was caused by the speed with which this package of protective measures had had to be introduced, and I am pleased that the Government have gone some way to acknowledging this in the amendments they have brought forward.
Other noble Lords have set out in detail the problems that the Bill would cause as currently drafted. I emphasise just one point in relation to defined benefit pension schemes. The stability and effectiveness of the current system in dealing with insolvency has depended on unsecured pension debts ranking side by side with debts owed to other unsecured lenders. This has underpinned all valuation funding and covenant discussions. The super-priority status granted by the Bill to finance debts in an insolvency following a moratorium undermines that stability and endangers members of affected pension schemes, while preventing the PPF acting effectively as creditor. As I said in Committee, it also undermines the role of the regulator. However, the Government have clearly made efforts to address these concerns and go some way to addressing the issues raised by me and other noble Lords. I have been convinced that the Government want to make this work and will ensure that the PPF has access to and influence on discussions about recovery plans.
The Secretary of State will have access to considerable Henry VIII powers in the Bill and will be able to intervene swiftly if it seems that restructuring plans and insolvency procedures are being abused, to the detriment of pension scheme members. So in thanking the Minister for the way he has responded to the concerns we in this House have expressed about the Bill, I urge him to stay alert to any attempts to undermine the assurances he has given that the position of pension scheme members will not be weakened, and that their lifeboat—the protective umbrella of the PPF—will not be undermined in any restructuring and insolvency discussions.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. I support Amendment 13 and what has been said already about it. I am a signatory to that amendment, but I shall concentrate on Amendment 14. The Times this morning reports that Intu, owner of shopping centres, is seeking a standstill on loans from its banks, otherwise it will go into administration. Without commenting on the merits of the case, save to mention that coronavirus has stopped rent payments, the facts are writ large: it is all in the hands of banks.
The idea of a moratorium is as a formal standstill, a breathing space for a company to trade out of its problems, get back on its feet or at least find a way to reorganise without the situation deteriorating due to a feeding frenzy of creditors, each trying to get at the assets before someone else does. For all essential suppliers other than financial institutions the moratorium terms are that they must continue with normal supply, with no demands for up-front payments or elevated prices that would destroy cashflows and undermine the purpose of a moratorium. But not for banks: they have no constraints and are free to demand accelerated payment. So there is a feeding frenzy exclusively reserved for the banks.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 13 and 14. I have added my name to the former, as well as to Amendment 75 in this group, which I will briefly speak to.
I echo the words of many noble Lords in this debate, and I stress that I support the aims of the Bill and am very grateful to the Government for introducing so many amendments. It is testament to the power of and wisdom in this House that the Government’s amendments have significantly improved the Bill and reduced some of the risks that we highlighted during its earlier stages in our House. I particularly welcome the Minister’s amendments on security for pension schemes and the Pension Protection Fund. I declare my interests as set out in the register.
However, I must agree with some of the words of caution that we have heard so far in this debate. Yes, there may be some improvement and it is welcome that, for example, government Amendment 80 would allow Ministers to step in if necessary, should there be gaming of the moratorium and the creditor priority. However, I have to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and other noble Lords, who have explained that there will be gaming—it is not a question of whether. The idea that banks will not behave like that does not reflect what many of us have already witnessed over the years in the real world. As my noble friend Lord Leigh of Hurley rightly said, there is expertise in this House which can inject into the current situation the real-world experience that could be so important in averting some of the problems we alerted the Government to during the Bill’s early stages.
Financial creditors, including but not limited to banks, will be needed to potentially rescue a company that is going through the moratorium and to help it avoid insolvency. However, there are other elements such as intra-company loans, and in that case, there could be problems regarding recovery from creditors. I agree with my noble friend Lord Leigh that rescuing a business is not the same as rescuing a company—that is absolutely right, as my noble friend Lord Trenchard also explained. However, in many cases defined benefit pension schemes would not have an opportunity to recover money in future trading, should assets be stripped away and the creditor status be undermined by the leapfrogging that can occur with financial creditors. We must try to help save businesses and jobs through the liquidity crisis. I have added my name to Amendment 75 because the issue of jobs and a company’s workers is so important; they should have a role in this process.
I hope that the Government and the Minister can reassure us of the intention to alert the Pension Protection Fund to risks and to step in should there be gaming. I support the intentions behind the Bill.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, my name is added to Amendment 14. I cannot better the speeches from my noble friend Lady Bowles and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. However, I ought to add a few words, because I am probably one of a small number of people in this House and the other place who have been a creditor to a company taken through the Chapter 11 process in the United States, as I was when I worked there for a major US bank.
It is not exceptional behaviour but standard practice to seek ways to accelerate payment to get it into the moratorium period. I would have been considered remiss in my responsibilities had I not made sure that, in the various legal contracts in which lending was arranged, clauses existed that would enable me to achieve that acceleration.
As I also know from my own experience, acceleration is not the only issue; there is also the ability to make sure that a bank can take security when a company finds itself entering into financial crisis. That helps to move the financial institution’s debts much higher up the food chain. I hope that the language in the various amendments that try to deal with this problem is understood as dealing with the issue of security as a mechanism for acceleration, and not just clauses which very directly achieve acceleration.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I put my name to Amendment 14. Before I speak to it, I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests.
I tabled a similar amendment in Committee, looking at how financial institutions and banks might game the system. When I listened to him, my noble friend the Minister seemed to give a positive answer—for which, many thanks—but when one reads col. 2094 of the Committee stage debate on 16 June, the words are not quite as strong as I had hoped. So I support Amendment 14 and want to press my noble friend a little further, for two reasons.
The first is what I might call the Pepper v Hart reason. Courts can go to debates in your Lordships’ House and the House of Commons and use Ministerial Statements and replies to discern what Parliament’s wish was when legislation was passed. Not a lot was said in the House of Commons, because it all went through in a single day, but the words of the Lords Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, have been quoted extensively and will be so in future. He will probably have a starring role in a number of law cases in the years ahead. So I hope, as we come to the dénouement of the Bill, that he will be able to lay out the case clearly, cogently and simply.
Insolvency can seem as dry as dust, but it is about people. It is about men and women who have struggled and given months and years of their life to building up a business, only to see it collapse before their eyes. Sometimes it is because of their incompetence, but often it is because of events over which they have absolutely no control, such as the pandemic. We therefore owe it to people like them to have absolute clarity about their position, their rights and their responsibilities.
I will go back to the real-life example I gave in Committee; I ask my noble friend the Minister to boil down his response when he comes to reply. A struggling company; a £10 million term loan; £1 million is in default, and a pre-moratorium demand has been made. The company goes into the moratorium. Of course, the £1 million is a pre-moratorium debt and is therefore covered, but that demand is a default on the whole loan. Therefore, using the financial services cover, the bank says, “I want the £9 million, thank you very much.” Has that hole been blocked in what my noble friend is putting before the House today? I thought he said that he was going to, but this is quite complicated. It would be helpful for the House, and indeed for the law courts in future, if he could make it clear that that is the case—that is, that banks cannot game the system and use a pre-moratorium event that is protected under the moratorium to enforce claims under the moratorium because they are financial services.
My second question concerns what I call the “Gulag issue”. In real life, in the example I gave, the act of default will mean that the company’s loan moves from its normal relationships to what is known as the “workout division”. Notwithstanding the sensitivities of the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, the workout division is not a place for sensitive souls. It is charged, incentivised and tasked with enforcing the rights of the lender: the bank. Banking agreements have a good many pages of closely packed print, with all sorts of terms and conditions. So many times I have heard people say, “I got 1% off my interest rate and did not think about the other terms.” If your business is going to be successful because you are paying 1% less, you are in the wrong business. It is the terms and conditions that you need to look out for.
Let me give an example of how that might work. I invite noble Lords to look at their overdraft statement when they go home tonight. It will say something like this: “You will be charged 3.5% or 4% above the bank’s base rate for the time being”—what the bank’s base rate is is a good question in itself—“but for unauthorised overdrafts you will be charged 19%.” Deep in the terms and conditions for the company I am talking about, there will be a similar clause. When you default, your interest rate goes up. Do the maths. That £10 million at 19% less the 4% that you were expecting to pay—making 15%—equals £1.5 million a year, or £30,000 a week. These are the sorts of things, and there are many other ways in which banks can enforce their conditions.
Lord Kerslake (CB) [V]
My Lords, I was pleased to add my name to Amendment 75 and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson of Balmacara, on proposing it.
The Bill contains some important benefits for companies that get into difficulties, which will help them, help the economy and protect jobs. Insolvent companies or companies that are likely to become insolvent can obtain a 20 business day moratorium period that will allow viable businesses time to restructure or seek new investment free from creditor action.
A good company—sadly, good companies will be affected by the economic impact of Covid-19—would keep its workforce well informed and consult them as a matter of routine. However, we know that, in a period of duress, the employees are often at the back of the queue in finding out what is happening in their own company, even though they are likely to be significantly at risk—perhaps the most at risk—of redundancy, changes in terms and conditions or changes in pension as a consequence of subsequent restructuring, or indeed closure if no resolution can be found.
In these circumstances, the provision in this amendment will provide an important safeguard and reduce the risk of employees being left out of vital decisions and discussions that will affect their livelihoods. I really hope that the Government can see their way to supporting this amendment, or something very close to it.
Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too speak in support of Amendment 75. Although it is much weaker than the original amendments, it touches on an important debate that is happening not just in the UK but in most of the developed capitalist countries about the status of employees in a company.
Nearly 30 years ago, two academics wrote a paper entitled “The End of History for Corporate Law”. As often happens with such pronouncements, they were premature. The authors assumed that shareholder capitalism was unchallengeable. It is now common to hear senior executives and influential economists extol the importance of moving towards stakeholder capitalism. The chief executive of Black Rock, Larry Fink, wrote recently about climate change but said that sharing data should go
“beyond climate to questions around how each company serves its full set of stakeholders, such as the diversity of its workforce”.
The Financial Times reported that a business round table of 151 US chief executives has revised its concept of “purpose of corporation”. They have renounced shareholder value and would instead lead their companies to the benefit of all stakeholders—customers, suppliers, employees and communities. Mark Carney wrote recently in the Economist that companies would be judged on how they treated employees, suppliers and customers, by who shared and who hoarded, and that the corona crisis was
“a test of stakeholder capitalism.”
He might have had in mind companies such as easyJet, which has sought state aid after cancelling most of its flights but went ahead with a £174 million dividend payout while asking employees to take unpaid leave and face substantial changes to their terms and conditions.
This amendment should be knocking at an open door. I am sure that noble Lords will want to accept it, and that what it calls for will become common practice before too long. It is a modest proposal that does no more than require a company to consult the representatives of its employees. I am sure that many of us would want to go further than that, and no doubt this is an issue that we will return to over the coming months and years.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too shall speak to Amendment 75. In precisely one week’s time, we will celebrate the 70th anniversary of the ratification by the United Kingdom on 30 June 1950 of Convention No. 98 of the International Labour Organization, one of the two most fundamental conventions in international labour law. It has not only been expressly ratified by 167 nations but is considered part of customary international law. Article 4 reads as follows:
“Measures appropriate to national conditions shall be taken, where necessary, to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements.”
Another anniversary will be commemorated on 11 July, for on that day in 1962, as a member of the Council of Europe, the United Kingdom ratified Article 6 of the 1961 European Social Charter. The article reads:
“With a view to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to bargain collectively, the Contracting Parties undertake … to promote joint consultation between workers and employers … to promote, where necessary and appropriate, machinery for voluntary negotiations between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements”.
This amendment does not seek the fulfilment of the Government’s obligation to promote collective bargaining on the consequences for workers in a company that is running into financial difficulties and the measures such as a moratorium to alleviate them, but it does require the fulfilment of the more modest obligation to promote consultation between workers and employers about such consequences. It is difficult to the point of impossibility to see what objection there could be to the imposition on directors of an obligation to hear from their workers—in this case their employees—their perceptions of and suggestions for ameliorating the company’s situation. Under the Companies Act, directors already have an obligation to take into account the interests of the employees, so it is really not asking much to require them to ask their employees to express their views.
Given that the biggest impact of the moratoria and other measures relating to a company’s financial difficulties will be on the workers whose livelihoods are on the line, why not hear their voices? They will be the most ardent and innovative in finding ways of keeping the company alive. Certainly, the Minister and his team have offered no objection to the principle or the practicality of this so far. All that has been said is that employees are already protected and that the courts have a duty to ensure that arrangements are fair and equitable.
The first point is hopeless. There is no extant legal obligation to hear the voices of workers, no obligation to bargain collectively, no obligation to consult save where collective redundancy procedures apply, and no requirement to have worker directors on the board. The second point is equally without merit. There is no provision for workers to be parties to, to be represented, or even to be heard in the specific court proceedings to which this Bill relates. Without hearing from representatives of the workers in respect of the measures being proposed, how can the court be satisfied that any measure is fair and equitable to them? I urge the Government to accept the amendment and to fulfil at least partly their international legal obligations.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, following the excellent speeches of my noble friends Lord Hendy, Lady Bryan and Lord Kerslake, I wish to support Amendment 75.
There was a moment during the response of the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, in Committee to various amendments aimed at protecting the interests of a company’s workforce in the moratorium process when I was reminded of the Hatton Garden safe deposit robbery in 2015, the biggest burglary in British legal history. The conspirators in that crime called carving up the proceeds “the slaughter”. One of the gang nearly missed out on the slaughter. He had bailed out after the first attempt to break in because he did not want to risk returning to the scene of the crime. Some of his co-conspirators felt that he had thereby forfeited any share of the proceeds. Fortunately for him, there was honour among thieves, and they relented and gave him a cut.
The Minister argued that workers are already well protected and that consulting employees or their representatives in the moratorium process is unnecessary because the aim of the Bill is to keep companies in business. In his view, consulting employees would risk publicising a firm’s problems before it could be protected from creditor action, leading to more company failures—in short, that the workers should know their place, run along and let their betters deal with the problem. If he had patted them on the head, I would not have been surprised. Surely there should be a less patronising attitude to people who may have invested much of their working lives in a company that is now facing financial distress.
For workers, insolvency puts more than just their jobs in jeopardy. They may have back pay at risk. Their pension rights may be in danger. Their redundancy rights may be under threat and their tax and national insurance responsibilities may be in doubt. Indeed, the company may even have defaulted on payments to HMRC already deducted from their pay. Their employer may be defaulting on its equal pay and equal rights obligations.
Workers have a vital interest in the insolvency process. They deserve a voice in the consultation process and surely the Government cannot deny that; otherwise, they will be left where they are now—on the outside, at the end of a long tail of unsecured creditors, unrecognised, unheard and unwelcome, while the professional insolvency practitioners practise their black arts. Britain’s workers deserve better, and that is the purpose of Amendment 75.
The amendment is very modest, simply requiring companies to consult their workforces. It imposes no vetoes by employees on the moratorium process and specifies no hurdles that have to be surmounted; instead, it simply imposes an obligation to consult. Surely the Government must agree to that principle or, alternatively, endorse an attitude that says in effect that company owners’ rights matter, creditor and debtor rights matter but employee rights do not. I urge the Minister—and, if not, then your Lordship’s House—to support Amendment 75 or, alternatively, as I now understand he might do, at least to give some proper guarantees that employees will not be left in the lurch.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I refer noble Lords to my interests as listed in the register and the published declarations therein.
I want to speak to Amendment 1, proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, which relates to the directors supplying a list of creditors to the monitor. I supported this amendment in Committee. I have had the advantage of seeing the letter, shared with me by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and can see that my noble friend the Minister has gone some considerable way to allaying concerns by setting out proposals about inquiries that the monitor must make and the policing of the whole procedure by the Insolvency Service. I thank him very much for that. I think that that will be effective, and the letter was indeed very helpful. Like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, I hope that it is shared with other noble Lords by placing a copy of it in the Library.
Perhaps I may touch briefly on something else that I spoke about in Committee. I voiced concern at the lack of any express provision in the Bill requiring the monitor to be independent of the company. The monitor is an officer of the court and is required to be a qualified person, defined as an “insolvency practitioner”. That is reassuring up to a point but there is no express condition that the monitor should be independent of the directors of the company who appoint the monitor; nor is there any provision in the legislation for challenge of an appointment. Perhaps the Minister can put on the record today, or in a letter subsequently, how he sees the professional bodies policing the independence requirement, in the same helpful way as he wrote to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, on the inquiries relating to the requirement for the listing of assets and liabilities.
Subject to that, I very much welcome the moves that the Government have made between Committee and Report. They have gone some considerable way to allaying concerns expressed in Committee.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD) [V]
My Lords, this Bill, when enacted, will be the guide—even the bible—of the monitor. I agree with Amendment 14 and shall speak on it very briefly. My noble friends Lady Bowles and Lady Kramer have explained in detail the reasons for supporting and promoting the amendment, which, to remind noble Lords, would place a restriction on enforcement and legal proceeding, stating that banks and other financial creditors must not have an advantage.
My concern goes back to the philosopher Thucydides, who said something along the lines of “Words change their meaning”. What are “financial creditors”? What is “not having an advantage”? Sometimes the meaning is in the eye of the beholder or in the minute printing of the 240 pages of the Bill.
If Amendment 14 is agreed, as I hope it will be, I shall welcome the Minister’s assurance, at least for the record, that HMRC’s VAT debt, about which I spoke at least twice in earlier proceedings, will not be viewed as the debt of a financial creditor seeking yet more preferential terms. The Finance Bill 2019-21, which we have put aside and hardly mentioned during these debates, seeks to give preference to HMRC for VAT. This undermines the whole principle of this legislation, which I believe is, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, based on the idea that “We are all in it together”. If, even unintentionally, the banks or HMRC are given preference in the Finance Bill 2019-21, we will not all be in it together; some will be more equal than others.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I support the sentiments expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, in moving his Amendment 1, and I thank the Minister for his letter, which has been shared with us.
The duty of the monitor to notify creditors extends only to those creditors of whom the monitor is aware. What is welcome about Amendment 1 is the fact that it strengthens that. At the moment, there is no express duty to seek information about creditors from the company, and I feel that there is a very strong need for Amendment 1 to enable the monitor to do their work, given the time constraints regarding the moratorium under which they are working.
I was pleased to support the amendment in Committee. I noticed that in the Minister’s reply setting out why, in his view, Amendment 1 is not necessary, he regrets that he did not have time to respond fully to the points made in Committee. That raises a broader point about parliamentary scrutiny. I hope that the normal channels will take note of this and that we allocate sufficient time to ensure full and proper scrutiny of a major piece of company law, albeit that for the most part it is time barred. It takes longer to correct a bad law than to make a good law in the first place.
If we do not adopt Amendment 1 today, I believe that that will make the monitor’s position more difficult and that the position of creditors will remain very weak. I support the remarks of my noble friend Lord Bourne. In Committee I made similar points about the desirability of enhancing the independence of the monitor and there is no need to rehearse them today, but I stand by those comments.
Finally, I turn to the Minister’s explanatory statement on government Amendment 3. Generally, I welcome the government amendments, which are preferable to the original Henry VIII clauses, although I am mindful of the remarks of my noble friends Lord Leigh and Lord Trenchard in this regard. However, I question the Minister’s justification of Amendment 3, which would leave out the definition of “the relevant documents” and replace it with the words
“adding to the list of documents”.
The statement says:
“The power could subsequently be re-exercised so as to remove anything added.”
That seems slightly peculiar, and I would welcome the Minister explaining it in more detail when he replies to this debate.
Lord Adonis (Lab) [V]
My Lords, after an hour and five minutes of debate, I do not think that there is much more that needs to be said in favour of these amendments. We have heard a succession of powerful speeches. As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said, the speech that matters now is the Minister’s. We need to know why he believes that the amendments are not necessary, as I understand he is likely to say in respect of a number of them, and we might then come back on that, either now or at Third Reading.
I strongly support Amendment 75. I do not think that in practice it would make much difference, as it would simply introduce a right to be consulted. As my noble friend Lord Hendy said, it does not have any of the stronger elements of a requirement to negotiate or to take account of views—points that have been debated—although it is obviously a step in the right direction. However, the really powerful amendment is Amendment 14, and we look forward to the Minister’s response to it. It would, as many noble Lords have said, make it categorically and explicitly clear that the banks and other financial creditors may not seek to accelerate payment.
The Minister’s response here will be crucial. The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, has told us that the Minister said when she met him that the Government expected that banks would behave reasonably and would not seek to enforce repayment requirements unreasonably, whereas a succession of speakers, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, have made it clear that it is standard practice for them to take every opportunity they can to accelerate payments and that they will do so if the Bill is enacted without Amendment 14.
So the House will want to listen carefully to what the Minister says in response to Amendment 14. If his argument is that it is his expectation that banks will not seek to accelerate payment, what grounds can he offer to the House to support that view when we have been given such strong views to the contrary?
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to address the amendments in this group, not least the seven in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Leigh of Hurley, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard. I have not had the benefit of seeing the now-famous letter, but I look forward to considering that in due course.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, quite properly put it, this is detailed and technical law, but it is rooted in the purpose of protecting people. Similarly, the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, rightly highlighted the importance of meaning and how it changes and can be in the eye of the beholder. More significantly, I will say that everything that we have discussed today is to do with businesses which find themselves in the eye of the storm.
I cannot match the 40 years that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, has spent in this field, but I knocked out just over a decade in it and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, I was involved with a number of chapter 11, US-side insolvencies, as well as a number of pre-packs on this side of the Atlantic. I ask my noble friend the Minister: why the coolness towards pre-packs? Like all vehicles, they have their annoying whines and dodgy brake lines from time to time, but overall they were pretty successful, as conceived in the original legislation.
Does my noble friend agree that a lot of the difficulty around this Bill and the amendments we are discussing in this group seems to come down to an understanding of the fundamental difference between the company and the business? It seems that much of this legislation has been constructed with the approach of a company staying in business rather than the reality that the business does not need to stay within the company. Can my noble friend assure the House that nothing as currently drafted will impact businesses which find themselves, largely as a result of the Covid pandemic, in distressing situations? If he cannot give that assurance, does he agree that it is prudent to consider a number of these amendments in this group and subsequent groups?
Similarly, on furlough finance, which was incredibly speedily and effectively rolled out by the Chancellor, does the Minister agree that, if we fail to get this legislation right and the clauses amended as proposed, we will fail to gain the wider benefits from the furlough finance and employees who have rightly benefited from furloughing will find themselves with no business at the end of that period?
Finally, does my noble friend agree that there is a real, clear and present danger that, if we do not address the amendments, the reality may be that we save the company, lose the business, fail the purpose and miss the point?
Lord Fox (LD)
My Lords, we have heard a number of your Lordships speak with great authority, not least the previous speaker, on this important subject. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, set out, there is a great number of amendments in this group, and I shall not attempt to speak to all of them. I have sympathy with the spirit of the amendments set out by the noble Lord, Lord Leigh. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, I shall listen to the Minister’s response to those questions.
I also thank the Minister and the departmental team for listening to what was said in Committee and coming up with the first of a set of government amendments that were sensitive to that debate. However, I shall speak to two amendments in this group that carry my name, Amendments 14 and 75. Amendment 14 has been elegantly spoken to by my noble friends Lady Bowles, Lady Kramer and Lord Palmer and, on the Bench opposite, by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and others. It sets out the overriding issue in this debate: that of tiptoeing around the financial institutions.
My noble friend Lady Bowles set it out with great clarity: where all other groups within the company in a moratorium have to set aside and go into stasis, the banks do not. Even though it may be implied, it is important that the Bill is very clear that we expect a standstill. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said that the Minister may yet star in legal disputes of the Pepper v Hart variety. One way for him to avoid such notoriety would be to accept Amendment 14 and accept that we need a clear undertaking that this behaviour cannot be allowed. As my noble friend Lady Kramer and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, set out, if it can happen, it will happen. Teams within banks will be under an obligation to their owners to do it. Therefore, it needs to be set aside.
A number of Peers talked about banks gaming the situation, but this is no game for employees or for creditors. If it were a game, the pawns could well be the employees. That is why Amendment 75, which also carries my name, is important—albeit modest, as the noble Baroness, Lady Bryan, said.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, set out in legal terms why some status for employees needs to be established; nothing else in the Bill does that. However, it should be more than workers just being in receipt of communication; they should have a seat at the table and be consulted. Somewhere there is a feeling coming through this that involving the employees is somehow anathema to saving the business. I should declare my interests, one of which is that I am a member of the German-British Forum. In Germany, this discussion would not be needed. Businesses in Germany know that workers have a central role in their strategic future —and what could be more strategic than the sort of things that we are discussing today? So Amendment 75 is a very modest suggestion, and any watering down of it by the Government would be disappointing.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this has been a very good debate and I thank all those who have contributed. In a sense, the debate around this group of amendments reflects the problem that we have had with the Bill. The Government, rightly, want to progress and to press ahead, but the issues that we are covering are of such substance that they vastly outstrip the time that has been made available for us to do it—hence our needing the Minister to address at the Dispatch Box a wide range of points before many of us can decide how we will deal with our amendments.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, asked about the exchange of letters over the simple question about whether a list of creditors should be provided. The noble Lord, Lord Leigh, and the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, asked a justifiable question about whether rescuing a business is the same as rescuing the company, given that in many cases the business is the important issue, particularly when it is linked to the jobs that would be involved. Does the Bill adequately deal with that?
My noble friends Lady Drake and Lady Warwick want to know from the Minister directly at the Dispatch Box whether Amendment 80 goes far enough to recognise the gaming and perverse behaviours that will inevitably follow the moratorium arrangements. In addition to that, my noble friend Lady Warwick specifically asked about the issue of super-priority for financial funds in relation to defined-benefit pensions. Will the Government, with their power, stay alert to the dangers? We need to know.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, made a persuasive case about the way in which the breathing space set up by the moratorium would effectively be destroyed by accelerated payments, and the following speaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, made that point exactly by explaining why gaming is natural, or even appropriate, behaviour for banks and other lenders, which of course have to maximise the return they are likely to get. If that is inevitable, are the measures in the Bill sufficient? Will the Minister do what he can to reassure us about that? And the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, whose extensive experience and anecdotes flowed through his speech, rightly raised the Pepper v Hart concern and the issues that will come through in future legislation in relation to what has been said today.
I suppose what I am getting at is that it would have been better if we had had proper amendments and time to debate them in individual groups—not all clumped together in different areas—and did not have to rely on the Minister’s very difficult task of covering all the points raised in today’s hour and a quarter of debate and being convincing about how the words that appear in the Bill, and in the Act when it is published, will be sufficient. However, we are where we are and we need to make progress.
Amendment 75 may be a rather modest issue, as has been said, but it is important in itself as well as for what it might say about the future. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kerslake and Lord Fox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, for supporting me in this amendment, and I thank my noble friends Lady Bryan of Partick, Lord Hendy, Lord Hain, Lord Adonis and others for speaking in support. At heart, the amendment seeks to recognise that workers in a company care about its future and, like all other stakeholders, should be informed about what is going on. It supports the view that in a crisis situation all those who work in a company are in it together, and employees may have as much at stake as others who have a financial stake in the company. It also makes the point that those who work in the company in the round, or in the business that the company is carrying out, can and should make a contribution to save it if it is in crisis. Only good can come from a proper process of engagement, information exchange and an exchange of ideas.
I recognise that in a moratorium situation speed may be of the essence. Any arrangements set up that would slow that down also carry the risk that information will be fed out into the public, and that may promote creditor action. We must guard against that but, on the other hand, we should also aim to bring everyone together, not to split off certain groups who, as I hope to argue, could contribute. However, and I wait to hear the Minister deal with this issue when he comes to the Dispatch Box, there may be other ways of dealing with this—measures that could perhaps take into account evidence gained as we go forward. As we discovered in Committee, there may indeed be other issues that need to be wrapped into this first step—the beginnings, perhaps, of a movement to rebalance the relationship between employers and employees and to promote collective bargaining. This may not have been the right amendment or even the right Bill for that approach, but maybe this can be the first step on that journey.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to this excellent debate. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, correctly characterised this as a number of different subjects loosely grouped together under the heading of moratorium provisions, and I gladly accept his challenge to try to satisfy the House and deal with all the points that have been raised.
First, to start at the beginning, Amendment 1 was moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. I thank him for his letter following Committee; as I conveyed in my response to him, I confirm that a copy of that has been placed in the House Library. I agree with him that the monitor needs the details of the company’s creditors at an early stage to enable the monitor to comply with their duty to notify the creditors. I also confirm to him that I agree with the explanation that he provided in his speech. We have recently published draft guidance for monitors that would include that the proposed monitor is expected to ascertain the assets, liabilities and ongoing financial commitments of the company when judging its likelihood of rescue, and that would of course include details of creditors.
I turn to the amendments tabled by my noble friends Lord Leigh of Hurley and Lord Trenchard. I thank them for raising these issues and tabling the amendments, which I know derive from their enormous experience in this area. I wrote to my noble friend Lord Leigh on 17 June. I hope he received a copy of that letter; if he did not, I apologise and will gladly give him another copy. The amendments seek to expand the focus of the moratorium from the rescue of the company to the rescue of the company’s businesses or parts of that business. I am grateful to them, particularly my noble friend Lord Leigh, for taking the time to meet me and officials to discuss that with his various restructuring experts and for them to highlight their concerns to us. In response to my noble friend Lord Trenchard, the moratorium is intended as a company rescue procedure upstream of a formal insolvency procedure. If a pre-pack is the settled intention of the company and its adviser, the moratorium is clearly not for them.
It has long been the Government’s policy that the new moratorium be built around a company in financial difficulty—that is, companies having access to a breathing space before such time as the company itself is beyond rescue. For that reason, the statements made by the monitor on entry to the moratorium and, similarly, the requirements at extension and termination of the moratorium are indeed focused on the rescue of the corporate vehicle. This policy was widely consulted on and received significant support. However, I recognise the point made by my noble friends that the amendment is supported by some rescue professionals working in that field. Still, I reassure them today by telling them that we will be monitoring the operation of the moratorium closely once the Bill comes into force, and we will not hesitate to take action if that is required.
I turn to Amendments 13 and 14, tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Bowles, which seek to change how financial services debts are treated in a moratorium. This is a complicated area so I hope the House will bear with me. The Government want to avoid lenders exercising their rights to accelerate their pre-moratorium debt, thereby potentially gaming the system through a moratorium. That is why amendments have been tabled in my name, and I will talk more about them later, to exclude financial services’ pre-moratorium debts from super-priority or protection from compromise where the debt has been accelerated during the relevant period. The amendments in my name do not prevent a financial services creditor exercising a termination or acceleration clause; nor do they remove the requirement that if the accelerated debt is not paid then the monitor must bring the moratorium to an end. These are important provisions that will encourage lending to companies in difficulty and support the operation and stability of financial markets. The Government want to encourage financial services firms to keep lending to companies in distress. Including debts to these firms in the payment holiday concept could disincentivise them from doing so. That could leave some companies in a moratorium without the finance that they need to recover. In other words, it could jeopardise the very purpose of the moratorium in the first place.
In addition, we have excluded certain financial services contracts from the prohibition of termination clauses. This is vital to ensure that financial markets continue to operate as they do now. To not exclude these contracts could carry wide-reaching, systemic risks to market stability, as market participants could find their transactions suddenly terminated. Legal certainty over how transactions will be treated is vital to the operation of these markets. I appreciate that many noble Lords have raised concerns about this matter, but I hope that the amendments tabled in my name will allay at least some of their concerns. I will talk in a little more detail about those amendments shortly.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I have received a request to ask a short question for elucidation from the noble Lord, Lord Fox, so I call on him to ask it.
Lord Fox
In reference to Amendment 75, the Minister talked about the danger of employees leaking the state of the business. In my experience of acquisitions and disposals in continental Europe, where the pre-briefing of employees is legally required, there has never been an issue with employees leaking the information. The leaks have only ever come from advisers, usually banks. What grounds does the Minister have for making that statement?
Lord Callanan
I do not think that I used the word “leaking”. We want the moratorium to be a light-touch procedure with the minimum level of bureaucracy. Of course, it goes without saying that any information being disclosed from whatever source of a company’s intention to go into this procedure could have serious adverse consequences if certain creditors seek to pre-empt the operation of the moratorium. However, we have built concessions into this part of the Bill. I hope noble Lords will be able to accept them. I take on board the noble Lord’s points, although I did not use those words.
Lord Hope of Craighead [V]
I am very grateful to those noble Lords who spoke in support of my Amendment 1. I am grateful to the Minister as well for giving me the two assurances which I sought when I introduced the amendment.
I feel that there was a note of some disappoint from some noble Lords that I would not press the amendment, so I will explain very shortly why I took that decision. The letter that was circulated—I am grateful to those responsible for doing that—sets out in some considerable detail the various points which one needs to bear in mind as background to the wording of the Bill. It does, of course, require one to give rather more weight to the guidance than what one finds in the Bill’s wording, which I said was somewhat weak, but I am prepared to accept that guidance and test the matter against the point which the Minister made in Committee that adding a burden on to the directors of the company when a company needs to enter into the procedure as quickly as possible would be undesirable if to do so would be unnecessary.
That really is the essence of the point I asked myself: am I satisfied, in view of what the Minister said in his letter, that the burden would indeed be unnecessary? In the end, the answer to that question was yes. For these reasons—and I express my gratitude again to the Minister for his helpful letter—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Leigh of Hurley
Lord Leigh of Hurley
My Lords, I take the assurances from the Perspex-covered Dispatch Box that the Minister will monitor the situation. I take this opportunity to apologise: I did not mean that I had not received a letter; I meant that it was not as satisfactory as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, found it. There were insufficient assurances. I also suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Fox, meant bankers and PR advisers. On the basis of the Minister’s categoric assurances that he will monitor the situation and take action as necessary if it is apparent that companies are not able to be saved but businesses can, I will not move the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 3. I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 3
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment narrows the Secretary of State’s power to change a list of documents, so that it is confined to adding to the list. The power could subsequently be re-exercised so as to remove anything added.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 3 I will also speak to the other government amendments grouped with it. I begin by thanking my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, including the ever- helpful clerk team, for their quick work in scrutinising the Bill. As always, they have made important recommendations and the Government have sought to accept as many of them as possible. In last week’s debate, my noble friend Lord Callanan stated that we would listen to the concerns expressed and consider them carefully. We have done so.
The amendments tabled by the Government have taken on board the concerns raised by the committee and by noble Lords on the number of Henry VIII powers in Clause 1 on moratoriums. As a result, we have tabled amendments that will remove three of the Henry VIII powers in Clause 1 from the Bill: those in new Sections A10(4), A11(5) and A13(9). We have also tabled amendments that will restrict the power in new Section A6(4) so that it can be used only to add to existing requirements, rather than to amend them.
Baroness Fookes (Con) [V]
My Lords, before I speak to Amendment 48 in my name, I thank the Minister for taking on board so many of the issues raised by the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee about the extensive use of delegated powers. I believe in giving credit where it is due and do so now.
However, I was seeking a little more in Amendment 48. This amends Clause 21, which requires the Secretary of State to keep the regulations made under Clause 18 under “constant review” and, if satisfied that they are no longer needed or proportionate to their purpose, to make new ones amending or revoking. That sounds fine at first, but what does “constant review” really mean? Who is going to do the constant reviewing—a very busy Minister with other things on his mind, or his very busy civil servants? My amendment seeks to keep them on the straight and narrow, so to speak, by suggesting that the Secretary of State should review these amendments every three months and report to Parliament. I hope that my noble friend might take this on board, but I am not holding my breath.
Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, said. She and I serve on the Constitution Committee, which raised quite a few concerns about this Bill. I want to say a few words about Clause 22. As the Minister outlined, the Government are now adding a limitation to it so that the expiry date cannot be extended beyond two years after Royal Assent. That amendment is very similar to the one that I moved in Committee. I am very pleased that the Government have acknowledged what the Constitution Committee said about the extent of the power that was being given, and I am glad that this change is being incorporated in the Bill.
Having said that, and having welcomed the changes that the Government have introduced in other areas, there are some very significant general concerns, that I and many others have, that have been highlighted by this Bill and by the extent of the government amendments that have had to come forward following Committee. Committee raised a series of genuine problems, some of which the Government have addressed, but this illustrates some of the dangers of fast-tracking legislation, even when, as the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, said, there have been previous consultations. It certainly illustrates the dangers of using emergency legislation. We all accept that emergency legislation in this area is needed because of Covid-19, but it illustrates the difficulty of using emergency legislation to make permanent changes at the same time in this very rushed way.
I ask the Minister to bear in mind that we will have other legislation coming forward. I hope that Ministers will learn the lessons of this legislation. This is a complex Bill—the previous debate showed that—and this is not really an adequate way of scrutinising such complex issues. Therefore, I hope that when we have other legislation because of Covid-19 or Brexit, the Government are mindful and give time for proper consideration of all aspects of such Bills.
Having said that, I welcome the specific change to Clause 22, and I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, having said last week that he would look at this again, has produced this government amendment.
Lord Balfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, I want to say a few words in support of Amendment 48, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. I know from experience that when you have a requirement to report on anything without a time limit, there is always the tendency not to do it. There is always something more pressing, and even if the Minister raises it, the civil servant will say, “Well, no one has actually asked for it, Minister, and we have got this or that.” The only way to keep a piece of legislation or a policy under review is to have it timetabled. Whether it is every three months, four months or six months, the key point is that you have a timetable and you have a requirement to report at the specific point of that timetable, because then it gets into the system.
I urge the Minister, thinking not of himself but of Ministers in years to come, to accept this amendment or a close variant of it, that, crucially, puts in a time limit. A refusal today could snooker us when trying to get reports in the future, as we end up with parliamentary questions such as, “When is the Minister proposing to review?” and answers saying, “He or she is certainly thinking about it”, but not getting the review. I urge the Minister, looking to all our political futures, to accept some sort of time limitation. As such, I am very happy to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (LD) [V]
My Lords, my colleagues on the Constitution Committee, the noble Baronesses, Lady Taylor and Lady Fookes, have made their points very clearly, so I am very happy to rest behind their submissions.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, I raised in Committee that there were numerous Henry VIII powers in the Bill, as the Delegated Powers Committee flagged in its devastating report. I am very glad that the Government have responded to the criticisms of the Delegated Powers Committee and the Constitution Committee by bringing forward these amendments, even if they are not comprehensive.
I am glad that we have been able to scrutinise the Bill in this House in a way that simply did not happen in the Commons. This Bill is indeed a mixture of emergency and permanent changes. I note particularly that the Government propose affirmative procedures in Amendments 58, 66 and 67, and “made affirmative” procedures in Amendments 68, 69, 72 and 73. The notes say that it is either affirmative or “made affirmative”—although I note what the Minister, said—in Amendment 109. I welcome these amendments. Those serving on the Constitution Committee have tabled Amendments 48 and 50, which bring more precision to this, and I hear what they have to say. Although I welcome what the Government have brought forward, I hope that the Minister can give further assurances.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con) [V]
My Lords, last week in Committee I expressed my concern about the Government’s extensive use of Henry VIII powers and I was one voice among many. Today, I welcome the Government’s amendments in this group, most of which respond positively to the concerns expressed in Committee. For example, in Clause 1, Amendments 5, 8 and 11, and Amendment 76 to Schedule 1, narrow or remove the Henry VIII power. Another couple of examples of changes can be found in Amendment 69 to Clause 42 and Amendment 72 to Clause 43. They convert the negative procedure for regulations into the “made affirmative” or—as the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, has just said—affirmative procedure.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I have no substantive remarks to make, other than to congratulate my noble friend Lord Howe on taking on board the comments made by the committee.
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, a number of Members of your Lordships’ House may wish to claim that it was the force and power of their oratory that caused the Government to think again, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the mere prospect of the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, leading a band of opposition rebels was enough to concentrate minds—and I am very glad that it did. There was broad consensus around the House that the powers taken within the legislation were far too broad. I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has come back and talked in detail about those which have been ceded and those which have not.
Towards the end of his remarks, the noble Earl said that the Government had retained some regulation-making powers to address the needs of different sectors, should it become apparent that regulations need to be made to save businesses in certain sectors. That is the issue to which I draw attention, following on from the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns. Like me, she has an interest in what happens in the charity and social enterprise sector. Welcome though the letter from the Minister was—exactly as the noble Baroness just said, it talked about charities with wholly owned subsidiary trading companies which give back their profits to the charity—a number of charities have different company forms, and there remains a lack of clarity in the Bill about some of those entities.
I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, and his officials have talked to me about this. The Bill applies to those charities which are companies limited by guarantee—it is mostly community interest organisations that will fall within this—but it will not apply to charities that are unincorporated, nor to excepted charities and royal charter charities. There is also a big consideration around the extent to which the Bill will apply to community benefit societies, mutuals and co-ops. I am not asking the Minister to reiterate the detail of that today. I merely draw attention to the fact that there may be matters to which it is necessary to return when the Government make regulations under the Bill.
I signalled to the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, one of the issues that has been drawn to my attention by the museum sector. We have a number of independent museums—not the large museums set up under an Act of Parliament, nor those associated with local government—and they are typically charitable companies. They have a very big fear. If they are in danger, and a number of them currently think that they may well be, their collections immediately become part of the assets of any insolvency procedure. The big concern is that, if there is no exemption for those assets in regulations, later on this year a large part of Britain’s cultural heritage may suddenly come up in a fire sale. That would be extremely damaging, not just to those organisations but to the local economies that they support as part of the tourism sector and so on. All they are asking is that, when it comes to making regulations under the Bill, there be consultation with them and with the charity lawyers, accountants and insolvency practitioners who have expertise within what is, I know, a very niche but important part of company law.
That said, I add my support to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and her Amendment 48. What she is asking for seems entirely reasonable.
Lord Holmes of Richmond [V]
I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 48 from my noble friend Lady Fookes. As ever, she makes a point that is pertinent and clear, and that is absolutely required at this stage. In doing so, I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Blencathra and the members of the Delegated Powers Committee on all their work in this area. As other noble Lords have said, the Government are in listening mode on this. That can be only a good thing, and it is largely down to the persuasive power of my noble friend.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Deputy Leader for his many amendments, designed to moderate the overuse of delegated powers in this important legislation. The legislation is vital to easing the burden of events on businesses, especially smaller or less well-capitalised businesses, of which sadly there are more every day.
I was particularly concerned about the lack of an end date for the use of the emergency powers, but government Amendment 49 appears to meet my concern. I also thank my noble friend Lady Fookes, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and others for their effective scrutiny.
Lord Fox
My Lords, this will be something of a novelty but I am going to be gracious. As is appropriate, I congratulate the Government on bringing forth Amendment 49, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and on sweeping away as many as possible of the Henry VIII clauses, as they are known. My noble friend Lady Barker set out the challenge for this Bill and the reasons for retaining some powers to change and mutate it as it goes forward. Because of the haste and scale of the Bill, there is a great challenge from non-conventional businesses, so to speak.
The point about museums is a very good example of where it is a question not just of the future of the museum but the future integrity of a collection, which suddenly becomes an asset. While it may not be possible to save a museum, it should be possible to save a collection—but, when very many collections are going up for sale at the same time, clearly the capacity to deal with that is eliminated; that is just one very niche example of the challenge for the Government. In this set of amendments, the Government have shown an ear to the debate and have reacted accordingly.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara [V]
My Lords, as has already been said, this has been a good debate. While we must await the individual amendments, I think the judgment of the House so far is that the Government have changed their original proposals sufficiently to satisfy the House and, more importantly, the specialist committees that have been looking at particular details; we picked up from my noble friend Lady Taylor the considerable concerns that were around at the time.
The noble Earl, who is also the Deputy Leader of the House, might wish to swap hats when he comes to respond to the debate, as there are perhaps points that need to be taken back and listened to within the usual channels in relation to the dangers of fast-tracking complex legislation of this nature and the need to make sure that we have sufficient time and learn the lessons, as my noble friend Lady Taylor said. It is not something that we often hear in this House, but we do need to listen: this whole process of fast-tracking and then trying to pick up on the run the difficulties that come up and is really not an adequate way of scrutinising, as she put it. We hope that that lesson will be learned in a way that will allow us more time and more consideration.
Finally, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, for picking up the point that we both shared in Committee in relation to charities. Like her, I am pleased that the point has been noted and a response issued. I still think that there are concerns around some of the other bodies with which we as a Parliament and as a society should be concerned: the good work of credit unions, friendly societies, social enterprise companies, community-interest companies and co-ops. These, of course, share the common thread that they are often set up outside the norms of company law, for the reason that they can operate better when they are not part of the overall character of the Companies Act. But, inevitably, there are intersection points and issues, which have been picked up. The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that certain independent companies trading as museums might find that the collections on which they depend may be at risk is obviously a worry that the Government will want to take back. I think those are the important points.
Earl Howe
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Fookes and the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, for the amendments which they have tabled, and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I will say at the outset that I understand and take on board the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, on the use of emergency legislation and the risk that amendments to such Bills will be necessary.
I can assure the House that the Government do our very best to draft legislation accurately and fully before bringing a Bill before the House. However, I feel sure that noble Lords will understand that there will always be a risk of amendments being required to the Bill as it progresses through Parliament, even with the best will in the world. To the extent that the Government have listened to concerns expressed during the course of the Bill, I am sure that noble Lords would not wish to criticise amendments that have come forward in response to such concerns.
Lord Callanan
“(c) in a case where the company is or has been an employer in respect of an occupational pension scheme that is not a money purchase scheme, the Pensions Regulator, and(d) in a case where the company is an employer in respect of such a pension scheme that is an eligible scheme within the meaning given by section 126 of the Pensions Act 2004, the Board of the Pension Protection Fund.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the monitor’s duty to give notice that a moratorium has come into force.
The Deputy Speaker
I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover of an amendment and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, the amendments in my name make provisions relating to pension schemes in the moratorium and the restructuring plan. Although the moratorium is not an opportunity for employers to walk away from their liabilities, it may become the point at which preparations for and discussions about a restructuring proposal begin. Where the pension scheme would be a large unsecured creditor in any insolvency, should the employer ultimately fail, restructurings can have a significant and immediate impact on the expected outcome of the scheme.
There is the possibility that the company may seek to reschedule payments to provide working capital to give time to shore up its operations. This might result in lower payments to the scheme for a period of time. A rescue may also involve certain other creditors, such as new lenders providing rescue finance, taking security over company assets. This would mean that there would be less available for other creditors, including the scheme, in the event that any such rescue ultimately failed.
Some insolvency procedures are designated as “insolvency events” under existing pensions legislation. One effect of such designation is that the Pension Protection Fund has a statutory role to play, acting as a creditor in place of the trustees of eligible schemes. However, the new procedures are different. They are not qualifying insolvency events, as they are focused entirely on giving the company every opportunity to achieve a rescue as a going concern. This would be the best outcome for a pension scheme: moving forward with the support of its newly rescued sponsoring employer.
Nevertheless, there is concern that these procedures could result in the pension scheme being disadvantaged as an unsecured creditor of the company. The PPF, as the provider of protection for members of eligible schemes in specified circumstances, could potentially face a greater loss. An example of this would be if the company subsequently fails and the scheme falls into the PPF with a larger deficit than it originally had.
Consequently, it is agreed that there is a need to build in specific protections. These focus on the interests of the scheme and its members, and the interests of the PPF and its levy payers. This would be by ensuring that the PPF has a seat at the table in any restructuring proposal and that its voice is heard. After all, it is the statutory compensation scheme for members of eligible defined benefit schemes, and ultimately bears the risk for the scheme should the company subsequently fail.
The challenge has therefore been to strike the right balance between the interests of the trustees, the board of the Pension Protection Fund, the company and its creditors. Taken together, these amendments achieve this balance. They provide for both the PPF and the Pensions Regulator to get appropriate information in the case of both a moratorium and a restructuring plan. The regulation-making power will allow the Secretary of State to provide for the board of the PPF to act in the place of the trustees of the scheme as a creditor in certain circumstances. The board of the PPF and the Pensions Regulator will have the right to the same information as creditors, concerning the start and end point of a moratorium and any change in the monitor, in specified circumstances. The board of the PPF will have the same rights as trustees to challenge in court the monitor’s or director’s actions in specified situations where the interests of the trustees as a creditor are considered to be unfairly harmed by those actions.
Where a restructuring plan is proposed and the company is a sponsoring employer, provision is made for the board of the PPF and the Pensions Regulator to receive the same information sent to creditors, in specified circumstances. This means that they are informed that a proposal has been made and they can then consider what action, if any, to take.
In respect of both the moratorium and the restructuring plan, where the trustees of a PPF-eligible scheme are a creditor of the company concerned, the proposed amendments provide a regulation-making power. This power will give the board of the PPF the ability to exercise the creditor rights of the trustees; again, in appropriate circumstances. These rights include attending the creditors’ meeting, voting on the restructuring plan and making representations to the court. The powers are drafted to allow an appropriate balance between the trustees and the Pension Protection Fund’s interests by allowing creditor rights to be exercised concurrently where appropriate. Conditions can also be placed on the exercise of any rights given to the board of the PPF.
Restructuring will always involve trade-offs. Employees will be concerned that the rescue ensures that their jobs are secure, but at the same time they will be interested in the impact on the company pension scheme if they are a member. The changes tabled in my name have balanced the interests of employees and scheme members with those of a company and its creditors, giving them all the best chance for survival, in our view. I beg to move.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]
My Lords, I welcome the amendments tabled by the Government to address the position of the Pension Protection Fund and the Pensions Regulator where there is a relevant scheme. The amendments give them the right to be notified of moratorium events and give the Pension Protection Fund rights to challenge the monitor or directors, vote as a creditor and make representations to the court.
An amendment on the issue that remains unaddressed was originally tabled in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann; we have tabled one on Report with her support. The noble Baroness, with her great experience in pensions, will speak next.
Amendment 15 concerns the status of pledged assets and whether the court can give permission for their disposal without the Pension Protection Fund’s permission. In the absence of an amendment, those assets are not protected, which unravels the basis on which settlements over funding and deficits are made with trustees.
The effect of that is twofold: the actual disposal of the assets, which may be unfavourable to the pension scheme; and, even without any of that happening, the fact that such a possibility exists raises doubts about the numerous pledges that underpin contribution agreements. It is far from desirable to have to revisit them but, without any assurance, it would seem necessary for trustees to think about that and seek more cash funding. That would be bad at any time, but when companies are facing more difficult times due to the pandemic and its after-effects, it would be particularly unwelcome. That is the reasoning behind the amendment, and I know that other noble Lords are well able to illustrate the problem further.
Baroness Altmann [V]
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles. I welcome the recognition by the Government in the amendments laid by the Minister of the importance of ensuring that a company pension scheme is not disadvantaged and that the Pensions Regulator and the Pension Protection Fund are given rights in circumstances where there is a moratorium or negotiations regarding saving the ongoing business.
As the noble Baroness said, Amendment 15 provides the sort of reassurance that not only a pension scheme and its trustees might need but that the entire defined benefit pension system might require should there be the sort of emergency problems that we are passing this legislation to cope with. The assets of a company are sometimes pledged to a pension scheme in order to reduce the amount of cash that the sponsor needs to pay into the scheme. The types of these so-called contingent assets that we are concerned about in this amendment are Type B(ii) and Type B(iii). Type B(ii) are rights over real estate owned by the company and Type B(iii) are securities that have been pledged to the pension scheme. The scheme’s funding will have been based on following significant negotiations over the years to fix funding shortfalls.
What has happened recently gives rise to enormous concern. In 2007, schemes in deficit had a total deficit of around £20 billion. By 2008, that had risen to £100 billion or more. In March 2009, it was £220 billion. At the end of last year, it had fallen to around £165 billion, but the latest figures from the Pension Protection Fund show that the total deficits of schemes in deficit have now reached £290 billion. There is a major shortfall across the defined benefit pension scheme universe. After many years of trustees agreeing with sponsors to allow deficit repair payments, I have significant concerns that these contingent assets could be at risk, given the amendments that have been laid. They give the Pension Protection Fund and the regulator the right to be notified and to participate in such negotiations, but if that will require court challenges rather than being ruled out without Pension Protection Fund permission, there is an ongoing risk that such assets could be approved for sale by the court. That would not only materially weaken the pension fund itself but, should the company then fail, the PPF will have many fewer assets than is currently assumed by its levy calculation. The system itself could then be at risk.
Scheme funding has been agreed over many years. In light of the other measures in this Bill, which could see bank lenders and even intracompany loans accelerate ahead of the pension scheme in an insolvency, there is likely to be a material weakening of DB scheme funding and potential recoveries on insolvency. Therefore, I am concerned that all other DB schemes and their members will be at risk and that the PPF lifeboat may not be secure in the way we currently believe that it is. I wonder whether the Minister might be able to confirm that the Pension Protection Fund will have the necessary powers to prevent the courts selling assets, should that be under consideration. Without that power, it may be too late once those assets have been sold. I agree with my noble friend that these measures improve the situation, but just allowing the PPF and the Pensions Regulator to have appropriate information, the same as other creditors, and the ability to challenge in court in certain circumstances leaves a question mark in one’s mind about how secure the contingent assets pledged to a pension scheme will be after this Bill, as it is currently worded, passes.
Lord Hain [V]
My Lords, I was very happy to add my name to Amendment 15, which has been spoken to so eloquently and with unrivalled expertise and authority on this matter by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann. I am very concerned about the threat to the Pension Protection Fund. I am proud to say that it started life under the last Labour Government in 2005, and I was subsequently Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. It is an important lifeboat, but it could be threatened if the consequences of insolvency, particularly with defined benefits, rebound into the PPF.
Although I welcome the concessions and responses that the Minister has made through these amendments, and what he has said as a result of the arguments put by the noble Baronesses, Lady Altmann and Lady Bowles, and others, including my noble friends Lady Drake and Lady Warwick, I still think there is a real risk involved. I hope that today, he will give greater recognition to that fact and that he and the Secretary of State will be vigilant in ensuring that the Government are fully cognisant of their concerns about the future viability of the vital Pension Protection Fund.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]
My Lords, I come to this from a slightly different point of view, and I rise to express some concern at the scale of amendments on pensions in this already finely balanced Bill. They may make life difficult for investors, creditors and the forces of enterprise that we need if our economy is ever going to recover from the dreadful coronavirus crisis. While understanding and accepting the government amendments and agreeing on the need for vigilance— in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Hain—I urge the Minister to go no further and not to accept Amendment 15. It gives too much power to the Pension Protection Fund and could have the perverse consequences of delay, burden and cost to pension funds and to businesses that are in trouble but have a sustainable future.
Lord Balfe [V]
My Lords, I am concerned at the way in which the Pension Protection Fund is currently heading. It has been burdened with more and more liabilities. This is a direct attack on it. We need to remember that the idea of pledged assets came as an alternative to companies having to put real cash into their pension fund deficits. The PPF was prepared to accept pledged assets on the basis that they were literally a pledge that could be redeemed against the deficit. If that is going to be removed, it will mean that any responsible trustee in any company in this country—whether the company has financial problems or not—must, as soon as this legislation comes into being, review those pledges. It does not matter whether the company has any financial problems. The pension trustees will have to say to the company, “Look, this is not worth the paper it is written on. I am sorry, but you have got to turn these pledges into financial support.” The Pension Protection Fund—if it is to do its job—will have to back those trustees, because this Bill is saying that the benefit of a pledge is worthless. That is the real problem. It is not about the handful of companies that will go under; it is about the large number of companies that will float, but with trustees who will have a duty to their pensioners to secure the pension no longer being able to place any trust in a pledged asset.
I urge the Minister to accept this. There is, anyway, a grave danger that the pensions’ lifeboat is going to sink. You cannot keep on putting the costs of failure on to an ever-decreasing number of schemes. The levy itself is in somewhat of a crisis. I hope that the Minister will step back and look not just at the individual company in trouble but at the impact on the pension scheme itself and on the position of any responsible trustee and of any pensioner who will be saying to their trustees, “If you are to fulfil your legal obligation to us to secure the pension, you must renounce these assets which have been pledged on the basis on which they have been pledged and turn them into real, hard, secure money”. If we do not accept this amendment, we are in grave danger of causing ourselves yet more problems. The law of unintended consequences will sweep through the trustee world. Certainly, if I am advising or taking part in any trustee meeting, I shall be saying to trustees, “Do not accept a pledged benefit”.
Baroness Drake [V]
My Lords, the Government have tabled a number of helpful amendments in this group to address concerns raised about the impact of this Bill on the position of pension schemes, PPF and the Pensions Regulator, including access to the table, the court and the deployment of creditor rights during any moratorium or subsequent restructuring process. I thank the Minister for that.
However, I remain concerned that a PPF assessment period and a pension scheme Section 75 debt are not triggered during a moratorium or a restructuring plan. In a company voluntary arrangement, they would have been triggered when the proposal was filed with the court. This means that the PPF access to the share of the vote, exercised on behalf of the pension scheme, relates to the scheme’s full debt, giving it greater influence. In a restructuring plan, the voting rights to be exercised by the PPF would be set by the court. The Bill makes no provision as to what these should be. Given that the scheme’s full debt will not have been triggered, the most likely outcome will be reduced voting rights, reflecting a much smaller allowance for the defining of the debt. This will unquestionably put the PPF as a scheme at a disadvantage compared with other creditors such as loan providers, where the full value of their debt will be recognised, or landlords who will likely have voting rights based on the valuation of their full contract.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, it had been my intention to speak on the final day of Committee but, because of an administrative blip, my name went in at entirely the wrong time.
I am pleased that the Government have been prepared to move on this area, as they have on other parts of this complex and detailed Bill. Like my noble friend Lord Hain, I was the Pensions Minister for a time, at the time when the Pension Protection Fund was being brought into full operation. It built on the incredible work—unsung and unknown to many people—of my good friend Andrew Smith, the previous Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, was a lobbyist at the time. I remember the withering nature of her commentary on what we were doing. I cannot ever remember the noble Baroness giving us credit for anything, but now she probably thinks that, 15 years ago, we were doing the right thing. This is why I take seriously what she has said in relation to contingent assets and their likely disposal.
Consequent to what my noble friend Lady Drake said about the Pension Schemes Bill, can the Minister say whether, with regard to the legislation that is being brought forward by the Government to protect our crucial national infrastructure from the sale of assets which would otherwise be detrimental to our economy and to the supply chain, which has arisen from the experience of the last four months, there can be an interrelationship between the different pieces of legislation? That is so that we can be clear not only about the rules that are being applied and the power that would exist for the Pension Protection Fund if this amendment is passed but about how we can ensure that one piece of legislation relates directly to and integrates with another piece of the Government’s policy. If we can get them to act together, some of the fears that have been raised can be allayed.
Lord Fox
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this important debate. I am a signatory to Amendment 15 and I thank my noble friend Lady Bowles, the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, for co-signing it. I join other Peers in acknowledging that the Government have moved in terms of listening to the previous debate and going forward, but the issue that Amendment 15 seeks to address is a serious one. If this Bill went through without the sorts of assurances that we are looking for from the Minister, or remained unamended, that would create a huge issue for pension trustees all over the country. Never mind the ones that are going into insolvency—as the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, set out so eloquently, every single pension trustee would revisit every single pledged asset and would go back to the management of their sponsoring companies to ask for cash instead. I do not need to remind the Minister that cash flow is one of the biggest challenges facing businesses at the moment; it is actually cash that is the problem. To knowingly put in a measure that will drain profitable businesses of cash would be careless, and I do not think that that is what the Government are doing. I think this is an unknowing consequence of the Bill.
To be clear, this concerns assets that have already been pledged. When the Minister spoke earlier, he seemed to be referring to assets being pledged at the time of insolvency, but these are assets which have been pledged in lieu of cash. Given that, I am a little bemused by the idea put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, that the Pension Protection Fund would somehow be overreaching itself in seeking to protect these funds for pensioners and that it would be giving the PPF too much power. Rather, it is merely the power to protect assets that have been signed over to the pension fund. If they were not assets such as those set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann—real estate and securities—then it would be money. I do not think that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is proposing that the courts should have the power to extract money from pension funds, so why should they not have the power to protect against judges extracting assets that have been put aside in lieu of money?
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, put a clear question to the Minister, one that I think is very apposite to this point. Does the PPF have the power to prevent judges extracting pledged assets from pension funds and putting them into the pool of assets for distribution to other creditors? If the Minister is able to stand up and say that clearly and unambiguously—for those Members watching remotely, it does not look like he is—there is no problem. However, if the Bill leaves this House unamended or without that pledge, this issue will become a very serious one not just for the pension funds of distressed companies but for every defined benefit pension fund in the country.
Lord Lennie (Lab) [V]
My Lords, straight off the bat, I too welcome the Government’s movement on this specific part of this necessary Bill. There will be a sense of relief for direct benefit pension funds and their trustees, the Pension Protection Fund and the regulator. As has been said, all will now have rights of access to information about the intentions of companies and to voice their opinions about the decisions that are being contemplated; a seat at the table, access to court and so forth. This will be true throughout the UK.
When a company seeks a moratorium or when it considers other actions in a potential redundancy and insolvency circumstance, the monitor will be required to notify the pension scheme, the PPF and the regulator to have due consideration of their views about the proposed action. In the event that a moratorium comes to an end or if the monitor changes, the pension scheme trustees and the PPF must be informed. This will mean in effect that the debts owing to a direct benefit pension scheme do not rank below other finance debts. That would recognise the real status of a pension as deferred earnings and should not allow others to accelerate the debt position at the expense of pension provision, as was feared in the original text. These changes have come about due to the strength of the arguments put by my noble friends Lady Drake and Lady Warwick, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, on the Liberal Democrat Benches, and the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, on the Conservative side. I congratulate them on achieving this much.
However, can the Minister provide the reassurance being sought about the value of direct benefit schemes being put at risk by the sale of assets, and ultimately the whole working of the PPF? Will he closely monitor and consult on any necessary remedial actions that may arise from his examination of this issue? The Minister can take the credit due to him for his part in bringing forward these amendments to the Bill, and they are welcome. But can he confirm that the Government will stay alert and ready to intervene on behalf of pensions and the PPF in the event that the measures in this legislation do not go far enough in protecting them?
Lord Callanan
My Lords, I take this opportunity to thank everyone who has spoken in this important debate, and I am grateful for Amendment 15 because it is a very important provision. I am also grateful to noble Lords for their continuing efforts to ensure that pensions are treated appropriately through this Bill. None the less, I hope that they will agree that we are now seeking to introduce specific and satisfactory provisions to deal with pensions’ interests.
I also take this opportunity to assure noble Lords that where charged property is disposed of, it can be done only with the permission of the court and where the court believes that it is necessary to support the rescue. Where the court is satisfied and gives its permission, the net proceeds must go towards satisfying the amounts secured by the charge before they can be used in any other way. From a practical perspective, this amendment is not necessary. If a company in a moratorium was going to court to seek permission to dispose of charged assets, it would at the least have had to have had a conversation with the person to whom those assets are charged. Well before giving clearance to the company to dispose of such assets, the court will of course take account of their views at the hearing.
In response to my noble friend Lady Altmann and the noble Lord, Lord Hain, we have been in detailed discussions with colleagues in the DWP, along with both the Pensions Regulator and the Pension Protection Fund, in the formulation of these amendments. We are seeking to ensure that the PPF is able to play a role in a company’s rescue plan where it is appropriate for it to do so. Let me also provide the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Lennie, was looking for. Of course, we will continue to monitor these arrangements to ensure that they act in the fairest possible way for all the different stakeholders in the process that I referred to earlier.
On that basis, I hope that I have been able to provide sufficient reassurance to noble Lords and that they will feel able to not move their amendments when the time comes. I beg to move.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a Henry VIII power to change a list of documents.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a Henry VIII power to change a list of documents.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a Henry VIII power to change a list of documents.
“(c) in a case where the company is or has been an employer in respect of an occupational pension scheme that is not a money purchase scheme, the Pensions Regulator, and(d) in a case where the company is an employer in respect of such a pension scheme that is an eligible scheme within the meaning given by section 126 of the Pensions Act 2004, the Board of the Pension Protection Fund.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the monitor’s duties to give notice where a moratorium is extended or comes to an end.
“(f) banks and other financial creditors may not seek to accelerate payment.”
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]
I thank noble Lords who signed the amendment and spoke in support. The noble Lords, Lord Hodgson and Lord Holmes, and my noble friend Lady Kramer all spoke from experience about how banks will behave to extract cash. The noble Lord, Lord Adonis, asked what grounds the Government had for thinking banks could be constrained. The noble Baronesses, Lady Drake and Lady Altmann, expressed concerns about gaming. The noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, admitted that the amendment was persuasive. There is consensus that the focus is people.
The Minister’s answer is simply that if the banks press for too much, the payment will not happen and the moratorium will end. That does not stop the accelerated payments and death by a thousand cuts. From the cash flows and other information they have about their clients, banks are well able to know how much they can take a company for and to pace their demands until the money is gone or they have pressurised the business into other lucrative financial arrangements. It is game on.
I am not convinced by the answer about financial stability; the Minister knows this is a subject I know very well. Contracts on market operations do not have to end; it is simply the acceleration of payment on lending that needs restriction. Every pound that is required over and above the general terms existing pre-moratorium is tantamount to reaching through and picking the pocket of employees, pension schemes and small businesses.
The scope given to banks and other lenders to press their advantage during moratorium is too great. It can remove the very breathing space that is the objective of the moratorium. I have not heard any expression of limit to reasonableness other than some kind of banking self-control caused by a moratorium end if the banks get too greedy. As my noble friend Lord Fox said, it is simply tiptoeing around the banks.
To save jobs and businesses and protect pensions, banks must be far more equally in the moratorium. No amount of employee consultation can blunt the banks, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.
“( ) However, the court may not give permission for the disposal of any property or asset under subsection (1) which has been pledged to the company’s defined benefit pension scheme unless the Pension Protection Fund has given prior permission for its disposal.”
Lord Fox
My Lords, we heard what the Minister had to say, and I and others have already spoken at length on this amendment. The principle is that a deal is a deal: the pensioners were granted those assets and the idea that that can retrospectively be prised from the deferred salaries and wages of workers is such that I do not think the Bill should leave this House without it being tested. I therefore wish to test the will of the House.
Lord Callanan
“(c) in a case where the company is or has been an employer in respect of an occupational pension scheme that is not a money purchase scheme, the Pensions Regulator, and(d) in a case where the company is an employer in respect of such a pension scheme that is an eligible scheme within the meaning given by section 126 of the Pensions Act 2004, the Board of the Pension Protection Fund.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the duty to give notice that the monitor has changed.
“A44A Challenge brought by Board of the Pension Protection Fund(1) This section applies where—(a) a moratorium—(i) is in force in relation to a company that is an employer in respect of an eligible scheme, or(ii) is or has been in force in relation to a company that has been an employer in respect of an eligible scheme at any time during the moratorium, and(b) the trustees or managers of the scheme are a creditor of the company.(2) The Board of the Pension Protection Fund may make any application under section A42(1) or A44(1) that could be made by the trustees or managers as a creditor.(3) For the purposes of such an application, any reference in section A42(1) or A44(1) to the interests of the applicant is to be read as a reference to the interests of the trustees or managers as a creditor.(4) In this section “eligible scheme” has the meaning given by section 126 of the Pensions Act 2004.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Board of the Pension Protection Fund the same rights to challenge the monitor or the directors as the trustees or managers of certain pensions schemes have.
“A49A Power to make provision in connection with pension schemes (1) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, in a case where—(a) a moratorium—(i) is in force in relation to a company that is an employer in respect of an eligible scheme, or(ii) is or has been in force in relation to a company that has been an employer in respect of an eligible scheme at any time during the moratorium, and(b) the trustees or managers of the scheme are a creditor of the company,the Board of the Pension Protection Fund may exercise any of the following rights.(2) The rights are those which are exercisable by the trustees or managers as a creditor of the company under or by virtue of—(a) section A12, or(b) a court order under section A44(4)(c).(3) Regulations under subsection (1) may provide that the Board may exercise any such rights—(a) to the exclusion of the trustees or managers of the scheme, or(b) in addition to the exercise of those rights by the trustees or managers of the scheme.(4) Regulations under subsection (1)—(a) may specify conditions that must be met before the Board may exercise any such rights;(b) may provide for any such rights to be exercisable by the Board for a specified period;(c) may make provision in connection with any such rights ceasing to be so exercisable at the end of such a period.(5) Regulations under subsection (1) are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.(6) In this section “eligible scheme” has the meaning given by section 126 of the Pensions Act 2004.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Board of the Pension Protection Fund to be given the power to exercise certain rights of the trustees or managers of a pension scheme.
““employer”, in relation to a pension scheme—(a) in sections A8(2)(c), A17(8)(c) and A39(8)(c), means an employer within the meaning of section 318(1) of the Pensions Act 2004;(b) elsewhere in this Part, has the same meaning that it has for the purposes of Part 2 of the Pensions Act 2004 (see section 318(1) and (4) of that Act);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “employer” for the purposes of the Minister’s other amendments to clause 1 which use that term.
““money purchase scheme” has the meaning given by section 181(1) of the Pension Schemes Act 1993;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “money purchase scheme” for the purposes of the Minister’s other amendments to clause 1 which use that term.
““occupational pension scheme” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993;“pension scheme” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993;” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “occupational pension scheme” and “pension scheme” for the purposes of the Minister’s other amendments to clause 1 which use those terms.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment narrows the power to change a list of documents, so that it is confined to adding to the list. The power could subsequently be re-exercised so as to remove anything added.
“(c) in a case where the company is or has been an employer in respect of an occupational pension scheme that is not a money purchase scheme, the Pensions Regulator, and(d) in a case where the company is an employer in respect of such a pension scheme that is an eligible scheme within the meaning given by Article 110 of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, the Board of the Pension Protection Fund.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the monitor’s duty to give notice that a moratorium has come into force.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a Henry VIII power to change a list of documents.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a Henry VIII power to change a list of documents.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes a Henry VIII power to change a list of documents.
“(c) in a case where the company is or has been an employer in respect of an occupational pension scheme that is not a money purchase scheme, the Pensions Regulator, and(d) in a case where the company is an employer in respect of such a pension scheme that is an eligible scheme within the meaning given by Article 110 of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, the Board of the Pension Protection Fund.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the monitor’s duties to give notice where a moratorium is extended or comes to an end.
“(c) in a case where the company is or has been an employer in respect of an occupational pension scheme that is not a money purchase scheme, the Pensions Regulator, and(d) in a case where the company is an employer in respect of such a pension scheme that is an eligible scheme within the meaning given by Article 110 of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, the Board of the Pension Protection Fund.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment extends the duty to give notice that the monitor has changed.
“13FC Challenge brought by Board of the Pension Protection Fund(1) This Article applies where—(a) a moratorium—(i) is in force in relation to a company that is an employer in respect of an eligible scheme, or(ii) is or has been in force in relation to a company that has been an employer in respect of an eligible scheme at any time during the moratorium, and(b) the trustees or managers of the scheme are a creditor of the company.(2) The Board of the Pension Protection Fund may make any application under Article 13F(1) or 13FB(1) that could be made by the trustees or managers as a creditor.(3) For the purposes of such an application, any reference in Article 13F(1) or 13FB(1) to the interests of the applicant is to be read as a reference to the interests of the trustees or managers as a creditor.(4) In this Article “eligible scheme” has the meaning given by Article 110 of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment gives the Board of the Pension Protection Fund the same rights to challenge the monitor or the directors as the trustees or managers of certain pension schemes have.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the temporary modification to the parliamentary procedure for regulations. See also the proposed new clause in the Minister’s name to be inserted after Clause 43.
“13HAA Power to make provision in connection with pension schemes(1) A Northern Ireland department may by regulations provide that, in a case where—(a) a moratorium—(i) is in force in relation to a company that is an employer in respect of an eligible scheme, or(ii) is or has been in force in relation to a company that has been an employer in respect of an eligible scheme at any time during the moratorium, and(b) the trustees or managers of the scheme are a creditor of the company,the Board of the Pension Protection Fund may exercise any of the following rights.(2) The rights are those which are exercisable by the trustees or managers as a creditor of the company under or by virtue of—(a) Article 13CC, or(b) a court order under Article 13FB(4)(c).(3) Regulations under paragraph (1) may provide that the Board may exercise any such rights—(a) to the exclusion of the trustees or managers of the scheme, or(b) in addition to the exercise of those rights by the trustees or managers of the scheme.(4) Regulations under paragraph (1)— (a) may specify conditions that must be met before the Board may exercise any such rights;(b) may provide for any such rights to be exercisable by the Board for a specified period;(c) may make provision in connection with any such rights ceasing to be so exercisable at the end of such a period.(5) Regulations may not be made under paragraph (1) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.(6) In this Article “eligible scheme” has the meaning given by Article 110 of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment enables the Board of the Pension Protection Fund to be given the power to exercise certain rights of the trustees or managers of a pension scheme.
““employer”, in relation to a pension scheme—(a) in Articles 13BE(2)(c), 13CH(8)(c) and 13EE(8)(c), means an employer within the meaning of Article 2(2) of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005;(b) elsewhere in this Part, has the same meaning that it has for the purposes of Part 3 of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 (see Article 2(2) and (5) of that Order);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “employer” for the purposes of the Minister’s other amendments to Clause 4 which use that term.
““money purchase scheme” has the meaning given by section 176(1) of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “money purchase scheme” for the purposes of the Minister’s other amendments to Clause 4 which use that term.
““occupational pension scheme” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993;“pension scheme” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “occupational pension scheme” and “pension scheme” for the purposes of the Minister’s other amendments to Clause 4 which use those terms.
Lord Callanan
“Administration in Great Britain: revival of power about sales to connected persons
(1) Paragraph 60A of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 (which expired in May 2020) is revived.(2) For sub-paragraph (10) of that paragraph substitute—“(10) This paragraph expires at the end of June 2021 unless the power conferred by it is exercised before then.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment revives paragraph 60A of Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, which expired in May 2020 by virtue of the sunset provision in sub-paragraph (10) of that paragraph.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover of an amendment and the Minister may speak only once and that short questions of elucidation are discouraged. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Lord Callanan
My Lords, the Government have listened carefully to the concerns raised by noble Lords in Committee and elsewhere.
Where used appropriately, pre-pack sales can perform a useful rescue function. In some instances, sales to connected parties are beneficial. However, we accept that the nature of the transaction and the speed with which it is carried out might also provide some opportunities for mischief. This could particularly be the case during the current crisis. The Government acknowledge that there may be a risk of an increase in the use of pre-pack sales, which could adversely affect businesses already struggling as a result of Covid-19.
The Government therefore propose amendments to revive the power, which expired in May 2020, to regulate sales in administration to connected parties, and to introduce a similar power in Northern Ireland. These government amendments will revive paragraph 60A in Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986. This will enable the Secretary of State to make regulations to prohibit or impose requirements or conditions in relation to the sale of property of a company by the administrator to a connected person, in circumstances specified in the regulations. This power will expire at the end of June 2021, unless it is previously exercised.
The amendments will also insert a new power in Schedule B1 to the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 to enable similar regulation of sales to a connected person in Northern Ireland. This power will also be time limited until the end of June 2021, unless previously exercised. Regulations made under the power in Northern Ireland must be laid in draft and approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly. And we are going further: ahead of using the power, we will publish the Government’s review of existing voluntary measures in respect of pre-pack sales this summer to help further inform the public debate on this issue. I beg to move.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I have Amendment 45 in this group but, before I speak on it, perhaps I may say that I entirely support the Government’s Amendments 37 and 38. They are very sensible and have my unequivocal support.
I turn to Amendment 45, to which the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and my noble friend Lady Altmann have added their names. I am most grateful to them and indeed to other noble Lords all across the House who have been in touch with me to say that it seems a sensible way of proceeding. We discussed this matter at length last Wednesday. I shall try to avoid repeating myself, although of course I need to fill in the story for those who have just joined in at this stage.
Like my noble friends Lord Callanan, Lord Leigh and Lord Holmes of Richmond, I recognise that pre-packs have their uses. As I said in the debate last week, they are a useful spanner in the toolbox of the insolvency practitioner. However, they are open to serious abuse, as my noble friend Lord Callanan admitted a moment ago. Let us quickly run through a real-life example, and here I will slightly repeat what I said last week.
I ask noble Lords to imagine the following. You are a director of a company that is struggling because of past operating losses, which have led to large debts being accumulated; or perhaps it is a very old, established engineering or industrial company that has a long tail of pension liabilities that get increasingly heavy. Insolvency and administration loom over you, but you and your fellow directors feel that somewhere in the business is a really profitable activity. However, the company is worth saving only if you can get rid of all your debts. Therefore, you, as a group of directors—maybe with some associates—find an administrator and say that you would like to make an offer for the bits that you want. That offer might be very substantial but, equally, it might be £1 or £1,000. That is the key to the problem that we are trying to tackle here. Nobody can say that anything is wrong where a fair-value, full-price offer is made.
You make a nominal offer on, say, a Friday, which means that the company is put into administration over the weekend. On Monday, you advertise it in the newspapers and after four days, if the administrator has had no competing offers, he or she can say that they have tested the market and have obtained a fair price. It is of course vanishingly unlikely, although possible, that within four days anybody will be able to come up with an offer de novo, from a standing start. Your group, having paid the money to the administrator, is now the proud owner of a company that is without all its liabilities to suppliers great and small, local and national, as well as to the Pension Protection Fund—but you might be the very people who led the company to the edge of disaster in the first place.
Many in your Lordships’ House would ask “How could this possibly be?” It has an awfully superficially attractive political ring to it. A Minister, a councillor or a Member of Parliament can get up and say, “Look, I’ve just saved 300 jobs.” That sounds awfully good, but nobody weighs on the scale what is happening elsewhere. For every debt that you have written off, another company loses money. It might be a small local supplier that might have to make redundancies of its own and might itself, in extremis, go into receivership. There is also the general damage to the local economy, as there is to the Pension Protection Fund. This has always seemed to me, at least, to be a very unfair way of proceeding unless it is properly supervised.
Lord Vaux of Harrowden (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 45, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. In Committee, I tabled a similar amendment but am happy to support his more robust version. I remind the House of my interests as a chartered accountant.
It is good to see that the Government have tabled Amendments 37 and 38, which would reinstate for another 15 months the power that the Government already had to improve the regulation of connected party pre-packs but which they allowed to lapse, possibly unintentionally. That amendment is most welcome but it does not address the urgency of the situation: the fact that we are facing a substantial rise in insolvencies very soon. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, memorably described it in Committee as a storm that is bound to come.
It is inevitable that we will see many more pre-packs to related parties in the coming months. Another high-profile potential related-party pre-pack is being talked about just today: Go Outdoors, which is owned by JD Sports. As we have heard, many may well be entirely appropriate and even a good thing, However, they lack transparency and we are likely to see many others, such as the Quiz transaction, which the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, so graphically described in Committee, which are nothing less than a rip-off of creditors. We need something to deal with the immediate risk, not just a power to take action which might or might not be used for another year, or even at all.
I confess that I struggle to understand why the Government find it so difficult to accept this amendment, which would introduce at least some independent review and transparency into this murky area of insolvency practice. The main argument put forward by the Minister is that the insolvency profession is highly regulated with strong professional standards, and that we can rely on it to ensure that all transactions are appropriate. But that is self-evidently not the case: there are so many past examples of inappropriate pre-packs that it is clear that we cannot just rely on the industry to police itself. Conflicts of interest are legion. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, explained in Committee and has repeated today how insolvency practitioners can, and do, tick the boxes by spurious marketing of the business, thereby covering the administrators’ derrière—what used to be known in my accountancy days as CYA.
The Minister explicitly recognised the concerns about connected party pre-packs at Second Reading and has done so again today, which is very welcome. He has also argued that making referral mandatory would be an additional burden on business at a difficult time. But the pre-pack pool aims to give an opinion with just half a day’s work and at a cost of just £800 to the connected party—not really a significant burden. He also asked in Committee whether it is right to restrict the required opinion to one source of supply, but that is rather like the old joke: why is there only one monopolies commission?
Why are the Government finding it so difficult to accept this amendment? Perhaps they do not believe that the pre-pack pool is the right answer. Did the Minister disagree with Teresa Graham, who produced the report for the Government that led to the creation of the pool, when she said recently:
“To see the demise of the pre-pack pool would be utter folly”?
The letter that the Minister sent to the pool, and his answers to questions in Committee, were certainly less than fulsome in their support. If that is the case, there is an easy answer for him. The immediate solution is, first, to make referral to the pre-pack pool mandatory now, as this amendment suggests. With one short amendment, at a stroke we will have instantly made independent review compulsory, improved transparency and reduced the risk to the moratorium as well. There would be no new bodies or processes; it would have minimal cost and bureaucracy. It would not in any way inhibit those situations where the proposed pre-pack is appropriate.
Subsequently, if the Government still do not believe that the pre-pack pool is the right long-term solution, they have the power to propose something better at any time within the next 15 months under their Amendment 37. We have the best of both worlds: an instant, simple solution and the luxury of time to create something better. I urge the Minister to accept Amendment 45. If he does not, then I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, will test the opinion of the House. We have a clear duty to prevent creditors being ripped off in this coming storm.
Baroness Altmann [V]
My Lords, I will be brief. I very much support the wise words of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and the noble Lord, Lord Vaux. I welcome Amendments 37 and 38, and I cannot quite understand the reluctance of the Government to agree to this amendment; I know that there has been significant discussion on it.
Clearly, any pre-pack can have positive effects, but the transparency and oversight issues, particularly in the current emergency environment, surely require some modicum of independent oversight. We have the pool ready to go and are in a position where we could anticipate problems, rather than trying to deal with them after they have arisen, when it is too late for the small creditors that could be so damaged by the egregious practices that we in this House have all heard about, and many noble Lords have previously explained.
I hope that my noble friend can give sufficient reassurances to the House on this issue. However, I will support Amendment 45, should that not be possible.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister very warmly for accepting the amendment on pre-packs that I put down in Committee, on which I had the help of the British Property Federation. The amendment was designed to restore the power in the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act. Amendments 37 and 38 have been drafted by parliamentary counsel and use a much more elegant formula to amend the original Insolvency Act, but to the same effect and with the same deadline of June 2021. I would like an assurance from my noble friend the Minister that that power will be used and that it will be able to deal with some of the pre-pack issues.
I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who has demonstrated his admirable virtuosity—he is not merely an expert on pubs and demography, as the House knows, but on insolvency, as well as many other things. I also support the thrust of his amendment. I should add that, without his oratory and argument last week, we would not have made the progress that we have.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill [V]
My Lords, I support wholeheartedly the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. It seems sensible, and I hope that the Government will accept it. Having heard a previous speaker do so, I must declare my interest as a chartered accountant.
Many speakers in today’s debate have drawn a difference between selling or transferring a business and selling a company. The idea of a pool was meant to be a sort of bridge between the two, so that the business can survive—but there is of course a danger that it can be taken advantage of. When Vince Cable set out this principle, on the advice of Teresa Graham, it was to set up a pool. It might perhaps be useful to read into the debate the members of the oversight group, which comprises representatives of the founding parties of the pool: R3, the Association of Business Recovery Professionals; the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants; the British Property Federation; the British Printing Industries Federation; the Chartered Accountants Regulatory Board; the Chartered Institute of Credit Management; and the Institute of Chartered Accountants. It is a long, long list.
To ask that one member of the pre-pack pool should say that the transaction is not unreasonable seems a sensible move to deal with what we believe will be a tsunami of liquidations and business problems, and it shows another way of skinning the cat rather than just using a monitor or going straight into liquidation. So I heartily support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson.
Lord Fox
My Lords, very briefly, it seems that the solution of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is very elegant, and, like the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, I am struggling to find out why the Government might not accept it. One of the things that has come up on a number of occasions is the need for speed for both the Bill and decision-making: “We do not have time to talk to the workers”; “We do not have time to do this.” This is an opportunity to take one moment out and review whether this move—a pre-pack—is in the best interests of all concerned. I cannot see why the Government would not support it, and I expect that the Minister will stand up and wholeheartedly embrace Amendment 45 shortly.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted [V]
My Lords, I supported the pre-pack amendments in Committee and have done so again. The reason for the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, is simple: reference to the pool is not happening, and bad pre-packs are. Like others, I do not consider all pre-packs to be bad, but it is unquestionable that some bad deals are going on.
The Government are reinstating a provision to give themselves powers that have recently lapsed. I do not wish to prevent that but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said, that power has already lain for too long—for five years—without regulations being forthcoming. Due to coronavirus, more deals and insolvencies are likely, and there will be horrid cases, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, said. The noble Lord, Lord Vaux, also reminded us again of the storm that is about to come—or the “tsunami”, as my noble friend Lord Palmer said. Every day we already hear of more, and some are a rip-off of creditors, as the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn, said in Committee and as the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, reminded us. The evidence is that insolvency practitioners can easily tick boxes to cover themselves. It is happening.
This amendment is simple and complete: use the panel that has been set up. In Committee the Minister was critical of the fact that the panel is set up in a light-touch way rather than having a regulatory power, but it is like that because government wanted it that way. If the Government want to come forward with powers for ARGA to take over the job—and to make ARGA happy—I will be there in support. But that is not here now, and nor are other regulations. So let us not hurt the public still further by having the recovery from Covid littered with scandals of cosy and inappropriate pre-packs. This is another feature of how the unfairness built into the moratorium will work, with pressure for restructuring, where the big winners will be the financiers. The least we can do is to have some assurance that the deal meets the standard of reasonableness.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara [V]
My Lords, my name is on Amendment 46, as I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, in her attempt to revive the powers taken in the small business Act 2015. We supported her in 2015 and pressed then for action to be taken against the abuses which were occurring in the pre-pack cases that came to light at the time.
However, as the noble Baroness said, thanks mainly to the rhetoric of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and my noble friend Lord Mendelsohn, the Government have done a U-turn. Therefore, purely on consistency grounds, it is logical and right that we should support Amendments 37 and 38 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Callanan. When he responds, I hope that he will confirm that he intends to use these powers and to act urgently.
I have been in discussion during the past couple of weeks with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, about his Amendment 45. In the absence of government Amendments 37 and 38, I would have backed his proposal. However, I have an old-fashioned view about statutory powers being operated by non-statutory bodies such as the pre-pack pool. Given that the powers sought by Amendment 45 are contained within those to be taken under Amendments 37 and 38 and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, admitted, there are some problems with the existing arrangements —the noble Lord, Lord Vaux, called them “murky” and denigrated the standards being achieved—I am minded to support the Government on this issue.
Lord Callanan
I thank my noble friends Lord Hodgson, Lady Altmann and Lady Neville-Rolfe, as well as the noble Lords, Lord Vaux and Lord Stevenson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, for their amendments, which would regulate pre-pack sales in administration.
It goes without saying that pre-pack sales have been a contentious subject during debates on this Bill in both Houses and, as some Members have indicated, on previous Bills. There was an impassioned debate about pre-packs in Committee, and I am grateful for the helpful contributions made during that debate by many of the aforementioned noble Lords, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Mendelsohn. I have certainly benefited from speaking to many of them in separate meetings with officials in trying to plot a route forward on this issue.
During that debate, I briefly explained some of the reasons why I did not think that Amendment 45, now brought back on Report, would be suitable. These included that the need for a positive opinion from a member of the pre-pack pool might create a potential conflict with the statutory objective of the administrator, which is to achieve a better result for creditors as a whole than if the company were wound up. There would also be a problem in that the amendment would prevent a sale without an opinion from the pre-pack pool even where the creditors had agreed that it should go ahead.
Moreover, whether a sale went ahead would be entirely dependent on a member of the pool assessing that it was not “unreasonable”, but the amendment provides no guidance on what “unreasonable” means in this context. This is likely to create significant uncertainty for businesses as to what is allowed and, of course, a significant risk of legal challenge.
Amendment 45 would capture only pre-pack transactions that had been negotiated with an associate before a company entered administration. The definition of “connected person” in paragraph 60A of Schedule B1 is drawn more widely than the definition of “associate” in Amendment 45, so the scope of the government amendment is in this case broader.
I also mentioned in Committee that there could be a difficulty in restricting supply of opinion to the pre-pack pool. I know that my noble friend Lord Hodgson expressed scepticism about my reasoning, but it is a proper concern that this could raise issues regarding anti-competitiveness.
My noble friend also suggested that pension liability could be removed. I point out to him that the Pension Protection Fund has confirmed that it does not generally see any evidence that pre-pack sales are being used to abandon pensions liabilities. Further, it considers that the Pensions Regulator has sufficient anti-avoidance powers to act as a deterrent against the misuse of pre-pack sales for the purposes of dumping a pension scheme.
I can say in response to a number of noble Lords who asked me questions—for instance, my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, the noble Baroness, Lady Bowles, and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson—that, if the government amendment is passed, we will publish in the summer a review of the existing voluntary measures to reform pre-pack sales and will set out in that report proposals for when and how we will regulate.
The amendment in the names of my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, took a different approach—it would partially resurrect a previously lapsed power to regulate sales to connected persons in administration. The amendment does not quite go far enough to be workable but, as I set out earlier, we now have government amendments in that space, which I hope will work well; we have decided to table our own amendments to regulate pre-pack sales.
Having said that, and with the reassurances that I have given to the House, I hope that noble Lords will accept the assurances and information that I have been able to provide and will therefore not move their amendments when the time comes.
Lord Callanan
“Administration in Northern Ireland: power about sales to connected persons
(1) The Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (S.I. 1989/ 2405 (N.I. 19)) is amended as follows.(2) Schedule B1 (administration) is amended in accordance with subsections (3) to (5).(3) Paragraph 61 (powers of administrator) becomes sub-paragraph (1) of that paragraph.(4) After that sub-paragraph insert—“(2) But the power to sell, hire out or otherwise dispose of property is subject to any regulations that may be made under paragraph 61A.”(5) After paragraph 61 insert—“61 Regulations may make provision for—(a) prohibiting, or(b) imposing requirements or conditions in relation to,the disposal, hiring out or sale of property of a company by the administrator to a connected person in circumstances specified in the regulations.(2) Regulations under this paragraph may in particular require the approval of, or provide for the imposition of requirements or conditions by—(a) creditors of the company,(b) the High Court, or(c) a person of a description specified in the regulations.(3) In sub-paragraph (1), “connected person”, in relation to a company, means—(a) a relevant person in relation to the company, or(b) a company connected with the company.(4) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (3)—(a) “relevant person”, in relation to a company, means—(i) a director or other officer, or shadow director, of the company;(ii) a non-employee associate of such a person;(iii) a non-employee associate of the company;(b) a company is connected with another if any relevant person of one is or has been a relevant person of the other.(5) In sub-paragraph (4), “non-employee associate” of a person means a person who is an associate of that person otherwise than by virtue of employing or being employed by that person.(6) Paragraph (11) of Article 4 (extended definition of company) applies for the purposes of sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) as it applies for the purposes of that Article.(7) Regulations under this paragraph may make incidental, consequential, supplemental and transitional provision. (8) Regulations may not be made under this paragraph unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.(9) This paragraph expires at the end of June 2021 unless the power conferred by it is exercised before then.”(6) In Article 2(2), in the definition of “regulations”, after the words “and paragraph 16 of Schedule A1”(which are repealed by paragraph 3(b) of Schedule 7 to this Act) insert “and paragraph 61A of Schedule B1”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment confers a power to make provision under the law of Northern Ireland about sales to connected persons in the context of an administration. It is similar to the corresponding power in Great Britain (which is revived by one of the Minister’s other amendments).
The Deputy Speaker
I remind noble Lords that Members other than the mover of the amendment and the Minister may speak only once. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Clause 10: Suspension of liability for wrongful trading: Great Britain
Amendment 39
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the definition of the “relevant period” that applies for the purposes of Clause 10 so that the period ends with 30 September 2020.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
My Lords, I turn to the amendments in this group tabled by the Government, which extend the temporary insolvency measures in the Bill. Each of these measures delivers relief to those companies affected by the economic impact of Covid-19. The protections for companies from winding-up petitions and statutory demands will help struggling businesses by temporarily removing the threat of winding-up proceedings. The suspension of wrongful trading enables directors to make decisions about whether to carry on trading without the threat of personal liability. Modifications to the new moratorium will extend their benefits to companies that may otherwise not have been sure of accessing this procedure, and the small supplier carve-out from the termination clause provisions will help support small business suppliers.
We have listened to the concerns raised in the House regarding the expiry of the temporary insolvency measures and whether they should be extended. We agree that the period of uncertainty caused by the coronavirus will not have ended by the time these measures are currently due to expire. Therefore, an extension to 30 September 2020 will ensure that the measures continue to provide support to those companies impacted by the current pandemic. For this reason, I commend the government amendments in this group to the House. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Bates) (Con)
I call the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor. No? Then I call the noble Lord, Lord Pannick.
Lord Pannick (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am speaking to Amendments 103 and 106, which are in my name and in the names of three other members of your Lordships’ Constitution Committee: our esteemed chairman—the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton—the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness.
These amendments address aspects of the retrospective nature of provisions in the Bill. Paragraph 7 of Schedule 10 and paragraph 7 of Schedule 11 will render void a relevant winding-up order which was made by a court on or after 27 April this year but before the day on which the schedules come into force.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness [V]
My Lords, in Committee I made the point that even during a crisis it is still important that we are vigilant in scrutinising legislation, particularly where basic rule of law issues are at stake. Specifically, I drew attention to the provisions in the Bill that raise the fundamental question of retrospective legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, one of my fellow members of the Constitution Committee, has just outlined why it is important that we closely scrutinise attempts by government to introduce retrospection in legislation.
I place on record my thanks to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his very prompt reply to some of the points I raised in Committee—echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, who is also on the Constitution Committee. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, indicated, we have now received the Government’s response to the Constitution Committee’s seventh report on the Bill—although, as he pointed out, the committee has not had a proper opportunity to consider that response.
As we have heard, retrospective legislation prima facie offends the rule of law, although it is recognised that there will be occasions, when there is an urgent or compelling need, when it may be necessary. I will address the retrospection issues in Amendment 40 and its equivalent Northern Ireland provision, Amendment 42. They draw particular attention to the retrospective nature of Clauses 10 and 11, which suspend directors’ liability for wrongful trading in Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Under insolvency legislation, the general rule is that a court may hold directors personally liable for allowing a company to continue trading beyond the point when insolvency appears inevitable. The provisions in Clauses 10 and 11 oblige the courts to assume that a director is not responsible for any worsening of the financial position of the company or its creditors that occurs during the “relevant period”, which starts on 1 March and—with reference to the amendment the Government have just moved—would conclude on 30 September this year.
Clearly, if that is the assumption the courts are obliged to make—there is no suggestion in the legislation that it is a rebuttable presumption—no one will go to court to challenge the behaviour of a director. Indeed, the rationale for the policy, set out in the Explanatory Notes and reiterated in the Government’s response to the Constitution Committee report, is that the deterrent to a company continuing to trade where there is a threat of insolvency is removed by these clauses. Pandemic-induced insolvencies can thus be avoided.
To use the words of the Explanatory Notes, I fully recognise the merit of helping
“to prevent businesses, which would be viable but for the impact of the pandemic, from closing.”
I suspect that most, if not all, of us would generally assent to that. However, I will point out two aspects of the Government’s arguments that need further clarification. As pointed out in the Constitution Committee’s seventh report, the removal of the so-called deterrent effect cannot credibly be said to have carried any weight in decisions taken by directors between 1 March and the date when the policy to suspend personal liability for wrongful trading was announced, 28 March, allowing almost four weeks of extra retrospective effect. Secondly, as the Government acknowledge in paragraph 225 of the Explanatory Notes:
“There is no requirement to show that the company’s worsening financial position was due to the COVID-19 pandemic.”
The amendments to which I am speaking seek to maintain the spirit of the concession on wrongful trading and would apply only if the courts are satisfied that on the underlying facts, creditors can discharge the burden of proving that the instance of wrongful trading was not attributable to the financial pressures of the pandemic.
The Constitution Committee’s seventh report says that
“measures with retrospective effect are exceptional and undesirable in principle, requiring the strongest possible justification. We do not think the Government has yet made the case for them”.
As we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, the Government have now responded. In fairness, in my reading of that response the Minister seeks to give some justification for the exceptional retrospective effect of these provisions in relation to wrongful trading. I echo the noble Lord, Lord Pannick: it would be helpful if the Government could set out on the record, on the Floor of the House, what these justifications are.
Furthermore, on page 4 of his reply the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, states that
“the temporary suspension of liability for wrongful trading is required to mitigate the effects of the COVID-19 emergency, and is a proportionate measure. There are safeguards against abuse in the form of other, unchanged elements of Company and Insolvency law. As I have also set out above, given the inevitable delay in drawing up legislation, it was essential to give public assurance that these provisions would have retrospective effect in order for them to be able to have their intended effect on directors’ confidence in continuing to keep their companies going.”
In conclusion, I have two questions for the Minister arising from that response. First, what is the rationale for the retrospection’s having effect from 1 March, rather than from a date when the Government were able to give the public assurance referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, given that ahead of the announcement, there could be no removal of the so-called deterrent effect? Secondly, can the Minister confirm that an announcement by the Government of their intention to change the law is not, by itself, sufficient justification for using retrospective legislation and should not become a regular practice? I look forward with interest to her reply.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 40 in the names of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and my noble friend Baroness Fookes. I share the concern about the retrospective nature of some of the amendments. I accept that in extremis, in rare situations, retrospective legislation may be justifiable, but I would welcome the Minister addressing why it is felt to be appropriate here.
At Second Reading I expressed my concern that the offence of wrongful trading is being disregarded in relation to matters that are not Covid-19-related. It is quite reasonable, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, has just indicated, that there should be some mitigation of the provisions in relation to Covid-19-related deaths. However, if the insolvency is not due to Covid-19, it is hard to see why the provision should be suspended. This provision, brought in as a result of the recommendations of the Cork committee in the 1980s, was widely welcomed as tackling conduct by directors acting—or in some cases, failing to act—with malfeasance, resulting in companies having substantial debts and doing damage to employees and shareholders. I can see why that may need to be suspended for Covid-19-related deaths, but this goes further. That is why I support this amendment, which would minimise the effect of the suspension of wrongful trading. It would be suspended not in relation to broader activities but only to those concerning Covid-19-related deaths.
However, of greater concern, as we have just heard, is the retrospective nature of this part of the Bill. I would welcome the Minister addressing these points. In any event, the Government have gone further on wrongful trading than they should have. They are seeking to punish creditors who have debts that could well be enforced, as they have nothing to do with the Covid-19 emergency.
Baroness Barker
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, for listening to what was clearly a compelling speech by me in Committee and bringing forward Amendment 39, which extends from 30 June to 30 September the period during which the relaxation of judgment in relation to wrongful trading will apply. I say this not because of any wish to encourage wrongful trading or to see people who trade wrongfully not properly held to account by a court, but because I know from experience of helping companies trying to get through periods of instability—charities, in my case—that they simply may not know at this point whether they will be wrongfully trading next month.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara [V]
Briefly, the amendments on dates tabled in Committee that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, mentioned were also in my name. I am therefore very grateful that the Government have decided to extend the initial period to September 2020. That does not seem to be contested by anybody.
My major point on the rest of the amendments concerns whether there should be retrospection in the Bill at all, but people seem to have broadly accepted that, with the condition that we expect the Minister to make a very full statement on it. In passing, I have received quite a lot of representations about the Bill in my position as the Labour Front-Bench spokesman, and the vast majority were on this particular aspect. Therefore, there is public sensibility about it and I am grateful that the Minister will deal with it when she responds.
The Deputy Speaker
Just before I call the Minister, I am going to see whether we can try the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor, again. No? I call the Minister.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I thank my noble friend Lady Fookes, the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Bolton, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for the issues they raised concerning the suspension of wrongful trading and restrictions on winding-up petitions.
I turn first to Amendments 40 and 42, which seek to remove the suspension of wrongful trading in cases where a company’s financial problems are unrelated to the coronavirus. Noble Lords will recall that the purpose of this measure is to remove the potential for wrongful trading liability at a time when many directors have been, and still are, making difficult decisions about the future of their companies. The suspension does not mean that a struggling company could just carry on trading without any regard for the consequences, but that, if it unfortunately enters insolvency, the directors will not face personal liability for using their best endeavours and trading while the pandemic is having such an impact on businesses.
Amendments 40 and 42 would disapply the suspension of wrongful trading if it can be shown that the underlying causes of the problems are unrelated to Covid-19. While this is a laudable aim, I fear that at this uncertain time it would be very difficult for directors to disentangle the various reasons for their company’s woes. Asking them to be 100% certain that those difficulties are related exclusively to Covid-19 before continuing to trade may be a test too far. Moreover, they would want to be 100% certain. The threat of personal liability is a very effective deterrent and directors do not want to put themselves in a position where they could lose their house if they took the risk of trying to save a struggling company. The stakes here are high: if there is any doubt—and in most situations there surely will be—directors would be likely to cease trading and the objective of this measure will not be achieved.
We understand noble Lords’ concerns about a blanket suspension of liability, but other protections for creditors and the wider business community will continue to apply. For example, directors’ duties under the Companies Act 2006 and directors disqualification actions are not affected. For it to be successful in its objective to save otherwise viable businesses, the blanket suspension given by Clauses 10 and 11 is necessary.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, asked why we are suspending trading from 1 March, as indeed did my noble friend Lord Bourne. Wrongful trading does not in itself affect normal business; rather it is the recovery action that may be made retrospectively by an insolvency officeholder against the company’s directors after the company enters insolvency proceedings. Suspension of the wrongful trading liability will not interfere with normal relationships between a business and its customers.
I turn next to Amendments 103 and 106, which would remove the retrospective provision in Schedules 10 and 11 regarding the making of winding-up orders. We understand the concerns of noble Lords regarding retrospection. This is not a step to be taken lightly and, if it is misapplied, retrospective legislation could indeed lead to significant injustice. We do not dispute the conclusion of the Constitution Committee that such measures should be based on need rather than on desirability. However, the need for retrospection in the context of this measure has been amply demonstrated, and I believe that there has been an especially compelling justification for these provisions.
Certain creditors have shown that they will pursue their debts despite government requests for pragmatism or forbearance, regardless of whether such action is in the interest of the survival of other businesses and irrespective of the impact on the economy as a whole. It is because the evidence demonstrates that the restraint required in the current circumstances can be guaranteed only through legislation that the Government have brought forward this widely supported measure.
However, its purpose would be wholly undermined if the protection it gives against certain types of undesirable creditor behaviour were to begin only after Royal Assent. That approach could have led only to an immediate rush to court by creditors urgently seeking winding-up orders in order to beat the deadline. That would have defeated the legislation even before it reached this House. It is right that creditors who have obtained winding-up orders specifically to frustrate Parliament’s legislative intention should not benefit from that behaviour. That is particularly so when the behaviour has caused potentially significant harm to a company that was the subject of a petition.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wallace, also asked how anyone could tell whether an order made between 27 April and the Bill coming into force is void. It is possible that a small number of creditors may not have acted responsibly and have brought winding-up petitions on the basis of the current law despite the Government’s previous announcement that this will not be allowed. The official receiver, or in Scotland the interim liquidator, will be required to bring any such circumstances to the attention of the court so that it can take appropriate measures.
I hope that noble Lords will understand why we are not able to accept Amendments 40, 42, 103 and 106, and that they will agree not to press them.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the definition of the “relevant period” that applies for the purposes of Clause 11 so that the period ends with 30 September 2020.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the definition of the “relevant period” that applies for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) of Clause 13 so that the period ends with 30 September 2020.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the definition of the “relevant period” that applies for the purposes of subsection (1)(a) of Clause 17 so that the period ends with 30 September 2020.
“Review of pre-pack transactions
In Schedule B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986, after paragraph 74 insert—“Review of pre-pack transactions(1) The assets of a company may not be transferred under the terms of a pre-pack transaction unless the proposed purchaser has obtained an opinion in writing from a member of the pre-pack pool that the transaction is not unreasonable.(2) In this paragraph, a “pre-pack transaction” means a transaction which is negotiated before a company enters administration, and under which all or a substantial part of the company’s assets are sold to an associate on or shortly after the appointment of an administrator.(3) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2), “associate” has the meaning given in section 435 of the Insolvency Act 1986.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause requires a positive opinion to be obtained from a member of the pre-pack pool before a company enters into a pre-pack transaction. The pre-pack pool is an independent body of experienced business people set up in response to the recommendations of Teresa Graham’s report.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
My Lords, I listened carefully to what my noble friend said a few minutes ago. He will not expect me to be delighted by it—it was very disappointing. Perhaps I may deal with the objections that he raised, as it is worth while to do so briefly.
My noble friend gave three reasons why the pre-pack pool should not be given the powers to control or regulate pre-pack transactions. The first was that, where the creditors wanted to go ahead, a transaction could be frustrated by a pre-pack pool member saying that it could not. His officials should get a life. The creditors are at the bottom of a waterfall and, if they say that they want it to go ahead, it should, although it will probably never happen in that way. Also, my amendment refers to the transaction not being “unreasonable”: it sets a very low bar.
Secondly, my noble friend said that the definition of “associate” was faulty. I have no pride in this. If he changed the definition of “associate”, I would accept that. He has the definition in his hands and can do with it what he wishes.
Thirdly, why did the Government set up a single pre-pack pool if they wanted only a single source of permissions? It was perfectly simple. It is worth noting that the pool is set up by professional bodies. When, a week ago, I said that there were conflicts of interest in the appointment of monitors, he said to me, “No, we don’t need to worry about that because it is run by professional bodies, and they will make sure that they have codes of conduct, which means that there will not be conflicts of interest. Therefore, I should not accept your amendment.” That applies just as much to the pre-pack pool, which is the product of a series of highly respected professional bodies.
My noble friend also said—I was delighted to hear this—that those running the Pension Protection Fund have said that there had been no trouble with pre-packs. Long may that last.
My noble friend also said that a review would be available this summer. However, we do not need a review; we need somebody in charge to do something while we come out of a pandemic. That is the whole purpose of my amendment. We are not looking for a review; we are looking for something better than the pre-pack pool to be put in place. To be fair to the Government and to my noble friend, the chances of the Government being able to find the time to produce this important but small reform with everything else that is going on are vanishingly small. Therefore, we will be living with the situation where pre-packs are unregulated post the collapse of the pre-pack pool.
To come to the point, I want to keep the pre-pack pool in existence, and that is what my amendment is about. It is not about politics; it is about good business practice. It is about fairness and about helping the deserving case and stopping the crooked one. It is about protecting firms and suppliers from being ripped off, and it is about assisting the Pension Protection Fund.
I was very sad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, whom I have always found to be a man of discerning judgment, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party and saying that he could not support the amendment. Instead, he is creeping away from the sound of the battle and covering himself with the fig-leaf that somehow we should not endow non-statutory bodies with statutory powers. If that is a big constitutional point, we might have heard about it when he spoke about this at earlier stages of the Bill.
In conclusion, those who read their Damon Runyon will be familiar with a character called Harry the Horse, whose catchphrase was, “Put up or shut up”. After 15 years on this subject, during which we have had no real action from the Government, the time has come for those of us who believe that fairness is what we should be aiming for to “put up”. I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Callanan
“( ) the need for the provision made by the regulations is urgent,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes urgency a condition of the exercise of the power in Clause 18.
Lord Callanan
“(i) after the period of one year beginning with the date for the time being specified in subsection (1), or(ii) after the period of two years beginning with the date on which this Act is passed, but”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents regulations under Clause 18 being made more than two years after Royal Assent.
Lord Callanan
(b) regulations made under section 23 which make provision by amending an Act or an Act of the Scottish Parliament,”.Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the Minister’s final amendment to Clause 24 provide for regulations under Clause 23 (consequential provision etc) which amend an Act or an Act of the Scottish Parliament to be subject to the made affirmative procedure.
“(4A) Where regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (3) that does not— (a) affect anything previously done under or by virtue of the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that if regulations under Clause 18 cease to have effect that does not affect anything previously done under or by virtue of the regulations or prevent the making of new regulations.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the statement for the Minister’s first amendment to Clause 24.
Lord Callanan
“( ) the need for the provision made by the regulations is urgent,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment makes urgency a condition of the exercise of the power in Clause 26.
Lord Callanan
“(i) after the period of one year beginning with the date for the time being specified in subsection (1), or(ii) after the period of two years beginning with the date on which this Act is passed, but”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment prevents regulations under Clause 26 being made more than two years after Royal Assent.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the Minister’s final amendment to Clause 32 provide for regulations made by the Department for the Economy under Clause 31 (consequential provision etc) which amend an Act or Northern Ireland primary legislation to be subject to the made affirmative procedure in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
“(4A) Where regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (3) that does not—(a) affect anything previously done under or by virtue of the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that if regulations made by the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland cease to have effect that does not affect anything previously done under or by virtue of the regulations or prevent the making of new regulations.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the statement for the Minister’s first amendment to Clause 32.
Lord Callanan
(b) regulations made under section 31 by the Secretary of State which make provision by amending an Act,”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and the Minister’s final amendment to Clause 33 provide for regulations made by the Secretary of State under Clause 31 (consequential provision etc) which amend an Act to be subject to the made affirmative procedure.
“(4A) Where regulations cease to have effect as a result of subsection (3) that does not—(a) affect anything previously done under or by virtue of the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies that if regulations made by the Secretary of State cease to have effect that does not affect anything previously done under or by virtue of the regulations or prevent the making of new regulations.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the statement for the Minister’s first amendment to Clause 33.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the power to make regulations under clause 39(1)(b) could be exercised only if the Secretary of State considered it reasonable to exercise the power to mitigate an effect of coronavirus.
“coronavirus” means severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first amendment to clause 39 in the name of Lord Callanan.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that the power to make regulations under Clause 40(1)(b) could be exercised only if the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland considered it reasonable to exercise the power to mitigate an effect of coronavirus.
“coronavirus” means severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the first amendment to Clause 40 in the name of Lord Callanan.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes Clause 41 so that provision that could formerly have been made by the negative resolution procedure now has to be made by the made affirmative procedure (or the affirmative procedure).
“(aa) provision under section A49A(1) of the Insolvency Act 1986 (moratorium: power to make provision in connection with pension schemes);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that, for the first six months, provision made under the power conferred by new section A49A(1) may be made by regulations that are subject to the made affirmative procedure.
“(b) “regulations that are subject to the made affirmative procedure” means regulations that—(i) are contained in a statutory instrument that must be laid before Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after being made, and(ii) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made, unless during that period the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(6) In calculating the period of 40 days mentioned in subsection (5)(b)(ii), no account is to be taken of any time during which—(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or(b) both Houses of Parliament are adjourned for more than 4 days. (7) Where by virtue of this section the Secretary of State makes regulations that are subject to the made affirmative procedure and the regulations cease to have effect because they are not approved within the period mentioned in subsection (5)(b)(ii), the fact that the regulations cease to have effect does not—(a) affect anything previously done under or by virtue of the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “made affirmative procedure” for the purposes of the Minister’s first amendment to Clause 41.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes Clause 42 so that provision that could formerly have been made by the negative resolution procedure now has to be made by the made affirmative procedure (or the affirmative procedure).
“(b) “regulations that are subject to the made affirmative procedure” means regulations that—(i) are contained in a statutory instrument that must be laid before Senedd Cymru as soon as reasonably practicable after being made, and(ii) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made, unless during that period the instrument is approved by a resolution of Senedd Cymru.(5) In calculating the period of 40 days mentioned in subsection (4)(b)(ii), no account is to be taken of any time during which Senedd Cymru is—(a) dissolved, or(b) in recess for more than 4 days.(6) Where by virtue of this section the Welsh Ministers make regulations that are subject to the made affirmative procedure and the regulations cease to have effect because they are not approved within the period mentioned in subsection (4)(b)(ii), the fact that the regulations cease to have effect does not—(a) affect anything previously done under or by virtue of the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “made affirmative procedure” for the purposes of the Minister’s other amendment to Clause 42.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is needed in light of the Minister’s other amendment to Clause 43(1).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes clause 43 so that provision that could formerly have been made by the negative procedure now has to be made by the made affirmative procedure (or the affirmative procedure).
“(3) For the purposes of this section “regulations that are subject to the made affirmative procedure” means regulations that—(a) must be laid before the Scottish Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after being made, and(b) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the regulations are made, unless during that period the regulations are approved by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.(4) In calculating the period of 40 days mentioned in subsection (3)(b), no account is to be taken of any time during which the Scottish Parliament is—(a) dissolved, or(b) in recess for more than 4 days.(5) Where by virtue of this section the Scottish Ministers make regulations that are subject to the made affirmative procedure and the regulations cease to have effect because they are not approved within the period mentioned in subsection (3)(b), the fact that the regulations cease to have effect does not—(a) affect anything previously done under or by virtue of the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.(6) Section 30 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 does not apply in relation to regulations that are subject to the made affirmative procedure by virtue of this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines “made affirmative procedure” for the purposes of the Minister’s first amendment to Clause 43.
Lord Callanan
“Modified procedure for regulations of Northern Ireland departments
(1) During the period of six months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, any relevant provision that may be made by a Northern Ireland department by regulations that are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure may be made by regulations that are subject to the made affirmative procedure.(2) In subsection (1)“relevant provision” means—(a) provision under Article 13HA(1) of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (power to modify moratorium provisions in relation to certain companies);(b) provision under Article 13HAA(1) of that Order (moratorium: power to make provision in connection with pension schemes).(3) For the purposes of this section—(a) “regulations that are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure” means regulations that may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly; (b) “regulations that are subject to the made affirmative procedure” means regulations that—(i) must be laid before the Assembly as soon as reasonably practicable after being made, and(ii) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the regulations are made, unless during that period the regulations are approved by a resolution of the Assembly.(4) In calculating the period of 40 days mentioned in subsection (3)(b)(ii), no account is to be taken of any time during which the Assembly is—(a) dissolved,(b) in recess for more than 4 days, or(c) adjourned for more than 6 days.(5) Where by virtue of this section a Northern Ireland department makes regulations that are subject to the made affirmative procedure and the regulations cease to have effect because they are not approved within the period mentioned in subsection (3)(b)(ii), the fact that the regulations cease to have effect does not—(a) affect anything previously done under or by virtue of the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.(5) In this section “the Assembly” means the Northern Ireland Assembly.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment modifies the regulation-making procedure for certain regulations for the first six months.
“17A A company is excluded from being eligible unless, before the filing date, it has consulted all the persons who are the appropriate representatives of any of the employees who may be affected by the proposed moratorium or by any reasonably foreseeable consequences of it about those matters.”
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara [V]
My Lords, I listened very carefully to the Minister when he spoke at the start of the debate on the first group. I am grateful to him for spelling out the current position for employees in companies in difficulty, including the statutory safeguards on pay and allowances, what would happen in redundancy situation, and the protection for conditions during any moratorium period. I found that very helpful.
But the main thrust of his speech was to add further reassurances from the Dispatch Box on two issues. One was to let us know that the Government had decided that although there would be a statutory review of the new procedures brought in by the moratorium, to be done within five years, this would be brought forward to no more than three years in case there was a question of how employees were being treated. There was a confirmation that should it be discovered in the review that there were some negatives happening or any detriment to the position of employees, the Government would be prepared to bring forward primary legislation to resolve those if that was required. The second was to have consideration to whether or not—I am sorry, I have lost my notes. But I wish to put on the record that I am very grateful to the Government for their two concessions in this matter. As a result, I wish to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment limits the Secretary of State’s power to amend new Schedule ZA1 so that it cannot be used to amend paragraph 2 (exclusion from eligibility for companies subject to moratorium or insolvency procedure etc).
Lord Callanan
(b) priority pre-moratorium debts (within the meaning given by section 174A).” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment reflects the changes made by the Minister’s amendments to new section 174A of the Insolvency Act 1986 (on page 109 of the Bill).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out definitions that are no longer needed because of the Minister’s other amendment to page 107.
(2A) In subsection (2)(b) “priority pre-moratorium debt” means—(a) any pre-moratorium debt that is payable in respect of—(i) the monitor’s remuneration or expenses,(ii) goods or services supplied during the moratorium,(iii) rent in respect of a period during the moratorium, or(iv) wages or salary arising under a contract of employment, so far as relating to a period of employment before or during the moratorium,(b) any pre-moratorium debt that—(i) consists of a liability to make a redundancy payment, and(ii) fell due before or during the moratorium, and(c) any pre-moratorium debt that—(i) arises under a contract or other instrument involving financial services,(ii) fell due before or during the moratorium, and(iii) is not relevant accelerated debt (see subsection (2B)).(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A)(c)—“relevant accelerated debt” means any pre-moratorium debt that fell due during the relevant period by reason of the operation of, or the exercise of rights under, an acceleration or early termination clause in a contract or other instrument involving financial services;“the relevant period” means the period—(a) beginning with the day on which the statement under section A6(1)(e) is made, and (b) ending with the last day of the moratorium.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies which pre-moratorium debts get priority for the purposes of new section 174A(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. Among other things, it excludes certain debts that fall due during the moratorium because they are accelerated (for example, because the creditor exercises a contractual right to require immediate payment in full).
“(3A) The Secretary of State may by regulations made by statutory instrument amend this section for the purposes of changing the definition of “moratorium debt” or “priority pre-moratorium debt” in this section.(3B) Regulations under subsection (3A) may make consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision or savings.(3C) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (3A) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment confers power on the Secretary of State to change the definitions of “moratorium debt” and “priority pre-moratorium debt” for the purposes of new section 174A(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986.
“(5) Any rules made under section A18(4) (meaning of supply of goods or services) apply also for the purposes of subsection (2A)(a)(ii) of this section.(6) In this section—“acceleration or early termination clause”, in relation to a contract or other instrument involving financial services, means a provision of the contract or other instrument—(a) under which, on the happening of an event—(i) a debt or other liability falls due earlier than it otherwise would, or(ii) a debt or other liability is terminated and replaced by another debt or liability, or(b) which confers on a party a right which, if exercised, will result in —(i) a debt or other liability falling due earlier than it otherwise would, or(ii) a debt or other liability being terminated and replaced by another debt or liability;“contract or other instrument involving financial services” has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of section A18 (see Schedule ZA2);“monitor’s remuneration or expenses” has the meaning given by section A18;“moratorium debt” has the meaning given by section A51;“pre-moratorium debt” has the meaning given by section A51;“redundancy payment” has the meaning given by section A18;“wages or salary” has the meaning given by section A18.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines expressions used in the Minister’s first amendment to page 109.
(b) priority pre-moratorium debts (within the meaning given by section 174A).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment reflects the changes made by the Minister’s amendments to new section 174A of the Insolvency Act 1986 (on page 109 of the Bill).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s first amendment to page 111.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out definitions that are no longer needed because of the Minister’s first amendment to page 111.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the definition of the “relevant period” that applies for the purposes of Schedule 4 so that the period ends with 30 September 2020.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment limits the Department’s power to amend new Schedule ZA1 so that it cannot be used to amend paragraph 2 (exclusion from eligibility for companies subject to moratorium or insolvency procedure etc).
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment paves the way for the Minister’s amendments to new Article 148A of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (on page 160 of the Bill).
(b) priority pre-moratorium debts (within the meaning given by Article 148A);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment reflects the changes made by the Minister’s amendments to new Article 148A of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (on page 160 of the Bill).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out definitions that are no longer needed because of the Minister’s second amendment to page 158.
(2A) In paragraph (2)(b) “priority pre-moratorium debt” means—(a) any pre-moratorium debt that is payable in respect of—(i) the monitor’s remuneration or expenses,(ii) goods or services supplied during the moratorium,(iii) rent in respect of a period during the moratorium, or(iv) wages or salary arising under a contract of employment, so far as relating to a period of employment before or during the moratorium,(b) any pre-moratorium debt that—(i) consists of a liability to make a redundancy payment, and(ii) fell due before or during the moratorium, and(c) any pre-moratorium debt that— (i) arises under a contract or other instrument involving financial services,(ii) fell due before or during the moratorium, and(iii) is not relevant accelerated debt (see paragraph (2B)).(2B) For the purposes of paragraph (2A)(c)—“relevant accelerated debt” means any pre-moratorium debt that fell due during the relevant period by reason of the operation of, or the exercise of rights under, an acceleration or early termination clause in a contract or other instrument involving financial services;“the relevant period” means the period—(a) beginning with the day on which the statement under Article 13BC(1)(e) is made, and(b) ending with the last day of the moratorium.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment clarifies which pre-moratorium debts get priority for the purposes of new Article 148A(2) of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989. Among other things, it excludes certain debts that fall due during the moratorium because they are accelerated (for example, because the creditor exercises a contractual right to require immediate payment in full).
“(3A) Regulations may amend this Article for the purposes of changing the definition of “moratorium debt” or “priority pre-moratorium debt” in this Article.(3B) Regulations under paragraph (3A) may make consequential, supplementary, incidental or transitional provision or savings.(3C) Regulations may not be made under paragraph (3A) unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment confers power on the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland to change the definitions of “moratorium debt” and “priority pre-moratorium debt” for the purposes of new Article 148A(2) of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.
“(5) Any rules made under Article 13D(4) (meaning of supply of goods or services) apply also for the purposes of paragraph (2A)(a)(ii) of this Article.(6) In this Article—“acceleration or early termination clause”, in relation to a contract or other instrument involving financial services, means a provision of the contract or other instrument—(a) under which, on the happening of an event—(i) a debt or other liability falls due earlier than it otherwise would, or (ii) a debt or other liability is terminated and replaced by another debt or liability, or(b) which confers on a party a right which, if exercised, will result in —(i) a debt or other liability falling due earlier than it otherwise would, or(ii) a debt or other liability being terminated and replaced by another debt or liability;“contract or other instrument involving financial services” has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of Article 13D (see Schedule ZA2);“monitor’s remuneration or expenses” has the meaning given by Article 13D;“moratorium debt” has the meaning given by Article 13HC;“pre-moratorium debt” has the meaning given by Article 13HC; “redundancy payment” has the meaning given by Article 13D;“wages or salary” has the meaning given by Article 13D.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment defines expressions used in the Minister’s first amendment to page 160.
(b) priority pre-moratorium debts (within the meaning given by Article 148A).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment reflects the changes made by the Minister’s amendments to new Article 148A of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (on page 160 of the Bill).
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s first amendment to page 162.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out definitions that are no longer needed because of the Minister’s first amendment to page 162.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the definition of the “relevant period” that applies for the purposes of Schedule 8 so that the period ends with 30 September 2020.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the Minister’s second amendment on page 186 of the Bill.
(a) in the case of a moratorium under Part A1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, has the same meaning as in section 174A of that Act;(b) in the case of a moratorium under Part 1A of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, has the same meaning as in Article 148A of that Order;“priority pre-moratorium debt”—(a) in the case of a moratorium under Part A1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, has the same meaning as in section 174A of that Act; (b) in the case of a moratorium under Part 1A of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, has the same meaning as in Article 148A of that Order.”Member’s explanatory statement
The Minister’s amendments on page 186 of the Bill provide that the creditors to whom new section 901H of the Companies Act 2006 applies are those in respect of “moratorium debts” and “priority pre-moratorium debts” within the meaning of section 174A of the Insolvency Act 1986 or Article 148A of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (which provide for those kinds of debt to have priority in a winding-up).
“901HA Pension schemes(1) In a case where the company in respect of which a compromise or arrangement is proposed is or has been an employer in respect of an occupational pension scheme that is not a money purchase scheme, any notice or other document required to be sent to a creditor of the company must also be sent to the Pensions Regulator.(2) In a case where the company in respect of which a compromise or arrangement is proposed is an employer in respect of an eligible scheme, any notice or other document required to be sent to a creditor of the company must also be sent to the Board of the Pension Protection Fund (“the Board”).(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that, in a case where—(a) the company in respect of which a compromise or arrangement is proposed is an employer in respect of an eligible scheme, and(b) the trustees or managers of the scheme are a creditor of the company,the Board may exercise any rights, or any rights of a specified description, that are exercisable under this Part by the trustees or managers as a creditor of the company.(4) Regulations under this section may provide that the Board may exercise any such rights—(a) to the exclusion of the trustees or managers of the scheme, or(b) in addition to the exercise of those rights by the trustees or managers of the scheme.(5) Regulations under this section—(a) may specify conditions that must be met before the Board may exercise any such rights;(b) may provide for any such rights to be exercisable by the Board for a specified period;(c) may make provision in connection with any such rights ceasing to be so exercisable at the end of such a period.(6) Regulations under this section are subject to affirmative resolution procedure (but see subsection (7)).(7) During the period of six months beginning with the day on which this section comes into force, regulations under this section are subject to approval after being made (and subsection (6) does not apply). (8) For the purposes of subsection (7), section 1291 has effect as if any reference in that section to a period of 28 days were to a period of 40 days.(9) In this section—“eligible scheme” means any pension scheme that is an eligible scheme for the purposes of section 126 of the Pensions Act 2004 or Article 110 of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005 (S.I. 2005/255 (N.I. 1));“employer”— (a) in subsection (1), means an employer within the meaning of section 318(1) of the Pensions Act 2004 or Article 2(2) of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005;(b) in subsections (2) and (3)—(i) in the case of a pension scheme that is an eligible scheme for the purposes of section 126 of the Pensions Act 2004, has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of Part 2 of that Act (see section 318(1) and (4) of that Act);(ii) in the case of a pension scheme that is an eligible scheme for the purposes of Article 110 of the Pensions (Northern Ireland) Order 2005, has the same meaning as it has for the purposes of Part 3 of that Order (see Article 2(2) and (5) of that Order);“money purchase scheme” means a pension scheme that is a money purchase scheme for the purposes of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (see section 181(1) of that Act) or the Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 (see section 176(1) of that Act);“occupational pension scheme” and “pension scheme” have the meaning given by section 1 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993;“specified” means specified in regulations under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would in certain circumstances require information provided to creditors under Part 26A of the Companies Act 2006 also to be provided to the Pensions Regulator and the Board of the Pension Protection Fund. It also enables the Board to be given the power to exercise rights which could be exercised by the trustees or managers of a pension scheme in proceedings under that Part, such as the right to vote on the proposed compromise or arrangement.
Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the Minister’s second amendment on page 198 of the Bill.
(a) in the case of a moratorium under Part A1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, has the same meaning as in section 174A of that Act;(b) in the case of a moratorium under Part 1A of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, has the same meaning as in Article 148A of that Order;“priority pre-moratorium debt”—(a) in the case of a moratorium under Part A1 of the Insolvency Act 1986, has the same meaning as in section 174A of that Act;(b) in the case of a moratorium under Part 1A of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, has the same meaning as in Article 148A of that Order.””Member’s explanatory statement
The Minister’s amendments on page 198 of the Bill provide that the creditors to whom new section 899A of the Companies Act 2006 applies are those in respect of “moratorium debts” and “priority pre-moratorium debts” within the meaning of section 174A of the Insolvency Act 1986 or Article 148A of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (which provide for those kinds of debt to have priority in a winding-up).
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the definition of the “relevant period” that applies for the purposes of Part 1 of Schedule 10 so that the period ends with 30 September 2020.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the definition of the “relevant period” that applies for the purposes of Part 2 of Schedule 10 so that the period ends with 30 September 2020.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the definition of the “relevant period” that applies for the purposes of Part 1 of Schedule 11 so that the period ends with 30 September 2020.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment alters the definition of the “relevant period” that applies for the purposes of Part 2 of Schedule 11 so that the period ends with 30 September 2020.
Lord Callanan
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the Minister’s other amendment to Schedule 14
“(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under paragraph 2(2)(b) of this Schedule or containing regulations made by the Secretary of State or the Treasury under paragraph 4 or 6 of this Schedule must be laid before Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after being made. (4) Sub-paragraph (3) does not apply if a draft of the statutory instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(5) Regulations contained in a statutory instrument laid before Parliament by virtue of sub-paragraph (3) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the instrument is made, unless during that period the instrument is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(6) In calculating the period of 40 days, no account is to be taken of any time during which—(a) Parliament is dissolved or prorogued, or(b) both Houses of Parliament are adjourned for more that 4 days.(7) Where regulations cease to have effect as a result of sub-paragraph (5) that does not—(a) affect anything previously done under or by virtue of the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.7A_(1) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under paragraph 2(2)(a) of this Schedule are subject to the negative procedure (see section 28 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 10)).(2) Regulations made by the Scottish Ministers under paragraph 2(2)(b), 4 or 6 of this Schedule must be laid before the Scottish Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after being made.(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply if the regulations have been subject to the affirmative procedure (see section 29 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010).(4) Regulations laid before the Scottish Parliament by virtue of sub- paragraph (2) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which they are made, unless during that period the regulations are approved by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament.(5) In calculating the period of 40 days, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Scottish Parliament is—(a) dissolved, or(b) in recess for more than 4 days.(6) Where regulations cease to have effect as a result of sub-paragraph (4) that does not—(a) affect anything previously done under or by virtue of the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.(7) Section 30 of the Interpretation and Legislative Reform (Scotland) Act 2010 does not apply in relation to regulations to which sub-paragraph (2) applies.7B_(1) Regulations made by the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland under paragraph 2(2)(a) of this Schedule are subject to negative resolution within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.)).(2) Regulations made by the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland under paragraph 2(2)(b), 4 or 6 of this Schedule must be laid before the Assembly as soon as reasonably practicable after being made. (3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply if a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly. (4) Section 41(3) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 applies for the purposes of sub-paragraph (3) in relation to the laying of a draft as it applies in relation to the laying of a statutory document under an enactment.(5) Regulations laid before the Assembly by virtue of sub-paragraph (2) cease to have effect at the end of the period of 40 days beginning with the day on which the regulations are made, unless during that period the regulations are approved by a resolution of the Assembly.(6) In calculating the period of 40 days, no account is to be taken of any time during which the Assembly is—(a) dissolved,(b) in recess for more than 4 days, or(c) adjourned for more than 6 days.(7) Where regulations cease to have effect as a result of sub-paragraph (5) that does not—(a) affect anything previously done under or by virtue of the regulations, or(b) prevent the making of new regulations.(8) A power of the Department for the Economy in Northern Ireland to make regulations under this Schedule is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)).(9) In this paragraph “the Assembly” means the Northern Ireland Assembly.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment changes Schedule 14 so that regulations under paragraph 2(2)(b), 4 or 6 of the Schedule that could formerly have been made by a negative procedure will be subject to a made affirmative procedure (or an affirmative procedure).
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill
Tuesday 23rd June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 View all Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 114-I Marshalled list for Report - (18 Jun 2020)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, first, I thank the House of Lords Public Bill Office and the House clerks for their support and their extremely hard work in ensuring that this emergency Bill could be expedited through the House to support businesses as a matter of urgency in these unprecedented times.
Secondly, I place on record my thanks to the Bill team, Andy Ormerod-Cloke, Muneera Lula, Jess Bradbury and all the team, both in BEIS and in the Insolvency Service, who have worked so hard on the Bill. I am sure Members will appreciate the untold hours that went in on evenings and weekends to assist in the progress of this legislation and to provide help and guidance to me, my noble friends Lady Bloomfield and Lord Howe and many other noble Lords who we have spoken to and consulted over the last couple of weeks on all sides of the House. I am grateful to all Members for their contributions. The Bill team and the Insolvency Service did a splendid job operating in, let us not forget, extremely difficult circumstances. They can be proud of their work and they are a credit to the Civil Service.
I also thank my private office team, Marty and Jenny, for ably assisting me in co-ordinating the various bits of government to come together on the Bill. I pay tribute to the Opposition spokesmen: the noble Lords, Lord Stevenson and Lord Fox. This made a pleasant change from my previous job, piloting the Brexit legislation through, where, as Members can imagine, there was no common ground whatever. This has been an historic day: I have actually won three votes in the House, which is the quite amazing pinnacle of my ministerial career. It can only be downhill from here. I am grateful to them for their constructive engagement. They have acted responsibly, recognising that this is emergency legislation, and have worked with us to improve the legislation where that was required. On behalf of the Government, we have been pleased to accept the many constructive contributions. The Bill leaves this House in a much better and improved form than when it entered it. We have been responsible and have acted where necessary, and I hope Members will agree that the Government have responded to their concerns.
I mentioned them earlier but I the other members of the ministerial team—my noble friends Lady Bloomfield and Lord Howe—who have assisted me in pushing this measure through. As a result of this legislation, I hope that many otherwise viable companies will no longer face the threat of insolvency. The measures that the Bill introduces will give our businesses the vital support that they need to keep themselves afloat, thereby preserving jobs and maintaining productive capacity, enabling the foundations to be late for this country’s economic recovery.
Once again, I thank noble Lords for their scrutiny of the Bill. It has, as I said, been much improved thanks to the amendments that have been made during its passage. I hope Members will think that the Government played a constructive role in reacting to many of the concerns they have raised. I hope that the other place will promptly accept these amendments so that the Bill can come into force as a matter of urgency. I beg to move.
Lord Fox
My Lords, the Minister was right that this is an important Bill because it is about people’s jobs, livelihoods and future prosperity. I think we all agreed from the outset that that was the objective here, and in many respects we have managed to fulfil it. I join the Minister in thanking the Public Bill Office, which as usual has been extremely helpful when it comes to marshalling our amendments.
I especially pick out the Bill team. Normally when I look at the Box over there, there is a team looking tired, wan and reasonably pleased that their job is reaching the end. They must have had some very long days. I assume that the Bill team are somewhere out there in the ether, so I thank them for their work.
I thank my own team: my colleagues who have sat through this process, on the Benches and virtually, and Sarah Pughe, who has kept us more or less on the straight and narrow. I thank my opposite number the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, and the ministerial team—the noble Lord, Lord Callanan, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bloomfield—for their open and cheerful approach to the Bill. I think we got a glimpse of why the noble Lord was cheerful: this Bill is nowhere near as bad as what he has just been doing.
That is true, but it was still a difficult Bill. It is a big Bill of mixed intent, in that some of it is permanent and some of it is not, and it was an accelerated process. It has not been easy, and of course we leave here wishing that things were different from the way they are. This feels like the end of something but I suspect, given the powers and the intent that the Government have to trim, modify and improve the Bill, it may be a question not of “Farewell” but rather of “See you later”.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara [V]
My Lords, I apologise for my complete blankness when coming to the end of my peroration on Amendment 75. For the record, the second very important concession made by the Minister, who was very kind in not picking me up on not being able to remember it, was that the new monitor position will be strengthened in terms of guidance so that directors will have a responsibility for informing employees about the moratorium arrangements and reassuring them about their conditions in future. I thank him for that as well. If there is a way in which Hansard can reinsert that into my original statement then I would be more than grateful, but I am sure that is probably not allowed.
I join others in thanking all concerned for getting us through this process. It has been very interesting to do it. We started with a lot of meetings with Ministers, which was very good because the ground was clearly laid out, so we enjoyed that. We were introduced to officials, from whom we have had superb support through the whole process. I join the Minister in saying that they are a credit to the Civil Service, working in extraordinary conditions and coming up with the goods all the time.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Fox, and his colleagues for their support. It is good to find that people have similar views about issues. It is sometimes hard to find the exact point at which we should work together but we have managed to do so despite the conditions. Thanks should also be said to the House officials for allowing us to operate in a hybrid House in a way that those who have been here for more than a few years would probably have thought impossible, given the difficulties involved and the changes required—but here we are. They have given us three and a half days of work and they have been superb in making sure that we had the service required in order to contribute. I have been doing this remotely throughout while others have been present, and even remotely it has been a satisfying situation.
All Bills are a trial of stamina, this one probably more than most. I think we all share a sense of exhaustion, having reached its final moments. It is interesting that having to do this in an accelerated way has also picked up a lot of issues that will need further work. I hope the various committees and other agencies in the House who are watching this will learn the lessons that have to be learned about how to do emergency legislation and accelerated legislation, what can be done well and what needs a bit more time spent on it.
Finally, it is a curious feature of the hybrid House that staring for hours into tiny screens and trying to talk to people through electronic devices that constantly let us down seems to build a much stronger working relationship. I have enjoyed this time very much. I have enjoyed working with everyone concerned, including my staff, Dan Harris, my Whip, Chris—my noble friend Lord Lennie—and others who have supported us. I have also enjoyed working with Ministers and others from across the House. Long may it last.