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
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The Government have had to take some unprecedented steps to control the coronavirus, and it is the case that parts of the dairy industry were affected by the closure of the hospitality sector earlier in March. We have introduced specific measures to support the industry, including a dairy response fund, which opened for applications on 18 June. Payments will begin from 6 July. We have also relaxed elements of competition law, and we are supporting an industry-led promotional campaign.
Simon Baynes
Would my right hon. Friend be able to work with the Welsh Government to secure greater milk processing capacity in order to add value back to Welsh dairy farmers, particularly in my constituency of Clwyd South, which has been hit hard by the demise of Tomlinson’s Dairies and by bovine TB, so that all farmers can get a fair price for their world-beating Welsh milk?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The Government do indeed work with the devolved Administrations to improve outcomes for our dairy farmers. Indeed, just yesterday, jointly with the devolved Administration, we launched a consultation seeking views from dairy farmers and processors on new regulations to secure transparency and fairness in dairy contracts. As he points out, there are also circumstances where grant funding can be made available to support investment in processing capacity, and that can help add value to the milk produced by our farmers.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
Like all Conservative Members, I am proud to have stood on a manifesto commitment that, in all our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. The Secretary of State for International Trade and I are working together to deliver that commitment.
Grahame Morris [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for that response, but will he restate that he is still willing to stand by his party’s manifesto commitment to put that into law to prevent food from being imported into the United Kingdom that is produced in ways that would be illegal under current legislation? I am thinking particularly about chlorinated chicken.
George Eustice
Retained European law brings across a prohibition on treatments such as chlorine washes on chicken and, indeed, hormone treatments on beef. The Government have made it clear that those have been brought across and remain in place. We also stand by our manifesto commitment, which was to protect our food standards and animal welfare standards in trade agreements, but we did not ever say that we would legislate in the Agriculture Bill to do that.
Abena Oppong-Asare
Can the Secretary of State explain exactly how a dual tariff would prevent British consumers from having to accept imported food produced by causing animals unnecessary suffering, and how he will support British farmers striving to produce a high standard of food?
George Eustice
The hon. Lady makes reference to media speculation. I am sure hon. Members will understand that I cannot give a running commentary on our discussions on a future trade agreement or comment on such media speculation, but I will say that there are many ways, through a trade deal, that a country can agree with another country how to protect food standards—both food safety and animal welfare.
Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)
The public do not want our British farmers to be undercut by food produced to lower standards abroad. Research by Which? published today shows that eight out of 10 people are worried that trade deals will risk our high animal welfare standards. With the National Farmers Union petition now on 1 million names, it is clear that Ministers are on the wrong side of the argument here, so does the Environment Secretary need any more help convincing the International Trade Secretary to put the Conservative manifesto promise into law?
George Eustice
The International Trade Secretary and I are both absolutely committed to delivering our manifesto commitments, but we also have a manifesto commitment to expand the number of free trade agreements that we have, and it is also the case that the UK farming industry has offensive interests, particularly in dairy and in meat such as pork, lamb and beef, in other countries, particularly Asian markets. We want to expand the number of free trade agreements that we have to create opportunities for our industry but also to protect our standards, and that is exactly what we will do.
Luke Pollard
I think we all know that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ministerial team are part of the eight out of 10 who are worried about animal welfare in trade agreements, but may I press the Secretary of State on a slightly different issue related to food standards—the outbreaks of covid-19 in food processing plants across the United Kingdom? This is serious. Any outbreak needs to be contained. Food standards matter, and standards for the people who work in those plants also matter. What assessment has the Environment Secretary made of whether meat processing plants and food factories are especially at risk, and what assessment has he made of the low level of statutory sick pay that forces many people to work in those plants instead of staying at home because they simply would not earn enough money to pay their bills if they did so?
George Eustice
I pay tribute to all those working in our food sector, including in manufacturing, who have worked very hard to keep food on our plates during these difficult times. The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. We have heard now of three outbreaks linked to meat plants. They have been picked up through the testing and tracing approach that has been adopted and we are reviewing the guidance. We suspect that these outbreaks might have been linked either to canteens or, potentially, to car-sharing arrangements in those plants. We will be revising guidance to ensure that businesses have the approach that they need to prevent further outbreaks in future.
Deidre Brock (Edinburgh North and Leith) (SNP)
The EU is clear that tariffs to counteract its green box subsidies will not be acceptable. Will the Secretary of State undertake to ensure that domestic food producers are not disadvantaged by matching those green box subsidies for farmers here?
George Eustice
As part of our agreement to leave the European Union, we have been working for a couple of years now jointly with the European Union on splitting the World Trade Organisation schedule, including what is called the aggregate market support boxes—the so-called green boxes and amber boxes—and the UK will have an appropriate share of that green box support in the WTO.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
The Government have introduced a £14 million zoos fund for licensed zoos in England. Outdoor areas of zoos and safari parks have already been allowed to reopen, subject to appropriate social distancing measures being in place. The indoor areas of zoos and aquariums will be permitted to open from 4 July. An announcement on further support for the zoos is expected imminently.
Lee Anderson
Unfortunately, the best chances of survival for some animals is in captivity. For centuries, we have taken away the natural home of animals and we should all accept responsibility for that. Keeping zoos and wildlife parks open is something that I wholeheartedly support, and I am grateful that financial support has been made available. We owe it to these animals to ensure that they survive and continue to be a part of this planet, so can my hon. Friend please assure me that Government will do all they can to ensure that not one animal in our zoos and parks is put to sleep due to financial constraints caused by this pandemic?
Rebecca Pow
We are a nation of animal lovers. I know that you, Mr Speaker, are a very big animal lover, as am I and as is my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson). The objective of the zoo support fund, which, by the way, is open until 19 July, is to address avoidable animal suffering in zoos, including, in the worst cases, preventing unplanned euthanasia. My Department continues to engage weekly with zoos to keep on top of what is happening.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
We are clear that any future trade agreements must work for both our farmers and consumers. This week, DEFRA and the Department for International Trade have jointly announced a package of measures to help food and drink businesses grow their trade overseas. The package is aimed in particular at small businesses, which make up 97% of the food and drink industry. This will benefit businesses across the UK, including those in the north of England. We will always stand up for British farming and we will use our negotiations to make new opportunities for our businesses large and small.
Chi Onwurah
As lockdown eases, many of my constituents are once again enjoying the glorious Northumbrian and County Durham landscapes. That depends on farmers small in scale but with really high production standards, whether it be for the cattle they graze on the town moor, or the sheep on the Cheviots, or the grain sold through local co-operatives such as Tynegrain. Why will the Minister not commit to writing into law that we do not import food with lower standards than those that our farmers already meet, so that they are not undercut by the American agro-industrial complex?
Victoria Prentis
The Secretary of State has already answered that in some detail. As my right hon. Friend set out. a range of measures are available to protect the hon. Lady’s farmers, including existing regulations. We have great transparency in this House and with the general public in our trade negotiations. There is a great deal of scrutiny of exactly how those negotiations are taking place, and they will be put before the House again before they are signed. We also have a further range of measures—we will be consulting in detail on labelling before the end of the year—which are all designed to protect her farmers.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
This Government are committed to the highest standards of animal welfare. Our manifesto made it clear that we will bring in new laws on animal sentience, end excessively long journeys for farm animals and ban the keeping of primates as pets. We have introduced one of the world’s toughest ivory bans and will be supporting the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill.
Felicity Buchan
I was disappointed that, because of coronavirus, the Second Reading of the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill was delayed. Will my hon. Friend assure me that it will be heard in the House at the earliest opportunity?
Victoria Prentis
We all shared my hon. Friend’s disappointment, and I am pleased to be able to reassure her that the Bill is due to have its Second Reading on 23 October.
Stephen Metcalfe [V]
Our constituents expect us to uphold animal welfare and high food standards. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that maintaining the UK’s high food standards and excellent animal welfare record is, among other things, in the Government’s interest, as that is what customers at home and abroad expect and demand from UK producers?
Victoria Prentis
I absolutely agree with hon. Friend on that. The Government are proud of the high animal health and welfare, and environmental standards that underpin our high-quality produce. The UK’s growing reputation for quality food and drink, with high standards of food safety, animal welfare and sustainability, serves as a great platform from which to expand our exports.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The Minister has been hearing a strong message from the House this morning about animal cruelty, because, sadly, the lockdown has seen an increase in it, with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals reporting 47,000 incidents —the Daily Mail calculates that that is one case every two minutes. As we have heard, the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Bill has been constantly delayed. The Bill has cross-party support. The Government are supposed to be supporting it and they are supposed to be running this place, so will the Minister guarantee that Finn’s law will be on the statute book by the end of the year and available to the courts?
Victoria Prentis
As I said a moment ago, 23 October is the date available for Second Reading. I have supported the Bill from the beginning and I am pleased it will be moving forward just as quickly as we can do it.
Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)
Food insecurity is a great issue, especially with the covid virus. Evidence we are taking in the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs shows that a lot of people are in need of good food. I congratulate the Secretary of State on the system of getting food straight from the farms to those who most need it, but can he extend it even more? I ask because after the pandemic and before the economy recovers properly people are going to need more and more food.
George Eustice
My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Government have made available £16 million to partners such as FareShare to ensure that we can get food to thousands of food charities across the country to support those in need. In addition, we have been looking at other ways in which we can support those who are financially vulnerable at this difficult time.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Countryside stewardship is designed to maximise environmental improvements and value for money for the taxpayers. Water quality actions are focused on areas posing the highest risk of water pollution from agriculture, for example, in catchments draining into specifically protected sites of biodiversity. We will look to review these focus areas in the transition period and, importantly, how we reward farmers for delivering public goods, such as water quality, through our new environmental land management scheme.
Mr Holden
As we move from the single farm payment to support for farmers to protect the environment, these water quality protection areas are one of the schemes that my local farmers in the Wear valley are particularly interested in looking at. May I therefore urge the Minister to include us in any review that is taking place?
Rebecca Pow
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that this is an area he is particularly interested in, as he has spoken to me about it before. Management practices that farmers introduce on their land can bring multiple benefits to the environment, including to water quality. I will pass on the invite to the Secretary of State, whom I believe he has asked to visit. He may have to make do with me or indeed with the farming Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis). We both have children at Durham University, so perhaps we could come together.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
Our resources and waste strategy, published in December 2018, sets out ambitious plans for how we will minimise waste, promote resource efficiency and move towards a more circular economy where we will reduce waste, reuse and recycle much more than we do now. It combines short and long-term actions and gives a clear long-term policy direction in line with our 25-year environment plan.
Elliot Colburn
As the Minister knows, the waste hierarchy calls for a reduction in the amount of waste we produce as the best way to tackle waste in this country, followed closely by reusing and recycling that waste. Can she update me on the measures that her Department is taking to reduce the amount of waste produced in this country as part of our green recovery from covid, and will she consider Carshalton and Wallington as a pilot area for any new schemes, such as a deposit return scheme?
Rebecca Pow
My hon. Friend is always representing his constituency and pushing for new things, and rightly so. The combined effect of the measures set out in the resources and waste strategy and the Environment Bill will be to minimise the amount of waste that reaches the lower levels of the waste hierarchy, including disposal to landfill. We remain committed to eliminating all avoidable plastic by the end of 2042. We have already committed in our manifesto to introducing a deposit return scheme. Unfortunately, we cannot consider the pilot in his area, but I thank him for his support. We look forward to it being introduced, and the second consultation will be under way next year.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
We are promoting British food and drink producers at home and abroad. Just this week, we announced a package of trade and investment measures to help food and drink businesses grow their overseas trade, which includes reinforcing DEFRA’s Food is GREAT campaign and promoting 50 food and drink export champions. We are also supporting domestic campaigns such as the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board and Dairy UK’s £1 million promotional campaign for milk.
Andy Carter
As the Secretary of State will know, Cheshire is not just renowned for its crumbly cheese. Our new potatoes are on the menu at the world’s finest restaurants, and our salt is being used by chefs all over the world to add flavour to fine food. We also have some of the finest farmers’ markets selling food prepared locally to my constituents in Warrington. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to support farmers and food producers in my constituency to navigate the challenging set of market conditions created by covid-19?
George Eustice
My hon. Friend makes an important point. His part of Cheshire is famous for its food, particularly its cheese, but also salt and new potatoes. Many parts of our country are renowned for their high-quality local produce, and we want to support farmers to promote that and add value.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
May I push the Secretary of State on this? Does he agree that the future of British agriculture and the British food industry has to be based on quality and shorter supply chains as we come out of this pandemic? Will he join me in calling for an investigation into what is happening in our meat processing plants? Some of them look rather strange. In the four that I have looked at, many of the workers are reluctant to take a test because they would lose money and be isolated. That is a real problem. Could he look into it?
George Eustice
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that this country has built a proud record based on the quality of our food and food provenance in particular, and we will maintain that. On the specific point that he raises about outbreaks of coronavirus at three meat plants, we are looking at that and have been investigating the causes of it. We suspect, as I said earlier, that it is linked either to shared transport or canteen areas, and new guidance will be issued to those meat plants.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
The Agriculture Bill will allow us to introduce ambitious new schemes in England based on the principle of public money for public goods, so that we can reward farmers who protect our environment, improve animal welfare and produce high-quality food in a sustainable way. The Bill will also help farmers to stay competitive.
Jerome Mayhew
Despite spending £3.4 billion each year under the common agricultural policy and subsidies for our farmers, the productivity growth rate has not significantly increased since the 1990s. This is in stark contrast with unsupported sectors such as egg production, where in 2019 alone productivity increased by 3.8%. Does my hon. Friend agree that the removal of the damping blanket of the CAP, as well as increased competition, will drive productivity growth throughout farming, allowing Government support for farming to focus on public money for public goods?
Victoria Prentis
I absolutely agree that moving away from the CAP provides the opportunity for a more prosperous, competitive and self-reliant industry. We will support UK farms to focus on their business modelling and to improve efficiency, which may well, in turn, reduce their environmental footprint.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
We understand that this is a challenging time for the fishing industry and we have taken steps to support the sector. In April, we launched a £10 million financial assistance package for England’s fishing and aquaculture businesses, which included a £1 million grant scheme to support the sale of fish locally. The sector is also able to benefit from the wider financial support measures available for businesses. In addition, the Sea For Yourself campaign has encouraged people to eat more fish.
Peter Aldous
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. The process of determining which businesses received funding through the domestic seafood supply scheme has been criticised as being unfair. While one project in the Lowestoft area was successful, two good applications were not. What assistance will be available to these and other businesses so as to enable the East Anglian fishing industry to meet the infrastructure and other costs in preparation for the end of the transition period?
Victoria Prentis
I cannot discuss the individual cases, but I can say that applications were reviewed by a panel of experts, including several representatives from the catching and processing sectors. The judging panel awarded funding to projects that best met the criteria, especially those that could deliver benefits to a range of fishing businesses.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
DEFRA continues to monitor the impact of covid-19 on material flows. We have made no specific estimate of the impact of the outbreak on levels of plastic waste. However, we remain committed to eliminating the scourge of avoidable plastic waste by 2042, as demonstrated by our plans to ban single-use plastic straws, stirrers and cotton buds, which we discussed in this very Chamber just a week ago. We continue to monitor recycling rates for plastic packaging and we have committed to introduce a deposit return scheme for drinks containers to incentivise people to recycle more plastic.
John Spellar
May I suggest that the Department actually needs to get on and make some plans for this? We are talking about not avoidable but unavoidable plastic waste, because the covid-19 crisis has clearly necessitated the use and disposal of massive quantities of disposable personal protective equipment, much of it plastic, and new mitigation measures for the catering and hospitality industry will generate another wave. We all accept that this is necessary to protect health and get Britain back to work, but what is the Department going to do now to deal with this volume of waste, much of it plastic?
Rebecca Pow
I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who raises some good points. This Government are absolutely committed to getting rid of plastic waste, as our resources and waste strategy shows, and as measures in the Environment Bill will demonstrate by bringing forward the deposit return scheme and extended producer responsibility. We need to get all businesses to think about what happens to the plastic products they make at the beginning and where they end up, with a view to greatly reduced quantities going to landfill. He raises a good point about PPE. Many companies are rethinking all this, and lots are now starting to have reusable face coverings and to make their own. There is a very useful guide to that on the Government website.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Victoria Prentis)
We have mobilised an unprecedented package of support for our most vulnerable people, including over 3 million food boxes and priority supermarket delivery slots. An additional £63 million has been confirmed by the Government to be distributed to English local authorities to help those who are struggling to afford food and other essentials. The Government are also providing £16 million to food support through charities, including FareShare and WRAP.
Richard Burgon [V]
The current pressure on food banks is absolutely immense, and we know that income is at the heart of food poverty, so will the Government take the urgent social security measures needed now to get people the financial support they need, so they can get food on their plates and on their children’s plates, by ending the five-week wait for universal credit and abolishing that punitive two-child limit?
Victoria Prentis
The Government have introduced a package of support of over £6.5 billion to help families on benefits to cope with the financial impact of covid.
I would like to use this opportunity, if I may, to pay tribute to the taskforce, which I have led for the last few months, on feeding the vulnerable. We have worked very closely with colleagues across Government—in the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Education and other Departments—as well as, of course, with an excellent team from the supermarkets and volunteers. I am pleased to say that, in so far as we have been able, we have ensured that everybody who needs it has access to food.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
The coronavirus has created many challenges for our country, and the response of our key workers throughout the epidemic has been quite extraordinary. As we take the next steps closer to normality, I would like to take this opportunity to record our thanks to all those working in the food supply chain for the phenomenal way they have responded. From farmers to food manufacturers, and from the delivery drivers to all those working in food retail, their response has been truly phenomenal.
Paul Bristow
I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. The agricultural land around Peterborough is some of the best land in the country. With that in mind, could he let us know how he plans to increase UK food and drink exports to emerging markets such as the Gulf?
George Eustice
This week, we announced new measures on exports, with export champions to lead the way in opening new markets and to get more of our fantastic food and produce in those overseas markets. I have in recent years attended exhibitions such as Gulfood in the Gulf, where there are indeed many opportunities, particularly for our lamb sector.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Last November, after the devastating floods, the Prime Minister committed to holding a summit to improve flood defences in the north of England. Can I ask the Secretary of State why, six months on, this summit has not taken place? Can he set a date, and can he confirm that the Prime Minister will honour his commitment and be in attendance?
George Eustice
The reason that we have not yet had that summit is quite simple: it is that the coronavirus outbreak has taken up quite a lot of our time and obviously made it very difficult to physically travel to areas. I think it would be better to have a summit such as that physically in the location, rather than it being yet another Zoom meeting. However, I can give the hon. Lady a guarantee that that summit will indeed take place. I gave that commitment and it will happen.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rebecca Pow)
I thank my hon. Friend for that. Of course, people have valued all of these green spaces in this lockdown period; that has been more clear than ever. Our manifesto commitment says that, through the Environment Bill, we will set a new domestic framework for environmental governance, and this will enable us to work with developers, landowners and managers to create and restore wildlife-rich habitats, with wildlife thriving everywhere. We will have biodiversity net gain through that environment plan, and we will have local nature recovery strategies and a whole new area called nature recovery networks. All of this will help to look after our precious green space.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
George Eustice
We are aware that animal welfare charities have suffered from a fall in donations and have had to close during the coronavirus epidemic. There was an application that was considered as part of a charities fund, but we will continue to work with those groups to identify the support that they need.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
George Eustice
As I explained earlier, in any trade negotiation it will be for the UK to determine what goes into the so-called sanitary and phytosanitary chapter, which addresses these issues. As I also pointed out, there is currently a prohibition on the sale of any poultry treated with a chlorine wash.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
George Eustice
Very early in this crisis, we worked with Public Health England on guidance for these plants. It included, in some cases, spacing out staff on the production line to maintain a distance of 2 metres, and, where that was not possible, ensuring that things were arranged so that staff were facing away from one another. It also involved increased hygiene, new measures on canteens and guidance on car-share arrangements. As I have said, as a result of the three outbreaks that have occurred, we are reviewing those matters.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
George Eustice
We in this country have built a very sophisticated and valuable market based on the safety of our food, the standards of our food and our high animal welfare standards. We have committed in our manifesto to maintaining those.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
George Eustice
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Food labelling can improve transparency, particularly in the retail sector, but of course there are limitations in that around 50% of food goes into the food services sector. That is why we will be addressing these matters in our trade agreements.
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) (SNP) [V]
George Eustice
There has been a global effort to tackle antimicrobial resistance and, in particular, to reduce the use of antibiotics in agriculture, especially the critically important antibiotics. The UK is a leader in that and has adopted farm husbandry that has made it possible to reduce the use of antibiotics. We have also worked with international partners, including the United States, to assist them to achieve the same.
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The last three months have been the first time in more than 800 years that England has gone without public worship and the sacraments, so there is real joy that we can meet again, socially distanced, from 4 July. I can give an assurance that the personal safety of clergy who are shielding should be prioritised and they can continue to do their duties remotely.
Dame Cheryl Gillan [V]
The self-sacrifice of so many people during the extreme lockdown period will have saved many lives, but one of the great sacrifices for many people will have been the inability to attend church physically and to have had to cancel weddings, baptisms and other deeply significant ceremonies. I understand my hon. Friend had to cancel his own daughter’s wedding last Saturday, and I wish her and her fiancé all the best. Will he now confirm that their wedding, as well as many others, can now go ahead in safety in church with 30 guests, and when does he expect the number of guests to be increased to reflect the capacity of the church being used and the new 1 metre-plus rule?
Andrew Selous
I thank my right hon. Friend for her kind good wishes, which are greatly appreciated. As she said, weddings can now take place from 4 July, but only with a maximum of 30 people. This is a huge relief to many couples throughout the country. For church services, there is no maximum number within a place of worship as long as the premises comply with covid-secure guidelines.
Felicity Buchan
Given the country’s need for more housing, including more social housing, are the Church Commissioners able to take into account social and community outcomes in their land development decisions, and not just maximising financial profit?
Andrew Selous
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I can tell her that the Church of England pensions board already supports the social housing market through investments in social housing bonds. The commissioners also make provision for social and affordable housing on housing developments as per local planning requirements, while being required, like all charities, to obtain best value reasonably obtainable in the market when disposing of assets. But I am keen to explore whether the Church Commissioners are able to play any further role in solving the nation’s housing crisis. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s housing commission, which the Bishop of Kensington co-chairs, is looking separately at wider housing policy, and I am engaging closely with that work.
Sir Desmond Swayne
I used to enjoy a hymn sandwich before this interdict, but I have broken the habit. How is my hon. Friend going to lure us back if we are not allowed to sing? May I suggest, as a minimum, shorter services, even shorter sermons, some comfortable words from the Book of Common Prayer and an end to prating prelates?
Andrew Selous
That is a challenge indeed, Mr Speaker, but what I would say to my right hon. Friend is that I hope he has taken part in some of the uplifting online worship and services that have been available to him during the lockdown, and I would add that the warmth of the welcome, the opportunity for fellowship and the chance to grow in faith through prayer, worship and the revelation of God’s word will prove an irresistible temptation to my right hon. Friend to return.
John Lamont
I very much welcome that services can resume in places of worship in England and that private prayer is allowed in other nations of the United Kingdom, but what discussions have there been with Churches to ensure that people are encouraged to go back to church and are reassured that it is safe to do so?
Andrew Selous
The Church is delighted to be able to throw open its doors again, so that we can gather again for public worship and weddings in the way that we have not been able to do over the past three months. We will make sure that people are safe. I know that clergy and church wardens are taking their responsibilities very seriously to make sure that people are safe when they come, and we are really looking forward to seeing them back again in all our churches.
Mr Speaker
We are now heading to the shadows of the spires of Lichfield cathedral with one Michael Fabricant.
Michael Fabricant [V]
Thank you, Mr Speaker: from where I am sitting now Lichfield cathedral is just about 100 yards behind me.
Lichfield has a great choral tradition; we have a choral school and the services are very good. It is open for two hours a day at the moment for private prayer, but when does my hon. Friend anticipate that we will be able to go to evensong and enjoy the wonderful choir that sings there?
Andrew Selous
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Cathedrals such as Lichfield are at the centre of the amazing choral tradition that we have in this country. Sadly, I have to tell him that singing and chanting are not allowed even at a distance, due to the additional risk of infection, and woodwind and brass instruments should not be used, but that still leaves many other instruments. His constituents can return for public worship from 4 July and I know that Lichfield Cathedral will be making them very welcome when they return.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his long-term interest in the issue of apprenticeships in the House of Commons. I reassure him we are doing absolutely everything to remain committed to providing an effective and inclusive scheme in the House. We are always looking for ways to increase and improve our scheme and we will do what the right hon. Gentleman suggests, in line with the apprenticeship guarantee, as announced by the Prime Minister. We are close to halfway through our current scheme, and in the past 12 months, seven apprentices have passed their endpoint assessment. We were set to meet our obligations of 2.3% of public sector employees for new apprenticeships, if it was not for the coronavirus pandemic. We will do everything possible to meet our obligations to young apprenticeships and we will do more than we need to do in this House.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that more people have been taking part in church services during lockdown than ever before. The national weekly service of the Church has been viewed more than 5.2 million times, with 21.5 million related social media posts, and a third of the people watching Archbishop Justin Welby’s Easter day service were under the age of 34.
Greg Smith
Parishes in the Winslow benefice in my constituency are seeing 400 to 500 people take part in virtual services each Sunday and about 100 each day in midday-ish prayer. Given the extraordinary number of people who have either connected with the Church for the first time or reconnected with it virtually, what plans do the Church Commissioners have to set aside funds to continue this excellent work?
Andrew Selous
I am delighted to learn about the increase in church attendance in my hon. Friend and neighbour’s constituency. It is not unusual. The Church made a significant investment in a new digital communications team in 2016 and we will continue to make sure that we provide a good digital offering. The experience of my hon. Friend in Winslow has been widely shared by churches across the country. Some 1,600 people are currently attending an online alpha course at one of our churches, and 3.3 million people have now watched the UK blessing worship video on YouTube, put together by Gas Street Church in Birmingham.
Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Lab)
Andrew Selous
Church House staff and the House of Bishops are doing everything they can to assist parish churches to open safely. The guidance published by the Church is applicable for small and rural churches as well as for larger and urban churches.
Rosie Duffield
It is obviously fantastic to see Canterbury Cathedral open for private prayer, but rural and smaller village communities often use their churches as a lifeline, particularly those who have been shielding. I want to reassure them that it is going to be safe for them to return to church soon.
Andrew Selous
I can give the hon. Lady that reassurance. I know from my own village church how seriously the vicar and the church wardens are taking their responsibilities to make sure that the return will be safe, with hand sanitiser, removing the kneelers, keeping prayer books covered up and so on, as well as making sure that people sit at an appropriate distance. I am sure that the rural churches will be back in action shortly in the hon. Lady’s constituency.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
Andrew Selous
In the diocese of Oxford, which covers Beaconsfield, churches have opened food banks and community larders and supported vulnerable people who are socially isolating as well as asylum seekers and key workers. In addition, nationally, the new marriage and pre-marriage courses have been available online throughout lockdown so that any local church can forward them to couples wanting to invest in their relationship.
Joy Morrissey
What better way to celebrate couples than getting married, but, sadly, in beautiful Beaconsfield countless couples have had to cancel their church wedding. I welcome the news of 30 people being able to gather at a wedding, but what has the Church of England done to work with Government and to lobby them to increase the numbers for gatherings and weddings? Could we increase those numbers for this summer?
Andrew Selous
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and she is right to say that a maximum of 30 people will be allowed at weddings from 4 July. That 30 includes the minister and the couple, and there should be social distancing of 1 metre-plus between individuals, households and support bubbles. The figure of 30 is what the Government have advised for now, and they obviously continue to listen to the science, but the couples I have spoken to are just so pleased to be able to get married. Perhaps a bigger party—perhaps a celebration of the renewal of vows—could take place next year.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
Andrew Selous
Lockdown has meant that income from hall lettings, events and parochial fees has stopped completely in many cases. Donations of gift aid have also been adversely affected, so the Church is hugely grateful to those who are able to support it through the planned giving scheme. That regular, committed giving has become more important than ever to the mission and ministry of the Church.
Mike Kane
The Catholic diocese of Shrewsbury, which covers my constituency, has told me that income is down by a third since lockdown—a loss heading towards £700,000. In the long term, this will have an impact on building maintenance. Have the Government considered an enhanced gift aid scheme to help our faith communities to mitigate the damage?
Andrew Selous
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question, and he is absolutely right to draw attention to this. I will certainly raise the issue with the Government on his behalf and that of the diocese that has brought it to his attention. I am grateful to him.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire)
On current plans, decant would be in the mid-2020s and the proposed approach to the works and the schedule would be put to both Houses for agreement before that. While the restoration work continues to be vital, we are currently reviewing the approach, and we of course welcome the views of the hon. Gentleman and all colleagues.
Ian Paisley
Is it not the case that these plans have now effectively been mothballed and scrapped, and that Parliament is not going to proceed with the full refurbishment as originally planned? If that is the case, what measures will be put in place to maintain this wonderful historic building and keep it safe from fire and damage?
Damian Hinds
The hon. Gentleman is quite right about the risks from fire, flood and falling masonry. He was of course a distinguished member of the Joint Committee on the Palace of Westminster, and those works remain vital. We all have in mind the need for the uninterrupted effectiveness of Parliament in scrutinising the Government and in working on behalf of our constituents, but we also know that we must do that while providing the good value for money that is rightly demanded by our constituents, and that is what is at the heart of the current review.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
The Church is proud of its role in developing the transition pathway initiative, which enables asset owners to identify which companies are implementing strategies in line with the Paris climate agreement. It is supported by investors, with over $20 trillion of assets under management, so it is now possible to distinguish between the high-carbon companies that are transitioning and those that are not.
Barry Gardiner
I am very grateful for that answer, and congratulate the Church’s pension trustees on their innovation and vision. The TPI has worked with major global companies to reduce their emissions and has established a framework for pension funds to move towards net zero emissions. Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether our own parliamentary pension fund is able to sign up to the initiative, and what more the Church could do to encourage other pension funds to join that $20 trillion of assets?
Andrew Selous
Each set of pension trustees has its own responsibilities, but I note that the Pensions Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), has said it is important that all pension fund trustees understand the risks and opportunities posed to their investments by climate change. I am always delighted when others follow where the Church leads.
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 will briefly suspend the House.
Universal Credit: Court of Appeal Judgment
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if she will make a statement on her Department’s response to the decision of the Court of Appeal of 22 June 2020 in the case Johnson, Woods, Barrett and Stewart v. the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Will Quince)
I can today confirm my Department’s intention not to appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal of 22 June 2020 in the case of Johnson, Woods, Barrett and Stewart v. the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The judgment relates to an appeal made in January 2019 by the Department against the High Court decision.
As we told the court, identifying claimants is hard; it is a difficult issue. To date, we are aware of around 1,000 claimants who have disputed their earnings and fall within the relevant cohort. We are looking at how we can further identify people in this group. I stress that many people affected by two salary payments will not suffer a financial loss, as their universal credit award will increase in the following month to balance the reduction. However, we do recognise the budgeting issues that may have been caused, and we are now assessing the remedial options. That is not straightforward—it is not the simple click of a switch—particularly at a time when the Department is focused on meeting the challenges of unprecedented demand for its services.
I hope Members will appreciate that as the judgment was passed down on Monday, it would be remiss not to afford more consideration before we press on, particularly when the Court has not called for immediate action. We will now begin the process of carefully considering possible solutions, and we will keep the House updated as progress is made. There are, however, immediate actions that can be taken. We are already working closely with Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to work with employers on how to report their employees’ earnings correctly. HMRC has issued updated guidance for employers which, if followed correctly, will further reduce the small numbers affected.
Stephen Timms
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for granting this urgent question.
If a universal credit claimant is in work and is paid monthly, but those monthly payments do not align precisely with universal credit months—for example, if the claimant works for the NHS and gets paid on the last day of every month—that claimant will, from time to time, be paid twice in a single universal credit month. The universal credit computer system treats that claimant as if they had had a 100% pay rise; their benefit is cut, quite likely to zero; they have to reapply for the benefit; and their income is severely disrupted.
One of those involved in this case says that she was more financially stable out of work than in work. Another turned down an NHS job for which she was expertly qualified because she knew that universal credit would wreck her finances. Surely, nobody will dispute the view of the Appeal Court that the policy is “irrational”. I am grateful that the Minister has accepted the inevitable and is not going to be paying out for even more expensive lawyers to appeal the case. Surely the Department should have given up the fight last year, not waited until the Appeal Court reached this conclusion.
May I ask the Minister to tell us more about how many people are affected? I think the Court heard figures of around 80,000. It is a very significant problem for a lot of claimants. In his keeping the House updated—I am grateful to him for his assurance on that—will he tell us much more about the numbers who are affected, and will he fix the universal credit computer system as soon as possible?
Will Quince
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question and the constructive way in which he has put it. I will, of course, keep him updated as the Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee as our work in this area progresses.
The case was before my time as a Minister, but several legal points were considered, and it was on only one of those points that the Department lost. We face and recognise the decision of the Court, and we recognise that some people may face budgeting difficulties. That is why we are working as quickly as we possibly can to identify the solutions and to address the matter in line with the court order.
The scope of this case is limited and we believe the cohort, as I briefly mentioned, to be in the region of 1,500, but I am looking to identify that claimant cohort very carefully. I understand that fewer than 1,000 UC claimants have notified us over the past 18 months that they may be affected by this, and it is important to keep that in the context of the 5.2 million claimants to universal credit.
Mr Mark Harper (Forest of Dean) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s decision to deal with this issue and not pursue a further appeal, but, having been in his position as the Commons Minister responsible for universal credit in the past, I do not underestimate how complicated it is to put in place a fix. As the Minister does so, he should reflect that we should remain clear about the central purpose of universal credit, which is ensuring that everyone is better off in work, and on the fact that it has very flexibly dealt with the huge increase of claimants as a result of covid-19 and will no doubt face challenges later this year.
My specific question is this: we only have a few weeks now until the House rises for the summer, and the Minister may not be able to solve the problem before then, but will he at least update the House before we rise, to set out what further steps he is going to take?
Will Quince
I thank my right hon. Friend for that question. We received the judgment only on Monday, and it is a complex issue, as he rightly recognised and as I believe was recognised by the Court. The fix will not be a simple one, and we are facing unprecedented pressures on the Department at the moment. I will of course continue to keep the House and the Chair of the Select Committee updated as that work progresses.
My right hon. Friend is right absolutely about the universal credit system; it has not been easy over the course of the past six or so weeks. I must say that our people across the DWP have worked incredibly hard, but the system has also worked exactly as it should have done, with around 90% of claimants consistently paid in full and on time—more than 3.2 million people since 16 March.
Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)
I add my thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) for securing this important question.
This Government are “irrational” and they are “unlawful”. Those are not my words, but those of Lady Justice Rose, who delivered the verdict in this week’s Court of Appeal decision against the Department of Work and Pensions. Reading that decision, there is really only one question to ask: what on earth were Ministers doing fighting this case for so many years, only to be told by the Court of Appeal something that seems to most people a matter of basic common sense?
If universal credit cannot cope with the date when people are paid and the impact of bank holidays and weekends on that payment date, the solution should always have been to change how the system works, not to persist with something that leaves thousands of people with wildly fluctuating payments from month to month. I have a constituent affected, Mr Speaker, and the first time I saw the problem in my constituency surgery in Stalybridge, I could not believe that the regulations would work the way they do.
This issue goes to the heart of the problems with universal credit. Time and time again we are told by Ministers that universal credit is more flexible, that it is more agile and that it can be adapted to meet new requirements and respond to problems that are identified. Yet when it comes to making seemingly simple changes such as these, claimants are faced with a rigid, unbending, uncaring response.
The Government always seem unwilling to listen to the experiences of the people who actually use the system. I ask the Minister, first, how much public money has the Department has wasted fighting the case? Secondly, I welcome the Minister’s statement that the Government now accept this decision, so how, and how quickly, will the universal credit regulations be changed to accommodate the ruling? Thirdly, do the Government accept that four single mums should not have to go to the Court of Appeal to be listened to by their own Government? Will the Department acknowledge that there is an overwhelming need to recognise the lived experiences of people who are actually in receipt of universal credit and review a whole range of policies, including the five-week wait, the frequency of payments and how the initial assessment period works, so that we can then get a social security system that is fair and effective and works the way that it should?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Each and every judicial review has its own grounds for being brought and is looked at on a case-by-case basis, and with each JR, the Secretary of State, Ministers and officials look closely at the grounds and respond accordingly. I gently point out to him that the Court of Appeal accepted our interpretation of the UC regulations. However, the point that some people may face budgeting issues is why we are acting.
I am disappointed, if not surprised, that the hon. Gentleman has taken the opportunity to launch yet another attack—a baseless, unwarranted and unfounded attack—on universal credit. We all know, and he knows, the truth: the system has worked incredibly well and Labour’s broken legacy benefits system simply would not have coped with the unprecedented demand that we have seen during covid-19. Universal credit has passed that test with flying colours. There have been over 3 million claims, and I am so proud of our DWP employees and the universal credit system. It is time that Labour got behind this Government and universal credit and worked with us to make the system even better.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) and welcome the decision by the Government not to appeal this judgment, because this has also affected constituents in North West Durham. I also welcome the fact that the Government have invested an extra £7 billion into the welfare system to support people during the coronavirus pandemic, which has clearly strengthened the safety net for a large number of my constituents. Will the Minister confirm how many families across the country have benefited from this extra support through the universal credit system at this difficult time?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a firm champion of his constituents in this place. He is absolutely right that we have introduced a series of changes during the covid-19 pandemic, targeted at those facing the most financial disruption, that could be operationalised as quickly as possible, ensuring that people get the support that they need. He is right that that is close to £7 billion in the welfare system alone and it will benefit approximately 10 million families.
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP) [V]
I pay tribute to the four women who brought this case and all those who supported them, including the Child Poverty Action Group, and I thank the Work and Pensions Committee Chair, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), for securing this question. This really is damning for the Government and successive Secretaries of State, who have belligerently fought this in the courts. Why should women and disabled people have to go to court to get basic fairness? I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here to respond.
The issue of people getting paid salaries on irregular but predictable days of the month is something that the Scottish National party has been raising as an issue with UC for years, and the Court of Appeal has ruled that it was irrational for the Work and Pensions Secretary not to act to resolve the problem. Why should claimants lose UC support simply because of the day of the month that they are paid? That question has not been answered. As part of the process of accepting this ruling, will the Minister at the very least ensure that the predicted 85,000 people thought to be directly impacted have their situations resolved? Will the Minister work with the Chancellor to finally add flexibility to the monthly assessment period to resolve this issue and the five-week wait, which is also impoverishing people?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I stress that we received the judgment only on Monday and it is a hugely complex issue. That is recognised by the court—it is not a simple fix, as the hon. Gentleman points out. He knows that we are facing unprecedented demand, because he has raised this question with me before. I said that I will keep the House and the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, updated as we progress.
On the hon. Gentleman’s points relating to assessment periods, there are some aspects of the universal credit system that are fundamental to its design and are deliberately designed to achieve its original objectives—to mirror the world of work. This includes the mechanism of a monthly assessment period and, of course, the initial assessment period at the beginning of a claim. It is important to stress that over 75% of people in this country are paid monthly and the majority of countries in the European Union also have systems that operate on a monthly basis.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
In March alone, about 1.24 million new applicants relied on the universal credit system to be able to process their claims and pay them within days vitally important sums of money to help them live. While the case has properly highlighted about 1,500 outlier cases, does my hon. Friend agree that it was the Government’s decision to invest in an automated digital system that does not require manual intervention by DWP officers to carry out individual calculations of the amount of an award that has allowed this to happen?
Will Quince
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It was this Conservative Government who introduced our modern, dynamic, agile new benefits system, tailored for the claimant’s personal circumstances. The fact it is online means we have been able to process the claims of more than 3 million people, getting them the support they desperately need as quickly as possible. Just imagine for a moment, Mr Speaker, the chaos that would have ensued had we been relying on Labour’s broken legacy benefits system alone. Thank heavens for universal credit.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I have had many similar cases over the years, so I am really pleased first to see the court decision, but secondly to see the Government and the Minister in particular responding in a very positive fashion. The judge referred to common sense; it is about not just common sense, but the practical effects on families at a time of financial stringency over Christmas and the new year. Can the Minister confirm whether he will retrospectively correct the mistake, which quite simply boggles the mind and common sense? He referred to solutions, and I can give him one very quickly. Will those who have had to take out loans to cover the month where they lost full payment receive help to pay the interest on those loans? Some took out loans with tremendously large interest rates. It is important that people have help right now.
Will Quince
I am happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss those cases in more detail. As I said, I am absolutely committed to finding a fix. The court has not mandated any specific fix or action, but I am committing us to finding a solution, and I will do all I can to do so. The court dismissed the appeal on the grounds of discrimination. He mentioned families. The Department is absolutely clear in its firm support for all claimants. We continue to support families with things such as childcare costs, and I stress that childcare support under universal credit is far more generous than the old legacy benefits system, with the ability to claim back 85%, as compared with 70%. I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss those concerns in further detail.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Many of my constituents in Bracknell work in the creative arts sector. We heard earlier about the millions of families who benefited from universal credit during the pandemic, but will the Minister please assure me that the minimum income floor will be maintained for this important area of the economy for the foreseeable future?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and he is right to raise the issue, because I know that those who work in the creative arts are particularly exercised and concerned by it. The issue is covered by the Minister for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies). The minimum income floor rules are suspended at the moment. I will put the Minister for Employment in touch with my hon. Friend and ensure that his concerns are raised, but he has rightly put them on record.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
The universal credit system has come under unprecedented pressures for obvious reasons during the past few weeks. Having interrogated my office systems, I have encountered only 10 inquiries relating to universal credit, which were largely inquiries wanting more information. That is out of thousands of other cases that my office has received. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is in fact indicative of a system that is both resilient and working very well?
Will Quince
My hon. Friend is absolutely right: universal credit is standing up to the challenge during this unprecedented time. The digital approach of universal credit, as he rightly points out, has allowed us to get support to more than 3 million people over the past three months, which simply would not have happened under Labour’s legacy benefits system.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I thank the Minister for his answers today. It is important to reflect on the fact that the computer system has been able to deal with an unprecedented crisis in terms of people claiming UC, which the legacy benefits system just would not have been able to cope with, but with automation comes inflexibility. Could he say whether this is a case of “computer says no” or “computer says not yet”?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful question. My universal credit programme colleagues may well have their heads in their hands as we speak, depending on what I now commit them to, but I am absolutely determined to find a fix to this issue.
Yes, a number of items are in the pipeline, ready to be changed on universal credit. Despite criticism from Opposition Members, we have made significant changes to universal credit, and much more is to come, such as the roll-on of legacy benefits next month, which will benefit people to the tune of £200. Those are all in the pipeline to be done, and this will be added to that. I will try to expedite it as much as I possibly can.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
Many people on low incomes have suffered real hardship as a result of the Government’s failure to address this fundamental flaw in universal credit. I pay tribute to the women who took the Government to court to seek justice on this matter, but they should not have had to do so. A number of my constituents have been affected. One is a single working mother who has fallen into arrears with her rent, has seen an increase in her anxiety and depression, and has had to turn to food banks and local welfare assistance as a result. I wrote to the Secretary of State and Ministers several times about this last year, so will the Government now look at the cases of my constituents and all those affected as a matter of urgency, and pay them the money that they should have received?
Will Quince
I am certainly happy to look at the cases raised by the hon. Lady. I have said clearly that I am determined to find a fix. That will involve looking at numerous solutions, identifying the cohort of people and the fix, and putting it into action. That may take a little time but, as I say, I am determined to find that solution. I am happy to meet her when we are able to do so to look at those individual cases she raises in more detail.
Selaine Saxby (North Devon) (Con)
Three million people have claimed universal credit since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic, which is a huge success. I thank the Department for Work and Pensions team who enabled that. Indeed, the robustness of the computer system behind universal credit has facilitated rapid and easy access to welfare support for so many additional claimants. However, does the Minister agree that, on occasion, human intervention when the computer does indeed say no might help prevent cases like those falling through the cracks?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for her helpful question. The system is largely automated, and that brings huge benefits—that is why we have been able to deal with those claims—but, inevitably, that also means that issues come up that we need to address. This is one of those issues and, yes, in some cases, they require a manual intervention. My first instinct is to look at whether we can find an automated fix, but we will of course look at manual fixes, if that is necessary. I know that my hon. Friend is on the Select Committee and, if she has any particular ideas in that regard, I am happy to meet her to discuss them.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab) [V]
The Court of Appeal ruling rightly draws attention to one of the problems with the universal credit system, but will the Minister also address why under-25-year-old single parents receive less on universal credit than they would have done under legacy benefits? I have lobbied Ministers with the Newport GoGirls group on that—it is unfair and it needs to change.
Will Quince
I did not entirely catch the question, but I think the hon. Lady is referring to the disparity between universal credit and legacy benefits. I would say that this Department acted at incredible pace to operationalise and bring in measures as quickly as possible to help those who have been most financially disadvantaged as a result of covid-19. That is why we did it through the vehicle of universal credit. Legacy benefits will be reviewed and uprated ahead of April 2021 as per usual.
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con) [V]
Is there any merit in having another look at the timing of assessment periods, such as having them generally fixed to the end of the month to remove some of the issues that seem to keep arising?
Will Quince
It is something I am exploring as I look at our different options. My hon. Friend is an experienced member of the Select Committee, and I am happy to work with him and to hear his ideas. It is important to stress that for the majority of the circa 5 million claimants, the date of their assessment period works well. Changing assessment periods to align with pay dates is problematic. Nevertheless, everything is on the table, and I am looking at all options. The court judgment was very recent—only on Monday—so I hope that the House will give me the time and space to look at this in the granularity of detail that it requires.
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) (SNP) [V]
This is, in truth, just the latest failing in a pernicious and punitive welfare system. When Beveridge wrote his famous report in 1943, he said:
“A revolutionary moment in the world’s history is a time for revolutions, not for patching.”
As we attempt to enter a post covid-19 world, will the UK Government give their support to the Scottish Government and ensure collaboration from HMRC and DWP as we seek to run basic income pilots in Scotland?
Will Quince
At the heart of this problem is an interaction between employers and HMRC. If more employers followed the very clear and beefed-up guidance from HMRC, there would be far fewer people affected. That is why we are beefing up our work with HMRC colleagues and counterparts, to ensure that the guidance is absolutely clear. If employers follow it and report the correct dates, this issue simply will not occur.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
One key test of a benefits system must be the dignity that it confers on the recipient. Does the Minister agree that there is great dignity in an automated solution that is modern, simple and straightforward and that there is potentially a role for employers to align their dates with a system that is in the best interests of their employees?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right. The universal credit system and tens of thousands of dedicated DWP staff have processed an unprecedented 3 million claims since mid-March. As I have said before and will keep repeating, Labour’s legacy benefit system, based on paper forms and a lot of face-to-face interaction and meetings, simply would not have coped with the pressures of covid-19. It has not been easy, and our people have had to work incredibly hard, but the important thing is that the system has held up, and people have been able to make their claims online, in their own time and in their homes. We have not seen the queues outside jobcentres that there have been in other countries, and that is because we have universal credit, and this Government invested in it.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I would like to congratulate these four women on their victory for social justice. It is shameful that the Government have pursued this case to the Court of Appeal. These were working women who were paid a regular monthly salary. Welfare rights experts described them as perfect candidates for universal credit. Does the Minister agree that a system that does not work for people like them does not work at all?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but I do not recognise the picture she paints. As I said earlier, judicial reviews are brought for all sorts of reason. Like her, I pay tribute to the ladies involved in bringing this case, but I point out gently to her that the Court of Appeal accepted our interpretation of the UC regulations. Nevertheless, we accept and note that some people may face budgeting difficulties. That is why I have committed to take this action.
Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con) [V]
Will my hon. Friend congratulate and thank the staff at Harlow jobcentre on all the work they have been doing on jobs and universal credit at this difficult time? I have had communication with a single parent in my constituency who says that if she puts her child into childcare, she may end up earning more, but then universal credit will cut £400, so it is better to be with her child. In essence, she is saying that she is worse off if she goes to work under universal credit. Will my hon. Friend look again at helping single parents, to ensure that it is better for them financially to work than stay at home?
Will Quince
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He is a firm champion of universal credit and the benefits of it, and I certainly join him in paying tribute to all the staff at Harlow jobcentre who have done incredible work during this most difficult and unprecedented time. He raises an important point about childcare. One of the fundamental principles of universal credit is that work should always pay. That is why, under universal credit, childcare is at a higher rate of 85% as opposed to 70%. I will look at the case that he raises in detail and meet him at our earliest possible convenience.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (SNP) [V]
While I welcome the Government’s decision not to draw this matter out further, it seems that it is always someone else’s fault. This week in the Court of Appeal, the Department could not offer a single reason for its flawed and, in the words of Lady Justice Rose, “irrational” approach to universal credit’s monthly assessment period. This is not the first time that this Government have been found wanting, only to be dragged through the courts to do the right thing. If they will not tell the courts, the Minister must advise the House: what exactly was their alleged defence this time?
Will Quince
I gently suggest—[Interruption.]—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mr Harper) says from a sedentary position, that the hon. Gentleman reads the judgment, because the Court of Appeal accepted our interpretation of the universal credit regulations. Nevertheless, we accept that there may be people who face budgeting pressures, and that is why we are committing to take this action.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab) [V]
Women and disabled people have had to resort to law to get the Government to listen to the unfairness and the hardship that universal credit creates. Danielle, a dinner lady, was losing about £500 a year as a result of being paid on the last day of the month. She has ended up in debt and behind with her rent, and she does not know how she will recover. If the computer system is as agile as it is meant to be, why has this, and so many other issues, occurred? Why is there a difference in the 1,000 people that the Government say have been affected, as opposed to the 85,000 people whom the court has identified?
Will Quince
I will certainly look at the individual case that the hon. Lady raises, but I would gently say that it is such a shame that the Labour party—and she is no exception to this—is constantly so negative about universal credit. It is a modern, flexible, personalised benefit, which reflects the rapidly changing world of work. Let us remind ourselves of Labour’s position, which is to scrap universal credit with no plan whatever with which to replace it. That seems pretty foolish to me, but do not take my word for it; the Institute for Fiscal Studies has slammed Labour’s pledge as uncosted and
“unwise…expensive, disruptive and unnecessary.”
I could not have put that better myself.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
More than 1 million people have claimed universal credit since the beginning of the coronavirus pandemic and have been able to access an advance first payment, giving them access to support in just a few days. Does my hon. Friend agree that this has been vital for dealing with hardship during this difficult period in my constituency of Rother Valley and across the whole of Yorkshire?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right. We have had more than 3 million claims to universal credit since the middle of March and more than 1 million applications for advances, getting support to people who need it quickly, often within just a couple of days. That support is important, but I would stress that, for the cohort coming on to universal credit at the moment, the take-up of advances is lower, which often reflects personal circumstances. Therefore, taking an advance is not for everybody. It is interest-free and repayable over 12 months—as of next year, that goes up to 24 months. We are making the changes, but I agree with him that we are supporting people who need it the most in a timely manner.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Understandably, the Minister wants to talk a lot about the people who have had to claim universal credit in recent months. I, too, pay tribute to the staff at Hackney jobcentre, who have worked very hard to make sure that people in need get it, but there is nothing wrong with being critical of this big failure by the Department. He said that 1,000 people have complained about mistreatment, but the court identifies 85,000 people who could be affected. Can he assure us that work is going on to identify them—perhaps through an algorithm with a human element added if something unusual is thrown up—so that people are treated fairly and do not have to complain, and the Department acknowledges its mistake and seeks them out?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and join her in paying tribute to the staff at Hackney jobcentre who have done an incredible job under the most difficult of circumstances. We will, of course, be doing a deep-dive exercise into the cohort that is affected. I do not recognise the 85,000 figure. If I am honest, I think that that may be a figure that came from the Opposition, but I will look at that in detail. I gently point out to her that we now spend more than £100 billion a year on benefits for working-age people—that is more than £100,000 million pounds. We will continue to reform our welfare system to ensure that work always pays, and universal credit is at the heart of that.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
If you knew the broadband experience in north London, Mr Speaker, you would know why I need to wear this headset.
One advantage of the universal credit system is that it takes input from claimants that would otherwise have to be re-input several times, resulting in the correct level of benefit, but one problem is that it does not deal with the exceptions. Could my hon. Friend consider a system whereby, when people suddenly see huge increases in their pay and therefore a reduction in benefits, an alert is triggered to allow someone to look at what is going on and correct the position?
Will Quince
I thank my hon. Friend. That is a helpful suggestion and certainly one that I will be exploring. He is right to extol the virtues of real-time earnings information. Among many other reasons, it is what makes universal credit much superior to the legacy benefits system, because we are able to ensure that as people’s income fluctuates their support can fluctuate too. His suggestion is a good one, and it is one that I will be looking at along with a suite of numerous other measures no doubt. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss it in further detail.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
I am glad of the court’s sensible judgment and the Minister’s response, but this case highlights the flaws in UC, the need to adapt it to particular circumstances and the difficulties in doing so. With one third of Welsh households to receive UC by 2023, will he take this opportunity to respond to the Senedd’s Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee’s recommendations and look to devolve aspects of social security administration to Wales?
Will Quince
That is probably a letter that has gone to the Secretary of State, as opposed to me, and is well above my pay grade. I gently suggest to the hon. Gentleman that UC is good news for the whole UK, including, of course, Wales. I remind him that, once fully rolled out, it will be £2 billion more generous a year than the legacy benefits system it replaces. About 1 million disabled households will be £100 per calendar month better off, and claimants will have access to about £2.4 billion in benefits that previously went unclaimed under the confusing and clunky Labour legacy benefits system.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
The Minister is right to say that this judgment did not rely on an interpretation of regulation 54, as did the earlier one, but will his solution necessitate an interpretation based on the real income that people earn, as opposed to the false one that the Department has been assuming because of the technical judgment it has made about the assessment period and earned income?
Will Quince
The assessment period is fundamental to the design. [Interruption.] It is not fundamentally flawed. A small number of people do have fluctuations, which is why we are looking to take action in this area. We recognise that there is an issue, but it is important that it is kept in the context of 5.2 million UC claimants. I would hazard a guess, because this is certainly the case for my inbox, that despite there being more than 3.2 million new UC claimants, Members’ postbags are not full of complaints about UC. That is because the system is working very well.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP) [V]
The Department’s assessment period has resulted in one of my constituents earning £846 a month with a double calculation. As a consequence, they have now received a council bill that has increased from £36 a month to more than £200 a month. Will the Minister also have discussions with local government to ensure that claimants do not have bills that they simply cannot afford due to the Department’s errors?
Will Quince
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and I am happy to look at that case in detail. He is right to raise the point about passported benefits, and I would be happy to meet him to discuss it in further detail.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Newcastle was a pathfinder for UC, but the Minister seems to have learnt nothing from the experiences of my constituents. Having dealt with their experiences over years on these issues, I know not only the financial impact, which is devastating enough, but the impact on claimants’ trust in government, in our welfare system and in technology itself. I find his lack of contrition astounding. Will he not apologise and learn the lessons of this mistake?
Will Quince
UC is working and it is working well. The point I make to the hon. Lady is that we constantly and consistently listen to Members from across the House, stakeholders and members of the public who raise issues associated with UC. It is a new system and we have made significant changes. We have pumped additional billions of pounds into this system to improve it. Instead of scaremongering on UC, which the Opposition continue to do and which is the biggest thing that damages public trust in our system, I suggest they work with this Government to improve a system that is already working well, in order to make it even better.
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 suspending the House for three minutes.
Business of the House
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House please give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg)
The business for the week commencing 29 June will include:
Monday 29 June—Consideration of a procedural motion followed by all stages of the Business and Planning Bill.
Tuesday 30 June—Remaining stages of the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal Bill).
Wednesday 1 July—Motion relating to the appointment of the chairman of the National Audit Office, followed by a motion to approve a Ways and Means resolution relating to the Finance Bill, followed by remaining stages of the Finance Bill (Day 1).
Thursday 2 July—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Finance Bill (Day 2).
Friday 3 July—The House will not be sitting.
Valerie Vaz
I thank the Leader of the House for the business for next week.
I start by sending our condolences to the families and friends of James Furlong, David Wails and Joe Ritchie-Bennett, described as three of the loveliest people. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) has worked tirelessly to support his constituents. It is a terrible shock to the whole community.
It is unlike the Leader of the House not to answer some of my questions, but answers were wholly absent last week, so let me ask again. The Opposition names are in for the Intelligence and Security Committee, but it seems that the Government names were in and then they were out. It is quite careless to lose two experienced members of the Committee—the right hon. Members for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning) and for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers). The delay seems to be on the Government side, so could the Leader of the House update the House? Will the Committee members all have a letter of comfort from the Prime Minister that they will not be sacked if they vote against the Government? When will the Committee be set up? The list of ministerial responsibilities that I have is dated October 2019. Could the Leader of the House ensure that there is an updated document?
The Leader of the House is usually very courteous, but there was no mention in the Houser of the merger of the Select Committee on International Development into the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Committee, other than the Prime Minister coming to the House. It was extremely chaotic, as the Chair of the International Development Committee was only told an hour before the announcement. It is not very female friendly, is it—losing a female Cabinet Minister, and then losing a female Chair of a Select Committee? And it is one of our Select Committees, too. When will the Leader of the House come here with an appropriate mechanism whereby that Committee can hold the Government to account over their work and in relation to money?
It is the Secretary of State for Education’s birthday today; we wish him a very happy birthday. The Government have allocated £1 billion for pupils to catch up, including £650 million for primary and secondary schools—but that is for the academic year 2020-21—and £350 million for primary tutors with the National Tutoring Programme. That seems incredibly bureaucratic. Why can the money not go straight to the heads, given that they know exactly what is needed for their schools? Worse still, 16 to 19-year-olds and pre-schoolers have been excluded. Will the Leader of the House ask the Education Secretary to come to the House to clarify that? I think the Prime Minister allocated £120 million following our Opposition day debate last week, but there is also £9 million that has been allocated to schools for summer food and activities. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) has asked whether that is still available and whether communities still have to bid for that money. We definitely need a statement clarifying that.
Will the Leader of the House find time for us to debate the report from the Childhood Trust that says that children are suffering post-traumatic stress because of the coronavirus? Why on earth, then, are the Government introducing the reception baseline assessment for four-year-olds? They have been through lockdown, some have been through bereavement and some of their parents are key workers. Will he please ask the Education Secretary to reverse that decision?
The Government response to covid has led us a merry dance—slow, slow, quick quick. The Prime Minister said on Friday that the country was moving from a “huge one-size-fits-all” to a “more localised” response, leaving public health officials baffled as to why the Government will not share the data. How can local communities and authorities respond when they do not have the information? Will the Leader of the House ensure that this information is disseminated to local authorities? And how do we get our information now that the press conferences have been cancelled? Do we table more written parliamentary questions? The scientists are saying that the crisis is not over, so could we have a weekly oral statement on what is happening with the coronavirus pandemic?
The Leader of the House will say to me that there are FCO questions next week, but may I ask for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on Nazanin, Anousheh and Kylie? They must be released soon.
Finally, on behalf of Her Majesty’s Opposition—and probably the whole House—may I ask the Leader of the House to convey our thoughts and prayers to the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson)? The whole House is thinking of him at this very difficult time.
Mr Rees-Mogg
If I may begin where the right hon. Lady left off; I thank her for those words. I will certainly convey the condolences of the whole House to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) at this saddest of all possible times. He is in all our thoughts and prayers.
I will also answer with regard to Nazanin, Kylie and Anousheh because the right hon. Lady is quite right to keep on raising this issue. Kylie is being dealt with by the Australian authorities, in agreement with them, and not by the British Government at the moment. Nazanin continues to have representations made on her behalf by the British authorities, and that will continue. As the right hon. Lady knows, she is currently out of prison on temporary release. We hope that that will lead to permanent release, and that she will be able to be fully reunited with her family. We say the same in relation to all the arbitrarily detained UK persons in Iran. The right hon. Lady’s efforts to secure their release are entirely admirable.
The right hon. Lady, as usual, asks a long list of questions, which I will come to. The ISC is going through the normal processes and we look forward to its being set up in due course. I hope that a motion will be brought before this House in due course. I had better not go into the discussions as to who is going in and out, whose lists are going where and which Members of which parties and what parties may or may not be putting their names forward, having their names taken off or putting their names back on again. I am not entirely sure that it is a one-way street in this regard, but let me leave it at that.
The right hon Lady asks about the list of ministerial responsibilities. They were last issued in October and they are updated periodically. The Cabinet Office is in charge of that and will I am sure come forward in the fullness of time with an up-to-date list to help and assist and to ensure smooth communication with Members, so they know exactly who they ought to be writing to.
On the merger of the International Development Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee, discussions are going on within the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin), the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, is, I know, involved in discussions with the various interested parties. I note the point the right hon. Lady makes about its being a Labour chairmanship that has been lost, and there are standard procedures in accordance with that, of which the Government are aware. However, I would stress that it is right that Select Committees follow Departments, otherwise we would end up with Select Committees that related to Departments that might have been removed years and years ago. For the House to ensure proper scrutiny, I think that principle is an important one.
I am delighted that the right hon. Lady wants to wish my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education a happy birthday. Can I remind the House that, apparently, if you sing “Happy Birthday” twice while washing your hands, that helps defeat the coronavirus? I prefer to stick to the national anthem, rather than “Happy Birthday” twice, but it has the same effect. I am sure many Members of the House will be singing “Happy Birthday” many times today, and will be thinking of my right hon. Friend and the marvellous job he has done in giving £650 million to headmasters and headmistresses up and down the country to spend on getting pupils back up to speed. I think it is absolutely the right thing to do.
The right hon. Lady mentions the Childhood Trust and the post-traumatic stress of children. I would encourage Opposition Members, and particularly her dear leader, to say loudly and boldly that going back to school is safe, as he has been encouraged to do by the Prime Minister on several occasions. That will encourage people, make them feel safe and make post-traumatic stress disorder or other problems less likely, so that is to be encouraged.
On communication with councils, there are the local resilience forums, which are used very effectively to keep councils up to date, so that they know what is going on.
Finally, on the issue of updates to the House, we have many updates to the House. We have had so many statements—regular statements—and the Prime Minister made the major statement. I must confess that I think there was revelry, Mr Speaker, in your office when the Prime Minister came to the House to make the statement, something you have consistently asked for. Mr Speaker says go and we goeth, and come and we cometh, like the centurion’s servant of old, for when he asks the Government that statements are made here, that is what happens.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I have been contacted by a number of driving instructors in my constituency, such as Tom Matthews of Viking driving school in Buckingham, who has set out comprehensive measures he has taken to be covid-secure and reports a long waiting list of people wanting lessons. While it is right that the economy is reopened cautiously and following the science, can I ask my right hon. Friend to ensure that statements are made to this House to give the thousands of driving instructors in this country the guidance they need, so that they know when they will be able to reopen and get fully back to work?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Driving instructors are one of the unseen engines of the country. They train future generations of drivers, and I hope they can resume their important work safely as soon as possible. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency chief executive will be writing to all approved driving instructors on 25 June, setting out plans to restart driver testing and to help them to return to a life that is as close to normal as possible, as quickly and as fairly as possible, in a way that avoids a second peak of infections. From 4 July, I am happy to say that people will be able to take driving lessons on a motorcycle, or in a car, lorry or bus, and there will be a phased approach to resuming practical testing, so learners have the opportunity to practise before taking a test. But he can raise this with the Secretary of State for Transport on 2 July.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP) [V]
There are now less than two weeks until Parliament’s emergency procedures are reviewed. Will the Leader of the House share his insights as to what should happen next? Will he move forward, allowing people to participate equally by switching the e-voting system back on and allowing all Members to contribute to debates; or backwards, disenfranchising those who cannot be physically present?
Last week, I informed the House of the decision of the Scottish Parliament to seek a review of the financial arrangements within which it operates, in order that it could better deal with the aftermath of covid-19. I asked when that request, backed by four out of five parties in Scotland, would be considered by this Parliament, and I did not get an answer. This week, we saw the publication of the report by the independent economic recovery group in Scotland, a mainly private sector perspective. Guess what its first recommendation was? It was also to loosen the financial straitjacket that constrains the Scottish Parliament. We do need to discuss this. The financial set-up of devolution was not designed to deal with the type of problems the Scottish Government now face, and platitudes about how wonderful the Union is will not address this serious problem.
May I ask about hospitality and entertainment, and I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? Many in the sector will have to stay closed beyond the lifespan of the current coronavirus support schemes. If a business is shut by public order, does the Leader of the House agree it should get public help? I know we have difficulty in getting the Chancellor to write a letter, but will the Leader of the House persuade him to come to this House and say what he intends to do beyond October?
We have six days left in which to seek an extension of the Brexit transition period. It is crystal-clear that the Government’s necessary focus on the pandemic has affected preparations. Why will the Leader of the House not allow the House time to consider extending the time available? Does he not realise that the Government’s Canute-like stance on this matter is looking increasingly foolhardy and cavalier, even to those who support leaving the European Union?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman has made the schoolboy error of not knowing what King Canute did. King Canute took his advisers down to the shore to show that he did not have the power to command the tide; he did not go there to show he had the power and was then embarrassed. The hon. Gentleman may be embarrassed that he has used the analogy incorrectly—as I said, it is a schoolboy error.
As we are on the subject of history, I thought that the hon. Gentleman might be a bit more cheerful today, because I happened to notice in The Times yesterday that it was the anniversary of Robert the Bruce’s victory at Bannockburn in 1314. I thought that might have brought a smile to the hon. Gentleman’s face—but this is a very difficult task to achieve, as I see him looking sternly down upon me.
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman wishes to close down Parliament when it is just opening up the rest of the country, but we are back. We led the way. Things are really working extremely well. Voting is taking place. Next week there is a full programme of legislation. It is a proper Parliament; it is back to work. I am afraid the fact that SNP do not want to come here says more about their politics than it does about the state of the coronavirus.
The hon. Gentleman went on to wanting more money for the Scottish Government. They have already had £3.7 billion from UK taxpayers, and without the strength of the UK economy I hate to think what situation Scotland would be in had it been independent. The separatists’ arguments are crumbling away day by day, and that is absolutely crucial.
As regards industries that have been closed, there has been an unrivalled package of taxpayer support, with 9 million people who are currently furloughed getting support. The Chancellor has said that everybody will be looked after, and that is what has been done.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) [V]
Vida Loca tattoo studio based in Bolton North East has two months-worth of bookings waiting to resume. Can my right hon. Friend give me and the nation the following to look forward to: a fine sunbed tan, tidy cuticles and possibly even a JRM tattoo?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My immediate plans for a tattoo or for tanning are on hold, but a kind gentleman did have tattooed on him “Moggmentum” a year or so ago, though this has not taken off as a trend.
I very much understand the issue that my hon. Friend raises. It is an important one, because it is difficult for businesses that are closed by compulsion, but the road map was set out on 11 May and many lockdown measures have already been released. We are at step 3 on 4 July and, following the review, we are coming down to three-and-a-quarter-feet distancing rather than six-and-a-half-feet distancing to ensure that people can get out and about more. Close contact services are the most risky, but the Government hope that tattoo and nail parlours will be able to open up as soon after 4 July as is safe and practicable.
Mr Speaker
We head to the north-east with the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, Ian Mearns.
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab) [V]
I am grateful, Mr Speaker. The Backbench Business Committee has made the following determinations regarding estimates day debates in early July—we believe that the time allocation will be in the week beginning 6 July. We propose that the two days are divided five ways, with three two-hour debates on the first day and two three-hour debates on the second day. In order to facilitate a full two hours for each of the three debates on the first day, will the Leader of the House agree to protect the time for the debates on that day?
The Departments that have been chosen to have their spending scrutinised are, on the first day, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy; and on the second day, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with the Department for International Development, and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We also have a significant number of other Back-Bench debates on our waiting list waiting for allocated time from the Government.
Lastly, the Leader of the House mentioned local resilience forums to my right hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz). To the best of my knowledge, local resilience forums are being kept no better informed than local authorities about national testing data relating to their locality; they literally do not know.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for notifying the House broadly of the plans for the estimates days. I note his point on protected time. I will take that up in the usual way with other people who have interests in these matters and will try to bring him an answer when we announce the business that includes the estimates days, but I do note his point that the Committee has set out very clearly what it wants debated.
I am aware that Back-Bench debates have reached a point of logjam to some extent. As the hon. Gentleman will notice from today’s business statement, there is a lot of legislation to be got through—the virtual Parliament did not allow us to get through business as fast as we would have liked—but I hope to get back to a full programme of Back-Bench debates in the fullness of time.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Just outside the mother town of Burslem, in Longport, stand the grade II* listed remains of Price & Kensington teapot works. Sadly, the site is in poor condition due to a rogue owner who has allowed the site to crumble, at a big cost to Stoke-on-Trent City Council. Sections 215 and 216 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 are not tough enough to deter such recklessness, so will my right hon. Friend allow parliamentary time for a debate about protecting heritage assets and the creation of tougher punishments for those who negligently let them rot?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is becoming one of the House’s most ardent and enthusiastic defenders of our country’s history and heritage, and he quite rightly stands up for his constituency. I think he may himself be listed in the not-too-distant future—I think grade I rather than grade II or II*. Local authorities do have relevant powers that they can enforce, and in the first instance I would encourage him to get the local authority do that. After that, I think an Adjournment debate would be the next way to raise this matter in the House.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (SNP) [V]
Many of my constituents have expressed concern at the merger of DFID and the FCO. The 0.7% contribution is for the alleviation of suffering and the improvement of developing nations, not an arm of British foreign policy. Will the Leader of the House therefore ensure that we have a debate on what should be a moral position, not an administrative decision?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think they are two sides of the same coin. One can do good work in the world while also promoting the British national interest, and one should not be ashamed of the British national interest. It is an important consideration, and when hard-pressed British taxpayers are providing substantial sums of money, the interests of British taxpayers ought also to be taken into account. If we can use British firms and they can do things in the poorest countries in the world, paid for by the British taxpayer, that is not something to be ashamed of.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
I note that the Leader of the House rarely mentions the safety of House staff. Many have highlighted how they have felt invisible as people have breached safe social distancing since Parliament was recalled. Before any further changes are made in this place, will the health and safety of House staff be put first, with full consultation and negotiation with the trade unions until agreement is reached, and will the Government look once again at extending virtual procedures to everyone so that less risk is brought on to the estate, particularly when people want to participate in debates?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The House authorities have done magnificent work—dare I say, led by you, Mr Speaker—in ensuring the safety of House staff, which is of the greatest importance. We are very lucky in the staff we have in this place, who have a wonderful pride in the Parliament in which they work. They know that this is one of the greatest, most ancient, most historic forums of democratic debate in the world, and most of them are proud to be here. However, those who are not well enough to come or who have to shield are being looked after, which is absolutely right and proper. We have gone away from a fully hybrid system and come back to physical working to ensure that business takes place, but we have ensured that people who cannot be here for a range of reasons can vote by proxy and that they can participate in interrogative proceedings. I think that is a very fair balance.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [V]
Reports suggest that more than 2.5 million children have not received any education or done any schoolwork since the middle of March. Clearly, those young people need to catch up, to ensure that they recover their education as fast as possible. Given that many of them will be requiring free school meals and a nutritious meal at lunch time, could we have a statement from the Secretary of State for Education on what catch-up measures will be introduced and what attempts will be made to ensure that people attending also receive a nutritious meal at lunchtimes?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I hope he will join me in welcoming the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary’s confirmation of a catch-up plan to help headteachers provide extra support to children who have fallen behind while out of school. Some £650 million will be shared across state primary and secondary schools over the 2020-21 academic year and, importantly, it will be distributed by headmasters and headmistresses, who will know best how the money should be spent.
In addition, there is £350 million for a national tutoring programme, which will increase access to tuition for the most disadvantaged children. It is a comprehensive package. My hon. Friend will know that free school meals have been extended through the summer, so efforts are being made to ensure that children will be well fed during this crisis and, indeed, at all times.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson pointed out this morning that more than 100,000 people are employed in the leisure industry. Large gymnasiums, swimming pools and lidos such as the one in my constituency can open safely, whether it is 2 metres or 1 metre, and people are incredulous that we are opening pubs, restaurants and cinemas, but not allowing these important facilities and local amenities to open. They cannot wait for a taskforce. Can the Government urgently review the situation and allow them to open alongside pubs and cinemas on 4 July?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think everyone welcomes the reopening of pubs. People have been locked in for quite long enough and they want to go and have a drink, which is a jolly good thing and should be encouraged and welcomed. They will do it safely and properly. I am disappointed by the hon. Gentleman’s slightly curmudgeonly attitude towards the pubs being reopened. As regards other things, they must be opened in a phased way. There is a degree of risk that can be taken, but that risk must be managed and measured. Of course the Government want things to open up more, and that is being implemented as far as it is safe to do, but it has to be in an orderly way.
Sir David Amess (Southend West) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on support for women who are suffering from endometriosis? Frankly, not enough is known about this condition. As a result of the coronavirus pandemic, women who suffer from endometriosis have experienced delays in their treatment, the waiting list has grown and, most stressful of all, operations have been cancelled. These women are suffering, and they need help.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend is right to raise this important question, which has been raised with many of us by our constituents. The NHS has begun to restore services that were rightly suspended while it had to deal with the initial impact of covid-19. The NHS is working on the principle that the most urgent treatments should be brought back first, and that will be driven by local demands on the system. My right hon. Friend the Health Secretary has kept the House updated and will continue to do so. The point that my hon. Friend raises is a really important one, and he is right to raise it. People who suffer from this condition need to get the treatment that they require.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab) [V]
Nothing highlights the deep failings in the Government’s response to coronavirus like our shockingly high deaths per million rate, in comparison with that of many other countries. We are very near the top of the deaths per million table, and that is a national scandal. Our deaths per million rate is six times higher than that in Germany, 100 times higher than that in South Korea and 150 times higher than that in Australia and New Zealand. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on comparisons with other countries’ handling of coronavirus so that we can learn from best practices and help to protect lives in our country?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Every death from the coronavirus, whether it is in South Korea or the United Kingdom, is a tragedy, and the sadness for the families affected is very great and very real. However, a wide range of factors have affected death rates in different countries. Even things as simple as the weather may have influenced how the virus has spread, and so may the practices of individual cultures and societies. I think, therefore, that these headline comparisons are not necessarily enormously illuminative.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
I would have sung a “Te Deum” after the Prime Minister’s statement on Wednesday, but for the fact that singing remains forbidden. Now that we have seen the full extent of the exemptions list and some of the guidance, will the Leader of the House allow us to get some of the frustration off our chests by debating it next week?
Mr Rees-Mogg
Te Deum laudamus, Mr Speaker. My right hon. Friend is right to be concerned about things not all opening up at once, and to wish to raise this on the Floor of the House, but the Government have to proceed at a cautious and sensible pace. I know that he raised with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister the question of nail bars. It is a matter of national concern that the nails of my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) may not be in perfect condition, but it is also a serious matter for those who run nail bar businesses. The Government are very conscious of that, but there is a way of progressing that will keep things as safe as possible, and that is what the Government are trying to do.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
Many of us are concerned by the comments of Bank of America analysts, who said:
“We believe sterling is…evolving into a currency that resembles the underlying reality of the British economy: small and shrinking with a growing dual deficit problem”.
Can we urgently have a debate on the matter in Government time, before the option to extend the Brexit transition passes and further exacerbates the situation?
Brendan Clarke-Smith (Bassetlaw) (Con)
This week, I spoke to the landlord of the King William Inn at Scaftworth in Bassetlaw about our plans to allow pubs and restaurants to reopen from 4 July. With social distancing in place, many will find a metre by using a yard. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the future of our pubs and the measures with which we can help them to bounce back from covid-19?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his excellent question, because I think there is a very easy answer in pubs, and that is that people should go back to drinking a yard of ale. If they drink a yard of ale, they will maintain social distancing while enjoying an extra-large drink to celebrate the fact that they are back in the pub.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
My right hon. Friend will know that the Competition and Markets Authority recently published its findings on the leasehold-selling scandal, which has affected constituents in a number of areas across Warrington South, including Steinbeck Grange in Chapelford and Chaise Meadow in Lymm. I am pleased to see that the Government have promised legislation to tackle future behaviour with regard to mis-selling. Will the Leader of the House give us Government time to consider how those people who have been mis-sold can be compensated?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question and commend him for being such an ardent champion of his constituents’ concerns about leasehold mis-selling. His is a model example of a Member of Parliament seeking redress of grievance. The Government welcome the CMA investigation into mis-selling and the onerous terms in the leasehold market. The CMA has said that it will engage with the Government as it moves towards enforcement action, and we look forward to seeing the next stage of its work. My hon. Friend may want to take the matter up with the Chancellor at the next Treasury oral questions on 7 July.
Tracy Brabin (Batley and Spen) (Lab/Co-op)
Last Sunday, 20-year-old Brad Gledhill was violently stabbed to death in Batley in my constituency. I wish to take this moment to send my condolences to the family, friends and neighbours. I cannot imagine what it must be like to lose a child in such violent circumstances. With knife crime offences at a record high in 2019, will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on knife crime? We have not had one for more than a year.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank the hon. Lady for giving me notice of her question, which allows me to give, I hope, a better answer. I join her in sending condolences to the family.
Knife crime is a terrible evil that Members on both sides of the House are committed to eradicating. I hope I can assure the hon. Lady that tackling knife crime is one of the Government’s absolute priorities. The Government are supporting the police to tackle these crimes: the amount of funding available to the policing system for 2020-21 will increase by more than £1.1 billion, totalling £15.2 billion, and we have committed to recruit 20,000 new police officers over the next three years. Furthermore, we are introducing a new court order to give the police new stop-and-search powers in respect of anybody serving all or part of their sentence for a knife-possession offence in the community. That will increase the likelihood of such offenders being stopped and send a strong message that if they persist in carrying a knife, they will be punished and will face a custodial sentence.
I fear that what we say about what we will do in future is of remarkably little comfort to the families who are bereaved, but perhaps there is some comfort in how seriously the issue is taken and in the fact that what they have suffered will be a spur for action, not just from the Government but from the Opposition and from all across the House, to try to tackle this terrible scourge.
Sir Mike Penning (Hemel Hempstead) (Con)
I was slightly surprised when the shadow Leader of the House referred to me in her opening comments; I did not know anything about that and it would have been a nice courtesy to have let me know. More importantly, people should not believe everything they read in the press. I probably wrote that sort of thing many years ago when I was a journalist.
A more important issue to my constituents is the future of a new hospital in Hemel Hempstead, an issue that I have raised in the House many times. The Prime Minister quite rightly and fantastically announced six new hospitals in the initial plan. However, my local trust, West Hertfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust, has no intention of building a new hospital; it wants to refurbish an old Victorian hospital next to a football ground in Watford. May we have a debate on how we hold trusts accountable? I have tried several times with Adjournment debates and have asked the Leader of the House about this issue. Many Members of this House have said to me that they feel frustrated that they cannot hold their own local health trusts to account when things like this are going on. This is nothing to do with the frontline—it is nothing to do with the brilliant work that has been going on over years and in respect of covid; it is to do with the management of trusts and how we can hold them to account.
Mr Rees-Mogg
My right hon. Friend raises a fundamental point about how we are governed and how we hold Administrations to account. Historically, that was done through Ministers, who had direct responsibility for and authority over how things were done. However, in recent years, and indeed decades, there has been a tendency to pass things over to unaccountable bodies, and that is a matter that the House is justified in wanting to debate.
Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)
We are long overdue a statement from the Culture Secretary or perhaps even the Chancellor about what further fiscal measures will be taken to support our music venues, music festivals, recording studios, theatres and other cultural assets. When I originally raised this with the Leader of the House in March, he said:
“The Government are inevitably conscious that when we close places by order and that has an effect on people’s livelihoods, there is a societal responsibility.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2020; Vol. 674, c. 27.]
I completely agree with that. When will we have a statement, before we suffer irreversible damage to our cultural landscape?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I reiterate the amount that has already been done: 9.1 million jobs are being protected and furloughed, at a cost of £20.8 billion to the taxpayer, and 2.6 million self-employed people are being supported, at a cost of £7.6 billion. This benefits all sectors, including the cultural sectors. We are at the stage in this programme where helping everybody is the right thing to do, because everybody is being affected by the closures. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is in discussions on how other support may be provided as things change and evolve, but I will pass on to him the hon. Gentleman’s desire for a statement.
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con) [V]
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the fact that I am a grower and farmer member of the National Farmers Union. We must have a debate in Government time on banning disposable barbecues in areas of outstanding natural beauty, upland areas such as the west Pennine moors and our national parks. As you know, Mr Speaker, an uncontrollable wildfire has burned above your constituency of Chorley and my constituency of Rossendale and Darwen, caused by a disposable barbecue. This is having a huge impact on agriculture and, most crucially, the huge conservation efforts that we are making to protect our blanket and peat bogs in the area. There is no place for open flames on our moors or in the other areas I have referred to.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising that point. People taking fire into areas that will be particularly damaged by wildfires are deeply irresponsible, and there are laws in place to deal with that. I think that banning all portable barbecues may be going too far. The inclination to ban things in a general way where there is a specific problem is not necessarily the right approach, but he would be wise to ask for an Adjournment debate on that issue.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The eyes of the world will turn again towards Hong Kong next week, when the 30 June deadline in relation to China’s new security law will expire. Does the Leader of the House agree that it would demonstrate a seriousness of intent on the part of the Government if the Foreign Secretary made a statement on Monday outlining exactly what the Government mean when they speak about a route map to citizenship for BN(O) passport holders? Will he give us an assurance that if this new law is introduced, the Foreign Secretary will make a statement the next day?
Mr Rees-Mogg
The Foreign Secretary will be in the House next Tuesday for Foreign and Commonwealth Office questions, so there will be an hour-long opportunity to question him. I will reiterate what the Government have said so far. Our approach to China remains clear-eyed and rooted in our values and our interests. That particularly means upholding the joint declaration, which China signed with us in good faith to protect the liberties of Hong Kong for 50 years from 1997. If the Chinese Government do not honour that commitment, there is a route map to support British nationals (overseas). Of course, more details will be brought forward depending on whether China implements its law, but the British Government strongly urge the Chinese Government to respect in good faith the joint declaration.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con) [V]
Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), my right hon. Friend is aware that theatres and cultural venues are suffering greatly during the covid-19 crisis. Without support, some of our most famous theatres may have to close. Members with theatres in their constituencies will be aware that for every £1 spent in theatres, £5 is spent in the local economy. Given that my constituency is home to the west end’s theatreland, with more than 30 theatres, the impact on the local economy cannot be overstated. Will the Government bring forward a statement or debate on support for theatre owners and producers, to ensure that it is not the final curtain for our theatres?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this point, and as a former leader of Westminster City Council, she knows how important it is. I am not convinced that extending the congestion charge to 10 o’clock at night will help the theatres when they do reopen. It will be a big disincentive to people coming into the centre of London to go to the theatre—typical of the socialist Mayor of London—but the Government are taking steps to help the artistic community, as we are helping the whole of the economy. The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport has acknowledged that social distancing makes staging performances exceptionally difficult for theatres and that the industry will need a different approach from other sectors. He is consulting industry, medical experts and advisers in the hope that a solution can be found, but if I may say so, the show must go on and the Government must support the show going on, as they have been with the measures that they have introduced so far.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I unusually find myself in accord with the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) in calling for a debate in Government time about how well their guidance on lifting lockdown is working. The Leader of the House referred to pubs reopening. In my constituency, they have stayed open, selling alcohol off the premises, and this has caused havoc, with people drunk, urinating and defecating in our parks, causing a huge challenge for our police and park wardens and a huge cost to the taxpayer to keep on top of it. It is time that we had a proper discussion about the practicality of many of the measures that the Government are proposing in order to ensure that they work for everybody.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think the changes that are being made have the great virtue that they are not going to be compulsion, but they are advice. In their good wisdom, the British people can determine what they do, subject to the very clear guidance that the Government are giving. The restoration of our ancient freedoms that have never previously been so restricted is clearly the proper approach for the Government to be taking. As for a debate, the consideration of a procedural motion followed by all stages of the Business and Planning Bill will cover many of the issues that the hon. Lady is concerned about, so there will be chance to debate this on Monday.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
On Saturday, I was drawn to my local cricket club. I strode to the middle, stopped at the end of my run, the wicket looked superb, and, for a few moments, I imagined the crack of ball on willow, the ripple of applause from the boundary and the occasional shouts of “Howzat!” But I was imagining it. [Interruption.] Yes, in my case, it is imaginary—they always unfairly turn me down. Up and down the country, thousands and thousands of men and women, boys and girls are desperate to play competitive cricket. England is not England without cricket. Leader of the House, would you persuade the chief umpire to stroll across from No. 10 next week and make a statement in the House that play can resume?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think very few right hon. and hon. Members miss cricket as much as I do. All my tickets to watch various test matches over the course of the year and my visits to Taunton have had to be cancelled and, worse still, there was a chance that Somerset might win the county championship for the first time in its history—[Interruption.] Not Lancashire, Mr Speaker—it could not possibly be Lancashire. Somerset was so close, other than the points that were meanly taken off us by some unfair people.
Leaving that to one side, it is a real loss for this country that cricket is not coming back, but we have to be as safe as we possibly can be. People can play with their families, so they can get some practice in. But there is some good news: my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) pointed out to me this morning that the MCC, the Marylebone cricket club, has its first female president in its history, in the form of Clare Connor. As I think, second only to being sovereign, being president of the MCC is the highest post in the land—even, Mr Speaker, above the Speakership or the Lord presidency of the Council —may I congratulate Clare Connor warmly on behalf of the House?
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
Last night, we saw once again unsafe bottlenecks in the corridors and behind your Chair, Mr Speaker, as Members queued to vote and then queued to leave after voting. Of course, we had a perfectly good remote voting system that had been developed and refined and was working well until the Leader of the House insisted on abandoning it. Can he tell us the cost of developing that system and the total cost of the various iterations of voting systems that have been developed in recent weeks? If he does not have the figure to hand—I would not necessarily expect him to—I am happy for him to write to me.
Mr Rees-Mogg
That is a matter for the House of Commons Commission. However, the hon. Gentleman should be proud to be back. It is wonderful that this House is back and doing its duty in getting legislation through, and that people are here and we are operating as a proper Parliament, not going for country walks while voting on serious matters affecting the lives of the British people. We should be really proud that we are back.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
Could my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on the importance of levelling up infrastructure in north Derbyshire, and, in particular, the need to build a purpose-built road between the M1 and Shirebrook so that we can unleash the economic potential of the powerhouse that is Shirebrook?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The constituents of Bolsover, and Shirebrook in particular, are incredibly fortunate to have such an assiduous and capable campaigner advancing their cause. The name of Shirebrook conjures up images of such beauty that it surprises me that anyone wants to leave it to join the motorway. None the less, I would urge him to take the matter up with the Transport Secretary at the next oral questions on 2 July. I have a feeling, Mr Speaker, that you might look benignly on an application for an Adjournment debate on a subject of this importance.
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) (SNP) [V]
A Bank of America report in the Financial Times yesterday suggests that, post Brexit, the pound will be weak and volatile—a situation that the Leader of the House will fully recognise will only help the spivs and the speculators. Before we move to third-world currency status, will he agree to a debate in Government time on the weakness and volatility of the pound in a post-Brexit Britain?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I spent decades in the City and you could always find some silly analyst to write some silly report and the FT to report it.
Steve Double (St Austell and Newquay) (Con)
Public toilets are essential facilities, particularly in rural and coastal tourist areas, but many in Cornwall are now operated by small parish councils that are struggling to fund their running, particularly in a covid-safe manner. In 2018, the former Chancellor announced that public toilets would be exempt from business rates, but the Government did not manage to find time to bring forward the legislation in the previous Parliament. Can the Leader of the House confirm that this legislation will be brought forward and give an idea of when it will be, because that would bring great relief to many?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend knows how to play the cistern—he is doing it extremely well—and he will soon, I hope, be flushed with success, because I can assure him that this does remain Government policy. Although business has been under considerable pressure, using up a lot of parliamentary time, and legislation has been prioritised accordingly, I hope that we will find time for a Bill in due course.
Stephanie Peacock (Barnsley East) (Lab)
Can we have a Government statement on why the Home Office will not ban the Satanist Nazi group, the Order of Nine Angles, when in the US a soldier has been indicted for plotting with the organisation to commit murder and vile acts of terror?
Mr Rees-Mogg
This sounds a very serious matter of which I must confess I was not previously aware. I will take it up on behalf of the hon. Lady with the Home Secretary, who will be in front of the House on 13 July for oral questions.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
For what it is worth, I think that Essex probably has the edge and for the third time in four years will win the county championship when it gets started.
Some 700,000 people have had their hip and knee replacements cancelled as a result of covid-19. Will my right hon. Friend find time for us to have a debate in this place about how we tackle that backlog, but also in a way that keeps services as close to people as possible so that we do not have a situation that has been proposed by East Suffolk and North Essex NHS Foundation Trust where it strips back our elective orthopaedic service in Ipswich and moves it to Colchester? This is very unpopular in Ipswich and, in my view, would be detrimental to my constituents.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question, leaving aside his jibe about Essex county cricket. I commend him for his stalwart representation of the people of Ipswich in this House. We know that fewer people are coming into the NHS when they need to. That is why the NHS has begun restoring services that were rightly suspended while we dealt with the initial impact of covid-19. It is working on the principle that the most urgent treatment should be brought back first, and this will be driven by local demands on the system. The matter in his constituency sounds like a worthy subject for an Adjournment debate to highlight it more broadly.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I feel phenomenally fortunate that I completed my cancer treatment before lockdown started, and I am delighted to hear that the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch) has been able to catch her breast cancer very early—I wish her a full recovery. Unfortunately, the situation across the country has not been great for potential cancer sufferers: I believe that 290,000 urgent referrals for suspected cancer were not sent out during this period; 1.2 million screening invites for bowel cancer, breast cancer and cervical cancer have not been sent out; chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery has often been cancelled or delayed for a long time; and lots of clinical trials have been put on hold. So may we have a specific debate on cancer and coronavirus? We really need to get back on track on this. Otherwise, there will be more excess deaths from cancer than from coronavirus.
Mr Rees-Mogg
The hon. Gentleman raises a point we are all aware of. The crisis did lead to some diagnostic treatments being rescheduled, in order to protect vulnerable patients. I am very glad that he successfully completed his course of treatment, which I think is welcomed across the House. Everyone wishes him well. [Interruption.] Genuinely, however much we may disagree with him or find some of his interventions less than illuminating, we all wish him extremely good health. The problem he raises is a serious one, and the Health Secretary is aware of it. As for finding time for a specific debate, I am not sure I can promise that, but this issue is certainly worth raising in questions, and the Health Secretary has been assiduous in making statements to the House.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
This week is Armed Forces Week, and I believe we have the best armed forces in the world. They have really stepped up during this pandemic to provide fantastic logistical support for our brilliant NHS. So on behalf of the people of Ashfield and Eastwood, the people in this House and the people in this great country of ours, will the Leader of the House please say a big thank you to our armed services?
Mr Rees-Mogg
King Alfred is reputed to have founded the Navy and his army defeated the Danes and kept us safe. The British Army, the British Navy and the Royal Air Force have saved our country and provided wonderful service to it, over not just decades and centuries, but more than 1,000 years. My hon. Friend is right to bring to the attention of the Chamber this important event and to make sure that the people of Ashfield are known to be backing our armed services. He is right to do so and I am grateful to him for raising this matter.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I wholeheartedly associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) about the armed forces, particularly this week. It is good to see questions being raised about the leasehold mis-selling scandal and to see other Members, on both sides, raise concerns about all sorts of issues that leaseholders face, particularly in major apartment blocks. May we therefore urgently have a comprehensive and full debate about the responsibilities of building developers and their liability for building defects, including in my constituency? Leaseholders are having to deal with a shabby situation. These issues often relate not just to fire safety, but to the actual construction of buildings, to water and to all sorts of other things. The situation is completely unacceptable.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think all of us, as constituency MPs, have had constituents complain that they have bought a new house that has had defects and they have found it extremely difficult to get those defects put right and have suffered considerable inconvenience. For one constituent of mine, the defects were dangerous, because of the poor quality of work that was done. This is a real issue, because although we need to build more houses, we need to build them safely and people need to have some form of redress if mistakes are made.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Kensington is home to many of our leading cultural institutions, such as the Natural History Museum, the Science Museum and the V&A. Will my right hon. Friend consider a debate on how we can support the arts and our cultural institutions as we come out of lockdown?
Mr Rees-Mogg
My hon. Friend represents what was called Albertopolis at one point after the success of the Great Exhibition of 1851 and the wonderful museums that are in her constituency. I refer her to what I said earlier about the Government being aware of this issue, the support that has been available for all businesses, and the Secretary of State’s knowledge that there are particular problems in certain sectors.
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab) [V]
Will the Leader of the House allow an urgent debate on the impact of the coronavirus pandemic on shielded and disabled people, and will he allow shielded MPs like myself the opportunity to participate? I need to correct him: we do not think there is a fair balance in Parliament at the moment, and we are definitely not going for country walks. We have a lot of important stuff to contribute, so please stop excluding us.
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to the hon. Lady, who is clearly not excluded, because we have just heard from her very clearly and heard her thoughts in a very straightforward way—[Interruption.] The issue with legislation is: how do we have people appearing remotely in a debate? It is perfectly practical with interrogative proceedings, but debates and interventions are different. I believe that this is being looked into, but we have a system that is working. It is delivering the legislation that is needed. I can reassure the hon. Lady that the Government have said that shielded people will be free to return to their full activities after the end of July, so after the summer recess, people will be able to come back into this House.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
In Crewe and Nantwich, we have recently had the difficult news that Bentley, a key local employer, is to make up to 1,000 redundancies. I am sure that many Members will share my concern about the potential for such job losses to hit the economy later in the year. Will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate how best the Government can prepare people who lose their job to find new skills and new opportunities in our economy?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. I have a particular affection for Bentleys, as I have both a 1936 and a 1968 version, and they are the most wonderful cars. Bentley is a great company, of which the country can be very proud, and of which he, as its representative in his constituency, can be very proud. We have to try to restore our economy to full health, and there is a range of support that I have already mentioned. There is a debate this afternoon on the support being offered to UK industries during the pandemic, and it will be worth bringing up at that point how things will need to evolve and how the economy will change fundamentally because of this crisis.
Dave Doogan (Angus) (SNP) [V]
The Leader of the House will be aware of the support group Excluded, which has been established to assist the 3 million self-employed people and personal services companies in the UK that have been left without any Government support during this pandemic. The Prime Minister said to me on Tuesday in this place:
“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.”—[Official Report, 23 June 2020; Vol. 677, c. 1192.]
There are not “some people” left behind. There are 3 million construction workers, cleaners, caterers, photographers, sound engineers, architects and consultants, including many in my Angus constituency, and there is not a constituency on these islands that has not been so affected. It is not too late to put this right, so may we have a debate to establish how and when the Government can assist these people to ensure that their businesses trade into the future?
Mr Rees-Mogg
I think the debate later on will cover this subject, but I would point out how much the Government have done: 9.1 million people are in the furloughing scheme; 2.6 million self-employed people are receiving help; 2.3 million people have got on to universal credit since 12 March; 49,000—nearly 50,000—loans to the value of £10 billion have been made to small and medium-sized enterprises; 279 loans, with a value of nearly £2 billion, have been given to larger businesses; and there have been 860,000 bounce-back loans to the value of £26.3 billion. These are enormous sums that have been provided by taxpayers to support businesses through these difficult times. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point that some people have not benefited from all or any of these schemes, but what has been done is the most enormous package produced by any British Government at any point in our history, and it will ensure that the chances of an economic bounce-back are as high as possible.
Mr Speaker
Order. In order to allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival that those participating in next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Virtual participation in proceedings concluded (Order, 4 June)
Point of Order
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Do you recall the situation in this Chamber just a year ago, when people were piling in and virtually everyone was being called to speak on statements and urgent questions? I put this point to you and to Mr Speaker: I hope that as soon as 4 July comes—although it will probably happen in September, but as soon as is practicable—we can allow more spontaneity in this Chamber. After all, we are turning to the 1 metre rule from the 2 metre rule and, generally, as we can see from looking around us, the Chamber is naturally socially distanced anyway. People are quite good at self-regulating, and it is very important to have more spontaneity and people able to come in, particularly for questions, as we have just had with the Leader of the House. The present Speaker, every other Speaker and you have been anxious generally to try to call everyone who wants to get in. I make that point to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and hope that you will take it back to Mr Speaker.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Thank you very much, Sir Edward, for that point of order. I, like many Members, am looking forward to 4 July for reasons more than you have just enunciated. None the less, clearly, this is not Parliament as we remember it a few months ago. I know that Mr Speaker himself would wish to see this House working more effectively than is allowed in the current circumstances, as the pandemic is still alive, but he is working with Public Health England to ensure that we are able to make this Parliament as effective and as safe as we possibly can. I thank you for that point of order.
Bill Presented
Business and Planning Bill
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Alok Sharma, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Priti Patel, Secretary George Eustice, Secretary Robert Jenrick and Secretary Grant Shapps, presented a Bill to make provision relating to the promotion of economic recovery and growth.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 29 June, and to be printed (Bill 148) with explanatory notes (Bill 148-EN).
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill
Thursday 25th June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons 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 for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Paul Scully)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this we may take Lords amendments 2 to 116.
Paul Scully
The Corporate Insolvency and Governance Bill has been a demonstration of what can be achieved in the best interests of businesses, jobs and the country’s economic future when there is collaborative work across both sides of the House. I am grateful to hon. and right hon. Members for the constructive way in which the Opposition have engaged with the Bill, both in this House and the other place.
Over the past three months, this country has faced the unprecedented hardship of needing to adhere to stringent social distancing measures due to the covid-19 pandemic, where Government had no choice but to order businesses to close their doors to safeguard the nation’s health. We recognise the huge sacrifices that has entailed, and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has provided unprecedented economic support to businesses and workers across the country to help them make it through this challenging time.
Some UK businesses have been hit hard, with many unable to trade or facing a significant short-term reduction in demand for goods and services. As a result, many otherwise viable companies face the threat of insolvency.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
With regard to Lords amendment 75, which extends the temporary provisions to 30 September, the Minister is absolutely right that a lot of businesses can survive this crisis, but they need these measures in place. They also need the packages of support from the Treasury alongside the legislative changes. The clock is ticking for many, particularly in the theatre and entertainment industry, the steel industry and others affected in my constituency. Does he agree that we need to see financial packages too?
Paul Scully
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is important that we remain flexible. We continue to work with businesses from all sectors to ensure that we can get to a point where we can work through the gears to get a full economic recovery over time. That will mean support from the Government in all manner of ways, which we are considering.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We have no idea what will happen—there could be a second lockdown or other things; we do not know. Will the Minister comment on the necessity or value of including in the Bill a review procedure, which, if something changes, would allow the Government to be fleet of foot in aiding businesses? That particularly applies to those who lose their premises because of the difficult economic situation and who may find it very difficult to find new ones.
Paul Scully
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. He will note that the Government have extended the moratorium on the forfeiture of leases due to covid-19 debts to 30 September, with which the amendments in the Bill have become aligned. In my conversations with retail and hospitality in particular, but not solely with them, I have been exercised by property and the balance between landlord and tenant. We must keep an eye on that.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I recognise that what the Minister is bringing forward is important. We thank the Government and him for what they are doing. In relation to circumstances in the regional devolved Administrations—the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly—there may be peculiarities in those systems that mean businesses are particularly under threat or having problems specific to those regions. Does the Minister feel that within the Bill we can get help through the devolved Administrations, and in Northern Ireland through the Assembly, to those businesses and, in particular, tourism?
Paul Scully
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is so important that we work with all parts of the nation and all the devolved Administrations, which we do regularly. My colleague my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi) has regular conversations from our Department, and other Departments liaise closely with the devolved Administrations to ensure that local economies are protected, as well as looking at the overall national picture.
The measures that the Bill introduces will give our businesses the vital support they need to keep afloat, preserving jobs, maintaining productive capacity and enabling the foundations to be laid for the country’s economic recovery. Saving lives and livelihoods is at the heart of what we are seeking to achieve. Measures such as the new moratorium and restructuring plan, together with a prohibition on contractual termination clauses, will help more businesses in future to survive rather than become insolvent. Many of the permanent measures have been improved through scrutiny in the other place, and I will set out some details of the amendments that the Government have brought forward to ensure that the measures work as intended.
I turn first to the financial services super priority amendments. The Government want to prevent firms gaming the system through a moratorium. Our amendments seek to disincentivise financial services creditors from seeking to accelerate their pre-moratorium debt solely to benefit from super priority should the company fail, or to obtain protection from compromise if a restructuring proposal was put to them. The amendments exclude pre-moratorium financial services debts from having super priority status in a subsequent administration or liquidation where the financial services debt has been accelerated for payment during the moratorium. That ensures that the correct incentives are in place for the moratorium to work effectively and not be brought to an end prematurely.
On amendments relating to pensions, the aim of the measures in the Bill is to rescue a company, which is ultimately the best outcome for its pension scheme. Nevertheless, the Government have been alive to the concern that the new procedures could result in a pension scheme being disadvantaged as an unsecured creditor of the company. As a result, we agreed that there is a need to build in specific protections. Amendments made in the other place ensure that the pensions regulator and the Pension Protection Fund get appropriate information in the case of both a moratorium and a restructuring plan and that the PPF can challenge through the courts, the directors and the monitor of a company in a moratorium. There is also a regulation-making power, which will allow the PPF to be given creditor rights in both procedures in certain circumstances. I hope that hon. and right hon. Members will agree that these are important and fair amendments to the Bill.
We have also made amendments to the temporary measures in the Bill. These temporary measures allow businesses to focus on what is important for their survival through this extraordinary period, rather than having to respond to aggressive creditor actions, or struggle with statutory filing or meeting requirements during the disruption. The amendments to the temporary insolvency provisions in the Bill extend the life of those provisions beyond what was proposed when the Bill first came to the House. They will now expire, as I have said, on 30 September.
It is already clear that businesses will need these measures in place for longer than we first anticipated, and we brought forward amendments in the other place to take account of that. The provisions retain the capacity to be extended further through a regulation-making power should it be required, and the affirmative procedure will apply to such regulations.
Amendments have been made in the Bill in relation to pre-pack sales in administrations. Pre-packs are a valuable tool for saving businesses and jobs. However, concerns have been raised about the lack of scrutiny of them. The amendments reinstate a power that had elapsed earlier this year for the Government to regulate pre-pack sales in administrations to connected parties. The Government will look carefully at pre-packs and I can inform the House that a commitment was made by my ministerial colleague, Lord Callanan, to review current practices in the summer before making any decision on regulatory changes.
Finally, a number of technical amendments have been made to the Bill where it was judged necessary. These include changes that will restrict the period for which certain powers have been given in the Bill that will be available to Ministers, changes to clarify the intended effect of the legislation, and changes which place a condition on the use of some powers. We have ensured that there is appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of any regulation made under the Bill, as well as appropriate safeguards on these powers. Where they relate to powers for a Scottish or Welsh Minister or a Northern Ireland Department, the corresponding change has been made to ensure equal scrutiny for all the Parliaments of the UK.
This Bill has been improved by the scrutiny of the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, as well as by the incredible work of the Government’s own parliamentary counsel and their legal advisers. I hope that the House will agree that making good, accurate, appropriately balanced and clear legislation is very much in the interests of all, not least of businesses that rely on this legal clarity. I am confident that we have now achieved that in this package, which we have, nevertheless, brought forward as quickly as possible to respond to the covid emergency. Taken together, these amendments improve this important and much-needed Bill. The debates and discussions in this House, as well as in the other place, have shown quite what this Parliament can achieve, even if socially distanced, when we share that common aim to save and support businesses in this emergency context. I therefore call on Members to support all the Lords amendments.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I want to start by echoing the constructive tone of the Minister and thanking everyone, both in this place and the other place, who has been involved in the scrutiny of the Bill. I also want to thank the Minister specifically for how he and his colleagues have engaged with us on this Bill and listened to the concerns we have had as it has progressed. We on the Labour Benches welcome the amendments that the Government have brought forward, which improve and strengthen the Bill in some important regards. As we have said previously, this is just one of the measures that we hope will safeguard businesses and livelihoods through this crisis. Our objective as the Opposition is to be constructive and to ensure that businesses get the support they need now and in the longer term, and that the number of insolvencies over coming weeks and months is as few as possible. We back this Bill, but we are clear that it is a last resort for many businesses and that there is much, much more for the Government to do now—now—to support businesses, safeguard our economy and protect jobs and livelihoods, so that the measures passed today only have to be used in a limited number of companies.
Stephen Doughty
I entirely endorse the point my hon. Friend is making, particularly with regard to pension schemes, because we have seen the tragedy of where this has gone wrong, such as the Allied Steel and Wire pensions scandal in my constituency, which is still affecting people today, years afterwards. Does she agree that we need to take some of the lessons from this process into protections for pension schemes and pensioners, who are expecting, having paid in, that they will get out in due course?
Chi Onwurah
I thank my hon. Friend for that extremely constructive and to-the-point intervention. We absolutely need to learn from this process, and we also need to ensure that not only the mistakes but the injustices of the past are not repeated, particularly now, when the economy and so many workers and pensioners are so vulnerable.
First, I hope that Ministers will learn from the experience of passing this legislation in such a hurried manner, with a mixture of permanent and temporary measures. While we understand the need for speed with this Bill, it is clear that there have been problems in combining temporary changes with permanent reforms that have been a long time coming and the lack of time for proper scrutiny. That point has been strongly voiced in the other place, and we hope that Ministers will bear this in mind when introducing complex permanent changes along with temporary measures.
Secondly, the ranking of priority debts in insolvency cases has not been changed in a number of years and concerns have been raised that this is out of date. There is no mention of FinTech or some of the new complex ways in which firms finance themselves. If further insolvency changes are planned by Ministers, they must be relevant to where the world is now.
Thirdly, the interaction between pension funds and insolvencies is very complicated, particularly around defined pension schemes. That needs to be looked at afresh. Fourthly, the lack of mention of employees in the whole Bill is a complete oversight, which is why we argued for greater recognition of, and voice for, employees during the passage of the Bill. Any further changes to insolvency and corporate governance legislation must consider how workers can be better included. Finally, there are clearly issues, as the Minister has raised, around pre-pack. They will need to be resolved.
We are pleased that we have been able to work so constructively with the Government to pass this important legislation to support business through this crisis. We are grateful for the listening ear of Ministers. We hope that this legislation will save businesses threatened with becoming insolvent through this crisis. We will keep a close eye on how the measures are implemented, and we hope Ministers will do the same.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and in particular to my roles as a director of companies.
Like the Opposition, I welcome the changes that the Government are accepting in the Bill today. I have listened to a couple of interventions from the Opposition Benches, with their strong support for Government measures to support the economy, and that is emblematic of how successful they have been. However, I would just gently warn my hon. Friend the Minister that we have made great progress so far, but there are issues, as we emerge, about how those programmes are helping certain people, while other people are not receiving that support. We need to get the economy going back to normal business principles as quickly as possible, not seek to extend Government intervention unnecessarily or for too long.
This Bill is a very timely Bill and it is a good Bill. As the shadow Minister said, there is a mixture of short and long-term issues here, but getting this on the books is really rather important for the market. May I ask the Minister, building on some other comments about the changes in the role of the Pensions Regulator and the PPF, whether he sees this as part of a longer-term view of the Government about the role of pensions regulators in insolvency, and whether this is an indication of something that may outlast and be outwith any short-term changes? I would be interested in his perspectives on that.
I am not sure if the Bill continues to relate to the primacy of HMRC as a creditor in insolvencies, but I would be interested if the Minister has any observations on that. I know that, for many businesses when they are trying to seek resolution in insolvency, HMRC can prove to be one of the most difficult creditors to deal with—and that is putting it perhaps a little lightly. So do the Government have the intention of providing, or does the Treasury have any intention of providing, any guidance on how HMRC may be treating its obligations during this particular period? For many companies, that would be a welcome piece of information as they go through what may otherwise be very difficult periods.
May I ask the Minister about the extension to 30 September? That seems to be a very sensible change, but may I ask him about what happens in the event that there is a repeat lockdown that is a national lockdown? He has talked a bit about an affirmative decision here. That, it seems to me, is perhaps a bit more focused than that. Perhaps more tellingly, what happens in the instance where there is a localised lockdown in a particular county or a particular region that affects businesses there and they go insolvent? What happens to those particular businesses? I would be interested to see if the Minister has some thoughts on that.
My final observation, Mr Deputy Speaker—and you, with your great experience, may know this too—is that frequently measures that come into this House that are seen as short-term measures have a habit of sticking around on the statute book. So could I have, on the sunny-side view of the recovery of the economy, an absolute assurance from the Government that it is their intention, as these things sit, as the economy recovers, that they will implement the sunset clause, and they will come forward so that we can enable businesses to go back to the longer-term framework, some of which is in this Bill, for managing corporate insolvency?
Drew Hendry (Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey) (SNP)
Can I also thank the Minister for the collaborative and refreshing way, given his Government’s record, of engaging across the Benches to take this legislation through? I will come to my constructive criticisms in due course.
The areas I want to expand on are, basically, that we accept the Lords amendments and, within that, seek assurances from the Minister, his Secretary of State and his Government that they will work with the trade unions to ensure that workers are adequately protected, acknowledging that, while the Bill is a welcome step, the help it will give firms to get through the covid-19 crisis is going to be a drop in the ocean of the challenges they face. If this Tory Government are serious about reducing insolvency, they need to do much more. They should then support the Scottish National party’s amendments to the Finance Bill to prevent HMRC’s vulture powers from taking effect.
We welcome the technical changes made through the Lords amendments, not least the fact that the Scottish Parliament can play its full role in matters relating to clause 43. That is extremely welcome. It is also welcome to see the Government make concessions to Lord Stephen to ensure that directors will have responsibility for informing employees about moratorium arrangements and reassuring them about their conditions in the future. The Minister and the Government must provide assurances that they will continue to engage with trade unions and give an unequivocal guarantee that workers’ rights will not diminish as a result of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) was very kind in her criticisms. I am going to be a bit more direct. The swathes of Government amendments required in the Lords are indicative of the Government’s ongoing failure to grasp the details of the measures they propose—that is notwithstanding the very good engagement I have already referred to by the Minister here today. It is not the way to take such important matters forward.
As I said earlier, we welcome the measures, especially the provision of a short business rescue moratorium to protect companies from creditor action while options are considered; the new court-based restructuring tool; and new rules to prevent suppliers from cancelling contracts with businesses in an insolvency procedure. They are all helpful to business, as is the temporary suspension of the wrongful trading provisions to give company directors greater confidence to use their best endeavours as they continue to trade during this pandemic emergency, without the threat of personal liability should the company ultimately fall into insolvency. Importantly, we are keeping the existing laws for fraudulent trading and potential director disqualification to deter director misconduct—so far, so good.
The main and most pressing issue, however, is that these measures do not address the mountain of corporate debt that will prevent firms from investing to rebuild the economy. With reports that less than half the bounce-back loans will not be repaid, it is high time that recipients of the bounce-back loan scheme and coronavirus business interruption loan scheme debt were offered the chance of that debt being turned into equity instead. It is simply unrealistic to expect economic growth while numbing investment, crushing productivity and adding to corporate debt.
To be serious about avoiding insolvency, much more attention will need to be paid to the breadth of effects. Even businesses that survive will face a much longer road to recovery, especially in sectors such as tourism, hospitality and the arts. Without meaningful action, jobs will be lost and communities scarred, probably for decades. The effect on those sectors and others means that the brunt will be borne by thousands of people in the gig economy and on zero-hours contracts—and disproportionately by young people.
The Minister said that he wanted to make a commitment to supporting local economies. It is important that he takes that message back to the Chancellor because, when redundancies come, businesses will focus on those who will cost them the least to release: the low paid; those with no contract; and, as I have said, younger people. I have to declare an interest here as a father who still has two teenagers in the house, and, of course, as a newly-surprised grandparent of my new grandson Cameron Hendry. I want to ensure that all young people have a future to look forward to that is not going to be hampered by decades of retrenchment. [Interruption.] Indeed, Cameron Hendry. It is a fine name, isn’t it?
To get back to the serious point, although the hospitality sector is hopeful of some meagre income in the dying embers of the season, it has effectively faced a three winter situation. It may get 15% to 20% of that which July would normally bring, and maybe a bit more in August, if it is lucky. I have been engaging with and listening to the industry’s concerns, which are similar in tourist areas across the nations of the UK.
Current hotel occupancy rates seem to be below 10%. In my own constituency, the owner of the Kingsmills Hotel Group, Tony Story, told me that his company will have to bear the cost of an additional 15% to 20% per room for electrostatic spraying and hospital-grade cleaning in his hotels. That experience has been reflected by other smaller hotel owners across the sector.
They need the Minister, his Secretary of State and his Government to implore the Chancellor to extend furlough support in the sector beyond this year. As it stands, because of the changes—because of the contribution they will have to pay towards furlough—they will lose more money opening their businesses than when they were closed. It makes no sense to punish them in that way. The furlough scheme has been of great help; we have mentioned that many times and supported it. That is why it is important that it continues in order to avoid insolvencies that may come out of this.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is pleasure to be here on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Along with other Opposition parties, we support the Lords amendments.
I have taken the opportunity of the easing of some of the lockdown restrictions to get out and about in my constituency and speak to some of our local business owners who are beginning to reopen on the high street. It is quite a positive picture. Many of them have implemented diverse ways of selling to their customers and diversified their offering. They have got through the difficult stage of the lockdown and they are optimistic about the future, but I am conscious that that is not necessarily representative of all sectors and all parts of the country. The economic disaster that we are expecting as a result of the lockdown is really only just beginning to play out. In every news bulletin, we see more redundancies —Swissport yesterday, Royal Mail today—and we know that this is just the start. Therefore, it is incumbent on us all to be shrewd about the legislation that we need to pass to meet this challenge.
It is important that we strike a balance in the Bill between enabling the release of capital from companies that are going to fail, so that it can flow to new ventures with better prospects and secure future employment, and shoring up existing companies and jobs that will be viable once they can trade profitably again. For that reason, we welcome the moratorium provisions. We particularly welcome Lords amendments 67 to 71, which define the priority status of creditors and limit the powers of banks to take precedence in calling in their debt. That allows the moratorium to be more effective, as companies can then prioritise employees and other creditors.
I think that will be increasingly important not just once the immediate crisis has passed but in the coming years. TheCityUK estimates that there will be £100 billion of unsustainable lending in quarter 1 of 2021. That really does need to focus the mind, in respect of not only the Bill but future Government policy. The moratorium provisions will play a part in ensuring ongoing stability next year, but they would have been undermined if banks could not be restrained from taking their cut first, as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) mentioned.
When businesses can function again after the crisis, it will be important above all to be able to protect jobs. We welcome the amendments that strengthen the protection of pension schemes in particular, but I echo what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah), said: it is disappointing that the Bill does not go further. We do, though, recognise the importance of speed. For that reason, we also welcome the amendments that extend the temporary provision to 30 September. We believe that to be a prudent decision.
I wish to take this opportunity to echo other Members’ calls for measures for the theatre industry in particular. I have three theatres in my constituency and the industry is an important part of Richmond Park’s society and culture. I emphasise the fact we are trying not only to meet the challenge of the coronavirus crisis but, for the first time in 40 years, to become an independent trading nation. We should focus on the fact that globally we have a massive competitive advantage with our theatrical industry. Our entire performing arts and cultural sector is something in which we are world beating. If we want to start to export the things that are greatest about Britain, we really must support the sector urgently.
As other Members have highlighted, our theatre sector is facing a crisis and needs an urgent bail-out. Not only it is so important for all the jobs and all the future income that it can bring—not just to individual communities but to the nation as a whole—but it is a seedbed for our film and TV industries, which are also world beating and will be looking to get back on their feet as soon as they are able. I particularly single out theatres for help because we have one in every community—even in the highlands of Scotland, as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey pointed out—and they have a critical role in the community at this time. Not only can they shore up employment in local areas, but they can play a vital role in helping children to reconnect with the education on which they have missed out over the past three months. I hope the Minister agrees that that is of absolutely first priority across Government at this time.
Our theatres have large spaces in which social distancing can be practised. They are experienced in education—the Orange Tree theatre in my constituency certainly has a very well-developed education programme—and can provide all kinds of programmes over the summer, particularly to help out young people who may have been unable to access online learning and perhaps do not engage well with traditional forms of learning. We have a fantastic opportunity to reconnect those young people with new ways of learning to stimulate their creativity.
Above all, when the lockdown is over—when we can communicate face to face with each other again—I want everybody to have the opportunity to experience a live performance, because we have all spent too long staring at our unresponsive laptop screens. We want live theatre, live music and visual arts. We want to reconnect face to face again. If we do not have a thriving theatre in every community, it will be much harder to deliver that. For the sake of the theatre industry and the benefits it can bring, not only in actual income but in projecting the United Kingdom to the world, which is more important now than it ever has been, I urge the Minister to make representations to the Government as a matter of absolute urgency to support the theatre industry.
Paul Scully
First, I thank for their contributions all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in this and previous debates on the Bill. Overall, it is reassuring to me, and I am sure to the country, to see that the House can come together to provide constructive and challenging scrutiny of important legislation while moving quickly towards agreement in the national interest. The amendments made to the Bill since we last saw it have strengthened its ability to deliver on its ultimate aim of supporting business and reducing the threat of insolvency faced by many during this challenging time.
I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) for her kind words about the engagement on the Bill. She highlighted the need to address sector-specific issues, including those faced by aerospace, the automotive sector and the steel industry. The measures in the Bill apply to companies across all sectors of the economy, including airlines and the automotive industry, provided they meet the relevant eligibility criteria, for example to enter into the moratorium. Ministers and officials are in regular contact with representatives of the steel industry and will continue to work closely with it to determine how steel companies can access the support required at this extremely challenging time.
We know that all sectors must get as much support as possible. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) said, we must also come back to a sense of business as normal, so that we can start to move through the gears to get the economic recovery that we all want to see, knowing that it will not happen overnight—there is no light-switch moment—but that we must all come together to make that happen.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central made the point that the financial market is changing rapidly, which is why there remains a regulation-making power in the Bill to adapt as markets do. She also raised the role of employees. My ministerial colleague, Lord Callanan, committed in the other place to the Government’s plan to conduct a review of the permanent measures in the Bill within three years, with a focus on the impact on employees. We will not hesitate to make changes if that review suggests that there is a need to.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire asked about pensions. He is correct that the interaction between certain measures in the Bill and the pensions legislation gives rise to a number of complex issues. Setting out the detail in regulations will help us to ensure that the balance between trustees’ rights as creditors and the Pension Protection Fund’s interests can be achieved and quickly amended as case law relating to part 26A develops. The pensions framework is, to a great extent, set out in regulations, which allows the law to develop and respond to changes in the market. It is right and proper that the Pension Protection Fund and the Pensions Regulator are able to play a role in the new procedures when it is appropriate for them to do, and that is what the Government amendments allow for.
The Pension Schemes Bill will be in the other place at the end of this month. That Bill builds on the Government’s commitment to tighten the rules on abuse of pension schemes by improving the Pensions Regulator’s power. My hon. Friend asked about the regulations that allow an extension of the temporary changes. Of course, where required, the Government will not hesitate to extend the measures, but we will not extend them indefinitely. We will consider the individual merits of each measure before any further blanket extensions. As he said, it is important that business gets back to usual, but it is also important that shareholders get their say fully at an annual general meeting, as well as at share- holder days. Although we allow directors the leniency to concentrate on their own business rather than their responsibilities to Companies House, there comes a time when we must get back to business as usual, so that Companies House can record companies’ measures.
Richard Fuller
I do not want to delay my hon. Friend’s speech, but the point I was trying to make is that clarity about a change of rules is very important for directors, and that also applies to a change in regulations. If there is an extension, it needs the same debate and airing that we have had at this stage, and when these regulations end, that also needs to be communicated as clearly as possible.
Paul Scully
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. The Department and the Government have been engaging with businesses to try to give that clarity. It has not always been possible, as we move in real time. Those of us who run businesses are used to making decisions in real time. What we are doing at the moment is about as close to real time as it gets for a Government. Normally, consultations can take months, and policy changes can take years. We have been working from day to day sometimes.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Drew Hendry) on his new grandson, Cameron—what a brilliant name. I do not know whether it was inspired by a former Prime Minister; maybe not. I hope that his joyous, optimistic and collaborative comments were not coloured by that fantastic news and that that relationship will carry on.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of HMRC’s status in the Finance Bill. This is something that came up clearly through the procedure. It is a matter for my colleagues in Her Majesty’s Treasury, but I can say that the role of HMRC is to ensure that tax paid by employees and customers rightly pays for public good. With regard to corporation taxes, HMRC’s status remains the same. I appreciate his input and I am grateful for the way that he has engaged with me and the team. I agree that it is very important that we protect as many jobs as possible. I will continue to work with my colleagues to ensure that we are doing as much as we possibly can to protect the jobs of the young, and the less young.
Drew Hendry
I am grateful to the Minister for his kind comments. I would say in passing that there has to be at least one good Cameron mentioned in this House.
I have asked about a range of things, in addition to the HMRC issue, that are not within the Minister’s direct power. One of them was supporting minor changes to borrowing powers to allow the Scottish Government to take decisions themselves to support economies locally. That is important, as he said. Will he take that forward with his colleagues in order to make sure that we can have those measures taken in Scotland?
Paul Scully
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Clearly, these are all things that we will continue to look at.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the hospitality sector. Let me reassure him that the Government recognise that this sector is particularly hard hit by closure. I have regular conversations with representatives of the hospitality sector, including, most recently, only yesterday. They were very pleased and optimistic about the fact that we have now been able to change the rules within England and start giving them the certainty that they need to reopen. I look forward to successful reopening in England and, in time, in Scotland as well. It is so important that we work with the hospitality sector. The three winters issue that he described has been raised with me and I do appreciate it.
This shows the interlinking of the economy. I also hold the position of Minister for London. The hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) talked about culture. With regard to the hotel sector in London, people do not tend to go to a hotel just to sleep in another bed—they come, they sleep and they go because of the theatres, the restaurants and the culture around the area. It is therefore important that we get each of these sectors up and running. That is why we have these frequent discussions and work as collaboratively as we can. That also gives us the understanding we need in order to inform our support. A range of hospitality bodies and companies were consulted on the safer workplaces guidance, for example.
The hon. Member for Richmond Park talked of striking a balance, which is what we have tried to do in this Bill. I am grateful to her colleagues for making the point so clearly that measures are needed for longer. I hope she will agree that the Government have taken on board those concerns. She also spoke about the theatre sector. I know the Orange Tree. I tend to know the Orange Tree pub next door a little bit better than I do the theatre, but I know the great work that it does in the community. I will take her concerns back to colleagues.
Let me take this opportunity to thank the House of Commons Public Bill Office and the House Clerks for ensuring that this vital piece of legislation could be expedited through the House and consequently come into force as a matter of urgency. The support they have provided has been invaluable. I thank the officials who have brought this legislation into existence: my Bill team of Andy Ormerod-Clarke, Muneera Lula, Jess Bradbury, James Roddy and Alice Roycroft. All those in the teams in BEIS and the Insolvency Service—there are too many mention—have worked tirelessly, across weekends and in the evenings, to make sure that we could bring this to bear as quickly as possible. I want to mention the lawyers who have worked day and night, some of them with very young children, to draft this legislation: in particular, Jo Ashida, Denise Fawcett, Samihah El-Gindy, David Anderson, and our lead parliamentary counsel, Diggory Bailey.
I pay tribute to the policy leads, some of whom have worked in this area for many years, and who have worked with outside experts to make sure that we had the measures right: Steve Chown, Simon Whiting, Laura Bardsley, Rob Mak and many, many more. Colleagues from HMT, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the DWP have also been invaluable. I pay tribute to all the organisations and representatives of businesses, consumers, workers, shareholders, investors and insolvency experts who have engaged with us in developing these proposals.
I conclude by mentioning those for whom this Bill is intended: the millions of business owners up and down our country who are keeping Britain moving. I say to them: please keep it up. Let us keep moving and let us bounce back our economy as and when the limitations and the restrictions are lifted.
Lords amendment 1 agreed to.
Lords amendments 2 to 116 agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am sure we all wish baby Cameron Hendry the very best of health and luck for the future.
I suspend the House for three minutes.
Health and Social Care Workers: Recognition and Reward
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions relating to the recognition and reward of health and social care workers.
The Petitions Committee is delighted to have been allocated this business time today. On behalf of more than 4.6 million people from across the country who have signed petitions relating to this pandemic and other issues, let me say that we hope this is now the first of many debates we will be able to have, as 29 petitions are waiting to be debated and more are heading toward the 100,000 signature threshold—the petitioners’ concerns must be heard.
I am honoured to be leading this debate today on recognising and rewarding our health and social care workers. Indeed, the first ever e-petition debate in Parliament was on contracts and conditions for NHS staff, back in September 2015. I also believe we could hold this debate 10 times over, to recognise the contribution of so many during what has been an incredibly challenging time for our country. I am thinking of those who have kept our public services going—those in the police, the fire service, local government and other government departments, who have been working tirelessly to ensure that the support that is needed gets to households and businesses—and those who have been working in our shops, ensuring that we can all get essential supplies. There are so many people to recognise and thank for their service.
It is absolutely right that every week for 10 weeks, we came together especially, as a country, on a Thursday evening at 8 o’clock to recognise and clap for our carers. It was incredibly moving every time. Taking a moment to stop and reflect on the lives lost to covid-19, but also on those many lives saved through the tremendous skill, care and sacrifice of health and social care workers right across our country, we must never forget a frontline on which more than 331 NHS and care workers across the UK died as a result of covid-19. Indeed, it is concerning that we do not know exactly how many health and care workers have sadly lost their lives, because the Government are not producing consistent figures. That is one of the things that I ask the Minister to update the House on in her response.
Yet, as so many people have contacted me to say, those same people have been saving lives and caring for us day after day, long before this horrendous virus presented itself. It is absolutely right that we should clap and thank them for their extraordinary service during this period, but we must also recognise that a clap and a thank you is not enough. It was not enough before this pandemic, and it certainly is not enough now.
Tonia Antoniazzi (Gower) (Lab)
Will my hon. Friend join me in commending the Welsh Labour Government who recognised the efforts of care workers in Wales during covid by paying them £500 more? Many people could benefit from that. Will she also join me in calling for the Government not to make them pay tax on that £500?
Catherine McKinnell
I am sure we will hear much more about the work of different parts of our NHS and the support being given in different ways to the extraordinary contribution that our health and social care workers are making.
There are clearly still huge challenges ahead for our country. We remain in the grip of one of the greatest challenges to our way of life in a lifetime. In recent weeks, more than 290,000 people have signed parliamentary petitions calling on the Government to reward those caring for us and our loved ones at this time of national need. I am sure that colleagues have received many messages and emails about this, as I have.
Last week, one of my constituents wrote to me:
“I am confined to the Freeman”—
—a hospital in Newcastle—
“after a nasty fall. It has given me an opportunity to see the NHS up close and personal. I must say the nurses and others are amazing workers. Doing more than they need without complaint. Their only beef is doing everything masked all the time. However, they keep the rules throughout long shifts. They should be properly rewarded for such skilled and professional work.”
Another said:
“What I hope for now is less posturing and instead some competent administration. Recognise the contribution of those who continue to work on the frontline. At the very least they must have proper working conditions, remuneration and PPE—and no-one working in the NHS or in a caring role should be asked to pay a surcharge.”
There is clearly widespread agreement across this House that health and care workers deserve recognition, but the question is, how do we best do that? Some have suggested medals or honours. In a statement last month, the Prime Minister said:
“The honours system recognises exceptional contributions made across every part of the UK and will play a key role in demonstrating the nation’s gratitude to all those involved in the response.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2020; Vol. 676, c. 32WS.]
He has also said that the Government will consider the creation of a new medal for healthcare workers. That call has been echoed by The Mirror newspaper, with its “Give NHS Heroes a Medal” campaign, which has picked up lots of support, from politicians and trade unions to doctors’ leaders and footballers.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
While I hear everything my hon. Friend says about medals, I am sure she will agree that medals do not put food on the table, and there are many people working in our NHS and social care who work through agencies and are paid the minimum wage or less. Does she agree that that is what needs to be righted?
Catherine McKinnell
My hon. Friend anticipates my next comment, because that idea is receiving a mixed reception. One NHS worker wrote to me:
“I’ve heard whisperings of NHS staff getting medals after the pandemic. Please don’t let this happen! It’s utterly ridiculous; when we are working in understaffed and under resourced settings for money to be spent on medals is outrageous! No one wants that. We’d rather the money go towards improving staff car parking or access to hot food if anything!”
Another constituent wrote to me to say:
“pay rise for the NHS and care workers. They do not need medals.”
While medals and honours have a place in recognising exceptional achievements, there is clearly also a need for true recognition of their bravery and resilience during this crisis, and also for the amazing job they do every single day.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I want to begin by stating an interest: my sister Kathleen and her daughter Chloe both work in the care system. Does the hon. Lady agree that what is missing here is political will, in talking about decent pay that tries to measure the value of the work they do? As of 1 April, the Scottish Government gave an immediate 3.3% pay rise to social care workers and are in the process of establishing a top-up fund for social care workers who contract covid-19 in the course of their duties. Does the hon. Lady agree that that kind of action should be replicated across the UK?
Catherine McKinnell
We will see if there is the political will when the Government respond to this debate today, and afterwards as well.
One of the petitions we are considering today, with over 162,000 signatures, calls for an increase in pay for NHS healthcare workers. They are doing tough work in very challenging circumstances, putting their lives on the line, and for ever-squeezed pay. There have been calls for staff to get paid properly for all the hours they work, especially overtime, which really is not too much to ask.
The Royal College of Nursing has taken issue with recent claims by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care that nursing staff have received a “significant pay rise”. The college’s research shows average earnings for NHS staff have not kept pace with the cost of living since 2010. Ahead of the next pay round for 2021-22 it is calling for an
“honest dialogue…in valuing the nursing workforce”.
We know we have a shortage, and paying health workers properly is key to having the workforce we need. It would be a grave error by the Government if, following the crisis and the recession that we are already heading into, they look to balance the books on the backs of public sector staff in the way we saw after the banking crisis in 2010—the very same public sector workers we have been clapping for in gratitude for saving so many lives. Neither must we see a repeat of the junior doctors dispute, where staff were treated appallingly and morale was devastated as changes to pay and conditions were forced through.
While he and I would certainly disagree on the detail, I echo the comments made by the former Chancellor the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), calling on the current Chancellor to focus on growth, not austerity. We cannot cut our way out of this recession, and certainly not with cuts aimed at the very people who are getting us through this crisis.
Many medical students have also stepped up to support their future colleagues in fighting the virus. There are parliamentary petitions calling for reimbursing fees and reducing student loans. The Petitions Committee is conducting an inquiry into the wider impact of this crisis on students, as there has been unparalleled disruption to higher education.
Before this crisis, student finance reforms also impacted on the healthcare workforce. The decision to scrap NHS bursaries in England and replace them with loans led to applications falling by a quarter, and there are almost 40,000 unfilled nursing posts. While that error has been partially corrected by the restoration of maintenance grants, this will not benefit current students.
One petitioner says that nurses
“will surely work tirelessly to do their best to keep the rest of us safe while at the same time they continue to be charged interest on these loans for a cost which they should not have been required to bear in the first place.”
Another, calling for the current intake to receive grants, says:
“Most student midwives and nurses in those intakes will leave university with at least £60,000 debt, despite having committed to a career in a valuable public service at a time when the NHS is in desperate need of more of them.”
Addressing student finance for healthcare students would be a way to both recognise the efforts of the current intake and help attract more to the profession, but unfortunately the insensitive comments of the Minister for Care recently are a bad start to this, so I urge the Government to do everything they can to rebuild trust.
But the most devasting impact of all has been in social care. Our care homes and their elderly and vulnerable residents have painfully borne the brunt of this crisis. More than 16,000 people have died from covid-19 in care homes, almost a third of all fatalities. Far from the Government wrapping a protective ring around care homes, in the early days of this crisis they were left exposed, without adequate PPE or testing for staff despite their desperate pleas. The human cost of this failure is harrowing.
The crisis has well and truly exposed how neglected our care system has become. Too many staff are low paid and on insecure contracts; too many have had to make choices between risking people’s lives, including their own, or going without pay. Many carers do not receive even the national minimum wage because they are not paid for travel or sleep time.
Campaigners, including the trade union Unison, have been calling for care workers to earn the real living wage of at least £10 an hour outside of London. Working conditions and employment rights vary immensely between care providers and we need to see care workers properly recognised and rewarded for the vital work they do.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Given the sacrifices that care workers have already had to make, many with their lives given the shortage of PPE, does my hon. Friend agree that, going forward, particularly with the risk of a possible second wave of covid later in the year, the Government need to step up and make sure that care workers get not only the support and resources they need, but proper PPE in preparation for what could be a very difficult winter?
Catherine McKinnell
One petitioner summed it up by saying:
“I wish social care workers were considered as equally important as NHS staff.”
I think that that says it all.
Finally, across social care and the NHS, migrant workers are a key part of the workforce and make a huge contribution. The Prime Minister made the right decision to scrap the immigration health surcharge, but this must be fast tracked to include refunds for those who have already paid. Many are also worried about their visa renewal, which is stressful enough. The 12-month visa extension announced by the Home Office is welcome, but it leaves out thousands of dedicated workers who are also working on the frontline. The extension should apply to all.
Many migrant workers in health and social care are stuck in limbo without indefinite leave to remain. The Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Physicians have called for indefinite leave to remain to be granted to all international health and care workers who have worked in the UK during the pandemic. Many migrant workers on the covid frontline are also subject to “no recourse to public funds”, which adds immense financial pressure, especially if they fall ill and have to self-isolate. Unison has called for the policy to be suspended. One petitioner said:
“I strongly believe the Government can do better than that one-year free automatic visa renewal for these NHS heroes. A grant of indefinite leave to remain or citizenship is not too much to ask to appreciate the covid-19 pandemic frontline fighters.”
We cannot expect migrant workers to put their lives at risk and help our nation fight this virus, and then expect them to pay through various means for the privilege of doing so.
In conclusion, the key issue at the heart of today’s debate is how we value our health and care staff and the tremendous work that they do. The pandemic has thrown their dedication, bravery and compassion into the national spotlight as they put their lives on the line, but this dedication is not new. They have been serving our country, day in, day out, long before this pandemic. I hope that this debate will be just the start of a proper conversation about how, as a country, we not only show our gratitude and appreciation for the work that they do but, take real action to make their job easier. For now, to all our doctors, nurses, carers, support staff, and every person working on the frontline during this pandemic, I say a heartfelt thank you to you all.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. Given the popularity of this debate, we will have to impose a three-minute limit on speeches from the outset in order to get as many Members in as we possibly can.
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
First, let me place on the record my thanks to my constituents in Darlington who have taken time to sign petitions and to those who have emailed me to express their gratitude for the exceptional service of our NHS and social care workers. Today’s debate is an opportunity to place on the record both their thanks and my own for the tremendous work of the NHS not only during this pandemic, but every day and every night of every year.
Over the past few months, our nation has come together to save the NHS from being overwhelmed, but it has also united every Thursday with its clap for carers. Darlington’s own newspaper, The Northern Echo, recently published a supplement featuring the incredible work of our health and care workers, providing a permanent record of an army of previously unsung heroes, and I thank it for that recognition.
Throughout the period of the lockdown, I was in weekly contact with Sue Jacques, the chief executive of our local NHS trust based at Darlington Memorial Hospital. Sue shared with me and other Members of this House from the region news of how the NHS locally was responding to the crisis. We were given: updates on PPE supplies, which never ran out; numbers of covid patients they were treating; and many, many stories of service above self from the team. I want to place on the record my thanks to Sue for her leadership throughout the pandemic and for her open and transparent engagement with me. The entire team at County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust has been truly incredible and I thank them all.
I have been in regular contact with many throughout the care sector in my constituency over the past few months and, like the efforts that we have seen in the NHS there has been incredible service, sacrifice and support for our elderly and vulnerable. I pay my thanks to them all for everything that they have done and are continuing to do.
In addition to the health and care community of Darlington, many hundreds of people have stepped up to the plate and gone above and beyond. There are literally hundreds of examples, but I particularly want to highlight the work of the Mowden pub and Maggie’s Place, the entertainment provided by Peter Miller, the exceptional service of Joanne Hammond and the efforts of Louise Graham and the team at Food for Thought. They truly are the best of us, and they have underpinned the efforts of all our key workers, not just those in the health and care sector. Again, I want to place on record my thanks to them on behalf of everyone in Darlington.
The NHS long-term plan sets out to make the NHS a world-class employer, and I understand that the NHS people plan will lay down how all NHS staff will be supported and recognised. I look forward to its publication. I fully endorse the steps that the Government have taken to support the families of the key health and care workers who have tragically lost their lives, with the commitment to the death in service award—
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
May I say how delighted I am to be back in this place? For the last period of time, I have been working, rather like Harry Potter, under the stairs of my home in the highlands. Whether that has affected me as an hon. Member is up to others, from all parts of the Chamber, to decide.
By definition, health is devolved in Scotland, so my remarks will be pertinent to Scotland, but they may have a wider application to England. Of course, my colleague the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) will be enlarging on our party’s position in the rest of the UK. As my colleagues on the Back Benches have said, the notion of an award—a gong, a medal or a ribbon with something on the end of it—without a whole-scale review of pay and conditions is just not on.
I want to make several comments about conditions, and to quote two people. On occasion during the pandemic, from under my staircase in my home, I have telephoned Dr Alison Brooks of the Princes Street practice in Thurso, in the very far north of Scotland, and she gave me sage advice at all times. Today she said this to me about the nurses with whom she works. She knows of a nurse—a friend of hers in Glasgow—who has worked 10 night shifts on the trot just to cover the job, because colleagues were sick. Dr Brooks said to me, “Remember, NHS staff don’t just walk away; they go above and beyond. They feel a moral obligation.”
Dr Brooks encouraged me to think about the toll that it takes on NHS staff when they know that they have been in a risk situation, albeit with the best of equipment, but they go back to their families, loved ones and young ones with the niggling fear at the back of their minds that they might bring the virus back with them. When we reflect on pay and conditions, we must think about how we cover sickness absence.
My second example is from a nurse from Wick in Caithness who worked in the high-dependency covid ward in Raigmore for the duration of the pandemic. This is what she wrote to me:
“My suggestion would be that there could be skills based tiers within bandings. For example: one for those who have little clinical responsibility and/or skills; one for those who have advanced clinical skills and responsibility.”
She says that the doctors cover the advanced stuff, but very often the doctor will have to cover the entire hospital, so they have to make clinical decisions. Perhaps remuneration for such people should be fine-tuned within the banding.
I conclude with this. When I was a councillor, a long time ago, my colleagues gave me the area chairmanship of social work because they thought that nobody else would want it. Remember that social work may be seen as a Cinderella service, and we must sort that out in the review.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
I would like to place on record my thanks to everyone who works at Peterborough City Hospital, the North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust, Caroline Walker and her team, my local clinical commissioning group, everyone at Peterborough City Council, all the GP surgeries in Peterborough and all the community pharmacies in Peterborough who have worked so hard to get us through this tough time.
I want to focus my remarks on home care and domiciliary care workers. If we want parity of esteem between social care workers and NHS workers, and there is a conflict there, we need the same parity of esteem between care workers who work in care homes and those who help people in their own homes.
I have heard many personal stories, both good and bad, as a member of the Health and Social Care Committee and in my work as the constituency MP for Peterborough. I remember talking to Richard, who told me that he felt that it was almost cheating to call what he did “work”, because he spent lots of his time talking to friends—the people he cared for. Mel told me that she would always recommend social care as a career, despite some of the challenges that she has, but too often we hear bad stories about the experiences of staff who work in domiciliary care. People were being tutted at for wearing their uniform out in public—there is a lack of understanding that domiciliary care workers wear their uniforms as they travel between clients’ homes.
Understanding is key to all of this, because lots of people still call this low-skilled work, not understanding that domiciliary care work involves administering medicines and doing other complex tasks. A domiciliary care worker needs to be a real people’s person, and they are often hidden heroes in our communities. My father died relatively recently. He was a strong and independent man. Domiciliary care workers cleaned him, dressed him and gave him back his dignity, and my mother and I can never say thank you enough for that.
Home care is the biggest part of the social care sector and it employs hundreds of thousands of people. I would like to ask three questions in the time remaining. We talk a lot about valuing our social care staff and parity of esteem, but how can we resolve this problem relating to the value of NHS and social care workers? What can we do that is concrete? Would it be right for local authorities to pay for social care activities? Can we do better by looking at outcomes? Finally, can we look to integrate our NHS and social care workforce as they have in Denmark?
Gerald Jones (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab)
I am pleased to be able to speak in this important debate, supported by millions of people across the country, including some in my constituency. Nothing we do will ever truly recognise our care workers for what they do, but the Government must acknowledge their sacrifices and their dedication and commitment. As Ministers and Members from across the House have acknowledged time and again during the pandemic, these are truly exceptional times. Our NHS and care workers across the UK are doing truly exceptional work, so often invisible to the vast majority of us.
It has never been more important than now to recognise the invaluable contribution our care workers make, especially those who are not paid properly for their sacrifices and the often difficult and long hours they work to support those in need, families and local communities. I pay tribute to the Welsh Labour Government for leading the way, as ever, in recognising care workers. In April, the Welsh Government agreed a £500 payment and subsequently agreed that it will apply not only to carers in Wales, but to cooks, cleaners and a range of other key frontline staff working on the frontline in care who make an immeasurable contribution to the health and wellbeing of those most in need.
I urge the UK Government to do the right thing, make an exception in this case and allow care workers to keep the entire £500 one-off payment in recognition of their efforts not only during the pandemic, but all year round. To do anything less is an insult to the sacrifices they have made and the pressure that they put themselves under to care for those most in need during such a difficult time. I ask the Minister to confirm that she will make representations to the Treasury in this regard and will indeed allow carers in Wales to receive the full £500 in recognition of their amazing efforts during the pandemic, and remove the tax requirement in this case.
The Welsh Government have arranged for payment to thank care workers, despite operating on a budget from Westminster that has been subjected to a decade of harsh austerity. As we have heard, there are many ways in which the UK Government can give proper recognition to the many thousands of people working in social care across the country, rather than simply clapping on a Thursday night. The Government should fully recognise the work of care staff and, at the very least, increase pay, testing and the provision of PPE for NHS and care workers immediately to ease the immense pressure on the shoulders of many who provide care to those in need, allowing them to feel safe, given the many risks they face day to day, not only on the frontline during the pandemic but throughout the year. I urge the Government to act and I hope the Minister will respond accordingly.
Alexander Stafford (Rother Valley) (Con)
We have been fighting a war in Rother Valley over the past few months. Our enemy has been the coronavirus and we have all made great sacrifices. No one has sacrificed more than our incredible health and social care workers, who have put everything on the line to defeat this terrible virus. I speak from personal experience: my mother-in-law, Joyce, works in the NHS, and our family has shared the anxiety and worry that health professionals’ families are experiencing up and down the country.
Paul Bristow
May I place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend’s mother-in-law, Joyce, who I believe works at Peterborough City Hospital?
Alexander Stafford
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) for his kind words. I thank all the people who work in the NHS. Without their dedication and experience, we would not be in the position we are in today. The British people owe those heroes an eternal debt of gratitude. Thanks to them, and to the Government’s strong and decisive actions, Britain is recovering day by day.
I pay tribute to the health and social care workers of Rother Valley. Once again, they have risen to the challenge and proven themselves to be the backbone of our community. Likewise GPs, such as those at the Stag medical centre and the Swallownest health centre, have been working hard to continue to treat people throughout the pandemic. I was moved by a recent letter from one of my constituents, Graham Makin, notifying me of the phenomenal work carried out by the care workers at Waterside Grange care home in Dinnington, who are looking after his wife during this crisis. Graham writes:
“the outstanding dedication and incredible expertise that all the staff give to the residents. It is very close to a ‘family’ environment. To them this is not a job—certainly not for the money they earn—it is truly a vocation and a passion.”
Graham is of course right. He goes on to urge a better deal for those in the care sector. I am delighted that the Prime Minister has made social care a priority and pledged to consider social care as being of equal importance to the NHS. I know that everyone in this House and across our nation wants us to get social care done.
However, we must not forget that behind our health and social care workers there are many others in the community who have helped the NHS. Robert Holland, an engineer from Dinnington, offered to use his engineering expertise to convert tyre inflation equipment to hospital ventilators. Cawthorne’s Travel has been laying on free buses to take NHS workers to Rotherham General Hospital. Local groups, such as the Thurcroft coronavirus action group, led valiantly by Cath MacCartan and Diane Oxley, have been doing such great work for our community. Those selfless actions are just the tip of the iceberg in Rother Valley.
I ask the House how best we can recognise and reward health and social care workers, but also those who have done so much to help the NHS. People in Rother Valley have already taken this matter in their own hands. For example, coaches, parents and players of Laughton FC’s under-11s have already been fundraising for hampers for NHS workers. Mark Kelsall from Maltby has been creating wonderful oil paintings of local NHS staff. Shaun and Halle Salmon created an amazing Lego superhero mural that is now in the reception of Rotherham Hospital. Those are just a few ways that the people of Rother Valley have given back. For my part, I am proud to have instituted the Rother Valley hero awards for this very purpose.
I contend that nationally we must do the same by rewarding campaign medals to our British heroes who have fought the virus. My constituent Andrew Gardner of Thurcroft suggested to me that we should hold a memorial event for health and social care workers, which would take place in Whitehall much like the events on Remembrance Sunday. I believe that that proposal merits serious consideration and should be taken forward. Ultimately, it is of the utmost importance that the House pursues all avenues, including looking at pay and rewards, in recognising and rewarding the heroism of our health and social care workers, and the selflessness of those who have helped the NHS both in Rother Valley and across the United Kingdom. Without them, we would not have been able to pull through this crisis.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
I rise to speak on behalf of the 434 residents in the Pontypridd constituency who have signed the petitions relating to the recognition and reward of health and social care workers. It is clear that the creation of the NHS is undoubtedly the Labour party’s greatest ever achievement and one which I will always personally champion. I hope colleagues on all Benches will indulge me as I also use today’s debate to celebrate the 20th birthday of NHS Direct Wales, which is taking place this week.
It is all too easy to reduce the NHS workforce to doctors and nurses, but given that there are around 400 different job roles in our NHS, it is important that all NHS staff are given the credit they deserve for their incredible work all year round. Among many others, the porters, cleaners, caterers, healthcare assistants, allied health professionals and the many invaluable volunteers who give up their free time truly are the unsung heroes of our NHS. The coronavirus pandemic has provided a unique opportunity to truly show our thanks and appreciation. Call me old-fashioned, but I am not sure that a handclap or a medal quite cuts it. I wonder whether the Minister would be satisfied with a handclap or a pat on the back instead of receiving her additional ministerial salary—something tells me the answer is no.
Naturally, as a proud Welsh valleys woman, it would be wrong—rude, even—for me not to take the opportunity today to highlight how different things are across the border thanks to the fantastic Welsh Labour Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) said, the Welsh Labour Government are leading the way in the response to the coronavirus pandemic. They say that where Wales leads, England follows, and I am more than inclined to agree.
Thanks to the Welsh Labour Government, social care and domiciliary care workers in Wales, including agency workers, and support staff in care homes such as kitchen workers and cleaners will soon receive a diolch or thank-you payment of up to £500—a payment that will be available to 64,600 care home workers and domiciliary care workers throughout Wales. That comes after the Welsh Labour Government have already pledged to commit an incredible £40 million of extra funding for adult social care services, to help meet the extra costs associated with the response to the pandemic.
Clearly, that payment is a reward in recognition of the unprecedented circumstances and strain that have been placed on all our NHS staff across the Union, from Pontypridd in south Wales to Perth in Scotland. It is even clearer to me that this payment should be exempt from income tax and national insurance contributions—something that the Welsh Labour First Minister and colleagues in the House have been calling for. So far, Her Majesty’s Treasury has point-blank refused—talk about a kick in the teeth for workers who have literally put their lives on the line to keep us all safe. NHS workers in Pontypridd and throughout Wales deserve better.
Colleagues will be aware that, thanks to another fantastic Labour-led campaign, the Prime Minister was forced to U-turn again this week. He is running in circles. If the Minister needs any information on Wales and how we can best tackle the coronavirus pandemic, I am more than happy to offer my services; she knows where to find me. I hope that where Wales leads, England will follow.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I want to place on record my thanks to the pharmacists, GPs, hospital staff and everyone in between across Watford for the amazing work they have done recently and over many years. I sit on the Health Committee—now the Health and Social Care Committee, importantly—which has given me great insight into the challenges that the health and social care sector has faced over the past few months. Over the past 10 or 11 weeks, I have also been a volunteer at Watford General Hospital, literally on my knees cleaning Zimmer frames at times and carrying water to staff. I have been proud to be part of the volunteer hub there, alongside people like Monica, Theo, George, Denise, Linda and so many more who are offering their time for free to help our brave NHS staff as they tackle this terrible pandemic. The hospital has also been working closely with Watford football club, which has provided amazing facilities, including a sanctuary for staff’s mental health.
During this time, I have also been listening. One of our jobs as parliamentarians is to listen. What I have been hearing is that the pandemic has shown how this Government are trying to be innovative, trying to use technology in different ways and, ultimately, trying to unbind the red tape that has held back so many people on the frontline. For so long, we have been stuck in a process of looking at points and targets, and we have forgotten what frontline workers really want. They want respect. They want trust. They want us to cut through the red tape, so that they can get on with their jobs across the health and social care sector. I am hearing loud and clear that, during this pandemic, we have enabled that to happen because we have had to, but we need to continue that.
We also need to listen to what staff really want. I had an eye-opening moment when I was delivering sandwiches to one of the wards, and the nurse said, “Don’t worry about the sandwiches—we’re getting fed over at Watford football club. We get delicious pizza over there, so we probably won’t eat those.” That really opened my eyes to the fact that, while salary is critical, it is also about what life is like on the frontline day after day.
We need to listen to what staff really want, and that is partly about career pathways and opportunities such as sabbaticals after 10 years of working in the same job. It is about corporate discounts, working with the private sector to enable not just NHS staff but social care workers to have free opportunities and discounts and go to the front of the queue. It is also about innovation and the use of data and technology. I believe that, if we look at all those things, although it may not happen overnight—it might take years, perhaps even decades—we can really make a change for the better for all our brave staff and be, not just the biggest employer, but the best employer in the world.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
It has been said many times, but we should never tire of saying that our NHS and care workers are true heroes and that we are incredibly grateful for their skill, dedication, selflessness and sacrifice. We came out on Thursday evenings to applaud them; now it is time to build a system that rewards them with more than applause. That is why it is important that the Government put their money where their mouth is and start to recognise them, as hundreds of thousands of people in each of these petitions have called for. After a decade of austerity, the NHS and social care system is on its knees. The Government were already missing A&E targets as far back as 2015. We know that the NHS has vacancies of 100,000 and that NHS trusts are £1.23 billion in deficit, which needs to be addressed quickly so that they can get on with the job of protecting us. Then there is the mental health crisis.
Across the NHS and care system, there is the scourge of low pay. Unison predicts that we will need another 1 million extra careworkers by 2025. It is vital that we learn the lessons now and ensure that we have a resilient, well-resourced, effective NHS, where people are properly rewarded and have their skills and expertise recognised, rather than being treated shoddily, which is what we have seen.
We also need the Government to ensure that junior doctors are properly rewarded. The Government’s behaviour in recent years has been appalling, yet the doctors, nurses and carers have been the people on the frontline, saving people’s lives and protecting us. We also know that black, Asian and minority ethnic NHS and care workers have had the highest death rate, yet the Government have been inadequate in protecting them. To be frank, the Government have treated them like cannon fodder and the fact that they do not have proper recommendations for those workers is scandalous. They need to get a grip before more lives are lost.
If the Minister for Care thinks that health and care workers should be protected, she should act instead of saying appalling things about them. I hope she will apologise for the remarks she made recently about care staff. The point is that we need to ensure that, when the crisis eases, this Government do not forget the sacrifice and commitments that people in the NHS and care system have made, and that they act to ensure those people are properly rewarded, properly recognised and protected.
Dr Jamie Wallis (Bridgend) (Con)
It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak in this debate on behalf of the many vital careworkers and NHS staff in my constituency. I therefore begin by putting on record, on behalf of everybody in Bridgend, our sincere and heartfelt thanks for everything carers and NHS staff are doing. They do a fantastic job, delivering world-class care. Even with increasing pressures due to, among other things, an ageing population and changing public expectations, they work incredibly hard, always putting patients first and keeping them safe while providing the high-quality care we have all come to expect.
Alex Davies-Jones
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in order to reward and recognise these careworkers in Wales, the £500 money that has been given to them by the Welsh Labour Government should be exempt from tax and national insurance by the UK Tory Government?
Dr Wallis
I agree with the hon. Lady, and I have been talking to Her Majesty’s Treasury about it. I was disappointed in the response that I got from Welsh Labour Ministers when a perfectly reasonable suggestion was put forward on how careworkers could receive the net amount of £500; I would be happy to forward that correspondence to her after this debate.
It is vital that we continue to break down some of the long-standing barriers between health and social care. We have learnt the importance of both of these sectors over the past few months, and our appreciation must go equally to all carers. They play a crucial role in managing the complex care needs of thousands of people every single day. Even with the additional risks they take, they continue to work so hard to support the people we all care about in these unprecedented times.
If there is some positivity to hopefully come out of this horrendous time, it is how it has highlighted to us all that the social care sector does so much. We are now all well aware that, without them, our communities and our loved ones would suffer. I have received many tributes to our carers. Indeed, the Porthcawl male voice choir, of which I am vice chair—not a participant, the House will be pleased to know—have produced a wonderfully emotional and heartfelt video to say thank you, and I encourage others to watch it. It bears a fitting strength of feeling, recognising how proud we are of our carers during this global crisis.
I was also delighted to see the personal message that Ant and Dec sent to all the care staff in the Princess of Wales Hospital, and I will end with their words:
“We just wanted to say thank you so much for all the hard work you're doing every day on behalf of the whole country, and we would like to send you lots and lots of love. Keep up the good work.”
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
All sides of the House have rightly recognised the immense sacrifice and service to this country made by our health and care workforces, but it is now time to put our money where our mouths are and start to recognise and reward those staff. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have argued through this crisis for a package of frontline support, including something akin to the deployment allowance given to the military frontline. We should have a frontline service award of a daily allowance during this crisis, but beyond that, this is not the time for a pay freeze. Negotiations on public sector pay must reflect the service and sacrifice that many on the frontline have made for us and our loved ones.
In social care, many do not work in the public sector. Two million people in care jobs are largely on the minimum wage. Half are on zero-hours contracts, yet they are undertaking highly skilled work, taking care of the most vulnerable and providing intimate care. They are often not paid benefits or for travel time, which can be significant in London. It is possible to earn more money stacking shelves in Tesco. It is important to recognise that they have very few career prospects and little training. The pay differential between careworkers with less than a year of experience and those with more than 20 years’ experience has now reduced to just 15p an hour. That is because of the funding crisis in social care, which is keeping those wages down. The case for ensuring that our careworkers are at the very least paid the real living wage is overwhelming and a moral imperative.
In the longer term, to tackle the workforce crisis and put social care on an equal footing with the NHS, pay scales must be reviewed and ideally aligned with the NHS, but that obviously needs to go hand in hand with tackling the long-term funding crisis in social care. Those reforms are well overdue.
We know there is a huge number of migrant workers in social care and in the NHS. The figure is one in seven in the NHS and one in six in the care workforce. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches have argued through the crisis that the cruel policy of no recourse to public funds must be suspended. That is particularly relevant for those on the frontline who may be reticent to take time off or self-isolate because they are only eligible for statutory sick pay, which, frankly, is not enough to live on. A number of other benefits are not available to them, but, most importantly, when people have put their lives on the line for us and our loved ones, we must recognise those workers by granting them indefinite leave to remain. A visa extension is not enough. It is not enough to just take their service and say, “Bye bye. Thank you very much.” We have a moral responsibility to allow them to stay.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I hope you will join me, Mr Speaker, in paying tribute to the incredible work of careworkers across Beaconsfield. In Denham Manor, Lent Rise House and Chiltern House in Gerrards Cross, countless hours and much time has been spent. They have been the real heroes in Bucks, and I pay tribute to them, but I also want to look at how we distribute funding for our careworkers.
We have always looked at adult social care as being on the bottom tier of the ladder in terms of the NHS funding allocation, and I would like to see it brought up to the top. I would like to see it given equal footing with the NHS to allow for career progression and for the statutory duty that councils now have to take on. That should be reflected in the money that is allocated to councils to carry out their care responsibilities.
We have gotten through this crisis, and I pay tribute to my local council and Bucks clinical commissioning group, but we need to look at how we can give careworkers the respect and the pay that they deserve as we move forward. The money comes from the same pot, but we need to look at how it is allocated. I hope the Minister will join me in looking at how we can help give people in the care sector career progression, the pay they deserve and respect for the jobs that they hold.
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Lab)
I begin by thanking every single health and care worker in my constituency of Coventry South. They have gone over and beyond to keep us safe and healthy. I know that I speak on behalf of all of Coventry when I say thank you. They have faced this crisis with incredible strength, selflessness and determination. At its height, millions of people across the country went out every Thursday to clap for health and care workers. Now it is our responsibility to match that appreciation with meaningful action— with NHS staff and carers getting the real pay rise and recognition that they so richly deserve.
The simple truth is that NHS staff and carers have been failed for far too long. Since 2010, newly qualified nurses have faced an 8% pay cut. Half of frontline carers are paid less than the minimum wage and years of devastating cuts to the NHS and neglect of care work have left us all more vulnerable to a pandemic. We saw that with the PPE shortages in hospitals when the crisis hit. We saw that when doctors and nurses repeatedly —desperately—asked for testing, only to be told that there was not capacity. We saw it again with black and ethnic minority NHS workers killed by coronavirus at a disproportionately higher rate, exposing the inequalities that lie at the heart of our society.
Let me go through some of the experiences that my constituents who work in our health and care system have told me of. There are migrants who work on the frontline, but have been hit by the hostile environment and burdened with visa fees and health surcharges. There are NHS staff who, until recently, were forced to pay obscene parking charges at University Hospital Coventry—in some cases, almost £500 a year. These charges are exploitatively set by private companies that are making profits on the back of our workers.
There are nurses robbed of NHS bursaries, leading to a 32% decrease in nursing applicants nationwide. Now we have an overstretched and overworked workforce, with more than 7,500 nursing vacancies in the midlands alone, which has been called a “full-blown crisis” by the Royal College of Nursing. Then there are the A&E workers, who face a mental health crisis, with one of my constituents describing their work as heart-breaking and soul-destroying, and their work environment as a war zone.
Those are just some of the wrongs done to the NHS and care workers in my constituency. I urge the Government, who clapped for them through this crisis, to match that with action: give our carers, nurses, porters and cleaners a real pay rise; end poverty wages in the NHS and care work; ensure that they are all on good contracts with no more precarious work; give indefinite leave to remain to all migrant workers; and restore the NHS to a truly public service, free from privatisation and run for the public good, not private profit.
Andy Carter (Warrington South) (Con)
NHS and domiciliary care workers in Warrington have been on the frontline of our national effort to control coronavirus. They have been there for every family in their time of need. It is right that they get the reward and recognition that they deserve. I thank everyone in Warrington South who signed the petition.
In our community, district nurses from the Bridgewater NHS trust, our village and town GPs, along with doctors, nurses, cleaners, porters and healthcare assistants from Warrington Hospital, have all worked alongside social carers and mental health teams at the North West Boroughs NHS trust. The leadership in Warrington has meant that the supply of PPE has continued uninterrupted, urgent A&E services have been maintained and the number of high-dependency beds has increased, so that everyone who needs care gets its. Hospitals have collaborated. I want to recognise Professor Simon Constable, chief executive officer of Warrington Hospital, who has led the fight against covid-19 from the front.
One group we should single out is the infection control teams, not just in Warrington but across the country, who have worked around the clock in hospitals to keep areas clean and to minimise the spread. I also want to pay tribute to the nursing and care staff at Spire Cheshire Hospital in Warrington. It has turned its operating theatres over to the national health service so that urgent cancer care and trauma operations can continue in a non-covid hospital environment. Our health and care workers, and social care workers, have been one team, dedicated and working together to do the best for everyone in our community, through our national health service.
I do not underestimate how challenging the recent months have been for health and social care staff in Warrington. I saw this at first hand as a member of my family was hospitalised with covid-19. I also saw the dedication and care that was given to her in the most difficult circumstances, and I am incredibly thankful for their heroic efforts. I also want to remember and give thanks for three nurses, Jo Habab, Andy Collier and Janice Glassey, who worked for our local NHS trusts and have, sadly, succumbed to this dreadful virus. I am sure the thoughts of this House and everyone in Warrington go to their families at this difficult time.
Life in our hospitals has been made just a little easier by the tremendous efforts and generous giving of our community. Last week, I met the aircrews from Manchester airport who were operating Project Wingman, where pilots and cabin crew were caring for our nurses and our doctors in their staff lounges. The Sikh community have delivered 13,000 meals free of charge to our NHS staff, turning up every week without fail.
To conclude, I put on record my thanks and incredible appreciation for our teams in Warrington.
Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I speak today in favour of a pay increase for NHS healthcare workers. More than 500 constituents have signed the petition calling on the Government to recognise the hard work and sacrifice of healthcare workers with a pay increase. I completely agree that those working in the health and social care sector deserve a pay increase, not only as a recognition of their hard work during the crisis, but as a necessary step towards ensuring their future wellbeing.
For years, this Government have stood by as our NHS and care staff have given their all to provide a great healthcare service while their families fall further into poverty. In 2018, we saw a rise in the number of nurses using food banks, with one study finding that 38% of nurses struggle to buy food and that 50.5% had considered quitting their profession because of financial difficulties. More than half of all care workers are paid less than the real living wage and these workers are four times more likely to be on a zero-hours contract than the average worker.
This pay rise is not just about rewarding people for their hard work; it is about recognising the real and negative impact that low pay has had on our health and social care workers. Some 15% of workers in low-quality, low-paid jobs say that they have poor-quality health, which compares with a figure of 7% for those in good working environments. Covid-19 has thrived on inequality, with people in the poorest parts of England twice as likely to die from covid-19. Perhaps there is some correlation between that fact and the fact that our poorly paid social care workers are almost twice as likely to die from covid-19. Ensuring that health and social care staff work in a high-quality and well-paid environment benefits us all.
Covid-19 has highlighted how much the UK needs a well-functioning NHS and social care system, and how lucky we are to have access to healthcare. However, organisations are already warning of mass vacancies in the future. How are the Government planning to fulfil their promise, as well as to recruit more than 100,000 employees to the care sector, given that what they are offering is low-paid, high-stress, insecure work? I have been contacted throughout this crisis by many constituents urging me to support a pay rise for workers in the healthcare sector. Today, I am asking the Government to show all the hard-working NHS and social care staff in Erith and Thamesmead, and across the UK, the support they deserve and to give them this much-needed pay rise.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con)
I thank all the people who have signed the petitions that we are debating for expressing their support for NHS and social care staff and for the generosity of spirit that they have shown. It has given everyone in this place another chance to show our appreciation for NHS and social care staff. From working alongside colleagues, I know that it makes a difference: they notice these things.
We have seen an astonishing contribution over recent months, but many NHS and social care staff make fantastic contributions every day as part of their normal work. People go into the NHS and social care with open eyes—they are not naive about what their roles entail—but that does not mean that we should not try harder to understand better how some roles and areas of work do not give staff the work-life balance that we would expect or the ability to deliver the care that we would want them to be able to deliver. As the workforce more generally moves towards greater flexibility and better work-life balance, NHS and social care staff will increasingly compare their work experiences and will perhaps not recommend that future generations go down the same route. We must tackle that.
That is why I am glad that at the most recent election the Government made some incredibly ambitious commitments for NHS staffing levels, particularly GP and nursing staff levels. The successful delivery of those goals will make an enormous difference. To get there, the Government will really have to get to grips with recruitment and retention in the NHS in a way that in recent years no party has done. We have made some good progress already: we have seen some good figures today on the increases in NHS and doctor numbers; junior doctors’ pay scales will have increased by at least 8% by 2023; and nurses will have received increases of between 6.5% and 9% by next year. The reward package also includes things such as pensions, some of which are the best available: members of the scheme can generally expect to receive £3 to £6 in pension benefits for every £1 that they contribute.
It is not just about pay, though. For example, in GP practice we see an enormous shift among new recruits to part-time work, because people want more flexibility. They want to live a different style of life, and that will have an enormous impact on the workforce across NHS. I want to use the focus on NHS and social care staff that has come about in the light of the pandemic and the extraordinary contributions that have been made to get everybody in this place to engage with the significant workforce challenges that we will face given an ageing population and an increase in demand.
Pay is never easy for any Government—there is always a need to look after the nation’s finances—but a recognition of the important role that healthcare can have in stimulating the economy and creating jobs and innovation should be given greater weight in the Treasury’s calculations. We do not yet know what the underlying finances are going to be in future years, as all the impacts of the pandemic play out, but within those constraints I want the Government to do everything they can to go as far as they can to reward and recognise the contribution of NHS and social care staff.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
I agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) that pay is difficult to sort out because it is often systemic, but it needs to be fair.
I speak today solely about contract staff in the NHS, although I associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) about the similar situation in the social care sector. I am not talking about those who are directly employed; I am talking for myself and on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who is unable to speak because of shielding, about the thousands of staff working on outsourced contracts who are paid considerably less—often lower than the minimum wage—and who have fewer rights to sick leave; who have much less job security, if any; who are often on zero-hours or uncertain contracts; and who are disproportionately from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds. I pay tribute to the GMB trade union for highlighting how many agency workers were going to work sick because they had to choose between working and paying their basic bills. The move to a secure sick pay is a start, but it is not enough and it is not yet firmed up for the long term.
Homerton University Hospital in my constituency is an excellent hospital that does great work, but it is now in the throes of agreeing a five-year extension to a contract for hospital cleaners and other ancillary staff employed by ISS. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington and I are concerned about such a long extension leaving key workers on low pay without the protection and recognition that NHS employed staff have, but the real issue is systemic: it is not about the individual trusts but about how the Government choose to fund hospitals, such that from day one they cannot fund their full staff complement. The NHS systemically is funded such that it bakes in the assumption of low-paid, insecure workers on outsourced contracts. As of 2018-19, for which we have the most recent figures to be audited, the combined deficit of trusts in England was £844 million—up £86 million from the year before. That is the heart of the problem.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington and I are really clear that the Government need to foster a system that is not reliant on low pay. So low-paid are these workers, the irony is that their pay is topped up by taxpayer-funded universal credit and other benefits. We are both clear that if people are facing the same risk, they should have the same reward. This inequality cannot continue, and if we are to learn anything from the covid-19 crisis, it is that we need to level up so those who work for the lowest pay—poverty pay—are getting a fairer deal.
Tom Randall (Gedling) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important debate. The “Protect the NHS” slogan represented the very real danger, at the beginning of this pandemic, that the health service might be overwhelmed. That did not happen, I believe, for two reasons: because the public adhered to the strong public health messaging and because our NHS staff stepped up to the challenge.
As the Member of Parliament for Gedling, I receive regular updates from Amanda Sullivan, from NHS Nottingham and Nottinghamshire CCGs, and Tracy Taylor, the chief executive of Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. I would like to thank them for their work in updating me. I was amazed in those updates at the very hard work being done throughout the county at work such as working rapidly to expand intensive care capacity, and for ensuring that the demand for PPE across the county was being met.
I would like to put on record my thanks to the doctors, nurses, GPs, pharmacists, care home workers and other key workers who have worked hard for their dedication. It is clear to me that that dedication and hard work is widely appreciated. As I have walked through my home town of Arnold, I have been amazed at the drawings of rainbows in front windows, showing support for key workers and offering hope for a better time to come.
That better time will, of course, require a strong economy to generate revenues for our public services. I am pleased that, because of that, we have been able to offer a 6.5% pay rise for all staff on the “Agenda for Change” pay scales, including nurses, and the implementation of a five-year GP contract framework. I am also pleased that we have been able to deal with the thorny issue of pension tax rules and the change to the taper allowance at the last Budget, which I know had been a big concern for consultants and made additional work prohibitive. As the British Medical Association has acknowledged, the vast majority of doctors have now been removed from the effects of that taper.
We have faced what is possibly a once-in-a-century event, and I think it is right that we recognise that in some way. A constituent of mine, Elizabeth Gull, has proposed the creation of a medal for NHS workers. When I raised this with the Prime Minister last month at Prime Minister’s questions, I was pleased to see that he considered it to be an excellent suggestion, and I understand the Cabinet Office is looking into the measure.
We should also recognise that NHS staff and others have been working at full capacity for several months now. I hope that there will be some reflection by employers and others about giving assistance not only in pay, but to help them rest and recuperate so that, going forwards, they will be able to work at their full mental and physical strength.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
We have clapped and we have clapped. In fact, the country clapped week in, week out for eight weeks, and we all embraced it—so much so that, when we did not, we missed it. There is no taking away from the fact that this pandemic has been tragic for many people, and to those who have lost loved ones, what can we say? Our heart goes out to you. There is really nothing worse. For those who have lost their jobs, it is tough. I have lost mine before, and I know it is tough and how hard that can be.
The clapping—yes, the clapping—became to many a symbol of a country coming together and of thanking the ones on the frontline. They are the ones who, in effect, were coming out of the trenches every day to save people who had caught this terrible virus. I can only imagine how it would have felt for myself or my wife going to work and knowing that one of us would be coming into contact with this deadly disease, which could be taken home. Even worse would be knowing that I would, at some point in the day, see someone die, and such deaths would be reported on the news each night. Some might say, “Well, that’s what nursing is about.” Some might say, “You must get used to it.” Some might say, “It’s just another day.” Some might, but I will not: I was not there, so how can I? What I can say is that I am glad that they were there for us. Thanks to this Government, the efforts of the frontline staff and our national effort, we are coming through this. There is light at the end of the tunnel. In fact, it is within touching distance—so much so that we can now start to reflect on what we have all been through.
This motion comes after several petitions calling for us to recognise and reward our health and social care workers. When I last counted, 200,000 people, including 245 of my own constituents, had signed one of these petitions calling for our frontline staff to receive the recognition they deserve. I keep saying “frontline staff” because I think that many thanks should go to the doctors, carers, nurses, porters, cleaners and everyone else who makes up the frontline in our NHS and social care sector—those who, when many in the country were furloughed and spending time with their families, were putting themselves at risk and missing time with their loved ones. For many in these frontline jobs, Easter was cancelled, and many have worked back-to-back shifts.
We must remember that we may not all end up in hospital during our lives, but there is a good chance that we may spend some time in a nursing home, so carers there, who are pretty much all on the frontline, need recognition too. Some of them really went the extra mile, as they never went home at all to keep the virus away from their residents. Every night the Government have taken time to stand in front of the nation and tell us where we are with this virus, but they have never given us the figures for the people our carers have put back on the road to recovery. This is difficult with care homes—
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) for setting the scene in this debate, all those who have contributed, and all those who will. I am so very thankful that the debate has been accepted. I had applied for an Adjournment debate on this issue, particularly highlighting the return of NHS staff from retirement—those who returned to the trenches—which is worthy of attention and note as well as the overall NHS effort.
As we watched things unfold in other countries—in Italy, for example—I read inspiring stories that lifted my heart and ones that filled me with dread for our country. I thank the Government for spending the money and making the finance available to source the additional beds to prepare for what was to come. I knew, at the end of the day, the burden that rested on the shoulders of every person in the NHS and in care home facilities—those on the frontline, who did not let us down. Over 20,000 staff returned to the NHS to fight this battle—20,000 people who had already paid their dues and yet were prepared to return and stand in the breach. We thank them for hearing the call and responding to it.
The army of volunteers—some 600,000 people—said, “We will do what we can.” They helped with the shopping lists and the food deliveries. They rang and spoke to the elderly people to be a social lifeline and to ensure that no one was absolutely isolated. We do not know, and possibly may never know, what the whole story of corona- virus would have been without their input.
We thank every consultant, GP, doctor, nurse, nursing ancillary worker, porter, lab technician, cleaner and administrative agency worker—we thank them all. Saying thanks sometimes seem so little for those who signed up to help. I know that sometimes they must have felt that they were in something similar to a warzone. It is my sincere belief that we must do more than just say thank you to all those who went above and beyond their job descriptions and into community hero mode. We appreciate every person who could not see their children or partner because their work was too dangerous, and every exhausted parent who worked their shift and then went home to carry out household tasks, home-school their children, shop and everything else. We appreciate the sacrifices that you made more than words can ever say.
I subscribe to the view of speakers who have said that we should be looking at some sort of financial remuneration and pay rise for those who served on the frontline in the NHS. They do deserve that, but they also deserve investment in the NHS, more training in the NHS, more technology and more staff—all of those things. It is not enough—it can never be enough—but it would be a lasting testament to the battle fought, a reminder of the precious lives lost, and a demonstration that this wonderful United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, always together, always better, can rise to any challenge when we stand together shoulder to shoulder.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I am very grateful for the opportunity, on behalf of all the residents of Bolsover, to say thank you so much to all our care workers and all our NHS staff, who have done so much during these incredibly difficult months. We thank them unreservedly for everything they have done for our communities and our country.
A few weeks ago I suggested in oral questions that we should have a special honours list to recognise those who have done so much and sacrificed so much during this period. I say again to the Minister that I feel that is something we should pursue. I suspect that many, many people from Bolsover would be suggested for inclusion on such a list.
One of the most humbling and difficult things that I have done during this period has been to speak to every single one of the care home managers in my constituency. One in particular stands out. She said that this had been the most difficult period of her life. In tears, she said, “But I’m also incredibly proud of what we’ve done—of the leadership we’ve shown and how well my team have coped.” That just goes to demonstrate the amazing spirit that we have seen in this period. In my conversations with my local hospitals—the Chesterfield Royal, the King’s Mill Hospital and the hospital in Bassetlaw—I have heard only good things about the efforts that the staff have put in.
Our manifesto committed us to seeking a cross-party consensus on the future of social care. Now more than ever, we should continue to seek to do so. We can talk about pay and conditions—we can talk about all sorts of aspects of social care—but ultimately we need a vision for that sector that is sustainable and that is suitable for those who live long lives. I have a background in the care sector, and I know that there is so often a stigma attached to it. There is a fear of care homes and a fear of older age that should not be there. Based on the contributions today, I think there are many things on which we agree and many things that we should look to solve together.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
I am disappointed that I was not called immediately after the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who I found out yesterday supports Leicester City. I encourage him to follow his son’s wisdom and to reconsider that and support the Tractor Boys instead. I will talk to him about that another time.
Yesterday in this place I thanked NHS staff and care workers in Ipswich for their incredible work to save lives during the covid-19 pandemic. I reiterate that gratitude for those professionals as we discuss these petitions to recognise their fantastic work and to consider the pay that they receive.
I mentioned yesterday that these workers have taken on considerable additional risk to their own physical health to help look after the most vulnerable. Most of us can only imagine what it is like for them to deal with many sick and deteriorating patients under such tough conditions, always having the thought in the back of their mind that they could catch the virus themselves and potentially pass it on to their loved ones when they leave work that day.
It is clear to me from the correspondence I have received quite how much my constituents want to thank NHS and care workers. There are a couple of stories that I want to elucidate slightly. One is about the local pub on Woodbridge Road, the Lattice Barn, which right now still faces an uncertain future. It closed its doors and there were lots of questions about its finances and so on, but the first thing that the landlord thought about was local NHS staff and how he could open his doors to nurses and frontline NHS workers. Immediately, he thought not about himself but about how he could support our wonderful NHS workers. I also thank Northgate High School and Ipswich School, where all the pupils worked together to make PPE for our frontline workers.
Yes, a monument or a medal would be a good idea. These things are not insignificant, and I do not think they should be belittled. They do matter, and they are a way of us saying collectively, as a society, “We acknowledge what you’ve done and we will never forget it.” However, I encourage the Government to reflect on the strength of feeling in the country and to consider any way that we can increase pay, particularly for frontline NHS workers and social care staff, at the first opportunity. In particular, we should show everybody who works in the social care sector how much we value them and the work that they do, give those workers the status they deserve, and acknowledge that they have been the best of the best. From the bottom of my heart as the Member of Parliament for Ipswich, thank you.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
Alongside many other colleagues speaking today, I pay absolute tribute to the healthcare workers in my constituency and also across the entire country. The news today is great, that we are looking at 6,000 more doctors and 12,000 more nurses in the NHS, which is a move towards what we would like to see in the future.
To pick up on the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), we have both had excellent communications with our local NHS throughout the coronavirus period. Sue and the entire staff of the County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust have been absolutely phenomenal, whether at the main hospital in my hon. Friend’s constituency, over at the University Hospital of North Durham, down at Bishop Auckland or in the small community hospitals, such as Weardale in my constituency and Shotley Bridge—which is one of my main campaign issues, just to flag that up to the Minister.
We are desperate for Shotley Bridge to see renewal. The number of beds that it has had to use has increased from eight to 16 over the past few weeks, to look after the extra patients. As Simon Stevens said in evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, one of the things that the NHS wants to look at in the long term is ensuring that we have capacity within the existing NHS estate for crises when they occur.
I also pay huge tribute to the care homes in my patch, in particular Shotley Park and Crescent Homecare in Langley Park, which have been in regular communications with me, to all the other care providers locally and to the pharmacies. Last week, I visited Consett pharmacy, which only does direct delivery to homes. It has seen a 25% increase in the number of people getting those home deliveries, often the most vulnerable in society, people who cannot go out and might not have friends and family nearby. The pharmacy has been delivering direct to homes, which over the past few months has been such a lifeline for many people, in particular those with complex conditions.
I have two final shout-outs. One is for people who were not mentioned when the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) introduced the debate: carers who are still at home, caring for people in a home setting. My dad is one of those; he has been caring for my grandmother throughout this crisis. A lot of people in my constituency have been carers at home, often having to shield themselves with the person they are caring for, and the sacrifices that people have made on incredibly low pay have been phenomenal.
Finally, I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow), who hoped that this will help us to look towards how to integrate the health and social care system in the future. I hope that, across the House, that is something we will be working on going forward.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I want to place on the record the devastating fire last Saturday night at the Budgens in Holt in my constituency, the town in which I grew up. It has rocked the community, and I will do all that I can to help the town and many of my friends and colleagues who have been affected.
North Norfolk has been exemplary in its fight against covid-19. Our number of infections has been one of the lowest in the country, significantly behind the national average, and so have our death rates. That is in large part thanks to the incredible work of the NHS staff, and to the resilience of my residents, who have followed the guidance religiously, keeping one another and the area we live in safe.
Our carers are the group most often forgotten about. They are often unsung heroes, and they must have the recognition that they need and deserve. Many people have even taken leave from their jobs to care for the vulnerable and for family members. Some carers in my constituency have worked tirelessly caring for those who have dementia. None must be left out of recognition.
I want to spare a thought here in the Chamber for our young carers, who have not been mentioned today—young people who may be caring for a parent who is ill. During the lockdown I spoke to some young carers, and it made me wonder whether we really knew enough about these young children—sometimes they are as young as five or six—who, day in, day out, support their parents at home. Research shows that young carers are often vulnerable. They are part of a hidden group that is falling through the gaps in public policy and health and social care services. Imagine a five-year-old climbing on a stool to boil a kettle to make a drink for their parent who is incapacitated. These young people must not be forgotten. They are not getting a proper childhood.
I pay enormous tribute to the tireless work of Julie Alford and all of her team at the Holt youth project, who are looking after 38 young carers across the constituency. We must do more to raise the profile of this group of people who need support. They must not be forgotten. Their education often falls behind. I call on the Government to do everything they possibly can.
Caring Together is a charity in East Anglia, doing great work to support all carers. I warmly endorse its carer-friendly tick scheme, in which a wide variety of organisations help to identify that there is a support system out there for young carers.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I wish to begin my remarks by paying tribute to two people who personify the extraordinary commitment of those working within our NHS and care sectors to the communities they serve. Dr Saad Al-Dubbaisi worked at the Garden City Medical Practice within Holcombe Brook in my constituency for 20 years. During this crisis, he sadly passed away. This tribute was among the many that were paid:
“A loving a kind man who gave everything for his community.”
In remembrance and in recognition of his service, hundreds of members of our community lined the streets to pay their last respects to a doctor who spread kindness and warmth over two decades within Bury.
Carol Jamabo was a care worker in my constituency. She served the public as a key worker for more than 25 years. She was popular, caring and compassionate. A relative commented that she will be remembered for her “uplifting, joyful and enthusing” personality.
There are doctors, nurses, healthcare assistants, porters, cooks, receptionists, ambulance service staff and drivers. There are just too many people to mention, but all are working in NHS and care services in Bury, Ramsbottom and Tottington. All have made immense sacrifices to help those affected by coronavirus. They are all heroes and heroines. I cannot mention them all, but we shall forever be in the debt of kind, compassionate, caring individuals such as Marie Sharp, the manager of Bankfield care home on Gigg Lane, and Dr Afzal Hussain of Walmersley Road medical practice.
The NHS long-term plan outlines the next step in the Government’s vision to support staff not just through headline pay but through improving their working lives, giving them the reward and recognition they deserve for always putting patients first and providing the high-quality care that all Members in this House have seen throughout the covid-19 crisis. They will forever be heroes to us all.
I will conclude by associating myself with some of the remarks of my hon. Friends. I have had the pleasure and honour of speaking with all care home managers and workers in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Tom Hunt) called them the best of the best and they truly are. They deserve recognition for their highly skilled work and for the care they give to some of the most vulnerable in our community, and as a House we must do everything possible to recognise that skill and to reward their immense contribution to our country.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
I congratulate the Petitions Committee and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on opening the debate and securing the time for it. I also congratulate the Members who made thoughtful and, in some cases, personal speeches. One hundred and forty five of my constituents signed the main petition that is being discussed today and a proportionate number signed the others. It is important that they have the opportunity to hear that their voices have been heard. They and all of us joined in the 10 weeks of the clapping for carers, but all recognised, as others have said, that clapping is not enough and that there must be action and they demonstrated that by signing these petitions.
I would just note that there was another petition during lockdown that achieved 1.2 million signatures, but, because it did not come through the e-petition site, it is not available to be debated in the House in quite the same format, but I know that many Members would want to have the behaviour of the Prime Minister’s special adviser discussed on the Floor of the House.
When this crisis is over, the UK Government must find a way of honouring the amazing heroes in our NHS and care sector who are continuing to work tirelessly to help us all to defeat the coronavirus. The Scottish Government—the SNP Government—remain committed to passing on all Barnett consequentials for health spending to the NHS in Scotland. Throughout this time, and for many years now, all NHS staff in Scotland have been paid the real living wage, not the pretendy living wage implemented by the Tory Government. Nurses across all bands are paid better in Scotland than anywhere else in the UK, and the Scottish Government are delivering the highest pay rise for NHS agenda for change staff anywhere in the UK. Employees will receive at least a 9% pay rise for the three years from 2019.
The Scottish Government spend about £130 per head more on social care than is spent in England, and they are the only Government in the UK to fund free personal care. Also, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson) said earlier, they have already brought forward a 3% pay rise for social care workers in recognition of the work that they are doing at this time. Recognising the particular challenges presented by covid19, the Scottish Government, with cross-party support in Holyrood, are working to establish a sick pay fund as a matter of urgency to ensure that care workers whose employer terms and conditions fall short and who test positive for covid-19 receive sick pay above the current statutory level of £95.85 a week. As we know, that is one of the worst sick pay legal frameworks anywhere in Europe.
The Scottish Government were also the first in the United Kingdom to announce a death in service provision for covid-19 deaths among NHS staff. That benefit mirrors what is available in the NHS pension scheme: a lump sum and ongoing survivor’s benefit. However, it is unacceptable that some social care workers’ contracts of employment offer no cover for death in service, so the Scottish Government are putting in place that kind of cover for when any social care worker dies without death in service cover in their contracted pension arrangements. The Scottish Government will provide a one-off payment of £60,000 to a named survivor, and this will be retrospective. That is important because, as of 23 June, the Scottish Government have been informed by health boards or the Care Inspectorate of seven deaths of health care workers and 12 deaths of social care workers related to covid-19.
I have some experience of this. The Wyndford Locks care home in Maryhill was one of the first in Scotland to experience the death of a staff member due to covid-19. Also, one of my constituents, Christine Gallagher, lost her beloved son Michael to the disease. He was providing frontline care, employed by an agency, in central Scotland. His loss is keenly felt by his family. Too many families across the country are feeling such losses. His mother told me that she could not attend his funeral because of public health restrictions. She had to stay at home with a photograph of her son and light a candle. I want to pay tribute to Michael for the love and support that he showed to so many in his care, and express my condolences to his family and all the other families who have experienced tragic losses due to covid-19. May they all rest in peace.
This is why it is so important that the healthcare and social care workers, whether in the NHS or private sector, have the pay and benefits that they and their families deserve for the work they do to keep us all safe. That includes healthcare workers who have made their home in Scotland, even if they began their lives or careers elsewhere. So, while we welcome the principle of scrapping the NHS surcharge, it does not appear to have happened in practice yet. Perhaps the Minister can tell us when it will come into effect, because we are still hearing of healthcare workers being told by the Home Office that the surcharge is still payable and there is no guarantee of a refund.
In too many cases, the hostile environment continues despite all these warm words. Even in the middle of the pandemic, we see cases of NHS staff being told that they are no longer welcome. I have a constituent, Jessica Forsyth, an Australian national on a youth mobility visa. Her visa expires at the end of July and she has been told by UK Visas and Immigration that she cannot apply because she is deemed unskilled and earns below the £30,000 threshold, even though she is providing essential services to the NHS. She has made Scotland her home and built her life here, and I hope the Minister can help me to solicit the reply I am waiting for from the Home Office about her case.
It is clear that, while all this work has been taking place, we also have to ensure that we are planning for the next phase. We must learn the lessons and use the coming months to ensure that PPE is fully stockpiled, that supply lines are in place and that procedures are changed where necessary, so that as the second wave hits, there will be a vastly improved level of preparation. As we open up the health service to wider services, that must be done using an evidence-based, cautious and phased approach, for the sake of both staff and patients.
I think that many in the NHS and social care would echo the words of the declaration of Arbroath—it is not for glory, nor honours, nor riches that they fight. But that does not mean that they do not deserve them, and when all this is over we have to make sure that they are properly rewarded and recognised.
Justin Madders (Ellesmere Port and Neston) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), the Chair of the Petitions Committee, on introducing the debate and brilliantly articulating the many issues relating to the recognition and reward of health and social care workers. I thank all those who have signed the four petitions, which have so far amassed some 290,000 signatures between them. By doing so, they have brought this very important debate to Parliament today.
This debate comes at a particularly poignant time, when health and social care workers have been at the heart of the fight against coronavirus, working day and night to protect the NHS and save lives. They, and all the key workers who keep this country going, are the very best of us. I want to take this opportunity to once again pay tribute to the hundreds of NHS and social care staff who have lost their lives to the virus. I hope that when this is over, we can find an appropriate way to remember the frontline staff who gave their lives in the line of duty.
This was a heavily subscribed debate, and it was clear from every Member who spoke that the gratitude the whole country feels for our health and social care workers is replicated in this place. We had some superb speeches from Opposition Members, with good representation from Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) spoke with typical eloquence and highlighted the wise decision of the Welsh Government to recognise the contribution of care workers. I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to my hon. Friend’s request, or at the very least confirm that she is making strong representations to the Treasury about the tax treatment of that payment. We heard a similar point from my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones), who also reminded us of NHS Direct, which was a great innovation from the last Labour Government.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) rightly said that staff need to be rewarded with more than just applause, and she drew attention through her strong speech to the sorry record we have seen over the last 10 years on the NHS. My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana) spoke with great passion and listed a whole series of ways in which the health workforce is hit with extra burdens in the course of their duties.
My hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) drew attention to the scandal of nurses being forced to use food banks. That should shame us all. We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier), who made the powerful point that medals do not put food on the table. She brilliantly highlighted how insecure work is a blight on the NHS and a systemic problem that needs addressing once and for all.
As we heard, even before the pandemic our frontline health and social care staff were working in overstretched and under-resourced settings. We must acknowledge that many of our frontline careworkers have been in extremely stressful and sometimes traumatic situations as a result of covid-19—situations that those of us who have not been on the frontline cannot even begin to imagine. Working in these uncertain times, dealing with a new and emerging disease, often without adequate protection, while coping with losing patients and worrying about getting ill themselves or taking the virus home to their loved ones are all contributing factors to staff burn-out and poor mental health. It is vital that we keep them all safe in the event of a second wave.
Yesterday, following the Prime Minister’s announcement of the relaxation of the 2-metre rule and sweeping changes to the lockdown in England, health leaders called for a rapid and forward-looking assessment of how prepared the UK is for a new outbreak of the virus. Those health leaders from the Royal Colleges of Surgeons, of Nursing, of Physicians and of GPs say:
“the available evidence indicates that local flare-ups are increasingly likely and a second wave a real risk.”
They also point out:
“Many elements of the infrastructure needed to contain the virus are beginning to be put in place, but substantial challenges remain”,
and they call on the Government to focus on
“areas of weakness where action is needed urgently to prevent further loss of life”.
We cannot have any failures in preparation this time.
We may no longer be gathering outside our homes on a Thursday night to clap for our carers, but our admiration remains. It has been incredible to see the effort from staff in the last three months—staff who, too often, get very little in return. We hope that they are recognised for their true worth now.
Justin Madders
I am sorry, I will not have time to give way.
Many of our NHS and care staff are exhausted and fearing burn-out. They need our support now, which means safe staffing ratios, adequate PPE and decent fair pay, because for them the hard work is not over—it is only just beginning. They will continue to give their all as they begin to tackle the backlog in non-covid care. The millions of routine operations, screening tests, treatments and therapies that were suspended or cancelled during the pandemic will now have to restart. Those challenges cannot be met without the staff.
As we know, there are well over 100,000 vacancies in the social care sector, and systemic insecure work and low pay are not the answer to resolving that issue. We know that prior to the covid-19 outbreak there were also 106,000 vacancies across the NHS, including 44,000 nurse vacancies. Those vacancies matter. They mean that NHS services were already under extreme pressure due to the ongoing staff shortages, before being further stretched by more shortages due to sickness or caring responsibilities during the pandemic. That, in turn, has put all healthcare staff under intolerable and unsustainable levels of pressure.
On top of those staff shortages, healthcare staff have had to work in unfamiliar circumstances or in clinical areas outside their usual practice, and of course they have had to work in very difficult circumstances. A survey by the Royal College of Nursing found that half of nursing staff felt under pressure to work without the levels of protective equipment set out in official guidance, and a survey by the British Medical Association of 7,000 doctors found that 45% were experiencing stress, exhaustion and burn-out. We need to listen to what the staff are telling us.
Just last week, we learned that student nurses who joined the frontline six months ago as part of the coronavirus effort are seeing their paid placement schemes terminated early, leaving them with no income and no guarantee that they will not face extra costs for completing their studies. That is no way to treat student nursing staff who have put their studies on hold to join the fight against coronavirus, and who are at the start of what we hope will be a long career in the NHS. They deserve better.
The Government still have not quite resolved the issue of the immigration health surcharge, where NHS and social care staff coming from abroad and working on our frontline are required to pay a surcharge of hundreds and sometimes thousands of pounds just to use the NHS themselves. It was welcome that, after considerable pressure, the Government announced last month that the surcharge would be abolished, but, as we have heard, there are still reports of people being charged. I would like an update from the Minister about what is happening in respect of that.
In conclusion, no one hearing this debate would be in any doubt that our health and social care workers are appreciated, admired and respected, but warm words are not enough. A clap on Thursday night is not enough. It is time for action, and for the Government to finally recognise the monumental contribution that health and social care workers make. No more poverty pay. No more “work until you drop”. No more sending people into work inadequately protected from exposure to a deadly virus. That cannot happen again.
The Government were too slow to recognise the need for PPE, too slow to protect the social care sector, and now they are too slow to properly reward our brave health and social care workers, who have literally put their lives on the line for us all. It is time we put that right.
The Minister for Care (Helen Whately)
I welcome this debate, because our NHS and care system is only as strong as the people within it. Throughout the pandemic, NHS and care workers have taken centre stage; we have all seen the dedication and care with which they approach their work, and the esteem in which they are held by the public, as these petitions demonstrate. This debate has also demonstrated the esteem in which they are held by hon. Members. I am determined that we should look after our health and social care staff, just as they look after us.
First, I will talk about pay, as that is the focus of the petitions. I want to reinforce that we have already delivered multi-year pay and contract reform deals for over 1 million NHS staff, in partnership with trade unions. In the past three years, nurses have seen their starting salaries increase by more than 12% and the vast majority of nurses have seen their pay increase by at least 6.5%, while the starting salaries for healthcare assistants have also increased by 16%. We have also increased pay for junior doctors to recognise the huge contribution that they make to our NHS. By the end of their four-year deal, junior doctor pay scales will have increased by at least 8%.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) referred to the Government’s commitment to increase the number of doctors and nurses in the NHS, and he rightly said that recruitment and retention is not just about pay, but about experience. I am determined that we must improve the experience for the NHS workforce.
The shadow Minister spoke about vacancies in the NHS. I hope that he will welcome the good news that we heard today in the latest NHS workforce statistics that the number of nurses in England has gone up by more than 12,000 in the past year and we have over 6,000 more doctors. Compared with 2010, we now have 23,100 more doctors and 22,200 more nurses in the NHS. We want to recruit more, however, so we are providing financial support for nurses to train, and from this September, new and continuing nursing students will be able to get a maintenance grant of at least £5,000 per academic year.
Our social care staff have also played an incredible role during the pandemic. I am always blown away by the compassion that is shown by our care workers, who look after people who are at their most vulnerable. That was articulated so well this afternoon by my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Paul Bristow), for Watford (Dean Russell), for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) and for Rother Valley (Alexander Stafford) and many other colleagues.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Government do not set pay for social care workers in England. However, we are committed to raising the profile of our social care workforce and giving them the support they need. At a recent meeting of the Health and Social Care Committee, we heard from care workers about how some of them felt underappreciated by the public as a whole, and that is something we need to fix. After all, this is a job where staff have a chance to make a difference to people’s lives every single day that they go to work. As a start, we have adopted the CARE brand, for which I thank Care England. We have taken that on in order to build recognition of care workers.
Since the pandemic hit us, we have put in place support for care workers who have been at the frontline during this time. We are providing mental health support and bereavement support commissioned from Samaritans and Hospice UK. We have launched the care workforce app to bring together resources and guidance, and we are providing funding of £3.2 billion and then a further £600 million for local authorities to pass on to care providers so that they can provide full pay to staff who are isolating. We have made it clear to local authorities and providers that we expect that to happen.
One of the petitions that is in front of us today is entitled:
“We would like the government to consider social care as equally important to NHS”.
That is something that I passionately believe in. Social care is, absolutely, equally important. I know my colleagues in Government agree. As we heard in this debate, that sentiment is shared by many hon. Members, and we rightly now talk about health and social care workers in the same breath.
In the months ahead, as we pledged in our manifesto, we will be looking at how we can build a long-term solution for social care, so that in the long term care workers get the rewards they deserve, and—as argued for by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), in particular—so that everyone can have the dignity and security that they deserve.
Finally, I want to raise the contribution of our overseas staff. The NHS has benefited from the contribution of so many people from all over the world. I would like to take a moment to thank all our overseas NHS staff. I know that this has been a difficult time for many of you, especially as we have learned that BAME communities have been disproportionately impacted by the virus. We are so grateful to you for your hard work, and I want the system to do all it can to protect you.
On 21 May, the Prime Minister announced that NHS and social care workers would now be exempt from the immigration health surcharge. NHS and care workers who paid the surcharge from 21 May will be refunded, and we are getting on with the arrangements as fast as we possibly can. We are also continuing to provide free visa extensions and auto renewal of visas for workers who are eligible, and we will be introducing a new fast-track healthcare visa to make it quicker and easier for health and care staff to come and work in our health and social care system.
Our NHS and social care workers do a truly wonderful job delivering world-class care to so many. I would like to thank everybody who signed the petitions for making their voice heard. I would like to end by encouraging everyone who is thinking about joining our health and care system to do so. Caring for others is one of the greatest and most important vocations. We will do everything in our power to protect and support health and social care workers during this pandemic and beyond.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank everybody who has contributed to this debate. It is vital that the voice of petitioners is heard in Parliament and we have all played a part in ensuring that today. This is a very important issue, which petitioners have clearly prioritised in great numbers having experienced and witnessed the enormous contribution our health and social care workers have made to our national effort to fight covid-19.
I have to say that I am disappointed with the Minister’s response. I do not think it fully acknowledged the question put by the petitioners that we do not yet have full recognition and reward for our health and social care workers in the way that we would like to see, but, as I said in my contribution at the beginning of the debate, I hope that this is the beginning of a conversation on how we can arrive at that point. I am sure that hon. Members will support that conversation continuing and action to follow. Above all, I want to put on record once again our gratitude, from this House and from the Petitions Committee, for the service that every health and social care worker has made to this country in the weeks that have passed and will continue to make in the weeks ahead.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions relating to the recognition and reward of health and social care workers.
Covid-19: Support for UK Industries
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
This is a very, very well-subscribed debate and I also want to accommodate a maiden speech. Until the maiden speech is finished there will be a time limit of six minutes, including for the maiden speech. However, I must warn colleagues that if everybody who is down to speak actually turns up—I suspect they will—it is likely that we will have to put another three-minute time limit on in order to accommodate as many people as possible. I strongly discourage interventions, because they will prevent others from speaking. That is how I intend to conduct the debate.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petitions relating to support for UK industries in response to covid-19.
As we have heard already today, the volume of signatures on parliamentary petitions has been huge in recent weeks, reflecting the immense public anxiety about the health emergency we have been living through. I thank every one of the 641,986 people who signed the five petitions that reached the 100,000 threshold and that we are considering today. They are on support for the events industry; for the arts, theatre and music; for zoos, aquariums, and rescue centres; for nursery and childcare providers; and for aviation. I also thank the 74,735 people who have backed seven other petitions that are also relevant. Those petitions are on help for performers and creators; for pubs and hospitality; for early years providers; for wholesalers; for health businesses; and for small businesses.
There is no escaping the devastating impact the covid emergency has had on our economy. That is unavoidable when vast swathes of business activity are shut down. But the Government have listened and have heard the calls to intervene, from the 12 e-petitions and from millions of other people afraid for their livelihoods and their future, including many in Chipping Barnet, and I thank the Government for their intervention. At immense speed, the Government put in place the biggest package of help for jobs, livelihoods and businesses in our nation’s history.
Through the furlough scheme, the Government are paying the wages of more than 9.1 million workers, providing £20.8 billion to more than 1 million employers. More than 2.6 million people have received grants from the self-employed income support scheme, which is one of the more generous in the world. More than 863,000 companies have received bounce-back loans—these have been worth more than £26 billion.
Some £10 billion has been lent to 49,000 firms under CBILS—the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme. Small businesses in the retail, hospitality and leisure sector have received cash grants of up to £25,000 and been given a 12 month business rates holiday. A £1.25 billion package is available for start-ups, and £30 billion of VAT payments have been suspended for three months. Some 68,000 businesses have benefited from the deferral of other taxes, and smaller businesses have received help with funding sick pay.
Without that bold and radical intervention by the Government, and the speed at which it has been delivered, our situation today in this country would be far, far worse, as the Office for Budget Responsibility, the International Monetary Fund, the OECD and the Bank of England have all confirmed. Unemployment would have rocketed and thousands of businesses would have gone bust, both in the sectors highlighted in the 12 e-petitions and in many others. There has been extensive backing for what the Government have done, including from Len McCluskey, of Unite, who said of the furlough scheme:
“We recognise that these are huge decisions for any government, and especially for a Conservative government, but they have listened to the calls for action and have acted appropriately. Rishi Sunak’s wage support measures are a historic first for this country, but are bold and very much necessary…This will definitely be some relief amid all the fear in households across the UK this evening.”
However, were it not for the difficult decisions taken by Conservative-led Governments since 2010, we would not have been able to respond in this way or on this scale. It is only if you fix the roof while the sun is shining that you have the resources and the balance sheet to intervene aggressively to provide the kind of action called for in these petitions. Sadly, we all know from our inboxes that, even with the scale of what we are doing, there are gaps in support. In an economic disaster as great as this one—possibly the worst for 300 years—there are inevitably still many people facing hardship and uncertainty about their future. I hope that the Minister will consider whether any further help is possible for the sectors highlighted in the 12 e-petitions.
Jeff Smith (Manchester, Withington) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady is making a fine speech. I welcome the support that the Government have put in. Does she agree that people in the concert and festival industry, in particular, are facing a double whammy? Not only will they be among the last industries to get back to anything like normal, but many of them are self-employed and, for various reasons, fall through the gaps in the self-employed scheme. Does she agree that we need sector-specific support for the concert and festival industry?
Theresa Villiers
I do agree with the hon. Gentleman on that. They are more heavily impacted and I hope it will be possible to have a sector-specific scheme for them.
I was about to turn to exactly that point—the arts, events, theatre, performance, musicians, actors and creators. With no date set for the resumption of events and performances in theatres or music venues, this crucial part of our economy could be the hardest hit of all of them. The future of our regional theatres in particular looks perilous. Adrian Vinken, chief executive of the Theatre Royal, Plymouth, wrote in the Daily Mail today:
“The entire performing arts industry is…facing oblivion. This is not only a human and economic disaster—it is a cultural catastrophe.”
As we heard from the hon. Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) , the insecure and sporadic nature of jobs in the industry means that many workers fall within the gaps in the Government’s covid intervention package. This includes, typically, freelancers who get part of their income through PAYE and part of their income through self-employment. They may not have been in their PAYE contract at the right time to be furloughed, and they may not earn enough of their income from self-employment to qualify for the self-employment income support scheme. As well as considering further funding support for those workers and sectors, we must have a clear plan to get theatres and venues open and to get events starting again, as has been managed in countries such as South Korea.
It is also really important to reflect on aviation, which, as the petitions highlight, is also hard hit. We need the air bridges in action. Blanket quarantine requirements will make it a hundred times more difficult for aviation to recover, and it is hard to understand the need for quarantine for people coming from places that have fewer covid cases than we do. I appeal to the Minister for a risk-based approach on quarantine so that travel can start up again and we listen to the petitioners who are demanding help and support for aviation.
Our nurseries and childcare are also mentioned in the petition. I welcome the extension of the business rates holiday, directly implementing one of the demands of petitioners, but Ministers need a firm and funded plan to support the sector in the long term. The early years stage of education is crucial in determining life chances, and if we are to deliver on our promises on social mobility and respond to legitimate concerns on equality of opportunity, we need to help nursery and childcare providers through this crisis and ensure that they are on a stable footing for the long term, including restoring funding for maintained nursery schools.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
Does the right hon. Lady agree with me and the Treasury Committee that the Government, unfortunately, have left out more than 1 million people through the job retention scheme who are struggling? Many of them are freelancers working in the theatre sector and others—there are new starters who are suffering. We need to make sure that they get support they need, alongside the many things that she is talking about.
Theresa Villiers
I certainly acknowledge that the Treasury Committee identified gaps in provision. Unfortunately, a number of my constituents fall into those gaps, so I hope that there may be further help, but more importantly, we have to get the economy opened up again so that people can start earning a living in a normal way.
On zoos and aquariums, I welcome the grants of up to £100,000 offered by the Government to get them through the crisis, again responding directly to the e-petition. I pay tribute to the dedicated work of zoo staff, many of whom went the extra mile to look after the animals in their care, despite lockdown.
Whether it is zoos or nurseries, theatres or airports, hospitality or wholesale, the best shot in the arm the Government can give all these sectors is to let them open for business again. It was, therefore, an immense relief to hear from the Prime Minister that the 1 metre rule, with safeguards, will be introduced in England from 4 July. I have been advocating this for weeks as the only way to save our pubs and hospitality, travel and tourism businesses—and the only way to save the summer holidays.
The multiple schemes I have set out have provided vital life support for the economy and are protecting the livelihoods of millions upon millions of the constituents who vote for us to serve them in this place. They have protected people who would otherwise be facing great hardship and adversity, but their eye-watering cost means it is inevitable that they are time-limited. The only way to put the sectors highlighted in the 12 petitions on to a sound and successful footing for the long term is to let people out of their homes, back to work, back to the shops, and back to the pub. That is starting to happen and I very much welcome the news that 4 July will truly be our independence day as we take the next cautious steps in lifting lockdown and moving on from the covid emergency.
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and I absolutely agree with her sentiments about opening up the economy.
May I say right at the outset that I think what the Government have done in terms of this unprecedented economic support—the support for businesses and for workers against the economic consequences of the pandemic —has been truly extraordinary, and the speed at which those programmes were put in place was particularly impressive?
In my constituency alone, 10,000 jobs were furloughed under the job retention scheme—10,000 incomes. With that support through the crisis, people have a chance of a job in the future as the restrictions ease. I am very pleased that the scheme has been extended and that there is the ability to part-time furlough. That flexibility has to be right; the businesses want that as they gradually reopen.
However, I would point out to my hon. Friend the Minister that there are a number of issues with the scheme, which, with a little bit of tinkering, could easily be put right. He will be aware that one particular problem is that eligibility is based on a real time information submission to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. The problem for a lot of small businesses is that they had agreed with HMRC that they would make an annual return and, therefore, not being required to make the RTI return, they are ineligible for support. A brief word with the chief executive of HMRC would sort that problem out.
The self-employment income support scheme is very welcome. It is estimated to help 4,000 people in Wimbledon, but I have been contacted by a number of people who, because they became self-employed last year, do not qualify. They feel they have fallen through the cracks. Will the Treasury look at that? A number of the people affected are starting businesses for the first time and are likely to be the lifeblood of the economy as we recover; a little help now would work. Of course, the same applies to directors of small limited companies. If they were put on the same footing as the self-employment income support scheme, that would mean a grant, which, in some cases, would save their businesses. With that minor tinkering, the scheme could be even better than it already is.
The hospitality, retail and leisure industry is obviously at the forefront of the economic costs, having been unable to open until 4 July—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, we look forward to that date. The support for the sector has been outstanding, but the Minister will know that in some parts of the country the £51,000 rateable value limit is relatively small compared with the sums the businesses are transacting. On future economic packages, I say to the Minister that it would be really helpful if the Government would recognise that there are some quite major regional imbalances in rateable values when businesses are broadly of the same turnover and this would be a huge benefit.
While there has been extraordinary help to the retail, hospitality and leisure chain, inevitably a lot of the suppliers to those industries have not been able to get any help at all. What has been seen to be a postcode lottery has been developing on the basis that the Government have given advice on what qualifies as a retail, leisure or hospitality business. It is pretty specific, although the Government do say that the list is not exhaustive. The trouble is that different councils are choosing to interpret it in wildly different ways and it is having a major impact on suppliers to these industries.
I pick up the events industry in my constituency, with White Light and Oxygen Event Services being two companies that may not be able to reappear in the way they were before this pandemic hit the country, and that would have a huge impact on the concert, festivals and hospitality industry. May we have a bit of Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government guidance to councils, that industry and also language schools, which are huge providers to local economies, particularly in Wimbledon? I have seven language schools that provide consumer expenditure into the local economy from the students, jobs for teachers and support for local families who house these students. Again, a postcode lottery has developed: in some places these businesses and schools are getting help and in others they are not. Again, if the MHCLG could be more prescriptive about exactly what should be allowed to be available for business rate relief, that will help.
There are a number of other industries I could comment on, but finally, can I just say that, as a London MP, I am proud of the culture and the arts in this city? I want to see that arts and culture not just in the west end, but across constituencies. I have the New Wimbledon theatre and the Polka theatre. On what such venues need to survive, can I ask the Government to really look very hard at this? A number of people working in these industries have had no income or access to help since the pandemic struck. I know there are various packages that the Arts Council funds, but we need a specific performing arts financial package, so that all theatres and concert venues can survive and the people who work in that industry will be there to make sure that, when they reopen, arts are being performed in them. That would mean that the culture in this country would survive, which is so vital to our future, alongside the economy and our health.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
I will follow your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I will not take interventions.
Coronavirus has hit all sectors of the UK economy, some harder than others, and aerospace and air travel will be one of the hardest hit. I have been here long enough to remember the effects on the industry of 9/11 and the banking crisis. These were severe, but nothing compared with the challenge that we face today. For Airbus in Broughton in my seat, this has meant a reduction in production rates of about a third. Some 40% of the UK workforce in the commercial aircraft division is currently on furlough. About 500 employees at Broughton have been working on the ventilator programme. I am sure everyone here and everyone in the country will be extremely grateful and proud that that has happened. It demonstrates what a dedicated workforce we have, but their reward for this work, as the programme comes to an end, is that many of them will not qualify for furlough. I think that that is an absolute disgrace. I would ask the Minister to really look at this situation. It cannot be right that the people who have done this work do not qualify. They are a special case and they should be treated as such. Airbus has stepped in and will cover the furlough, but that is hardly the point. I ask the Minister to press his Treasury colleagues on this matter urgently.
Industry experts do not expect passenger demand to return to pre-crisis levels before 2023. That will in turn mean that actual production rates will not catch up until 2025. With 70% of the value of an aircraft in the supplier chain, the effects there could be devastating, leading to a near total collapse of the sector if intervention does not occur. If we are serious about maintaining a viable aerospace sector in the UK, we need to be serious and have a strategic plan that embraces not only companies such as Airbus and the airlines, but the supplier chain. All parts need to work together to that end. I am concerned that some airlines—well, one in particular—see this crisis as an opportunity to remove rivals and ride roughshod over the terms and conditions of their workforce. That type of attitude and approach needs to change. We need a united front to face this crisis.
In the US, Germany and France, we have had announcements of targeted programmes of support. The latest announcement from the French Government included a raft of measures. Its aim is to protect some 100,000 jobs. It includes a reduced working week or working hours, with the difference picked up by the state. That will last up to two years. There will be a one-year moratorium on aircraft loans under the export credit agencies, amounting to around €1.5 billion. In addition, Airbus will have 18 months to pay loans, rather than the six months currently. That is worth around €2 billion. Defence procurement projects are also to be brought forward with new investment to help the sector, and the defence sector SME fund will be increased by 50% to €100 million a year. Air France-KLM has already been given a €7 billion loan guarantee to secure its future.
In addition, the French Government have promised more investment, with €1.5 billion to decarbonise and produce carbon neutral aircraft by 2035, rather than the current target of 2050. Those are bold plans that look at the medium and long terms. They recognise that there will be no quick fix, and we in the UK need to rise to that challenge, otherwise we will be left behind and could lose one of our greatest and most important industries.
What can we do to help to secure the future? We clearly need a job retention support scheme, not just for now and a few more months, but for the long term. We need to retain skills and we need the flexibility that reduced working hours can offer. We need to build support for Airbus by speaking to the airlines and retiring older, less efficient aircraft from their fleets. Around 70 aircraft flown by UK-registered airlines are more than 15 years old.
We need to address the complete mess, as has been mentioned, of quarantine, which has already added to the crisis. We need to invest in research and development, make advances in R&D tax credits and confirm that funding of the Aerospace Technology Institute will be doubled to £300 million a year. We need something for the supply chain, because that is in many ways the most vulnerable part of the sector. We need a long-term policy to ensure that there is an investment fund to keep suppliers alive during this crisis. We need to bring forward defence projects, but they need to be in this country, not just bought off the shelf from America.
If we do not step up to the plate, the future will not be good. For Broughton, it is always about securing the next wing. If we do not secure the next wing and Germany, France or Spain get it, the future will be bleak. I ask the Government to act and act now before it is too late.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is a pleasure to call Darren Henry to make his maiden speech.
Darren Henry (Broxtowe) (Con)
Thank you for the opportunity to make this, my maiden speech, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is a great honour and a great responsibility, joyfully accepted, to represent the people of Broxtowe with all the energy, determination and commitment of which I am capable. I say to all my constituents: “I will be your man. I will stand up for you. I will not turn from the challenges you face, but make them my own. While I have the privilege to serve you, you will not be forgotten in this place.”
I would like to pay tribute to my predecessor as the Member for Broxtowe, Anna Soubry. I may not have agreed with all that she said in this place, but I wish to set on record my acknowledgement of the good work she did for Broxtowe and for her constituents. I wish to thank her for her efforts on improving access at Beeston railway station. I admire her strong will and her determination to do what she felt was best for Broxtowe and for this country, and I wish her the best of British.
This week is the 72nd anniversary of the arrival of the Empire Windrush. The people of the Windrush generation came to Britain to help rebuild our great country, and my parents were among them. Dad, Harry, is from Jamaica, and Mum, Gloria, from Trinidad. Like many of that too long ignored generation, they worked hard to make a good life here. Dad worked double shifts, and Mum worked all day in a factory. They saved; they bought a house. They were ambitious, and they prospered. We were a traditional British working-class family: hard working, loyal, fiercely patriotic—and Conservative.
Opposition Members claim Windrush as their own, as if it is obvious that immigrants are somehow obliged morally and practically to be Labour supporters. Well, my family were not, and I am not. I stand here as evidence of what immigrants and their children can achieve in what my parents called the land of opportunity. I am proud to be the first Conservative MP of West Indian heritage—black, British with all my heart, immensely proud of my West Indian heritage and Conservative to my fingertips.
Before coming to this place, I spent 26 years in the Royal Air Force. Like others here, I knew that service to my country was the right and dutiful career for me. On my first day in the RAF, I had a splendid Afro hairstyle, and now, because of weeks of lockdown, I am delighted —my Afro is coming back!
The armed forces are known for getting things done, and that is what I will do for the people of Broxtowe. At Chilwell station, also known as Chetwynd barracks, we have seen service personnel assisting efforts to tackle the covid-19 pandemic as part of Op Rescript. As it is Armed Forces Week and Veterans Day today, I hope that this message is heard loud and clear by my fellow veterans: “If you are driven by public service, as I am, stand up and serve your community again.”
During my election campaign, I pledged to support investment in our local hospitals as part of my six-point plan for Broxtowe. This is a cause that is close to my heart. My wife Caroline spent 25 weeks out of her 34-week pregnancy in hospital. It is to Caroline and the NHS staff at Nottingham City Hospital that I say thank you for the blessing that is my twin children. That is why I am delighted that, after months of lobbying, the Government have provided seed money for the local Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust to develop and rebuild modular buildings and key sites, including a new women’s and children’s unit, which will benefit families in Broxtowe.
Parents do their best for their children. As the father of two children with autism, I recognise that those in Broxtowe who are on the autistic spectrum or suffer with mental health conditions have found it particularly difficult being cooped up during lockdown. In normal times, getting mental health support is a struggle. I am convinced that it does not have to be this way. The Government’s planned reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 must ensure that people subject to the Act receive better care and have a much greater say in that care. I will continue to fight to secure the needs of vulnerable people in Broxtowe. They will not be forgotten.
In today’s debate, we are considering support for UK industries in response to covid-19. In my own constituency of Broxtowe, enterprises as varied as the Boots headquarters, which opened the first non-NHS swab testing site in the country, and independent, family-run firms such as Fred Hallam grocers, who delivered extensively to help people during covid-19, have diversified to ensure that the needs of our community are met. With the HS2 east midlands hub set to be in Toton, and Stapleford soon to be revitalised by the town deal funding, Broxtowe will have a thriving future.
I will work to make that vision a reality for the people of Broxtowe—my constituency; my people. To paraphrase D. H. Lawrence, a local lad made good, I will be still when I have nothing to say; when genuine passion moves me, I will say, and say it hot.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry) on an excellent maiden speech and on his very powerful story. I add to his tribute to his predecessor, who brought great passion to our debate in this House. I am sure that he will bring many insights from Broxtowe too.
Many businesses across the country are breathing a sigh of relief that they can start trading again. The level of Government support for businesses has been unprecedented, and that is undoubtedly to be welcomed; it has provided a lifeline to swathes of our economy at this incredibly challenging time. However, although the support is extensive, we cannot ignore those who have slipped through the gaps. We also cannot pretend that this is not going to be difficult for months for industries where normality is still a long way off.
Aviation is a key area in which recovery will be slow. Flights may be restarting and discussions on air bridges under way, but the sector does not expect demand to return to pre-crisis levels until at least 2023. The crisis will have a sustained effect on our aviation industry.
Newcastle airport in my constituency is an international and domestic transport hub, a strategic asset for the north-east, and central to our economic growth. It is a large regional employer but also supports many regional jobs, on site, off site and in the supply chain. Our airport supports manufacturing business, exports, and higher education through our world-class universities. It also supports the tourism sector, which was thriving before this crisis.
I have raised support for aviation in the Chamber a number of times, but there is still a concerning lack of appreciation for the special circumstances faced by the industry. There also seems to be a lack of understanding of how this crisis will impact the sector’s transition to being greener and cleaner, and of the longer-term impact on regional economies such as mine. As co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on sustainable aviation, I believe passionately in the importance of a strong and stable aviation sector.
Newcastle airport has ambitious plans to become a net zero emissions airport by 2035. However, demand for new aircraft will take years to recover from its expected drop, which could mean manufacturing job losses and a decline in this strategic industry at a time when we need more investment in cleaner and greener aviation technology, not less.
The industry is asking for greater understanding and support in the difficult months ahead. It needs air bridges to be arranged as soon as possible. Twelve months of business rates relief, as has been provided to airports in Scotland and Northern Ireland, would level the playing field and support businesses through this period. A temporary suspension of air passenger duty is requested while aviation demand recovers, particularly when it comes to regional air connectivity. We urgently need action so that the industry can prepare and protect jobs.
I turn to the many smaller businesses in my constituency that face so much uncertainty about their future. We have a world-leading performing arts sector, which has been brought to its knees by this crisis. We could see devastation of the cultural and entertainment scene in so many communities. One of my constituents who works in the industry said:
“Over the recent period of lockdown I have watched as theatre after theatre has closed down, unable to remain afloat due to the incredible lack of funding already present within the industry and have watched so many of my friends and colleagues being made redundant.”
So many venues do not know when they will be able to reopen and are fighting for survival. I was contacted by a dance school that just wants to know when it might be able to reopen. We have seen what has happened to tourism businesses, self-employed people—I could go on; there are so many.
As Britain cautiously emerges from lockdown and some level of normal returns, we cannot allow those who have lost out most from this crisis to continue to be forgotten. We must do everything we can to make sure that as many as possible get through this crisis and continue to provide their services in the future.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am afraid that we will have to move to a three- minute limit if we are to have any chance of getting as many people in as possible.
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
The circumstances in which we find ourselves are unprecedented, and unprecedented times call for unprecedented action. What may have seemed unthinkable to this Government a few short months ago is now not only thinkable but absolutely essential to support UK industries.
The Government’s actions to save jobs through the job retention scheme by allowing workers to be furloughed was universally welcomed, although there were too many gaps in it, which was deeply unfair to workers who fell through those cracks. But the current plan to reduce support for furloughed workers and self-employed people is sending unemployment soaring. The plans to cut back on furlough support has seen tens of thousands of jobs lost before our eyes: 9,000 jobs at Rolls-Royce; 10,000 jobs at BP; 5,000 jobs at Centrica; 10,000 jobs at British Airways; more than 3,000 jobs at Virgin Atlantic; 2,600 jobs at OVO Energy; 2,500 jobs at Travis Perkins—I literally do not have time to go through the thousands of jobs that are being lost.
The whole point of the job retention scheme was to save jobs—an aim that we can all support—but if the furlough support is withdrawn too early, it will have failed in that goal. In addition, Government loans need to be converted into grants to save our businesses. I first petitioned the Chancellor on this issue on 15 April in a letter to which I still await a response. The guiding principle here must be to save businesses, jobs and our economy. We are very far from “job done”.
The Bank of England has said that the UK Government should treat the debt that has been incurred as war debt. That is absolutely correct. It should not lead to greater austerity, because that will only compound the challenges that we currently face. A war has indeed been fought—a war on our health and our economy—and the Government must continue to throw every mechanism and tool at their disposal at securing victory as we face the worst economic depression in more than 300 years.
UK Government borrowing will reach £340 billion and quantitative easing will reach £645 billion this year, so why has Scotland been allocated a relatively meagre £10 billion? While the UK Government borrow and Scotland is sold short, the powers, levers and financial flexibility that Scotland has are insufficient to manage Scotland’s response to the host of challenges that we face. With the requisite powers in Scotland, we could do it better for ourselves, as we always do. The current powers do not allow us to do that. We need to be armed to face the economic tsunami that is heading our way at great speed. If this Government will not do more, we in Scotland need more power to do it for ourselves.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
My constituency of Ynys Môn is an island of vast economic potential; however, over the past two decades the people of Ynys Môn have endured an economic decline that should never have been allowed to happen. Many large employers have closed and thousands of well-paid jobs are being lost. This has been hugely detrimental to the island’s precious Welsh culture and the sustainability of the language, as so many have had to travel away to be successful in their careers.
As I am sure Members from all parties who represent coastal constituencies can attest, the tourism and hospitality sector is often most crucial in economically disadvantaged areas. That is certainly the case on Ynys Môn, where the sector supports roughly 4,000 jobs and contributes more than £300 million to the local economy. The lockdown was, of course, the right thing to do: it helped to prevent our precious NHS from being overrun and it helped to save lives. I know that I speak for many businesses and self-employed people from across Ynys Môn—including many of those operating in the tourism sector and the supply chain that supports it—in saying that although the lockdown has been unimaginably difficult to endure, the packages of financial support provided by the Government have been both invaluable and hugely appreciated. That financial support will give the sector a fighting chance to recover and to thrive once again.
In April, it was announced that the parent company of two of the island’s favourite pubs—the Oyster Catcher in Rhosneigr and the White Eagle in Rhoscolyn—had entered into administration. It was feared and likely that at a time when our island cannot afford to lose a single job, more than 100 jobs across both sites would be lost. However, due to the coronavirus job retention scheme, both pubs were identified as being viable and have now been rescued. I thank the Timpson Group for once again displaying confidence in the amazing workforce of Ynys Môn. I wish both pubs and their employees a long and successful future.
Ynys Môn is the most dependent local authority in the UK on tourism, and this crisis has highlighted more than ever that this needs to change and we must diversify. Our coastal waters have some of the strongest tides in the British Isles, and companies such as Minesto are looking to use tidal power. We have a nuclear power station, Wylfa Newydd, which will create thousands of jobs and help to reduce our carbon emissions. Ynys Môn has the opportunity to play a leading role in developing these technologies, with unparalleled economic opportunities for the people of the island.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Support for our industries as we emerge from the first phase of the covid-19 crisis is absolutely essential in order that our economy can recover as quickly as possible. However, this needs to be done responsibly and cannot be prioritised ahead of people’s health.
The north-west region, which I represent, continues to have the highest R rate in the country, currently standing at between 0.7 and 1, as revealed today in a leaked report by Public Health England. That is why last week Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham launched the “Safely Reopening Greater Manchester” campaign, an initiative to ensure that the region’s economy can reopen safely from the covid-19 lockdown. That includes supporting employers and employees to take precautions such as working from home where possible and utilising alternative methods of travel to work, such as walking or cycling, instead of risking infection on public transport.
Small businesses, which underpin our economy, have undoubtedly been hit the hardest in this crisis. In my constituency, Stockport’s market hall traders have raised particular concerns that they have faced as a result of the lockdown, which has created immediate hardship for them. They have further fears such as shoppers staying away when the lockdown is eased, coupled with social distancing measures that will result in less footfall. The market hall and our independent traders are an asset to Stockport and a key part of its unique character, but without support they will be unable to survive in the current economic climate. Rent holidays would put the traders in a much stronger position to bounce back when the current restrictions are lifted.
Robinsons brewery in my constituency is a further example of a successful local business that must be supported throughout this crisis. Robinsons is a family-run, award-winning brewery founded in 1849, and a member of the Society of Independent Brewers. Sales by independent breweries dropped by 82% when pubs closed in March, yet they have not received the same financial support as pubs, such as the business rate holiday or the £25,000 grant. That situation is made worse by the fact that almost half of independent brewers require two to four weeks to brew beer and prepare, meaning that there will be a further lag once the lockdown is over. I urge the Government to consider measures such as direct support that is already provided to pubs and the hospitality sector, which should be extended so that small breweries receive business rate relief and grants. This will help to protect and secure jobs in independent companies such as Robinsons.
Navendu Mishra
I will, briefly, with the permission of the Chair. [Interruption.] Oh, we are running out of time—I apologise.
Greater Manchester Combined Authority, led by Mayor Burnham, is already looking at initiatives such as a regional brokering scheme to match people who are at risk of being made redundant when the furlough scheme ends with parts of the economy where there are opportunities, as well as exploring initiatives such as a future jobs fund. I urge the Minister to take action.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
Having spoken to businesses across my constituency, where some 11,900 people have been furloughed and 4,300 people have been in receipt of the self-employed income support scheme, it is clear to me that many jobs have been saved —livelihoods, as well as businesses that have been built up with dedication and passion over years and decades. That is all due to the unprecedented support made available by this Government.
However, as the numbers of signatures on the petitions we are debating today show, some sectors do remain in need of particular support. In the time available, I cannot cover all of them, but as someone who has previously been a trustee of a theatre and an arts centre, I know how difficult the current situation is for everyone in the arts, and I very much hope we can find a way to assure the future of British theatre and music.
It would be remiss of me, as a member of the Transport Committee, not to mention aviation. It is imperative for the very survival of our airlines, airports and the businesses that support them, and the thousands of jobs that depend on them, that we are able to get aviation up and running again soon. I will not repeat the findings of the Committee’s recent report, but I will briefly mention freight. With 40% of air freight going in the belly hold of passenger aircraft, if the passenger planes are not flying, the freight is not flying either. As the UK recovery depends, to a large part, on new free trade deals around the globe, we need aviation. I encourage the Government to focus on freight, as well, as part of the recovery plan.
From the perspective of the events sector, I wish to focus particularly on the coach industry.
I have spoken to coach operators in my constituency, such as Masons in Cheddington. The sector at large employs 42,000 people and contributes nearly £7 million to the leisure sector. The drop in income that the coach sector has seen during lockdown, with six-figure losses, is unprecedented. The reduction in social distancing is very positive, but coach companies tell me that with 1 metre-plus, they can only get 25 people on a 53-seater coach and that is not viable. To put it bluntly, with that capacity they will barely cover the fuel to keep the wheels rolling.
Loans have been good news, but with many operators having spent considerable money through debt on ensuring their fleet complies with the regulations on public service vehicle accessibility earlier this year, they are left financially exposed to taking on further debt. If we want to get people back to the tourism locations and museums and to help people who have been isolated for so long get about again, my plea to the Government is that we need support for the coach sector, to help it bounce back.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Forty years ago, manufacturing accounted for 30% of GDP in this country. It now stands at barely 9%. If there is to be any serious agenda for levelling up in this country, we need a modern manufacturing renaissance to close the gap between the regions, to rebalance between services and manufacturing, and to be a country that is actually exporting again, which has a massive impact on our balance of trade. We need steel to be at the heart of that modern manufacturing renaissance.
Steel is the backbone of manufacturing. It is in the cars that we drive, the offices we work in, even in the cutlery we use to eat our meals. It is at the heart of our aerospace and automotive sectors. It is absolutely vital as a foundation industry.
The Port Talbot steelworkers in my constituency make the best steel that money can buy. It is green steel. Imagine relying on steel from China, which has some of the dirtiest steel production processes in the world. Allowing our steel sector to collapse would be the definition of a false economy, in terms of the need for a proper industrial strategy and the reduction of our dependence on China.
Steel is the beating heart of the economy and community, with 4,000 well-paid steelworkers in my Aberavon constituency. Some say that steel is a sunset industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is vital in photovoltaic cell production, and the vast majority of the alloys that are used in steel these days did not even exist 10 years ago. It is at the cutting edge of innovation.
Tata Steel is in the midst of a cash-flow crisis because of the impact of covid-19, which has caused demand for steel to fall off a cliff. It needs Government-backed loan support. I do not care whether that is a loan or Project Birch; it does not matter. We need support from Government so that the steel industry can weather the storm and help us to build back better.
There can be no post-pandemic economic recovery without a strong and healthy steel industry. Imagine the cost of doing nothing—4,000 well-paid workers going on to benefits. The capital expenditure costs of decommissioning the Port Talbot steelworks would be astronomical. The loan would be far better value for the taxpayer than the cost of doing nothing.
I urge the Government to step up to the plate. I urge the Government to take the long view and put in place an industrial strategy that includes energy prices, business rates and a proper trade defence mechanism, so we stop the dumping of Chinese steel. All that needs to happen and it needs to happen now—but first, we need that loan from the Government, and we need it today.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
I make specific reference to my register of interests; I am associated with a business that has received a CBIL.
Faced with a profound crisis, the Government responded magnificently with a suite of measures of emergency loan schemes to support businesses badly affected by covid-19, in particular CBIL and the bounce back loan scheme. Put together at great speed, the schemes shovelled money from lending banks into viable businesses to support their cash flow in the short term, with capital sums repayable over five or six years—a vital support to large sectors of our economy and one that we will look back on with awe.
As we come out the other side of the initial crisis, the requirement to repay those debts in just five to six years will, in its turn, damage our ability to grow the economy. Just when we need businesses to be investing in growth and creating employment, they will have to focus on repaying their covid debt, in addition to any other pre-crisis leverage repayment plans. Just when we want banks to lend money to support employment-enhancing growth, they will have swollen covid-19 balance sheets and so be less likely to lend more. That is the opposite of what we need to happen.
There is a simple-ish solution: if we take the covid loan books of the banks and place the loans in a special purpose vehicle, turning them into covid loan-backed securities with varying maturities of up to 30 years, we could transform our economic recovery at a stroke and reduce capital repayments by a factor of six. We would free up whole swathes of the economy from zombie status, releasing funds for investment in growth. It would reduce business failures and increase the market for investment debt as effective business debt ratios are reduced.
At the same time, it would increase the banks’ lending appetite, since their current covid loan books would have been sold to institutional investors, so reflating their balance sheets. It would create the long-term, very low-risk, fixed income investment sought after by pension funds, particularly if the coupon were tax-free. The risk, after all, would be made up of businesses that were confident that they could repay sums over five or six years now doing so over 30 years, with individual risk further softened by their amalgamation.
Finally, it would create a whole new sector in finance in which the City could excel. I cannot think of a single policy that could do so much to re-establish our growth businesses so quickly, and all without significant recourse to the taxpayer. Does that sound too good to be true? Well, like any complex financial product, there are risks that will need to be explored both by the Treasury and by the Bank of England, but my earnest hope is that this proposal will be given the serious and immediate consideration it deserves.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I am going to make two points. The first is one that other Members have touched on. There are 3 million small limited companies, from taxi drivers to people in the creative industries, who still are being excluded from Government rescue measures. Many of those are not eligible for universal credit, so I add my plea to that of others: please, please, can the Government try to help those people?
The second point I want to make is about tourism. It occurs to me that I shall be repeating myself, inasmuch as I talked about this very subject some two or three weeks ago, although, now I think about it, I was up on the screens all around the Chamber—not a very pleasant sight, I fancy, so perhaps I should take the opportunity to apologise for any trauma I caused to right hon. and hon. Members.
It has been an incredibly long winter in the highlands of Scotland, and it is not over yet. We hope that the tourism businesses will go back in business on 15 July, but they are by their very nature seasonal. They make their money during the tourism season to survive the winter. That is the fat that they live on to see them through to the next tourism season, and I fear very much that many of the tourism businesses in my constituency, even starting on 15 July, will not put enough cash in the bank to see them through.
Of course, if they go down and they fail, the following year we have a reduced tourism product to offer people to bring them back to the highlands of Scotland. The same is true of Anglesey; it is true all over the UK. Our tourism product must be safeguarded and garnered and encouraged.
I know from what I have said in the past that I have the support of right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of this House on this issue, and I am grateful for that. My hon. Friend and colleague the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) has indeed been talking about this matter, and I support him. I also know that within the Scottish Government Fergus Ewing, the Minister responsible, is big on this as well.
I guess my plea is this: I believe, as does my hon. Friend, that we will have to have some specially tailored package, based on the measures that the Government have rightly put in place at the moment, to try to help the tourism industry through the longer period. I do not know what the answer is, but there are very many clever people who work in Her Majesty’s Treasury, and perhaps something could be thought up about that.
I hope there will be discussions between the Scottish Government and Fergus Ewing, and Her Majesty’s Treasury and appropriate Ministers. I would be deeply grateful if this issue could be taken seriously, because if tourism goes down the tubes in my constituency, frankly, the economy will be damaged irreparably. That means people will lose their livelihoods and the curse of the highland clearances could come back to haunt us yet again.
Nick Fletcher (Don Valley) (Con)
I declare an interest as my company has used the furlough scheme.
The furlough scheme and the self-employment income support scheme have been absolute wonders, and the loans of all different sizes and flexibility have been extremely well received. In fact, in my first ever webinar with Doncaster chambers of commerce, which of course I believe is the best in the country, a poll was carried out where all 30 delegates said that the Government had done an excellent job—high praise, but deservedly so. As a businessman, I know full well that it has been a tough time, so much so that even after all the monumental efforts from the Government things will look decidedly different post covid. I have no doubt that that genuinely frightens many people, but the longer we stay off work the harder it is for us to go back.
Let us take the building industry, for example. I have worked in this sector for many years and it is physically tough. When you have not been doing it for a while, it is hard to go back to. My ask is this: I want large firms, with furloughed employees that are waiting for another initiative while sitting on huge bank balances, to make the first move—not to use social distancing as an excuse not to go to work, but now as an excuse to go to work. We need those building companies to start finishing the houses they started pre-covid, get the footings dug for the next phase, press suppliers to make sure materials are there, pay everyone a little earlier and get confidence back in business. We can wait on Government initiatives and we can blame covid, or we can get stuck in and build our way out of this recession. Or we can all wait to see who moves first—by doing that, we will fail. Let us all start today, not on Monday or a week on Monday. Let us start now. It is imperative. I tell the building firms and all the other big companies that their workforces will thank them for it.
I also ask the Treasury to use whatever it has at its disposal to get this country back to work. I urge the Minister to consider how measures, such as reducing VAT, a reduction in national insurance contributions or scrapping stamp duty, would help to get our great businesses moving again. We cannot rely on support schemes for ever. We need to get back to work. I therefore urge every cash-rich company to do its bit and put its best foot forward and do everything it can. I ask the people of this country to do the same and our Government to consider my suggestions. We are all stakeholders in our future. We are all in this together. We will all win together, or we will all lose together. It is going to be tough, but I will do my bit. Will the risk-takers out there do theirs? If they do, our country will take its rightful place as the envy of the world.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
The next Member for the Opposition has withdrawn, so we go straight to Sally-Ann Hart.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Exceptional public health decisions required to squash this virus have needed exceptional economic interventions. That is what the Government have provided through the vast economic package of support given to businesses and individuals. One email I received yesterday from a constituent, who owns Rock a Nore Kitchen, said: “As small business owners, my husband and I have both been helped by the Government. You have really looked after us and we will not forget it. The grants and furlough scheme have enabled us to keep our businesses, keep our staff, generate money into the economy and keep the high streets alive. We will recover and it is down to you all.”
Beautiful Hastings and Rye is particularly dependent on the tourism and hospitality sectors, so I was delighted to hear the Prime Minister earlier this week announce the reopening of those sectors from 4 July. This is a much needed boost to our local economy, which we desperately need. However, we also have an amazing cultural and arts sector, which has, unfortunately, largely missed out on the remarkable economic packages provided by the Government, which have helped to support over 11,000 jobs and over 5,000 self-employed people in my constituency. Now we must look to the future and see what more we can do to continue levelling up our country and turbo-charging our local economies as we recover from the health crisis.
The Government provided economic support to businesses and individuals at a critical time. Now we all have a role to play in getting out and supporting our local businesses by finding our collective confidence to do so. Together we have gripped control of this virus and together we can come out of this pandemic stronger—team UK! In encouraging visitors to our tourist attractions, shops and hospitality venues, local authorities also have a role to play in marketing our areas and banging the drum to encourage domestic tourism. With greater footfall will come more support and an energetic boost to our local businesses.
Looking to the future, we need to put rocket boosters under our creative and performing arts sector, which is the bedrock of much of the soul of Hastings and Rye, through supporting venues in my constituency from St Mary in the Castle and Hastings Contemporary to pubs such as the Crown in Hastings old town, the Piper in St Leonards and the Standard Inn in Rye—I could keep going. There are so many people who are dependent on this industry getting off the ground again. I am asking the Government to put forward a clear plan for the strategy to drive up domestic tourism, so that we can support our hospitality and cultural sectors and allow constituencies such as Hastings and Rye to bounce back after this period of lockdown. Furthermore, it would be fantastic to get reassurances from the Government that our cultural, tourism and hospitality businesses in particular will have additional measures of support to get them through the equivalent of three winters.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Coronavirus has discriminated. The poorest communities have been hardest hit, with the highest mortality rates. Between March and May this year, County Durham had the third highest mortality rate in the UK. The biggest economic impact of coronavirus will be felt in the poorest communities. In the north-east, according to the North East England chamber of commerce, manufacturing is down 54% and the service sector is down 63%. In my constituency, unemployment is now 12% above the national average, and we all know from talking to local businesses that this is going to get worse as furlough ends and companies lay off workers. I fear that, without direct Government action, the north-east of England will return to the bad old days of the 1980s, with unemployment deprivation on that scale.
There are two sectors that we need to target. The first immediate measure that needs to be taken is to support small and medium-sized enterprises—tourism businesses and others—whether through rate relief or direct support. Secondly, the Government need to bring forward those Government projects that are now ready to go. Chester-le-Street railway station could be one of those projects. Likewise, Government contracts, nationally and in the region, need to be looked at to see which firms can become involved. Departments also need to put business directly into the regions. BAE Systems in the north-east, for example, could benefit in that regard. We have a Government who are committed to levelling up, so I am disappointed that when they have the opportunity to put investment into the north-east, they do not do it. It was disappointing that the vaccine manufacturing and innovation centre went to Oxford. The second place on the shortlist was the north-east, but they chose Oxford above the north-east of England.
The longer-term strategic aim is to establish a Government taskforce for the north-east, with a Minister in charge of it—someone who will be an advocate for the region. We also need to ensure that the so-called shared prosperity fund, which will replace European investment in the north-east, is brought forward, because that involves £134 million for Teesside and County Durham. Housing projects need to be brought forward on a regional basis, and innovation and training are a must. We should also have a guaranteed job or training scheme for the under-25s. Without this direct action, I fear that the north-east will go back to those dark days of the 1980s, which was a hard time for our region. We cannot have a repeat of the lost generation that we had then, when we know what is coming.
Fay Jones (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)
Nearly six months ago I gave my maiden speech, in which I spoke of the international events that Brecon and Radnorshire is home to. They include the Hay-on-Wye literary festival, the Brecon jazz festival, the Green Man festival and even the international bog snorkelling championships in Llanwrtyd Wells. Sadly, all of these have been cancelled this year. Cancelling the Green Man festival in Glanusk deprives us of more than just great music. The festival employs hundreds of seasonal workers and attracts thousands of visitors, all of whom spend money in our pubs, restaurants and local shops. Some events have been able to move online. For example, the Hay-on-Wye literary festival showcased virtual events, involving more than 100 award-winning writers, policy- makers and innovators. This was a huge undertaking, and I congratulate the organisers once again on delivering Hay-on-wifi, as the Prime Minister christened it.
With my passion for farming and agriculture, I have to say that I am gutted by the cancellation of the Royal Welsh Show. This world-renowned agricultural event, the largest agricultural show in Europe, attracts visitors from far and wide, generating up to £45 million for our economy in the process. The Royal Welsh is more than just a show. It is a celebration of Wales itself. For many in the farming community, it is the highlight of the year. The social aspect of the show cannot be underestimated, particularly when one considers the isolation that so often comes with rural life— a point reinforced to me during a meeting with my local branch of Mind, the mental health charity, this week.
Having spoken to the Royal Welsh this week, I know that the team in Builth Wells are working hard to try to deliver the Royal Welsh Winter Fair in November this year, and I am pleased that the UK Government and the Secretary of State for Wales are supporting them all we can, but they need support from both our Governments. The Welsh Government have provided some support to key events such as the Eisteddfodau, our Welsh language celebrations, but nothing so far for the Royal Welsh Show.
In England, outdoor theatres can now open and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport is working closely with the arts and culture sector on when indoor theatres can reopen. In Wales, we have no clarity on that. Yesterday, I received an email from Theatr Brycheiniog in Brecon. Since the lockdown, all performances have been cancelled and audiences have stayed away. The theatre staff told me yesterday that they have no idea as to when they can reopen. This could provide some optimism to the thousands of self-employed artists and performers who do not know when they will be able to return to work. Their counterparts in England have visibility, while we in Wales are left in the dark.
I have much to thank this Government for, not least the 10,000 employed and self-employed jobs that have been saved in Brecon and Radnorshire. Of course, there will always be more to do—more cause to go further—to keep on writing cheques, but the harsh reality is that the cake only cuts so many ways. This Government have dug deep to provide an unprecedented level of support in finance and guidance. If only we could say the same in Wales.
Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)
Many of my constituents have signed the petitions triggering this debate and, in particular, are calling for a dedicated programme of support for our events, cultural and creative industries. Anyone who knows Brighton and Hove cannot fail to be aware that we are home to some of the country’s most vibrant, creative and successful festivals. We lead the way nationally as well in widening access to the arts and unleashing the creative lives as yet unlived in excluded communities. Failing to directly support the creative sector puts 16,000 jobs at risk in our city alone and £1.5 billion in turnover. The consequences for the UK as a whole will be equally devastating, including for our sense of identity as a nation, which is inextricably bound up with cultural innovation from Chaucer to Banksy.
I call on Ministers to introduce urgent life support measures as other European countries have done. Germany, for example, has invested in a €50 billion rescue package. We need a similar cultural sector hardship relief fund to save live music venues, grassroots theatres, arts centres, community pubs, and any space that is a vital hub of culture and social interaction in our communities. Live music venues in my constituency are particularly at risk, and face a cliff edge when furlough ends. As one, Komedia, wrote to me,
“A world without grassroots venues is a world where the future’s talent never get the opportunity they deserve”.
I urge Ministers not to stand by and watch them go to the wall.
Those working in the events and creative industries are often self-employed and need their incomes protecting, too. Yet the self-employed scheme falls far short, failing to recognise the reality of self-employment today, penalising those who combine self-employment with PAYE work, PAYE freelancers, new start-ups and the recently self-employed, women who have taken time out for maternity leave and childcare, and anyone earning £50,000 and over. It is also a kick in the teeth for the nation’s small limited companies whose directors take all or part of their income in dividends. Therefore, as well as expanding access to the self-employed scheme, the Government must immediately extend its duration. The self-employed are still only protected until August, and that is not equivalent to the job retention scheme and it is not enough.
This must also be a green recovery in more than name, because of the accelerating climate emergency—it is currently 45 degrees in the Arctic—and because it makes economic sense as well. Plenty of evidence shows that green projects create more jobs, deliver higher returns on investment and lead to increased long-term cost savings. A green new deal recovery should invest only in industries willing and prepared to adapt to the net zero imperative. If public money is being used to bail out a company, there should be green and social conditions attached. We should not be handing over £600 million to easyJet with no questions asked. We should not be bailing out BA when it is treating its workers so appallingly.
Finally, a green recovery requires rethinking our entire economy, so that its primary purpose is human and planetary wellbeing, rather than the endless pursuit of indiscriminate GDP growth, which is destroying our planet and undermining the livelihoods of millions of people.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It should be obvious to the House that we do not have very long left. I estimate that eight more people will be called to speak. As you all have the speaking list, you will be able to work out who those eight are. If you are not among them, it is only fair that I warn you now.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Before the pandemic, pubs and hospitality employed more than 3 million people, which is 11% of UK employment, and contributed 7% of national GDP. Since the outbreak, three quarters of sites have been closed, 2.8 million people have been furloughed and 400,000 more could not be furloughed.
The Government have already done much to support businesses and pubs, through hospitality grants, discretionary payments and business rate holidays. Those measures have been vital in allowing businesses and jobs to survive this far, but hospitality will need further support as it rebuilds. That is particularly true for industries that depend on hospitality but have not qualified for grants and business rate holidays, such as breweries, and those in related sectors such as events, festivals, theatres and music venues.
To thrive post-covid, we need a successful and growing economy. That means consumers and businesses having confidence to spend and invest. Dudley South and the west midlands are rightly famous for world-beating advanced manufacturing and engineering, but we also have great businesses, large and small, innovating in creative industries, construction and technological solutions for a green economy. They must play a central role in rebuilding our economy, and the Government can help. Ministers will, by now, be familiar with the excellent recovery plan for the west midlands drawn up by our fabulous Mayor, Andy Street. His “Repowering the Black Country” programme comes with a relatively modest price tag of £30 million and is a very sound investment. The Black Country is one of seven clusters working with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy industrial cluster decarbonisation programme. Investing now will deliver accelerated green growth, by creating 2,550 jobs and safeguarding a further 2,200. It will re-shore manufacturing jobs and ensure that £14.8 billion in gross value added growth over 10 years is clean, net-zero carbon. It will unlock £400 million of private sector funding, creating the world’s first zero-carbon industrial cluster by 2030. Black Country firms are working hard to recover after covid-19, to protect jobs and to generate the prosperity that my constituents rely on. Coronavirus is, above all, a public health crisis. We must do all we can to prevent that human tragedy being followed by a prolonged and deep crash that would limit people’s life chances for years to come.
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
I welcome the chance to debate the support we provide to industries and the many sectors hit hard by this pandemic. We are braced for the worst economic downturn for many decades, if not centuries. Many thousands of jobs are at risk of being lost or are likely to be lost, including at Centrica, Nissan, British Airways and Virgin Atlantic. We are talking about plans to cut some 12,000 jobs. At Rolls-Royce and many other companies all over the country, many of our constituents will be affected. Some 10% of the population could face unemployment; 1 million young people are likely to face unemployment by the end of the year.
This also needs to be considered in the context of what kind of deal might be agreed, and how much friction there might be, with the European Union; the risk of a no-deal Brexit causing huge disruption; and the possibility of a second wave of the pandemic. So the risks are huge, both economically and in terms of health and our relationship with our biggest trading partner. That is why it is important that our Government focus on ensuring that there is a clear and coherent economic plan to protect the jobs that have been retained with the help of the job retention scheme. It is important that employers who are not in a position to make the contribution that they will soon have to are not forced to do so, because that will lead to more job losses. It is also vital that the Government heed the recommendations of the Treasury Committee report to provide support to the over 1 million people who did not benefit. Many of them work in the sectors that we have been talking about today, including in freelance jobs in the theatre, the music industry and creative industries in constituencies like mine—more than 1 million of them need help, including the new starters and those in the hospitality sector who have been neglected.
I hope that the Government will have a clear response to support the younger generation. We cannot afford another lost generation. It is vital that we have a credible economic plan that is ambitious, bold and inclusive, and protects everyone in our country. The Government must create a new settlement genuinely to tackle the inequalities that exist in our country and to ensure that no one is left behind, particularly those who have already faced hardship.
Anthony Browne (South Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I should declare an interest: my wife’s business has taken advantage of some of the Government support.
During the pandemic, we have rightly paid tribute to the workers of the NHS and others who have looked after us at this time. I also pay tribute to the workers in the private sector who have been at the forefront of the economic crisis.
I have been involved with small businesses for a long time in my life. I can tell Members of the absolute terror that many people have felt in my constituency, seeing their business collapse and losing 100% of their income overnight. They are desperately trying to reorganise their business to save jobs, to survive and to pull through this pandemic. That is what I have been spending my lockdown doing.
Those businesses are also being incredibly versatile. The Chequers pub in Fowlmere, the village I grew up in, was one of the first in the country to turn itself into a takeaway. In my constituency is the headquarters of AstraZeneca, which now leads the world on producing the much hoped for vaccine. It said it will do it at cost and produce 1 billion doses. We all keep our fingers crossed that it will work.
I do not need to pay tribute to the Government support in all this because across the House we have been doing that, but I have been in awe of its scale and speed. The Government—in particular, the Treasury and HMRC—have been doing years of work in weeks. My constituents have been very grateful for that support. I have heard a lot of thanks and that people have only been able to keep their companies going because of the various different Government support schemes.
Yes, as we have heard, there are gaps. I am well aware of gaps in particular sectors and that some people fall through. I am on the Treasury Committee as well, and we have taken evidence about those gaps, but almost everyone can get some form of support. There is a reason why the schemes are designed as they are. There is a trade-off between complexity and speed. Had the Government made the schemes more complex, consulting on their detail and design, they could not have been rolled out at that record pace, helping all those different businesses.
The Government have been very flexible, such as with the CBILs. When the banks were not getting those loans out quickly enough, because they had to do affordability checks, the Government introduced the bounce-back loans, which enabled them to roll out support far more quickly. However, I urge the Government to keep under review—as I am sure they will—their support schemes over the rest of the crisis.
The best way to help businesses is to get the economy going again. We should have three priorities: growth, growth and growth. Private enterprise has taken the brunt of this recession and private enterprise will lead us out of it. I urge us all to unite in supporting businesses as we move forwards.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me to speak in this important, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The full effect of the coronavirus pandemic has yet to be felt, but we have already seen the impact that this invisible disease is having on my city of Coventry and on the United Kingdom. Sadly, in the months to June, as many as 270 people lost their lives to the virus in my city, according to the Office for National Statistics. Our normal way of life has changed, and some of us have mourned the loss of friends and family.
We have seen lay-offs in companies large and small. According to the Library, in Coventry North West there were 4,630 claimants for unemployment benefit; a further 3,200 claims were made to the self-employment income support scheme, which is equivalent to 71% of the potentially eligible population; and there are currently 13,100 jobs on furlough through the job retention scheme. Although the Government’s support package is commendable, my fear is that it may mask the true extent of the crisis in our jobs market, and these figures do not show those without recourse to public funds, who may be eligible for the Government’s covid-19 support package, but are unable readily to claim vital welfare benefits. I will briefly highlight causes for concern in my patch and businesses that have been affected by this crisis.
Let me turn first to the job losses at Rolls-Royce in Ansty. The UK’s aerospace sector is world-leading, supporting hundreds of jobs directly in my constituency through the supply chain. Rolls-Royce’s announcement to cut 65 jobs from its workforce of 167 at Ansty is hugely disappointing. The site is renowned for its expertise, being the only one that can weld the veins of plane propellers. From my conversations with staff and union reps at the site, I understand that they fear the company is using coronavirus as an excuse to ship jobs outside the UK, and to rehire staff on worse contracts here and abroad. There are also concerns that this move has been in the works, as their pensions will also change. Is this what the Government meant by global Britain—allowing companies such as Rolls-Royce to receive research and development funding, and job retention money, while they ship British jobs overseas?
The arts are also under threat. The brilliant Belgrade theatre in Coventry is losing income. Small businesses such as Exhibit 3Sixty have also been in touch with my office. Exhibit 3Sixty is an award-winning and successful exhibition stand design and build company based in Coventry with six permanent employees and 12 self-employed tradesmen and women. My office has been supporting Alan Craner, the managing director, who has applied for the retail, hospitality and leisure grant fund, but has been refused. Despite the Chancellor’s statement on 17 March, when he appeared to say that the exhibition sector was eligible for the same help that is available to businesses in the retail, leisure and hospitality sector, it seems that there is no special support for companies like Mr Craner’s. Will the Minister meet me—virtually, of course—so that I can present my cases and he can provide clarity on the support available?
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
I thank the Treasury and the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy for their remarkable support for businesses in the UK, and specifically in Kensington. The Treasury put together a remarkable series of measures—really extraordinary when one thinks of the size, scale and speed of their delivery. However, I would say never let a good crisis go to waste. It is incumbent on us to learn the lessons of the crisis, and to use them to formulate a new business and industrial strategy post Brexit.
One of the key takeaways from the crisis is that we need more high-tech manufacturing and engineering capacity in the UK. We had a remarkable response to the call to action on ventilators, and I am delighted to hear that 7,500 ventilators have been provided to the NHS by UK industry. However, manufacturing capacity should already have been in place. The same issue exists with our supply chains. There is no point in having high-tech capacity in the UK if we are dependent on imports for basic components from Asia. We need an industrial strategy that focuses on our high-tech industries, whether that be telecommunications, artificial intelligence and technology, or energy.
These issues are not going to go away. I hear all the time from constituents who are concerned about Huawei’s involvement, for instance, in 5G. I hear their concerns about the involvement of China General Nuclear Power in Hinkley Point C. We also need a strategy that defends our companies from hostile foreign takeovers if they endanger our national security. I am delighted with the Government’s response, but let us see this as an opportunity to develop a strong post-Brexit industrial strategy for the UK.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
London Luton airport is the fifth busiest airport in the UK, and its operation plays a central role in both Luton’s economy and the regional economy. Last year, it delivered £160 million in air passenger duty to Her Majesty’s Treasury. It was therefore no surprise to me, and probably will not be to the Minister, that the petition on support for the aviation industry had the highest number of Luton South signatories. I have also received many emails from cabin crew and pilots, from those working in security, retail, and hospitality, and from those in the wider holiday and tourism sector who work at companies such as TUI. The whole aviation ecosystem has been impacted by the crisis and they are all worried about their livelihoods.
Luton airport is not only a key jobs provider; because the airport is owned by Luton Council, each year an annual dividend is paid directly to the council to fund local council services. Covid-19 has caused passenger numbers at Luton airport to plummet by 98% and, as the airport dividend is based on a per-passenger basis, that dividend has all but disappeared too. The loss of such a vital commercial income stream into Luton Council means that it is being forced into making £22 million of in-year cuts to balance the budget. That will be devastating for services in our town and is likely to cause nearly 400 job losses at the council.
I have spoken to a number of employers and organisations linked to Luton airport’s operations and supply chain, and the common theme is that the Government’s decision not to introduce a sector-specific financial support package for aviation has deepened the sector’s economic crisis. The sector is interdependent: if one part falters, they all suffer.
We know for sure that the number of flights will not return to 2019 levels for the foreseeable future, that public health regulations will restrict day-to-day business for a long time, and that the economic implications will hamper aviation’s development towards net zero. A failure to introduce a tailored package that supports the industry in respect of each of these long-term problems will devastate the whole sector. The removal of the job retention scheme before the sector has returned to business as usual and passenger confidence has returned will lead to rising unemployment, slashed wages and, in some cases, attacks on workers’ rights. In Luton South, nearly 20% of our workforce has been furloughed, and because of the aviation sector’s uncertain future, jobs at easyJet, Swissport and Luton airport are already at risk of being cut.
There is a clear option for the way forward: a new package should include the protection of jobs and salaries, with a commitment to workers’ rights, and a clear commitment to tackling climate change for the industry, using cleaner fuels and low or zero-emission technologies. Companies in receipt of money must ensure that their tax base is in the UK; no dividends should be paid until the company has been proven to be commercially viable; and a commitment to pay UK-based suppliers must be a priority. There must be an aviation-wide bail-out package and it must be tied to social and environmental expectations.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
There is no doubt that the period that we are living through has been one of the most unusual that we will ever have. It has been a tremendous challenge for us all, filled with fear and the unknown. These unprecedented times have been met with unprecedented actions when it comes to this Government: 11,200 people in my constituency have benefited from the job retention scheme and 3,100 people have benefited from the self-employment scheme. These are families and individuals who have felt more secure and safer during these incredibly challenging times.
The Government have not stopped there: from the small business grant fund, the retail, hospitality and leisure grant, and the business interruption loan scheme, through to the bounce-back loans and the deferral of VAT payments and self-assessment payments—I fear I could spend my entire three minutes outlining the amazing actions that the Government have taken over the past three months. What I will say is that I am incredibly proud to support a Government who have put ordinary workers and families first.
As we enter a new stage, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) in saying that it is vital that we put green concerns at the heart of our strategy. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) that we need to unleash our private sector and continue to support it, because it will be at the heart of everything that is good. It has had a very difficult time, and we need to support it.
My constituency is beautiful—it is, as I have previously mentioned, the most beautiful constituency in the entire country—and has tremendous tourism potential. We have talked about those who have unfortunately slipped through the cracks in the Government’s various schemes. One example is Creswell Crags in my constituency, which is a wonderful tourism destination. The Minister is almost certainly rolling his eyes, because he is bored of me mentioning this, but I will once again put on record that we need to continue to support that wonderful attraction and the many others in Bolsover, because our tourism potential is unlimited.
I conclude by saying once again that I am incredibly proud of everything we have done. We have a long way to go to get out of this crisis, but I believe that we are showing the leadership to get through it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am afraid that the next speaker will be the last person called from the Back Benches this afternoon. I call Sarah Olney.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I appreciate you giving me time to speak in this really important debate. My constituents have been in touch with me about this issue more than any other during the crisis. The crisis has revealed the complexity of the UK economy. It is a feature of our country’s creativity, energy and innovativeness that we host such a vast array of industries and businesses within our island nation. That is reflected in the myriad ways that people earn a living.
I am a member of the Public Accounts Committee, and we were taken aback at a recent hearing to find that the Government’s preparation for a pandemic did not include preparation for its economic impact. That left the Treasury with the huge task of devising and delivering its economic rescue plans when the lockdown started, and I pay tribute to it for what it was able to achieve in such a short period. As many Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, the job retention scheme—the furlough scheme—has been invaluable in supporting household incomes during this extremely difficult time. But it is clear that support was focused on those who earn salaries and pay mortgages, and, tragically, many sectors and workers were missed out. I urge the Minister to consider the lessons for future lockdown planning, although we all hope that this will not be necessary in the immediate future. The biggest tragedy is that many of those who missed out are the ones who will be most instrumental in rebuilding the economy in the months to come—our small businesses, our entrepreneurs, our freelancers, those who have taken a risk on a new business idea or taken on a new job. The Government must focus their investment on our key industries and those that will take the longest to recover.
I spoke earlier today in this place about the necessity of supporting theatres, and I extend that to the whole creative sector. Not only are they a huge earner for us abroad, but they reflect British values across the globe and are instrumental in so many ways. Beyond that, for all of us who have spent months staring at our laptop screens, it will be essential to enjoy live music and live theatre again. I spoke earlier about the necessity of using education programmes, which theatre companies and other parts of the creative sector are so good at, to engage our young people once again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) spoke passionately about the tourism and hospitality sector, and it is essential that we support all these industries through the next few months. We do not just need to support our workers in these industries; we need to plot out a strategy for their survival and recovery. If the right people get the right help now, they will be ready to revive the economy as soon as they are able to.
Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)
This is a timely debate that has not just highlighted the concerns of those who have put their names to these petitions but will have widespread resonance far beyond them. We have heard many excellent contributions this afternoon, with concerns raised covering a wide spectrum of sectors, including arts, tourism, childcare, events, aviation and steel—a full sweep of the economy—and enterprises of all sizes.
The UK Government package, as the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) said, was put together at speed, and as we have heard, many significant gaps have been identified. On the furlough scheme, for example, I need not dwell on the pivotal date of 19 March, which has left far too many people reliant on the good will of former employers if they are to benefit from it. The self-employed support scheme, which was unveiled after this House had broken up for the Easter recess, missed out those who were newly self-employed. Directors also missed out if they were remunerated through dividends. This makes the case, I think, for a universal basic income in that we know who everyone is, and if we give them the money to get through, then nobody, by definition, will have fallen through the cracks.
Much of the support has been based on the rateable values of business enterprises, and I can understand exactly why that is. It is clear and it is simple for local authorities to administer, but it has still left too many businesses missing out, because they were outside the relevant rateable value bands or they were not in the relevant sector, or because they were small businesses operating out of people’s homes and were therefore not on the business valuation roll.
The Scottish Government have certainly done all they can to try to plug those gaps in support with a £2.3 billion package of support. That has meant relief to the fish processing sector and to airports, support for the creative sector, plugging that gap in support for the newly self-employed, £78 million for construction and £51 million to support early-stage, high-potential companies. In all, the response amounts to over £4 billion for tackling this, when we have had £3.8 billion coming through the normal Treasury route.
However, it is important to note that the Scottish Government cannot do everything, and in trying to do more, they are finding themselves seriously constrained not only by the resource available, but by the constitutional limits placed on devolution, which have been particularly exposed in this crisis, and no more so than over borrowing powers. The borrowing powers that the Scottish Parliament has are designed to deal with cash-flow mismatches from year to year; they are not there to deal with serious amounts of investment for the future. I understand that the Finance Secretary in Scotland, Kate Forbes, has written today to the Chancellor to ask for greater flexibility around that. I hope she gets a reply that is not only swift but favourable.
This has also shown the limitations of the so-called Barnett consequentials. Too often, colleagues in Edinburgh have been left waiting to find out exactly how much is going to come through from spending decisions that have been taken in this place, occasionally finding that the money they thought was coming through was then not. It would be much better if the devolved Governments were able to decide what response they wanted to make and muster the resources at their disposal in the shortest possible time by simply having the powers to do so without reference to anywhere else.
I appreciate that we are short of time this afternoon, but I will say that borrowing powers were one of the key items identified in the report created by the Scottish Government’s advisory group on economic recovery, led by Benny Higgins. Borrowing powers were part of that, as was a series of 25 recommendations including a full review of the fiscal framework, jobs guarantees for the under-25s, prioritising a green recovery and a revised partnership between business and Government. These are all important structural changes in the economy that we absolutely need to have if we are going to make sure that the new normal is better than the old normal.
In the time remaining, let me just make a plea for the energy sector. Oil, gas and energy are absolutely crucial not just for jobs in the north-east of Scotland, but right across the UK. They are crucial if we are to maintain our energy security and effect the transition to net zero, but it is an industry on the brink of thousands upon thousands of job losses. The Scottish Government have invested £62 million to do what they can to assist in that. We desperately need a sector deal. Together with my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) and for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn), I have made a plea to the Chancellor for just such a sector deal. Again, we hope for a swift and favourable response.
In conclusion, the support to date from the UK Government has been very welcome where it has landed, but desperately missed where it has not. All too often, it has failed to land. The economic challenges we face as the crisis evolves give us a new landscape. The challenges change, but are no less urgent and much remains to be done. I say to the Minister that if the UK Government are not willing to use the powers they have to address those shortcomings and to tackle the additional issues that need to be tackled, they should devolve those powers to Governments elsewhere in these islands who will use them.
Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to respond to this wide-ranging and well-subscribed debate on behalf of the Opposition. I start by thanking all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate today, and the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for opening it. I also pay tribute to the initiators of each of the petitions under consideration and, by my calculation, the nearly three quarters of a million people who collectively signed them for making today’s debate possible.
As numerous right hon. and hon. Members referred to in their remarks, the debate takes place in the midst of a pandemic that is taking a severe toll on our economy. Barring a second wave of the virus, the worst may now be behind us, but the fiscal impact wrought, the dramatic rise in the unemployment rate and the prospect of many sectors continuing to operate at reduced capacity for some time point to the trials that lie ahead.
Let me underline for the record that the Opposition welcomed the unprecedented measures that the Government took, in essence, to put our economy on life support in the face of a near total shutdown. The fact that we are here today debating urgent petitions signed by hundreds of thousands of people working in a range of industries is testament to the need to further refine those measures and build on them where necessary to protect as many people’s incomes, jobs and businesses as we can.
In the time available to me, I will pick up on three points that have been prominent during the debate. The first is the need for further improvements to the measures already introduced to support businesses and individuals. The second is the need for support packages for certain UK industries, tailored to their needs. The third is the need for a more strategic approach to the recovery than that which defined the rescue.
On the first of those points, the House needs no reminding that it is people who are the bedrock of the productive capacity that firms, and thereby industries, will need to bounce back now that the immediate crisis is subsiding. That is why we must continue to do what is necessary to protect their livelihoods, their jobs and their businesses through this difficult period. That is why we continue to press the Government to fix the gaps and deficiencies in the various financial support schemes that have already been established. There is still time to do so.
There is still time for the Government to revise the job retention scheme to cover employees currently shut out from it, and still time to revise the self-employment income support scheme to help those it currently excludes. There is still time to further reform the coronavirus business interruption loan scheme, so that more companies can access finance and liquidity easily to make it through the crisis, as well as access more patient capital.
There is still time—this brings me to my second point—to revisit the one-size-fits-all approach that has underpinned the design of many of those schemes and appears to be dictating the Government’s approach to sectors and industries across the board. The various case studies raised by right hon. and hon. Members from all parts of the House are a vivid illustration that the pandemic’s economic impact has not been felt uniformly across different sectors, but also that the rate at which sectors can reopen and restart will differ markedly. If we are to successfully navigate the next phase of this crisis, logic dictates that a more differentiated approach is needed.
Such an approach will undoubtedly pose challenges for the Government, but if Ministers do not concede that established schemes will have to be redesigned so that they can enable a flexible sector-by-sector response, and if they do not concede that targeted support packages will be needed for the industries most in need, we risk many more firms going under and many more jobs being lost. There is, however, no real sense that the Government have accepted as much.
Taking three of the industries whose plight is the focus of the petitions we are considering today, the early years sector is under huge pressure, with many providers on the verge of ruin. As a report released this morning by the Early Years Alliance and Ceeda makes clear, the impact of collapsing relevant revenues from significantly reduced demand and the increased costs that come with making establishments covid-safe are falling on a sector that was already struggling financially before the pandemic took hold. It looks set to lead to significant funding shortfalls and mass closures. The industry needs more help.
As many hon. Members referred to in their speeches, not least my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Withington (Jeff Smith) and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), the arts and creative industries, as well as the sectors heavily dependent on them, have been hit particularly hard. That sector will be one of the last to reopen because of the difficulty—in many cases, the impossibility—of operating theatres, live music, festivals and other events and performance in line with social distancing measures. The Culture Secretary told the Evening Standard on 8 June that a package of support was “imminent”, yet weeks later nothing has materialised. That industry desperately needs more help.
In powerful contributions, my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) and my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) highlighted the fact that the aviation sector stands on the brink of devastation as a result of the pandemic, and several airlines have already announced plans for significant redundancies. Research from the New Economics Foundation and the TUC earlier this month warned that at least 70,000 jobs in the wider aviation industry are at risk before the end of the summer alone. The Opposition recognise that aviation must change to tackle runaway global heating, but current developments are chaotic and suggest the absence of any long-term strategy for the industry. It needs more help, as do so many others.
When the Minister stands up, I hope that he can give the House and all those watching our proceedings an indication of when sector-specific support packages, including access to emergency funding, will be forthcoming for these industries and others that are crying out for help, including hospitality, aerospace, the motor industry and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) pointed out powerfully, steel. If the Minister is unable to do that, will he at least provide some reassurance that the Government recognise the urgency with which such tailored packages are required by the industries in question and that Ministers accept the need to make changes to existing schemes, such as the furlough, so that their phasing out mirrors the pace at which industry is able to return to some semblance of normality?
That brings me to my final point—I will be brief in making it, Madam Deputy Speaker. As we look to ensure that our industries get the ongoing support that they need, we must plan strategically for the future. That means support, yes, to ensure that our industries do not fall behind their international competitors in the years ahead, but also support that is designed to achieve other important national objectives, not least responding to the environment and climate emergency. Our European neighbours are using this crisis as an opportunity to do just that, and the Government should look to match and even surpass their ambition by coming forward with support that will retain and create jobs, accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy and address a range of regional and wider inequalities—a point made very powerfully by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali).
In conclusion, the Opposition recognise the scale of the challenge that the Government have had to confront, as well as the speed with which the current schemes had to be designed and implemented, but, as the OECD made clear, our country is on course to suffer the largest economic hit from the pandemic among major nations this year. In the face of such an emergency, we on this side of the House and the three quarters of a million people who signed these petitions are not demanding the impossible. We are simply asking the Government to act decisively and spend smartly to protect industries that contribute so much to our economy and our society, and on whom so many people rely.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Nigel Huddleston)
It is a pleasure to contribute on the Government’s behalf to this debate, which comes as countries across the world continue to battle one of the worst public health emergencies in our history. I thank Members on both sides of the House for their valuable contributions, both in this debate and in the months and weeks before, and their work to highlight issues that I know we all care very deeply about.
Nigel Huddleston
It would not be a debate without an intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
Jim Shannon
We discussed this this morning: can I request the Minister’s help for Bombardier in Belfast and Newtownards in my constituency, where 600 manufacturing jobs are under threat? Would he accept the letter from me with Bombardier’s 16-point plan and be so kind as to arrange a response?
Nigel Huddleston
I would be happy to take the letter and ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets an appropriate response from the correct Minister.
The importance of this debate is demonstrated by the fact that hundreds of thousands of people signed the petitions. Of course, we are in an unprecedented global crisis, and this Government have provided an unprecedented, wide-ranging level of financial support in response to protect jobs, businesses and incomes across the country. Under the coronavirus job retention scheme, we have supported over 10 million people and at least 1 million businesses. We have supported 2.6 million self-employed people and given out £26 billion in bounce back loans alone, not to mention the support in the form of grants for small businesses and for those in the retail, hospitality and leisure sectors. Given the direct and acute impacts of the covid-19 pandemic on those latter sectors, the Government have also provided a business rates holiday for businesses in retail, hospitality and leisure, so that all eligible businesses will pay no business rates for 12 months. This support is worth almost £10 billion to those businesses.
Several Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), asked about nurseries. We absolutely recognise the important role that nurseries play in young children’s lives at the very start of their education. Recognising that, we made sure that nurseries were also on the list for the business rate holiday.
On the broader financial package, when it became clear that more help was needed, the Chancellor announced in May that the furlough scheme would continue until the end of October, and in its current form until the end of July, supporting furloughed workers as they gradually return to work.
The Government have provided a wide and unparalleled level of financial support during the pandemic to help workers in every sector and in every region of the UK, but we knew that as we entered lockdown, as part of our battle against this disease we would need a number of targeted interventions to protect jobs and businesses in some of our most beloved and hardest-hit sectors, including those identified in the petitions. We have had a good and thorough debate about those sectors today. Working groups have been set up by various Departments to work on the path to recovery and to identify what further support may be required, and discussions with the Treasury are taking place.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Will the Minister put it on the record that the creative industries contribute a huge amount to our economy and improve everybody’s mental wellbeing? Will he recognise that, welcome though the support schemes were, many freelancers and directors of limited companies, particularly in the creative industries in my constituency, have been left—
Nigel Huddleston
I thank the hon. Lady for her passion. That passion is shared by Ministers at the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport and elsewhere, and conversations are ongoing about further support.
Hon. Members will appreciate that, given the time constraints, I am unable to respond to many of the other specific points and questions that were raised today relating to multiple Government Departments and other bodies. However, I will make sure that relevant Ministers are aware of all the points that have been raised in this debate.
I cannot mention individually everyone who has contributed to today’s debate, but I thank everybody for their thoughtful and constructive comments. In particular, I would like to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet; my hon. Friends the Members for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), for Buckingham (Greg Smith), for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), for Brecon and Radnorshire (Fay Jones), for Dudley South (Mike Wood) and for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher); the right hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami); and the hon. Members for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for Coventry North West (Taiwo Owatemi), for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins) and for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) for mentioning tourism, hospitality and leisure—and, of course, aviation. Obviously, that sector is very close to my heart.
I would also like to thank those who have mentioned many other sectors, including my hon. Friends the Members for Broadland (Jerome Mayhew), for Don Valley (Nick Fletcher), for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), and for Kensington (Felicity Buchan), and the hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for Stockport (Navendu Mishra), and for North Ayrshire and Arran (Patricia Gibson), who raised issues about the arts, technology, zoos and many other important sectors.
Before I conclude, I want to praise my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry), who made a very eloquent maiden speech. He talked with passion and pride about his work, about his West Indian heritage, about this land of opportunity and about his 26 years in the RAF. That is particularly timely this week, which is Armed Forces Week. He is rightly proud of his family, and he has done his family proud. His constituency can be equally proud to have an MP of his calibre as their representative in this place.
It has been a great pleasure to participate in today’s debate, and I thank everybody for their contributions. This debate has been extraordinarily valuable, and I am sure that the dialogue will continue.
Theresa Villiers
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for making possible these first debates from the Petitions Committee on the Floor of the House. I thank all who have contributed. Above all, I would like to thank once again those who created and supported the e-petitions. The e-petitions were started by Matthew Rakowski-Goreta, Miles Croxford, Oliver Tooley, Evgenia Galinskaya and Anand Limbachia, who can all be assured that their voices have been heard by the Government in the support package and by Members in this House this afternoon.
As others have done, I commend the Government for a package of support that has saved the livelihoods of so many millions of people. It was delivered at phenomenal speed. My experience in Government makes me think that it is so difficult to get even the smallest thing done at speed. The speed of the reaction was essential. I ask the Government to reflect on those gaps in provision that have been identified, particularly by the Treasury Committee: the newly employed, the newly self-employed, directors of limited companies, and freelancers on short-term contracts. I also echo the strong points that were made about securing the future of aviation and, of course, of the performing arts and culture, where the need for support and for a plan for reopening is urgent.
I close by echoing the comments, praise and thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Darren Henry). It was a great honour that he made his maiden speech in the debate for us all to hear. It was a heart-warming story, and I wish him well with his tenure in the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
This is rather extraordinary, because we are ending a couple of minutes early. We all encouraged people to speak so quickly and to be so brief that those who spoke latterly were so disciplined in the way they did it that we end up with a couple of minutes, as it were, to spare. But there is never time to spare; there is always something else to do in this House, so I shall put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petitions relating to support for UK industries in response to covid-19.
Royal Assent
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am very happy that in these couple of minutes that remain before 5 o’clock, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020
Divorce, Dissolution and Separation Act 2020
Corporate Insolvency and Governance Act 2020.
I do not think that I need to suspend the House in order to allow people to leave and other Members to come in safely. I think that if I simply filibuster from the Chair for a moment or two, all Members who are currently in the Chamber might be able to leave towards the Bar of the House and those who are about to take part in the next proceedings can appear from behind the Chair.
Business without Debate
De La Rue: Gateshead
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I am glad to have secured this debate on the Government response to job losses at the De La Rue site in Gateshead. I know that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, take a particular interest in this debate, as you have a De La Rue site in your constituency of Epping Forest. I thank you for the concern you have expressed for the staff in Gateshead.
On 25 March 2018, I stood in this Chamber as a fairly new MP to ask an urgent question of the Home Office about the awarding of the contract to produce UK passports to Franco-Dutch company Gemalto rather than to De La Rue, which produced the passports at Team Valley in my constituency.
The De La Rue site, which quite literally prints money as well as producing passports, is one of the industrial jewels in the Gateshead crown. It produces high-quality, nationally important projects with great skill and in highly secure conditions. The staff are highly skilled and trained and well paid. These are quality jobs and staff are proud of the work they do. They do not just come from my constituency; they travel from a wide area around. Hon. Members from across the north-east will also have constituents who work at the site.
In 2018, despite huge public support for keeping passport production in the north-east and in the UK, despite newspaper campaigns and despite meetings with Government Ministers, the contract was eventually awarded to Gemalto. UK passport production was to be offshored, with blank books—a highly valuable commodity—being produced overseas and the personalisation being done in the UK.
Decisions were based primarily on cost in the procurement process that started in 2017. In my view, the Government should have taken a more strategic view from the start, as some other EU countries have done, believing that passport production is essentially a part of the integrity of our security system.
I do not absolve De La Rue’s senior management at the time for getting the price wrong, but my concern is for the staff who worked so hard and with such great pride to produce a secure quality passport for Great Britain. We must learn those lessons for the future when we reconsider the passport contract, but meanwhile, De La Rue employees are bearing the after-effects of that decision.
The loss of the passport contract meant the loss of 200 jobs as the contract came to an end, with a start date for the new contract of July 2019, but more job losses were to follow. In June 2019, a further 170 jobs were lost at Gateshead, from the currency production side. One of the two currency production lines printing banknotes was closed down as the company looked to reduce costs in the aftermath of the loss of their passport contract. Work was again transferred from Gateshead to the company’s other sites, including those in Gibraltar and Kenya.
To add insult to injury, chief executive Martin Sutherland stood down with a bonus worth more than 30% of his executive pay of £197,000, as staff pay was frozen, 48% of shareholders voted against De La Rue’s remuneration report in June 2019 and the future of the company looked very uncertain. Staff at the Gateshead site were facing redundancy. The Guardian wrote in November 2019:
“The farewell bonus for Sutherland, who finally departed last month, now looks like a wretched joke about a licence to print money.”
Sadly, it is not a joke for the staff who actually printed the money for De La Rue.
Each time I visited the site, I talked to staff, who are incredibly proud of the work they do and the responsibility that they carry. I talked to the union Unite about trying to save those jobs. Each time, top management told them that they would be looking to bring more work to Gateshead to replace the passport contract. None materialised.
Last week, as the company financial reports were released, news came of the proposal to end production of currency at Gateshead, with the loss of 255 jobs, leaving only 90 jobs in highly specialised functions at a site that just a few years ago had more than 600 jobs. For many staff not on shift when the stock markets opened, the news first reached them via the Chronicle website, social media, a text from friends or local TV and radio news. The staff deserve better than that.
Once again, work previously done in Gateshead will be moved to De La Rue’s other sites in the UK or overseas. There is a direct link between the decision to award the passport contract to Gemalto and the job losses across the Gateshead site. Because of the number of redundancies, there is now a consultation period of 45 days, so I will be working with Unite and echoing its call for this decision to be reversed and for work to be kept at the Gateshead site. Last week, I spoke to the current chief executive and chairman to let them know my anger at the decision and to support Unite’s call for it to be reversed. I will keep on pushing hard for that throughout the consultation period.
However, the Government have a responsibility in this too, and I am asking the Minister to help me and my colleagues to retain these skilled, high-quality jobs in the north-east. I want to know what the Government are going to do to ensure that jobs such as these are retained in the north-east. We simply cannot afford to lose them. These highly-skilled, well-paid jobs will help to stimulate our regional economy. We need sustainable jobs in the north-east. The Government say that they want to level up the north of England, so they must take practical and decisive action to keep those jobs and to secure more of them for our workers.
Behind those numbers are individuals, families and livelihoods. With the loss of those jobs comes a loss of security, of safety, of hope and of aspiration. Many will be shaken and shattered by this news, and those affected will emerge from the current pandemic even more uncertain about their futures. I join with Unite, the staff trade union, in calling for the company to reverse its plans and maintain production at its Gateshead site.
As I have already said, in 2018 and 2019 the previous management of De La Rue told staff at Gateshead that they would work to bring new work to the site and that the site was important to the company. Those promises were not delivered. Empty words mean nothing to people in my constituency, so I urge the Government to act now. They can start by ensuring that De La Rue’s site is maintained and that the contract to produce passports is returned to the UK as a matter of urgency. They can also help by taking action now to help me to keep those jobs in Gateshead. We must act with immediacy not only to protect local quality jobs, but to safeguard our local economy and strengthen our place in a rapidly changing world. The staff of De La Rue Gateshead deserve no less.
I will finish with one final irony. Today, almost one full year after the new contractor was due to take on the passport contract, some passports are still being produced by De La Rue staff on the Gateshead site in Team Valley in my constituency. That work is due to end at the end of June, just a few days from now. The remaining 80 passport staff will lose their jobs and passport production will cease on the site. I thank those staff and all the staff at the Gateshead site, and end with the hope that we will see a resurgence of the high-skilled, high-quality jobs we so need in the north-east.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I thank the hon. Lady for graciously mentioning that I share her concerns, as De La Rue is a major employer in my Epping Forest constituency.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) on securing this debate. As she eloquently said in her speech, the workers from the site come from across the north-east, and I have quite a number in my constituency.
People might say, “Well, 255 is a small number.” No, it is not, because of the type of jobs that we are talking about. They are high-quality, well-paid jobs. The individuals who work there have worked there for many years, in some cases. They have dedicated their lives to producing top-quality banknotes, and latterly passports. It is quite ironic that, in terms of withdrawing from the European Union, the Government said much about how great it was that we were going to get the blue passports back—although when I look at them, they seem more black than blue—but we then find that they are going to be printed abroad.
In the past few days, people have been saying that the reason the Government have done this is European procurement processes. That is complete nonsense, because no other European country has done this. They have, quite rightly, seen the integrity of the passport system as critical national infrastructure and as part of their key manufacturing capability. That is what should have happened with this contract. I share some of my hon. Friend’s concerns about some of the management at De La Rue over the years.
In the north-east, we are going through dark times at the moment with the pandemic. I spoke about that in the previous debate. Unfortunately it is going to get a lot worse, not only in terms of the pandemic affecting the north-east and the higher rates of mortality than in other areas, but the massive economic impact. So this is a further blow to the north-east economy. We should be looking at this decision and seeing how we can reverse it. In the coming months and years, the Government have to step in and direct contracts and support to those regions such as the north-east that need that support. Without that, we will be in a situation where, as I said in the previous debate, we will return to the dark days of the 1980s in the north-east, where unemployment will be at record levels and the lost generation that we saw in the ’80s will be repeated again. We cannot afford to do that.
These are high-quality and very sought-after jobs. Anybody who works there will say that they are proud of working for De La Rue, because the jobs are not only well paid but highly skilled, and the terms and conditions are good. We do not lose those types of jobs in the north-east easily—they will not be easily replaced. I hear a lot from the Prime Minister about levelling up and investment in the regions. Well, he could do something about that now by reversing the decision on the passports. The north-east went through a terrible time in the 1980s and ’90s. We have turned the corner in some areas, but we are not going to do it in this current climate without some direct Government support.
It saddened me this week, for example, when I learned of the Government’s decision to award the vaccines manufacturing and innovation centre to Oxford. Why Oxford? My right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar) asked where the other potential site was. It was in the north-east. So where the Government can actually help the north-east, they are clearly still not doing it. This has to be changed. We cannot have a situation whereby jobs are going to be lost, but also what should be retained in the UK in terms of manufacturing should be retained in the north-east. This was a Government decision—they cannot get away from that fact—and it needs revisiting. Without that, the Government have to step in somehow to ensure that the types of jobs that are being lost are going to be replaced.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Nadhim Zahawi)
It is customary to congratulate an hon. Member on securing a debate, but I think “congratulate” is the wrong word in this case, so I am going to commend the hon. Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist). It is nothing to congratulate anyone about given the job losses that we are discussing. I know, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you take a special interest in this because of the De La Rue presence in Epping Forest, and I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for his customary courtesy in letting me know that he was going to speak in this important debate. It is also appropriate to take the opportunity to thank the hon. Lady and other Members, and, importantly, all public, private, community and voluntary sector partners across Tyneside and the north-east, for their outstanding work and support during these challenging times.
Tyneside and the broader north-east is a major industrial and manufacturing hub for the United Kingdom. It is a critical centre for the UK automotive industry, with the region typically producing over 500,000 cars a year. It is also a centre for producing medicines and healthcare products—the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the vaccine manufacturing and innovation centre in Oxford. There is much more work to do, and I am absolutely passionate and focused on working with the north-east on the future of the life sciences sector in that region.
Mr Kevan Jones
There were two shortlisted sites, according to the response given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (John Spellar): Oxford and the north-east. If the Minister really wants to level up and actually put investment into the north-east, why did not he not insist on putting it in the north-east?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. The VMIC project had already been awarded and was already happening. All I did was bring it forward by 12 months so we can have it ready by summer next year, not the year after. But I am grateful for his passion and for quite rightly holding the Government to account on what we will do in the north-east, which is also a key region for developing offshore and renewable energy technology.
We are committed to ensuring that Tyneside and the north-east remain a key manufacturing development hub. The right hon. Gentleman speaks of life sciences development. Of the £3.4 billion that the Government have committed to growth deals across the northern powerhouse, £379.6 million—almost £380 million—has been allocated to the North East local enterprise partnership area. I am pleased to say that Gateshead has benefited directly from that investment, including just under £1 million for PROTO, a state-of-the-art research and development facility for emerging digital technologies, and £5 million for the development of a new 12,500-seat arena, conference and exhibition centre on a 10-acre site at Gateshead Quays.
I would like to acknowledge the work done by the North East local enterprise partnership. Skills, employment and economic inclusion are at the heart of the North East local enterprise partnership’s strategic economic plan, which was refreshed in 2019.
Liz Twist
I thank the Minister for his comments about the PROTO development, which I am familiar with, and the Gateshead quayside development. We are enormously pleased with and proud of both of them, with the councils working in partnership with others. However, we also need to look at our manufacturing base and ensure that those traditional jobs are not left to slide because of new developments. Will the Minister address what can be done to assist on that point?
Nadhim Zahawi
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She is absolutely right. We need to make sure that those traditional jobs are maintained, but also see where we can reskill and upskill into some of the growth industries, such as offshore wind. I know there is a big skills agenda that my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is taking forward.
The LEP has co-ordinated £18.4 million of capital investment across eight projects, with a further £28.5 million from public and private funding. I thought I should just mention a few of those projects. They include, addressing the hon. Lady’s skills challenge to the Government, the successful delivery of the Gatsby good careers guidance benchmark and the launch of the North East Ambition programme, supporting 170 schools and colleges. Still these are unprecedented times for businesses and communities across the country. I am grateful to have had the opportunity recently to reflect on the challenges faced by the manufacturing sector, to which the hon. Lady quite rightly refers, with trade union representatives, where we discussed what more the Government can do to support the manufacturing sector.
I share the hon. Lady’s disappointment at the news that about 250 jobs will be lost at the De La Rue currency and passport printing facility in Gateshead. I take this opportunity to express my sympathies to those workers and their families who will be impacted. Furthermore, I call on De La Rue to act responsibly in how it approaches the forthcoming redundancies. It is very worrying that, as the hon. Lady mentioned, staff only learned the news from the Chronicle and social media. That is not the way a responsible employer would act.
I understand that there has been much speculation about the decision of Her Majesty’s Passport Office not to grant De La Rue the contract to produce the new British passport. To set the scene, between March 2017 and April 2018, the Passport Office undertook a rigorous, fair and open competition to identify the bidder that will be best able to meet the needs of its passport service and customers until 2029. That included in-depth due diligence to ensure that any bidder was capable of delivering the contract within the quality standards set out. The new contract was awarded to Thales and will deliver significant savings of approximately £140 million compared with the contract awarded in 2009 to De La Rue, which will ensure value for money for the taxpayer.
Since 2009, a proportion of blank passports have been produced in Europe, with no reason why overseas production should not continue. Thales will manufacture passports from multiple secure locations. De La Rue historically operated a blank book passport assembly facility in Malta, to supplement its Gateshead operation. All passports produced by Thales will continue to be personalised with the passport holder’s personal details, such as a named photograph, in the United Kingdom. That continues to ensure that no personal data will leave the United Kingdom.
It also extends Thales’s already significant presence in this country. Thales’s digital identity and security division operates from five sites in the UK and employs over 500 staff in this country. Since the contract was awarded in April 2018, Thales has increased its UK workforce by over 90 posts. Furthermore, it is not outsourcing the manufacturing of the British passport to a third party.
I strongly believe that it was the correct choice to decide the next UK passport provider through free and fair competition, to ensure the best value for money for the British taxpayer. I also recognise that this year has been especially challenging for De La Rue. In November last year, the company reported that its half-year results had underperformed against market expectations, due primarily to reduced volumes and a reduction in margins in its currency business. That underperformance prompted the board to suspend future dividend payments and to push forward with a turnaround strategy. While we can acknowledge that the loss of the passport contract was disappointing for the business, it is clear that this alone does not account for the challenges that the business has faced.
In response to a challenging and competitive market environment, De La Rue published details of that turnaround plan in February this year. Unfortunately, that plan involved a degree of cost reduction and a concentration on its core currency and authentication divisions. In June last year, De La Rue exited the passporting and identification business by announcing the sale of its identity products division to HID Corporation Ltd. The UK passport contract was not part of the sale, but by this period, De La Rue was aware that it had not won the renewal of said contract.
Unfortunately, as part of its cost-saving programme, De La Rue announced a consultation to reduce the number of roles at the company’s headquarters and to cease all bank note printing and passport production at the Gateshead site. I note that De La Rue has said that it aims to preserve certain core services and roles at the site, and I urge De La Rue to ensure that it retains a presence in the Gateshead community. However, I recognise that this remains a tough and disappointing time for the employees of De La Rue who face redundancy, and I can assure them that the Government will do all they can to support them in this challenging period.
Due to the challenges of operating in the covid-19 environment, the Department for Work and Pensions rapid response service has adapted to ensure that we can continue to support those facing redundancy. People will be able to access redundancy help and job search advice on the Department’s new job help campaign website. There is also information on gov.uk, and updated information packages are provided to employers to help them signpost employees to the support that is available.
Liz Twist
I note the reference to the increased speed of Government agencies being able to help people, but will the Minister also acknowledge that the situation with companies such as Debenhams, where a couple of hundred staff have lost their jobs with the closure of the Metrocentre store, is adding to the pressure on the services, and what we need is real support and real action, and real opportunities for all those staff?
Nadhim Zahawi
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that we need real support. There are three chapters to this challenge of covid. Chapter one was wrapping our arms around the economy and jobs, with schemes such as the furlough scheme and the bounce-back loans. Chapter two is now supporting businesses to restart and reopen; retail reopened in the middle of this month. Of course chapter three is about what stimulus we can inject into the economy, whether fiscal or non-fiscal—and the Chancellor will be saying more about this. The Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy has conducted a deep dive with business and organisations representing business through a recovery taskforce, because we want to make sure that chapter three, which is about the recovery, is as robust and dynamic as we can make it. I assure the hon. Lady that the north-east will be very much a part of that.
The support for those losing their jobs includes connecting people to jobs in the local labour market in the north-east by helping them with job searches, including CV writing, interview skills, and where to find jobs and how to apply for them. We will also help to identify transferable skills and skills gaps linked to the local labour market, along with advice on what benefits people may get and how to claim them.
Furthermore, I can confirm that the Gateshead local authority is in touch with the company and stands ready to work with the Department for Work and Pensions, the Jobcentre Plus rapid response team and the National Careers Service to provide a package of support for any impacted employee. As I said earlier, the Government will do what we can to support these people and their families, and I believe that the Government can be proud of our record and how we have supported businesses across the north-east during the covid pandemic.
Through the coronavirus job retention scheme, we have so far protected 8.9 million workers and almost 1.1 million businesses; 24,200 people have been supported by the scheme in Gateshead alone, and due to the Chancellor’s announcement to extend the scheme back in May we can continue to support businesses and employees as they return to work over the coming months.
Furthermore, I am pleased to say that, through the various grant schemes the Government established to assist business, £36.8 million in grants has been paid out to 3,142 small businesses in the Gateshead local authority as of 21 June. We also recognise the importance of the Tyne and Wear metro to Gateshead, which the hon. Lady rightly mentioned, and the challenges it faces at present. That is why we have announced a further £7.6 million of support to keep it going on top of the £8.6 million announced on 1 May.
In the longer term, the Government have contributed £337 million of direct grants to provide a new fleet for this vital service. While I acknowledge that these are challenging times for all, I remain confident that there is a bright future ahead for Tyneside and north-east industries.
The Government recognise that this is a challenging time for all businesses. We have provided unprecedented levels of support to help business. For those De La Rue employees who, unfortunately, face redundancy, the Government will do what we can to ensure they receive the support they need.
Finally, I again thank the hon. Lady for securing this important debate, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your patience; I know this subject is important to you, as it is to other Members of this House.
Question put and agreed to.
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill (Fifth sitting)
Thursday 25th 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 Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 June 2020 - (25 Jun 2020)
The Chair
You are all very welcome. Before we begin, a couple of preliminary notices: jackets can be removed, obviously, as it is incredibly hot. If I told you to keep them on and that it would make the Bill Committee go away quicker I would, but that would not be fair. We must respect social distancing rules at all times, and I will issue a quick reminder if anyone breaches them. More copies of Hansard are being brought up so that Members can check details of previous sittings. I remind Members that electronic devices should be set to silent. Plenty of warm water has been supplied, to make you wish that it was cold water. Given the intolerable heat in which we are working, if you want to bring in refreshments I am happy with that.
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. I hope you are happy with how the selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Amendments grouped together are generally of a same or similar nature. Please note that decisions on amendments do not take place in the order in which the amendments are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. The selection list shows the order of debates. Decisions for each amendment are taken when we come to the clause that the amendment affects. I hope that is clear.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
On a point of order, Mr Paisley. I seek your guidance before we start to move to details on the clauses. During one of the evidence sessions, we were given evidence on a matter that came up elsewhere. Mr Pratt quoted the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s observation that
“in a majority voting system, the size of the electorate should not vary by more than approximately ten percent from constituency to constituency.”––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2020; c. 36, Q64.]
The officials helpfully provided us with the documentation of the OSCE report and of the Venice commission on which that is based, and I thank them for that. The “Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters” produced by the Council of Europe’s Venice commission states that the
“The maximum admissible departure from the distribution criterion…should seldom exceed 10%”.
I think we should ask the officials to seek a full definition of what the “distribution criterion” is. Is there is a fixed figure from which one can deviate either side by up to 10%, or must it lie in the middle of that 10%? It would be enormously helpful to get clarification on that.
The Chair
Thank you for making that point, Mr Spellar. Unfortunately, it is not a matter for the Chair, and I cannot give a ruling on it. However you have made the point and it will appear in Hansard. No doubt you will be able to receive some updated material from Mr Pratt if you contact him directly.
John Spellar
Further to that point of order, Mr Paisley. Could we ask the Clerks to seek clarification on that? It is a very important factor on which we might be making our determination.
The Chair
All I can say is that the point has been heard. You have it on the record, and that is the important thing for you at this point.
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)
Further to the point of order, Mr Paisley. Just for clarification, as you rightly say it is not a matter for the Chair; it is a matter of debate. I have the same document that the right hon. Member has before him and it is opaque. Therefore I would say that, for your guidance Mr Paisley, it is a matter purely of debate. In order to help the Clerk, you may struggle to find the information sought by the right hon. Member.
The Chair
Thank you very much, Mr Shelbrooke. I do not think the Clerk needs any help. I thank you for trying to help me, but as you say, these matters are not for the Chair. We have had three sittings already and some of the matters have been touched on anyway. They are subjects for discussion and debating points.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Paisley. Last Thursday, 18 June, when we were taking evidence from the Boundary Commission for England, an undertaking was given to provide evidence to the Committee about the collection of data. We gave the commission two weeks to give that evidence. Has there been any indication of when it might be forthcoming?
The Chair
Thank you, Mrs Miller. I thought that that was the point that Mr Spellar was going to make. It is an important one. We have asked for the evidence to be delivered here by 29 June, which is Monday, so you will have time on Tuesday and Thursday next week not only to consider it but to appeal it.
Clause 1
Reports of the Boundary Commissions
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (2).
This is a paving amendment for Amendment 5, with the aim of maintaining the status quo of parliamentary oversight within the boundary review process.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (4).
This is a paving amendment for Amendment 5, with the aim of maintaining the status quo of parliamentary oversight within the boundary review process.
Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 16, leave out subsection (7).
This is a paving amendment for Amendment 5, with the aim of maintaining the status quo of parliamentary oversight within the boundary review process.
Clause stand part.
Clause 2 stand part.
Cat Smith
I shall start by putting on the record the Labour party’s support for the boundary review. We do not seek to cause any difficulty with the passage of the Bill. Our amendments and new clauses are intended genuinely to improve the Bill for the good of the democratic process.
We want the best possible outcome in the review. After all, every Member of the Committee represents a constituency that has been drawn up on electoral data that is now nearly two decades old, and communities have changed dramatically in the past 20 years. The Labour party is clear that the boundary changes must happen before the next general election and welcomes the Government’s reversal of the previous decision to base the exercise on 600 constituencies, and their decision to revise the number to 650.
Amendments 2 to 4 are paving amendments intended to maintain the status quo of parliamentary oversight in the boundary review process. They relate to clause 1, but have some implications for clause 2. However, I shall do my best not to stray into that territory. The Labour party fundamentally rejects the Government’s decision to end parliamentary involvement in the boundary review process. The process requiring MPs to vote on the final report from the commission is an important safety net without which we MPs would number just 600 today. We believe that the change is a dangerous step that would by definition grant any Government with a majority in the Commons unequal and undue influence over the boundary review process. It comes down to simple maths.
A Government with a majority have power to shape and manipulate the rules that govern the boundary review process. Fundamentally, while the commissions are independent, they are given advice and instructions by the Government of the day.
The Chair
Order. You should know that you should also be speaking to clause 2 at this point, Ms Smith. It is in the group, so you are entitled to speak to it.
Cat Smith
Thank you for that clarification, Mr Paisley. It is helpful.
As I was saying, the Government of the day have the power to define the parameters of the boundary review. The question of a 600-seat or 650-seat Parliament is an example of how the Executive can determine the outcome of the process, so there is already some political engagement in it.
We believe that bringing the review to Parliament for a vote of Members is an important safety net, so that parliamentary scrutiny can ensure that the outcome will work for the whole country. For example, the Government knew at the last review that the 600-seat review would probably be rejected by a cross-party majority of MPs in Parliament. The Labour party has big concerns that, with the changes the Bill will make to the way reviews are done, bad reviews could in future be enforced, and there would be no safety net by way of scrutiny in the House to catch them.
In his oral evidence to the Committee, Sir John Curtice said it would be
“perfectly possible for a future House of Commons”,
if an Administration did not like the boundary recommendations,
“to introduce a quick piece of primary legislation”.––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 94, Q176.]
Such legislation could delay the boundary review again. In short, the Bill removes power from Parliament and hands it to the Executive. For those reasons, we have tabled the amendments and new clauses in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to see you back in the Chair and in charge, Mr Paisley. I repeat on the record the remarks that I made on Second Reading regarding the view of the Scottish National party. We would prefer not to be represented in this place at all, but for so long as the constitutional requirement is that Scotland remains tied to the United Kingdom, Scotland should have no fewer than the 59 seats that we have in this place.
I echo much of what the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said regarding parliamentary approval. Our fundamental position is that we did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading because we wanted to see it come to Committee. I genuinely believe that the Minister is a thoughtful person, who will consider arguments on their merits. I hope that in the course of today’s sitting and the two sittings next week, she will take on board the amendments tabled not just by the SNP and Plaid Cymru but by the Labour party, which have been tabled with a view to making the Bill better, and making it work for our democratic process.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood is right about parliamentary approval. I have difficulty with the proposal. I listened to Professor Hazell and Dr Renwick give evidence, and I have genuinely wrestled with where we should end up on parliamentary approval. I am afraid that I probably still maintain my position on Second Reading: I am uncomfortable with a process wherein Parliament does not have the final say, because of what we saw in the last Parliament, during which the Government decided that they would try to plough ahead with 600 seats. They lost their majority over the course of that Parliament, but the whole process underlined the need for Parliament to have the final say, and I wish to put that on record.
Mrs Miller
Reference keeps being made to the shift to 600 seats from 650. That decision was made by Parliament; it was not the result of a boundary commission review that Parliament then ratified. Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that, as Parliament made that decision, today we are discussing Parliament changing it back?
David Linden
I am immensely grateful to the right hon. Lady for that intervention. It is fair of her to put that on record, but the issue is the change in policy by the Conservative party. She is right that the 2011 legislation to reduce the number of seats to 600 was introduced by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition Government. I think a number of us on the Committee—some of us tried to tease this out in the evidence hearings—find it rather strange that, after the Conservative party had a very good election in December, all of a sudden its position changed from wanting to have 600 seats to wanting to have 650.
David Linden
If the right hon. Member for Basingstoke wants to intervene again and explain to me why the Conservative party decided to U-turn on that position, I will happily give way to her, but in the absence of that I will give way to the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell.
Alec Shelbrooke
I can quickly answer the two questions that the hon. Gentleman raises. First, a commitment to 650 seats was in our manifesto, on which we were elected. Secondly, it was in our manifesto because we have left the European Union and have lost 70 MEPs, so there is now a bigger workload. I hope that that clarifies for him why the position was changed. It was in the manifesto before we got a big majority.
David Linden
I put two points to the right hon. Gentleman. Why, if we have lost 73 MEPs, are we not going up to 673 seats in this House? Secondly, if he is talking about the increased workload for Members of Parliament, why is his party trying to reduce the number of seats for Scotland, which presumably also has less representation, in the Bill?
Alec Shelbrooke
To be cheeky to the hon. Gentleman, we could go to 700 seats, which would give us a lot more Conservative seats, because ours are generally bigger than the Labour ones.
David Linden
I would never wish to suggest that the motivations behind this Bill are to ensure that there are more Conservative seats. That would, of course, be disorderly.
John Spellar
I say this in no way disparagingly, but the hon. Gentleman, who represents a seat in Scotland, may not be aware of the enormous changes that have taken place in the electoral register in England. Contrary to the old situation—this shows that the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell is living in the past a bit—more than half of the largest 10 or 20 seats are urban seats in conurbations. He gave a very dated view, but I am not surprised.
David Linden
I am grateful to right the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I would miss these Bill Committees.
At the risk of going down a large rabbit hole, I will confine my remarks on this group to one other point relating to line 11 of clause 1 and evidence received from Professor Curtice. I refer the Committee to our evidence hearing on Tuesday, particularly question 181, which was asked by the hon. Member for City of Chester. I want to probe the Minister on this point. I know it came in the afternoon, when hon. Members were probably feeling a bit tiresome.
Alec Shelbrooke
Will the hon. Gentleman clarify which question number he is referring to?
David Linden
I am happy to clarify. I am referring to question 181, which can be found on the last page of Hansard for the public sitting on Tuesday 23 June.
I want to ask the Minister to comment on a point made by Professor Curtice, who said:
“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.”––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 23 June 2020; c. 98, Q181.]
On that basis, I put that point to the Minister. I hope that in the course of her remarks she will clarify that particular point in relation to line 11 of clause 1.
Mrs Miller
I am very pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, and to speak to amendments 2 to 4 and that clauses 1 and 2 should stand part of the Bill. This gives us an opportunity to explore some of the important principles within this Bill to deliver fair and equal-sized constituencies for our country.
We like to pride ourselves on being a strong democracy. We stand in the mother of all Parliaments. Yet the current provisions do not give us the absolute certainty that each of our constituencies are of the same size. Our constituents do not each have the same power to elect somebody to represent them. Some seats require a larger population—for example, I have 83,000 constituents —and others require up to 30,000 or 40,000 fewer constituents within their constituency boundaries.
I want to put on record my absolute support for the Bill and the hard work that my hon. Friend the Minister has put into it. It delivers, as has been said, on an important manifesto commitment to remove the current flaws in the system. I am somewhat perplexed as to why the Labour party has tabled amendments that would surgically remove one of the important principles in the Bill, which is fairness in the way that the recommendation from the boundary commission is dealt with.
I am not the only one expressing surprise. We heard from some eminent constitutional experts in our evidence session that the current system is worse than flawed. In particular, we heard from Professor Hazell and Dr Renwick from the constitutional unit at University College London, who said in their written evidence that
“the independence of the UK’s process is currently violated at the final step”—
“violated” is quite a strong term coming from an academic—
“when parliament’s approval is required to implement the Boundary Commissions’ proposals.”
Quite simply, with its amendments, the Labour party is choosing to ignore the advice of constitutional experts by continuing to support and promote a system that violates the independence of the approval process, which fundamentally undermines what the Bill seeks to achieve. That evidence goes on:
“Parliament’s current approval role has allowed inappropriate political interference to occur three times.”
I am quite astonished that the Opposition would want to be on the record as ignoring that advice and evidence, and fundamentally changing what the Bill would achieve.
If that evidence is not enough, the OSCE report, which was cited during an evidence session, makes it very clear that when reviewing and reforming a system of legislative processes, there must be fairly and equally sized constituencies. It is not just academics in this country who say that we need to change our system, but an internationally recognised institution, which says that, if reforming, we should be trying to put in place protocols and safety clauses to ensure that constituencies are as equal as they can be.
I hope that the Opposition will provide a stronger reason for wanting to change the Bill than the reasons that they have already given. Otherwise, we run the risk of continuing with a system whereby Parliament, when it chooses, stops reviews going through. At the moment, we are dealing with boundaries based on data that is 20 years out of date. That is not just unfair to individual constituencies but, as we heard in evidence, it fundamentally undermines our democratic process.
I hope that hon. Members, regardless of party affiliation, can see the inadequacies of the amendments and will reject them, as I will, because they are fundamentally wrong for our democracy. It is wrong that the votes of voters in my constituency have less impact that those of voters in other constituencies. I urge the Opposition to withdraw the amendments, which would so badly undermine not only the Bill but our democratic system.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
What a great pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Paisley. I will respond to the questions raised by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke, whom I congratulate—although I might be doing someone else in the Committee a disservice—because I believe it was she who coined the term “automaticity”.
Christian Matheson
Then I apologise to the coiner of that term. We learn something new every day in Committee, and “automaticity” is another term that I might try to slip into speeches from now on.
I rise to speak in favour of the amendments tabled in my name and, in particular, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood. I am instinctively unhappy about anything that takes Parliament out of the review process. The buck has to stop with Parliament. I remind the Committee that not only would the House of Commons have to approve the legislation, but the House of Lords would have to do so too, so there is no self-interest there.
It is essential that we do not remove Parliament from the consideration of our democracy. Bluntly, nobody is more focused on the quality of our democracy than those of us in this House. That is seen as a negative, but I think it is absolutely a positive to be reminded that at some point, within a maximum of five years, we are going to have to go back to our electorate. To have that sword of Damocles dangling over us is always very important. When I was first elected to this place, I had a majority of 93, and my God, didn’t I know it. That makes us take our electorate and our voters seriously, because they are our ultimate employers. Removing Parliament from that consideration is something I am instinctively unhappy with.
David Linden
At the risk of comparing majorities, when I was first elected it was with a majority of 75. The hon. Gentleman is right to touch on this point about the need for parliamentary approval. Does he, as I do, find it a little strange that the Conservative party—largely now made up of Brexiteers—spent the whole Brexit referendum talking about Parliament taking back control and Parliament being sovereign, but now, all of a sudden, it wants to give away control and Parliament not to have approval?
Christian Matheson
What an excellent point. I was not going to mention that, but the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: Parliament is not taking back control. I am afraid this is one of a number of examples where that was a somewhat bogus phrase, albeit very successful at the job it was employed to do.
Jane Hunt (Loughborough) (Con)
Could I talk about the backstop that the hon. Gentleman mentioned? Surely, the backstop here is in the primary legislation that a future Government could bring forward, should they wish. The outcome of the report would then not be known at the time that other hon. Members were making the decision. At the moment, they know the outcome of the report; they know whether they are turkeys voting for Christmas, and that taints the outcome, rather than those decisions being made at the beginning.
Christian Matheson
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. One of the advantages of these Committees is that we get to know new Members, and it is great to see her here.
I will give two answers to that. First—I will return to this point—there is a problem, in that this process is affected politically by the instructions that this House gives it. Professor Sir John Curtice agreed with that when I asked him about it during the evidence sessions, and I think my Front-Bench colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, mentioned it as well. Although the last couple of years have been different, this House normally has a majority of MPs from one party or the other, so there is already a political influence on the instructions that are given.
Secondly, I do not look so dimly on this process. I do not look at it as turkeys voting for Christmas. Of course, there is some self-interest; we know that because when the Boundary Commission publishes its proposals, it gives existing Members within each area—in my case, the county of Cheshire—notice of what those proposals are, perhaps the day before, so we have a chance to take in what is being proposed. We look at our own area first, but the view that is taken is collective. I trust hon. Members. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for—
Christian Matheson
The hon. Member for Loughborough —forgive me. I do not know her well, although I know the Minister, because we have been sat together in statutory instrument Committees many times. She listens; I do not always agree with her, and she does not always agree with me, but she listens. The hon. Member for Walsall North and I have worked together on a couple of matters, and if I may say so, I consider him a friend. He is on the other side of the House, but I trust him to listen, at least.
Christian Matheson
He is for now; he will not be after I have said that. [Laughter.] I know him, and I trust him to listen, but I also trust him to take the best collective view, which is what I think most hon. Members do.
One of the depressing aspects of the evidence sessions was that people who were not MPs but were senior academics were saying, “I don’t trust MPs.” That plays into a narrative that I object to. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I trust MPs, including hon. Members on the other side of the House who I know and have worked with on cross-party issues. I believe that, even if I disagree with their political principles or their position, they are probably doing this job for the right reasons.
Christian Matheson
Will the right hon. Lady indulge me a moment?
To go back to parliamentary approval is to provide a safety valve, so that the collective overall proposals are not daft or unworkable, and so that they have relevance to the communities they serve. That must be at the back of the minds of the commissioners—otherwise we end up with the Devonwall and Mersey Banks constituencies, where the numbers are all that matter, irrespective of the communities.
Mrs Miller
I note from the hon. Gentleman’s CV that we share the same university background, so I hope his notes about academics do not stretch as far as the London School of Economics. That would not be a good thing.
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. In the vast majority of cases, in my 15 years as an MP I have rarely questioned the motivations of individuals here. However, can he explain the comment made by one academic in evidence about the decisions in 1967 not to accept the boundary review? There was a strong indication there that it was a question of political gerrymandering—I will use that word, although I am not sure whether that is the right context—or certainly a little sleight of hand. Now, because of the process that we have in place and the blocks that are there, we are using boundaries that are 20 years out of date. How, then, can he advocate the status quo? It is not working.
Christian Matheson
I think it was in 1969, when I was one year old, so my memory of the politics of the time is not, perhaps, good. Maybe there were political considerations within the Wilson Government at the time.
Christian Matheson
Yes, the Wilson Government in ’69. I ask the right hon. Lady what the difference is between political considerations at the end of the process and political considerations at the start of the process, when the criteria are set out. We have to get the balance right. That bookending with a return to Parliament is a good thing.
Alec Shelbrooke
The hon. Gentleman mentioned setting out criteria for setting the boundaries. That is what the Bill does, and we will vote on it in Committee and on the Floor of the House. Once the Bill is passed, the criteria will have been set, so we will not have removed parliamentary oversight and given it to the Executive. The House of Commons and the other place will vote on the criteria being set out.
Christian Matheson
The right hon. Gentleman is right, and that is the nature of parliamentary democracy, but it is also true that at any one point—in the past few years it has tended to be the exception rather than the rule, but we are now back in the rule again—one party has a majority and can drive through its preferences for the criteria. Later, I shall pay tribute to the Minister for showing some flexibility on the matter, but the fact is that the criteria are set by the majority party. That is why there is politics at one end and politics at the other. We have to recognise that.
Let me come back to the issue of the safety valve. I want to respond to something that the right hon. Member for Basingstoke said in her speech, when she talked about inappropriate political interference. Let us be clear: my party did not want the reduction from 650 to 600 seats; I do not think that the nationalist parties wanted it, nor did the majority of Conservative Members, including—I suspect—a majority of those on the Government Front Bench. I do not know whether it counts as inappropriate political interference, but the reason those changes did not go through was that there was not automaticity at the time, and hon. Members simply did not support the change. They would have voted for it on Second Reading, but that is very different, particularly for Government Members.
Let us talk about the practicality of that: it is very different for Government Members to vote against something on Second Reading and then have private conversations, which we all know go on, to make changes. That is the safety valve that non-automaticity—if I may use that phrase—provides. Bringing that process back to the House of Commons and the House Lords would provide that safety valve. We know about the 1969 event because the history books tell us about it, but such occasions are, largely, very rare.
Normally, the changes would go through, but they have not on the last two occasions because they simply lacked the support in Parliament, for genuine reasons. For example, as the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell said, the view on the Conservative side changed to the idea that leaving Parliament in those conditions no longer stood. Of course, if we had had automaticity, hon. Members would not have had the opportunity to do that, we would have left the European Parliament and we would have been down to 600 seats.
This is not a wrecking amendment; it would maintain parliamentary approval as a safety valve in case the Boundary Commission got the review wrong. During the evidence sessions, we heard the phrase “marking our own homework” about MPs. That is misleading and is not what is happening. As I mentioned to Professor Wyn Jones in the first evidence session, we give the Boundary Commission its criteria; it goes off and does the job, consults, does more of the job, consults more and then comes up with the final proceedings; and then, the process rightly comes back to Parliament to tick the boxes and say, “Have they done exactly what they were asked to do according to the criteria?” There is nothing wrong with that at all.
That is absolutely normal procedure. Anybody who is doing any type of project is given the terms and criteria, and off they go to do it. The people in charge can then come back and say, “Yes, that job is done.” There is no desire on this side of the Committee to hold the Bill up any longer, but it is absolutely right that we have final parliamentary approval to ensure that the job has been done properly and that we are able to sell what the Boundary Commission gives us to the communities we serve, so that the new boundaries reflect those communities. I urge hon. Members, particularly on the Government Benches, think of this not as a wrecking amendment, but as one that would maintain Parliament’s role and sovereignty in that whole procedure.
Alec Shelbrooke
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Paisley. I want to make a few points about automaticity and why it is worth removing. The hon. Member for City of Chester just made the point that if the change to 600 seats had gone through, that it is where we would be, but we have changed our minds before. That is true for any legislation. No Government can tie the hands of a future Government, who can bring in any Bill they wish. Earlier, I said with a certain flippancy to the hon. Member for Glasgow East that we could increase the number of seats to 700. That does remain an option, of course; any Government can move boundaries or introduce any Bill they want in a future Parliament. Indeed, this Government could do that by tabling an amendment later on.
As the hon. Member for City of Chester said, we were in slightly extraordinary times in the last decade, with coalition and minority Governments instead of majority Governments. That gave the House of Commons a huge amount of power. It also showed that the House of Commons could introduce Bills that the Government did not want, and those Bills went through. It was an extremely powerful time for Parliament. There is still that ability to bring a Bill to stop the boundaries, even with automaticity. With a majority Government, of course, it would probably fall.
Christian Matheson
Members can bring in a Bill, but the Government still have to move the money resolution.
Alec Shelbrooke
Absolutely. As the hon. Gentleman will know, however, the former Speaker showed the House that there is a way to twist everything, so none of these things is insurmountable.
My argument is simple. When we talk about MPs voting at the end, I think the argument is false, because Parliament has always had the ability to vote. I agree with the hon. Member for City of Chester that whether that is at the beginning or end, the Executive in Parliament have that power over what happens, yet it is still a parliamentary process.
Sometimes the arguments we have can seem esoteric to the public. Oddly enough, the boundaries and the reduction in Parliament did cut through to them. We may view this as a technical argument, but it was relayed on the doorstep several times over many years that constituents asked whether the House of Commons would be cut to 600 seats. The connection the public make is that they do not like politicians, and they want fewer of us, but that point did cut through and there was frustration that things had not happened.
I do not like the phrase, “Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.” It is flippant. It undermines the thought processes that we give to this issue. There were, without doubt, specific moments—political moments in political history—that stopped those boundaries happening, as people looked at what went on.
At the very start of our proceedings on 18 June, Mr Paisley, you said:
“I ask any members of the Committee who wish to declare any relevant interests in connection with the Bill to make those declarations now.”
To which I chuntered from a sedentary position:
“Isn’t that all of us?”––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2020; c. 5.]
It is impossible for us not to have an interest in what will happen to our seats. I do not believe that that is because we need to pay our mortgages. Of course that self-interest comes into someone keeping their job, but I believe it is deeper than that. The hon. Member for City of Chester was elected with a majority of 92.
Alec Shelbrooke
I have done the hon. Gentleman out of one vote. He will forgive me if I am unaware of what his majority is now.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I do not know him particularly well, but he strikes me as a Member who cares about his community and has built that up. I took on the seat of Elmet and Rothwell in 2010, a newly formed seat with a Labour majority of 6,000. My majority at the last election was 17,353.
I have worked that seat, day-in and day-out, with each of my constituents, not because I am trying to secure my job, but because I love my community and working for my constituents. I have lived in my constituency my whole adult life. There is, therefore, an emotional tug on a seat that has 81,000 people and would absolutely have to change with these boundaries. Even if the later amendment of 7.5% went through, the seat would still have to change.
I doubt there is an hon. Member in this room who wants to give up part of their constituency. As the hon. Member for City of Chester says, we do care. We are in it for the right reasons. We want to represent our communities. Many of us—like myself—have lived in our communities throughout our adult life, and it is a matter of pride and honour that we represent them.
I get great joy—not for any narcissistic reasons—from the fact that when I am shopping in my local town, about 5 miles from where I live in my constituency, people come up to me all the time and ask me things. That is not narcissism; it is the fact that I am their representative, and I always wanted to be somebody who they could come up to and speak to.
David Linden
The right hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful speech, talking about the conflict of interest faced by Members of the House of Commons. Does he intend to touch on the fact that their lordships also have a degree of approval, and do not have that conflict of interest? If we go ahead with automaticity, their lordships will not have parliamentary approval either.
Alec Shelbrooke
The hon. Gentleman is a very thoughtful man: he has got on to my very next sentence. Perhaps controversially, I would do away with the House of Lords as it stands anyway, because I hate the place. We are a modern democracy, but it is an absolute disgrace that only two Chambers in the world—those of Iran and China—have more unelected clerics than we do, or more unelected legislators. We do not keep great company in that sense.
David Linden
To clarify, I believe the Isle of Man also has unelected clerics, so we are not in completely bad company. That is a constitutional history point.
John Spellar
Will the right hon. Gentleman take the opportunity to assure the Committee, and therefore put it on the record, that at no time in the future would he accept a place in the House of Lords?
Alec Shelbrooke
I can give the right hon. Gentleman the same assurance on that issue that all Labour leaders have given. [Laughter.]
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow East, because this is a serious point. We are moving approval to an unelected body, which is a strange mix of parties and balance. A load of appointees will be going to the House of Lords, and there is going to be an argument about which party is getting the most—it is a very unrepresentative body. It would be way outside the scope of this Bill to discuss Lords reform, but the problem has always been that there are 650-odd MPs who think the House of Lords needs to change, and 650 different ideas about how to do it.
The House of Lords has a role in this Bill. The Bill is setting the criteria, and it is going to the other place, where it may well get amended. It will then come back to the House of Commons, and this House will vote on it. Funnily enough, I never had a problem with the amendments passed during the Brexit debate in the House of Lords, because they were irrelevant: whether they were accepted was up to the House of Commons. People got excited about what the House of Lords was doing, but it was an irrelevant argument, because its amendments had to be accepted by the House of Commons. That is where the power lies; that is what went on. The Lords is a revising Chamber, and it may frustrate us sometimes or we may have ideological views about it, but it still has its role in this Bill.
This comes back to what the hon. Member for City of Chester said about whether the politics is at the beginning, or at the end. The answer is that it is at the beginning. The House of Commons could bring in a one-line Bill to stop this later on—that power remains with this House—but it is right that we move this process forward. If we are all honest with ourselves, the vast majority of people sat in this room are nervous about what is going to be put to us in September 2021 when the first report comes out, and about how our representations will be received in June 2022. That is the nature of human beings: people think that politicians are not like other people, but of course we are, in every respect. However, we fight for our communities not because we are worried about our jobs, but because that is why we went into politics. We all therefore ask ourselves, “Do I want to see a chunk of the community I have represented for such a long time disappear?” When that happens, it is heartbreaking.
Mrs Miller
My right hon. Friend is correct that we all fight for our communities, but we should be doing so on a fair footing. The assertion of the hon. Member for City of Chester that the current system is flawless is simply not borne out by the facts. I have been doing some gentle maths on my Order Paper, and I think my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury and I top the charts with 83,000 constituents in our patches—constituencies that are 50% bigger than that of the hon. Member for Ceredigion. Obviously, there are important reasons that things in Wales have been done in the way they have, but that does not mean we have to continue with them now. We missed out a round of reform in Wales that is long overdue.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
The right hon. Gentleman made a very good point earlier about representation and what it means, and the importance of working the patch. I agree with the point that the right hon. Member for Basingstoke made about the different nature of our constituencies. I would point out, however, that during the summer months the population of my constituency doubles, in part because of the very large proportion of second homers. When they come to me, they have an address in my constituency. I do not ask them whether they are registered to vote in Ceredigion; I serve them, because they have come to me for help. I make that point as a note of caution. We should bear in mind that more factors are at play than purely the electoral register.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That moves us on to clauses and amendments later in the Bill that we will be able to debate further. My constituency is a county constituency. I am in the city of Leeds, but the other seven seats are borough constituencies, so it is not fair to compare me directly. There is some argument over how big Leeds Central is. It varies from 78,000 voters to 94,000 because it has such a transient population. However, the seat of Leeds East has only 66,000. I know that some Opposition Members might not particularly miss the seat of Leeds East today, but I will not ask them to comment on that. Those are the differences in just one city, among neighbouring seats. Leeds West, on the other side, is a different size to Leeds North East. Seats vary hugely within just one city by tens of thousands of votes, not necessarily just a few. However, I take on board the hon. Gentleman’s point.
I have two final points to make. The right hon. Member for Warley mentioned the OSCE report earlier in his point of order, and I picked up on it as well. The report says that
“making members of parliament (MPs) accountable to their electorate and creating a link between the MP and voters…is undermined when MPs know that they will acquire new voters with new constituencies before each election.”
I do not necessarily agree. I think that we are honourable enough to represent the people we represent right until the end. I am sure that everybody in this room, as soon as they are elected, pays no regard whatever to the voting intentions in areas of their constituency. I have worked every single area of my seat, which had a traditional mining area. The village of Allerton Bywater was a colliery. It was at the frontline of the miners’ strike. I stood in local government for it in 2002 and received 8% of the vote. In the last general election, I received 52% of the vote. It changes. We go in and work an area, and none of us takes any of our constituents for granted.
I therefore think that that is a slightly disingenuous comment, but it points to the fact that at some point things have to happen, and political events may happen towards the end of a Parliament. If we want just to delay the change and kick it forward, we are running into the fact that we could say, “Let’s have it come into effect straight after a general election, so that we all know what we’re doing next time and there’s time to adjust,” which plays into that argument. When is a good time to do it? From our point of view, I do not think that there is one. There is an automaticity point here.
I understand the amendment that Opposition Members have tabled; in fact, I think that the hon. Member for City of Chester made a very reasoned and well placed argument. My view, though, is that we have not removed Parliament’s ability to have its say in the process for two fundamental reasons. First, Parliament is having its say at the very beginning, in the criteria laid out. Secondly, there is still nothing really—we can argue about technicalities, but they have all been overcome in the past two or three years—preventing Parliament from stopping the change, if it wanted to, before it came into effect.
John Spellar
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley. It has been a very instructive debate. It is very interesting—in some ways encouraging—to see that experts are back in favour in the Conservative party, after a period in which they were castigated, belittled, abused and reviled. Academics and no doubt judges will soon be back in the pantheon. However, I do not think that creating a series of new priesthoods of those who can lay down divine, unalterable and unchangeable wisdom is right in a representative democracy.
It is absolutely right that there are checks and balances within the system. As my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester said, academics give views and those views can be challenged on the evidence that they have produced. But they all end up being advisory, and they all end up getting commissions for local government or boundary commissions, or from other bodies. In the same way, academics in transport had lots of views when I was a Transport Minister. None of them were living on their university salary: they were all doing commissions for different bodies. It may or may not have had some influence on their views.
Alec Shelbrooke
I wonder whether the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me, though, that one of the strengths of what we do at the Committee stage with the line-by-line analysis is to also act as a guide to the deliberations that have taken place and the arguments that have been put forward, for those who may independently be on the panel.
John Spellar
That is a very fair and effective point. There also needs to be a check, therefore—they know that there will be a check further down the line, and that they do not ignore those guidelines or indeed ignore the realities on the ground with complete impunity. In a minute I will come to why we saw that happen, and talk about the history of the last ten years and why boundary commissions failed on two occasions.
I must divert briefly from the matter following the intervention from the right hon. Member for Basingstoke, who had clearly prepared her comments about the OSCE, or maybe she came in after I raised the point of order at the beginning of the sitting. “The Code of Good Practice in Electoral Matters” clearly states that the
“maximum admissible departure from the distribution criterion…should seldom exceed 10% and never 15%, except in really exceptional circumstances”.
Therefore, it does not prescribe mathematical equality, nor indeed straining the system in order to achieve that mathematical equality.
Mrs Miller
The right hon. Gentleman will, if he looks back at what I said, see that I was talking about the principles set out in that report from that organisation, which explicitly say that deviation away from equality undermines suffrage. It is, of course, an international organisation so it is perhaps having to deal with many sorts of democratic systems, but I was referring to that principle.
John Spellar
Actually, if I look back at the earlier clause for which that was a note, it was referring to constituencies that had 10,000 eligible voters and another one with 100,000. The OSCE was not referring to the circumstances described when it said such situations should be avoided. But it laid down clear parameters, recognising that there would be all sorts of reasons in all sorts of countries for having a reasonable range in order to deal with ethnic or religious divisions—as it pointed out—as well as geographical factors in other areas.
I will move onto the issue of what is the mischief that actually the legislation seeks to remedy. That comes down to how we got here. Everyone accepts that population changes. Nobody—except perhaps some Conservative Members on the other side of the Committee—would want to go back to the Old Sarum system in which a dozen voters had a vote while the populations of the great growing urban areas of the 19th century were unrepresented. Obviously, therefore, we need to recognise population movement that is probably greater now than it was previously. Frankly, we got into this position because of a shallow and superficial gimmicky decision by the previous Prime Minister, David Cameron, for a strapline of saving money by cutting the number of politicians. We have, in fact, been representing far more constituents. In fact, we represent far more constituents now than at any other time in British history. He got a cheap headline, and some people may have bought it, but it was absolutely irrelevant in terms of GDP and Government spend. However, that then imposed huge constraints on the boundary commissions.
Mrs Miller
The right hon. Gentleman is advocating the current situation as if it is some utopia. Can he explain why anybody should be happy that he has a third fewer constituents than I do in my constituency? If he is looking for checks and balances if the boundary commission or its advisers abuse their position, surely they are that the House of Commons can change the legislation in future if the situation is abused. I have to say, there is more evidence that it has been abused under the current situation, and he is advocating to keep it that way.
John Spellar
I must repeat what I just said: everybody accepts that population change, growth and reduction, urban clearances and so on have an impact. That has changed somewhat, because the traditional pattern was that slum clearances in the inner cities meant that people moved to the suburbs and, subsequently, to the fringe towns. I expect that is what is happening in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell. Everyone accepts that that takes place.
It was the actions of the former Prime Minister—first, in attempting to reduce the number to 600 and secondly, proposing to change the margin of variation to 5%—that created an unacceptable framework, which then created completely unrecognisable constituencies that completely lacked community. The borough of Sandwell would probably have gone down to three seats.
The other problem is that the rigid mathematical formula, along with no imagination from the boundary commission, creates a huge number of orphan wards. Those are areas that are parts of someone’s constituency but have no connection with the rest of it. Inevitably, the Member then focuses on the bulk of their constituency. That is not good for democracy.
Christian Matheson
I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He is right about the orphan wards. Does he share my concern that the right hon. Member for Basingstoke, in her intervention, accidentally conflated two interpretations of the phrase “current situation”? One is the current situation regarding the current introducing of boundaries and the other is the current situation regarding the process we follow to get there and, at the moment, the current situation includes a parliamentary approval. She mentioned in her intervention the different sizes of constituencies. We are not suggesting that we object to that, but there is a conflation here that might confuse the Committee.
John Spellar
I very much take my hon. Friend’s point. Fundamentally, the parliamentary approval finally acts as the constraint on the Executive, but also on the bureaucracy. I do not believe in this, as in so many other areas, we should just hand over decision making to the great and the good. Academics and lawyers have a proper role: they should advise. Quite apart from their role in a judicial capacity in trying cases, their views should not be unchallengeable. As I said earlier, I thought that view was quite fashionable in the Conservative party, but that may have changed.
One could do away with the whole problem. One could have a national list and, just as in Israel, whatever the percentage of votes are achieved, that is the number of seats given. I happen to believe very strongly in the constituency link. I happen to believe in individual constituencies and the Member’s link to those constituencies, representing their local interests and views. In the last election, we saw very different patterns across the country. Those regions and towns were represented. That is why it is important we try and keep those together.
Finally, one of the experts referring to the question of local links rather disparagingly said that very often they were political points dressed up as constituency links. There was some truth in that, although I think he was far too disparaging of constituency links and relationships. Equally, we are seeing that in the debate we are having. There are some political elements in this, as we are seeing with the 5%. Also, as in clause 1, there is a slight anomaly here. In 2031, the report will have to be in by 1 October and every eighth year after that it is 1 October, except in 2023 when it is 1 July. One therefore has to question whether there is an interest—I give way to the vice chair of the Conservative party.
Alec Shelbrooke
The right hon. Gentleman has given me a good smile this morning. For that to come into effect, there would have to be a vote of the House once more, because we are still under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Once again, I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but again, it would have to be a decision of two thirds of the House.
John Spellar
Not one denial that this is a change that is designed after, presumably, not a two-thirds majority but a simple majority of the House to do away with the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. I think it is part of their programme to put through that legislation and then call a snap election in October, rather than in the following May, which is scheduled in all the other legislation.
Alec Shelbrooke
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for promoting me way beyond my humble Back Bencher status to being able to control the date of the next election. It still comes down to a fundamental point that all of these matters rest on a vote of the House. It comes back to the point that I made earlier: we are voting in this Committee on setting those parameters. It does not usurp the will of the House at any time, because the Bill is in Committee, it will go through both Houses, and it will come back. Whatever the political naughtiness may be around the discussion, it will always come down to a vote of the House.
John Spellar
Mr Paisley, I am prepared to end by conceding that there is clearly political naughtiness, and it is very much contained in clause 3(2).
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
It is great to see you back in the Chair, Mr Paisley. As a relatively new Member of the House, I am quite nervous about following some of the right hon. Members who have spoken. I do not know whether I will quite be able to hit the bar, but I will give it a go.
Given that six months ago I probably did not anticipate being here, potentially putting myself out of a job is an interesting proposition. I wish to touch on some of the points made by my right hon Friends the Members for Elmet and Rothwell and for Basingstoke. I must apologise to the latter—I have been referring to her as my hon. Friend, and have not paid tribute to her membership of the Privy Council. They made some interesting points on self-interest. As my right hon Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell said in the first evidence session, we all have a self-interest because we all want to represent the communities that have put us here.
That notion of community is interesting. My neighbour, the right hon. Member for Warley, made the point in the first evidence session that Government Members might not understand communities quite as much because of our sprawling rural seats. If he can find some sprawling rural parts of Sandwell that he wants to take me to, I would be more than happy to meet him there.
Shaun Bailey
It is in the east. It is an interesting point, because we are put here to represent those communities. In a way, it is a weird dichotomy because those communities are our self-interest, and we want to make sure, ultimately, that they have the best level of representation.
Parliamentary scrutiny is at the core of this, and it is the contentious point. If history has shown us anything, can we really call what we have seen over the past 50 years proper parliamentary scrutiny? Really what we have seen is an attempt by this place to kibosh any sort of review or change to the boundaries. I know we keep harking back to 1969 and to the historical boundary changes, but the pattern that we see speaks for itself. This has been going on for 10 years. In the vein of trying to get things done—as we said in December—now is the time, given that we have talked about the matter for a decade, to finally get some movement on it.
The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood and others asked whether judicial-led boundary commissions would be truly independent. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke asked a representative of the Liberal Democrats in our first evidence session how politicians directly influence judicial-led boundary commissions. Surprise, surprise, no real answer was put forward.
We cannot do down the importance of the judiciary in our democracy. It is one of our three pillars of Government, and of our democracy. I have heard the arguments that we do not want the process to become one led by technocrats. We have had a debate over the past four years, as we have been trying to leave the European Union, about the role of technocrats in our democracy. However, we must look at how communities engage with this matter, particularly the aborted reviews of 2018 and some of the stories that we have heard.
I remember being told an anecdote about the proposal to join Halesowen with Selly Oak. The story was as clear as day: the hearing was going on, and a gentleman walked in off the street and articulately explained, for a good part of 10 minutes, why the Black Country is not Birmingham. In the end, that led to the commission changing its view. We cannot underestimate the role of the public, whom ultimately the Bill exists to serve, and who ultimately are the subjects of the Bill, in forming and shaping it.
John Spellar
I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the proposals of the previous boundary commission, which wanted to take one seat from the middle of Halesowen right the way through past Birmingham, Selly Oak almost to the Birmingham-Solihull border. Another proposal was to run through my constituency right the way through his and then through to Dudley town centre. I am sure he will accept that there is very little commonality between those various constituencies. Indeed, most of our residents have very little dealings with the borough of Dudley and vice versa.
Shaun Bailey
The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I used the example that he raises with respect to the Halesowen and Selly Oak seats because of the interaction of the public, and it was changed. Yes, he is right, and that is why the public came forward during those hearings to put their points across. He knows as well as I do that the Black Country is not Birmingham. That is the point raised particularly in our patch time and again. I absolutely hear his point. We have seen those anomalies; I do not disagree with that. However, we have to trust the process and trust the public to know their communities. I am sure he will agree that our residents in Sandwell absolutely know their community.
John Spellar
To reinforce the hon. Gentleman’s point, the Black Country is not Sandwell and not Birmingham, even though people outside think it is, yet that was not recognised by the boundary commission, which stubbornly refused to accept it. That is the difficulty. There is arrogance and ignorance, frankly, in many cases, and there needs to be a corrective mechanism.
Shaun Bailey
First, I accept the point that the right hon. Gentleman raises about the boundary commission not understanding communities, but with representations from those communities those points are then corrected. The issue of Halesowen was raised with the boundary commission at the last minute and it was corrected.
Mrs Miller
I am listening very carefully. As somebody who was born in the Black Country, I am astonished that anybody would ever think that it was possible to conflate those two communities. I have listened to my hon. Friend’s thoughtful speech. It is important to remember that the legislation gives pre-eminence to equality of constituencies. Everything he talks about is important, but it is really important that equality comes first and foremost, with community ties coming after that. Whatever we might say in this debate today, constituency boundaries are an artificial construct. Their nature is by definition artificial, and we have to make sure that they do not overwhelm the need for more equality as between constituency sizes.
Shaun Bailey
My right hon. Friend is, of course, absolutely correct in her analysis. Although equality is obviously the foremost consideration, it does not eliminate those links with communities either. I think she definitely said that in her contribution. She has made the point time and again. I represent a seat with 65,500 constituents and she represents a seat with 83,000. The figures speak for themselves, so I do not think I can add to what my right hon. Friend has said.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
I want to pick up on the point made about the review allowing local input. The hon. Member for City of Chester described the notorious case of Mersey Banks, which was corrected after a review. Furthermore, to pick up on the point made by the right hon. Member for Warley about the lack of imagination of the boundary commission, does my hon. Friend agree that if the Boundary Commission for England were willing to take the same approach as, for example, the Boundary Commissions for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland, where wards can be split, that would correct some of the more eccentric seats that have been come up with?
Shaun Bailey
My hon. Friend makes a fantastic point on these matters in his usual expert way. We cannot treat this exercise as arbitrary; we have to give the commission some credit. It has intelligent people, who have a degree of imagination about what they can do within the scope of these rules, and they are boundaries or guidelines; they are not so arbitrary that there is no room for manoeuvre, which I appreciate is part of the argument that Opposition Members are making.
I will try to round off my comments as quickly as I can.
David Linden
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of amendment 10, which I tabled. He is speaking powerfully about the importance of the boundary commission’s work, in particular its hearings, so will he support amendment 10, which would lift the limit on the number of hearings that could take place?
Shaun Bailey
I say to the hon. Gentleman that I am in the process of considering how my support will go; I will not pin my colours to the mast right now.
Shaun Bailey
First, I will listen to the arguments that the hon. Member for Glasgow East makes, because I do not want to deprive him of the opportunity to articulate his points in the way that only he can. So, we will see what happens when we come to that amendment.
I will simply say that we come to this issue with a degree of self-interest—we all do. Historically, this place has not been the best at balancing the boundaries and making sure that there is equal and fair representation. The parameters that we are setting are flexible enough to ensure that the boundary commission can show some imagination, and we cannot do down the inputs from communities if we are to be sure that these new constituencies are accurately representative of the areas that people live in. Also, we must give credit to the independence of this process. We have yet to hear a really strong argument as to how the independence of these judicially-led bodies can be compromised.
I will round off my comments there.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
I apologise, Mr Paisley, for missing part of the debate, but I was in the main Chamber for business questions and came here as soon as I could.
I sympathise with the idea that we should set the parameters for this process, and then remove the politics from it and allow a clean process to come to its conclusion. That is a very attractive proposal and it is easy to see the strength of that argument, on the surface. However, when we listened to the evidence from the experts, one of the things that came across absolutely clearly —I should say that I am speaking in favour of the amendment—was that they do not understand the role of parliamentarians and they do not understand the relationship that parliamentarians have with their constituencies. That came out loud and clear, even from those who were more sympathetic to the argument that place is important in people’s minds in how they vote.
My fear grew as I listened to the evidence that if we hand this process over to bureaucrats or academics, in the absence of understanding of that relationship between MPs and the communities they represent, and of the affinity that MPs develop with those communities, we will end up with a mathematical exercise. We have set the parameters at 5% and basically we just draw rings around the population across the country 650 times, and then we will satisfy the criteria. And by the way, within that, we will do a bit of manipulation to try to meet some community needs.
For me, that hits fundamentally at the heart of what the democratic process is all about. I mean, the origin of politics is the marketplace—the agora—where the popular view would prevail. That is really where the roots of democracy lie. What happens in that marketplace—in that common place within a community—is that people discuss and debate matters, and express views about their common experiences. And eventually, they come to a collective view.
To look at what happened at the last election, in many communities up and down the country, people were sick and tired of being left behind and felt that their communities were forever in decline while others were benefitting from being part of the European Union, the globalisation of the economy or whatever it was. Collectively, they came to the same conclusion and there was a seismic shift within those communities.
That shift moved against the Labour party in what have been called the red wall seats. Some common experience within those communities caused a large body of people to come to a collective view. Place and common experience are important factors in the way people form views about how they want to be represented. To undermine the connection between place and the most common experiences of the community hits at the root of the democratic process.
Chris Clarkson
The point about place is fair and important, but the reality is that even under the current boundaries there are many seats that simply do not represent a cohesive or coherent grouping of population. I look at my own constituency, which is one of the red wall seats. I have Middleton, which is Manchester-facing; Heywood, which is Lancashire-facing; and a third of the town of Rochdale, where the people are deeply embittered about the fact that they are not in the Rochdale constituency. Whatever process is used, there are going to be some communities that are either split, orphaned or combined with areas they do not necessarily look to, purely because of the electoral mathematics and geography. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that?
Clive Efford
Yes, there has to be, within this process, some degree of equalisation as to the weight of people’s votes and we have to try to achieve that as much as possible. I am arguing that, within that, we have to respect the importance of place, location and community in the democratic process. If we start to pick those apart just to meet a numerical requirement, we will diminish and undermine the ability of those people to seek representation that makes their views known collectively—how they feel about their area and their collective experience—through a democratic process. It is important that we understand them.
Why I feel that this is important comes back to us. I will move on to that point further this afternoon, but it is about how accountable we are, for what we do, to our communities. That was dismissed in the evidence we had from the experts. They did not value or feel that we value the views of our constituents. Actually, that is how we get re-elected. If we ignore our constituents, we will find ourselves unemployed very quickly. We have to show, as much as we humanly can, that we are listening and sympathetic, or empathetic, to the views of the people we seek to represent, and that we will take those views and seek to get answers. Even if we cannot get the answers that they want, we will get them a decent answer to the questions they are posing. That accountability of MPs to their communities is important.
In this process, we are accountable too. We cannot just go to a boundary commission and say, as one former Member of Parliament for my constituency said once, although not to the commission itself, that it would be fine to draw a line down the middle of Eltham High Street. The constituency goes into Bromley on the south and Greenwich on the north. People in my community were up in arms that our community should be divided between two constituencies in that way and that the integral centre of our community—the High Street—should be divided.
People value place. They feel that it is important that representation bears some resemblance to place and takes into account the entirety of the community, and its common characteristics. That is an important process. If I were to advocate such a split, at the election I would not expect many people who valued the area to vote for me. If I was going around saying, “Well, it doesn’t really matter. Draw the line at the High Street. It’s all fine,” it would not be fine. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton has rightly pointed out that we represent many communities. My constituency could be called Eltham, Plumstead South, Shooter’s Hill, Charlton South and Kidbrooke. Many different communities and villages have come together in the conglomeration of the suburb of south London. People do identify with those areas. I could even add Eltham Heights and New Eltham; I could name every street.
Jane Hunt
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that MPs have the opportunity, as equals with anyone in their community, to make a representation to the boundary commission when it is drawing up its ideas and through the consultation process? Does that not give equal opportunity to everyone in those communities, including the MP?
Clive Efford
I think you are asking me, Mr Paisley, to give us the opportunity to break for lunch. Is that right?
Clive Efford
In response to the hon. Lady, yes, I do agree. We do have that opportunity. But we must also ensure that when those final decisions are published— following the rules that we have set in train to review parliamentary boundaries—that comes back before us, so that we can ensure that the views of our communities are expressed and the rules we have set have been followed. That is the right of Parliament. We are accountable to the people who elect us. The people who decide the boundaries must be accountable, ultimately, to Parliament.
If we start to undermine that process, we will go down a slippery slope. That does not mean each individual MP will get their own way, but it does mean we must hold people to account for the processes that we set in train. That process must come back before Parliament.
I do want to continue, Mr Paisley, but should I pause there?
The Chair
You can try to catch the Chair’s eye at the beginning of the afternoon sitting.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Eddie Hughes.)
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill (Sixth sitting)
Thursday 25th 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 25 June 2020 - (25 Jun 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Before we start our proceedings, let me say that it is warm, which I am not complaining about, but the air conditioning does not work, so I have asked for fans. We have umpteen fans in the building, but we cannot get them quickly. I would go to the cupboards myself and get them out, but hopefully they will arrive. If Members want to take off their jackets or do whatever else they wish in order to be comfortable, so be it.
When we adjourned, Mr Efford was on his feet.
Clause 1
Reports of the Boundary Commissions
Amendment proposed (this day): 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 5, leave out subsection (2).—(Cat Smith.)
This is a paving amendment for Amendment 5, with the aim of maintaining the status quo of parliamentary oversight within the boundary review process.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out subsection (4).
This is a paving amendment for Amendment 5, with the aim of maintaining the status quo of parliamentary oversight within the boundary review process.
Amendment 4, in clause 1, page 2, line 16, leave out subsection (7).
This is a paving amendment for Amendment 5, with the aim of maintaining the status quo of parliamentary oversight within the boundary review process.
Clause stand part.
Clause 2 stand part.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Thank you, Sir David, for calling me again to continue my contribution. I was saying that it is very important for us to have accountability in this process, and some oversight to make sure the rules have been followed.
I will give an example, which does not come from a parliamentary boundary review but from a local government boundary review that happened in my borough. The commissioner took it upon himself to make every ward come within a very tight percentage plus or minus. There were no requirements within the rules for that; it was a self-imposed ordinance that he decided he was going to follow rigidly, despite local protests. What ended up happening was that one of the wards, which had roughly 10,500 residents, was given 12 properties that were on the other side of the south circular and the other side of a large green in order to come within that tight number set by the commissioner—a limit of 3% or 5% that he had set himself, not the limit within the rules, which was 10% plus or minus. These 12 houses, which had no connection at all to the rest of the ward apart from being in the same borough, were forced to be part of that ward. That is the sort of decision that requires people to come back and say, “Wait a minute, what is going on here?” We need to have some oversight of decisions such as those, which is a good reason why we should not just set this in train without being able to oversee the conclusions that the officials and academics have drawn up.
When we were going through the process of reducing the number of MPs, a lot of people were opposed to that proposal. Let us be clear: it came after a period when MPs had been vilified because of expenses, and two very young, new leaders of their parties decided to jump on to that bandwagon and start kicking MPs. “We are too expensive. There are too many of us. Let’s cut the cost of politics. Let’s cut the number of MPs.” It was an act of populism, and a very successful one, with those leaders trying to capture a political mood because they wanted to remove the Government of the time.
What came out of that was a proposal to go down to 600 MPs that had no basis in any science, or any review that had taken place; it had no basis in anything apart from the whim of these two young, ambitious politicians. It was a figure that was plucked out of the air and thrown into manifestos, and we were then lumbered with it. Of course, the Whips then came into play, and we ended up with legislation to reduce the House of Commons to 600 MPs and had to go through that process. Once MPs had looked into the abyss and saw what it all meant, Parliament came to its senses very quickly. I never supported that proposal, but when the first boundary review was released—we had two—I came out all right. I would have had quite a safe seat, with that review only adding a bit to my existing constituency, but I still opposed the proposed changes in principle.
The second review did not go so well. The problem was that the boundary commission started its deliberations in south-east London by saying, “The numbers in Bromley borough come to exactly three constituencies that can be coterminous with that borough.” That was their starting point, and the rest of south-east London had to fall into line. That was a huge problem, and during the first review, local arguments managed to convince the boundary commission to change its mind.
The second time around, the same arguments were applied and the boundary commission came out with a set of proposals. Those went out for a second round of consultation, and then somebody who had nothing to do with all the local arguments and comments came up with a mathematical equation. They did the whole of south-east London on three pages of A4. Lo and behold, because that proposal was very close to the boundary commission’s original proposals, the boundary commission flipped right back and we had a major upheaval in my part of south-east London. The commission did not listen at all to the arguments that had been made locally and had prevailed in two successive reviews of the boundaries until that point.
That is why we need to have a final overview. We cannot just abdicate responsibility for the process and leave our constituents without a voice. No matter how many people are cynical about it, we are accountable for what we say in this process. It is quite right that we, as the elected representatives of those people, should have some oversight of the final outcome, and that the commissioners should be accountable to Parliament for what they have done. The day when we just abdicate that responsibility is a dark one for our democracy.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
It is an absolute pleasure, Sir David, to serve under your chairmanship, as it was to serve under Mr Paisley’s this morning. I shall in my remarks cover clauses 1 and 2 stand part, and amendments 2 to 4, and respond where I can to what right hon. and hon. Members have said.
Clause 1 deals with the timing of boundary reviews and the submission of the final reports by the boundary commissions. First, the clause provides for the next boundary review to take place according to a slightly shortened timetable. The clause sets 1 July 2023 as the date by which the four boundary commissions must submit their final reports. That means that they will have two years and seven months from the review date—the formal start of a boundary review—to complete the process and submit their recommendations. Usually, they would have two years and 10 months.
I will deal straight away here with a point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow East. He mentioned the question raised by Professor Sir John Curtice about why there should be a difference between the period for the immediate next review that for future reviews. I hate to say it, but there is no great conspiracy. It was set out clearly in the pages of the Conservative party manifesto, which I know the hon. Gentleman will have had as his bedside reading day in, day out since 2019. He will know from it that we have made a commitment to repealing the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. There is no secret. That legislation is inadequate and we are committed to repealing it. I will not go into further detail about that in this Committee—you would not want me to, Sir David—but it squarely answers the point. It is no great secret that according to that scheme there should then be the flexibility for the next general election to be called at the right time after July 2023, which is what is in the Bill.
The purpose of clause 1 is to give the best chance of having new constituency boundaries in place ahead of the next general election, whenever that may come. As witnesses such as Mr Peter Stanyon and Mr Chris Williams of the Green party reminded us, once the recommendations of a boundary review have been brought into effect, it takes some time for returning officers to implement the new boundaries, and for all others involved, including political parties, to make the necessary preparations to field candidates and communicate with voters. So we have to allow for that period before new constituencies will be put into use. It is not a fixed amount of time, but, as a general principle, we aspire to ensure that legislation is in place six months before a poll.. That was discussed in the evidence sessions.
As the Committee is aware, it is over a decade since the results of a boundary review have been implemented. Our existing Westminster constituencies are based on electoral data from the very early 2000s. That means that our current constituencies take no account of today’s youngest voters, which is beginning to get ridiculous, nor do they reflect nearly two decades of democratic shift, house building and all the things we want a boundary review to consider. The purpose of the provision in clause 1 is to ensure that the next boundary review, which is due to begin next year, finishes as promptly as possible, without compromising the processes of the boundary commissions, including the extensive public consultation they conduct, which I will make a brief point about. We will discuss public consultation further as we go through the clauses.
The three-month reduction in timetable, in the case referred to in the clause, will be made possible by shortening the sum of the boundary commissions’ internal operational processes. In addition, we propose to shorten the public consultation time for the next boundary review only from 24 to 18 weeks. I will address that in greater detail when we discuss clause 4, where that is laid out. I can say at this point that we have tested the proposition—a timetable of two years and seven months—with stakeholders, including electoral administrators, the parliamentary parties and representatives of other parties. There was a cross-party consensus that in this instance the change is beneficial and the right thing to do.
The second change introduced by clause 1 is to extend the boundary review cycle, moving the review from every five years to every eight. The intention here—my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell touched on this—is to ensure that parliamentary constituencies are updated sufficiently regularly without the disruption to local communities and their representation that might occur if there was a review every election period.
Alec Shelbrooke
Does my hon. Friend agree that, as several colleagues have mentioned, it is really important that the boundary commissions takes notice of what is being said here? Hopefully, they will look at the arguments being made, whatever the outcomes are. It is all about communities and getting it right in the first instance—I refer to the comments made by the right hon. Member for Warley. If they can do that, they can shorten the timeframe and take notice, so communities can stay together.
Chloe Smith
That is very important indeed. I am confident that all four of the boundary commissions have been listening closely to the proceedings of the Committee since our evidence sessions, which they joined, and since then in our proceedings clause by clause. I know they will want to take into account comments made by hon. Members across the Committee, including how we can keep communities together and ensure that the public has that strong voice, which was the point I was making with regard to clause 1.
Clause 1 sets out that in future the boundary commissions will submit their final reports to the Speaker of the House of Commons. Mr Speaker is the ex officio chair of the boundary commissions. The reports will go to him rather than to the Secretary of State, as the commissions do now. The Speaker, not the Secretary of State, will lay the reports before Parliament.
We think that is the right change. It underlines the independence of the boundary commissions—a theme we will return to many times. It is right that the chair of those commissions—in other words, Mr Speaker—should receive and lay the reports just as they also currently receive the progress reports made by the boundary commissions. It is also right that the Government’s only role is to implement the recommendations without needing to have any hand in the process by which they are submitted.
In summary, clause 1 makes technical but important changes to the conduct of boundary reviews. It sets the cycle of eight years, establishes the Speaker as the appropriate recipient of the final report and shortens the boundary review timetable in the way that I have explained, to give us and citizens the best chance of knowing that what they have asked for—the general election being conducted on the basis of updated and equal constituencies—will happen. For those reasons, I think the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
There was some discussion right at the beginning about whether the Bill gives the Executive more power, but is the Minister saying that it removes the Executive from the process once the boundary commission has started to undertake its work?
Chloe Smith
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, because she allows me to move on to the matters in clause 2. They are very important, and she presages what I am going to say.
Clause 2 changes the way in which the recommendations of the boundary commissions are brought into effect. This is the meat of the debate. The purpose of the change is to bring certainty to the boundary review process and give confidence that recommendations of the independent boundary commissions are brought into effect without interference or delay. The boundary commissions develop their proposals through a robust process involving extensive public consultation over a two to three-year period.
The right hon. Member for Warley made a very thoughtful point about checks and balances, and what he called a new set of priesthoods. Aside from the fact that this is not new—this commission has been in existence for many decades, and rightly so—the point that I want to make is this: the public are the check and balance on that body. By way of example, more than half the recommendations made by the Boundary Commission for England in the previous cycle were changed. This morning, examples were exchanged of where change was desirable or not desirable, and where it was proposed or rejected, but the fact is that that level of responsiveness to the public has been shown to be there in what boundary commissions do, so the need for check and balance is met by what the boundary commissions do in their public consultation. That is very important. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West eloquently touched on that.
It is important that the boundary commissions’ impartial recommendations are brought into effect promptly and with certainty in order to avoid wasting public money and time and to underline the independence of the process. Clause 2 provides for proposed constituencies to be brought into effect automatically. It does that by amending the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, which provides for the recommendations to be brought into effect through an Order in Council made by Her Majesty following approval of the draft order by both Houses of Parliament.
As happens now, the Secretary of State would be required to give effect to the recommendations of the boundary commissions. Let me say a little about the wording that hon. Members will see in the Bill. Professor Sir John Curtice also noted this in evidence. The wording has been updated over time. In the current legislation, a Minister must submit the draft order
“as soon as may be”.
The new wording used in the clause is:
“as soon as reasonably practicable”.
I do not think that is of great interest to the Committee, but I just want to make the point that that is more up-to-date wording. There is nothing more to be read into that change of words.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
Is there any practical difference between the two forms of worfing, or is it simply using more up-to-date language?
Chloe Smith
The hon. Gentleman—my friend, if I may return his compliments of this morning—has it exactly right. I thank him for aiding the Committee’s understanding on that point. I could give examples of where that kind of wording has been updated in other Acts, but I think I do not need to do so if it is as simply put as that.
As happens now, an Order in Council will be used to give effect to the recommendations, but Parliament will not play a role in approving that order, and the Secretary of State will no longer be able to amend the draft Order in Council that implements the boundary commissions’ recommendations in the event that it is rejected by Parliament.
We heard in the witnesses sessions that a number of respected academics support this change. Countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand use a similar approach. It is the right one to use. We heard from Dr Renwick and Professors Hazell, Curtice and McLean, and there are many more who stand on that side of the argument. One of the most eloquent whom we heard in our sessions was Professor Wyn Jones from the Welsh Governance Centre, who said:
“It is probably better that MPs set the terms of the exercise for the Boundary Commission behind a veil of ignorance, if you like, without knowing exactly what the particular outcomes would be for them as individual MPs.”––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2020; c. 57, Q117.]
I considered trying to get a joke on the record about Immanuel Kant and the ways that that surname could be used, but I thought it would be better not to test the boundaries of that at this stage of the Committee.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke went on to say, witnesses were clear that the independence of the process should not be violated—a strong word, as she pointed out. Whether Professor Curtice was also right to call Committee members and Members of the House turkeys, I could not possibly comment, but it is self-evident that MPs have an interest in the outcome. That is simply a fact.
I now turn to amendments 2 to 4 and the opposition to the clause that I assume goes with them. I disagree fundamentally with the amendments and I urge hon. Members to withdraw them. I recognise the passion with which hon. Members put their arguments. The hon. Member for City of Chester spoke about parliamentary approval being a “safety valve”, but those arguments are wrong-headed. Essentially, they say that a process should be regarded as independent if someone agrees with it, and not if they do not, which is a poor way to approach the question. The changes are important to ensure that the recommendations of the independent boundary commissions are brought into effect promptly, without interference from any political quarter, without waste of public time and money, and without delay.
John Spellar
Essentially, the Minister is avoiding the central political reality, which is that because of the way the boundary commission went about its work, whether according to its instructions or not, the Conservative Government fundamentally lost control of their Members of Parliament. Ironically, in 1969, the then Labour Government had absolute control of their Members of Parliament, which is why they voted down the recommendation. The reason that those proposals never got before Parliament was that they were so fundamentally unsatisfactory that the Conservative Government lost control of their Back-Bench Members and some of their Ministers.
Chloe Smith
I have huge respect for the right hon. Gentleman; it is a credit to the Committee that we have no fewer than two former Secretaries of State on it. I am afraid that in this case, however, he is not correct. That is not the fundamental point. The fundamental point is that we need to put in place updated and equal boundaries. If his party’s heritage goes right back to the Chartists, as he hopes it does, he ought to be with that argument rather than against it. That is what we need to address today.
I want to make a few points about the nature of parliamentary sovereignty as it operates here. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said that the Government of the day set the parameters and, without the safety net of a further approval stage, we could allow for bad reviews—I think I have accurately reflected her words there. Sir John Curtice also reminded us that someone could introduce an overturning Bill if they wanted to; that is a facet of parliamentary sovereignty. Parliament can do that if it wishes. Indeed, the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan) tried to do that in the last Parliament, and we spent many hours considering his Bill.
The hon. Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood and for Glasgow East misunderstand, or misrepresent, the nature of Parliament and the Executive in their arguments, so I want to set the record straight. It is Parliament, not the Executive, that sets the parameters through this Bill; that is what we are doing. I may be on my feet right now as a member of the Executive, which I am deeply honoured to be, but it is Parliament in the form of this Committee and later in the whole House, and in the second Chamber, that does that job.
I merely present proposals. It is for Parliament to agree or deny them. It is Parliament that retains that sovereignty at all times, and if Parliament later disagrees with the measure, it can act. There is nothing here to prevent it from doing so, although I would advise against that for the reasons that I have set out. My right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell set that out clearly to the hon. Member for City of Chester, who agreed with him, if I understood the exchange correctly.
It is the constitutional position that the Executive are composed of the largest party in Parliament. That is simply how it is. I appreciate that I am the Minister for the Constitution, so I rather enjoy such arguments, but I hope the Committee will bear with me.
It is the case that Parliament has some crossover with the Executive—of course it does; that is how we are set up. In that resides the confidence of the House and the delivery of the manifesto commitments that have put the Government in their place. That is what we are here to do in the Bill: deliver equal and updated boundaries. That is the right thing to do.
John Spellar
I think that we should explore that constitutional issue, because we also need to look at the procedures of the House. Only the Government can instigate legislation, apart from the rather convoluted private Members’ Bills procedures. Indeed, even when such a Bill may be trying to proceed, it can be held up by not putting forward a money resolution. Government, as the Executive—subject, as the hon. Lady rightly says, to the constraint of a vote of no confidence—are able to stifle any of that legislation, should they so wish.
Chloe Smith
And in that will reside the views of the majority of Members of the House of Commons, who know what the right argument here is in this case, which is to deliver equal and updated boundaries. I am only sorry that some of the arguments we have heard this morning seem to express almost a lack of confidence in Parliament’s right and ability to set a framework at the outset and then have confidence that it can be delivered by what is a very high-quality public body, judge-led and acknowledged by witnesses to be among the best in the world in how we run our boundary commissions. Perhaps the hon. Member for City of Chester disagrees.
Christian Matheson
I am enjoying the Minister’s exposition of the constitution. The proof of the particular pudding she is talking about is in the fact that the last two boundary revisions did not have the support of Parliament. There was no formal mechanism in the way that she describes for hon. Members to express that disapproval and lack of support. It had to be done informally through the usual channels, until the Government realised that if they did push either of those to a vote, they would not have succeeded. There was no formal constitutional mechanism of the type the Minister is trying to outline.
Chloe Smith
I will say two things to that. First, we should be focusing on what we now need to do. Secondly, I am pleased to be here proposing a better way forward that demonstrates that we have listened to the opinions expressed by, among others, the Select Committee on Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs. We should therefore deliver what we have been asked to do by people in this country through the means of the Bill.
I will draw my remarks to a close. I need detain the Committee no longer. I think I have dealt with all the points put to me this morning. I recommend that the Committee reject the amendment and support clauses 1 and 2 standing part of the Bill.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
It is lovely to see you in the Chair on this warm afternoon, Sir David. My amendments to clause 1 ask the Committee whether Parliament should vote on the review of the boundaries. As it happens, Parliament has not had the opportunity to vote on the last two reviews because they were never tabled for debate by the Government. This is a safety valve: us as parliamentarians being able to check the homework of the boundary commissions. This is not marking our own homework; this is us ensuring that the boundary commissions have executed the criteria we have given them accurately and that we are happy to proceed. I have seen it pointed out often on social media recently that the Government have an 80-seat majority. If they are so confident in their 80-seat majority, they have nothing to worry about in bringing the review that we are about to have back to Parliament for a vote.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the written evidence submitted by Dr Renwick and Professor Hazell, particularly points 15 and 16. They say that although the boundary commission has only very rarely been questioned to be biased—that would not be the case at all; we all have confidence in its independence—
“there are grounds to worry that this could change”
if the automaticity is implemented. In point 16, they set out some safeguards that could protect against that. I have some concerns that while the independence of the boundary commission is not questioned at the moment, the change could have future consequences that are foreseeable, as set out by Dr Renwick and Professor Hazell, and safeguards could be put in place.
Chloe Smith
I shall be as brief as I can. Clause 3 inserts new section 4A into the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986. New section 4A sets out the circumstances in which the recommendations made in a final report of a boundary commission may be modified. The purpose of the clause is to provide for a process by which a boundary commission may submit to the Speaker a statement of modification that the commission considers should be made to the recommendations after they have been submitted to the Speaker.
That will be the only process by which a boundary commission’s recommendations can be modified. Under new section 4A, the only modifications that could be made are those that the commission would request in order to correct an error. That can occur once the reports have been submitted, and where an Order in Council implementing the recommendations has not yet been submitted to Her Majesty in Council.
New section 4A(6) requires that any subsequent Order must give effect to any such modifications when implementing the recommendations. Currently, the commissions may notify the relevant Minister of modifications to recommendations in the report and the reasons for them, and the Minister will then give effect to them. The clause changes that process so that the commissions may submit a statement of modifications to the Speaker, who lays that statement before Parliament. A copy of the modifications sent to the Speaker is also sent to the Secretary of State. That is so that any commission modifications are reflected in the subsequent Order in Council that implements the recommendations, as we have just been discussing.
New section 4A(5) requires the commissions to publish a statement of modifications as soon as reasonably practicable after it has been laid in Parliament by the Speaker. These are sensible, technical changes, which I hope will not trouble the Committee greatly, to reflect the smaller role of the Government in implementing the recommendations and the increased role of the Speaker, as set out in clauses 1 and 2. I therefore urge that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Publicity and consultation
Question proposed, that the Clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 10, in the schedule, page 7, line 29, at end insert—
‘(1A) In paragraph 2(1) omit the words “and no more than five” in each of the subparagraphs.’
These amendments remove the cap on the number of hearings the Boundary Commissions may hold in each of the nations and in each of the English regions, leaving it for the Boundary Commissions to decide the appropriate number of hearings to hold.’.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the chair, Sir David—welcome to our deliberations. I certainly do not wish to detain the Committee long, not least because I see that the Minister is chewing a sweetie, and if I sit down quickly, I will put her in a difficult position. Amendment 10, which is supported by the hon. Member for Ceredigion, was tabled with a view to making the lives of the boundary commissioners a little easier by giving them some room for manoeuvre.
As the Committee will recall, during the evidence session on 19 June, Ms Drummond-Murray of the Boundary Commission for Scottish, in response to question 6, spoke of things being “problematic” in the last review because of the restrictions in the number of hearings set out in statute. She made it clear that covering a country the size of Scotland, and doing so with only five hearings, was problematic. The amendment would remove that restriction.
As I was gently discussing this with the hon. Member for West Bromwich West earlier, something that came through from the evidence sessions and over the course of this morning’s sitting was a respect for the boundary commissions and a desire to try to make their lives as easy as possible. The amendment would not alter the fundamental principles of the Bill; it seeks merely to give the commissioners the flexibility to undertake the public engagement that is welcomed—and not just by the hon. Member for West Bromwich West, but by us all in our communities. It seeks to give that flexibility to commissioners to undertake public engagement. I hope that the Government will support my amendment, and I look forward to hearing her thoughts on the proposal.
Chloe Smith
I will address both clause 4 and the amendment in one breath. As currently drafted, the rules governing the boundary reviews provide that there should be between two and five public hearings in each of Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the nine English regions. The amendment would make the number of public hearings a matter of judgment for each of the boundary commissions. I am confident that I understand the argument that the hon. Gentleman made, and I am grateful to him for tabling the amendment in the spirit of improving and prioritising public consultation of the existing framework, which is very important.
My reservation about the amendment is that we need to give the boundary commissions clear rules that are in themselves unimpeachable. As we discussed this morning, there is of course great interest in getting the result right so that it can carry trust and command confidence. To that end, a clear and unambiguous framework is helpful; it would allow the boundary commissions to better preserve both their actual and perceived independence.
By mandating a particular number of hearings, we are saying that the commissions are able to deploy their technical expertise in a legally certain environment in which their independence could not be challenged for the wrong reasons—for example, on the grounds of process, or on grounds such as, “You didn’t do enough hearings here,” “You did too many hearings there,” or, “You didn’t give us a fair voice here and gave somebody else an overly large voice over there.”
I would put the argument at that level: instead of removing it entirely, it is right to maintain that set of guidelines for how many hearings there ought to be, because it allows for there to be a greater degree of public trust around the fairness of the process of the hearings. I hope that argument is enough to engage the interest of the hon. Member for Glasgow East, and to persuade him and the hon. Member for Ceredigion not to press the amendment.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
Before the Minister moves on to clause 4, I have a question about amendment 10. Is it fair to say that the Government might be willing to consider extending or increasing the role and number of hearings—setting a higher limit, as opposed to lifting it completely?
Chloe Smith
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman makes. As the witness from the Boundary Commission for Scotland said, there ought to be more hearings. That is a fair argument—perhaps a fairer argument than the one I was seeking to address just now. I note that it is not the one on the amendment paper, so it is perhaps academic for the purposes of the immediate discussion. However, I understand and note the hon. Gentleman’s point. I will discuss the full extent of what we are doing with the public hearings, which might address his point.
We are changing the timing of the public hearings so that they can be better targeted by the boundary commissions. That goes directly to the point that Ms Drummond-May made. With the number of hearings that she had, she had to decide where to hold them in what is, as we all know, a large geographical area that is sparsely populated. Being able to be more flexible about when the hearings take place addresses that point, because after having observed the first round of feedback coming from the first round of consultation, the boundary commissions will be able to say, “Right, we see where that feedback is coming from. We’re going to use the change in timing for the hearings, which will now be in the second round, to meet that feedback where it is coming from.” In effect, it will save somebody such as Ms Drummond-Murray the difficulty of deciding blindly whether to put their hearings in Hawick or Inverness.
This change addresses that point: without necessarily needing to add another hearing, it allows for them to be better targeted. I will explain a little how the clause does that. It makes a change by putting the public hearings later in the consultation process. As I say, the clause allows public hearings to be better targeted to areas where it is clear that there might be the greatest debate over possible different options. From our discussions with the boundary commissions—indeed, the Boundary Commission of Scotland told us this in Committee—we know that it is only once a review gets going that boundary commission staff are able to judge where the feeling is greatest about particular constituencies and proposals. That is where we would want to target the use of public hearings to have the greatest impact on, and responsiveness to, the public, which is a principle that we all agree on.
The trouble with the current legislation is that the public hearings take place close to the start, during the first 12-week consultation process. Bearing in mind that the hearings are events of some scale and inevitably require large venues, which can be hard to find and need to be booked ahead, this could be a particular concern in areas where there is a sparse population. Again, there is a limited number of such venues to choose from. Under the current law, the boundary commissions can therefore find themselves picking locations and having to secure the venues before the review has even begun, to ensure that they can conduct those events. In effect, they are guessing about where the interest is going to come.
The change being made by the clause addresses that issue by allowing the boundary commissions to be better able to consider the responses received, assess where the feeling is greatest, decide where the hearings should be held, and then plan and deliver those hearings for the secondary consultation period. Therefore, to make it possible to implement this change, we are adding time to the secondary consultation period. The clause has the effect of moving four weeks of consultation time from the initial consultation period to the secondary consultation period, to allow that time for public hearings.
Cat Smith
Speaking to amendment 10, the hon. Member for Glasgow East made a very good point about the way in which the Bill must be able to be applied effectively in every part of the United Kingdom. In some of the regions where the commissioners will be doing their work, the geography and landscape are very different from those of other regions. In that sense, I am minded to support the amendment if chooses to push it to a vote. It would give the commissioners more flexibility to be able to respond to the needs of communities, and if we are to have communities that are confident in the boundaries that the commissioners draw, they must have had an adequate say in how the constituencies are formed.
Christian Matheson
First, I welcome the Minister’s explanation of the clause. I have been through a few of these boundary reviews now. I remember attending one in the mid-1990s for Cheshire, which was held in Winsford, in the geographical centre of Cheshire, along with my old mentor Lord Hoyle—as he is now is—and Mike Hall, another former MP, and the late and much-missed Andrew Miller, another former MP.
More recently, the Cheshire review was held in my own constituency in Chester, in The Queen hotel, and in that circumstance I found myself speaking against my own party’s recommendations, because the numbers had forced the party to exclude a part of the constituency from Chester that I felt rightfully belonged to it. It was a strange and uncomfortable situation, but I did what I did because it was right.
Having heard the hon. Member for Glasgow East speak to his amendment, I think there is a principle that flows throughout the Bill, which is the importance of taking into account geography, in terms of the overall impact of the Bill and its overall implications. I could easily get from Chester to Winsford and from Chester to Warrington; that would not be a problem. Speaking from my own experience, I think that Cheshire could get away with having one public inquiry.
If I think about parts of rural northern England, the far south-west, or large parts of Scotland and Wales, the sparsity of population makes it less easy to hold public inquiries than in Cheshire or in large boroughs. It is the same principle and the same argument that we will discuss later in the Bill—I do not want to wander too far off the subject of this clause—where we have numbers overriding geographical considerations. There are parts of the country that need to be treated differently because sparsity of population and geographical features make it more difficult for individuals to take part
The hon. Member for Ceredigion asked the Minister a question that had also occurred to me, about whether, in principle, she may consider a slightly different amendment, if she accepts that some areas need more attention because of their geography and sparsity of population. Obviously, the Minister cannot speak to a hypothetical amendment, but I would support that suggestion. The principle that flows through the Bill is that we cannot simply go on bare numbers. Geography, population density and the ease of people getting to, and taking part in, consultations need to be considered. I have a lot of sympathy with the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow East.
Clive Efford
I am sorry that I did not call you “Sir David” earlier. I was not trying to de-noble you and I apologise.
I support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow East. We are in a curious situation with this clause. On the one hand, the Government are saying, “Step back, set the parameters and let the boundary commission get on with it,” but when we get to this clause they become prescriptive. The clause limits the scope of the boundary commission to consult and to set up consultations with an area in a way that meets the reaction they are getting from a local community. It says that there can only be five consultations in an area. That does not seem to me to be stepping back, allowing the boundary commission to get on with its job, and reacting according to representations from the community.
The Bill sets a rigid timetable, which is acceptable, but subsection (12) says that we will have only six weeks for the second stage and four weeks for the third, because we have a rushed timetable. In the evidence, we were told time and again that this will be a major upheaval because the boundaries are 20 years out of date. Rather than truncating the consultation period in the coming boundary review, we should at least stick to the length of time we are setting for subsequent boundary reviews. Apparently we are not doing that and we can rush at this one, like a bull at a gate.
This is a substantial review that will bring about major changes because of the age of the boundaries we have, which is quite right. I am not arguing about the fact that these changes have to be made and that we have to achieve some sort of equilibrium, which at the same time recognises communities, but it will be a difficult exercise that the Government are making even more difficult because of the timescale they are setting.
Saying that the second stage of the review will have only six weeks and the final stage only four does not seem to be consistent with the idea that we set parameters and let the boundary commission get on with its job. All of a sudden we are starting to put difficulties in its way. I would support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow East if it were put to a vote. It is important that we give flexibility to the boundary commission so that the public have confidence in what the commission is doing and that their views can be heard. Even if the outcome is not the boundaries that the public support, at least they will have had the right to have their voices heard in a way that is convenient and in a location that enables them to participate. Putting restrictions on the boundary commission is a step in the wrong direction. I fundamentally disagree with the bit in subsection (12). On a boundary review that is well overdue and is going to be difficult, the Government have set a tougher timescale. The game is up. This really does expose the political considerations. This is all about the timing and choice of a general election date from 2023 onwards. It has nothing whatever to do with doing an efficient job in reviewing parliamentary boundaries.
The Chair
I point out to the Committee that any vote on amendment 10 will be later in our proceedings. If the hon. Member for Glasgow East wishes to press the amendment to a Division, it will be later in our proceedings.
David Linden
I thank the Minister and the hon. Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood, for City of Chester, for Eltham, and for Ceredigion for their considered remarks. During our discussions I reflected that perhaps this morning, we dealt with one of the more controversial aspects of the Bill with automaticity, but we have now moved to discussing hearings and where they should take place, so I am glad to have brought the temperature down, if not physically.
I detected from the Minister, particularly in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion, that the measure is something the Government are willing to consider if there is a way that we could work together to try to table an amendment on Report. The Minister will be aware that the amendment was in no way motivated by party politics. It is about trying to assist the commissions, so I propose to withdraw the amendment on the understanding that the Government discuss with me and my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion some form of amendment that could perhaps be tabled on Report to address the issues that I still think are outstanding and that have been put on the record by Ms Drummond-Murray. On that basis, I will not press amendment 10 to a vote.
The Chair
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his advance warning that that is what he will do. It will be helpful as far as the administration of the Bill is concerned.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Number of parliamentary constituencies
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Chloe Smith
Is it not a pleasure that we can do our work without the bells being quite so loud as they were earlier? I will keep my remarks on clause 5 extremely short because the clause is very simple. It amends the existing legislation to ensure that we continue to have 650 parliamentary constituencies, as we do now. Currently the 1986 Act, as amended by the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, sets the number of constituencies at 600.
The reduction has yet to happen in practice. As the recommendations of the commission’s review is based on 600, it had yet to be implemented by the order that would have been laid under previous legislation, which we have discussed mightily already this morning. This is a change of policy from that adopted under the coalition Government. There is nothing to hide. The change takes into account views that have been expressed. Dare I say it demonstrates listening?
I mentioned that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee has looked into the matter, and we are grateful for their consideration. On balance, we believe that the move to 600 constituencies, brought into law in 2011 by the coalition Government, is no longer the appropriate move to make because circumstances have changed in two areas. First, in the past decade the UK population has grown by 5% between 2011 and 2019. It is now estimated to be 66.4 million. And—the one hon. Members have all been waiting for—we have left the European Union. Is that not the core argument of the day? It is relevant to the Bill because we have regained significant areas of law making, returned to this Parliament and the other legislatures of the UK. That means that to ensure effective representation for a growing population, it is sensible to maintain 650 constituencies. I note that there was broad consensus on that on Second Reading, so I do not think that any of the chucklings that we have heard from sedentary positions are based on strong arguments. The direction of the argument is in favour of maintaining 650.
Mrs Miller
I absolutely understand and accept the Minister’s argument, although other democratic institutions regularly review the number of their elected representatives. My local authority, Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, has just implemented new boundaries to reduce the number of councillors from 60 to 54, not only to save the council tax payer money, but to recognise that things change. The Government are right to keep such questions under review.
Chloe Smith
I am grateful for that example. My right hon. Friend is correct, particularly about the principle that ought to underpin what we do here. After all, we are looking at public money, in terms of what we might call the cost of politics—the number of salaries multiplied by 600 or 650—and how we ask the boundary commissions to do their work. Those things are underpinned by public money and public time, so we should consider them in Committee . There is nothing more extensive to say about clause 5, so I commend it to the Committee.
Cat Smith
The Opposition welcome clause 5. We have argued to keep the number of MPs at 650. I also welcome the Minister’s explanation of why the Government have U-turned and returned to the idea of having 650 Members of Parliament.
The Minister made the argument that the UK population has grown by 5% since 2011. I ask her, and she is welcome to intervene, whether that is an indication that we should expect the 650 figure to increase in subsequent reviews if the UK population were to increase in that time.
I also ask why the number is fixed. We heard in our evidence sessions that one of the difficulties that commissioners have in drawing seats is that they must finally reach the 650 figure. Is there not a strong case for having a target number of MPs that the commissioners should reach within a percentage range? Overall, the Opposition welcome the clause and the decision to maintain 650 MPs.
John Spellar
Briefly, several of the factors that the Minister outlined were blindingly obviously after 2015 as well. The population in this country was going up and there had been a referendum to leave the European Union. Was it not, frankly, the shallowness of David Cameron and the stubbornness of the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) that meant that the Government have had to make the change now that they could have made before? We would then have been here representing different constituencies. There is no shame in saying that the former leadership of the party—it is probably unwise to attack the current leadership—got it wrong and that is why they have done a U-turn.
David Linden
Can I say what a pleasure it is to see clause 5 in the Bill? I spent about 30 sittings of my life in the last Parliament on the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill Committee, brought forward by the wonderful hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Afzal Khan). On that Committee were me, the Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry North East, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood and the hon. Member for City of Chester, with whom I have grown incredibly close over this issue and through the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It is a genuine delight to be on the Committee.
I used to trot along the corridor every Wednesday morning to come and argue that there should be 650 seats. At the time, the Minister, only six months ago, was resolutely opposed to that. So it is with a degree of glee that I hear her talk about that 5% population growth. I know that, on the Committee, I, the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood and the Minister have had children, but I can safely say that we have not contributed 5% population growth in the last six months. Therefore, the U-turn is quite remarkable.
There is also an argument based on Britain leaving the European Union. I accept that. It will be a travesty and bad for Scotland, which is probably why people in Scotland voted against it, but if we follow to its logical conclusion the argument about losing 73 MEPs who used to go to Brussels and debate and legislate on our behalf, and all those laws coming back to the UK Parliament—by and large they are coming back to it as a result of a power grab by the UK Government who are not devolving the powers on to institutions such as the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament—presumably we should increase the number of seats, commensurately with MPs’ increased workload. Like the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood I am perplexed that the number remains at 650.
I want to pick up on the Minister’s point about cutting the cost of politics. One of the things that I tried to bring up in those enlightening Wednesday morning Committee sittings—with more ease some weeks than others—was that the Government’s argument that they are cutting the cost of politics is problematic because of the other place.
David Linden
I am grateful that that revolutionary from Yorkshire, the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell, agrees that we should abolish their lordships. The Government need to be consistent if they make the argument about cutting costs. Even this week we hear that the Prime Minister’s chief aide Eddie Lister is off to join the House of Lords, with £305 a day tax-free for the rest of his life, without ever being subject to a vote.
The House of Lords is an utterly undemocratic institution. There are only two places in the world where hereditary chieftains retain the right to make law. One is the United Kingdom and other is Lesotho. There are only three parts of the world where clerics retain the right to legislate. We have 26 bishops, the Lords Spiritual, who legislate by virtue of their religion. The other countries, of course, are Iran and the Isle of Man. If the Minister, therefore, wants, as she has said today, to talk about cutting the cost of politics, may I gently suggest that in the previous Parliament the Bill was starting at the wrong end, with the election of MPs? Perhaps if we want to cut the cost of politics we should end the circus down the other side of the building.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman picks up where I was cut off by the time limit in my Second Reading speech, and I could not agree with him more. When I was preparing my Second Reading speech I looked at the Hansard report of the debate from the late 1990s on reform of the House of Lords under Tony Blair. I was struck to see such familiar names as Ted Heath. Giants of the British political scene made arguments that we make in exactly the same form today. I looked into the cost of the House of Lords, and it is not the same as the cost of House of Commons, but it is not far off. There is no right of removal, and we avert our eyes from what is inappropriately still a hereditary principle, when we all know that is not a good enough reason for anyone to hold status in public life any more. I hope that a bold, reforming one nation Government will have, at some point in the next five to 10 years, an eye on that, because it is the elephant in the Palace.
David Linden
I have watched the hon. Lady in the last couple of weeks in the Chamber and she has been incredibly thoughtful. I suspect that the Government Whip is probably wincing slightly but the House is all the richer for people who are willing to stand up and say, “If we are going to talk about the future of the UK constitution we need to address the fact that in 2020 we still have people who have been there many years and have never been subject to a vote.” She is right to say that.
Alec Shelbrooke
As the hon. Gentleman has picked up, there is quite a lot of agreement about the other place. However, I do not think it is particularly fair on the Minister to be talking about it when we are trying to deal with a constitutional Bill on the House of Commons, and on how we vote. I say to him gently that I understand the arguments that he makes, and there is merit in them. He has some cross-party agreement. Voting on the other place has always tended to be a free vote, and it has always fallen at the last hurdle. I would be more than happy to have discussions with the hon. Gentleman if he could find positive ways to move forward on the subject. I am just not sure today is the right moment.
The Chair
Order. I have been biding by time about when to intervene. We have now had two interventions that were long speeches. Can we stick to the Bill? The Bill has nothing to do with reform of the House of Lords.
David Linden
Thank you very much, Sir David. I do not want to challenge the establishment too much when you are in the Chair, so I will avoid being taken down the path that these unruly Conservatives would have me go down—of course, I was so much in order. Perhaps my remarks in the last few minutes have been slightly cheekie-chappie, but I want to say that I am delighted to see the clause in the Bill. It would be remiss of us not to put on the record our thanks to the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, who tried to keep this issue alive in the previous Parliament and, as a result, we find ourselves with a Bill that is by no means perfect, but the clause is one of the better things in it. With that, and I am sure to everyone’s relief, I bring my remarks to a close.
Clive Efford
The Bill gets more and more curious. The Minister argued consistently on previous clauses for a position that would have prevented us from getting to the clause, had we been in that position of automaticity and the previous boundary reviews had gone through. If it were not for Parliament’s ability to have a second look at what had been set in train, we would not have the clause to have 650 MPs.
It is curious for the Minister to stand up and say that is the right decision and what we should do when she has also argued for something that would have prevented us from getting to this position. That is the argument in favour of Parliament giving the final approval on whatever the boundary commission proposes. It is clear that going down to 600 MPs was a schism imposed on us by two ambitious young politicians who got together in a rose garden and completely fell in love. It was the wrong decision, and when Parliament got the chance to take a second look, it came to a conclusion that both sides of the House support. With the situation we are in, which we have been in for a long time—MPs represent greater numbers of constituents than ever before, and in some of our inner-city areas that involves many people who cannot go on the electoral register—it has been obvious that we should not cut the number of MPs. We are where we are, but that highlights how the Government are arguing for a position that would have resulted in us making a huge error, had it been in place at the time of the last boundary review.
Christian Matheson
I will speak only briefly. In fact, I only sought to catch your eye, Sir David, after my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley gave advice to the Minister, based on his years of experience, that she was entitled to criticise previous leaders who may no longer be with us. I thought I would therefore take the opportunity to do what I promised earlier and compliment the Minister on changing her position. I said how she would prove to be flexible, and this is what I was talking about. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said, the reversion to 650 is the right decision, and I very much welcome it. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham just said, is it not great that we are in a position to do that, because automaticity was not in the Bill? I will leave it at that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Taking account of local government boundaries
David Linden
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 6, page 4, line 35, before “for” insert “(a)”
This is linked to amendment 9.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 9, in clause 6, page 4, line 37, at end insert—
‘, and
(b) after paragraph (c), insert—
“(ca) boundaries of polling districts, where useable data is available;”’.
Polling District mapping is available in standard GIS formats in many areas. This allows the data to be used by the Boundary Commissions if they think fit.
New clause 9—Completeness of the Electoral Register—
‘(1) The 1986 Act is amended as follows.
(2) In rule 5(1) of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act, at end insert—
“(f) data from the Department for Work and Pensions about non-registered voters eligible to vote.’.
David Linden
I shall speak to amendment 9. During Second Reading, I was struck by the thoughtful approach of the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell, who made a plea—often repeated during the evidence sessions—for commissioners to move away from using wards as the building blocks for drawing up constituencies, and instead to break it down and use more manageable and flexible building blocks. That point was also pressed many times by the right hon. Member for Basingstoke.
In evidence from Ms Drummond-Murray during the evidence session of June 18—referring specifically to Question 8 of that session—the Committee will have noted that Scotland can break it down by postcode, if necessary, rather than using the more clunky ward building blocks. Furthermore, evidence given by Mr Scott Martin, solicitor at the SNP, drew the attention of Members to spatialhub.scot and the technology that is in play north of the border, in response to Question 102 at the Bill’s evidence session of June 18.
Polling districts are usually natural communities on their own, and are good building blocks for constituencies when wards cannot be used. Drawing constituencies using polling districts also makes the constituencies much easier to implement for the electoral administrators. They just need to reallocate the constituency that applies to each polling district, rather than allocating each individual elector. It also means that voters will not need to be allocated to different polling places when boundaries are redrawn. The parties referred to by Sir David should also be borne in mind here. Political parties that select their candidates on the basis of their members’ vote are the first users of constituency boundary data. Reallocating polling districts rather than drawing new boundaries makes it easier for political parties to ballot their members, which they may wish to do before the new boundaries are effective on the electoral registers. I remind the Committee that amendment 9 seeks to add to the tool box for the boundary commission. Rule 5(1) lists factors that a boundary commission “may take into account” to such an extent as it sees “fit”. Amendment 9 also recognises that a polling district’s data may not always be usable, clearly ensuring that it stays as set out and that the data is only used by the relevant boundary commission satisfied that a particular area and data are properly usable. Amendment 9 merely supplements clause 6 and allows boundary commissioners to draw upon technology as set out in the Bill’s explanatory notes.
I am keen to hear the Government’s thoughts on the amendment, and if they plan to object I would like to hear the reason; I will make a judgement on that before I decide whether to press the matter to a vote. I have outlined the rationale behind the amendment, and I look forward to the Minister’s feedback.
Mrs Miller
I wanted to make a couple of short comments on amendments 8 and 9, and commend the hon. Member for Glasgow East—he confesses to being a “cheeky chappie”—for tabling them. The amendments may be probing amendments, as I do not necessarily think they would apply in his neck of the woods, but they would certainly apply in England and Wales. I can see why he has tabled them, following our discussions, because they would put on the face of the Bill a requirement that polling district mapping be available for use. It became clear in our evidence that that was not the case; that is why evidence sessions are so useful. I am sure that hon. Members will, like me, be paying quite particular attention to their constituency information, and indeed their polling district information, not least because we are often asked to comment on where polling stations are, and our in-depth knowledge of our constituencies is an important part of our job. We know where the polling stations are and where the polling district boundaries are.
I was quite blown away by some of the responses to the questions I put to Mr Bellringer from the English boundary commission. Returning to amendment 9 before I go into exactly what he said, I understand why the hon. Member for Glasgow East tabled it. If we are going to really do what the Bill requires, which is to create equal-sized constituencies, going to a sub-ward level, whether that is, as he suggested, through polling districts, or—as in my line of questioning to the boundary commission—through postcodes, as in the part of the United Kingdom from which the hon. Member for Glasgow East comes, we need to be able to manipulate the data and the constituency information we have on a very refined level. It seemed odd that that has not been explored in the detail that hon. Members might have expected.
Sir Iain McLean, when he gave evidence, talked about the tension between getting equal-sized constituencies and the issues around local ties, which we discussed in earlier strings of amendments. The importance of equal size is clearly pre-eminent in the Bill and the amendment we are talking about now is important to deliver that important strategic focus of the legislation.
I was perplexed first by the inconsistent approach to the use of sub-ward level data in England, Scotland and Wales, and the fact that postcode data is used in Scotland and Wales but not in England. When I pressed that with Mr Bellringer, he very clearly said on the record that that information was very difficult for the boundary commission to come by; it would take a long time to access the data in the detail required. I was then perplexed by my further lines of questioning to Mr Bellringer, which made me think that, frankly, sub-ward level data had been put into the box marked “too difficult” and it was not necessarily going to be revisited. I would like to send a clear message from the Committee: that that must be revisited.
Although I am not sure I would necessarily support the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Glasgow East at this point, not least because we are still waiting for a note from the boundary commission on how it might handle this, I hope it is listening to the debate to hear the strength of feeling on the matter. For postcodes, Mr Bellringer said,
“we do not have the postcode areas in England. We would have to create them; they could be created, but it would take an awfully long time to do.”—[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2020; c. 12, Q14.]
We can wait until that data is ready, if it takes six months or 12 months. The boundary commission needs to start setting the bar a little higher than it has to date on the sort of information it has to hand. Sir Iain McLean suggested that the boundary commission should invest in geographical information systems. I do not profess to be an expert in that and I do not know whether that is what is needed. However, if it is, it should be forthcoming because it is important that we deliver the heart of the Bill, which is about equal constituencies. At the moment, I am unclear about how the boundary commission in England is going to do that. I hope the paper it sends us will edify me on that point.
Alec Shelbrooke
It is, indeed, unfortunate that we have made such quick progress that we have come to this clause before we have had the note from the Boundary Commission for England. The discussion we are having links into every single part of the Bill. This is an important moment. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow East for bringing this amendment—even as a probing amendment, if that is what it is—because it allows us to open up some very important arguments.
We had conversations this morning about whether we should hold the final vote on the Floor of the House. Opposition Members have made some powerful arguments about what would result if the boundary commission got it wrong. We should endeavour—especially with this clause today—to use the knowledge and expertise on the Committee and the evidence that we have taken to steer the boundary commission to get this right first time around. Some of the examples that were given in the past, which were then overturned when communities—not politicians—were able to make the points as to why particular suggestions were wrong, show that these things are not difficult to do, if time and attention is given to them.
I do not like to tie the hands of a body that we have asked to do a job. Being as prescriptive as the amendment would probably go too far, but it sends an important message. One of the problems with past boundary reviews has been that in order to get the numbers right, they have kept wards whole and created some very odd-looking constituencies that do not have anything in common with the areas they represent and their history.
I return to this point about communities all the time. One piece of evidence said that politicians very cleverly argue the “communities” point to get what they want in their seat, but it is an important point; it is not a political argument, and it is not about us. We represent areas: they are our communities. When the original proposal for 600 seats came out—I think it was in 2012—it was proposed that my constituency would run from my solid rural areas right into the centre of Leeds, in the Leeds East constituency. The previous MP there was George Mudie, a man who a lot of people know—certainly in Leeds and in this House—and for whom I have immense respect. He had been in public office for over four decades, I think; he was a leader of Leeds City Council, and a very distinguished one. I do not say that lightly.
He said, “This is appalling. I am an inner-city Member of Parliament. I represent the inner city; my whole professional career has been spent representing these communities.” He was wholly opposed to the Conservative areas of my seat coming into his constituency. Believe me, he would have won; more interestingly, he was more vociferously opposed to the proposals than I was. What it came down to, George Mudie was saying, was that these communities were not like communities, and the proposals broke the bond he had. I cannot remember exactly how long he served for, but I think he had been in some form of public office in those areas of that seat for over 40 years. As I said, he was a very well-respected man, who is missed in this House and in his communities.
When the boundary commission is constructing these seats, it needs to be very careful that it has regard to rule 5 of the 1968 Act, and the five sub-parts of that. That rule is very important when it comes to geography and trying to keep constituencies roughly as they are. I know that is not possible 20 years down the line—there have to be big changes—but one way in which the commission can try to achieve these objectives is to go below ward level. I do not believe we need to prescribe that—to say, “You must start with polling districts”—but in response to the questions that we asked in the evidence sessions, the evidence that we received was legitimately, “I think you need to go below ward level to get this right.” That is not the same as “You must start below ward level”—that is probably not the best approach, anyway. We would want to start with the easiest building blocks we have, and a lot of constituencies will already have those building blocks and communities within them. However, if we go below ward level, when we need to do things with the numbers, there are ways to do so.
There is a very strange little piece of my constituency, in a ward called Kippax and Methley. It is a stand-alone ward of Leeds City Council, where there are a couple of villages called Methley and Mickletown. The odd thing is that until 2010, a person would have to leave the constituency to get to those villages. They still would have to leave the ward to get to them, because the River Aire runs right through that ward and cuts it off, so they would have to go through the Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford constituency or through a different ward. Before I had Rothwell in the constituency, they would either have to go through the Morley and Rothwell constituency or through Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford. The communities are very similar: they were mining communities and the River Aire runs through them, so it is never a straightforward argument. There are some tweaks and twists around it, but the point I am making is that polling districts can be used to solve some of these slight problems.
I appreciate the amendment that the hon. Member for Glasgow East has tabled. It is an important probing amendment to get on the record why we in this Committee think it appropriate for the boundary commission to use polling districts to split wards. One of the reasons why I was persuaded that we should not prescribe polling districts as the starting point was the strength of the evidence about how those polling districts were themselves put together. I doubt it would happen, but it could create a gerrymandering situation later if those were the building blocks. That came out in the evidence. I am not saying that is what would happen, but it gives the potential for that to happen. It is therefore not right to bind the hands and to give temptation in that area, but it is important that the boundary commissions listen to the evidence. We shall explore this further when we come to the plus and minus 5% amendments later. This will be an important facet of that argument.
Christian Matheson
I will briefly make two observations and pose a question that the Minister might be able to answer. On the amendment tabled my the hon. Member for Glasgow East, I think we heard in evidence that the Scottish building blocks reflect the reorganisation of local government in Scotland. As such, they are slightly different from those in England and Wales—perhaps in terms of size, although the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell has talked about wards of 17,000 people in Leeds, which are extremely large. I hope that we do not take our own experiences of wards in our areas—although I might do just that in a moment—and impose them on other parts of the United Kingdom where they are not appropriate.
Alec Shelbrooke
Just to quickly address the hon. Gentleman’s point—it is something that I did not say—he is quite right to say that there are 17,000, 18,000 or 19,000 people in a ward in Leeds. We have similar issues in Kirklees, and I think Birmingham has been mentioned. I am thinking about specific areas where there are huge wards, created from a bunch of wards—in order to reach the right number—that contain totally disparate communities. That is the area we need to look at. In the metropolitan constituencies and councils, that is really important. That might help the hon. Gentleman.
Christian Matheson
I am grateful for that clarity. I am less keen on formally using polling districts as building blocks—we will come to this issue when we debate a different amendment—on the basis that they lack the formality of a consulted-on review by an independent body.
I have a question for the Committee that might be within the expertise of an hon. Member or the Minister. In my constituency, I already have split wards. I share one ward with my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) and another with the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson). Split wards already exist, and it is not clear why there needs to be consideration of introducing them into the legislation now, if they are already possible.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
Just to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question, I believe it is more to do with the fact that his constituency is currently aligned with a set of boundaries that predate the Cheshire West and Chester authority. Should the boundary commission conduct the review, it will probably try to use the current boundaries for Cheshire West and Chester. I am sure he would agree that that would possibly lead to quite an unwieldly seat that does not contain the entire city and might go into rural areas that do not necessarily accord with the more urban parts of his constituency.
Christian Matheson
I am most grateful for that. That might well be the case, although the boundary review area was Cheshire as a whole. I suspect the boundary commission would not want to go over the boundary review area, but that might well be a possibility.
Alec Shelbrooke
The hon. Gentleman is being most generous in giving way. There is a split polling district between me and the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon). I have about 26 houses from one of his large polling districts in my constituency; there is also the M1 motorway between my constituency and his. It makes no sense at all and creates some issues. It is noticeable that, in constituencies where there has been a local boundary change afterwards and there is a split across constituencies, the public are not really affected by that. That point was made in relation to what happens when we split wards and look at polling districts. The public are interested in who their MP, councillor and local authority are. I do not think they particularly mind if a different part of the constituency uses a different local authority.
Christian Matheson
With the greatest of respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he is now talking about split polling districts—he is doing my head in. My head is fried. I might just jump out the window.
On the contribution of the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton, it might be, as the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell said, that previous local government boundaries were superimposed on pre-existing parliamentary boundaries. That is entirely possible. If there is some clarification, that is fine. If split wards are permissible, that may go some way towards achieving our aims. I am grateful for that contribution.
Chris Clarkson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. I largely agree with my right hon. Friends the Members for Basingstoke and for Elmet and Rothwell, and thank the hon. Member for Glasgow East for his amendment. I will treat it as a probing amendment, and I shall not support it as it stands because we are still awaiting a letter from the boundary commission. My concern is that if we start prescribing units, it becomes dogma. We have seen that three of the boundary commissions are perfectly happy to start looking at innovative ways of splitting wards and treating postcode areas and community council areas as building blocks.
As Mr Bellringer suggested—I am not saying that this is the attitude across the piece, but it appears to be—the boundary commissions will go for the path of least resistance, which at the moment is wards. If we give them something smaller to work with, they will just work to that particular unit. We will get concomitances of polling districts snatched from area A and area B, and it becomes a more microscopic version of what we currently have. I am also concerned about using polling districts. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell said, there is the danger of reintroducing a political element into something when we are trying to take it out by introducing the process of automaticity.
I shall not support the amendment. I greatly appreciate the option of being able to split wards. I am glad that we have had this debate. The Committee has heard from Government-supporting Members that it is something that we are happy to look at, but I consider that being prescriptive is not the most helpful way to approach it.
Clive Efford
The hon. Member for Glasgow East has provoked an interesting debate about how we go about this process. I did not understand some of Mr Bellringer’s arguments. We all know our constituencies extremely well, and we know the level of detail that electoral registration officers produce, road by road and building by building. On a fixed date, when we enter into the parliamentary boundary review, the number of people registered for a particular street is known. I do not understand why the boundary commission, in communication with the local registration officer, could not, where it needed to, investigate that level of detail, so I did not understand those answers.
As the Bill progresses, perhaps some thought can be given to expanding the areas of information that the boundary commission uses to draw up the parliamentary boundaries. We had an interesting discussion in the evidence sessions about the use of polling districts and what their legal basis was. Peter Stanyon from the local government boundary commission explained that it was often dictated by the location of a suitable venue for a polling station, the accessibility for people with disabilities, and the convenience, to enable communities to vote. Those are important factors, and they seem to be things that lead to a community being provided with a suitable location, which is desirable. Those might be suitable building blocks.
However, Mr Stanyon also said that, post a parliamentary boundary review, local government has to have a review if there are changes within its area to a parliamentary boundary. That use of technology could therefore allow the boundary commission to go down to sub-street level in the knowledge that, at some later date, the polling district will be changed to meet the new boundary that the commission has drawn up.
The commission does not need to be restricted to the distinct polling district area. It can now move forward in the knowledge that, if it can avoid creating a parliamentary boundary that goes across the jurisdiction of a local authority area, which brings in all sorts of difficulties, it has the flexibility to create an additional polling district or to add an additional community from within that local government area, in order to avoid all the problems that come with that cross-border situation. The local government boundary commission has made it quite clear that it would move the boundaries to suit that new parliamentary boundary if it were created.
I think that the hon. Member for Glasgow East is on to something, and that should be explored as the Bill progresses. We are creating a rigid set of criteria where some flexibility could avoid lots of difficulties that will be created by having small sections of communities in different local authority areas represented by an MP who primarily supports and represents a different community. We should explore that further.
Chloe Smith
May I, Sir David, on a question of order, ask whether you would like me to speak to amendments 8 and 9, new clause 9, and clause 6 stand part at this stage?
Chloe Smith
And new clause 9, as you said at the outset. I will be very happy to do so. Thank you, Sir David, for that clarification, which was very helpful. I thank the hon. Members who tabled the amendments, and who have made very considered comments on them. I agree with colleagues that we have come to one of the interesting seams of detail that run through what we have to do in the Bill.
The amendments make specific and additional provision for the boundary commissions to take into account the boundaries of polling districts within their consideration of new constituencies where useable data is available. It might help the Committee if I make it clear in what way the amendment is additional to the provisions in the Bill. This is what Professor Iain McLean ended up looking for in his papers during our evidence session.
As colleagues will know, the 1986 Act is where this framework of rules is found, and within that framework of what are called “rules” are what are called the “factors” that are to be taken into account. That is where some of the debate is taking place; there will be others during the course of the Committee. The provision is additional because it would add to those factors, whereas the Bill does not. The Bill proposes to leave those factors as they are.
Mrs Miller
My hon. Friend started to talk about the factors within the 1986 Act. I hope she might have noticed that I tabled an amendment to ask the Government whether they should be rethinking their approach to those factors, particularly their approach to Ynys Môn being a standalone constituency, to join the other four standalone constituencies, which include two very near neighbouring constituencies in my neck of the woods—the two Isle of Wight seats.
Chloe Smith
I thank my right hon. Friend for presaging something that it is very important that we shall come on to. I do not wish to dance on the head of a pin, as it were. She is absolutely right that those points are made in the rules, and the factors are a subset of the rules that govern a microscopic element of the conduct.
The Chair
Order. I want to say to the Committee that our proceedings are confusing at the best of times, and this is not the best of times. Normally, we would have civil servants to my right with the Parliamentary Private Secretary close by. Notes would be helpfully passed to the Minister. We would normally have a couple of Clerks to my left, helping the Opposition with the order of our proceedings.
These are difficult circumstances and it is more than understandable that there is a bit of confusion. I ask the Minister not to respond at this point, so we can allow Cat Smith to speak to new clause 9, and then the Minister may wish to come back with her comments.
Mrs Miller
On a point of order, Sir David. I apologise for interrupting the shadow Minister. Can you clarify whether you are taking clause 6 stand part as part of this group? I am a little confused. I thought that we were discussing amendments 8 and 9. Are we doing the stand part debate as well?
The Chair
The stand part debate is separate. I am also in some difficulty, because this is all being organised remotely and the person who has organised it is not physically present. The right hon. Lady is quite right that it will be taken later in our proceedings.
I will say to the Clerks that, for future sittings, they may want to think about that a bit more carefully, inasmuch as Committee members are right to be confused about the order of our proceedings. As this is more or less a new Parliament; there are some hon. Members who have never served in Committee before. I will send that message so we can be more helpful in future sittings.
David Linden
Further to that point of order, Sir David. I wonder whether it might helpful for the Committee to suspend proceedings for a minute or two, until we understand exactly what is happening. I confess that in the last minute or so I have become more confused.
The Chair
I am not minded to pause the proceedings, because I do know what I am doing. I am trying to help everyone. If the Chair had lost control, we could do that, but we would have to have a long discussion. I ask the Committee to accept that, when we meet again on Tuesday, I will ensure that there is greater clarity to help Her Majesty’s Opposition and the different parties as they wish to scrutinise the Bill, and the Government as well.
Alec Shelbrooke
Further to that point of order, Sir David. I am completely lost. Can you clarify whether we are debating amendments 6 and 7 now?
The Chair
I can clarify that very easily. I am not being rude, but, if hon. Members listen carefully, at the start of the proceedings I said, “We now come to amendment 8 to clause 6, with which it will be convenient to discuss amendment 9 and new clause 9,” and I then called Mr Linden. What I said at the start was correct; it is just finessing the process. Hon. Members rightly get confused about when they can move amendments and when they can withdraw them.
I say again to the Committee that next Tuesday, we will ensure that things run more smoothly. I have just been advised that it is worth stating the simple principle that the selection list is available in the room and shows the order of debate. As a Member of Parliament, I understand that, although that is available, it is a bit like finding out that we were physically looking at the wrong Bill in our evidence session. We are all human beings and we can all make mistakes.
Chloe Smith
On a point of order, Sir David. I think I might be able to assist the Committee on how we have come to this point of discussion. When I heard you say what you have just repeated, I made a note to myself that circled the group containing amendments 8 and 9 and new clause 9, which appears in a different group on the selection list that you have just referred to. I for one have been working in an L shape, which might have caused confusion among colleagues, because there are four different groupings of which we suddenly seem to be doing two at once.
The Chair
I am now much better in the picture than I was before. To answer Mr Shelbrooke’s question, once we have dealt with the group that I announced at the start of the proceedings, we will go on to Mr Linden and deal with amendment 6 to clause 6, with which it will be convenient to discuss amendment 7.
Cat Smith
I must admit that I am still quite confused, if I am honest, but hopefully all will become apparent.
I am speaking to new clause 9, which is about the electoral registers that are used to compile the boundaries that we draw. In the written evidence submitted by Professor Toby James, a professor of politics and public policy at the University of East Anglia, it was eminently clear that in the latest estimates from the Electoral Commission there were between 8.3 million and 9.4 million people in Great Britain who were eligible to be on the registers but were not correctly registered on the December 2018 register. Since the introduction of individual electoral registration, we have seen registration become increasingly seasonal, and in his written evidence the professor outlined some of the reasons that that might be. His suggestions to the Committee are slightly outside the scope of the Bill, but I draw the Committee’s attention to his paragraph 12, which suggests ways to improve the accuracy and completeness of the electoral register.
New clause 9 would include Department for Work and Pensions data to correct the electoral registers and make sure that the data that the commissioners draw on to draw our constituency boundaries are fuller and more complete than the data they currently work with.
Ben Lake
The hon. Lady makes an important point, particularly when we consider that many constituencies will be drawn on the basis of the electoral register on a particular date. I know from my own constituency that at least 6,000 students are not registered, even though, when it comes to constituency casework, I answer their queries and try to serve them, so this is an important consideration. We should try to get as full a picture as possible because, after all, that gets to the heart of representation.
Cat Smith
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that intervention. The points that he has made during our proceedings today about the nature of his Ceredigion constituency, where the population can fluctuate, highlight the point that the data that we use have to come from a snapshot in time. However, that snapshot is often inaccurate for various reasons, including people moving house. They can delay registering or perhaps they do not register if there is no election imminent.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned students who may or may not register in one or two locations, which means that often the register is inaccurate. When we as constituency MPs hold our advice surgeries, we often support members of our community who do not fill in paperwork, which is how they can find themselves before us. One of the things that they might not fill in, because it does not feature in their lives is the form to register to vote. And yet, as Members of Parliament, we will stand up for them in a tribunal situation or we make representations to various Government bodies because we count them as our constituents and we represent them.
New clause 9 would make the data that the boundaries are drawn on fuller and more accurate than the data that they are currently drawn on. As Professor James outlines in his written evidence, different countries use different data to draw their electoral constituencies, including population data, population estimates and electoral registers that have been made more accurate by using local government data.
The Chair
It has been admitted that I was given the wrong script. Like a barrister, of course, I insisted that that was a point. However, I have powers to change the order, and that is why I have allowed Cat Smith, who was right to be confused, to make a point. The Minister has also agreed to respond to new clause 9.
Chloe Smith
I am happy to do so, Sir David. I thank the hon. Lady for raising this interesting issue, which touches on some of the broader themes that were raised in the witness session, which we may not necessarily come to in the rest of our consideration.
As the hon. Lady explained, this proposal would insert a new clause into rule 5(1) of schedule 2 to the 1986 Act—the factors set I mentioned earlier—to add an additional factor that the commissions may take into consideration. As I understand it, she thinks there ought to be
“data from the Department for Work and Pensions about non-registered voters”
who are eligible to vote, should they choose to register.
We have already discussed, and no doubt will again, the fact that boundary reviews are conducted on the basis of the electorate. That is a major principle. The electorate are defined at paragraph 9(2) of schedule 2 to the 1986 Act as being
“the total number of persons whose names appear on the relevant version of a register of parliamentary electors.”
The register of electors is used, and has always been used, because it is the most up-to-date, verified and accurate source of information we have on those who are eligible to vote. Hon. Members who enjoyed the witness sessions will recall that we had some discussion about what it means to talk in terms of completeness and accuracy. These are the signal terms we use when we talk about the electoral register.
This proposal goes beyond that because it talks about those who are not registered. I understand the desire to catch and reflect those who are eligible to vote but who, for whatever reason, have not registered to do so. However, I have to tell the Committee that there are some significant practical considerations that argue against this proposal, because it does not take them into account.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am listening carefully to the debate. Is one of the important points that we represent everybody, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood said? We are using a set of data taken from a set point in time and collected in a set way, but we do not just represent the people on the electoral register. We represent everybody who is in our community, including everybody under the age of 18, who are not on the electoral register. Whether there are more people or not, we are not disenfranchising them from the service they may receive from a Member of Parliament. That is an important distinction.
Chloe Smith
Yes, I think that is right; I agree with my right hon. Friend’s characterisation. Certainly, I aspire to that in my work, and I know that will be true across the Committee. The fact of the matter is that when constructing a review, and the framework that sits around it, we need to make a definition somewhere. If we believe in equal constituencies, we have to believe in an ability to find a number to define equality, and that has always been taken to be those who are registered as voters.
Ben Lake
I appreciate the point that the Minister makes about the practicalities of us getting things right and where we draw the line, but given that we know that in certain areas—I know about some wards in my constituency—only 35% of the eligible electorate are actually registered, that is the figure that would be taken into consideration when favouring boundaries. I echo the point made by the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell—we have to represent everybody. Those individuals who have not registered to vote will perhaps come to us for help and assistance. That is a point we need to explore further.
Chloe Smith
May I put on the record how much I appreciated the illustration the hon. Gentleman made to the Committee earlier about those who have second homes in his constituency? He gave a powerful illustration of the problem at hand for those who have their second homes in his constituency, perhaps in a slightly different direction in income terms from the thinking in this proposal.
Let me come to what is being asked in this proposed measure. My principal, practical point, which I make to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, is that the DWP does not actually have such a dataset. It does not have a dataset that specifically identifies eligible electors who are not registered to vote. In keeping with its purpose and powers, the Department holds data on those who pay tax or are in receipt of a benefit. That will certainly include individuals who are eligible to vote but not registered, and perhaps even the majority of such people—who knows?
My point is that we do not know that. However, those people would not be identifiable as such, because that is not the purpose of the DWP data. To create such a dataset, the Department would need to match its records with the electoral register, eliminate registered electors and generate a fresh, accurate list of those from its first dataset who are not registered but who are eligible to be. That would require a new data-matching process and a new power to share data for that purpose and place a new duty on the DWP. I think that the Committee will understand that I am not in a position today to accept such a new clause and argue that the DWP should proceed in that way. That is not within the scope of the Bill.
Alec Shelbrooke
I assume that I am right, although I stand to be corrected, in saying that not all voters who are registered can vote in a general election. There are voters who can vote in a local but not a general election. That is another factor that would have to be taken into account.
Chloe Smith
Here we go on the discussion of the franchise, which is a very large discussion, and I think, Sir David, you would rightly suggest we stay off it and remain within the matter in hand; but my right hon. Friend makes the point well that there are a number of different franchises in operation in this country, and there are a number of arguments for other groups to be added to the franchise. There are common arguments that those under 18, or European Union electors, should be added, but they are not in the scope of the Bill before the Committee, and in my opinion that is right. We have the correct data set, identified under the 1986 Act, as amended, and upheld in the Bill .
I hope that hon. Members will agree that the requirement that the new clause would put on the Department for Work and Pensions would not be technically correct or proportionate to its aim. I might add—although it is perhaps unwise as it might reopen the debate that we had about how the boundary commissions use data—that there is a further step that needs to be thought through, about how any such data could be used by the commissions. To use an example that I know hon. Members will appreciate, DWP records are not broken down by electoral ward—the very thing that we just spent some time discussing as the primary building block for parliamentary constituencies. A quite complex matching process would be required. That would take some time and of course doing it would have a price tag attached.
That is not the principal subject that the Committee is considering. I welcome the interest of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood in how to include all people in our democratic process—the process represented in the Bill. She is coming from an admirable, principled place in tabling the new clause, and I have great sympathy with it, because I, like her, want as many people as possible to be registered to vote and take part, and to be counted within the purview of the Bill. However, I do not think that the new clause is a correct or proportionate way to achieve the goal.
David Linden
I think that some time has elapsed, and the conversation has moved on somewhat, since I spoke to amendments 8 and 9. I referred to myself as a cheeky chappie, and the Minister referred to me as an agent provocateur, and of course the right hon. Member for Basingstoke is right: I do not have any skin in the game in this debate, because the situation is different north of the border. However, I was genuinely interested in what came up in the course of the evidence sittings. The point brought out a degree of interest in the Committee, and I tabled amendments 8 and 9 on that basis. I think most Members will have guessed by now that they are probing amendments. I am relatively satisfied that they fulfilled the objective of stimulating debate and thought in the Government, and on that basis I thank the Committee for the discussion, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
David Linden
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 6, page 4, line 36, leave out
‘which exist, or are prospective, on the review date’.
This amendment removes the restriction on the local government boundaries the Boundary Commissions may take into account, rather than fixing them at a technical level as at the start of the review.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 7, in clause 6, page 4, line 38, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
This is linked to amendment 6 and removes the detailed definition of a “prospective” local government boundary.
David Linden
I rise to speak to amendments 6 and 7, tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion. I do not wish to detain the Committee for long, so I will be brief in explaining the rationale behind these probing amendments. One of the clearest themes throughout our evidence hearings, particularly with boundary commissioners, was a request to leave them with as much latitude and flexibility as possible and not to tie their hands. The amendments seek to remove the restriction on local government boundaries that the boundary commission may take into account, rather than fixing them at a technical level as at the start of the review.
The use of modern technologies should give the boundary commissions the ability to adapt to local authority reviews during the course of their reviews in a way not envisaged when the original legislation was put in place in 1944. There are also likely to be local authority ward reviews all but completed at the start of the review but for which orders had not been laid to give effect to them. I am all for giving the boundary commissions the flexibility they need to get on with the job, and I hope that the Government are with me on that. The Bill helps in allowing prospective boundaries to be taken into account, but they are all fixed at the start of the review, and I am for further flexibility.
As I indicated, this is a probing amendment, so I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on the merit of the suggestion and whether the Government feel that such flexibility for the boundary commission would be of use. I am happy to resume my seat and hear what the Minister has to say.
Ben Lake
I do not wish to detain the Committee for long. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow East explained the rationale behind the amendments and how we want to probe for a bit of debate. This gives me an opportunity to make history, potentially, because I will urge caution about accepting the amendment that I support, in the light of written evidence from Councillor Dick Cole of Cornwall Council, submitted to the Committee after the oral evidence sessions concluded. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on his letter, and particularly on the rights of Cornwall as a historic nation. Sir David, you were kind to allow me to tread on unfamiliar territory during the evidence sessions in asking about feelings about a cross-Tamar constituency. Having studied the matter further, I understand that people in Cornwall feel strongly about it, and rightly so.
The Committee’s attention should be drawn in particular to a decision made by the UK Government in 2014, where they recognised the Cornish people through the framework convention for the protection of national minorities. One part of the convention seeks to protect the political integrity of territories associated with groups such as the Cornish people. When the Minister sums up, could she say whether anything can be done as part of the Bill to address such concerns? I note there are a few calls for a boundary commission for Cornwall to be set up. I would be interested in hearing what is possible, because Councillor Cole has raised valid concerns that we should at least look at.
Chloe Smith
I am sorry to add to possible confusion, but before the hon. Member sits down, is he referring to amendments 6 and 7 or to amendment 1?
Ben Lake
That is a good question. I am talking about amendments 6 and 7 in terms of the ability not to hold too tightly to local government boundaries. Of course, at the moment Cornwall Council is a local government boundary, and the amendments could allow for the Boundary Commission for England to introduce a cross-Tamar constituency, if it deemed that necessary.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am once again most grateful to the hon. Member for Glasgow East for taking the time to table these probing amendments, because this is an important part of the Bill and we should discuss whether we can assist the boundary commission when it goes about its work in England. As we know, when the quotas come out, they are based on regions, with certain regions having to lose seats and other regions having to gain seats. It seems odd that regions are broken down into specific local government authority boundaries.
I was born in 1976 and I still get grief on my doorsteps in Wetherby about the 1974 redistribution of councils, and the fact that people are now in West Yorkshire and not North Yorkshire. People tend not to ever forgive local government boundary changes even when they are long ago.
Cat Smith
I thank the honourable Yorkshireman for giving way. [Laughter.] On that point, the case has been made by Cornish people that they do not wish to see a seat cross the Cornish-Devon border; I think that view is clear and unanimous in Cornwall. I support Cornish people in that. As a Lancashire lass, I would be very disappointed to see a constituency drawn up that crossed into the white rose county from my red rose county.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am most grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. I have often said that if God had wanted Yorkshire and Lancashire to meet, he would not have put a huge lump of granite between us.
However, there is an important point here, namely that the arbitrary nature of local authority boundaries is a strange thing. In 1974, Leeds was the only authority that got bigger; all the other authorities got smaller but the Leeds metropolitan authority swept way out of what had been the Leeds City Council area and took in areas such as Pudsey, West Riding Council and all those areas.
My constituents generally do not consider themselves to be part of Leeds. However, I am a Leeds city MP, in a county constituency and a borough constituency, which gives some idea of how that is defined in the geography of election expenses. Equally, I remember a particular opponent in one of the elections who was trying to establish their credibility to stand in the area. They went to certain parts of my constituency waving the flag about what a strong Leeds Rhinos fan they were, in rugby league. I am not a rugby league fan, and am clear that I am not, but I do know that in the areas that said opponent was talking about being a Leeds Rhinos fan, the people were all Castleford Tigers fans, so I was quite pleased with that bit of electioneering.
John Spellar
Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us which football team he does support?
The Chair
Order. We are wandering all over the show. Please may we get back to the Bill?
Mrs Miller
Hon. Members are making important points about their parts of the country, which is underlining the fact that it is different in different areas. For example, the original boundaries of my own constituency of Basingstoke went very near the Berkshire border—not a million miles away from the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury—and parts of that part of Hampshire used to be in Berkshire and have Berkshire postcodes. People who live in that part of Hampshire think they live in Berkshire, but they do not; they live in Hampshire. There might be a little less rivalry between Hampshire and Berkshire than between Lancashire and Yorkshire, which is why sensitivity on the ground is so important.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am not a historian, but there was no war between Berkshire and Hampshire—no wars of the roses.
Christian Matheson
I am listening to the points being made by the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Basingstoke, but I am not quite clear where the consensus lies. There is an administrative issue that I would ask him to consider when making his argument. He might not want parliamentary boundaries to reflect local government boundaries—no, to be fair, he does not want that to be a primary concern—but there has to be administration of elections, and the fewer local authorities that a constituency is spread across the better.
Once those elections have taken place, there is also less of a workload for a Member of Parliament when he or she represents one local authority, or in some cases two. It becomes difficult to represent more than two local authorities, and the level of service given to constituents is less. Will the right hon. Gentleman take that into account?
Alec Shelbrooke
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making those points, because I have done some research into that. My constituency is covered only by Leeds City Council, and only five wards of it, because we have such big wards—I have 15 councillors in my constituency. In fact, in most of the Leeds constituencies, there are only four wards, which might give him some idea of where we are. In the Morley and Outwood constituency, the Outwood wards are under the Wakefield authority. The Selby and Ainsty constituency, which is in North Yorkshire, has North Yorkshire County Council, Selby District Council and parts of Harrogate Borough Council and Craven District Council. Many seats are spread over more than one local authority.
I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty (Nigel Adams)—he is my neighbour—and asked him about the specifics, such as whether it creates problems. He says that, overall, he is able to deal with those areas. There is a distinction between spreading across authorities in rural areas and in joint metropolitan areas, or things like that. Perhaps that is what the hon. Member for City of Chester refers to.
Christian Matheson
The right hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way. I am concerned about constituencies spread across more than two council areas. Two is manageable, but I do not believe that three would be, which is why I disagree with his view that we should ignore local authority boundaries.
Alec Shelbrooke
As I said, my hon. Friend the Member for Selby and Ainsty has four local authorities in his constituency, but I seriously take on board what the hon. Gentleman says about more than two authorities. That still comes back to the point that I am making—a constituency does not have to stay within one local authority. We can keep like communities together and make that work—people want the communities that they understand—especially when a region has a situation: North Yorkshire is half a seat short and West Yorkshire is half a seat short, so there will have to be that crossover. It should not just be an arbitrary line drawn on a map; it is about having regard to like communities.
The only point that I am trying to bring out through this probing amendment—I hope the Boundary Commission for England will look at a way to do it—is that, although some of these things seem obvious, actually in communities they are not so obvious. That is why I used the example of the people of Sherburn in Elmet, who are in North Yorkshire and are covered by Selby District Council and North Yorkshire County Council. They are in a different constituency from me in West Yorkshire and the Leeds City Council area, but they think I am their MP because my constituency has the word “Elmet” in it.
There are local considerations that cannot be defined by the local boundaries. I hope that this probing amendment is able to bring out the need for guidance and advice, which we can give to the Boundary Commission and say, “These things are not as vital.” I am sure that it will have heard the hon. Member for City of Chester, who said that two authorities do not seem to be a problem, but it is stretching it when we start to move beyond that.
Chris Clarkson
I will start by disappointing the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, because there are actually a number of seats that cross the Lancashire county boundary into Yorkshire, including Ribble Valley, and Oldham East and Saddleworth. If she wants to hear how strongly people can feel about it, she should ask my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) what happened when he put a red rose on Earby library.
I completely understand the depth of feeling about crossing the Tamar. Actually, Cornwall is about the right size for six seats, so that is unlikely to happen. There are actually four seats in the north-west that cross the Mersey.
We need to look at the fact that local government boundaries, as they are currently constituted after Redcliffe-Maud, are actually fairly arbitrary. Bits were hived off from one area to another based on things such as local transport links and who went to work in what area. I think that a little more attention needs to be paid to natural community boundaries when we have to look at crossing county boundaries, which will inevitably have to happen in some areas.
The hon. Member for City of Chester makes a very important point about trying to limit it to as few local government areas as possible. To the best of my knowledge, in the north-west there is only one seat that contains areas from three councils: Penrith and the Border, which is geographically massive.
Alec Shelbrooke
I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. There is something that I forgot to say, and it might add strength to his argument. There is a planning application that got kicked out by the Secretary of State that would have led to hundreds of houses being built right on the border of Wetherby, but in the Harrogate Borough Council area and North Yorkshire. Not a single person moving into one of those houses would have thought that they lived in Harrogate; they would have thought that they lived in Wetherby. That is one of the reasons why it got kicked out. Again, it is an arbitrary boundary. If someone knocks on the door of the people who live there, who are literally a 10-minute walk from Wetherby town centre, they will not say that they live in Harrogate.
Chris Clarkson
My right hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. Every Monday morning, my office sends a load of casework to the hon. Member for Rochdale (Tony Lloyd), because 30% of my seat is Rochdale and people do not automatically think that I am their MP. The reality is that if we are too prescriptive about local government boundaries, we will go back to having these odd Frankenstein seats where we are trying to conform with electoral boundaries. I do not think that being too prescriptive is the right approach.
Christian Matheson
I agree with the hon. Gentleman about not being too prescriptive, but he cannot have it both ways. As he said previously, he also supports the 5% absolute tolerance on the numbers. I am pleased to hear him talking about not being too prescriptive, so will he bear that in mind as we proceed through our consideration of the Bill?
Chris Clarkson
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it is foremost in my mind, which is why I was very glad to have the debate that was sparked by the hon. Member for Glasgow East. We need to be less prescriptive about the units that we use to build things, but there is a common-sense approach that does not involve taking ridiculous leaps by keeping whole units together, just because they have arbitrarily been drawn one way by the Local Government Boundary Commission.
Chloe Smith
We have now tapped into one of the very rich seams of community interest and detail in and around the Bill. I will make some general comments about what clause 6 does in order to accommodate explanation of what the amendment might do. I hope that will help the Committee.
I will begin by referring back to the fact that, in coming up with their proposals, the boundary commissions have a set of factors to which they are allowed to refer. I will read out the wording, which states that commissions
“may take into account, if and to such extent as they think fit”.
It is very clear in the legislation that that is a “may” power —it may be used and is there if it is needed—rather than being a “must”. The relevant factors include geographical features such as rivers or mountains, community ties, existing parliamentary constituencies and local government boundaries. The Bill does not change that.
David Linden
My intention with amendments 6 and 7 was certainly not to declare war between Norfolk and Suffolk. As I outlined in my remarks, they are probing amendments; my intention was to stimulate discussion, and I am content that that has happened. At one stage, I was almost getting ready to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion to move over and let the right hon. Member for Elmet and Rothwell come over and join the Celtic alliance.
More seriously, I think these amendments have informed the Committee’s debates, which was their objective. I am grateful for having had the opportunity to discuss them, and on that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Eddie Hughes (Walsall North) (Con)
On a point of order, Sir David. I think we have had a very productive day so far, and our intention was to conclude proceedings at 4.45 pm.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Eddie Hughes.)
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill (First sitting)
Thursday 25th June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 View all Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 June 2020 - (25 Jun 2020)
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a couple of housekeeping points to make. Please make sure that electronic devices are on silent. I am afraid that tea and coffee are not allowed; water is, along as it has not been near a tea bag or any coffee granules. Social distancing must be observed. Our Hansard reporters would be grateful if Members could email any electronic copies of their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Please do remove jackets at any point under my chairmanship as we proceed through the Bill.
We will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to allow us to deliberate in private briefly, before moving to the oral evidence session. I hope we can get through these first bits without too much debate. I call the Minister to move the programme motion that was agreed by the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
I beg to move, Day Time Witness Thursday 25 June Until no later than 12.30 pm Jonathan Hall QC, Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation Thursday 25 June Until no later than 13.00 pm The National Police Chiefs’ Council Thursday 25 June Until no later than 14.30 pm Prison Reform Trust Thursday 25 June Until no later than 15.00 pm The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission Thursday 25 June Until no later than 15.30 pm Law Society of Scotland Thursday 25 June Until no later than 16.00 pm Professor Donald Grubin, Newcastle University Tuesday 30 June Until no later than 9.55 am The Professional Trades Union for Prison, Correctional and Secure Psychiatric Workers Tuesday 30 June Until no later than 10.25 am The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change Tuesday 30 June Until no later than 10.55 am Professor Andrew Silke, Cranfield University
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30 am on Thursday 25 June) meet;
(a) at 2.00 pm on Thursday 25 June;
(b) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 30 June;
(c) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 2 July;
(d) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 7 July;
(e) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 9 July;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following table:
TABLE
(3) proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clause 1; Schedule 1; Clause 2; Schedule 2; Clause 3; Schedule 3; Clauses 4 to 6; Schedule 4; Clauses 7 to 19; Schedule 5; Clauses 20 and 21; Schedule 6; Clauses 22 and 23; Schedule 7; Clauses 24 and 25; Schedule 8; Clauses 26 and 27; Schedule 9; Clause 28; Schedule 10; Clauses 29 to 36; Schedule 11; Clauses 37 to 45; Schedule 12; Clauses 46 to 48; Schedule 13; Clauses 49 to 53; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
(4) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 14 July.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I have one point of clarification to make. Yesterday, in the Programming Sub-Committee, we discussed whether we should invite the Prison Officers Association or the Prison Governors Association. On further investigation, it transpires that the Professional Trades Union for Prison, Correctional and Secure Psychiatric Workers is in fact the Prison Officers Association—that is its full name. We will therefore see the Prison Officers Association on Tuesday at 9.25 am. We had contacted the Prison Governors Association, but I am told that, rather surprisingly, it did not reply. That should satisfy the request that the shadow Minister made yesterday.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Chris Philp.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Chris Philp.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be made available in the Committee Room.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Jonathan Hall QC, who is the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation. Welcome, and thank you very much for coming. I think I am supposed to ask you to introduce yourself, but I have just done that, so we will go straight into questioning.
Chris Philp
Q
I am sure we have all read the notes that you very helpfully prepared on this legislation and published on your website at the end of May and the beginning of June. I have them in front of me and have read them with great interest. To start, I want to ask about TPIMs—terrorism prevention and investigation measures—which were the subject of some debate on Second Reading. I want first to ask about the current circumstances in which a TPIM expires and has to be reapplied for from scratch without it being possible to use the previous evidence from two or more years before. Do you think there are circumstances in which public safety may still demand a TPIM beyond the two-year period? Are these proposals a better way of handling it than the current method?
Jonathan Hall: The answer is yes, there are be circumstances in which someone ought to be subject to controls for longer than two years. Yes, there will be circumstances in which it will be appropriate to rely on terrorism-related activity that predates the imposition of the first TPIM. I understand the business case, if you like, for allowing an extension beyond the two-year period. However, the reason I question in the first instance whether it is justified is that it is none the less possible, as the law currently stands, to extend beyond two years. There are two current examples—I will not go into the details—of where a second and fresh TPIM has been imposed.
The practical consequence of the current regime is that some will come off controls, and if they have literally lain doggo and have done nothing for that two-year period, the police and MI5 will have to start assembling a new case, assuming that the person re-engages with terrorism-related activity. There could be a gap period during which that terrorism-related activity is going on, during which the case is being built when they are re-imposed.
If TPIMs were currently imposed against attack planners, I would have fewer observations to make about the ability to extend further. However, in practice, as I said in my note, having spoken to officials, TPIMs are really currently used against radicalisers. It is certainly the case that public safety is not helped by radicalisation activities, but as things currently stand, people subject to TPIMs are not the attack planners, who, if they are free from restrictions, might go and do something very violent. More likely, they will re-engage in radicalising activities. As shown by the fact that two new TPIMs have been imposed, it is currently possible to manage that risk.
I understand the business case, more than I do for the lowering of the standard of proof, which we can come to separately. At the moment, I do not understand why it is needed as TPIMs are currently used.
Chris Philp
Q
Jonathan Hall: Yes, I have worked it out. In one case it was a gap of a year, and in the second it was a gap of 16 months.
Chris Philp
Q
Jonathan Hall: What I would say is that the risk was managed, as the law currently stands. There was a gap, but in fact, it is not as if something very bad happened from those sources in that period, as far as I can work out, having read the materials that I have read.
Chris Philp
Q
Jonathan Hall: Yes.
Chris Philp
Q
Jonathan Hall: The latter. I am quite satisfied that the Government are doing that.
Chris Philp
Q
Jonathan Hall: You asked me about the current TPIMs. I cannot speak for all the uses of control orders and TPIMs that have happened before my period. There is a risk that mistakes can be made about assessing intelligence. I have reason to believe that. My concern is that you are opening up a greater margin of error if the standard of proof is lowered. It is a fairness issue based on the authorities having all the cards.
The point that you make, which is that the authorities can be generally trusted to make TPIMs against the right people, to my mind rather demonstrates that a change is unnecessary. The authorities have been able to impose TPIMs, as far as I can see, where they have wanted to. I am not aware of cases where the authorities would like to have imposed a TPIM if the standard of proof had been lower—where they could say, “We think this person’s a terrorist, but they may not be and we’d like to impose a TPIM, but we can’t, because we cannot show on the balance of probabilities.” I am not aware of that sort of case. So I agree that the authorities can be trusted and, at the moment, I think things are working okay.
The regime of control orders and TPIMs has fluctuated over the years since it was introduced. It has been subject to a lot of scrutiny and consideration by my predecessors and by the courts. It has landed in a reasonably good place. The danger about changing unnecessarily is that, maybe not now, but in a few years’ time, you might provoke an overreaction.
I will give an example of that. When the control order regime came in, it was seen as a bit illiberal and that led to the removal of the power to relocate individuals when the TPIM regime was introduced. Eventually, my predecessor David Anderson, the Government and Parliament agreed that it was necessary to bring back that power of relocation. So if you like, there was a period when the public were less safe because the ability to relocate had been removed, and the reason why that ability to relocate had been removed is that it was the reaction to what had been seen as a slightly illiberal measure. If it is right that the current standard of proof is usable and fair, and I think it is, in a word, if it ain’t broke, why fix it?
Chris Philp
Q
Jonathan Hall: Yes, but of course if the standard of proof is lowered, the extent of judicial protection is lowered, because the judge will not be asking him or herself, “Was the Secretary of State right to be satisfied on the balance of probability that this person is a terrorist?” The judge would have to say, “Well, in theory, they may not be a terrorist, but the Home Secretary’s view that they may be a terrorist is reasonable,” so you would remove the judicial protection.
Chris Philp
Q
Jonathan Hall: Yes.
Chris Philp
Q
Jonathan Hall: I am not aware of any misuse, but I am aware of circumstances in which the intelligence was misunderstood.
Chris Philp
Q
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) raised the question of someone who had been a member of Daesh returning from Syria. Of course, if somebody has been circulating in Syria, it is very hard to establish their activities on the balance of probabilities. It is hard to get witness testimony and there will be no intelligence surveillance, but the fact remains that they have been to Syria and done whatever they have done over there. In those circumstances, is it conceivable that, when British citizens who are members of Daesh return from somewhere like Syria, the lower burden of proof might be helpful, or in fact necessary?
Jonathan Hall: I have thought a little about this. It is certainly the case that evidential coverage of what goes on in Daesh-controlled areas will be limited, which is why prosecution is particularly difficult. Intelligence coverage might be more, but it might be patchy. I think that if someone has been in Syria for a long time, it is a pretty obvious inference that they have been up to no good, so I do not think that you would need the lower standard of proof. You would not say, “I reasonably suspect that because you spent five years in Syria, you were engaged in terrorism-related activity.” My own view is that a judge would say, “On the balance of probabilities, you were engaged in terrorism-related activity.” Of course, there will always be some coverage. I do not think that what you said is right, although I see where you are coming from.
Chris Philp
Q
Jonathan Hall: Yes, but I think that, with respect, what you are missing out is the big factual matter, which would be undisputed, that they were in Syria. The Secretary of State’s starting point would be, “Here is a matter of fact, undisputed, that somebody spent all those years in Syria.” I think that that would provide a fairly good jumping-off point for an inference that they were engaged in terrorism-related activity.
Chris Philp
Q
Jonathan Hall: I think that judges, when they come to consider these matters, are prepared to draw robust inferences. They are not fools. No doubt the Secretary of State would also not be fooled by someone who simply claimed that they were there for humanitarian reasons.
Chris Philp
Q
Jonathan Hall: The difficulty with terrorism risk is that it is quite difficult to measure. You have actuarial tools to look at whether people who have committed burglary will reoffend, and they are reasonably robust. You do not have those sorts of tools for terrorism. As I probably said in my notes, some of the factors that you normally associate with reoffending—for example, not having a stable family background—do not tend to work so well with terrorism offenders. You find terrorism offenders who come from a stable background and have a job, so it is inherently difficult to identify the probability that someone will reoffend.
The approach that I took when I did my MAPPA review was that the more information, the better. I agree that the probation service, the police and MI5 will be carrying out assessments, but you lose the confrontation that takes place at a Parole Board hearing. As you have probably done, I have attended such a hearing, where there is an opportunity for the chairman to speak to the offender in quite a formal setting. It brings something different to the table, which you would obviously lose. You would definitely have covert intelligence sources, and you would have overt management in the sense of the police being able to speak to the offender, but you would lose the opportunity for a confrontation before they have been released. You are losing something—that is probably how I would put it.
Chris Philp
Q
Jonathan Hall: The Parole Board has two choices: it could release early, but it could, and often will, decide not to release early and say, “Actually, you’re far too dangerous.” That additional source of information about their risk will then be very useful to the security services when they are eventually released.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Q
I, too, am grateful for the work that you do, Jonathan. I want to ask you a number of questions away from TPIMs; my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North will deal with that issue. You have produced three notes on the Bill, and I want to address questions from two of them—it might be helpful for the notes to be entered as written evidence.
Point 10 of your first note states:
“The requirement of a minimum mandatory sentence for all adult offenders, however young, puts in doubt whether judges can properly reflect the fact that an adult of 18 years and one month may not be any more mature than a child of 17 years and 11 months (for whom these sentences are not available). Age may or may not result in ‘exceptional circumstances’ being found, which is the only basis on which the 14-year minimum can be avoided.”
That strikes me as a cautionary note, and I invite you to talk a bit more about that. How specifically will this piece of legislation be different for younger offenders?
Alex Cunningham
I am referring to the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation’s “Note on Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill: Sentencing Reforms (1)”.
Jonathan Hall: I have identified what is really a policy choice for Parliament. As a matter of fact, I can say that an increasing number of quite young people are being caught up in terrorism, including new forms of terrorism—not just conventional Islamist, extremist or right-wing terrorism, but other new emerging forms, such as the incel movement or even things at the very boundaries of what you might consider terrorism that are very violent. It is not impossible that young people will be caught up in this.
The point I am making—I have referred to an authority from England and Wales and I think I have also referred to the approach in Scotland—is that there is recognition that people who are young and immature are probably more susceptible to change than adults. I suppose it is a choice for Parliament, but the age for a mandatory minimum sentence—meaning no prospect of early release, and effectively putting to one side the possibility of reform—might be raised to 21, rather than that being for those in the 18-to-21 bracket. I understand that in Scotland there is a debate over whether it should be as far as 25.
All I can do is identify the choice that has been made and point out that when it comes to sentencing, traditionally it is recognised that people are not necessarily that different when they are one month over 18 as opposed to one month under 18.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall: That is what judges are increasingly finding.
Alex Cunningham
Q
“Conversely, determining whether a 7-year, 15-year or 25-year licence is appropriate at the point of sentencing for dangerous individuals who have committed the most serious offences may be asking courts to engage in guesswork.”
What would be your advice to the Committee on that particular issue?
Jonathan Hall: I have imagined putting oneself in the position of the sentencing judge, who is faced by someone who has carried out a very serious attack planning offence, risking multiple casualties, and let us say they are 25 or 30. As I think I have said before, it is very hard to judge terrorist risk. It is particularly hard for sentencing judges, because they operate on an open basis; they are not going to look at secret intelligence, for good reasons. So the judge’s task is particularly difficult at the point of sentence, and it seems to be quite difficult for a judge to work out sentencing for a 25-year-old who has committed a really serious attack planning offence. When they are released from prison, are they going to be worth monitoring for seven or for 25 years? Again, it is a choice for Parliament.
What I have identified, I suppose, is that if one were going to impose a mandatory sentence, there might be thought to be more sense in imposing an indeterminate sentence—in other words, where someone has fallen into this category of really serious offending, realising that they could be a risk for life and keeping them in prison for life, unless and until they are seen as safe to be released, and then once they have been released, keeping them on licence for life and giving the flexibility to the authorities, which includes, I should say, where eventually someone, one hopes, is no longer a threat, to roll that up and bring that licence to an end; because there is a slight risk of storing up trouble for future generations if you have increasingly long periods for licences. When they are no longer necessary, how do you bring them to an end? I do not think there is that scope at the moment. To answer your question—I am sorry to have gone on so long about that—
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall: Very much. One of the final points I make in my note about removing the Parole Board’s role is that, again, if it is right that children are more likely to change, and as a matter, perhaps, of fairness, one ought to give them the opportunity, then removing the opportunity to say, at the halfway or two-thirds point, “I have now genuinely changed; that was me then and this is me now,” where it can be shown to the satisfaction of the Parole Board, does seem a little bit—I would not necessarily say “unfair”, but it fails to recognise the difference between adults and children.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall: I do not want to get into the role of persuading anyone. If you like—
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall: The practical point is one I have addressed, which is that identifying terrorist risk is really difficult. The role of the Parole Board is quite an important part of identifying terrorist risk, and if you don’t have that role then you lose that insight.
Alex Cunningham
Q
“an offence has a terrorist connection if the offence—
(a) is, or takes place in the course of, an act of terrorism, or
(b) is committed for the purposes of terrorism.”
Do you think that is clear enough to aid the courts, or do the Government need to provide more clarity in the definition?
Jonathan Hall: I think it is clear enough. It is taken from the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. It is now being incorporated into the new sentencing code and it has worked well.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall: It is consistent with my point about not losing sources of information. Because it so difficult to identify whether someone will commit a terrorist offence, and as the Usman Khan case perhaps demonstrates, there are difficulties in managing released terrorist offenders or predicting what they might do. Polygraphs provide an additional source of information.
I came at this subject reasonably fresh; I read the literature on the use in England and Wales with sex offenders. I can see that the number of clinically significant disclosures is really material, and it seems to me that it would be very sensible to use that in the same way—so you ask, “Have you been on the internet?”, as a closed question—for terrorist offenders.
So, it is an additional source of information, which I think it would be sensible to use. It would do two things. One is that in certain cases it would allow the authority to find out when they are being gamed and played by manipulative and deceptive dangerous offenders. On the other hand, to some extent it would reduce the burden of the authorities. That is because the police and probation service face really difficult choices in this area. There will be a natural caution, for example, about removing someone’s licence condition. However, if you can use a polygraph test and satisfy yourself that someone is telling the truth, then it may allow you to remove some conditions and allow someone to normalise. And although that sounds odd in the context of terrorist offenders, ultimately you want people who are released to engage in a normal way in society—in other words, allowing them to get jobs and to live in their home area, and the like.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall: I know, from when I did the review of the multi-agency public protection arrangements, that a lot of resources are being put into this area, and there are special probation officers trained in counter-terrorism. I do not think I can comment on how much resource you need for 25 years, but a lot of resource is being put into the area, which is to be welcomed.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Jonathan Hall: I have not seen them.
Alex Cunningham
The question is probably useless, then. I was going to ask whether they had reassured you that things had changed for the better, but clearly you have not seen them.
Jonathan Hall: No. I am sorry; I have not seen them.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Q
I will start by asking you a couple of questions about the effect of the proposed sentencing changes in Scotland. You have produced a “Note on Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill: Sentencing Reforms (3)” that deals with the effect of the proposed sentencing changes in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In particular, in paragraphs 8 and 9, you raise the question of how what is proposed for Scotland under clause 6 of the Bill impacts on the existing sentence in Scotland called an order for lifelong restriction. Can you tell us about that?
Jonathan Hall: Scotland has a unique sentence. It has a very respected body called the Risk Management Authority, and if a risk assessment is made under the auspices of the authority that shows that someone is a real risk, the High Court in Scotland can pass an indeterminate sentence with a punishment part, but with the consequence that someone is liable to be detained until they are safe enough to be released, when they are released but very carefully monitored.
I do not know whether this was intended or an oversight, but it seems paradoxical that, as things currently stand, if a judge in Scotland found that the criteria for a serious terrorism sentence were made out, he or she would have to pass a determinate sentence, if they did not otherwise pass a life sentence, even if ordinarily they might want to pass one of these orders for lifelong restriction. One would have thought that an OLR would provide more protection for the public than a determinate sentence. I do not know whether that has been dealt with in the amendments that have just been referred to.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Jonathan Hall: It is the fact that risk changes. You want to make a decision about when someone is going to be released in the light of all the information at the point of time at which release becomes an issue. People might become more radical in prison, and it seems to me that allowing a body to make a decision on whether they are safe in the light of all the information is preferable to a decision to impose a determinate sentence taken by a judge, who does not know, actually, whether in the 14 years or 16 years imposed that person will be safe.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Jonathan Hall: I think it is carried out not by the Risk Management Authority but by assessors who are certified by the authority. I am not a Scottish lawyer, but that is my understanding.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Jonathan Hall: Yes, it is. One of the things that I discovered when I did my MAPPA review is that there is probably work to be done to ensure that where a dangerous offender is considered by a Parole Board, whether in Scotland or in England and Wales, all the information relevant to the question of risk—including, in certain circumstances, sensitive information—is brought to the attention of the Parole Board. There are ways and means of doing that. So there are certainly improvements that can be made about the way in which the Parole Board can operate, but yes, that is right: the Parole Board would have a role.
Joanna Cherry
Q
“It would be preferable if Clause 6 was disapplied where an Order for Lifelong Restriction is passed. This also raises the question of whether a more flexible indeterminate sentence, such as the Order for Lifelong Restriction, is not preferable generally to the inflexibility of a serious terrorism sentence.”
Those are your views. Have you seen anything to change your mind since you wrote the note?
Jonathan Hall: No, those are my views. It is obviously for Parliament. As I say, I do not know whether the position with orders for lifelong restriction was an oversight in the drafting of the Bill. In Northern Ireland, there is something called an indeterminate custodial sentence, and certainly that can be passed in priority to a terrorism sentence. On the question whether a lifelong restriction is better in principle, I have made my views known. The reason, in a nutshell, is that it is a very difficult to judge risk at the point of sentencing.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Jonathan Hall: I do not think I can comment on that.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Jonathan Hall: I have obviously had discussions, but I have not been able to identify a cogent business case. Reference has been made to reducing the administrative burden. I do not fully understand that point because, as I said in my note, there are cases in which what you might call a new variant or a light-touch TPIM has been made. The courts have yet to say that those are not an acceptable way of proceeding, so it seems to me that there are options already on the table.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Jonathan Hall: No. What has been communicated to me is that this is something for the future. There is a phrase that counter-terrorism officials like to use: “having a tool in the toolbox”. You could probably summarise this by saying that it will be another tool in the toolbox. They cannot necessarily say when they would use it, but it might be beneficial in the future.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Jonathan Hall: I should start by saying that when the control order regime was in force, and the standard was reasonable grounds to suspect, that was not found to be unlawful. I cannot and do not put forward the suggestion that this change would be unlawful; it is a legislative choice.
As far as safeguards are concerned, you will probably have seen from my notes that here you have a double whammy. It is not just reducing the standard of proof but allowing TPIMs to endure forever. Something that was proposed by my predecessor, which would be an option for Parliament, is to say that if it were right that a TPIM should continue beyond two years, at least at that stage the authorities should be able to say, on the balance of probabilities, that the person really is a terrorist. That is an example of a safeguard.
Turning to the question of enduring TPIMs, another safeguard could be to ensure that a judge would have to give permission—in other words, to treat going beyond the two years without any additional proof of new terrorism-related activity as requiring a higher threshold, or some sort of exceptionality or necessity test, as a further safeguard for the subject. Again, I do not think the authorities will be unwise in the way that they use that, but there is a risk that people will be on TPIMs for a very long time indeed. As you say, they have not been prosecuted, and it seems to be right in principle and fair that there should be some additional safeguards for those individuals.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Jonathan Hall: As things currently stand, yes.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Q
Mr Hall, thank you for the very thorough online report. It is over 200 pages, and it is obviously a very thorough piece of work. I want to ask a general question from the perspective of one of my constituents. Looking at the overall measures that the Bill would bring in, you must agree that they will make the average citizen safer.
Jonathan Hall: I think some measures certainly will. For some measures, I am less clear in my mind that they will. It would be going too far to say that some of them would have a negative effect, although there is always a question about whether people being in prison for longer will make them safer when they come out.
Something that I was struck by, when I started doing this job, was that most terrorism sentences are quite short. The reason for that is that counter-terrorism police want to go in early and stop attack planning. They may go in when they have intelligence, but before the evidence is really there. They may have secret sources that they cannot use in court. That often results in finding things on phones or computers, which results in lots of convictions for having attack manuals, but not many convictions for attack planning. In practice, that means that most people convicted of terrorism offences will come out after a period of time.
The police and MI5 are always thinking, “How can we make the risk as low as possible when that person eventually comes out?” Obviously, one of the issues that one has to confront is that prisons do not always end up making people more safe. Extending their time in custody for a bit makes someone safer in the sense that they are off the streets for that period of time, but it does not necessarily mean that they are safer when they come out.
All I would say is, yes, there are some bits that are definitely to be welcomed. Anything that allows additional monitoring, that increases licences and that allows the police more monitoring powers is to be welcomed. Some of the things I am less sure about.
Miss Dines
Q
Jonathan Hall: I think it is the provision that allows a judge to say that any offence, if he or she finds that it is connected to terrorism, is a terrorism offence. That means that the police have a statutory ability to monitor that person for 10, 15 or up to 30 years. That is a really welcome change, which makes people safer.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
Q
TPIMs are not widely in use. You have said that the system works okay—I think that was the phrase you used in this evidence session. Is there a concern that these proposals not only do not make the operation of TPIMs more effective, but actually make them less effective, not just in an operational sense but, given the speculative commentary about their being used as an alternative to prosecution or to deradicalisation strategies, in terms of public perception, which undermines their wider use?
Jonathan Hall: It is quite difficult. I am always cautious about talking about public perception, because I do not have a crystal ball. What one can say is that the best counter-terrorism response, the one that has the most common legitimacy, is criminal prosecution. One should continue to strain to prosecute terrorists. It is fairer, it means the public can see what is being done to protect them, and it results in stronger, tougher disposals.
To pick up on the point that you made, I think I mentioned in my notes that from my consideration of TPIMs, I was not entirely convinced that there was enough scrutiny by the Secretary of State and by officials of the evidential case against individuals. There certainly is consideration by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service, but there is the risk that, once a TPIM has been made and someone has been identified as a risk, that takes priority—in other words, the TPIM is the best way of protecting the public—over trying to get criminal evidence to prosecute, which would be preferable from a public perception point of view.
Conor McGinn
Q
Jonathan Hall: I do not have a sense that there is an intention to spike suddenly, which is why I go back to the question: what exactly is the purpose served by changing the standard of proof?
Conor McGinn
Q
Jonathan Hall: If there is evidence of continuing terrorism, that would meet the current law and allow a new TPIM to be imposed. So far as repudiation is concerned, I expect that, if the law is changed in this way, that is how these matters will be framed. It will be said that there was evidence of somebody being involved in terrorist-related activity, that they have not repudiated their views, and that therefore they remain a risk. I would not venture to suggest that one could amend the law as to how risk should be proven. I think one should leave that reasonably open.
Conor McGinn
Q
When relocation orders were used before, one in six were overturned in court. Are you concerned that this is rather a dubious way to proceed, if you are going to undermine not just the legislation that you are creating but the wider counter-terrorism strategy? A not insignificant proportion of the people subject to relocation orders as part of control orders in the past were able to overturn them in court.
Jonathan Hall: Relocation is an important power. It is regrettable, in the sense that it is a very strong measure and causes a lot of disruption, but I am quite satisfied that in a small number of cases it is needed. You are right to pick up on that when one looks at the enduring TPIM. The combination of lowering the standard of proof, plus the ability for TPIMs to endure forever and the power of the measures, including relocation, means that someone could be forced to live away from their family for up to, say, a decade, on the basis that they only “may” be a terrorist. A possible safeguard is to say that if one is going to do that, one at least ought to be satisfied on the balance of probabilities.
Conor McGinn
Q
Jonathan Hall: Yes.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Q
Jonathan Hall: This is the covert world. I will slightly fudge my answer, because this is more of a technical thing—you might want to ask the next witness. Obviously, the police and MI5 have ways of monitoring and managing people, even if they are not subject to a TPIM. It is something that the authorities have to wrestle with. Some people who have been convicted are on licence, which gives you a way to manage their risk. Some people are on TPIMs. Unfortunately, there are quite a lot of people who are neither on a TPIM nor on licence, and who the authorities have to measure. They have real expertise in dealing with it. It is slightly sensitive to go into details. Your question is probably one for the next witness.
Laura Trott
Q
Jonathan Hall: It would be easier for the police.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Q
Mr Hall, can I address the young adult age group? It has also been referred to by the Opposition. If we accept that there are different questions of maturity, do you also accept that the 18 to 20 age group can be incredibly dangerous?
Jonathan Hall: Yes, and it is not only people who are over 18. It seems to be a phenomenon at the moment. If you think about what is available on the internet, and if you bring in issues such as mental health, young people can be very dangerous. As you know, there was the so-called Anzac Day plot involving a very young person.
Rob Butler
Q
Jonathan Hall: A sceptical Parole Board. Sometimes people look at the Parole Board and see early release. It is certainly correct that the Parole Board would have the power to grant early release, but it often does not release people.
Rob Butler
Q
Jonathan Hall: Yes, I think that would be a legitimate policy choice for Parliament. Can I just clarify one thing? You have the serious terrorism sentence, where the judge’s power is to pass one of these only for people who are 18 or over. In my notes, I have made some points about the 18 to 21 age group. You also have people who are not subject to those orders, but who are dangerous and have been convicted of offences that carry a maximum of life. For those people, including people below the age of 18, the Parole Board role disappears. One choice would be to say that if people are under 18, the Parole Board ought to retain a role.
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) (Con)
Q
Thank you for all your evidence, Mr Hall. On sentencing, we have talked about rehabilitation and risk management quite a lot. The other purposes of sentencing are deterrence, protection of the public and punishment. Do you agree that those purposes are well served by the changes in sentencing that are contained in the Bill?
Jonathan Hall: Yes.
The Chair
We have come to the end of the session. Mr Hall, thank you very much indeed.
Examination of Witness
Assistant Chief Constable Tim Jacques gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from the National Police Chiefs’ Council. Should hon. Members wish to ask a question, it would be helpful if they could catch my eye early in the proceedings, so that I can try to restrict Front Benchers as necessary.
Thank you very much for joining us, Mr Jacques. Could you please briefly introduce yourself and your organisation?
Tim Jacques: I am Tim Jacques. I am an assistant chief constable and I work with counter-terrorism policing here in the UK. I am the deputy senior national co-ordinator.
Chris Philp
Q
Tim Jacques: It will make our job easier, and yes, I believe it will make the public safer.
Chris Philp
Q
Tim Jacques: That is a very long question. On the first point, policing itself is not the applicant for TPIMs; the Security Service is. Am I able to share its view in this forum?
Chris Philp
Please do.
Tim Jacques: First—Jonathan touched on this—there have not been occasions thus far when the current burden of proof has prevented the application of a TPIM. In terms of the numbers, there are six now in place in the UK. Neither we nor the Security Service envisage a large increase in those numbers as a result of the provisions in the Bill. The Security Service points to three instances where it thinks this would have utility from an operational perspective. The first is where an individual’s risk profile is rapidly increasing—hypothetically, somebody who we know might be operating online, but our belief is that they are moving towards posing an actual threat on the street with an attack plan in place. If that is very rapid, which it can now be—we have seen instances of that—then being able to use a lower standard of proof is something that MI5 thinks would be of use.
Secondly—Jonathan touched on this too—there is the issue of somebody returning from abroad, who we believe has been involved in terrorist-related activity overseas, and the issues of evidence in that. The Home Secretary can currently impose temporary exclusion orders at the lower standard of proof. If somebody wants to come back and has a right to come back to the UK, they can be imposed on the lower standard of proof. If someone somehow makes it to the UK under the radar or without our knowledge, the higher burden of proof would have to be applied to impose a TPIM. That is the second case that MI5 would point to.
The third issue, which Jonathan also touched on, relates to sensitive material. TPIMs are challengeable and there is an automatic review and so on. The disclosure of sensitive material would potentially compromise sensitive techniques and therefore make our job and that of the Security Service harder, but the lower standard would assist them in their national security role.
Chris Philp
Q
Tim Jacques: That is the view of the security services. We are not the applicant, but that is their clear view.
Chris Philp
Q
Tim Jacques: Because we jointly manage TPIMs once imposed, I can speak on this. Yes, we do see an increase in the threat if that gap occurs, and that gap has occurred, as Jonathan has pointed out previously.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Tim Jacques: I certainly have a view on that. From a policing perspective—I do not think it is any different for our operational partners—there are two trains in place here: one is punishment and incarceration, which was mentioned earlier; and the other is rehabilitation, desistance and disengagement. Ultimately, the best outcome is the latter: we change the individual’s mindset and view of the world, and mitigate the risk that they pose to the public in an enduring manner. Anything that promotes that prevent, disengagement and deradicalization position is to be welcomed.
Both those options are considered with TPIMs, and indeed with most of the work that we undertake. Both protect the public, if successful. We are conscious of that and drive both of them. Counter-terrorism policing operates across all the Ps of the Government’s counter-terrorism strategy, called Contest, and prevent and pursue are included in that.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Tim Jacques: I cannot comment in detail on the Parole Board element of it. If we can encourage people via the use of TPIMs and the programmes that TPIMs include, that would be a good thing, but the intricacies of sentencing and release are beyond my expert knowledge.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Tim Jacques: There are two elements, as I understand it, where polygraphs are introduced: one is in licence conditions and the other is the use of TPIMs. I can certainly talk about the latter, but maybe not the former.
It is safe to say that the science around polygraphs is not absolutely fool-proof. For that reason, we and the CPS agree that we would never seek to use them as evidence in a criminal prosecution in the UK. By introducing polygraph measures in these circumstances—in TPIMs—you may end up with that evidence through disclosure, not for criminal prosecutions.
The reality is that polygraphs are untested in the terrorist space, but we would welcome the ability to pilot them. We would not necessarily be seeking mandation on every single TPIM. It says “if required”, and again that should be an operational decision for us. They are untested, which is why they are not used in criminal proceedings. They have utility in the management of sex offenders, as Jonathan pointed out, and they may well have utility in the management of terrorist offenders. We would be happy to try that and see where it takes us.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Tim Jacques: Our point has always been that polygraphs are something that may have utility. If the Bill enables that utility, we would be very happy to try that, but whether to use them is an operational decision. They are untested, but the Bill enables them to be tested.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Tim Jacques: I do not want to dodge the question, but these people will come out of prison at some point. My understanding of the measures in the Bill is that they will come out later, rather than sooner. We have to manage and mitigate the risk as and when they come out. We have to manage them when they come out, and they are going to come out at some point. That is the point for us.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Tim Jacques: I do see his point, yes. The new variant, as Jonathan describes it, is about using fewer measures and can include, of course, not relocating the subject, which was a matter of discussion earlier. Because each measure has to be justified as necessary and proportionate to the Home Secretary and then approved by the court, of course each one of the measures and the case for each one of the measures can be, and very often is, challenged on behalf of the subject. In simple terms, the fewer measures there are, the less opportunity there is for challenge and the less need for administrative work to deal with that. That is where that comes into play. It is MI5’s view that potentially there is further opportunity for them to get engaged in that if there is a lower standard of proof, and for disclosure of sensitive material potentially.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Tim Jacques: Well, a TPIM is a TPIM. We have the option of a TPIM to manage that case, yes, as it currently stands. MI5 has pointed out that there is no case thus far where the standard of proof has been a blocker.
Joanna Cherry
That is quite an important statement: there is no case so far where the current standard of proof has prevented an application for a TPIM. Thank you.
Rob Butler
Q
Tim Jacques: Absolutely. Sadly, we have seen—you have mentioned the case that is within my background knowledge—very recent examples of very young people who pose an extreme risk to the public. It is sad, but it is real and it is true.
Rob Butler
Q
Tim Jacques: We would absolutely say that, yes.
Rob Butler
Q
Tim Jacques: We can see and we have seen not just the case that goes back a few years but, certainly within the recent past, a number of, and a worrying increase in, young people engaging in terrorism of different forms and posing a real threat to the public. It is shocking, in one sense, that you see people of such a young age and the maturity with which they carry out their activity, and the hate-filled ideologies that inspire them at such a young age, but it is real.
Rob Butler
Q
Tim Jacques: Yes, absolutely. As I said earlier, we are there to do both. We protect the public by both measures: prosecution and criminal justice means, if that is needed—which can lead to desistance and disengagement programmes—and measures before that. If we can dissuade and reduce and prevent people from getting to that stage, that is a good option for us as well—if it keeps the public safe.
Conor McGinn
Q
Tim Jacques: Was what top?
Conor McGinn
The measures contained in the Bill: the amendments to the current operation of TPIMs, and provisions on sentencing. Is that what counter-terrorism policing in the UK feels it needs as a priority from Government?
Tim Jacques: The Bill came out of the recent changes in sentencing. One of the potential effects of those—in the previous Bill that went through Parliament—was offenders coming out without licence conditions in place. We refer to that as a cliff edge; I think Jonathan referred to a different cliff edge. For us and our operational partners—the Probation Service, the security services and so on—licence conditions are incredibly important, allowing us to manage individuals. In some of those cases there is potential for TPIMs to be applied in order to manage the risk that people pose, whereas the licence conditions do not offer that. That was the driver behind the TPIM element of the Bill.
Some of the measures and the changes that the Bill includes are the result of the Bill being put forward and talking about TPIMs. They include some of the problems that we have encountered in recent cases and that we think could be improved through legislation. This was not right at the top of our priority list, but if the Government are looking to take the Bill through, we think aspects of it are worthy of consideration by Parliament because we have encountered them operationally as problems.
Conor McGinn
Q
Tim Jacques: As you have seen, the number of TPIMs is very low. We do not envisage there being swathes of TPIMs if the Bill is enacted in its current state. There will be changes—the use of polygraph and so forth—that will have an impact. In the grand schemes of things and in the numbers that we are talking about, it will have an impact. Where TPIMs endure longer than two years, they will obviously require monitoring and resources for that. If an individual poses a risk and a threat anyway, they will consume resources regardless of whether they are on a TPIM; there is just less control around them.
Conor McGinn
Q
Tim Jacques: In relation specifically to the standard of proof, I think the security services’ point is that that may have utility in the examples that I gave. My answer to the question was on the wider changes around notification of TPIMs, the sentencing regime and so forth. It may have utility in terms of lowering the burden of proof, and it will make our collective role easier and the public safer.
Conor McGinn
Q
Tim Jacques: We welcome the Prevent review and are very happy to engage in the Prevent review. Prevent is a critically important part of our role; it is absolutely vital. It is controversial, and has been controversial, but we engage in it, we operate, and we protect the public through Prevent every day. The review will be helpful, I am sure, from many perspectives.
Conor McGinn
Q
Tim Jacques: It would be helpful if the review came to an end. Whether that will finish the debate on Prevent, of course, is another matter. It may do that; it may not. We will continue regardless, but we are happy to engage in the review and see it concluded.
Miss Dines
Q
Tim Jacques: Gosh—there are many examples. If you look at some of the relocation notification measures, because of the new variant, and because some of the terrorism prevention and investigation measures we now use are not relocation, there is potentially a flaw in the legislation as currently made out that subjects do not have to tell us where they are living. That is one small but fairly clear and obvious example. If we are not relocating them, which we are not all the time now, the law does not require them to tell us where they live, which seems an obvious gap. The Bill will enable us to manage the individual to use these measures in a different way, and potentially a less intrusive or restrictive way for the individual, enabling us to manage the risks that they pose to the public.
Miss Dines
Q
Tim Jacques: I absolutely agree. Protecting the public is our No. 1 priority and sometimes that means we have to intervene regardless of evidence, because the risks to the public are so great.
Julie Marson
Q
Tim Jacques: The police are a target for terrorist offenders, as are many institutions of the state. The police are the public and the public are the police, so by some of these measures, you protect the police and you protect the public.
Joanna Cherry
I would like to add to what Julie Marson said. I do not think we can say often enough how much we and our constituents appreciate the risk that police officers put themselves in. You are there for us. I think all political parties would want to associate themselves with that. Thank you.
Tim Jacques: Thank you.
Alex Cunningham
On a point of order, Mr Robertson. Given that the Government have tabled 17 pages of amendments to the Bill, would it be in order for us to invite Mr Jonathan Hall to provide a further note on the Bill?
The Chair
Mr Hall is still here. Mr Cunningham is offering you extra work. If you would like to do that—[Interruption.]. I am terribly sorry; I am advised that I cannot invite you to speak again, but I think you have got the point.
Mr Jacques, I think the point Joanna Cherry made, supporting Julie Marson, was a good one that we would all echo. Thank you very much for joining us.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Tom Pursglove.)
Trade Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 25th 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 25 June 2020 - (25 Jun 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning, everyone. Before we start, I remind everyone that the Hansard Reporters would be grateful if Members emailed electronic copies of their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
I am aware that the room is very hot. Please do not hesitate to remove your jackets. We are getting somebody to come and open the windows. Please bear with us and try to make yourselves as comfortable as possible.
Clause 2
Implementation of international trade agreements
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 16, in clause 2, page 2, line 34, leave out subsections (7) and (8) and insert—
“(7) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) in relation to an agreement which meets the criteria in subsection (3) or (4) after the end of the period of five years beginning with IP completion day.”
This amendment would bar any extension to the five-year window for making regulations to implement EU rollover agreements.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 17, in clause 2, page 2, line 34, leave out subsections (7) and (8) and insert—
“(7) No regulations may be made under subsection (1) in relation to an agreement which meets the criteria in subsection (3) or (4) after the end of—
(a) the period of five years beginning with IP completion day (“the initial five year period”), or
(b) such other period as is specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (8).
(8) Regulations under subsection (7)(b) may not extend the initial five year period or any subsequent period beyond the day which falls ten years after IP completion day.”
This amendment would limit any extension of the window to a maximum of ten years.
Amendment 20, in clause 2, page 2, line 35, leave out “five” and insert “three”.
Amendment 21, in clause 2, page 2, line 36, leave out “five” and insert “three”.
Amendment 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 39, leave out “five” and insert “three”.
Amendment 23, in clause 2, page 2, line 41, leave out “five” and insert “three”.
Gareth Thomas
It is good to have you back in the Chair, Mrs Cummins. On Thursday afternoon, when you were not with us, we had one or two moments of light. The hon. Member for Stafford clearly began to feel nervous about whether the Bill was properly drafted, asking me to go into further detail about what was wrong with the Bill. The Minister helpfully confirmed that Command Papers published by his Department are not worth the paper they are written on once 12 months have passed and that there is absolutely no guarantee that the House will get either a debate or a vote on any future UK-US deal.
It is therefore a particular pleasure to have the chance to return to the subject of continuity or roll-over agreements and to speak to these amendments. As you will remember, Mrs Cummins, the Minister and his colleagues have presented the Bill as being purely about rolling over agreements already long since negotiated with the European Union. Effectively, they say, it is just a matter of changing “EU” to “UK”, putting a comma in a different place, dotting the odd i or crossing the odd t, or making some other little tweak—in practice, minor changes to deals that have already been done. Indeed, so confident was the former Secretary of State for International Trade about that, that he committed to get all 40 trade agreements with the European Union rolled over into UK-specific trade deals by March last year.
Imagine our surprise on seeing in the Bill clause 2(7), which suggests that a period of five years might be needed after implementation day, with the option to extend by another five years, to conclude those roll-over agreements. Bear in mind that we were told that deals such as the South Korea, Japan and Canada deals were going to be easy to complete and should be done by Brexit day—certainly, we were led to believe, by implementation day.
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
To elaborate on that very simple point, I recall very well that Lord Price even tweeted about this—it would be just a simple cut-and-paste job. We have all been misled, haven’t we?
Gareth Thomas
I am relatively new to the Trade Bill and am only catching up with the discussions that my hon. Friend and others have had about these continuity agreements. Something odd certainly seems to have happened. It is true that the Minister has managed to get a deal done with the Faroe Islands.
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
On a point of order, Mrs Cummins. I think that the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington just accused Lord Price, a Member of the other House, of misleading people. I do not think that that is a permissible term to use in our debates. I invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that term.
Matt Western
I will certainly withdraw it; I recall that I used the word, now that the Minister mentions it. What I was trying to say was that Lord Price was suggesting that there was a simple procedure of cutting and pasting, and that was clearly not the case.
Gareth Thomas
It is certainly true that in exchanges at the Dispatch Box over the past two weeks, we have been led to believe that these 40-odd agreements will be very easy to complete. Yet only 20 of them have been completed thus far. It looks, to all intents and purposes, as though a number of the agreements are not going to be completed by implementation day—and that, surely, is an extremely surprising eventuality for all of us to contemplate.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The point about Lord Price is that what he said has turned out not to be true; that is the reality. My hon. Friend mentions the agreements that have been concluded, but the one with South Korea, for example, is only a temporary agreement with notice for a renegotiation. Listening to what my hon. Friend is saying, I wonder whether the Government have reverted to the five-year period because they realise that they would quite like these provisions still to be in place for the South Korea deal when it comes back for the renegotiation.
Gareth Thomas
If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will come to South Korea in due course.
The five-year point, perhaps, is understandable in the context of South Korea, but it is slightly odd that Ministers think they might not be able to get the South Korea deal done even in five years, and might need another five. One has to ask why we would need 10 years to put together a roll-over agreement that is simply, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington said, a cut-and-paste job—a matter of just switching “UK” for “the European Union”.
The hon. Member for South Ribble helped throw a little light on the issue during her questions to Mr Richard Warren, the head of policy for UK Steel, in our second sitting. In Question 59, she asked:
“Mr Warren, if there were continuity trade agreements that did not roll over, what would be the consequences for the steel industry?”.
Mr Warren talked initially about the continuity trade agreements with north African nations such as Morocco and South Africa. He then cut to the chase on one of the biggest markets for UK steel exports: Turkey. Talking about the so-called continuity trade agreement, he said:
“Turkey…probably will not be carried over, regardless of the Bill.”
He went on to say that the Bill would allow the continuity and trade agreement to happen,
“but with politics and the complexities of negotiations, I fear, that agreement will not be in place by the end of the year, which would result in 15% tariffs, on average, on UK steel going to Turkey— 8% of our exports. It is an extremely competitive market already; a 15% tariff would pretty much knock that on the head.”
He went on to underline a similarly important point:
“At the same time, because the UK has no tariffs on steel, we would still have up to half a million tonnes of steel coming in from Turkey”.––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2020; c. 42 to 43, Q59.]
We would not only have an uneven trading relationship when it came to steel exports, given the huge tariffs; suddenly, imports of Turkish steel into the UK would have no tariffs at all, creating even more competition for UK steel to face in the domestic market. That is a profoundly disturbing and worrying situation, and it would be helpful to have a little more clarity from the Minister, when he gets to his feet, about what is going on in those negotiations. As I understand it, negotiations have not even begun between the UK and Turkey, never mind being close to reaching any sort of conclusion.
Let us take the UK-Japan continuity agreement. Again, we are led to believe that this is simply a matter of two very close allies sitting down together briefly and changing the words “EU-Japan” to “UK-Japan”, as well as perhaps changing the odd comma here or there, and dotting the odd i and crossing the odd t. In practice, however, something very different appears to be taking place. Just on Tuesday, the Financial Times carried a story saying that Japanese negotiators have given Britain an ultimatum: “Do the deal with us in six weeks, or we will not be able to get it through our Parliament and there will be no continuity trade agreement in place by 31 December.”
Bear in mind that Professor Winters, in his evidence to the Committee on Tuesday 16 June, at Question 31, said in response to the probing of my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central that
“with Japan, we do not really know what the Government intend to discuss with the Japanese Government, but the analysis that we got last month was—what shall we say?—studiously unspecific.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2020; c. 26, Q31.]
Again, when the Minister gets to his feet, it would be helpful if he gave us a little more detail on the substance of what is going on in those negotiations. I thought we were told that when we left the European Union, we would stop being a rule taker any longer, and here it appears that Japanese negotiators are telling us: “Do a deal or you don’t get your trade agreement in time.”
Matt Western
My hon. Friend is making an extremely important point. Hiroshi Matsuura, the Japanese lead negotiator, is saying that their only focus for the next six weeks is the UK, whereas the UK is trying to negotiate with the US, the EU, Australia, New Zealand and so on. Yet we do not even have the full complement of Department for International Trade trade negotiators in the policy group: we are about 10% down on where we should be.
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend is right. Let us bear in mind another point before I come on to Canada. Negotiations are going on not only with the US in relation to the transatlantic partnership with the EU, but we still have not concluded a continuity trade agreement with Andorra, as I understand it. Presumably, one of the Minister’s civil servants is sitting in a room somewhere, worrying about what will be in the UK-Andorra agreement, when they could be properly deployed to trying to sort out whatever the problems are in the UK-Japan agreement. Again, I remind the Committee that we were told that that agreement would be incredibly simple to sort out. I think the Minister said it was just a continuity trade agreement or just a roll-over agreement.
Let us come to the UK-Canada talks—one of the great favourites of the Minister. He had a little fun with us, it would be fair to say, on Tuesday afternoon. Again, however, there does not seem to be any sign of the UK-Canada talks being completed by 31 December. The Minister has been at pains to sell us the great virtues of the EU-Canada deal, and presumably—I would ask him this—there will be similar virtues from a UK-Canada deal, but why is there no obvious sign of any progress towards a signing ceremony for a UK-Canada deal?
In the quote from the Canadian Government regarding why negotiations have not advanced at a more rapid pace, they made it very clear that they were waiting to see how EU-UK talks got on. One got the strong sense that Canadian negotiators are sitting out in the garden smoking a cigar and planning their holidays. They are in no rush whatever to complete a trade deal with the UK, notwithstanding the studiously unspecific comments the Secretary of State gave us at questions last Thursday about how good natured the conversations had been with whoever she had spoken to in the Canadian Government.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is developing his point extremely well. I think it is fair to remind him that it is not just Canada that puts our deal with the EU ahead of its deal with us; Japan and Turkey want us to do a deal with the EU so that they can base their deal with us on the terms of trade that we have with the EU. That is a whole other set of complexities that go way beyond this being a simple matter of continuity and of changing the letters “EU” to the letters “UK”.
Gareth Thomas
Let me chide my hon. Friend for his negativity. We were told at the last general election that an oven-ready Brexit deal would come before us, with a wonderful new free trade agreement, easy to sign, with the European Union. Presumably the scepticism that I have allowed to creep into my remarks about whether the roll-over agreements will be signed by 31 December are entirely unreasonable, and the Minister will say that all the other 20, even the one with Andorra, will be done by 31 December.
I know that the South Koreans want to start completely fresh talks in about 18 months’ time, but surely that will not take five years, or 10 years to complete—or will it? I am an optimist. I take the Minister at his word. He has repeatedly said that roll-over agreements will be simply a matter of rolling over the EU agreements into UK agreements, changing some tiny details, and that they will all be done on time. One wonders, then, why we need the flexibility set out in subsection (7).
Let us remember when the previous Trade Bill was prepared and developed. It probably happened at around the time the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) took over as Prime Minister. Members of the Committee will remember that she decided to sack George Osborne, the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, for gross incompetence. One can imagine that the Cabinet Secretary got on the phone to the permanent secretary at the Department for International Trade and said, “There’s good news and there’s bad news. The good news is that the man who introduced austerity, destroyed our economy and damaged public services has finally left the Government. The bad news is that one of his chief cheerleaders is moving into your Department. Whatever you do, given the way in which they have messed up the economy, don’t let them mess up trade agreements. Write into the Bill a bit of extra time—five or 10 years, or perhaps even longer—so that we can get these trade agreements done.” The Minister may not share my assessment of how this provision got written into the Bill.
Bill Esterson
I have to take the opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on the moment in our deliberations. The lines he just delivered cannot be improved on, and I would not wish to do so. Does he remember Nick Ashton-Hart, in giving evidence to us this time, reminding us of his evidence to us last time that trade agreements inevitably take a lot longer than expected, and that trade agreements between parties fall in favour of the bigger party? We are now a smaller party than when, as part of the EU, we made agreements with all the countries he mentions. That is one reason why these things will take a lot longer—those countries want to renegotiate a better deal, which they think they can get because of the power they have.
Gareth Thomas
My hon. Friend has always grounded his remarks in reality. Let us remember that Conservative Ministers and Members have always wanted to present trade negotiations as a Christmas sale, where one just turns up and gets a shedload of lovely bargains. They have not, as yet, been open and honest with the British people about the trade-offs that trade negotiations inevitably bring, on which—I suspect this afternoon—more anon.
I gently suggest to my hon. Friend that we are likely to hear the Minister, in his wind-up speech, chastising us again for our lack of belief in the calibre of the Secretary of State himself and the Department to complete these UK-specific trade agreements. If the Committee remembers when the last Trade Bill was discussed, so confident were the previous ministerial team that this power was actually not quite as necessary as first appeared, they agreed to reduce the sunset period from five years to three years. One can only assume that the Cabinet Secretary got back on the phone after the current Prime Minister was selected and said, “I’m really sorry to bring you bad news, but one of the chief acolytes of the little-lamented George Osborne is back in your Department—”
Maria Caulfield (Lewes) (Con)
On a point of order, Mrs Cummins. While this is very entertaining, I am quite conscious that we are still not even past considering clause 2. We must get through the whole of the rest of the Bill this afternoon—there are 12 more clauses. May I ask your advice, Mrs Cummins, on how we can get through that when speeches are not necessarily referring to the Bill itself?
The Chair
I hear that point of order, and I am sure that Mr Thomas also heard it. I encourage him to perhaps drift closer towards the subject of the amendment.
Gareth Thomas
As ever, Mrs Cummins, I am grateful for your guidance. It will come as no surprise to you or the Committee that Labour Members are disappointed that the Minister has not at least stuck to the terms of the deal that he and the then Minister of State made with the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly) to reduce the sunset clause from five years to three years, which is specifically relevant to amendments 20 to 23—just to help the Government Whip.
Again, one wonders if, by that point, there was growing fear in the Department that, despite the rhetoric of the Minister, there would be a series of challenges in completing these roll-over agreements. It is a surprise to us to see that sunset provision not included. What my hon. Friends and I have done—in a very generous way, I think—is provide a menu of options to the Minister to demonstrate his and his Department’s faith in their ability to complete these roll-over agreements. Surely, if it is that easy to get the roll-over agreements completed, they will not need to go beyond five years, which is the purpose of amendment 16. Perhaps, if they are feeling a little nervous, they might want to go for amendment 17 and have a limit of 10 years on the face of the Bill. If they are feeling very nervous that they will not get negotiations done with South Korea, Canada, Andorra, Japan or Turkey by the end of the implementation period on 31 December, perhaps they would want to put back into the Bill their own amendments, as encapsulated in amendments 20 to 23.
In our generosity, we have retabled the amendments 16 and 17 that were tabled to the previous Trade Bill in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central and others. We did that to help the Minister demonstrate his confidence in his ability to get all the trade agreements done, with his own wording on a three-year as opposed to a five-year sunset clause.
It might be worth, particularly for the Government Whip’s benefit—thinking about rebellions—to remember what the hon. Member for Huntingdon said. He pushed Ministers to go further to limit the powers in the Bill. He pushed them hard on Second Reading and, clearly, in private negotiations, to table their own amendments on Report, to limit the amount of overreach and potential abuse of the current weak scrutiny arrangements for trade agreements. On Report two years ago the hon. Gentleman advanced an entirely plausible argument, and talked about the possibility of a country where there is an EU trade agreement saying to us:
“‘Yes, we agree that you can roll over, but let’s face it, you are a market of only 50 million people rather than 500 million, so we’ll agree to roll over, but only on condition that we also get 50,000 visas a year.’” —[Official Report, 17 July 2018; Vol. 645, c. 274.]
Under the present Bill, that trade agreement could be pushed through the House of Commons with only a 17-member Committee talking for 90 minutes. That is hardly the sort of robust parliamentary scrutiny that such a trade agreement would deserve. On Second Reading of the present Bill on 20 May the hon. Member for Huntingdon repeated his criticism at column 621 and noted that not only might visas be an issue with respect to trade agreements; the country that wanted to roll over an agreement with us might also want military or intelligence provisions to be added in as part of a package.
Similarly, any slightly amended deals in five or three years’ time could also be covered, and could be used to implement such trade agreements with other wide-ranging implications and with minimal levels of scrutiny. So surely it is a sensible step to limit the Bill’s ability to help Ministers to bypass parliamentary scrutiny of the trade agreements they conclude, even in the small way that Ministers have previously advanced themselves of reducing the sunset period from five years to three years. If they cannot face the embarrassment of backing an amendment that was first tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North, perhaps they will show a little courage and back the amendments that they brought forward as a result of a deal with Tory Back-Benchers. If they do not vote for amendments 20 to 23, it will be further evidence that when Tory MPs do a deal with Ministers they cannot rely on it until it is written on the face of legislation.
The further we get from the point when the EU signed a deal with a third country, the more likely, surely, a UK-specific deal is to be significantly different from the deal that the EU negotiated. It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central said, that South Korea has agreed a continuity deal, but only on the proviso that a new deal would be properly negotiated in 18 months’ time. The further away from the signing of the EU-South Korea deal and the UK-South Korea continuity deal, the more likely it is that the new deal will be very different. Therefore, more parliamentary scrutiny—even the limited parliamentary scrutiny that the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 provides—will be merited. Limiting the length of time that the Bill can be used to push that deal through with the minimal levels of scrutiny as it allows is even more necessary.
Greg Hands
It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Chair, Ms Cummins. I did not get the chance on Tuesday because the supergroup carried on for the entirety of the morning.
Amendment 16 seeks to remove the power to renew the sunset clause after five years, and I am afraid I cannot support it. It would undermine our ability to implement our obligations from trade agreements beyond the first five years, which risks putting us in breach of the agreements and could open us up to legal challenge. I am sure that is not what the Opposition are seeking to achieve.
Bill Esterson
If the Minister cannot support a change to the five-year sunset period, why did he support it in the previous Parliament, when it was three years?
Greg Hands
I think the hon. Gentleman’s timeline—or the timeline of the hon. Member for Harrow West—may be a little incorrect. As it happens, I left the Department on 21 June 2018, which predated that amendment being made. In any case, the context then, which I will explain, was rather different from the context now, and I think it is very desirable that it be five years, not three years, for the reasons that I am about to explain.
There is a fundamental misunderstanding in everything that the hon. Member for Harrow West just said. The power is in large part needed to make technical changes that ensure that the agreements remain operable. The fundamental misunderstanding on his part is that it is not five years extra to complete the negotiations, sign the deals or finish the negotiations—no. It is five years that is needed to make sure the agreements remain operable once they have been signed.
Before I come to the real detail, let me give the hon. Gentleman an update on some of the agreements he asked about. It was interesting to hear him focus on Andorra and San Marino. Those countries are, of course, in a customs union with the European Union.
We are in discussions with both countries, but in our view, they are largely dependent on what the future relationship between the UK and the European Union looks like, for those two countries are in a complete customs union with the European Union.
The hon. Gentleman asked for clarity about Turkey. I was surprised by that question, because I checked his Twitter feed, and he does actually follow me on Twitter, which I do not take as a compliment ordinarily. He must have seen what we put out three hours ago from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Trade:
“Great to see”—
UK and Turkey—
“trade talks progress today. Let’s build on our already strong trading relationship worth £19bn. We are working hard to ensure we can reach a UK-Turkey trade deal at the end of the transition period.”
He has it right in front of him on his own Twitter feed; I urge him to read it. People mock social media—I might have been critical of social media in my time—but they occasionally perform a useful function. Helping us to keep up to date with what is going on in the world is one of the most useful aspects. So there he has it from just three hours ago.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the so-called temporary agreement with South Korea. It is not a temporary agreement. The agreement includes a review clause after two years, which is a standard feature of many international trade agreements. The review clause states—I am paraphrasing slightly—that if the two parties do not believe it is mutually advantageous to continue the agreement, there is the option not to. That does not mean to say that it is a temporary agreement. All international agreements can be cancelled by one party or the other, if they feel the agreement is no longer mutually advantageous. Of course it leaves open the possibility of doing a more extensive agreement in the future, but that is the case with all trade agreements.
When a country signs an agreement, no one is saying that it will stay in place forever. There may be opportunities in future to extend it into areas of trade that had not been thought of when the original agreement was signed. That is an entirely normal phenomenon. For example, the EU and Mexico have done an enhanced agreement based on their original agreement, which dated from about 2000 or 2002, to bring it up to date. New things come along, such as e-commerce and so on, so of course trade agreements are updated, but it is wrong to describe that trade agreement as temporary.
We are in discussions with Canada, but I return to the points that the hon. Gentleman made on Tuesday. He is so against the Canada agreement that, if there were any delay in the discussions with Canada, he should be cheering that not condemning it, because he is opposed to the agreement in the first place. I thought that would update him on where we are with the agreement.
Let me describe what it is all about. In the case of a transition mutual recognition agreement, we may need to change secondary legislation after the point of signing, and after 1 January 2021, to update the names of awarding bodies and third countries so that UK businesses can continue to use such bodies legally. It is not extra negotiating time. It is extra time to ensure that the agreement remains operable.
Alternatively, where our trade agreements reference international standards, such as environmental protection, we may need to update references in domestic legislation to ensure that we remain in compliance with our international agreements. Equally, a potential use of the power could be to upgrade the list of entities subject to procurement obligations to reflect machinery of government changes.
I used the example last week of DCMS changing its name from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. That name change might need to be reflected to keep one of those agreements operable, so a change in domestic legislation would ensure that the procurement obligations in the agreement are kept operable. It is not extra negotiating time. The power could also be used to update the list of entities subject to procurement obligations, as I have said.
I think there is a misunderstanding of the nature of the power. If Opposition Members had expressed concerns about the breadth of the power—in other words, the ability to carry on amending legislation for many years afterwards—that would be a much more legitimate concern than the professed concern about extra negotiating time. The Bill has been scrutinised by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. Its 33rd report on the 2017-19 Bill raised no concerns about the delegated powers in the Bill, including the sunset clause, and welcomed our move to introduce the affirmative procedure for any regulations made. I see no reason why it should reach a different conclusion on this Bill.
Matt Western
I just want to understand the point the Minister is making. I understand the importance of it, but does it not suggest that the three-year clause in the previous Bill showed a degree of naivety on the part of Government—that they would have sufficient time on the other side to negotiate further agreements with these countries?
Greg Hands
No, I do not accept that. It has nothing to do with the negotiations; it is all about keeping the agreements operable. It is a matter of judgment, and our judgment is that five years is a reasonable time. It is renewable by the affirmative assent of both Houses. We think that that is a reasonable time to keep these powers in place, so that we can then make further changes as needed to keep those agreements operable, and it is renewable by both Houses.
Gareth Thomas
Will the Minister support our amendment to reduce the sunset period from five years to three years, as his own Government did in the previous Bill, or is he determined to reject that suggestion?
Greg Hands
I have just explained that we think that five years, not three, is the appropriate time, so we will vote against the hon. Member’s amendment if he has the audacity to push it. Given that the fundamental premise is incorrect, I would be surprised if he were to push it to a vote, because it is based on a misunderstanding of what the power is all about.
The DPRRC report did not indicate any concerns about the Government retaining the power to renew this clause. Amendment 17 proposes to render the clause renewable only once and for not more than a period of 10 years after the end of the transition period, but that is unnecessary. The clause can be extended only with agreement from both Houses of Parliament and only for a period of up to five years at a time. If Parliament judges that our use of the sunset clause has not been appropriate, it has the power to vote against renewal. As I have stressed before, without the ability to renew the clause, we will not have the power to ensure that signed continuity agreements remain operable, which risks the UK’s ability to fulfil its international obligations. If we do not have this power, we will need to put in place other powers. We should not do tomorrow what we can do today.
Amendments 20 to 23 propose to shorten the sunset period from five to three years. I have already explained why we need the power and the changes the power would make. We believe that a five-year period strikes the right balance between flexibility of negotiations and constraints placed on the power. Our signed continuity agreements are evidence that this is a limited, technical exercise to replicate the effects of existing obligations. Seeking parliamentary permission to renew this capability every three years, rather than five, would be disproportionate and places an unnecessary burden on parliamentary time.
I repeat that the amendments, or at least the description of them, are based on a fundamental misunderstanding. The five years are not extra negotiating time. They allow technical changes to regulations on an ongoing basis, to keep operable agreements that have already been signed. I hope that that reassures the Committee, and I ask the hon. Member for Harrow West to withdraw the amendment.
Gareth Thomas
I enjoyed very much the answer that the Minister provided. In particular, it is a relief to hear that the Secretary of State has finally got round to launching negotiations with Turkey. I hope that those negotiations will be completed by 31 December, given the huge and dramatic impact that it could have on jobs and steel businesses in the UK. I gently remind the Minister of the considerable scepticism we heard from representatives of UK Steel that that would be achieved. It would be interesting to hear later in our proceedings whether Ministers have any sort of contingency plan for the steel industry, if negotiations cannot be completed in time to get a UK-Turkey deal through.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 18—Statement on equalities legislation—
‘(1) This section applies where a Minister of the Crown proposes to make regulations under section 2(1).
(2) Before a draft of the statutory instrument containing the regulations is laid before either House of Parliament, the Minister must make a statement as to whether the statutory instrument would, if made, modify any provision of equalities legislation.
(3) If a Minister expresses a view in a statement under subsection (2) that the draft statutory instrument would, if made, modify any provision of equalities legislation, the Minister must explain in the statement what the effect of each such modification would be.
(4) If the Minister fails to make a statement as required by subsection (2), the Minister must make a statement explaining why.
(5) A statement under this section must be made in writing and published in such manner as the Minister making it considers appropriate.
(6) In this section, “equalities legislation” means the Equality Act 2006, the Equality Act 2010 and any subordinate legislation made under either of those Acts.’
New clause 22—Trade agreements: approval—
‘A Minister of the Crown must not make regulations to implement an international trade agreement unless—
(a) a statement on the terms of the agreement has been approved by the House of Commons on a motion moved by a Minister of the Crown,
(b) a motion for the House of Lords to take note of that statement has been moved in that House by a Minister of the Crown,
(c) a motion relating to that statement has been approved by a resolution of the Senedd Cymru,
(d) a motion relating to that statement has been approved by a resolution of the Scottish Parliament, and
(e) a motion relating to that statement has been approved by a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly.’
This new clause would require the UK Government to secure the approval of both Houses of Parliament and the devolved Parliaments of Scotland and Wales, and the Northern Ireland Assembly before implementing any international trade agreement agreed after the passing of the Bill.
Gareth Thomas
I rise to move new clause 18 in my name and that of my hon. Friends, and I hope to say a few words about new clause 22. Clause 2 gives Ministers the authority to make any regulations they consider appropriate for the purpose of implementing an international trade agreement, including regulations that make provision for
“modifying…primary legislation that is retained EU law”.
We have had representations suggesting that “retained EU law” appears to include a very wide range of primary legislation that has an impact, potentially, on measures to improve equality in this country, not least the Equality Act 2010 and the Modern Slavery Act 2015. At the moment, there do not appear to be safeguards on the face of the Bill to prevent Ministers from using the power in clause 2 to erode previous rights on equalities granted by Parliament.
That excellent organisation Liberty has provided an example to the Committee, to give a little colour to this justified concern. The Government could in theory
“reach an agreement with a foreign state on the provision of services, such as transport, and”
make
“changes to the Equality Act”.
That
“could include removing the duty on service providers to make reasonable adjustments for people with disabilities, making access to transport more difficult for 1 in 5 of the UK’s population.”
If such a power were necessary at all, it is surely vital that safeguards are introduced in the Bill to ensure that human rights and equality laws passed by Parliament cannot be amended by Ministers whose key priority is to get a series of trade agreements signed off and locked into law. The way in which the Bill has been drafted does not include any restrictions on the use of delegated powers, as we touched on in a previous discussion.
As a result of those concerns, Members of the other place in particular, as well as a number of Members in this House, raised those points with Ministers. That led to what we Opposition Members thought was a very sensible amendment, tabled by the noble Baroness Fairhead, then a Minister of State in the Department, for the Government on Report in the House of Lords. I assume that she no longer fits the ideological bent of the current Government, and she is no longer there, which may explain why the amendment is no longer in the Bill. It seems to me that that is one further example of how this Bill is even worse in terms of parliamentary scrutiny than the Bill that had completed all its initial Commons and Lords stages in the last Parliament, only to be ditched by the Government.
According to the official record, the Government apparently worked very closely with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to produce the amendment that the Government originally tabled and that we are re-tabling, acknowledging that although they were not anticipating any need to amend equalities legislation, there was a possibility of the type of example that Liberty has advanced to us, and which I have given to the Committee: that trade agreements could potentially weaken protection against unlawful discrimination or lead to the diminution of equality rights.
The new clause provides for a ministerial statement to be made before any regulations are laid to implement a continuity trade agreement. The statement would outline whether those regulations modifying the provisions of the Equality Act 2006 and the Equality Act 2010 are set to happen. That provision was supposed to be in addition to the reports that Parliament would receive setting out the significant differences between continuity agreements and the original agreements. Given that those reports are also no longer guaranteed, it is a further indication that scrutiny—already poor of these trade agreements in a number of ways—is set to get even worse, unless Ministers are willing to put this sensible new clause into the Bill.
When she moved her amendment, which I read it again for the benefit of Members, Baroness Fairhead said:
“I trust that this House will accept this as further evidence that the Government have a strong desire to be transparent with Parliament, businesses and the general public about their continuity programme.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 March 2019; Vol. 796, c. 1060.]
What are we to believe now that it is not in the Bill? Inevitably, it is difficult not to feel that the Government do not want to be quite as transparent as they once claimed with Parliament, businesses and the general public about the so-called continuity trade programme. It is therefore not surprising that one comes back to the words of Professor Winters talking about the feedback he had had on how UK-Japan negotiations were going. He was very clear that they were being “studiously” vague. I once again urge Ministers, even at this late stage, to accept new clause 18.
New clause 22 would lock in the need for the consent of both Houses of Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly before any trade agreement could be agreed. We on this side of the House have considerable sympathy with the idea that both Houses of Parliament should be required to approve any trade treaty before it takes legal effect. We think that the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have as much right as the people of England to expect a say through their representatives in this House on whether trade agreements should be signed into law. We are clear, too, that the devolved Administrations must be properly consulted. Indeed, with new clause 16, which we will no doubt come to vote on this afternoon, we want to lock into law the guaranteed rights of the devolved Administrations to consultation.
Given the significance of trade agreements to the people of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, I can well understand that the Senedd, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Executive will at times want to comment on trade matters. One can understand why those who tabled new clause 22 decided to do so in the light of the fact that Ministers have decided to vote down every attempt to improve the scrutiny arrangements for future trade agreements and the so-called continuity trade agreements—many of which, as we know only too well, are not actually set to be continuity trade agreements at all.
Let me give just one example where the Senedd in particular might have concerns about trade agreements, which might have provoked the tabling of new clause 22. The Senedd, like the Welsh Government, will probably understandably have been very concerned about the future of the Port Talbot steelworks. If we had been given more detail about the nature of the UK-Turkey negotiations, rather than the studiously vague description that the Minister read out from the Secretary of State’s Twitter feed, there might not be the concern about the future of steel in Port Talbot and elsewhere in the UK that there understandably will be following Mr Warren’s evidence to the Committee.
The Chair
Thank you, Mr Thomas. I remind you that the debate is on clause 2 stand part. You can speak to new clause 18, but you are not moving it at this stage.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I start by addressing new clause 22 in the name of my friends from Plaid Cymru. In one regard, it seeks to do something similar to our amendment 8, which the Committee has already debated: to lay down in statute respect for devolution. We witness that in (c), (d) and (e), which would require motions relating to a ministerial statement to be approved by the Senedd, the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly prior to regulations being made to implement an international trade agreement. New clause 22 would also, at (a) and (b), empower Parliament by requiring a statement on the terms of such an agreement to be approved in the House of Commons and a take-note motion passed in the other place.
That is eminently sensible. However, I suspect that the Minister will say it is not necessary. He may suggest that it is not necessary because international agreements, including trade agreements, and the decisions to implement them are reserved matters. There is some merit in that. He may also make the case, as he did on Tuesday, that it is better if the UK speaks with a single, if not a united, voice in order to give our negotiating and trading partners certainty about what a deal may or may not deliver.
That, however, is rather to miss the point, as the hon. Member for Harrow West said. We know that some sectors or industries are disproportionately important to the economies of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, compared with their importance to the UK economy as a whole. I cannot remember the precise numbers, but it has been suggested on multiple occasions that the white fish industry is 10 times more important to the Scottish economy than it is to the UK economy as a whole. There are clearly sectors that are vital.
It is equally the case—this is probably accepted now—that modern trade agreements are by and large not about quotas and tariffs; they are about regulation, conformance and product safety. They have the ability to impinge directly on the reserved competencies in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is, therefore, sensible that we understand and respect why my friends from Plaid Cymru and others seek not just to empower both Houses of Parliament in the decision-making process on implementing an international trade agreement, but to give statutory voice to the devolved nations to ensure their legitimate interests are properly protected.
I turn to clause 2 stand part. I accept what the Minister said about the Bill being primarily about rolling over the pre-existing trade agreements that we had by dint of our very successful membership of the European Union, but I also take on board the serious point made by the hon. Member for Harrow West. He said that the Queen’s Speech described a Bill to facilitate trade, not just roll-over agreements. He also talked about the long title, which says that the Bill will
“Make provision about the implementation of international trade agreements”.
That is rather wider than negotiating and implementing roll-over arrangements only.
In the previous debate, we began to touch on some of the key flaws in clause 2 that run to the heart of this legislation. As I said on Second Reading and in my introductory remarks last week, clause 2(6)(a) allows for the Government to make provision
“modifying retained direct principal EU legislation or primary legislation that is retained EU law”,
which runs to the heart of people’s concerns. Even if I accept—and, by and large, I do—that the provision is designed to roll over our current deals, the ability to modify in that way may well mean that we end up with an agreement that is substantially different from the one we started with.
That is a concern to me. Although the Minister has said there are restrictions on how the modification process can be used, subsection (6)(a), (b), (c) and (d) allows for the modification of retained EU legislation or primary law. It confers functions on the Secretary of State or any other person, including conferring discretion. It allows for the delegation of function, and for civil penalties to be introduced for failing to comply with regulations. The only restriction in subsection (6) is the restriction on the power to make subordinate legislation. I will have to check Hansard carefully, because I think the Minister spoke about amending secondary legislation in the previous debate. That would not be possible under this restriction, but it is the only restriction in terms of the ability to modify.
That brings us to the other flaw in clause 2—namely, the five-year or 10-year limit. Subsection (7) says:
“No regulations may be made under subsection (1) after the end of…the period of five years”—
so far, so good—
“or…such other period or periods as are specified in regulations made…in accordance with subsection (8).”
Subsection (8) states:
“Regulations under subsection (7)(b) may not extend the initial five year period…by more than five years.”
This is not simply, as the Minister suggests, to ensure that regulations are up to date. This five-year period and the five-year extension—this 10-year period—actually allows for the modification of principal EU legislation or EU laws under subsection (6), with the exception of the power to make subordinate legislation. That is an extraordinarily wide power that the Government have given themselves—a 10-year period. While I accept that the Bill is principally about rolling over existing deals, the ability to modify in a fundamentally unrestricted way for a period of more than two full Parliaments is an extraordinary power for the UK Government to seek to give themselves.
On that basis, if there is a vote on clause 2 stand part, I will certainly vote against the extension of these discretionary powers to the Government.
Bill Esterson
It is a pleasure to see you back in the Chair, Mrs Cummins, and we shall continue to enjoy serving under your chairmanship for another 19 minutes. I thank you for your contribution as joint Chair of the Committee.
I rise to speak to new clause 16. I remind the Minister of the point touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West on 13 March 2019, when the Minister’s then ministerial colleague—
Bill Esterson
Sorry, it is new clause 18 that I rise to speak to. I am grateful for the correction.
On 13 March 2019, an identical amendment was tabled by Baroness Fairhead in the House of Lords. I will just remind the Minister of what she said in her brief contribution:
“I trust that this House will accept this as further evidence that the Government have a strong desire to be transparent with Parliament, businesses and the general public about their continuity programme.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 March 2019; Vol. 796, c. 1060.]
She said that in good faith, because she wanted the amendment to be accepted. It was accepted by the House of Lords and became a substantive part of the Bill, and the Commons would have considered it had the Government brought it back in the time available. There was plenty of time to discuss it then. The Government Whip made a point of order earlier. If the Government have a real problem with timing today, they should think about the problem that was caused by their not bringing back the Bill at any time during the period after March 2019, when an identical amendment, tabled by the Government, was agreed. The Minister has to answer the question why, if this measure was good enough for the Government on 13 March last year, it is not good enough now.
Greg Hands
Over the past few days, I have outlined the Government’s position on our approach to clause 2 and I will not repeat that to the Committee. The general point about the continuity powers has been frequently made. I will focus my remarks on the Opposition amendments.
First, I must inform the Committee that the letter I promised the hon. Member for Harrow West on the position of Kenya and Ghana has gone out to all members of the Committee. I pledged that on Tuesday, so I think that is pretty swift. It should be in everyone’s inboxes.
Gareth Thomas
One thing the Minister can confirm, surely, is whether parts produced in other European Union countries will still count towards the value of the car or other parts that are being manufactured. That diagonal and horizontal cumulation is a standard feature of the rules of origin, and it might help to give some certainty to British car and car parts manufacturers that that flexibility in rules of origin will not be lost.
Greg Hands
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that; he makes a good point. I refer him to the deal that we have negotiated with South Korea and how it reflects on those rules. That negotiation has been completed. However, here, today, it is not my job to comment on live negotiations or discussions with our counterparts.
The hon. Member for Dundee East talked rightly about sectors that are important in different parts of the UK. He made a very fair point. He talked about the white fish sector being 10 times as important to the Scottish economy overall as it is to the UK. That makes me wonder why—if I understood him correctly—his party’s policy is to rejoin the European Union, where presumably the status of the white fish sector is even smaller than the one tenth it represents in the UK. That baffled me.
It is strongly in the UK Government interest to have good relationships with the devolved authorities on trade, which is a reserved matter, a prerogative matter. None the less, regulations interact with areas that are matters of devolved competence.
It is therefore perfectly proper both for the UK Government to have good relations and discussions with the devolved authorities, and for the UK Government to interact with sectors that are larger—I do not mean to say that they are disproportionately important—for certain devolved Administrations than others. That is one reason why I have gone out of my way since rejoining the Department to have meetings—I am checking my list of engagements—about Scottish smoked salmon, and with the Scotch Whisky Association, the Scottish Beef Association and other bodies in Wales and Northern Ireland, as well as in the English regions.
Hon. Members talked about the unrestricted nature of the power, but it is not quite right to say that this is unrestricted. Any changes made are subject to the affirmative procedure, and the power is only to amend secondary legislation that is direct retained EU law, again subject to the affirmative procedure. It is not as if that is an unrestricted power.
Returning to equalities legislation, I remind colleagues of constraints in the Bill, including the fact that the affirmative procedure is required for any statutory instruments made under the power in the clause. Parliament will rightly make its voice heard on regulations made, but as the Prime Minister outlined in his Greenwich speech, the UK will always be an open, equal and fundamentally fair country. That will remain true regardless of EU membership or any other international agreement. We have not needed the EU to tell us what is appropriate in the field of equalities. For example, the EU provides a minimum of 14 weeks’ paid maternity leave, whereas Britain offers up to a year’s maternity leave, 39 weeks of which are paid, and the option to convert it to shared parental leave. Moreover, UK workers can get statutory sick pay for up to 28 weeks, whereas the EU has no minimum sick leave or sick pay legislation.
Promoting respect for British values, including equality, the rule of law and human rights, is and will remain a core part of our international diplomacy. That is what our continuity programme provides, alongside certainty to business and consumers. It is not, and never will be, about undermining equalities legislation.
I turn to new clause 22, tabled by Plaid Cymru Members. For the benefit of Members who have not sat on a Bill Committee before, it is entirely possible for those who are not members of the Committee to table an amendment—I would not recommend that course of action for Government Members—as we see the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) and his colleagues have done. On Tuesday, in a debate on similar issues, I set out that it is an essential principle of the UK constitution that the negotiation of international trade agreements is a prerogative power of the UK Government. The prerogative power serves a crucial role in ensuring that the UK Government can speak with a single voice under international law, providing certainty to our negotiating partners.
Of course, international negotiations are a reserved matter under the devolution settlements—an area in which the UK acts on behalf of all the nations of the UK. These important principles are complemented by the UK’s dualist approach to international law, which provides that international treaties cannot of themselves make changes to domestic law—I think we will return to that this afternoon. This approach ensures that where our agreements require changes to UK domestic law, the UK Parliament will scrutinise and pass that legislation in the normal way. Where that legislation is made by the devolved Governments, the devolved legislatures fulfil that role. It is right that Parliament and the devolved legislatures should have that role, which is why we have provided that regulations made under clause 2 will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
We have also committed ourselves to not normally using the clause 2 power to legislate in devolved areas without the consent of the relevant devolved Administration, and never without consulting them. Combined with the scrutiny mechanisms in the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, which the hon. Member for Harrow West was so enthusiastic about 10 years ago, those procedures will ensure that the UK Parliament can see exactly what we have negotiated, and if it does not agree with it, can take steps to prevent the Government from implementing and ratifying the deal. There are therefore already rigorous checks and balances on the Government’s power to negotiate and ratify a new agreement.
By giving Parliament an automatic veto over trade agreements, the new clause would cut across those procedures and undermine the important constitutional principle that it is for the Executive to negotiate and enter into deals, and for Parliament to scrutinise them. The new clause would also give the devolved legislatures an automatic veto over our agreement, which would be wholly inappropriate given that this is a reserved matter. On a practical level, a veto for the devolved legislatures would also lead to a situation in which one part of the UK could prevent the rest from benefiting from an agreement.
The Government recognise the important role that the devolved Administrations and the UK Parliament can and should play in our trade agreements, and I welcome the opportunity to put that on the record again. My Department works closely, as I have outlined, with the devolved Administrations and Parliament to deliver trade policy and trade agreements that reflect the interests of the UK as a whole, but we should do so in accordance with the long-standing principles enshrined in our constitution, rather than seeking to undermine them. I hope that reassures the Committee. I ask hon. Members not to press their new clauses, and to agree to clause 2 standing part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned.—(Maria Caulfield.)
Fire Safety Bill (First sitting)
Thursday 25th June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 View all Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 June 2020 - (25 Jun 2020)
The Chair
Welcome, colleagues, to Public Bill Committee proceedings on the Fire Safety Bill. We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast. Before we begin, I have a few preliminary announcements. Please switch electronic devices to silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings and, given the temperature outside, jackets or other items of clothing may be removed. Date Time Witness Thursday 25 June Until no later than 12.00pm The National Fire Chiefs Council Thursday 25 June Until no later than 12.30pm The Fire Sector Federation; the L&Q Group Thursday 25 June Until no later than 1.00pm The Fire Brigades Union; The Royal Institute of British Architects
Today, we will first consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the ordinary evidence sessions. I hope we can take those matters formally, without debate.
Ordered,
That—
(1) the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 11.30am on Thursday 25 June) meet at 2.00pm on Thursday 25 June;
(2) the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
TABLE
(3) the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00pm on Thursday 25 June. —(Kit Malthouse.)
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Kit Malthouse.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Kit Malthouse.)
The Chair
Copies of written evidence that the Committee receives will be sent to Committee members by email. We will now go into private session to discuss the lines of questioning. I hope it will not take us long as we will be eating into witness time.
The Chair
Thank you for coming to give evidence. Please begin by introducing yourself for the record.
Dan Daly: My name is Dan Daly. I am an assistant commissioner, currently seconded to the National Fire Chiefs Council. Previously I had 32 years’ service with the London fire brigade. I have been the assistant commissioner for fire safety in London for the past four years, until 1 June.
Penny Pender: Good morning. I am Penny Pender. I work at the National Fire Chiefs Council, where I am the deputy team leader for the building safety programme. I have been there for the past two or three years.
The Chair
Q
Dan Daly: We welcome the Bill and the clarifications that it seeks to provide. We are very keen that those clarifications should work not just for us as regulators and enforcers but for the people who have day-to-day responsibility for building safety, and for those people who live in, work in and visit those buildings, so that they understand what is required to keep them safe and their duties.
The Chair
I should explain that you have Members of Parliament in front of you and behind you, because we are socially distanced and the room is not quite big enough to allow us all to sit around the horseshoe table. We will start the questioning with Sarah Jones, who leads on this issue for the Labour party.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Q
Dan Daly: We have had a debate on whether these are clarifications or new aspects, and we have settled on them being clarifications. I am fine with that, but it suggests to us that the buildings to which they apply are those buildings that are currently there. I do not think that the Bill is attempting to grow the range of buildings that come within scope. We are seeking some clarification on certain definitions, to ensure that there is no creep in the scope of what the Bill is intended to do.
With regard to the pressures on fire and rescue services, the onus is on us to maintain skills and competencies in the sector, and we have a body of work to do in order to move forward and deliver that. Where we have a preference for the service, it is that we bring the legislation forward as it is, all together at one time, rather than putting in arbitrary height restrictions and things like that. I know that you will hear from industry that there will be pressures on competent persons to provide extendable assessments, and things like that.
I think that what we can offer is a risk-based approach to help the people with those responsibilities manage the ask in a way that targets the highest risk buildings first. There was a model that we used—in the London fire brigade we termed it the Croydon model, as you may be aware—which was to help those large portfolio holders understand where we expect them to apply their initial assessments with the new legislation. I think we can adopt a similar approach here. I think that will help to ease the pressure across the board. Certainly, as they are clarifications, it would imply that the legislation applies to those buildings already, so it does not appear that now is the time to bring in arbitrary height allocations.
Sarah Jones
Q
Dan Daly: I would certainly welcome a register for fire risk assessors and third-party accreditation for that. In a similar way, we are working towards a competency standard for fire inspection officers within the fire service. That is a bit of the work that the building safety team is doing at the moment. Certainly, the service will be working with them over the coming years to develop the skills within their own workforce to achieve that. Again, with the new building regulator, we are looking to bring in a level of competence to interact with more complex buildings.
Sarah Jones
Q
Penny Pender: That certainly picks up on some of the points we have made in our submission about ensuring that the different pieces of legislation speak clearly to each other. The first example is the term “building”: one concern we had was that if it was not clearly defined, the default setting would be to refer to the definition in the Building Act 1984, which is referred to in the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005.
Picking up on Dan’s point from earlier, that would be a much wider definition than the scope of the fire safety order currently covers, so that is the type of thing we are hoping to iron out. We just want to ensure that there are opportunities, maybe through secondary legislation or in guidance, for those types of thing to be spelled out clearly, to ensure that all the different pieces are interpreted clearly when they all come together in the future.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Q
For example, if you have leaseholders in a block of flats owned by a local authority that is responsible, what the leaseholder does within the property that may create risk to others may not be something to which the local authority can readily gain access. I am interested in this point about how the different pieces of legislation interact. Do you have a view on how we might collectively move towards a resolution of that problem?
Dan Daly: We talked earlier about how the clarifications in this Bill are really useful in terms of ironing out some of the overlaps we have seen that have caused us difficulties before, both in holding people to account, and in people’s understanding of their duties.
This is a bit of legislation that underpins a self-regulatory regime, and we must ensure that at the end of this we have something that makes it very clear to those people what their responsibilities are. It must also help residents and leaseholders to understand what they can rightly expect from the people with day-to-day responsibility for the safety of their buildings. That is the sort of thing that we are working closely with Home Office colleagues on. The Bill has been presented as it is today, but I know we have taken some assurances in the background that we will work together on providing secondary legislation and guidance to pick up those areas where we might still seek further clarification, to ensure that it is absolutely clear to those people who it most directly affects day to day.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
Q
The first question is whether you have any estimates, because we know roughly where we are at the moment and where we need to get to. I was pleased to hear you say that you would welcome a register of assessors, but the interlinked issue is how we train those people. We have had differing evidence. Some suggests there should be a fast-track training, or different levels of assessment, and other evidence suggests that we should not have fast-track training because it can lead to problems. I would welcome your views on both questions: how many people do we need overall, and does there need to be comprehensive training for everybody, or would you take a differentiated view?
Dan Daly: I do not think I can give you a number on how many we need overall, because there is a bit of work to be done before that. This speaks back to the risk-based approach. If we look at the work we are doing with the building safety regulator and the ideas going forward about the level of competency to interact with buildings of different complexity and risk, we could apply a similar staged approach to how we look at the buildings to which the legislation needs to be applied. Picking up those most at risk will allow time for training to come through, and development of people to support the wider piece of work, while ensuring that the effort is focused on the buildings that we would see as highest risk.
There is further work that we need to do as a service overall on understanding what risk looks like. We have a historical risk matrix that informs the regularity with which we inspect buildings; that was based on good evidence at the time, but we have a richer understanding of risk now. We understand vulnerabilities, behaviours and lifestyles that have an equal impact on the likelihood of fire, and therefore the settings that those people may be living in. It helps us understand risk in a totally different way—understanding that this is not just our opportunity to fix high-rise living but is about the wider built environment. It is an opportunity to understand risk in a much more holistic way and ensure we are applying more rigorous inspections to those higher-risk premises, and an appropriate level of inspection to those lower down the risk register, so to speak.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Q
Dan Daly: That is certainly my understanding.
Andy Slaughter
Q
Dan Daly: Absolutely. The concerns we have and the clarifications we are seeking are shared in the submission from the National Fire Chiefs Council. There is no intent to apply this legislation inadvertently to buildings inappropriately, but we should be very clear that parts that are used in common between properties would be subject to the order. I do not think that creeps any further forward what buildings are in scope, but it makes very clear those areas to which it does apply.
Andy Slaughter
Q
Dan Daly: Yes, absolutely. As I say, we are working very well with colleagues on those clarifications and on commitments to getting those definitions in. Our reason for repeating to you our concerns about those clarifications and commitments is not to suggest that work is not going forward; it is partly to place it on record that we think those issues are hugely important to the success of this Bill and its application.
Andy Slaughter
Q
Dan Daly: Yes. This issue, particularly if we talk about external wall systems—which encompasses insulation and fixing everything, as you have suggested—has been debated for some time. In August 2016, I attended an incident in your constituency that you will be very familiar with. I was in my old role with the London Fire Brigade at the time, and we sent a letter to registered landlords to advise them to look at what was on the outside of their buildings. We debated for some time whether that letter could go further and suggest enforcement action, but it eventually became an advice note because we were unable to bottom out clearly what that legal advice should be. I think the clarifications we are seeking will make it much clearer that external wall systems are covered.
Andy Slaughter
Q
Dan Daly: Absolutely. It is for the property owner.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
Q
A secondary question relates to the skills, qualification and training of responsible people—this is very like Ms Cooper’s question from earlier—and how they can carry out fire risk assessments. Do you think that there is sufficient detail at present to satisfy the requirements?
Dan Daly: In terms of the training, there is work to do. The industry will point to some difficulties with capacity and volume. That is why I would urge a risk-based approach, and that we manage that here and now. The clarification of where responsibilities lie and what those responsibilities are is hugely important in this legislation to aid some of that training, so that it is very clear what the requirements are on individuals and on the competent persons who will be providing advice. Again, it is hugely important that this speaks to those people.
Our experience in enforcement terms is that there are those who seek to comply; there are those who seek to comply, but who fail to understand what is required of them; and then there are those who actively seek to dodge the legislation and work their way around it. What we want to do is close the loopholes for that secondary group, and to make it absolutely clear for the others who are doing their best to understand that the guidance and legislation support their understanding of their duties.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
My question comes from somebody who was a local government elected member for some 21 years, who has sat on planning committees and dealt with building regulations, and someone who has built properties and who is currently a landlord. I would like to ask a more specific question when we are considering risk. Much of what you talk about is about taking a risk-based approach. In your written submissions, you talk about how you would like greater resources and investment to be put into the enforcement side of things. Clearly, that is something for the Government to respond to.
Do you agree that construction and sign-off are potentially the points at which there could be the greatest risk of errors or non-compliance, either wittingly or unwittingly? Do you also agree that even after a structure has been signed off—whether it is by building control or by the local council—the time soon afterwards is still a point of high risk, because that is when door furniture can be changed, carpets can be fitted and all sorts of other things can happen that might have meant that the structure did not pass the certification in the first instance? Do you agree that perhaps a more dynamic monitoring role is required over how new buildings are being addressed from within existing structures—therefore, no extra body is particularly needed because we are approving buildings as we speak—but that looking at the timeframes might be a useful thing to do?
Dan Daly: I suppose that speaks more to the work that is being done around building safety—the Bill that is coming forward and the work on designing a new building safety regime. We cannot escape the findings of the Dame Judith Hackitt review. They were very damning about the existing system, and they speak to why we find ourselves with the built environment that we do and the challenges that that poses—not just for RPs in managing it, but for residents who have to live in the buildings, for us as enforcers and for firefighters in terms of their safety when they attend the buildings. We are fully engaged in that process.
It is equally important that we get this legislation absolutely right so that during occupation, the duties of whoever is responsible, day to day, for the fire safety in those buildings is very, very clear and it does not allow people to pass the buck—so that it is absolutely clear who is responsible, and they will be held accountable. That is what we are seeking.
Sarah Jones
Q
Dan Daly: On the first point, we suggest that the Bill should be amended to make sure that it has the flexibility to encompass the Grenfell phase 1 and phase 2 inquiry recommendations. I think that is entirely appropriate, because I think people expect the Bill to pick up the lessons and the learning from that, so we absolutely support that. Can you remind me of the second point?
Sarah Jones
The insurance issue—if you take a risk-based approach, what about all the people who do not have the right pieces of paper?
Dan Daly: Our role is to be fully engaged with insurers and those who support people to invest in and take out mortgages on properties, to give them an understanding of what that risk-based approach means. If we are able to convince those partners that the lower-risk buildings present a lesser risk, that should, hopefully, help with some of those challenges.
At the moment, when we have a slightly less finessed version of what risk looks like in these buildings, it is very hard for people in those circumstances to make accurate judgments and assessments. Part of our role is to support that, and I think the risk-based approach that we propose will help with some of that, because we will absolutely identify those more high-risk buildings, put resources towards them and focus the remediation efforts on them. By design, that would allocate other buildings to a lower threshold of risk.
The Chair
Penny, did you want to come in at all on that question?
Penny Pender: No, thank you.
The Chair
Thank you. That brings us to the end of this panel. We have only three minutes left before 12 o’clock. Thank you so much to both of you for answering our questions this morning; it has been extremely helpful. We will now conclude this part of the sitting and move on to the next. Thank you for being with us.
Examination of Witnesses
The Chair
Q
James Carpenter: I am James Carpenter, head of fire safety at L&Q. If you are not aware, L&Q Group is a large housing provider in London, and we currently manage more than 110,000 homes. I have been in the housing sector since 2007. Prior to that, I was a firefighter in the Royal Air Force. We are also, as a group, involved with and an early adopter of the building safety programme, and we are a strong supporter of the brief on fire safety across the built environment, to improve existing buildings but also new buildings coming out of construction. Our aim is to support that continuous improvement in fire safety to avoid tragedies such as those we have seen.
In offering evidence, we hope to ensure that amendments to the Bill are realistic and, more importantly, achievable for those who manage buildings and for residents, so that they understand what those challenges are and, ultimately, so that we can give reassurance about the safety of people’s homes.
The Chair
Q
Dennis Davis: Thank you. I am Dennis Davis, the executive officer of the Fire Sector Federation, which is a not-for-profit non-government organisation. We are an organisation of organisations, so our membership comprises professional bodies, trade associations, unions and commercial enterprises. Our collective work is really to improve public fire safety. We work as a group, and I lead work around competency and fire risk assessment.
We, like many others, have been working for a long period to try to improve overall competencies—our work predates the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire—and most recently we have been working with the Government and others to try to improve fire risk assessor competency across the board. We, too, welcome the Bill and look forward to its guidance, but we have concerns about definitions and clarity, and concerns about the implications of taking it forward in practice.
The Chair
Thank you. We have a number of questions for you from Members of Parliament on the Committee. We will start with Sarah Jones, who leads for the Labour party on this matter.
Sarah Jones
Q
Mr Carpenter, one of our amendments is about how the definition of responsible persons should not include leaseholders. One issue that has been raised with us is how you implement a Bill when you are looking at a building in its totality and, as a freeholder, you have a responsibility to look, for example, at doors that might belong to the flat owner rather than you. How on earth can you do that? How do you know if changes are made or things happen when parts of the building are not in your control? How does that work?
Dennis Davis: The first thing to say is that the built environment—the part we are concerned with—is very complex. Buildings, of course, are infinitely variable, from a small single-storey dwelling to a block of flats on top of a commercial development that has got car parking, leisure activities and so on. So the environment you are looking at is complex, but fire risk in particular is holistic. By that, I mean it is about the way people interact with the building, the building itself, the structures and the way the whole process is put together. One big issue that often arises is that when the way you design, construct and build—the professional leadership in the process—is transferred on to the ground, and more importantly into the life of the building, you find that things you thought had been constructed, developed and managed in a certain way are not.
The first point I would like to make, therefore, is that in trying to look at the competence of individuals, you are first trying to ensure that there is a common platform of understanding about fire and its behaviour, and about people and how they behave, before going into the complexities and granularity of buildings themselves. You could have a fire engineer—I am a qualified fire engineer—who specialises in a particular area. You might have someone working offshore, in the radiation industry or on high-rise buildings. You cannot take one simple snapshot and say, “Oh, he or she is qualified as such and therefore is able to develop himself or herself into all these areas.”
Secondly, many of these things are not mandated, in terms of qualification. You can become qualified, but when it comes to applications in the real world, often there is no specific legislation that says, “You must use one of these people.” Because of the need for flexibility, the legislation has to ensure that it asks for competent people and, on that basis, you become reliant on a definition of what is competent. If we can pass through that, we can start to understand how difficult these issues can become.
Most of what we do in more complex environments involves a team-based assessment, rather than an individual one. We are talking about fire risk assessment or fire engineering. An individual may be capable of handling a project, but if that project evolves and becomes bigger and more complex, you add more skills and colleagues, and there is more team-based working. That has to be applied through the life of the building. The built stock is the difficult bit. New buildings should be well regulated, but once a building is occupied and used, it becomes a different environment again.
The Chair
Mr Davis, thank you for that. We have a lot of questions to get through in the next 25 minutes. That was an excellent and comprehensive answer, but I would be grateful if we could have slightly more concise answers.
James Carpenter: I think the key point is around access and, as you mentioned, doors. With residential housing, a lot of buildings might be fairly straightforward in their basic design. The complexities come with the various management arrangements, lease agreements and so on.
The biggest question and challenge for housing providers is one of access. We cannot have it, we do not have it—there is no right of access. With tenants, we might be able to go to court and get injunctions to gain access to a home, but with leases, that challenge becomes even more difficult. It is their private space and we cannot touch it. When it comes to self-closers and checking inside doors, it is optional and voluntary for the leaseholder to listen or to comply with what we are asking. That is a big concern.
As we submitted in the evidence, in my view and in that of others, it would be useful if the law would allow leaseholders to be held responsible for their actions. That could allow building owners some leverage in getting leaseholders to co-operate. Also, if we got to that final point, action could be taken directly against them by enforcing authorities, which would solve the challenge that there has been in housing for the last 13 years or so.
David Simmonds
Q
From personal experience, I refer to the example of a structure that has been signed off by building control— an independent contractor of the contractor who has built the structure—but, when occupying the building, the local authority discovers that the fire door has been installed against a false ceiling so that it is, in effect, not providing any fire safety at all. One would only know that by taking the whole thing down and finding that that was the case. Such intrusive activity is a significant step into leaseholders’ property. Does the accountable individual need powers, or does something else around building control need to be done to change this situation?
James Carpenter: Ultimately, if there was a way of transferring ownership of a leaseholder’s property through legislation so that it is no longer theirs but the building owner’s, that could solve the problem, because it is now our door and not theirs. I do not know whether that is possible, but that could be something to look into. Other than that, I am not sure. If leaseholders, or whoever it is, have a responsibility to ensure that something is there, safe and how it should be, they have a duty to ensure that that continues and must not make any changes to jeopardise that. That is where I think the law needs to be able to hold multiple people responsible, as opposed to just a single building owner. While I appreciate that having one person in control of everything would make things a lot easier, realistically, I do not think that that is possible.
Dennis Davis: It is quite a difficult one. Again, it is worth remembering that there is another Bill, which will take some of those powers and is about trying to ensure that a building is maintained as well as constructed to a standard. Some of that legislative power may exist within those requirements. We picked up the point about common doors in our submission, because it is an issue. It needs to be very clear that the responsible person has access and can control those elements in the same way that they can control the fire safety systems—alarms or detectors—within a dwelling. Clarity in that area would be helpful; there is no doubt about that.
The Chair
Can you see us all right, Mr Davis? Are you watching this?
Dennis Davis: Yes, I am watching.
Andy Slaughter
Q
For example, a building that is mainly brick but has some detailing made from aluminium composite material or high-pressure laminate will have a much lower priority than one that has complete cladding. Also, there just are not the people there to carry out the enforcement. For example, a social landlord—and social landlords are much better than private landlords, in my experience—that is not L&Q is telling occupants of a particular building in my constituency that it might take four years for this to be done. That is problematic in itself, and it has the additional problem that the EWS1 form and the process to be gone through effectively stops any sale or movement during that time. Are you aware of those problems, and how can you see them being resolved?
James Carpenter: L&Q currently has 191 buildings that are over 18 metres, and we estimate at the moment that those buildings will cost in excess of £450 million to resolve, which may take up to 10 years. The G15, as a wider group of housing providers in London, has over 1,100 buildings, and the estimated cost could be as high as £6.8 billion for those buildings. I appreciate that there are extreme challenges with buildings.
On the point about sales, I think it is really important that the insurance industry, which seemed to be holding up the EWS1 forms being completed, works with mortgage lenders to try to open the market again, to allow at least one of those problems to be resolved. If the building insurance covered the cladding, would mortgage lenders be happier to lend, on the basis that their money is not at risk, because it is covered by the wider building insurance?
The situation of leaseholder and mortgage prisoners, as they have been referred to in the press, is extremely unfortunate, and I do not think that that is right at all. People should be able to buy and sell their homes regardless of whether the walls have a different material on them. It is right that we all work towards the end goal of making sure all those buildings are safe. We can look at the numbers for how much money it will cost to resolve some of these buildings, but we must deal with it by risk. It has to be about safety risk, where we have concerns with lower-rise buildings that might be able to move if we can solve the cladding issue by just issuing a certificate. We need to keep focusing on safety risk. We have to continue working with and lobbying mortgage lenders, with the Government, to make sure those measures do not hold up the lending process and stop people moving.
Dennis Davis: As a first answer, we are very much aware of these issues, and I think that comes out in our evidence. The clarity that we are seeking is around definitions, for some of the reasons that have been touched on. External walls are a team event, as I have made clear. Therefore, it is about scaling part of this process—how many people are available to undertake the sort of area of cover that we are dealing with. The impact assessment suggests that it is a very large number of properties, rather than just the over 18 metres.
On the example of over 18 metres, where the Government has funded the schemes of remediation, you can see how progress can be made. Equally, even with funds, dedication and teams, it is a relatively slow process. We are three years on and the National Audit Office is saying we are getting there. The issue is how we manage it. As Mr Carpenter said, it is about managing the process through prioritisation of the risk. We are working with the Government, hopefully through a new task-and-finish group, to try to move that forward in a positive way.
There has to be due diligence from the responsible person to make sure this is happening, but it is worth remembering that a lot of these people are in relatively low-risk low-rise buildings, which are now within the scope. We need a process to manage that that is very open and transparent, so that tenants know they are safe. We can work on that together.
The EWS1 form has created its own problem. It was intended originally for high rises, but it is now being used to free up the whole mortgage market. The problem that we see with that is that you get unqualified assessors signing off forms just so that the market can move. Risk assessors have found it difficult to get indemnity cover. We have spoken to the insurance world about that as a trade body—our people have contacted them—and the people who want that level of insurance can get it. You are dealing with a broad spectrum of risk, and we need to get the elephant down to bitesize chunks.
Andy Slaughter
Q
The Chair
Mr Davis, do you have a solution for us?
Dennis Davis: I think the solution, Chairman, is shared work between those responsible for the buildings; the owners, like L&Q; those who are actually applying the skills, techniques and competences; the enforcers; and the Government. As I understand it, the initiative that is being created by the Home Office to try to work this process through will do that. Where and when the result of that will be seen, and how much and who pays—I am afraid I cannot answer that.
The Chair
Q
James Carpenter: With that particular issue, I do not know what the answer is. I think there needs to be an understanding. The key is to separate the two points. Resolving the mortgage lending issue should be looked at completely separately to solving the cladding issue. Separating them completely would solve the concerns that have been raised with leaseholders. But we still need to appreciate that the sums of money involved in remediating buildings are very expensive and it will take time. There is no quick solution to finding either the money for it or the skilled people to do it. But I think the answer is to take mortgage lending and view it completely separately. How to do that I am not quite sure, but to take the risk of cladding away from lending would be the right thing to do.
The Chair
Thank you. We have time for two more questions, which will be asked by Daisy Cooper followed by Karen Buck, and then the Minister may want to come in quickly at the end.
Daisy Cooper
Q
I also have a quick question for Mr Carpenter, following up on your last point. What do you think is the fairest way of managing the costs? I say that as an MP with constituents who are being asked to pay 20 grand or more as an up-front, one-off cost, as well as having their service charges increased sixfold. Some of them are trapped financially because they cannot fight, and they have no mechanism to raise the money that is needed to pay for the remedial work. So that is a question for each of you, quickly.
Dennis Davis: It is difficult to give you a very quick answer. There could be 50,000 people who call themselves risk assessors. Some of them will be employed by a company specific to their premises and will help to maintain the integrity of that company’s building facility etc. They will be trained, maybe on a week’s course and maybe in particular areas, and that will be their skill base and they will do that.
The fire safety order, when it was brought in, was deliberately intended to be applied by individuals if they so wished. Part of the phrasing, I think, at the time was that it was not intended by the Government to be a consultants charter. The inference from that is that you should be able to apply a lot of common sense, and the Government published a very detailed series of guides to assist in that.
So at one level you need no qualification; you can do this yourself, provided that the premises are simple. At the other end of the spectrum, you certainly would need degree-level education—level 4 and above—to be able to apply the standards to complex buildings. In addition to that, you might need a high level of granularity, as I have said, in a particular system. That might be the installation—that is, the cladding system—or the fire alarm system.
This spectrum is very wide. The problem, as we foresee it, is that there are people going around who say that they are fire risk assessors, but they do not have a qualification. They have not attended any form of course, training and so on, yet they purport to offer this service. Our worry is that the public are then placed in a situation where they think that they have received good advice, but they may not have done. There is certainly anecdotal evidence of that sort of application.
James Carpenter: One of our asks is that we want to be able to reassure housing association residents that they will not need to foot the bill for these works. Obviously, there is the £1 billion building safety fund at the moment, but that is predicated on where the viability of the owners may be threatened by funding the works themselves, and it will involve submitting a business case and so on as to why they would be at risk without support.
We are currently assessing our position. However, it would be unlikely that large associations such as L&Q would be eligible under this particular scheme, and those that are would then have to notify the Regulator of Social Housing, which may in turn result in a downgrade of their viability. We are working jointly with the G15 on this. Neither our leaseholders nor tenants should pay the price for systemic issues in relation to building safety. We need to exhaust all possible options to claim the costs, or to get those that were responsible to pay for those things. Failing that, and in the absence of Government funding, we will have no choice but to consider those legal obligations that are set out in leases with residents. However, that is the last point. We have not done it with the buildings that we have remediated; we have not done it with leaseholders, but it is there as the last resort.
Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)
Q
It was widely believed that leaseholders would want to co-operate, for example, after the Lakanal fire, yet lawyers were saying that as many as one in three simply did not and would not. So can you give us an idea about the scale of the problem and the complexities? In London, there are particular issues with things such as the overseas ownership of property, which makes it difficult to track the true owners of properties. Can you also comment on why enforcement is difficult, for example, for housing associations and local government, in terms of the cost and the length of time it takes to take people to court?
The Chair
Mr Carpenter, for some fairly concise answers, if you will, please.
James Carpenter: On the challenge, we have got more than 100,000 homes and there are tenants in a lot of those. The issue of access is not just in relation to leaseholders; we also have issues with tenants, where they do not want to help us to meet those demands. With leases, we have a separate issue. It is not just about inspecting; we can also have challenges where we want to make improvements to buildings, but they are objected to by residents, because they do not want sprinklers in their home or a fire alarm system. We may then manage to put a fire alarm system in someone’s home, and it is linked to the building to raise warning to others, and they unscrew detector heads and so on. So the challenge is a huge and, as a landlord, there is very little power we can take without going through a lengthy and costly court process—often the costs of that are not recoverable. That is the challenge, but I point out that that is not all tenants and all leaseholders. Obviously, we do get people who co-operate and understand, but there are also people who don’t want you accessing their home.
Ms Buck
Q
James Carpenter: Access is a significant problem for building owners to manage—it is not small in any sense. It is not all tenants who cause those issues, but this is a significant challenge for landlords.
The Chair
A quick answer from you, Mr Davis.
Dennis Davis: I am very sorry but I cannot give you a scale on this, which is what you asked for. The anecdotal evidence certainly is that there are tenants, whether leaseholders or not, who do not like you to have access. In addition, there are difficulties in any case for everyone, because people work and so on. Therefore, access outside normal working hours can often be the norm if you are trying to visit inside someone’s dwelling. You can understand why those arrangements have to be made, but it is a serious issue for those seeking to maintain systems—there is absolutely no doubt about that.
The Chair
I believe we are not allowed to go beyond 12.30 pm by the programme motion, but the Minister has a quick point to make.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I was just going to try to draw out some of the complexities of access, not just for fitting, but for maintenance. Just to clarify, the way the Bill is commenced will have significant effects. I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that one thing we have done is to convene this task and finish group, which Mr Davis referred to, with the various bodies, not least the NFCC and the Fire Sector Federation on it, to devise a recommendation to the Home Office as to how the Bill should be commenced. I know we have an amendment on commencement this afternoon, but that is going to be our method of making sure we get it right.
The Chair
Thank you, that is very helpful.
Gentlemen, thank you very much indeed. We have now run out of time. Thank you, Mr Carpenter and Mr Davis for excellent answers. The Committee is very grateful. We must move on to our last set of witnesses.
Examination of Witnesses
Adrian Dobson and Matt Wrack gave evidence.
The Chair
This session can last until 1 pm. Beginning with you, Mr Dobson, would our witnesses kindly introduce themselves for the record? If you would like to say a few words up front, now is the time to do so.
Adrian Dobson: Thank you very much, Chair. My name is Adrian Dobson and I am the executive director for professional services at the Royal Institute of British Architects where, broadly, I look after educational and practice standards. I also support the work of RIBA’s expert advisory group on fire safety.
Matt Wrack: I am Matt Wrack, the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, which represents the vast majority of serving fire officers across the UK. I signed up as a firefighter in the London Fire Brigade in 1983 and have served as general secretary since 2005. Our approach to the Bill is that we broadly support it. However, we have some concerns about the need for a more joined-up approach on the whole question of the fire safety regime.
In that regard, I represent particularly fire inspecting officers, a specialist group within the fire and rescue service. I thank them for their feedback on their views on the Bill. The concerns come down to issues about implementation, and therefore about investment. For example, the impact assessment is based in our view on a very rough and ready calculation based on the current regime. However, in our view and that of our members, that regime is not fit for purpose. That is demonstrated very clearly by some major failings, most notably the Grenfell Tower fire.
Look, for example, at the specialist roles within the fire and rescue service. Between 2011 and 2020, we have seen a 19% reduction in the number of watch managers, a 23% reduction in the number of station managers, and a 20% reduction in the number of fire and rescue service staff overall. If we take the number of inspectors, we see inadequate record keeping by the relevant Department, which is currently the Home Office. Most recently, it reported that in England some 951 fire and rescue staff are eligible to carry out fire safety audits. If we look back 20 years for England and Wales, the figure was some 1,724, so in terms of competent staff with rather technical expertise there have been very significant reductions.
The impact assessment that has been produced in relation to the Bill does not, in our view, adequately take account of the demands that will be placed upon the fire and rescue service as a result of the Bill. We therefore urge the Government and parliamentarians to seek a more joined-up approach to the whole question of the fire safety regime, in this case across England.
The Chair
Thank you, Mr Wrack. You will now be asked questions by a number of Members of Parliament. We will start with Sarah Jones on behalf of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition.
Sarah Jones
Q
Mr Wrack, you have already set out for us quite a lot of the concerns about funding. We know that the fire service has had significant cuts over the past 10 years. Can you, again, tell us what “good” looks like in terms of how we implement the Bill? What do we need in terms of resourcing and the joined-up approach that you talked about?
Adrian Dobson: We certainly recognise that the Bill is important legislation. I will pick up on the point that Mr Wrack made on joined-up thinking. It is a piece in the jigsaw. We are still concerned about having strong and clear functioning building regulations and a proper enforcement regime. Obviously, our main expertise is in the design and construction of buildings to the point at which they are handed over to the owner or occupier, or where there is major refurbishment.
Our essential concern is the relationship between this Bill and the Building Safety Bill. The two must join together. We would support most of the provisions in this Bill, particularly giving enforcement powers to local fire services in relation to the structure and external walls of buildings, fire doors and so on. I note Mr Wrack’s point, however, that the resources must be in place to do that.
On joining the Fire Safety Bill and the Building Safety Bill, I can highlight a danger whereby gaps might exist. For example, the fire safety order talks about a “responsible person”, but the Building Safety Bill talks about an “accountable person” and a “building safety manager”. What would be the lines of communication between those roles? Are they fulfilled by the same person? There is a risk there.
Dame Judith Hackitt has been a prime driver of the content of the Building Safety Bill. She talks a lot about “the golden thread”. We are aware that the quality of information handed over at the end of construction work is often poor. If the fire service is looking at evacuation plans and wants to know what materials have been used in the building, that information is not as readily available as it should be. We would like an amendment that says that the fire service and the occupier should be entitled to accurate, as-built information. Members of the Committee are probably aware of some of the dangers in procurement when materials get changed during the design and construction process.
While we welcome the Bill, we await an improved enforcement regime in relation to building regulations and changes to the approved documents. To illustrate the importance of that, for example, the Bill talks about the need to review evacuation plans, but we know that some of the legislation around escape routes is ambiguous. We need to ensure that the two tie together.
Matt Wrack: On the question of what “good” would look like, I am approaching this from the point of view of firefighters and the fire and rescue service. For us, there must be a joined-up approach between the specialist fire safety teams and firefighters on stations.
If you look at the question of resources—unfortunately, a lot of this does come down to resources—we need a greater understanding of fire safety in the operational workforce. Unfortunately, over the past 15 or 20 years, we have seen a reduction in initial training courses to cut costs. Courses that might have been 16 weeks 20 years ago are now reduced to 13 or 12 weeks, or less than 10 weeks in some cases. There needs to be a greater understanding at the station level of fire safety risks.
There needs to be an end to the reduction in fire safety teams. Fire services that have been financially squeezed have found it easier to cut specialist fire safety teams than fire stations. I am not in favour of cutting either, but they have cut fire safety teams. We have reports of fire safety teams being cut by 25%, 50% or more over the past decade.
We need a joined-up approach between the two wings of the fire service in that respect. We need to prevent fires from happening, if we can. We need to mitigate the spread of fire where it does occur. We need to know how to fight fires when they occur—we know that they will occur. That is what we mean by a joined-up approach.
There are concerns among fire safety specialist officers about the levels of training, both at the stations and among their peers. There are concerns about refresher training. If new materials come on to the market, such as cladding, there needs to be adequate resources to enable people to be updated with the latest developments.
The final point I would make about what “good” would look like is that we need a much more joined-up approach nationally to the whole question of fire, fire policy and how we deal with fires. That means proper research. It is alarming that many firefighters and many fire services apparently did not know what was being put on to buildings. They therefore had not researched how they would inspect such buildings to be aware of the risks, for example, at Grenfell. They were also, therefore, not aware of how such fires might be tackled if necessary.
We used to have a body in the British fire service called the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council, which would have addressed such matters. Sadly, it was abolished in 2004, and nothing similar has been put in place to replace it. That is what we mean by a lack of a joined-up approach, and that is what is desperately missing in the fire safety regime in Britain today.
Daisy Cooper
Q
“the impact assessment ‘does not include any additional enforcement costs’”,
and you suggest that fire inspectors would need to spend
“a great deal of time and effort”
to focus on getting cases through the courts and so on. I suspect this question might be like, “How long is a piece of string?”, but in the absence of an impact assessment, can you give an estimate of your own assessment of what those additional enforcement costs might be?
Matt Wrack: I am afraid I am not able to give that. I do think that, on the question of enforcement, there have been cases of ministerial pressure to reduce the enforcement role of the fire and rescue service, which is something that Ministers need to think carefully about. Fire services have been criticised subsequently for being slow to act on their enforcement role.
The whole question of fire services’ enforcement role ties in with the more general points I have made, in that they need adequate specialist fire safety teams, and that is possibly the area, or certainly one of the areas, where we have seen the largest reductions in staffing levels, with all the knock-on concerns about training and refresher training. I am not able to answer that question directly, but I think it is very much a resource question.
Andy Slaughter
Q
The specific point that I would like you both to address is that it appears, as there is a specific mention of “external walls” in clause 1, that the Bill is directed at what we have already seen coming out of the Grenfell inquiry in relation to external cladding and cladding systems. But lots more issues have emerged from that, such as the way that buildings are constructed or modified, means of escape, alarm systems and the processes for evacuation in that way. Do you think that they are also adequately covered in the Bill or do we need other legislation? Do you think we have the means to carry out all those matters?
Adrian Dobson: There is quite a range of questions there. Essentially, in my view, the Bill is just clarifying and pointing to some key facts, as it is not fundamentally changing the nature of the approach. I could not agree more that, although it is useful to highlight the issue of external wall construction and cladding, there are lots of other known issues in relation to fire safety. For example, the Scottish schools report talks a lot about fire compartmentation and lack of proper fire barriers. You have pointed out the issue around means of escape and evacuation strategies. To return to my earlier point, I see this as only part of the jigsaw. What we desperately need is clarification of the building regulations themselves and a stronger enforcement or competency regime around that, so that the two work together.
Matt Wrack: I see the Bill as a clarifying Bill, as has been suggested. On that level, we welcome it, with some of the amendments in particular. You highlight an important point—much of the national focus is on cladding.
There is clearly a national scandal about flammable cladding being put on to buildings, but we are aware from Grenfell and other fires that there are many other failings in fire safety in buildings, particularly with the risk of the breakdown of compartmentation. Cladding is clearly one mechanism by which that happened at Grenfell, but issues around other materials used in renovations and modifications of buildings are also relevant. If people have fire resistant walls and drill holes through them, that will clearly alter the fire resistance of the compartment. All those things need to be built into a proper fire safety regime.
I do not think the Bill addresses the question of evacuation. That is obviously a huge concern to people living in high-rise residential buildings; it is also a huge concern to firefighters, who have been trained for decades in ways to fight fires in high-rise residential buildings that are based on the construction and design of those buildings. Over the past 20 years or so, those buildings have been modified in a way that was never intended, which has altered the whole structure and fire behaviour in those buildings.
In our view, there is no simple answer to the question of evacuation. Again, we raised the question of a review of evacuation at the close of stage 1 of the Grenfell Tower inquiry. We now have Government bodies looking at reviewing the evacuation policy and saying that it might take two or three years. Firefighters were apparently supposed to decide on new strategies on the night, even though the people reviewing the policy have told us that it will take them two years or more to reach such a conclusion.
I come back to my point about a joined-up approach. We should have bodies in the British fire service that take account of the views of all professionals, take account of research and develop answers to these questions as we go along. We should be horizon-scanning. There had been fires in clad buildings elsewhere in the world. It is staggering that no one in leadership positions in the British fire service or at Government level was monitoring those and seeing what should happen to alter policy in Britain.
Andy Slaughter
Q
Adrian Dobson: I think I would answer broadly yes, in those aspects that have now effectively been covered by prescriptive regulations. In relation to combustible external wall materials on high-rise residential buildings, we have at the moment a fairly prescriptive piece of legislation that makes best practice pretty clear. As you say, however, there is a certain element of lobbying to say that we need a more flexible approach, so you can already see attempts to row back on that. In terms of what has actually been regulated, fairly good practice is in place. We know there is quite a lot of good retrofitting work happening on buildings above 18 metres, even if it is very slow, but we do not really have much idea in terms of combustible materials below 18 metres.
Matt Wrack: I would like to comment on the lobbying that was mentioned by a building developer recently and in some earlier comments in your session. One of the voices we are keen to hear are those of tenants. The lesson of Grenfell is that the voices of tenants were ignored. The voices of tenants are often ignored in relation to building and modifications to the places where they live. The vast majority of tenants are respectable, sensible people and their views should be heard. They were not heard at Grenfell. I think they, us and firefighters would have greater respect for a risk-based approach if we could have the confidence in such a risk-based approach. Unfortunately, experience shows that risk-based approaches are often driven by commercial and financial interests, and that is why people have scepticism about them.
Sarah Jones
Q
Matt Wrack: We oppose a deregulated system of fire risk assessors. Sadly, much of the work we end up doing arises out of tragedies. One of our experiences in that regard relates to the death of one of our own members. It emerged that the fire risk assessor in the case concerned had few or no qualifications in that field and had simply set up in business as a fire risk assessor. That highlighted to us a disgraceful state of affairs, so we would support the better regulation of fire risk assessors. However, the best protection we have, in terms of the delivery of advice to occupiers and building owners, and the best mechanism for inspection and enforcement, is a well-resourced and highly skilled workforce in a publicly accountable fire and rescue service.
Adrian Dobson: Clearly, on the specific issue of cladding and insulation, retrofitting is possible. The very reason those materials were used for cladding is because they are lightweight and external—they do not form part of the structure of the building—so the practicality of making buildings safer is definitely there. We have seen some, albeit slow, progress.
As I think one of the witnesses in your earlier session said, the cost can be very significant indeed. While steady progress is being made in the social sector, I think your Committee has today discussed some of the issues when it comes to private leaseholders in privately owned blocks and the ultimate issue of where the funding will come from. That, of course, is what set off secondary problems within the insurance and mortgage markets. One of the problems we face is professional indemnity insurance. Although the cladding can be identified through testing and so on, it tends to require intrusive testing. It requires specialists to look at it and that requires insurance for them, so there is a potential blockage.
The bigger concern is that following the fires we had in Barking and Bolton, attention has naturally turned to whether these sorts of materials pose a very significant risk on lower-rise buildings. There has been discussion about what height threshold might apply. Some people have suggested 11 metres—indeed, 11 metres is the height chosen by the Government for sprinklers—but one of the problems there is that you have got a whole different order of magnitude, potentially, of properties that could be affected. That may also be a factor that is driving some of the movement in the insurance sector, because there is probably a realisation that this is potentially a much larger problem than was first thought.
Sarah Jones
Q
Mr Dobson, do you agree with Mr Wrack’s frustration about the time that it has taken to do all of that? Grenfell was three years ago. What should we be doing? Clearly, there is huge complexity and hundreds of working groups at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government are working through all this. Equally, there is a real hunger for going faster. Is there any way in which you think we could and should be going faster?
Matt Wrack: No, I do not think that we grasp the scale of the problem at all. If I can refer back to Grenfell, the focus of the country has been on ACM cladding, but what we found at Grenfell was that virtually every single element of fire protection in the building failed. So if that has happened in one building, what is the scale in every building in the country? It is immense. There has been a lot of renovation, refurbishment and modification of buildings over the past 20 or 30 years, which has altered the building as it was originally designed and constructed, so we will therefore have altered fire behaviour in such buildings, particularly for compartmentation, in relation to the response of firefighters.
That brings me back to our frustration with the Bill’s impact assessment, because it is based on the current way that buildings are looked at. In our view, we need a much better way of looking at buildings. That would require time for an upskilling of firefighters in fire stations so that they recognise risks and can then refer them to specialist teams within the fire service. That would require training for both groups of staff and adequate powers to undertake the necessary inspections on a scale that, at the moment, we do not currently grasp in full detail.
The Chair
Thank you. Mr Dobson, we will finish the sitting at two o’clock, so you have two minutes to answer.
Adrian Dobson: I will try to rise to that challenge. I think that we see the problems as threefold. There is an issue around how we procure buildings in the first place and procure alterations to buildings. I imagine that when the final report of the Grenfell Tower inquiry is written, it will have much to say about that. Then, there is an issue of competence and expertise, which you have already touched on. Of course, the UK construction industry is a relatively deregulated industry with very few regulatory competence requirements—they are mainly voluntary systems—so the industry will really have to put its house in order if it is going to regain public confidence.
There is also a regulatory problem. We have seen movement on the introduction of requirements for sprinklers being extended, and on combustible materials—from the consultation, that is likely to be extended. However, although we have good movement on the building safety Bill and on the Fire Safety Bill, we have not seen a comprehensive review of the actual guidance that people work to, so we are essentially working to the same approved documents that we worked to previously. That is disappointing because, although people recognise the need for research on some of those issues, we seem reluctant to get on and commission it and, as Mr Wrack said, reluctant to learn from colleagues in other countries who have experienced similar problems.
The Chair
Thank you very much, Mr Dobson and Mr Wrack, for your excellent evidence—you have helped the Committee enormously. As you know, we will grapple with those issues this afternoon as we go through the Bill line by line.
Trade Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 25th 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 25 June 2020 - (25 Jun 2020)
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: 10 - 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: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)
I beg to move amendment 18, in schedule 2, page 11, line 26, leave out from “section 1(1)” to the end of line 27 and insert
“may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would specify an affirmative resolution procedure for regulations under section 1(1).
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to the amendment in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Let me make it clear that we have tabled this amendment recognising that the affirmative resolution procedure is not a perfect process by any means. It is, nevertheless, better than the annulment procedure, which Ministers currently have locked into the Bill. An affirmative process is vital, as without it the Government will have carte blanche to introduce regulations to implement the obligations arising from our independent membership of the GPA—the agreement on government procurement—without the slightest hint of anything resembling parliamentary scrutiny.
The negative resolution procedure the Government propose for regulations under clause 1(1) is the least rigorous of all the parliamentary procedures for scrutiny available to the House. The main point of the negative resolution procedure is to allow the Government to have their way without any need to bother with parliamentary democracy. Indeed, I am told that the last time a negative instrument was successfully annulled in the House of Commons was the Paraffin (Maximum Retail Prices) (Revocation) (No. 3) Order 1979.
International treaties cannot be easily repealed, but domestic legislation can be repealed much more easily. If ever there were an example of secondary legislation crying out for proper parliamentary scrutiny and oversight, surely this is it. I remind the Committee of the evidence we heard from Rosa Crawford of the Trades Union Congress. In response to Question 70 from my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central, she pointed out:
“The GPA as it stands has no requirement for members to promote social standards in their tendering process.”––[Official Report, Trade Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2020; c. 49, Q70.]
The TUC is worried that, once we leave any kind of relationship with the European Union and no longer have to rely on the EU’s contract regulations, the UK Government may well roll back on those commitments to promote social standards through the tendering process that are currently locked into our law by EU directives.
Opposition Members remember—indeed, Rosa Crawford reminded us all as a Committee—that the Prime Minister and members of the Cabinet have talked many times in the past about wanting to repeal EU-derived rights on working time and agency workers, and other important protections for workers’ rights. Not surprisingly, the TUC is worried that that may well be the direction of travel with procurement regulations in the future.
It is therefore sensible to make sure we have a proper parliamentary process that allows us to explore whether, under the cover of minor technical changes to the GPA—no doubt the Minister will suggest to the Committee that that is all he intends this process for—our contract regulations and the standards associated with them are gradually being undermined and a race to the bottom on standards is under way. We consider the affirmative resolution procedure to be more appropriate than the annulment process in the Bill. However imperfect the affirmative resolution process, it at least provides Members with the possibility of a debate and a vote, and it is then of course up to us to make proper use of that opportunity. That is the spirit of amendment 18.
The Minister for Trade Policy (Greg Hands)
I begin by welcoming you to the Chair this afternoon, Sir Graham. I appreciate the concerns that there should be adequate parliamentary scrutiny of regulations made under the clause 1 power. I am satisfied that that is the case, and let me explain why.
As I have said, the power is intended to allow the UK to make technical changes—for example, to reflect new parties joining the government procurement agreement or existing parties withdrawing from it. In the case of a new or withdrawing party, it is important that the UK is able to respond quickly and flexibly. Once a new party deposits its instrument of accession, there is, under the rules of the World Trade Organisation GPA, a period of only 30 days before that accession comes into force. The UK will then be under an immediate obligation to provide that new party with guaranteed procurement opportunities covered by the GPA, and of course vice versa. If the UK failed to offer the new party this guaranteed access, we would be in breach of our GPA commitments. Equally, a party to the GPA can decide to withdraw unilaterally. When a party notifies the Committee on Government Procurement that it intends to withdraw, it will cease to be a GPA member just 60 days later. It is therefore vital that we are able to react quickly to such a notification, either to join or to withdraw.
If the power to amend UK legislation to reflect a party’s withdrawing from the GPA were subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, we might not be able to legislate in time to remove the party within the 60-day time limit. This could result in UK contracting authorities continuing to give a party that has left the GPA—companies from that country—guaranteed access to the UK’s procurement market that it is no longer entitled to have. Furthermore, the former party would have no obligation at the same time to give UK businesses reciprocal access to its procurement markets. I am confident that Members will agree on the need to regulate quickly in these instances, both practically so that UK businesses are not disadvantaged and to show good faith to the other party.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Minister made great play two years ago of the idea that the affirmative resolution procedure takes 30 days longer than the negative resolution procedure. However, that is not an issue because the Government are notified months in advance that this is coming, and Government officials are able to put in place the necessary regulations, whether negative or affirmative. There is plenty of time to get ready to avoid the catastrophic outcome that the Minister describes.
Greg Hands
The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. In fact, accession to the GPA typically take some years, so in that sense it would have been telegraphed quite far in advance—the most recent party to join is Australia. But it would be inappropriate for us to ratify someone joining the GPA in advance of them actually depositing the papers, so although joining is a lengthy process, the actual ratification process is very short. That is the key difference in this case.
The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s report on the Trade Bill 2017-19 raised no concerns, nor made any recommendations, about the use of the negative procedure in relation to this power. However, let me clear: when new parties are seeking to accede to the GPA, we will ensure that Parliament is kept informed. Parliamentary scrutiny is more effective before an accession is agreed, because that is when the views of Parliament can be taken into account.
Where a WTO member is seeking to join the GPA, it is our intention to notify Parliament, to keep the relevant Committee—in this case, the International Trade Committee—informed as the negotiations proceed, and to allow further discussion where desired. That is the right time for Parliament to be actively involved in a debate, for example, on Australia’s accession to the GPA—although the case of Australia is backward looking, of course, to when we were covered by the GPA through our EU membership. If there were such a case going forward, the right time would be during the discussions to the accession, not after the accession had been agreed.
I remind Members that there has already been parliamentary scrutiny of the UK’s market access schedules and the text of the GPA, which were laid before Parliament in line with the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010. That process concluded without objection in 2019. Any further changes to the GPA, including the UK schedules prior to our accession, will again be scrutinised in line with CRAG.
I hope my comments provide reassurance to the Committee. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment and commend schedule 2 to the Committee.
Gareth Thomas
I was toying with being persuaded by the Minister until the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Sefton Central. Given what he said about the amount of telegraphing that Ministers will have about the changes and given the scale of scrutiny provisions that were included in the last Bill come the end of Report stage in the Lords and the Commons, which have now been taken out of the current Bill, I fear that on this occasion, I need to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 1, in schedule 4, page 15, leave out line 14 and insert—
“(a) a member to chair it, appointed by the Secretary of State with the consent of the International Trade Committee of the House of Commons,”.
This amendment would establish the requirement for Parliament, through the relevant committee, to give its consent to the Secretary of State’s recommendation for appointment to the Chair of the Trade Remedies Authority.
It is a pleasure to see you back for the final sitting of the Committee, Sir Graham.
I know that the Minister sometimes forgets what we said in our reasoned amendment, so in case he has forgotten again, I remind him that we recognised the desirability of—indeed, the need for—the UK to pass
“effective legislation to implement agreements”
and
“to set out the basis of a Trade Remedies Authority to deliver the new UK trade remedies framework”.
Yes, we do indeed support the creation of the Trade Remedies Authority. There it is again, for the avoidance of doubt, on the record. No doubt the Minister will claim otherwise, as he has done numerous times in the past two years.
Schedule 4 states that the Secretary of State will appoint the chair, who will in turn appoint the chief executive and non-executive members of the Trade Remedies Authority. The amendment is about how the appointment of the chair is carried out. The chair is appointed by the Secretary of State and in that process there is no recourse to Parliament or to other scrutiny of the appointment. The Secretary of State is therefore free to appoint someone in their own image, with the same political leanings and economic opinion—which is the more important point.
Indeed, although I have no idea of his politics, when Simon Walker gave evidence he gave every indication that he entirely agrees with the approach of the Secretary of State to trade remedies. I do not say that to denigrate Mr Walker. I have known him for a number of years and he is a well-travelled representative of business, who has had a number of different roles. The amendment is about not him as an individual, but the principle. It is about the opportunity to appoint someone with a particular approach to trade remedies and the appointment, in turn, of an unbalanced Trade Remedies Authority that looks only at the approach favoured by the Government.
The previous Secretary of State had advisers from Legatum and the Initiative for Free Trade. The current Secretary of State has an adviser from the Adam Smith Institute. It is clear what the main thrust of Government advice is on those matters.
Gareth Thomas
Has my hon. Friend seen the evidence from the British Ceramic Confederation, which thought there was already a very strong ideological view on tariffs, protectionism and dumping? It highlighted, for example, the recent UK global tariff announcement and suggested that the Government’s pre-eminent view was that all tariffs are protectionist.
Bill Esterson
I am familiar with the evidence that my hon. Friend cites. It reminded us that the Minister has previously said in meetings—I believe he has put it in writing, too—that experts on trade would be appointed to these roles on a non-ideological basis. Yet the evidence on how the people are appointed to the roles suggests that the Government have one single approach, which is as my hon. Friend indicated.
The British Ceramic Confederation has set out concerns that include how global tariffs have been implemented. The way in which the Government tariff schedules have been set out causes a problem for many of the confederation’s members because of the small margins involved in the industry and because even small differences in tariffs between different countries creates a difficult problem for competitiveness.
The Government’s ideological direction of travel is about supporting consumers. The Minister will probably say that the Opposition are against the consumer interest, that we do not support consumers and that we do not think they should have access to good quality low-price imports. But that misses the point. Of course consumers are one of the interests and should be supported. Of course they have every right to be included, but they are one—not the only—consideration in these matters.
Gareth Thomas
It is obviously important that we have the Trade Remedies Authority. Two industries particularly concerned to have it are steel and ceramics. Have there not been consistent concerns in the past about China and one or two other countries trying to dump steel products and ceramics into Europe for UK markets? We need someone robust enough to stand up to such practice, and perhaps only parliamentary scrutiny of that person will help tease that out.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is right. We have discussed ceramics, and he has spoken in other debates about steel and how not having an international trade agreement with Turkey runs the risk, as we were told by UK Steel, of 15% tariffs being levied in one direction and creating a very uncompetitive situation in the streel industry.
However, this is a slightly different point. The point is about trade remedies and the example of steel. In the 2015 steel crisis, cheap imports of Chinese steel flooded the European market, often not of the same quality or standard, and our steel industry was in crisis. The steelworks at Redcar closed, despite the fact that it had world leading carbon capture and storage technology, which was lost for good. The international competitive advantage in that emerging technology has gone from this country, and the rest of our steel industry faced a very difficult time. There are difficult times again now, partly because of the covid crisis and because the Chinese economy has emerged more quickly. The Chinese went into it first and have come out of it first.
In the 2015 crisis, David Cameron’s Conservative Government were resistant to the use of trade defensive measures as part of the European Union. This country delayed the introduction of those measures and the lifting of the lesser duty rule, with the effect that we were very late to take the action needed. The loss of SSI at Redcar was one consequence. We took action too late and we did not take the same action as other countries, which were in a much stronger position to resist the dumping of Chinese steel as a result.
The Chair
Order. Before you make your intervention, Mr Thomas, I remind you that last time you very helpfully tried to bring your colleague back to the very narrow terms of the amendment, by reference to parliamentary approval for the appointment. I hope that you will do so again.
Gareth Thomas
Absolutely, Sir Graham. I was merely going to say that the need for parliamentary scrutiny of the chair of the TRA is surely even greater given the point my hon. Friend made about the risk of China perhaps again trying to dump steel or ceramic products into our markets. The Government have an appetite for joining the transatlantic partnership, which China also wishes to join—it has made that wish very clear. Does my hon. Friend not think that amplifies his point about the need for robust parliamentary scrutiny to check that we have a genuinely robust chair of the TRA?
Bill Esterson
Yes, that is absolutely right, and of course there must be a chair who balances interests in exactly the right way to do these things; in his evidence, Simon Walker said he hoped that would be the nature of the make-up of the Trade Remedies Authority.
However, hope is not a recipe for success and there must be parliamentary involvement to ensure that, whoever the chair is, they take measures when they are appointed, including receiving representations from across industry, employers and unions, consumer groups—I say to the Minister that we recognise the importance of consumers in these matters—and the devolved nations. My hon. Friend was right to raise this issue. That is why parliamentary scrutiny of the appointment of the chair matters; it is so that these points are picked up.
I will talk about the economic interest test: further evidence given to us by the British Ceramic Confederation. The confederation made the point to us that there is no explicit presumption in favour of adopting the measures in the European equivalent to the economic interest test. The European equivalent balances the interests of producer, worker, and regional and consumer groups; the problem with the economic interest test is that it looks at only one. The EU is cited:
“The need to eliminate the trade distorting effects of injurious dumping and to restore effective competition shall be given special consideration.”
That is what the EU says. There is the explicit reference to “special consideration”; that is the presumption in the EU model, which is not there in the UK equivalent. Currently, the Bill only infers this, which is why something on—
The Chair
Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I try to be generous, but with the best will in the world this is a very long distance away from the very tight wording in the amendment. I ask him to come back to the precise point of the amendment or draw his remarks to a close.
Bill Esterson
Absolutely, Sir Graham; I do apologise. The point that I am making is that there is this request to go on the record, and the Minister indicated earlier that this was the opportunity to do that. Perhaps he can put something on the record for the British Ceramic Confederation of the nature that they have written to him about and that I have just referred to.
I bring the discussion back to the amendment.
Gareth Thomas
One of the issues that Parliament would surely want to scrutinise is the role of the chair of the TRA in the appointment of the other board members. Some of the evidence presented to us makes clear a fear that some of the trade remedy experts that a putative chair of the TRA might want to bring on board will not be enthusiastic about keeping competition fair. Rather, they might want to turn a blind eye to the dumping of products in the UK, to create unfair competition with British companies.
Bill Esterson
My hon. Friend is right, and that is what the amendment is about. It is about ensuring that, when cross-examined—presumably by the Select Committee—the chair is asked whether they will take a robust approach in their appointments to the Trade Remedies Authority, to protect British industries, including the steel sector, ceramics, dyers, chemicals and pharmaceuticals, all of which trade remedies are likely to be involved in. That is the basis for the amendment. I hope the Minister will deal with the point that the British Ceramic Confederation asked him to deal with. Fundamentally, this is about ensuring that the chair is scrutinised properly, to ensure that there is a balance in the competing interests.
Gareth Thomas
Another concern about trade remedies that it would be useful for Parliament to raise with the chair of the TRA is the chair’s attitude to the international dispute resolution process, because the TRA will not be acting in a vacuum—a case of dumping of products in the UK market might have to go up to the World Trade Organisation dispute resolution process, which is currently not functioning. Would it not be sensible to be able to hear from the putative chair of the TRA their view on the connection between the UK TRA and the WTO’s currently blocked dispute resolution process for dumping cases?
Bill Esterson
That is an excellent example of what a parliamentary hearing would be used for. The model that we seek to emulate is the one used for the Office for Students, although that is not the only example of where parliamentary hearings are used before a chair of a body of this nature is appointed. The Office for Students uses that exact process to ensure that the chair appoints people who have a wide range of interests, rather than a narrow approach. We advocate a model along those lines, with the chair interviewed by the Select Committee.
Gareth Thomas
Were I involved in such a parliamentary scrutiny process for the putative chair of the TRA, I would want to know, as I hope my hon. Friend would, the attitude of the chair to the EU-led multi-party interim appeal arbitration process, which is an attempt to get around Donald Trump’s blocking of the appointment of judges to the WTO dispute resolution process. That is surely a sensible scheme for the UK to join, and we would want to hear that the putative chair was supportive of it. The Minister has, again, been studiously vague on whether the UK would want to be part of such a sensible anti-dumping process.
Bill Esterson
It would be important to ensure that, in the absence of the WTO functioning properly, international alternatives were being considered. Asking the chair their view of those proposed measures and our attitude to international co-operation is extremely valuable. I am glad my hon. Friend raised that point.
Gareth Thomas
I hesitate to test my hon. Friend’s patience. Were I to catch your eye, Sir Graham, when schedule 5, on staff transfer schemes, is being debated, I would be interested to explore the scope for members of staff moving from the Department for International Trade to the TRA, to get some experience of both the WTO dispute resolution process and the new multi-party interim appeal arbitration process. Again, does my hon. Friend not think that we should find out the attitude of a putative chair of the UK TRA towards staff transfers so as to get such expertise before they need to deploy it in a UKTI context?
The Chair
Before you respond, Mr Esterson, I gently point out that we have had some wonderful illustrations of some of the questions that might be put to the putative chair of the TRA, should the amendment be passed. We have probably had enough to get an idea of the argument being advanced.
Bill Esterson
Sir Graham, I am guided by you. The Chair is always right and I completely accept your point. The Minister may choose to respond to the excellent suggestions that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West has made, but I think we have made the case that the chair of the TRA should be interviewed and there should be adequate parliamentary scrutiny of his or her appointment.
Greg Hands
I would like to start by repeating what I said in 2018 when I first took this clause through a Committee and what I and others have said since: this Government are committed to creating an independent and objective investigation process in which businesses and consumers will have full confidence and to setting up the Trade Remedies Authority with the right pool of skills, qualities and experience.
I recall that broad agreement was evident for the principle of an independent impartial body during the previous debate on the TRA during the Trade Bill’s 2017 to 2019 passage. Without wishing to linger on the point, my startlement that the Opposition are so opposed to this legislation increases, although they claim to support all its parts.
Many will know that the World Trade Organisation allows its members to take action to protect domestic industries against injury caused by unfair trading practices, such as dumping, subsidies or unforeseen surges in imports. Quite to the contrary of what I think the hon. Member for Harrow West said, nobody wants to turn a blind eye to dumping. It is quite the opposite, but we can only do that with a functioning and legally operating Trade Remedies Authority.
Where there is evidence that dumping is happening, countries are permitted to put measures in place to remedy the situation, hence the term “trade remedies”. Measures usually take the form of an increase in duty on imports of specific products following an investigation. Establishing an independent trade remedies function is integral to the UK’s new independent trade policy. We must get it right. Decisions on trade remedies cases can have profound impacts on markets and on jobs, and that is why we need to create an independent, objective investigation process that businesses can trust. We will be appointing the best people.
Gareth Thomas
The Minister is absolutely right. We need a functioning TRA and we need a functioning trade remedies system. However, decisions that the TRA makes can be challenged and taken up to the WTO. As he knows, there is not a functioning dispute settlement process at the WTO at the moment. Why is there still such resistance from the Minister to joining the multi-party system that the EU has proposed to try to get around Donald Trump’s objection to the WTO dispute resolution process?
Greg Hands
I hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say, and I think he is wrong to say that there is resistance, but I gently suggest that the matter is without the scope of the Bill, interesting though that topic and the future of the WTO might be.
We will be appointing the best people to the TRA, including the non-executive members of its board. As with any public appointments, the appointment of non-executive directors will be subject to the well-established rules that govern public appointments of this kind.
Amendment 1 seeks to give the International Trade Committee the statutory power to approve or veto the appointment of the TRA chair. It is established practice that decisions on public appointments are for Ministers who are accountable to Parliament and the public for those decisions. The Cabinet Office “Public Bodies Handbook” explicitly states that Ministers normally appoint the chair and all non-executive members for non-departmental public bodies.
Following the Liaison Committee’s report in 2011, further guidance was issued by the Cabinet Office setting out the tests for determining which non-departmental public body appointments should be subject to pre-appointment scrutiny. That guidance makes it clear that pre-appointment scrutiny should apply only in respect of three types of post:
“i. posts which play a key role in regulation of actions by Government; or
ii. posts which play a key role in protecting and safeguarding the public’s rights and interests in relation to the actions and decisions of Government; or
iii. posts in organisations that have a major impact on public life or the lives of the public where it is vital for the reputation and credibility of that organisation that the post holder acts, and is seen to act, independently of Ministers and the Government.”
In my view, none of those three requirements is met. The TRA is not a regulator, it does not protect or safeguard against the actions and decisions of Government, and, although we believe it is important for business confidence that it is seen as independent of Ministers, it is not an organisation that can be described as having a major impact on public life or the lives of the public.
I turn now to a few other points that cropped up. On EU remedy measures, we have been clear that we will transition appropriate measures into the UK. We have launched transition reviews of those, and we have consulted and will continue to do so. The economic interest test is a matter for the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, but there is of course a presumption in favour of measures in that Act.
On the engagement of trade unions, Simon Walker and the interim body—the Trade Remedies Investigations Directorate—met the Trades Union Congress yesterday and is engaging unions frequently. I remind the Committee that the board are not the decision makers on trade remedies; they set the strategy and hold the chief executive and the executive to account. There is no role for the TRA at the WTO or any involvement with the appellate body. I believe that I have responded to the British Ceramic Confederation letter, but I will study carefully what is in it.
Under the provisions of schedule 4, to which we will turn shortly, the TRA must produce an annual report, which the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament. The TRA will also be subject to the scrutiny of the National Audit Office and parliamentary Committees. In addition, complaints against it can be considered by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman, who may also share information with Parliament. I hope that that reassures the Committee that the amendment is not appropriate, and I ask the hon. Member for Sefton Central to withdraw it.
Bill Esterson
The Minister made a number of interesting comments. He talked about businesses and consumers having full confidence in the Trade Remedies Authority. He did not mention workers, and he did not mention the devolved Administrations in that statement at the start of his response. I am sure that causes concern.
The Minister spoke about the need to act independently and repeated the point about business confidence. He has also made the point that the TRA needs to be an organisation that business can trust. But if it is to be independent, there needs to be scrutiny of appointments. He said that a reason why it does not come under the code for appointments to be approved, other than by Ministers, is that it does not have a major impact. Trade disputes have major impacts. I mentioned the SSI closure; that was 5,000 jobs. I am shocked that the Minister does not regard that kind of incident as having a major impact. I am sure that workers up and down the country would share my concern on that point.
Greg Hands
I have checked exactly what I said. I said, “organisations that have a major impact on public life”. I did say that it would have a major impact on jobs, but I think “public life” would be considered more broadly than the immediate jobs of a particular workforce, important though they are. We are talking about the broader public.
Bill Esterson
The Minister is in danger of dancing on the head of a pin with his phrases. Honestly, 5,000 jobs is not a major impact on public life? I think the people of Redcar and the north-east would disagree with him strongly about that.
It is essential that we have this system of scrutiny in place. There are pre-appointment scrutiny sessions for many roles in public life. The Minister set out the rules—I think he set them out correctly—but he also gave us, in his description of what is independent, and in the phrase “major impact on public life”, an argument in favour of our amendment. For that reason, we will press it to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 35, in schedule 4, page 15, leave out lines 27 and 28 and insert—
“3 A person holds office as a member of the TRA for a fixed period of five years from the date of appointment.
3A A person is eligible for renewal of appointment for a further fixed period of five years upon the expiry of the first period.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 36, in schedule 4 page 16, line 11, at end insert—
“10A A person shall be considered unable or unfit if the Chair is satisfied as regards any of the following matters—
(a) that the person becomes insolvent,
(b) that the person has been convicted of a criminal offence,
(c) that the person is otherwise unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member or is unsuitable to continue as a member.”
Stewart Hosie
Amendment 35 would establish a fixed period of office for members of the TRA and make provision for one further period of office. The reason is rather obvious. Introducing a fixed term would give TRA members greater security of tenure and therefore reinforce their independence and impartiality, as their duration of service could not be—or certainly could not be perceived to be—at ministerial discretion.
Amendment 36 would insert wording stating that a person should be considered unable or unfit if the chair is satisfied regarding any of the following matters: that the member becomes insolvent, has been convicted of a criminal offence or is
“otherwise unable or unfit to discharge the functions of a member or is unsuitable to continue as a member.”
The effect would be to define, to a greater extent at least, the meaning of “unable or unfit” in paragraphs 9 and 10 of schedule 4. Introducing a definition of “unable or unfit” would provide greater legal certainty about the circumstances in which a person may be removed from office as a non-executive or executive member of the TRA.
In keeping with the amendments and new clauses that I have spoken to so far, I do not intend to divide the Committee on amendments 35 or 36, but I ask the Minister to consider carefully how the Government might bring forward amendments at a later stage to deal with the matters of a fixed term for, and legal certainty on dismissal from, the TRA. Doing so would remove the perception that a term on the TRA, or dismissal from it, might be based on any political consideration—a perception that would weaken the credibility of the TRA—and strengthen the independence of that body. That is vital, particularly as the TRA will be invited to consider the vexed issue of some questionable, and potentially illegal, trade practices. The TRA’s credibility will be incredibly important when that particular work is undertaken, especially in the absence of a fully functioning WTO appellate board.
The Government should look again, as the Bill progresses through the other place and on Report, at how a fixed term for members might be introduced and at how legal certainty on dismissal might also be written into the Bill.
Greg Hands
Clause 5 will allow the TRA to be established as a new non-departmental public body, and schedule 4 outlines its governance arrangements. Those include detailing how TRA members will be appointed and how the terms and conditions of their appointment will be established. Such provisions should be familiar to those with experience of working with similar bodies.
It is crucial that the right people are appointed as members of the TRA. We are committed to appointing on merit following fair and open competition. That is why we are following standard Cabinet Office guidelines on the appointment of members of the TRA, as set out in the “Governance Code on Public Appointments”, which states that it is usual for Ministers to decide on the length of tenure. The code also sets out
“a strong presumption that no individual should serve more than two terms or serve in any one post for more than ten years”,
other than in exceptional circumstances.
Appointments will be independently regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments to ensure that the rigorous principles of public appointments and the “Governance Code on Public Appointments” are applied. Beyond that, the Government and the TRA will have regard to the need to protect the resilience of the board and to ensure that there is a managed turnover of members now and in the future. That may mean, for example, that it is sensible to make some of the initial appointments to the board shorter than five years to stagger any turnover in membership.
Specifying those details in the contractual terms for each appointment is the best way to ensure the flexibility to get the organisation off to the best start. The role of the TRA chair designate is crucial in shaping and forming the board. It is therefore only right that the Secretary of State does that through the terms and conditions for each role in consultation with the chair designate, rather than binding their hands in legislation. We are working closely with the TRA’s chair designate, Simon Walker, to start the recruitment of the rest of the TRA board members in due course. We will specify the duration of appointments as part of that process.
By contrast, amendment 35 would replace the contractual terms for all TRA members with a fixed statutory period of either five or 10 years, with no provision for any other length of tenure. That would deny the TRA the flexibility that it needs, particularly now when we are trying to ensure the best possible start for the new organisation, but such a rigid approach would be detrimental to its good governance at any time.
Amendment 36 seeks to specify a number of criteria that would deem a member of the TRA board unfit to continue in their position. Schedule 4 already provides for the Secretary of State to remove non-executive members, and for the chair to remove executive members, from the board should they be deemed unable or unfit to carry out the functions of the office. That approach will be familiar to hon. Members from the legislation establishing organisations such as the Competition and Markets Authority.
As with all public appointments, the terms and conditions for the non-executive members of the TRA are being developed in line with the “Code of Conduct for Board Members of Public Bodies”, which clearly sets out the standards expected from those who serve on the boards of non-departmental public bodies. The code provides that members of the board must inform the sponsor Department of any bankruptcy, unspent criminal conviction or disqualification as a company director in advance of appointment, or should any such instances occur during the appointment.
The code does not expressly specify that those issues determine an individual’s fitness to serve on a board or that they should be regarded as grounds for terminating an appointment, but I assure the Committee that the Government consider that that should be the case. That is why the terms and conditions of Simon Walker, the TRA chair designate, provide that the Secretary of State may terminate his appointment in those circumstances. It is very much our expectation that the relevant terms of appointment for other non-executive members will follow a similar approach.
The appointment of executive members is a matter for the TRA chair. It is therefore appropriate that the terms and conditions of their employment are managed by the TRA in a way that enables flexibility, while holding its staff to the necessary standards of integrity and professionalism.
I hope that the demonstrates to the hon. Member for Dundee East that we are establishing the TRA in accordance with the existing codes and in line with the practices adopted in other such bodies. I therefore ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Stewart Hosie
I have no intention of pressing the amendments. I listened carefully as the Minister rattled through that answer. I have no doubt that, with the exception of the specific point he made about staggering five-year terms at the very beginning, things are being done in line with guidance that has been used previously. However, that does not really answer the point that, because of the ministerial discretion, particularly on the removal of a member, there may still be a perception, real or otherwise, that members can be removed for considerations that are political and nothing to do with their actual unfitness to serve.
While I will not divide the Committee on the amendment, notwithstanding that the Minister read his answer very quickly, the Government may want to seriously consider how these matters are addressed. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Bill Esterson
I beg to move amendment 2, in schedule 4, page 19, line 26, at end insert—
“no later than 1 August of the calendar year in which the last day of the financial year covered by the report falls”.
This amendment would ensure that the Secretary of State must lay the annual report of the Trade Remedies Authority before Parliament within a reasonable time frame.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 3, in schedule 4, page 19, line 26, at end insert—
“Recommendation reports
31A (1) The TRA must prepare a report on each of the individual recommendations it makes to the Secretary of State in connection with the conduct of an international trade dispute.
(2) The report must accompany the recommendation submitted to the Secretary of State.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay the report before Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable, and not later than five days from the time it is submitted to the Secretary of State by the TRA.”
This amendment would ensure that Parliament is kept informed, in a timely fashion, of the individual recommendations made by the Trade Remedies Authority to the Secretary of State in connection with cases of dumping, foreign subsidies and import increases causing injury to UK producers.
Bill Esterson
As with amendment 1, it is the lack of scrutiny that we are opposed to, not the creation of the Trade Remedies Authority. That is the subject of amendments 2 and 3, which are particularly important—as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West reminded us in the debate on amendment 1—in the absence of an effective WTO and given the concerns about international co-operation and collaboration on important matters that can lead to damaging trade disputes.
The amendment requires that the Secretary of State lay the annual report of the TRA before Parliament
“no later than 1 August of the calendar year in which the last day of the financial year covered by the report falls”,
and amendment 3 requires that a report is prepared for Parliament in a timely fashion on each recommendation made to the Secretary of State.
Parliament should be able to scrutinise the work of the TRA to ensure that it is working in the best interests of the UK economy and all of its components. Such requirements are nothing new in the realm of trade remedies. In the European Union, the Commission is obliged to report to the European Parliament. This is supposed to be a continuity Bill; the continuity in this case would be to apply equivalent processes in the UK to what we had in the EU.
The report to the European Parliament is obliged to give MEPs statistics on the cases opened and the number of measures adopted. MPs here should be given the same information by our TRA so that they may scrutinise its work. MPs should be able to look at the number of cases initiated and the number of measures adopted, and therefore be able to judge whether the TRA is taking measures to defend our industries and jobs, and is working with the devolved authorities—not just putting the consumer interest first, at the expense of producers, jobs, and the regions and nations of the country.
Industry would be more comfortable if there was a more rigorous approach for parliamentarians to get involved in the setting of the rules for the system—it is not just us saying this, but industry, and both sides of it. As in the rest of the Bill, the Government propose nothing on parliamentary oversight or scrutiny of the TRA. Yet again, they want to make decisions that will have profound impacts—on key sectors of industry, on thousands of jobs and on the regions and nations—behind closed doors, without scrutiny and without accountability to Parliament. Unless that scrutiny is there in law, there is no guarantee that it will happen.
Giving parliamentarians an oversight power over the work of the TRA would ensure proper scrutiny and accountability. A weak trade remedies regime is of benefit to nobody in our country. If anybody thinks that having a weak regime will open up trade opportunities with international partners, they are mistaken. Partner countries will take advantage of that, once again, and we will see the loss of jobs that we saw in the steel sector in 2015 and 2016. It is only right that this House gets to scrutinise the work of the TRA to ensure that it is doing its job properly.
Greg Hands
I recognise the desire of Opposition Members to ensure that our trade remedies system is impartial, objective and transparent. Those have been our guiding principles, too.
That is why we are establishing the Trade Remedies Authority as an arm’s length body and why we will require the TRA to produce a report on the performance of its functions during each financial year, which the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament. The Bill requires that to be produced
“as soon as reasonably practicable”
after the end of that financial year. That is in line with other arm’s length bodies, such as the Office for Nuclear Regulation and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority.
Imposing a fixed deadline by which the TRA’s annual report must be laid before Parliament is unnecessary. Prioritising an arbitrary deadline over ensuring a full and detailed report for Parliament and businesses to scrutinise is in no one’s interests. I am sure that the TRA, like all other NDPBs, will use its best endeavours to publish the annual report as quickly as possible following the end of the financial year. It is of course possible that that could be within the timeframe suggested in the proposed amendment. However, the TRA statement of accounts must be certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General before being laid, and that reliance on processes outside the TRA’s direct control makes it unreasonable to set a deadline for publication in statute.
The TRA’s annual report will follow best practice on openness and accountability as set out in the Cabinet Office publication, “Public Bodies: A Guide for Departments”, which provides a clear structure of best practice requirements, although we recognise that these will not be specific to each organisation that they cover. As with all non-departmental public bodies, we expect the TRA to follow best practice for an organisation of its type and to include appropriate performance indicators, rather than that being set by statute. As a new organisation, it is important to ensure that the TRA has the flexibility to develop and adapt these key performance indicators as it settles into its functions and continues engagement with stakeholders.
Bill Esterson
The Minister has certainly given us some rationale. I take him at his word on the practical reasons why the amendments would not do what we intended. However, it is important that we scrutinise the TRA’s work on individual investigations in realtime. I am sure there are alternative ways of doing that in Parliament—bringing reports before Select Committees, for example, where there is need to handle scrutiny sensitively if commercially confidential information is involved. Perhaps the Minister can bring some of those back to us.
However, I take at face value what the Minister says, which will now be in Hansard, on what the Government propose to do around scrutiny. While I remain concerned that there is a gap, I do not intend to push the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 agreed to.
Schedule 5 agreed to.
Clause 6
Provision of advice, support and assistance by the TRA
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 28, in clause 6, page 4, line 22, at end insert
“and
(c) analysis of the impact of any exercise by the Secretary of State of the power under section 15 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018 (as amended by section 94 of the Finance Act 2020) to vary an amount of import duty if he or she considers that it is appropriate to do so.”.
Amendment 28 would require an analysis of any exercise by the Secretary of State of the power under section 15 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018, which I assume will be amended when the Finance Bill achieves Royal Assent, to vary import duty as she—it is “she”, at the moment—considers appropriate. This is a move away from working within the rules-based system. I entirely accept that there is a challenge because of the situation with the WTO; my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West and I raised this in relation to other matters to do with the Trade Remedies Authority. This is an enormous step, and a great deal of power that the Secretary of State is potentially granting herself, or being granted by the Finance Bill, assuming it goes through, and there is presumably a role for the Trade Remedies Authority in scrutinising that.
The Minister was telling us earlier how wonderful social media can be and how immediate its effects can be. I use it to look at the newspapers in the morning. The Financial Times and The Times reported a number of things today that were relevant to our proceedings. I confess that I do not always pick up what the Minister and the Secretary of State are saying on their Twitter feeds; one of the problems with Twitter is that people scroll down and miss what someone has said. I mention social media because this morning The Times reports:
“President Trump has revived his trade war with Europe”.
He is threatening tariffs on £3.1 billion of goods, including beer, whisky, which we know about, and biscuits—I knew that mentioning British beer would gain the attention of some hon. Members—as well as Spanish olives, French cakes and German lorries.
The Times states:
“The primary focus of Mr Trump’s ire over trading has been China, but his America First agenda has found little room for the country’s purported allies either”—
that is, us. It continues:
“One of his earliest actions as president was to slap tariffs on imports of steel and aluminium from the European Union”,
and our steel and aluminium sectors have suffered as a result. The Boeing-Airbus dispute has caused great problems for businesses and workers in this country. There is the 25% levy on Scotch and Irish whiskey; I raise these because they are real examples of where trade disputes need responses, robust analysis and the correct approach.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
On a point of clarification, my constituency manufactures one fifth of the world’s gin. Would my constituents be impacted by the measures that my hon. Friend refers to?
Bill Esterson
I am glad that my hon. Friend has had the chance to put on record the fact that Warrington is home to a fifth of the world’s gin. I know that she has been looking for the opportunity, and she has found it. The Times does not record whether gin is in the sights of the President of the United States for increased tariffs, but it would not surprise me. The list of proposed tariffs includes cakes, vodka—it does not say gin—potatoes, chocolate and cheese. Some of those are from the UK, but all of them are from the UK and Europe together. The article states:
“The EU has accused the US of providing state aid to Boeing, the American aircraft manufacturer, and is seeking to apply tariffs on $11.2 billion of US goods.”
We await a ruling from the WTO. As we have discussed, that is not without problem, and the dispute over aircraft subsidies goes back over a decade.
I mention those examples because they show just why it is important to get this right. The proposed change to the cross-border trade Act is relevant to the Bill as well, because that Act created the powers of the Trade Remedies Authority that we are setting up belatedly in this Bill. A power is being created here to vary rates of import duty in an international trade dispute. As I have just described, that power is significant and of great concern. This needs to be done correctly, because once a trade dispute starts it can grow and become a much bigger problem. That is why the amendment proposes a role for the Trade Remedies Authority. It is entirely consistent with the Bill, which says that the Trade Remedies Authority’s responsibilities include scrutiny and advice. We are suggesting that advice be given to the Secretary of State before she uses the new power.
The Secretary of State can act if she considers that to be appropriate. That sounds enormously wide-ranging. I have concerns that, without adequate scrutiny and the involvement of the appropriate organisation, mistakes might be made. They might be made in good faith, but we want the best possible evidence base to ensure that trade remedies of the sort that these powers envisage are used in the right way.
In the Finance Bill Committee, the Treasury Minister was asked a number of questions, and I would like to ask some of them to this Minister, because he might have had a chance to look at them. The answers will inform our view on whether, through our amendment, we are seeking the right power. The Treasury Minister said that provisions in various international trade agreements allow the UK to vary the amount of import duty applied to goods in the context of a dispute. Will this Minister please tell us what those provisions are? That was not clear from what the Treasury Minister said in the Finance Bill Committee.
The Treasury Minister described the provision in the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018. Will this Minister tell us why a provision that was included in legislation only two years ago has now been found to be inadequate? What has changed in two years? Some of these problems with the WTO were entirely apparent even in 2018.
Who is advising the Government that the legislation is inadequate, and that the Secretary of State needs this additional power? The Treasury Minister said that, in certain circumstances, countries are within their rights to impose additional tariffs quickly in response to the actions of other WTO members, and where necessary outside WTO proceedings. If that is the case, why is that not sufficient for what the Government are trying to achieve?
The Treasury Minister referred to the problems with the WTO appellate body, which he rightly said had stopped working. He neglected to say that that was the result of President Trump declining to appoint to it. Will this Minister say what the Government are doing to ensure that President Trump appoints to that body?
The Treasury Minister appeared to say that the problems with the WTO appeals system meant that the UK Government should operate outside the WTO. Is there not a danger of our further undermining the WTO if we are not careful in how we go about doing that?
In the Finance Bill Committee, the Treasury Minister said that the change to the Finance Bill was similar to one being proposed by the EU. Will this Minister give further details of what the EU has said and done to give itself such powers?
The Treasury Minister said that the Government recognise the importance of having regard to relevant international arrangements. Will this Minister tell us what those arrangements are, and how the new powers will be exercised in line with international law and our rights as an independent WTO member?
Will the Minister tell us what initiated this change in a law that was so recently passed? Was it the digital sales tax and fear of retaliatory action by the United States, for example? The Treasury Minister reiterated the Government’s support for the international rules-based system. We agree on its importance. He indicated that any changes in import duty would be made by statutory instrument. That is a familiar concern in our deliberations on the Bill.
Greg Hands
As we have heard, amendment 28 seeks to create a new role for the TRA in analysing the impact of retaliatory or rebalancing duties imposed by the Secretary of State as a result of an international dispute. We should perhaps remind ourselves of the roles and responsibilities relating to international disputes, and the purpose behind the provision in the customs Act—to give it its proper title, the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act 2018—which the amendment refers to, and which the hon. Member for Sefton Central has been referring to as well.
Before going into the detail, I will say a couple of things about some of the broader issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised. The Airbus-Boeing dispute is clearly not directly within the remit of amendment 28, but it is not, I suppose, so far from it. Let me be clear about today’s announcement. We oppose the tariffs coming from the US vigorously. We find them unnecessary and harmful to trade between the US and the UK. We have raised our opposition with the US trade representative in person in recent weeks. I confirm to the Member for Warrington North that my understanding is that gin is included. There is not a decision to impose tariffs on gin, by my understanding, but gin is one of the products they are actively looking at.
On the questions that the hon. Member for Sefton Central asked about the Finance Bill, I think I am best off offering to look at those, and the most appropriate Minister will respond to him. As a former Treasury Minister, I am slightly mindful that the questions are probably within the Treasury’s area, and it may be better for the Treasury to respond. I do not think that there will be time to respond before the sitting ends at 5 o’clock in any case. However, contrary to what he suggested, it is highly unlikely that a Treasury or other Minister has said that we should operate outside the World Trade Organisation’s rules in the cases that he raised.
Section 15 of the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act provides for the Secretary of State to change the amount of import duty that applies to certain goods as a result of an international dispute. There are several scenarios under which that could come about. The first is if the UK has successfully challenged trade-restrictive measures imposed by another WTO member under the WTO’s dispute settlement system. If the other member fails to comply with the WTO’s ruling in favour of the UK, the UK Government would be able to impose duties to redress the issue.
Secondly, if there is a dispute between the UK and one of our partners under the terms of a free trade agreement, the UK may be able to impose retaliatory duties. Thirdly, there is the possibility that the UK could be subject to a dispute in the WTO, or as part of an FTA, and be required to provide compensation to the relevant WTO member or FTA partner. That conversation could take the form of imposing lower duties on certain goods. I reassure Members that variations in import duties in response to trade disputes are intended to be temporary in nature, and will be removed when action has been taken by the country or territory in question to bring itself into compliance.
What is clear from all this, and what Parliament has already accepted in passing the Taxation (Cross-border Trade) Act, is that it is for the Government to decide whether it is necessary to change import duties as a result of a dispute. We should be clear, however, that the resulting duties, whether higher or lower, are not trade remedies measures. That is the problem with the amendment.
Although the Trade Bill enables the TRA to provide expert support to the Secretary of State in order to build the evidence base for decisions on international disputes where needed, as we have already discussed during our consideration of amendment 3, the TRA does not have a role to play in determining duties arising from international disputes, and those duties are not trade remedies measures. Interesting though they may be to the Opposition, that would expand the role of the TRA into areas for which it is not intended. The TRA will be the UK’s expert body on trade remedies—that is the reason we are establishing it. It will not have the wider remit that the amendment would confer on it. I hope the Committee will agree and I ask the hon. Member for Sefton Central to withdraw the amendment.
Bill Esterson
That was a quite remarkable finish. I think the Minister said that the TRA will be the UK’s expert body on trade remedies.
Bill Esterson
Yet it is not going to be able to get involved in helping the Secretary of State by advising her where she might vary import tariffs in the event of an international trade dispute. Clause 6(1)(a) refers to
“the conduct of an international trade dispute”,
which seems to be entirely the right place to be looking for support for the Secretary of State when she is being given remarkable and unusual powers. If that support does not come from the Trade Remedies Authority, the Treasury will be advising, but it is a role for the Secretary of State for International Trade, not for the Chancellor.
The Minister correctly said that aspects of what I have asked about are for Treasury Ministers, but this is a responsibility of the Secretary of State for International Trade. That is why it has come to this Bill Committee; there is not another opportunity to deal with this issue. It is entirely relevant to look at support from within the Department for International Trade, which is why we tabled the amendment. I am concerned that the Minister has not come back with an alternative to how this power might be used.
Greg Hands
I would not normally intervene on the hon. Gentleman’s summation, but I think he is confusing two things: he is confusing an international trade dispute, the result of which may be retaliatory tariffs or some kind of other tariff action, with a trade remedy, which is in place to prevent something like the dumping of products where the UK is a producer of those products. They are fundamentally different things. The Trade Remedies Authority is set up to deal with trade remedies, not per se with the subjects of international trade disputes.
Bill Esterson
Not per se. The clause states:
“The TRA must provide the Secretary of State with such advice, support and assistance as the Secretary of State requests in connection with—
the conduct of an international trade dispute”.
It is not just about prevention, but about the conduct of an international trade dispute. We will end up disagreeing on this issue. With the way that the Bill is crafted and the way that the Government are setting up the Trade Remedies Authority, this was an obvious place to be looking to give the Secretary of State support and advice. Given that that is one of the key functions of the Trade Remedies Authority, it would be wise for her to have support in making such decisions.
I will wait for the Minister’s response to my questions. I think the problem was that the Treasury Minister was not able to answer them because they are technically challenging. The questions he was asked were difficult, so I am not surprised by what he says about answering a little later. It is very important that we get this right. Perhaps he can come back with exactly how advice and support will be given to the Secretary of State. I gave the examples at the start because they are current and show just how serious these issues are, and it is really important that we get them right. So I will wait to hear back from him. In the meantime, we will test the will of the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stewart Hosie
I beg to move amendment 32, page 5, line 4, after “may”, insert
“, following consultation with relevant stakeholders,”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 33, page 5, line 17, at end insert—
“(7) Nothing in any regulations made under subsection (3) may require the disclosure of information or the production of documents which are subject to legal professional privilege.”
Amendment 34, in clause 8, page 5, line 45, at end insert—
“(5A) Nothing in this section authorises the disclosure of information or the production of documents which are subject to legal professional privilege.”
Stewart Hosie
The amendment stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey. It would impose a duty on the Treasury to consult relevant stakeholders when making regulations as specified. Those regulations are about the type of information that may be requested by HMRC and how the request is to be made. The reason for this consultation is that it provides an additional layer of scrutiny by stakeholders.
In imposing a duty on the Treasury to consult, we will ensure that any draft statutory instrument is exposed to critical comment from stakeholders in advance, which may improve an instrument and help to avoid future issues when it is going through Parliament. I think this is important, and I am sure that the Minister will recall him and his colleagues serving on many interminable Finance Bills in the days of the last Labour Government, when many people rightly criticised the additional burdens being put on businesses, particularly by the Revenue, to provide information.
If we are going to request information from businesses, trade groups or anyone else, let us ensure that we consult the relevant stakeholders first, to make sure that we are not requesting information that is not held, that we are requesting it in a way in which it is currently collected and that we are not adding an additional layer or an additional burden for business when it is, in some cases perhaps, simply unnecessary.
Amendment 33 is about protecting legal professional privilege. We are concerned that clause 7(1) grants HMRC a very wide discretion indeed to require information. The scope of this provision should be far more clearly defined, to give greater certainty about the extent of information, the anticipated frequency with which it may be requested and the method of data collection. Legal professional privilege and confidentiality are essential in order to safeguard the rule of law and the administration of justice. They permit information that may be communicated between a lawyer and a client without fear of it becoming known to a third party without the clear permission of that client. Many UK statutes already give express protection to legal professional privilege and it is vigorously protected by the courts.
It is also worth pointing out—I am sure the Minister knows this—that the iniquity exception alleviates concerns that legal professional privilege may be used to protect communications between a lawyer and client that have been used for a criminal purpose. Such a purpose removes the protection from communications, allowing them to be targeted using existing powers but not breaching legal professional privilege.
Greg Hands
It is important, as we turn to the data-sharing powers of the Bill, that the Government have a more comprehensive understanding of UK exporters so that our work to build and grow UK export capability is properly targeted at and tailored to those businesses where it will deliver the maximum benefit.
Clause 7 sets out the powers needed for the Government to collect data to establish the number and identity of UK businesses exporting goods and services, particularly smaller businesses and sole traders, who may not be readily identifiable from existing data, but who may need a helping hand from the Government to develop their export potential reaching into existing and new markets. The clause provides the ability for HMRC to collect relevant data by tick boxes on existing tax returns.
Amendment 32 would restrict the Government’s ability to implement new questions to gather data on exporters at speed, by requiring Treasury Ministers to seek further consultations with stakeholders after any necessary engagement has already concluded—it would be, if you like, an additional round of consultation, which we do not think is necessary. Such an amendment would duplicate the administrative burden on stakeholders and, more importantly, delay the availability of data and, by extension, the benefits to businesses.
Amendments 33 and 34 are closely related and concern legal professional privilege, which the hon. Member for Dundee East will know is a long-standing principle that protects the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and their lay clients, and vice versa. It enables lawyers to consult and advise their clients without clients fearing that their information will later have to be disclosed. Indeed, it is a matter of general interest that any person who wishes to consult a lawyer must be free to do so under conditions that ensure uninhibited discussion. That principle is recognised and protected under article 8 of the European convention on human rights.
I can provide an absolute assurance to the Committee that the Government have no intention, either now or in the future, of using these powers to seek or share information that is protected by legal professional privilege. For clause 7, the information that has been requested from exporters is for trade statistics purposes and will be provided voluntarily. The fact that the information is being provided voluntarily is perhaps an indication of the Government’s position in respect of minimising burdens and therefore not requiring privileged information to be disclosed.
Clause 8 allows for the sharing of data that is already held by HMRC for its administrative functions. We are talking about data to be shared that has already been collected. Such information cannot therefore be subject to legal professional privilege, as it has already been provided to HMRC.
I will take this opportunity to remind hon. Members that the clauses also provide significant assurances on the collection, handling and processing of information collected under the powers. The data-sharing powers in the Bill are permissive, so all instances of data sharing must be approved by HMRC, which acts as guardian of the data. There are criminal penalties for any unauthorised sharing of data under the existing Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005, which apply in respect to the data shared under clause 8. Nothing in the clause permits the disclosure of information that is not otherwise permitted in data protection laws, including the Data Protection Act 2018 and the Investigatory Powers Act 2016.
I hope the clarification and assurances given provide the hon. Gentleman with the reassurance he is seeking in respect of legal professional privilege. On that basis, I ask him to withdraw his amendment.
Stewart Hosie
I thank the Minister for his commitment in relation to legal professional privilege, confirming that information can be shared between a client and a lawyer and, unless in the course of a criminal investigation, is completely protected. That is a good commitment to receive.
I also understand what the Minister said about information being collected to provide trade statistics on a voluntary basis. That is helpful, but I was slightly concerned at the beginning when he spoke about trying to identify the number and identity of exporters—one would have thought that the Government already knew that, and it is slightly concerning if they do not. It might be useful to understand what gaps there are in the Government’s understanding of what organisations export, what they export and to whom, but that is for another day. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 to 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
We now come to the new clauses. New clauses 1 to 8, tabled by the official Opposition, have been debated but not moved.
New Clause 9
Import of agricultural goods after IP completion day
“(1) After IP completion day, agricultural goods imported under a free trade agreement may be imported into the UK only if the standards to which those goods were produced were as high as, or higher than, standards which at the time of import applied under UK law relating to—
(a) animal health and welfare,
(b) protection of the environment,
(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and
(d) plant health.
(2) The Secretary of State must prepare a register of standards under UK law relating to—
(a) animal health and welfare,
(b) protection of the environment,
(c) food safety, hygiene and traceability, and
(d) plant health
which must be met in the course of production of any imported agricultural goods.
(3) A register under subsection (2) must be updated within seven days of any amendment to any standard listed in the register.
(4) ‘Agricultural goods’, for the purposes of this section, means anything produced by a producer operating in one or more agricultural sectors listed in Schedule 1.
(5) ‘IP completion day’ has the meaning given in section 39 of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020.” —(Bill Esterson.)
This new clause would set a requirement for imported agricultural goods to meet animal health and welfare, environmental, plant health, food safety and other standards which are at least as high as those which apply to UK produced agricultural goods.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 11—Import standards—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not lay a copy of an international trade agreement before Parliament under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 unless the agreement—
(a) includes an affirmation of the United Kingdom’s rights and obligations under the SPS Agreement, and
(b) prohibits the importation into the United Kingdom of agricultural and food products in relation to which the relevant standards are lower than the relevant standards in the United Kingdom.
(2) In subsection (1)—
‘international trade agreement’ has the meaning given in section 2(2) of this Act;
‘relevant standards’ means standards relating to environmental protection, plant health and animal welfare applying in connection with the production of agricultural and food products;
‘SPS Agreement’ means the agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures, part of Annex 1A to the WTO Agreement (as modified from time to time).”
This new clause would ensure that HMG has a duty to protect the quality of the domestic food supply by ensuring that imported foodstuffs are held to the same standards as domestic foodstuffs are held to.
New clause 17—Animal welfare and sentience—
“Regulations may only be made under section 2(1) if the provisions of the international trade agreement to which they relate are compatible with—
(a) any provision in UK law (including retained EU law) relating to animal welfare standards and the welfare of animals in the production of food; and
(b) any obligations relating to animal sentience by which the UK is bound, or any principles relating to animal sentience to which the UK adheres.”
Bill Esterson
New clauses 9 and 17 stand in my name and those of my hon. Friends. New clause 11 stands in the names of the hon. Member for Dundee East and the hon. Member for—
Bill Esterson
Inverness, yes. There we are. I knew that inspiration would be with me.
The explanatory statement shows that new clause 11 is entirely consistent with the other new clauses. It is about the protection of
“the quality of domestic food supply by ensuring that imported foodstuffs are held to the same standards as domestic foodstuffs are held to.”
Labour has tabled a new clause 17 on animal sentience. It is important that the Trade Bill is consistent with other pieces of legislation on animal sentience. The Government have agreed to introduce, under an animal welfare and recognition of sentience Bill, a process to ensure that any future legislation or policy is assessed against animal welfare standards. This should be recognised in the Trade Bill as one of the most important areas that could undermine animal welfare standards, and those standards should be outside the ambit of the trade negotiations.
We had a similar debate on Tuesday, but I will spend a few moments on this because a few things have happened since then, such as the Secretary of State appearing at the International Trade Committee yesterday. She said no, but what did she say no to? She did not say no to taking action on food standards, and the Minister did not say no on the same thing on Tuesday. They are very good at making it clear that food safety will not be affected, but they do not talk about food production standards. We have pride in this country in our high standards not only of safety, but of production and animal welfare as well, and those are the elements that have so far been missing in what Ministers have said.
In trade talks the more powerful side wins, and if that more powerful side wants a reduction in our food production standards, it is very difficult to resist if we want a trade agreement with it, and that is the problem. We have tabled a new clause very similar to one on the Agriculture Bill, and we have done so because Ministers told Back-Bench Conservative MPs that the Trade Bill was the place for such an amendment and for this to go into legislation, so we have done what the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis), told us we should do.
I wonder whom British consumers will believe. Will they believe Ministers who will not quite bring themselves to guarantee food production standards or take the action needed on animal welfare, or will they believe the British Standards Institution? Its chair, John Hirst, was quoted in The Times today, expressing fears over a potential American attempt to
“replicate the approach to standards”
agreed in its deal with Canada and Mexico, which President Trump’s officials see as a model for future accords. He says that such an accord would
“undermine our sovereignty over regulation”
by allowing the US to replace UK standards with its own. The Government should perhaps listen to Mr Hirst.
If the Government do not want to listen to Mr Hirst, they could listen to the executive director of Waitrose, James Bailey, who has said that a trade agreement with the US that loosened food standards—production standards—would amount to an “unacceptable backwards step”. He, very commendably, has said that Waitrose will never sell chlorinated chicken, hormone-treated beef or meat from animals subject to extensive use of antibiotics.
Gareth Thomas
Has my hon. Friend has seen the representations to the Committee from the British Poultry Council? That makes it very clear that the UK has multiple pieces of national legislation aimed at various aspects of animal welfare. For chicken alone, that includes on-farm catching, transport and slaughter. By comparison, the US has no national animal welfare legislation, particularly covering farm animal welfare. It is true that some states do have laws, but the three major chicken-producing states of Georgia, Alabama and Arkansas do not. Is that not at the heart of what his new clause seeks to do?
Bill Esterson
It is, and this lack of consistency in the US is one of the problems in doing a trade deal with it, because it has different standards in different states.
While my hon. Friend was speaking, the evidence from Which? came to mind. As we know, it represents consumers in the UK. It has cited consumers’ views on these matters: 79% would be uncomfortable eating beef produced with growth hormones, and 77% would be uncomfortable having milk from cows that have been given growth hormones. Giving antibiotics to healthy farm animals to promote their growth was of concern to 78%. It is not currently allowed in the UK, but it could be under a trade agreement if we give the Americans what they want. Seventy-two per cent. would be concerned about eating chicken treated with chlorine and 93% think it is important that UK food standards be maintained after we leave the EU. Nearly three quarters—72%—think that food from countries with lower standards should not be available.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s clarification that while people have concerns about food standards the things he mentioned are not allowed in the UK at the moment. I noticed he said that sotto voce so I wanted to emphasise it for the record. They are not allowed, we are not going to have them, and it is not relevant to a continuity roll-over of a free trade agreement.
Bill Esterson
As we have debated many times, the Bill, with its long title, is a lot more than that.
Bill Esterson
The last Bill became an awful lot more after it was amended in the Lords, and I suspect that things are heading the same way. However, the hon. Member for South Ribble is right. Of course we have the highest food standards in the world. I say it already, and we have pride in those high standards. It is matter of safety, production and welfare, and all three of those have to be retained. I remind you, Sir Graham, that it was the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who confirmed that chlorinated chicken must be part of any post-Brexit trade agreement with the UK. That was confirmed by trade representative Lighthizer on many occasions, including when he said that on issues such as agriculture
“this administration is not going to compromise”.
Gareth Thomas
Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for South Ribble, my hon. Friend will be more than aware that a UK-Canada agreement is very much within the scope of the Bill. The Canadians have lower animal welfare standards and lower pesticide protections than we have in the UK. That is perhaps an even stronger rebuttal of the argument that the hon. Lady advanced, that the new clause is not relevant to the Bill. It is very relevant.
Bill Esterson
Of course my hon. Friend is right. It is not a question just about the US. It is about other countries with different food production, safety and animal welfare standards, where agriculture will be part of the agreements. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reminding us that that is an important part of what we are discussing. You would of course have told me if I had been out of order, Sir Graham, and got me to sit down, but you did not, so I was not.
I remind the Committee again that there are real concerns about the impact on human health of using antibiotics and growth hormones. That is in addition to the impact on animal welfare, and the contribution that things such as antibiotics make to the potential for a growth in problems such as zoonotic diseases, and diseases crossing species—something we should all be extremely concerned about in the middle of a pandemic that probably results from exactly that.
The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said in debate on the Agriculture Bill that he had been promised that the issue would be covered in the Trade Bill. He recognised that the Agriculture Minister who made the promise was possibly not in a position to make it. He said:
“We are being led down the garden path—we really are”.—[Official Report, 13 May 2020; Vol. 676, c. 300.]
Will the Minister tell us whether his hon. Friend has been led up the garden path? That is how it looks to most people out there, as well as to us in Committee.
Stewart Hosie
I want to speak to my new clause 11. Trade deals can put pressure on food standards and lead to the importation of food of a low standard. We know, for example, that the US Administration wants the UK to lower its food and animal welfare standards precisely to allow the export of products currently banned in the UK. The new clause includes a ban on the importation of food produced to standards lower than those currently applying in the UK.
The US and other countries have far lower animal welfare standards and adopt practices that are illegal in the UK for health and environmental reasons, such as the production of chlorine-washed chicken and hormone-fed beef; use various pesticides outlawed in the UK; and produce genetically modified crops, which are completely outlawed in Scotland. We believe that the quality of Scotland’s food and drink produce, and indeed that from elsewhere in the UK, as well as the standards of production, are essential to retaining our established international reputation in those products.
Drew Hendry
Is the new clause not an opportunity for the UK Government to do the right thing and prove to the public that they are not trading away food standards and Scotland’s international reputation to the highest bidder? If they do not accept it, will people not justifiably conclude that that is part of their plan?
Stewart Hosie
I think people are deeply concerned. No matter how many times Ministers give assurances from the Dispatch Box or elsewhere—Conservative MPs know this—because of what is said by our negotiating partners, there is deep concern among the public and, in particular, those who work in agriculture about standards that may be reduced. My hon. Friend is therefore absolutely right that by accepting various amendments or new clauses, the Government have an opportunity to cement our standards and rule out in negotiations the reduction of standards rather than simply by words in a speech.
New clause 12 in effect does two things: it affirms the UK’s rights and obligations under the agreement on the application of sanitary and phytosanitary measures in appendix 1A of the WTO agreement; and it prohibits the import of food into the UK if standards in the exporting country are lower than those in force here. I do not think there is anything contentious about that, nor do many people in the real world. I suspect the Minister will not be at all surprised that various campaign groups, including Global Justice Now and the Trade Justice Moment, support such objectives.
The list of supporters for such measures is deep and wide. Scottish Land & Estates said:
“Scotland’s producers need guarantees from the UK Government that domestic production and environmental standards are upheld as part of future international trade deals. Our extremely high environmental and food safety standards are amongst our key selling points, and this must be protected after we leave the EU to ensure we don’t find ourselves in a ‘race to the bottom’.”
As NFU Scotland has said that it is concerned that the UK Government’s approach to future trade policy creates the potential for the importation of agri-food into the UK produced to an inequivalent and uncompetitive standard of production, one would think the UK Government should listen. The new clause would ensure that the UK Government had a duty to protect the quality of domestic food supply by ensuring that imported foodstuffs are held to the same standards as domestic foodstuffs are currently. I commend it to the Committee.
Greg Hands
I turn to new clauses 9, 11 and 17. I am aware of the strength of feeling from colleagues on both sides of the Committee on this important issue. I spoke about the commitments the Prime Minister gave in his Greenwich speech to upholding high standards, which were also in our manifesto.
Theo Clarke (Stafford) (Con)
I have received a lot of correspondence from local residents and farmers in Stafford who are concerned about food standards, with food having to be produced to very high standards in the UK. What assurances can the Minister give me that with the Bill we will be supporting and backing British farming?
Greg Hands
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. In the time she has been in the House, she has been a strong defender and advocate of her farming sector in and around Stafford. I can say that there will be no compromise on our standards on food safety, animal welfare and the environment, exactly as we laid out in the election manifesto that she and I were both elected on just six months ago, both collectively and individually.
This Bill is about ensuring continuity, particularly at this moment of unprecedented economic challenge posed by coronavirus. We need the power in clause 2 to replicate the effects of our current trading relationships and provide certainty to UK businesses. That includes the continuity agreements, including the Canada agreement, which the hon. Member for Harrow West has mentioned again today. I think there has been yet another shift in the Labour party’s position: last Thursday, we heard from the shadow Secretary of State that Labour was in favour of a trade deal with Canada, but now the hon. Member for Harrow West seems to be back to opposing that trade deal. There does seem to be some confusion, but the purpose of this Bill is not to sign new agreements or alter standards in any way. Without the Bill, we risk being unable to implement continuity agreements, resulting in disruption and uncertainty for businesses and consumers.
As the National Farmers Union confirmed to the Committee last week, the EU’s approvals regime for agricultural products is one of the most precautionary in the world. That regime will be transposed onto the UK statute book through the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. I am pleased to say that the NFU has not expressed any concerns about the framework for mutual recognition in continuity agreements that this Bill provides, and I am grateful for the contribution of its expertise through our expert trade advisory group. As I have previously told the Committee, we have now signed 20 continuity agreements with 48 countries, replicating the terms that we had with them under EU trade agreements. Imports under continuity agreements must continue to comply with our existing import standards. None of these agreements has resulted in a lowering of the agricultural or other standards referenced in the agreement.
Gareth Thomas
For the record and for the avoidance of doubt, will the Minister confirm that he can see no way in which chlorinated chicken from the US will be allowed to be sold in British stores?
Greg Hands
That is absolutely correct. It is a point that we have made on numerous occasions, and I am happy to make it again today.
Although this Bill relates to continuity with existing trading partners, I recognise the concerns that colleagues have about future FTAs with new trading partners, as I said during Tuesday’s debate. As the Secretary of State, my DEFRA colleagues and I have told this House and the other place on many occasions, the Government will stand firm in trade negotiations. We will always do right by our farmers and aim to secure new opportunities for the industry. Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend Member for Stafford, we would like Stafford farmers to gain opportunities to sell their high-quality produce abroad by breaking down barriers, reducing or removing tariffs, and so on. That is also very important for our agriculture; in fact, the scoping assessment for the US trade deal showed that UK agriculture would be a net beneficiary of any such deal.
All imports under all trade agreements, whether continuity or future FTAs, will have to comply with our import requirements. In the case of food safety, the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland will continue to ensure that all food imports comply with the UK’s high safety standards, and that consumers are protected from unsafe food that does not meet those standards. Decisions on those standards are a matter for the UK and will be made separately from any trade agreements.
Matt Western
The Minister has said that UK farmers would be net beneficiaries of any trade deal with the US on exports, but I do not see how that can tally. If the United States’ No. 1 priority in any trade deal is agricultural products, is he saying that we will be exporting more agricultural products to the US than the US will be exporting to the UK?
Greg Hands
I am surprised by the hon. Gentleman’s apparent enthusiasm for Trumpian mercantilism, thinking that because UK agriculture might gain, that would somehow mean US agriculture would lose. Sir Graham, you and I both know that free trade does not work like that: there could be benefits for both sides in the trade agreement. For example, the US simply does not allow in British lamb, and currently puts very high tariffs—tariffs of between 20% and 23%—on British cheeses, including Cheddar, Stilton, and other high-quality British cheeses that we would like to sell to the United States. Of course there is an opportunity for British agriculture, and the scoping assessment that we published on 2 March shows that the UK agriculture sector has the potential to be a net beneficiary.
Matt Western
The Minister has very clearly said that UK farming will be a net beneficiary of a trade deal with the US. Is that correct?
Greg Hands
I refer the hon. Gentleman to the scoping assessment that we published on 2 March, where that is laid out in considerable detail. Of course, it is a scoping assessment; nobody knows yet exactly what will be in the deal, on which a lot will depend.
Stewart Hosie
The wording that the Minister uses is fascinating. We were talking about production standards. He spoke about production methods. Those are not the same thing.
Greg Hands
I am happy to have a debate with the hon. Gentleman about the difference between standards and methods, but I am not sure that the difference is that big.
The dictation of our domestic standards to our trading partners might well appear a laudable goal, but the new clause would require them to keep aligned with just seven days’ notice. Subsection (3) of the new clause states that a register
“must be updated within seven days of any amendment to any standard listed in the register.”
Our trading partners’ standards would therefore have to remain dynamically aligned to our domestic production standards with just seven days’ notice. That could have serious consequences for our existing trade flows, let alone anything negotiated in the future.
This is true for the developing world. The beans that we can buy at Waitrose in Fulham—I imagine that they are similar to the ones at Waitrose in Putney, for example—come from Kenya and Egypt. The last time I bought beans was at the weekend. Bananas from the Caribbean might not have production standards that are the same as those in the UK, but they can still meet our import standards.
Those markets would not be able to keep up with our changes. Given just five days’ notice, they would have to dynamically align with whatever the UK decided and, within seven days, make the changes to their domestic production standards. That strikes me as being wholly impractical. The impact of the new clauses could be severe on livelihoods in the developing world. I invite Opposition Members to go and see some of the Kenyan or Egyptian beans being produced and tell some of those workers that, as a consequence of new clause 9, they might well find themselves having to align with UK production standards in the future.
The new clauses might have been drafted with the US in mind, but this is UK law and it would apply to all our trading partners. These measures would likely render inoperable the very continuity agreements we have been discussing and, indeed, potentially prevent a deal with the EU itself. There would be an irony in the UK, through our domestic law, seeking the EU to dynamically align with our standards.
As I said on Tuesday, the UK banned veal crates some 16 years before the EU, and we can take great pride in that; it is a great achievement. The idea that the EU would sign a trade deal with us whereby it would have to commit to dynamic alignment with our standards with just seven days’ notice is highly questionable, to say the least. Members who want continuity with those 40 deals should not vote for these new clauses, nor should those who want a trade deal with the European Union.
New clause 9 would have the unwanted effect of discouraging partners with whom we are yet to sign a continuity agreement from negotiating with us. This Government were elected on a manifesto promise that, in our trade negotiations, we will not compromise on our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards, and we will not. Parliament will have significant oversight of any regulations made under this power, and any statutory instruments brought forward will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Given our robust commitment to British food and farming, I ask the hon. Member for Sefton Central to withdraw the new clause.
Like new clause 9, new clause 11 stipulates that all food imported to the UK should be held to the same standards as that which is produced in the UK. The proposal stands in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee East, although I suspect he has the same intentions as the hon. Member for Sefton Central in tabling it. I have already provided assurances that EU import standards, praised by the NFU and others, will be replicated in domestic law at the end of the transition period. Our import requirements include a ban on using artificial growth hormones in domestic and imported products, and any changes to existing legislation would require new legislation to be passed by Parliament.
Given that we have high safety standards in place, and that the wider unintended consequence of the new clause would be to threaten both the resilience of our food supply chains and our opportunity to ensure that we secure continuity for British businesses and customers through our ongoing continuity negotiations, I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee East will not press the new clause.
New clause 17 stipulates that any animal welfare or sentience regulations arising from trade agreements must be aligned with existing commitments in UK and retained EU law. I can assure Members that our world-leading animal welfare standards are at the heart of our continuity negotiations. None of the agreements already signed with 48 countries is inconsistent with existing standards, as the parliamentary reports published alongside those agreements demonstrate. In fact, the UK has some of the most comprehensive animal welfare regulation in the world. We have introduced one of the strictest ivory bans in the world and we have a manifesto commitment to end excessively long journeys for slaughter and fattening. World Animal Protection rated the UK as having the joint-highest animal welfare standards in the world, tied with Austria, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Denmark and Sweden.
I share Members’ desire to ensure safeguards both for British consumers and for farmers. However, the protections we are already putting in place, coupled with the unintended consequences of the proposals, mean that these measures would be of no benefit. Our manifesto commitment is clear: the Government will stand firm in trade negotiations to support farmers, protect consumers and safeguard standards. I hope that that explanation, alongside the 20 continuity agreements that Parliament ratified, provides reassurance to the Committee that the Government’s commitment to maintaining standards is being delivered. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press their proposals to the vote.
Bill Esterson
That was really telling. It has taken until today for the Government to come up with a form of words to justify not supporting higher food production standards. The intervention, I think by the hon. Member for Dundee East, really did nail it. There is a world of difference between methods and standards, of course there is. How something is produced to a certain standard is one thing; the method used is entirely another. This is the point we have been making again and again in the proceedings of both this Bill and the Agriculture Bill. The Government have been pushing a defence of food safety, but not how it is produced, how animals are looked after or, indeed, how plants are protected. It is really telling that that is the defence being used and that it has taken them a while to get there. There can be and there are different methods of production all over the world, of course there are, but they can be to the same high standards. I am afraid that it did not work, and it will not work. It will not wash, unlike the chlorine the previous Secretary of State at one point said was perfectly safe and acceptable, before changing his mind when he realised it was not acceptable or palatable.
So, there are those differences and we should have concerns about hormones in animals. We should have concerns about the impact of antibiotics. We should have concerns about the impact on fruit and vegetables as well. As my hon. Friends have pointed out it is not just the United States, but countries that are directly a part of the continuity aspect of the Bill, that the Minister is so fond of reminding us about. It is Japan as well as Canada, by the way.
Charlotte Nichols
I recently took part in an update call with the Secretary of State about the progress of the UK-US trade deal. She made a very interesting point in answer to a question from the hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) regarding food standards. He asked about outcome versus process and the technicality of that when it comes to animal welfare. The Secretary of State said that we had spelled out our red lines to the US in negotiations, but that the issue the Government had with the amendment to the Agriculture Bill on 13 May, which would have guaranteed high standards for food and drink entering the country post-Brexit, was to do with Canada not meeting our domestic standards. Could the Minister perhaps shed some light on that?
Bill Esterson
That is a matter for the Minister rather than me. Perhaps it is one he will take away and respond to in time, but my hon. Friend makes a very important point. It reinforces the argument we are putting and is part of the reason that we shall press the new clause to a Division.
The reality is that the Minister is relying on safety standards, saying, “A chemical wash at the end of the process is good enough and it does not matter how we get there if it produces cheaper food. If production is cheaper because there is less animal welfare, let’s not worry too much about it.” There are a host of problems with that relating to health, morality in the way that animals are treated, and the animal sentience amendment. Indeed, there are also grave concerns about the impact on human health over the longer term in areas such as the use of antibiotics—not just its impact on zoonotic diseases but the effect on human health of antibiotics and other chemicals getting into water courses.
So no, we do not buy it; we do not accept it. I think we will stick with what the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said. We do think we are being led up the garden path. Getting on for 80% or 90% of the public agree with us and, frankly, so does the NFU. It wants to keep high production standards, whatever the Minister might have said in his response to the debate.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 13—International trade agreements: consent for provision of healthcare services—
“(1) A Minister of the Crown may not, under section 20(1) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010, lay before Parliament a copy of an international trade agreement which makes provision for the supply or provision of healthcare services (including medicines and medical devices) unless each of the devolved authorities has given their consent to that agreement.
(2) ‘Devolved authority’ shall have the meaning given in section 4 of this Act.”
This new clause would ensure that HMG is not able to lay before Parliament a trade agreement which could have an impact on provision of healthcare services without the consent of the devolved administrations.
Stewart Hosie
New clause 12 would ensure that the UK Government had a duty to restrict market access to healthcare services, including medicines and medical devices. We tabled the new clause precisely because trade deals have the potential to negatively impact health services. Although the UK Government have repeatedly pledged that the NHS is not on the table in trade negotiations, leaked documents detailing conversations between UK and US negotiators reveal that health services have been discussed, including the US “probing” on the UK’s health insurance system—whatever that means—and that the US has made clear its desire for the UK to change its drugs pricing mechanism.
Drew Hendry
Is this not a similar situation to that in the previous debate on food standards? The Government could easily make a commitment to rule out these things—to do the right thing and show the public that the NHS and medicines are not at risk. They could reassure people by putting that in the Bill and ensuring it does not happen. Otherwise, they are just saying to the public, “This may well be part of the plan.”
Stewart Hosie
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As in the previous debate, the Minister has said that there will be no compromise on standards. I do not doubt for one second his sincerity, but let us just put it in the Bill so that everyone is absolutely satisfied. In that sense, my hon. Friend is absolutely right—let us rule it out in legislation.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I would love the hon. Gentleman to expand on his theory of harm in respect of health services. If ever there was an example of the global effect of the law of comparative advantage, it is the advances in modern healthcare. There is a remedy available to him should he wish to remove himself from the benefits of diagnostics from Düsseldorf, biogenomics from Boston or pharmaceutical projects from Dublin. There is a mechanism known as a living will, whereby he can instruct his heirs and his family to ensure that he is at no point treated by any of those marvels of modern healthcare and that he can go back to experiencing the benefits of herbal potions and remedies and all those other forms of modern medicine that he would seem to prefer by cutting himself off from the benefits of free trade with the world.
Stewart Hosie
I have benefited from the national health service; indeed, it has probably saved my life on a number of occasions.
I have no doubt that some of the drugs purchased are still under patent by private companies. Some of the diagnostic testing machinery was made in Germany. Nobody, but nobody, is talking about restricting any of our health services in terms of purchasing. We are talking about marketisation, which has failed when it comes to the health service.
The new clause has a specific carve-out for the NHS and all health-relevant services regulation, making it illegal for the Government to conclude a trade agreement that altered the way NHS services are provided, liberalised further or opened up to foreign investment by dint of a trade agreement—not by a policy change, not by part of the NHS somewhere on these islands saying it would be a good thing to do, but by dint of a trade agreement being forced on us from somewhere else.
On negative listing, these clauses—we know this from other examples—require all industries to be liberalised in trade agreements unless there are specific carve-outs. The reason this is an issue is that it is not always easy to define what services count as health services and what are more general. For example, digital services may seem irrelevant to health, but NHS data management and GP appointments are increasingly digital. Negative lists therefore make it harder for Governments to regulate and provide health services for the common good. No-standstill clauses are ratchet clauses, because these provisions mean that after the trade deal has been signed parties are not allowed to reduce the level of liberalisation beyond what it was at the point of signature. That can make it difficult to reverse NHS privatisation.
Let me give an example of where had a standstill or ratchet clause been in effect, it would have caused real harm. In Scotland, cleaning in hospitals was historically carried out by private contractors, and the rate of hospital-acquired infections rose dramatically. The SNP Government took the decision to return it to NHS cleaners, and the rate of those infections fell dramatically. Imagine if an investor-state dispute settlement had been in place, if a ratchet clause had been in place—we would have been unable to do that, and if people had died from hospital-acquired infections because the Government were not allowed to take the public health measure of returning cleaning to the public sector, it would have been an absolute scandal.
I mentioned ISDS. There should be no ISDS clauses in trade agreements which only allow private investors to challenge Government policy when, for example, it affects their profits. Failure to abide by those clauses can result in legal challenge from trade partners or, if there is a separate ISDS clause, a challenge from private investors. I have used a number of examples on a number of occasions, and I will use another today very briefly. It is from April 1997. The Canadian Parliament banned the import and transportation of the petrol additive MMT because of concerns that it posed a significant public health risk. The Ethyl Corporation, the additives manufacturer, sued the Canadian Government under chapter 11 of the North American free trade agreement, an ISDS-type arrangement, for $251 million to cover losses of what it called the expropriation of both its production plant and its good reputation. That was upheld by the Canadian dispute settlement panel, and the Canadian Government repealed the ban and paid that corporation $15 million in compensation. That was over a petrol additive that was deemed to have a negative impact on public health. We believe it is quite wrong for large corporations to use these ISDS-type arrangements to sue Governments simply for taking steps to protect the wellbeing of citizens or for simply enacting public health measures which they believe to be right and for which they may well have an electoral mandate.
The new clause also instructs that there should be no changes to drugs pricing mechanisms. We know that the US, for example, has stated that it wishes to challenge the drug pricing model which keeps prices low for ordinary people in the UK. This could also happen through intellectual property and non-patent exclusivities. We need to be very alive to that. It would be bad news for patients, taxpayers, health boards and trusts around the country. In our judgment, trade agreements should never be used to facilitate that.
Our new clause 13 is an adjunct; we simply sought to add a different degree of protection for the health services in the nations, and to ensure that the Government would not be able to lay before Parliament a trade agreement that would have an impact on the provision of healthcare services without the consent of the devolved Administrations. That is secondary to the substantial points we are trying to make and the protections that we wish to put in place with new clause 12.
Gareth Thomas
Given the extra protections that new clause 12 would lock into law to keep the NHS safe from future trade agreements’ effectively pushing higher pharmaceutical prices or further marketisation of the NHS, we will happily support the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Dundee East. Indeed, his new clause supplements the protections that amendment 12, had it been agreed to earlier in our proceedings, would have put in place to protect our public services more generally.
We, too, are aware of the leaked documents that the hon. Gentleman referred to, revealing that discussions have already taken place in the UK-US trade talks about possible measures that the American pharmaceutical industry might want, clearly supported by Donald Trump’s chief negotiator, that would effectively push prices up. Given that we have substantially lower pharmaceutical drug costs than the US, the fact that the Americans are continuing to push such measures is profoundly worrying.
Ministers have said that the NHS is not on the table in the UK-US talks and, like the hon. Gentleman, I take that at face value, but it is worth saying that until the text of a trade agreement is published, we will have no way of knowing for sure what is in it. The precedent of the EU-Canada deal does not give reassurance in that respect, as it used the negative list approach to services liberalisation, to which he referred. The Minister will remember the considerable concern that Germany had chosen to add in carve-outs for the whole of its national health service, whereas the UK had not taken such a comprehensive approach.
The NHS Confederation and The BMJ have both published a series of concerns, setting out the ways the NHS could be undermined by a UK-US trade deal. One concern that is highlighted, which again the hon. Member for Dundee East referenced, was the use of ISDS—investor-state dispute settlement—provisions. Again, investor-state dispute settlement provisions were included in the EU-Canada deal, which Ministers count as a roll-over deal.
It would be helpful if the Minister would embrace the spirit of these new clauses, support new clause 12 being added the Bill and, in his wind-up remarks, confirm that he will not push a negative listing approach in a UK-Canada specific deal and that there will not be ISDS provisions in such a deal.
Greg Hands
I start by thanking Opposition Members for tabling new clauses 12 and 13, which provide me another opportunity to stress the Government’s position on the NHS and our trade agenda. The Government have been clear and definitive: the NHS is not, and never will be, for sale to the private sector, whether overseas or domestic. No trade agreement has ever affected our ability to keep public services public, nor do they require us to open up the NHS to private providers.
We have always protected our right to choose how we would deliver public services in trade agreements, and we will continue to do so. The UK’s public services, including the NHS, are protected by specific exclusions, exceptions and reservations in the trade agreements to which the UK is a party. The UK will continue to ensure that the same rigorous protections are included in future trade agreements.
As stated in our published negotiating objectives with the US, to which I referred the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington, the NHS will not be on the table. The price the NHS pays for drugs will not be on the table. The services the NHS provides will not be on the table.
Those commitments are clear and absolute, but new clause 12 is unnecessary, however laudable the intention behind it is. It overlooks the fact that there are already rigorous checks and balances on the Government’s power to negotiate and ratify new agreements. In particular, and as we discussed on Tuesday, the UK already has scrutiny mechanisms via the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 procedure that will ensure Parliament can see exactly what we have negotiated, and if it does not agree it can prevent us from ratifying the deal.
Stewart Hosie
When the Minister described the end of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 process, it is a take-it or leave-it option, with no ability for Members to make amendments whatever. I do not think that is satisfactory, to be brutally honest.
As I have said before, I do not question the sincerity of this Minister. When he says that the NHS is not for sale, that no trade agreement has ever affected how the UK deals with its public sector, that the NHS is protected by carve-outs, and that drug pricing and other things are not on the table, I think he is being sincere. But if we put in place a mechanism whereby those protections are not in the Bill, it does not take a huge leap of imagination to imagine some Trump-supporting figure coming up through the ranks of the Tory party and sitting in a chair just like the Minister’s, and making rather different decisions.
So, on that basis, I am afraid that I have to press for a Division on new clause 12.
Question put that the clause be read a Second time.
Gareth Thomas
I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
I rise briefly to suggest to the Committee that once a free trade agreement has been signed in the future, it makes sense to have a point at which to assess the effectiveness of that agreement, perhaps to see how it has worked in practice in terms of British exporters being able to take advantage of it.
Labour Members remember only too well the Government’s decision to axe by some 60% the support to British exporters. So it will be interesting, five years down the line from the publication and signing of these continuity agreements, to see whether such a severe cut has actually meant that many British businesses have been unable to take advantage of the opportunities in a free trade agreement.
The new clause would also give us the opportunity, five years hence, to see whether the genuine concerns of many—both in this House and out—about investor-state dispute mechanisms, if they have been incorporated into agreements, have taken effect. We would be able to see the damage done to environmental protections, the health service, labour rights or human rights—any way in which they might have been affected.
Given the concerns expressed clearly to us about how many of the continuity trade agreements might actually work in practice, it is surely sensible to have the opportunity to review whether those concerns have been borne out in practice. One can think of the Norway continuity agreement, which still has no services provisions for British companies wanting to operate in service markets in Norway. That is still in some doubt, as only the goods part has been resolved. The situation is similar with Switzerland. We raised a series of concerns about the South Korea agreement and the extent to which some agricultural products, such as cheddar cheese and honey, have been affected by poor drafting of that agreement.
Given how we have thrown away some of the great advantages that Britain drew in terms of soft power from the Department for International Development being a stand-alone Department, again it will be interesting to see whether the Ghana and Kenya agreements—I thank the Minister for his letter—have been able to serve their purpose and support not only agricultural sales to the UK, but regional integration in west and east Africa.
For all those reasons, and given the huge concerns about some of the potential measures in free trade agreements, it makes sense surely—it certainly makes sense to us—to have a fixed point, five years down the line after a trade agreement has been signed, to have the opportunity for the Government to publish a full review looking at the impact.
Greg Hands
New clause 15 proposes a review, as we have heard, of free trade agreements every five years after entry into force. I have already drawn the Committee’s attention to the parliamentary reports that we have voluntarily published alongside every signed continuity agreement, outlining any significant differences between the signed agreement and the underlying EU agreement. I confirm that we will continue to do so for the remaining continuity agreements.
We have a meaningful and constant dialogue with several Committees in Parliament. Those may provide a more appropriate forum for reviews of our trade agreements and an assessment of the UK’s wider trade environment and relationships. We are keen for Parliament to make its voice heard during the negotiation of our continuity programme in a way that is proportionate and productive. I also draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that six signed continuity agreements have been subject to debate in Parliament without a single one carrying a motion of regret.
As I have said many times before, our objectives for the trade continuity programme are to replicate the effects of existing EU trade agreements, which have all been subject to comprehensive scrutiny at EU level. Given that scrutiny, the parliamentary reports we have committed to publishing and the other constraints contained within the Bill, we do not believe that an additional report in the future would be an efficient use of parliamentary time. Additionally, I argue that looking at each agreement in isolation from the wider trading situation of the UK at an arbitrary point in time risks rendering any such report at best incomplete and at worst meaningless.
As a Department, we have an ongoing obligation to provide meaningful and timely information to the public, businesses and other key stakeholders on our assessment of the UK’s trading relationships. Statutory obligations anchored in specific agreements in the manner proposed by the new clause could in fact act as a constraint to the Department providing that sort of information in a timely and impactful way. As such, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.
Gareth Thomas
I have listened to what the Minister has said. He will understand that we remain concerned that this provision was put in the Bill by the Government on Report in the Commons, and it has been taken out. The Minister who gave the assurance in writing that such reports will continue is no longer in the Department. I think we would still prefer to see the commitment in the Bill, and as a result, I intend to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Gareth Thomas
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We have left the European Union and await the oven-ready Brexit deal that the Prime Minister promised the British people in December—it does feel as though it is in the slow cooker as opposed to the microwave. Nevertheless, our proximity to other European nations inevitably means that our trade, as well as much else, will continue to require significant co-operation with our allies in European capitals and, indeed, in Brussels. Surely, we should not put ideology before common sense but should consider sensibly which EU agencies that impact on trade it is worth maintaining a particularly close relationship with and, indeed, where continued membership is worth seeking. We suggest in the new clause that we should seek continued membership of the European Medicines Agency, the European Chemicals Agency, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency and the European Maritime Safety Agency.
If we are not members of the European system run by the European Chemicals Agency, there is a risk of divergence in chemicals regulation. That may just sound like a concern about red tape. However, if we are not members of the European Chemicals Agency, there is a risk of, for example, the EU27 saying that chemical x is not safe to use but our own new national system telling us not to worry about it and that it is safe. If UK and EU decisions on chemicals start to diverge, that will put pressure on UK chemicals companies to decide whether to stay in the UK or to leave and base themselves in the bigger market of the European Union. I am sure that all Members of the House would want to avoid that.
It is difficult to see how access to the REACH database can be achieved without membership of the European Chemicals Agency. Ian Cranshaw, who spoke to us on behalf of the chemicals trade body when we heard witness statements, made clear how difficult it appeared to be to continue to have access to the REACH database without, effectively, membership of the European Chemicals Agency. He went on to set out how membership of the REACH database is the gold standard for chemicals regulation and how important it was for British firms to continue to have access to it.
The European Medicines Agency is critical to ensuring that medicines for humans and animals are safe. It helps to foster innovation and the development of new medicines across the European Union. By ensuring cross-European collaboration, it has helped to bring down the cost of medicines through its policing role in respect of the single market for medicines. Every month, the UK-EU trade in pharmaceutical products is huge; upwards of 70 million packages move between the UK and the EU every month. The UK pharmaceutical industry is very heavily regulated, and it is heavily regulated because it is an integral part of Europe’s medicines regime. It surely, therefore, makes sense to remain a member of that agency.
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency has responsibility for civil aviation safety across Europe, but it also has a series of critical trade-related roles, including being responsible for much of the airworthiness and environmental certification of all aeronautical products, parts and appliances that are designed, manufactured and maintained in Europe. It negotiates international harmonisation agreements with the rest of the world and concludes technical agreements with other countries, such as with the US Federal Aviation Administration. Continued membership of the European Union Aviation Safety Agency would give the UK access to a global industry leader, in terms of standard setting for trade in aviation. Surely, we should continue to belong to it.
Greg Hands
On new clause 21, regarding the parameters of the UK’s future relationship with the EU, the Government have made it clear that our priority is to ensure that we restore our economic and political independence on 1 January 2021. The approach to the future relationship with the EU has already been extensively discussed not just in the previous Parliament but in this one, particularly during the debates on the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. During those debates and subsequently, the Government have been clear that we want a relationship with the EU that is based on friendly co-operation between sovereign equals and centred on free trade. That is what Taskforce Europe, working with the Prime Minister, is pursuing.
The UK published its approach to the negotiation of a future relationship with the EU on 27 February 2020. Our approach builds on the EU’s offer of a Canada-style deal. It reflects the type of free trade agreement that should be achievable between sovereign states that respect each other’s independence, as the EU has done in the past. We will discuss with the EU how to manage our friendly relations, but any solution has to respect our legal and political autonomy. Members will be aware that there are very limited options for third-country membership of EU bodies. We have been clear that we will be operating on the basis of existing precedents and no acceptance of the European Court of Justice.
However, I acknowledge that members of the Committee are looking for reassurance about the Government’s approach to negotiations with the EU in relation to the four bodies listed in the new clause. On the European Medicines Agency, we have stated that the UK-EU FTA should include commitments to co-operate on pharma co-vigilance, and to develop a comprehensive confidentiality agreement between regulators, in line with agreements between the European Medicines Agency and Swiss, US and Canadian authorities. The UK’s published response in respect of the European Chemicals Agency states that the UK-EU FTA should include a commitment to develop a memorandum of understanding to enhance co-operation further, similar to the MOUs that the European Chemicals Agency has agreed with Australia and Canada.
On the European Union Aviation Safety Agency, the UK’s published position is that we have proposed a bilateral aviation safety agreement that will facilitate the recognition of aviation safety standards between the UN and the EU, minimising the regulatory burden for industry. On the European Maritime Safety Agency, the UK is discussing with the EU how best to manage our friendly relations, but any solution has to respect our red line of no commitments to follow EU law, and no acceptance of the ECJ.
It is important to be clear that, in our negotiations with the EU, we are not asking for a special, bespoke or unique deal; we are looking for a deal like those that the EU has previously struck with other friendly countries such as Canada. I hope the confirmation of the Government’s approach to the four agencies mentioned in the new clause has reassured the Committee, and I ask the hon. Member for Harrow West to withdraw the new clause.
Gareth Thomas
Although it has been useful to hear the reassurance that the Minister has attempted to provide, we still think that seeking membership of those four specific agencies makes sense. I intend to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Greg Hands
On a point of order, Sir Graham, I thank you, Ms Cummins, and everybody involved in the Bill for all your hard work in Committee. Once again, I am both pleased and privileged to have been able to engage in a thorough debate on the contents of the Bill, which bears an uncanny resemblance to the Trade Bill in the last Parliament. I have been in and out of the Department for International Trade, but on returning to the Department, I found the Bill looking more or less the same as when I left the Department in June 2018.
I thank the Committee for engaging with the issues in a positive and constructive way; we have had some real insight, not only into trade policy overall, but into how opposition parties deal with trade policy. I will not dwell further on that, because I have made a few points already, but it is good to see that the approach patented by the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner)—with the Opposition’s trade policy a moving feast—lives on today in his absence.
We have had a great debate, carried out in a good spirit, during our two-week immersion in trade policy. I think that, no matter which party one belongs to, a full two-week immersion in trade policy is a great thing as we move forward towards our independent trade policy, effective from 1 January 2021. We can all only benefit from such an immersion.
My thanks also go to the Government and Opposition Whips, who have ensured that the Committee has run smoothly and effectively, and to you, Sir Graham, and Ms Cummins, for being exemplary Chairs. I am very grateful for your guidance during our deliberations. I pay tribute to the usual channels for their help and guidance throughout; to Hansard for their diligence in recording all that we have said for posterity; and to the Clerk for his advice.
I also thank my team of officials for their support in undertaking box duty without ever entering the Palace of Westminster; I do not think that is a good thing overall, as I always encourage civil servants to come into Parliament as often as possible. It is very important for civil servants to understand how Parliament works but, given the current circumstances, I am fully understanding of the Department’s procedures for the scrutiny of the Bill.
The last time I stood here, I said that this was the first ever piece of legislation from the Department for International Trade. It is still our first Bill. I am confident that this legislation will now make its way on to the statute book and will be all the better for the work of the Committee.
Bill Esterson
Further to that point of order, Sir Graham. I add my thanks to you and your co-Chair, Ms Cummins, for your diligent and considerable efforts to ensure order during our deliberations. I thank the witnesses who gave evidence, the Clerk, all the officials and Hansard. As the Minister said, it is a challenging time for all who are involved in making sure that Committees operate effectively.
I thank the Whips. The Government Whip was entirely fair in her criticisms of the Opposition, as she raised the same number of points of order about my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow West and me—fair play to her for her fairness. The Minister described the Bill as a continuity Bill a number of times, and he has been the continuity Minister on the continuity Bill. He is nothing if not consistent, because he gave exactly the same answers as he gave last time around. I hope that this time we will make some progress on the Bill and see the end result. I dare say that we will return to some of these arguments on Report, and that the Lords will have their say.
The Minister mentioned my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North. Where would we be without the hon. Gentleman? At least this time we did not have to resort to making up fictional names for countries to make our points. There will have been no Xanadu in Hansard until now.
I thank hon. Members on the Government Back Benches for bearing with us—it is a thankless task. I hope one day to be on the Government side, although I do not know whether I would hope to be a Government Back Bencher. Being a Government Back-Bencher in Committee, where they take a vow of silence, is undoubtedly a thankless task, but most of them managed to perform their duties diligently. One or two found it impossible, but I understand that. With that, I thank everyone for their contributions.
The Chair
I thank the hon. Gentlemen for their points of order. I add my thanks to Hansard and in particular to the Clerk, given that we go back to the Education and Employment Committee in the 1997 Parliament. I have been well served and well advised by this Clerk for many years.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill (Second sitting)
Thursday 25th June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 View all Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 June 2020 - (25 Jun 2020)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Philp)
Q
Peter Dawson: Thank you very much for the opportunity to give evidence. The answer, of course, is yes, and I will try to explain why I can say yes with such conviction. Three of my colleagues and a number of close personal friends were present at Fishmongers’ Hall. Had I left my office five minutes earlier that afternoon, I would have been present myself. I have seen the devastation that that crime unleashed on some very close friends, so, absolutely, personal protection is the first priority. Our concern with the Bill, which I am sure we will get the chance to explore, is that aspects of it may not be justified by public protection, and indeed some aspects may undermine it.
Chris Philp
Q
Peter Dawson: It is the only way to be certain for that length of time, but it is not always certain when that length of time comes to an end. This is the dilemma that faces the criminal justice system in every case. Of course, it is brought to the public’s attention by events of this sort, and such events excite particularly strong emotions. Terrorism is a very difficult thing to understand, but a lot of criminal motivations are difficult to understand and to predict, so we have systems that seek to balance the difficulty of that prediction with the rights of the person who has been accused and their right to a future life when they have served their punishment.
The problem with denying all hope of release on a conditional basis by a judgment about whether the person can be released safely or not is that it denies hope and affects the whole of the prison sentence. You will be aware that I spent a good part of my career as a prison governor, and the way in which people can be encouraged and assisted to engage in work that may change their behaviour in the future is if there is something in it for them. The parole process is not just about the judgment at the end of the custodial period; it is about the whole of the sentence from the very first day and doing work that may make a difference and may make the public safer when that person eventually leaves prison. It is a dilemma, but I do not think that the public are best served by saying that we will postpone the moment at which risk arrives without taking the opportunity to reduce that risk. The possibility of parole is essential to the process that reduces risk.
Chris Philp
Q
You mentioned trying to make people safer upon release. What sort of activity is most effective during the prison sentence, whether release comes early or not? What are the most effective interventions that lower risk when they prisoners are released, whenever that release occurs?
Peter Dawson: The most important thing about understanding rehabilitation is that it happens in a community. You must always have one eye on what life is going to be like when that person comes out and what it is about life after release to cause them not to commit crime. That is true for terrorist crimes as well as for all other sorts of crime. There is nothing secret about this: people need somewhere to live, a way to earn their living, and a reason to live in a law-abiding way. Very often, that reason comes from family and from exactly the same things that cause all the rest of us to live the way we do. That means having people who care about you and have an interest in your future, and having a feeling yourself that you have a stake in a future that is law abiding.
You cannot coerce people into rehabilitation. There has been lots of discussion about particular programmes and courses that may assist in that, and across the picture of offending behaviour there are some programmes that have some effect, but we clearly need to be realistic about the impact of those programmes, whether in relation to terrorism or anything else.
First, a successful programme must be built on a research base and a theory of change that makes sense, and that research base is relatively small. Secondly, the programme then has to be delivered according to its manual. The third thing is that the environment in which it is delivered and in which the person lives has to support the aims of the course, and programmes should be audited. That third aspect is really important in this. The aims of the course are to give a person a stake in their society to encourage lawful behaviour, so the authority must be legitimate. The people must go into an environment that treats them fairly and which they feel is fair.
The difficulty with providing no incentive or reward for engagement in that change is that that appears to be unfair. If you add to the difficulties, which are real and difficult for the Prison Service to deal with, a bias against people who have committed offences like this, the danger is that someone can go through a programme and appear to have made progress and then go back into a sentence lasting many years, during which they do not feel treated fairly. None of these programmes cure; some of them have some impact on some people.
The Chair
Order. I have to interrupt there, Mr Dawson, because I am conscious of the time.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
Q
Peter Dawson: Yes. There is evidence that the Committee may want to look at on this. There has been a movement for about a decade called the Transition to Adulthood Alliance, which has looked very hard at evidence of maturation in young people—the physiological evidence.
There does now seem to be general acceptance that for most young people the process of maturing certainly does not conclude before the mid-20s. There is a consensus, really, that if you are interested in dealing with people according to their maturity, you should look at the age of at least 25. It is even more marked, of course, for children under the age of 18.
Tragically, many of the people who are committing offences of this nature are very young. That does not take away from the fact that they are young and very immature—very susceptible to being led astray and very likely to change dramatically from the moment they commit the offence to their mid-to-late 20s, when that maturation has happened. The risk—
Alex Cunningham
Q
Peter Dawson: The Bill should have a different sentencing framework for children and for young adults. At the moment, the law defines a young adult as someone aged between 18 and 20. It is not for this Bill to do, but at some point that should change to between 18 and 24. At least taking account of the detention in a young offender institution provisions would allow some recognition of the fact that young adults are different from more mature people.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Peter Dawson: I would simply leave the extended sentence provision as it is and have a discretionary release element in the sentence of particular concern. We know that parole works well. Of course there are cases where people go on to offend, but that is rare and the Parole Board has a very good record of success in relation to people who do not commit serious crime in future. We have an institution that works. Let us take advantage of it because of the impact it has on the management of the sentence and the likely future behaviour of the person.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Peter Dawson: There needs to be a discretionary release element in all extended sentences with no exclusion for terrorist offences and no exclusion for the new sentence. The new sentence needs to be designed in a way that includes a discretionary release element. It is for Parliament to decide where that falls; I would say that the obvious thing to do would be to have the discretionary release at the halfway point and a possible release on licence at the two-thirds point, although I understand that Parliament may want to reflect the perilous nature of the offences with a different division of the sentence.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Q
Peter Dawson: There are two aspects in particular. One I have spoken about: the absence of a process for some of the people affected. There is probably nothing more to say on that.
The second is probably rather more controversial because it is about the length of sentences. The Government, in explaining the Bill and justifying a 14-year minimum, say that that gives time for work to be done with the offender during the sentence. That is much longer than is needed for that work to be done. The difficulty with very long sentences, across the board, is that they destroy what is known in the trade as protective factors—they destroy the things that are most likely to help someone out of crime in the future.
Relationships are an obvious example. For somebody who is convicted in their late teens or early 20s and who is not released until their mid to late 30s, the opportunity to build a life that is worth living, in which they can contribute to or play a part in society, has very often been destroyed. All of the things that the rest of us do during that period in our lives have not happened and may not happen once that person is released. It is a disgruntling process. Long sentences are justified for the most serious crime, but the longer we make them, the more harm we do and the more difficult it is for the person to live the rest of their life in the way that we all do.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Peter Dawson: It is essential. We know that there is no evidence of any deterrent effect with long sentences—they are not protecting in that way; they only have a protective impact by taking that particular person off the street for that length of time—but people are going to be released, and that is when the risk arises, so I would say rehabilitation is absolutely essential for public protection. You cannot trade off one against the other. If you remove incentive—if you destroy all the things that keep somebody interested in a life without crime—then you are just delaying risk for when the moment for release comes.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Peter Dawson: Well, I draw on it heavily. Once somebody is in prison, you have this enormous acreage of time to fill. People struggle to adjust to prison. People often have a tremendous sense of grievance in the early years of a long sentence, and very often a sense of grief as well, and very often remorse. There is a sort of teachable moment when someone may change their behaviour, but that [Inaudible] if there is nothing after that moment.
People are completely subject to the authority of the system. They are very sensitive to whether the system plays fair by them. If the system invests in their rehabilitation, but then does not follow through, and all they have ahead of them is time that serves no purpose, which is simply time to fill, then grievance grows. Once somebody has a legitimate grievance in prison, the chance of them engaging with anything more constructive reduces dramatically. In terms of managing difficult people in prison who can be very dangerous, this is a dangerous problem.
The other thing I would say, and I say this as someone who governed prisons and had responsibility for the safety of everybody in the prison—staff, prisoners and visitors—is that crime happens in prisons too. Prisoners without hope and prisoners with a sense of grievance are dangerous to the other prisoners and the staff around them as well. We have seen the homicide rate in prisons rise in recent years and at the same time the number of people serving very long sentences or sentences with no release has also risen.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Q
Mr Dawson, in evidence this morning, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation said that many terrorist offenders often come from a stable family background. Does that not undermine the typical view that we have of rehabilitation—that having a job, a home and a family are necessary to prevent reoffending? In fact, are terrorism and terrorism offences not driven by ideology? The rules are different.
Peter Dawson: I think I would say the reverse, actually. As a parent, I think stable homes with good parents sometimes have very difficult teenagers and people grow up in a very chaotic way, often—
Rob Butler
Q
Peter Dawson: But I think it is the case. I do not think a stable home protects someone from the ideology, but for someone coming out of prison, particularly after a long sentence, a stable home and relationships with people who have kept faith with you and who have belief in your future are absolutely the things that help someone as a mature person. This goes back to the issue of maturity. For a 35-year-old, those relationships are completely different from the relationships that they would have experienced when they were 18. I just think that that continuity, and the willingness of people to continue to provide hope for a future, is absolutely crucial to rehabilitation. It is not a protection against ideology in a teenager, but it is a protective factor for rehabilitation.
Rob Butler
Q
Peter Dawson: Yes, there were. I worked in local prisons and in a female prison. Local prisons of course do hold terrorist offenders. They hold them in the early stages of their sentence, when they are often at their most—well, “disruptive” may not be the word, but when they are coming to terms with what has happened to them.
Rob Butler
Q
Peter Dawson: I am not sure that I would seek to draw any conclusions. People often behave differently as prisoners. I do not underestimate at all the difficulty of making a risk assessment based on the way someone has behaved in prison, compared with how they might behave in the community. It is not an easy thing and not a certain science. But what I would say is that if you want people to behave in a civilised, law-abiding way when they leave prison, the way you treat them in prison is absolutely critical. You must provide a model that people can follow and that they see as fair. If we do not do that, the chances of change are radically diminished.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Q
“risks further alienating them and giving them grounds for grievance against the authorities”.
You are in effect saying that the Bill should include measures to ensure that effective deradicalisation programmes are provided. What would they look like?
Peter Dawson: The Prison Service runs two programmes at the moment. I said earlier that the evidence base for those was small, because it is innovative work, but they are clearly worth while. The most valuable work that is done in prisons in terms of changing people’s attitudes and behaviours is the day-to-day example that is set around them—the supporting of their growing up and giving them reasons that make life worth living that are nothing to do with their ideology. It is an incessant process, a slow process and an uncertain process, but it is about the impact of everybody in prison on that individual.
What people whose lives have changed dramatically would say is this—I can think of someone I know who committed two murders and who would tell this story. Very often, a particular individual, in the course of a sentence, makes a connection and is able to help that person to grow up and see a different future for themselves. The faith that that key person shows will often drive change in behaviour more than any particular programme.
I have said it before, but the one thing that I am absolutely clear about is that I have never seen anybody coerced into rehabilitation. The particular theory that academics talk mostly about now is called desistance theory. It is about what causes people to change their route in life. That rests very heavily on the idea that somebody has to be able to see a better life for themselves in the future. The academic work tends to support that but, I think, so does all our experience. So I would say that we should not look to prison for magic solutions; we should look for the extreme skill among staff of all sorts, and volunteers in prisons too, in establishing relationships that slowly change the way that somebody thinks about their future. When prisoners go out, however, those promises have to be met. That is why we are saying that rehabilitation is what happens after prison, as much as what happens during it.
Ruth Cadbury
Q
Peter Dawson: I do not think there is anything that I would like to see in the Bill. The question that I hope the Committee will ask is what we do not yet know about the circumstances of the cases that have prompted the Bill. Both the Fishmongers’ Hall attack and the attack in Streatham have been subject to serious case reviews. I certainly have not seen those reviews published.
In both cases, it seems to me that there are questions to ask about whether the existing framework of law would have been adequate had different decisions been taken. That is not to point a finger of blame but simply to say, if we have an existing structure that was not used to best effect, that we should think hard before changing the structure and changing it in a way that raises some of the problems that I have described.
Miss Sarah Dines (Derbyshire Dales) (Con)
Q
Peter Dawson: On the first point, it protects the public for those two years or those four years. It does not protect the public on the day the person comes out. I accept the point you make, but if the risk is raised when the person comes out, that seems to be no consolation for the public; certainly it is no consolation for a member of the public who suffers at the end of those four years but has been protected during them.
On the second point, I just have to reverse it. There is no evidence for a deterrent impact. I have never met any prisoner who committed a serious crime who, at the moment of committing it, made a calculation about whether they would spend five, 10 or 14 years in prison. There is no evidence from anywhere in the world that I have ever seen that says that threatening people with longer sentences deters them from committing crime.
In cases of this sort, where an ideology that all of us struggle to understand is concerned, it seems to me that looking to deterrence as a tool for protecting the public is not rational; there is no evidence to support it. Of course, there is the risk that a punishment that appears—I hesitate to say “excessive”—out of kilter with the punishment for other offences creates a sense of grievance, creates martyrs and acts as a recruiting sergeant for people who might otherwise not think in that way.
Alex Cunningham
Q
“The expansion of SOPCs and the expansion of the number of offences able to be identified as having a ‘terrorist connection’ will need careful monitoring for their impact on prison security and on people from minority faith and ethnic communities”.
How can we improve the Bill to achieve that careful monitoring?
Peter Dawson: It may not be something that the Bill can achieve, but I think it is reasonable to ask the Government, after the Bill becomes law, to provide a report on what the impact has been. I entirely take the point that the nature of terrorism at the moment means that certain communities are likely to be more heavily represented, but the point is that all criminal justice agencies need to go beyond that to guard against the unconscious bias that will otherwise creep in.
This is not about Parliament’s intention and it is not about the equality assessment. It is about the behaviour of people on the ground who are not properly aware, when faced with someone from the Muslim faith, that, overwhelmingly, prisoners from the Muslim faith have not committed offences connected with terrorism and would not dream of doing so. Most prisoners see their religion as something that provides structure and help in their life, not something that motivates them to perform criminal acts. None of that is well understood generally, and I am not sure that it is always well understood in prisons. So that unconscious bias—that unwitting prejudice—risks disadvantaging people in all sorts of different ways, from the way complaints are handled to their privilege level in the prison—
The Chair
Order. Mr Dawson, I am afraid I will have to call you to a halt as we have run out of time. Thank you very much for your evidence to the Committee.
Examination of Witnesses
Les Allamby and Dr Hannah Russell gave evidence.
The Chair
We move to our next session, which is evidence from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, with Les Allamby, the chief commissioner, and Dr Hannah Russell, the director of legal research and investigations and advice to government. Have we got you with us?
Dr Russell: I am here, and I can see that Les is here but is currently muted.
The Chair
We had better try to address that. This time we will switch sides and start with Conor Burns.
Conor McGinn (St Helens North) (Lab)
Q
Dr Russell: If you do not mind me starting and, if we manage to get Les unmuted, I will let him take over. Apologies for the difficulties with the remote working of this. I think Les is now unmuted.
Les Allamby: I think I may be. Can you hear me?
Hon. Members
Yes.
Les Allamby: Apologies for my technological illiteracy. Yes, Conor, we have real concerns in relation to human rights in three areas among others. The first is the retrospective nature of many of the provisions in terms of both sentencing and release. As the Committee will know, some apply to individuals who have committed offences and not yet been sentenced, but some in particular apply to those who are already sentenced and are serving a term of imprisonment. Particularly for Northern Ireland, the change of the automatic release point of relevant terrorism sentences to two thirds and then referral to the Parole Board is being extended to Northern Ireland—it has already happened elsewhere—and the addition of polygraph testing conditions to the licence of a person who has committed a relevant terrorist offence are two of the retrospective measures for those who have been sentenced.
The second area is the extension of a number of provisions to those who are under 18, in terms of both sentencing and licensing arrangements. We have some experience, both historical and contemporary, in Northern Ireland of the impact that adults have on children and young people. It has been mentioned by the UN Committee against Torture and our own paramilitarism commission has looked at this. It is very clear that the evidence is, frankly, that 15, 16 and 17-year-olds are not leading grown men in paramilitary activity or the control of communities in Northern Ireland; it is the reverse that is true. Therefore—I will return to the rehabilitation aspects that Peter Dawson touched on—while these are serious offences that apply to under-18s and there is a very limited discretion in terms of mandatory approaches, we think that applying these provisions to children and young people raises human rights issues, particularly in terms of the UN convention on the rights of the child and a number of provisions in general comments made by the convention committee.
Our third concern is about polygraph testing. I am a great believer in evidence-based policy making. As far as I can see, there is a paucity of evidence about just how accurate polygraph testing is. Although I recognise that polygraph testing will be used only in very specific circumstances, and not for new offences and coming before the courts, and although it has been used in the case of sex offenders before, it still seems to me that, as the Independent Reviewer of Terror Legislation has suggested, there needs to be at least piloting and some evidence of its veracity.
Otherwise, it seems to me that there are two implications. Either someone who is innocent is presumed to be guilty of something without requiring any other salient evidence, which risks a miscarriage of justice and a sense of grievance, or the reverse: someone who is a danger passes the test and we fall into the risk of complacency setting in. Somebody’s licence can be revoked as a result of a polygraph test, and they could therefore be returned to prison. Also, as far as I can see—again, this was noted by Jonathan Hall—there is the possibility in the Bill of a terrorism prevention and investigation measure being applied as a result of a polygraph test. There are some significant outcomes to that. Again, applying that retrospectively also comes into play.
Finally, the purpose of the Bill is clearly laudable: to protect the public and to curtail terror. However, the Prison Reform Trust’s recent research noted the significant increase in the number of people serving very long sentences in prison, not just for offences related to terror. When you take into account the reduction in the opportunities for rehabilitation as a result of the provisions in the Bill—particularly the incentives for rehabilitation—it seems to me that that could lead to a greater risk both inside prison, in terms of overcrowding, mental health issues, suicide risks and radicalisation opportunities, as well as outside prison.
Keeping people in for longer with less prospect of rehabilitation really seems to me to be a blunt instrument to protect the public. We would do better to try offer and recognise rehabilitation pathways, alongside discerning those who are determined not to change their outlook on life and dealing with those individuals accordingly. Those are our concerns. We would be happy to put in a written submission on some of the wider issues around TPIMs, and so on.
Conor McGinn
Q
Already in Northern Ireland there is common parlance in use around internment for what might be seen as measures in place for existing terrorist and paramilitary prisoners. Is there a concern on your part, first, that what is proposed might interfere with the settlement in the Good Friday agreement, particularly around licensing, and, secondly, that rather perversely it may be used by those engaged in terrorism as a further opportunity, as you say, to groom young people and present themselves as the wronged party?
Les Allamby: Yes, Conor, I do think that there is a risk here. The number of offenders in Northern Ireland who are likely to be affected by moving to a two-thirds sentence is relatively small, but almost all of them, if not all of them—I do not have the figures in front of me, but it is certainly the vast majority—are people who will have been involved in what I might call Northern Irish-based terror activity.
Therefore, we have a small number of loyalists and dissident republicans in prison, some of whom have breached their licence conditions under the Good Friday agreement and have gone back into prison to serve the rest of their sentence, and others who have committed more contemporary crimes, often more around dissident republicanism or euphemistically “ordinary decent crime”, as it used to be called during the troubles, and people might be surprised to learn that we used to have ordinary decent criminals, and others.
In my view, what that means is that if you say to dissident republicans, possibly, and loyalists that they were going to spend x time in prison and it is now going to be y time, you will create the conditions for a sense of grievance and cause célèbres, of which we have seen plenty of examples. So, that is the downside of doing this, against—
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to interrupt you, but we really have to press on at this stage. Minister.
Chris Philp
Q
You will be aware that when Parliament passed the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020 in February, Northern Ireland was excluded because we were concerned about issues of retrospection, owing to the differences in sentencing structure in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the United Kingdom. Having taken very detailed and extensive further legal advice, the Government now take the view that the measures in the TORER Act can safely be applied to Northern Ireland without engaging in issues of retrospectivity, and the Bill seeks to do that. Is that a conclusion with which you concur?
Les Allamby: Clearly, I have not seen your detailed legal advice, so I do not know, and I would have to reflect on whatever legal advice you received; we have not taken legal advice on the issue ourselves.
The one thing I would say is that, as you know, there will need to be a legislative consent motion on a number of the sentencing provisions and, off the top of my head, I suspect that this provision might be one of them. I know from discussions with the relevant Minister in Northern Ireland, who is publicly opposed to terror etc., that there are some very real practical concerns about extending this Act to Northern Ireland and some potentially unintended consequences.
So I think my answer to the question is this: listen very closely to your counterparts in the Department of Justice in Northern Ireland, and to the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, as to whether this change is advantageous to the circumstances of Northern Ireland. Frankly, I cannot speak for either the Minister or officials, but I would take very careful cognisance of what they have to say to your own civil service colleagues.
Chris Philp
Q
My final question relates to polygraphs. You mentioned the importance of evidence, and later this afternoon we are seeing a professor who is an expert in this area, as far as evidence is concerned. Would you agree that where polygraphs are used just to provide a bit more background information and perhaps prompt further investigation, rather than being used to have a biting and binding consequence, there can be some value in that, as part of a holistic assessment to work out where more work needs to be done? Nobody is suggesting that it would lead to a direct, binding consequence. Does that give you any assurance?
Les Allamby: It gives me, I have to say, a rather limited measure of reassurance. I say that because it seems to me that if that is the case, then frankly that ought to be written into the Bill. It ought to be clear that the outcome of a polygraph test on its own should not have any adverse impact.
If you are going to introduce polygraph tests, you really should pilot them. I will quickly give you an example. It may seem a slightly odd analogy, but I used to sit on the Social Security Advisory Committee, and I remember being told many years ago by the Department for Work and Pensions that it was looking at voice recognition, as a way of starting to tell whether somebody might be telling the truth or not. Great play was made about that approach as a possible way forward in fraud detection, etc. It unravelled as the evidence became clearer that there were significant flaws in using that technology for making assumptions about whether individuals were telling the truth.
I cannot draw any objective scientific comparison between voice recognition and polygraphs, but it is a cautionary tale of rushing into using technology without piloting it and really considering what other safeguards you should have before using it.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Les Allamby: Yes, certainly. One concern is the relative absence of safeguards around extending it beyond two years. I think there ought to be additional judicial safeguards. There ought to be a test, if you are going to extend beyond two years, as to whether there is a compelling basis for doing so.
I have concerns that the loosening of the test from the balance of probabilities to reasonable suspicion. I note that we have slalomed, going back to control orders, as to what the required burden of proof is. I note the issues David Anderson raised. I also noted that the European convention on human rights memorandum issued by the Department suggested that things had changed between 2015 and 2020, but I am unsure whether that change is sufficiently compelling to reduce the test from balance of probabilities to reasonable suspicion.
TPIMs are used in a very small number of cases. They are oppressive. None the less, they are utilised on a sparing basis. But you need additional safeguards, if you will extend them beyond two years. Two years is a significant period of time in someone’s life to restrict their freedom of movement and their liberty, to the extent that TPIMs currently do, bearing in mind some of the additional provisions that will now be contained in TPIMs.
Rob Butler
Q
“New subsection (5) establishes that statements or physiological reactions of the offender in polygraph sessions cannot be used as evidence in proceedings for an offence against the released person.”
Does that provide you with the comfort you were seeking?
Les Allamby: Yet again, it provides me with a very limited measure of reassurance. It is absolutely right that you should not be able to take someone back to court to suggest a new offence has been committed on the basis of the polygraph, so that provides a measure of reassurance.
But I am mindful that if, for example, you are released on licence and you fail a polygraph test, it can be used to revoke your licence and place you back in prison. That is a pretty severe consequence for technology that has not been piloted. The reassurance is welcome in those terms, but you have to understand where else the ramifications of—
Chris Philp
Q
Les Allamby: I think that is helpful—I would like to see any of those kinds of intentions in the Bill—but I come back to my fundamental point, which is that, as far as I understand it, the polygraph test is still untried in terms of its complete veracity, and we are using technology that has not been piloted in those circumstances. Frankly, if we are going to move to polygraph tests in those circumstances, I would much prefer them to be piloted, so we could then make a genuinely informed decision about their value before we start to take decisions that may have significant consequences.
Conor McGinn
Q
Les Allamby: Conor, I honestly do not know; I have not had discussions with either the PSNI or Garda Síochána on those arrangements. I certainly do not detect from PSNI a great deal of desire to see those kinds of arrangements in place, which I certainly do not think will be enhanced, but I cannot comment meaningfully on that.
One thing that I would say is that the much more significant issue for us in terms of cross-border co-operation—it is outwith your Committee—is reaching effective security and justice arrangements when we leave the European Union at the end of December. Northern Ireland’s land border with another member state creates a full range of issues that I think are slightly different for the rest of the UK. I have not detected in public discourse anything to suggest that, but “I don’t know” is a shorter and more succinct answer.
The Chair
Q
Dr Russell: Nothing in particular. To drive home the point about under-18s, I draw your attention to the UN convention on the rights of the child, in which a number of provisions, particularly in article 40, set out the need to treat children differently and to see the impacts that the criminal justice system can have on children who enter it as different to the impacts on adults. In the context of Northern Ireland, as it has already been raised, there are specific concerns around the recruitment of children by paramilitaries here. There are particular sensitivities around that, which need to be taken into account in the Bill.
The Chair
Thank you. Does anyone have any more questions? No. In that case, I thank both our witnesses very much. Mr McGinn, I think I called you Conor Burns at the start, thereby inexplicably confusing you with the distinguished former Trade Minister, the right hon. Member for Bournemouth West (Conor Burns). I think the best and safest thing I can do is apologise to you both.
Examination of witness
Michael P. Clancy OBE gave evidence.
The Chair
Michael Clancy is the director of law reform at the Law Society of Scotland. Good afternoon, Mr Clancy.
Michael Clancy: Good afternoon, Chair; good afternoon everyone.
Chris Philp
Q
Michael Clancy: Thank you, Mr Philp. To answer about projecting what the effect of legislation will be on protecting the public and making people safer is quite difficult, because for me, as an individual, it would certainly be speculation to say that the Bill would protect people. Legislation has limited effect in terms of it being passed; it really has to be brought into effect and made to work through enforcement for the real impact to be felt. That is part of the issue about whether or not people would be protected by the Bill. It may be some time before we can turn around and do adequate research on the implementation of the measures in order to assume that people have, since its enactment, been better protected than they were before. It is difficult for me to comment on that.
That having been said, I know that sociologists and criminologists have been looking at this kind of things. In one article I picked up latterly, entitled “Does Terrorism Dominate Citizens’ Hearts or Minds? The Relationship between Fear of Terrorism and Trust in Government” by Ramon van der Does. He came to the conclusion that
“Despite its well-known effects on public health, safety, and finances, we still know little about how fear of terrorism can be mitigated.”
That might go some way to edging to an answer to the Minister’s question. Every Bill is good in parts, and has good parts, parts that can be improved by amendment during its passage and parts that, in some instances, should not be legislated at all. So, as you can tell from the Law Society of Scotland’s memorandum on the Bill, we take very much that kind of view.
Chris Philp
Q
Michael Clancy: I certainly agree that, for those who are convicted of serious terrorist offences, keeping them in prison for a longer time means that they are not at liberty to commit other terrorist offences. Whether that actually means that they have no influence on others in the commission of terrorist offences—either those they meet in prison who are on their way towards release, or those with whom they can communicate outside prison while they are serving their sentence—is another matter.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Michael Clancy: I have great respect for the Law Society of England and Wales’s positions most of the time. As you will have seen from our memorandum of comments, we have reservations about the use of polygraphs. In particular, we think that there is an issue about the reliability of polygraphs. They have been used in England and Wales, but they have not been used in Scotland. One point that I would like to pick up on is that the adaptation of Scottish criminal procedure through the Bill to provide for polygraphs is something we would have liked to see further consultation on, with greater explanation of how this would work before it is fully imported into the legal system in Scotland. I know that considerable advances have been made in neuroscientific technologies, such as the use of polygraphs, but in many instances in the United States—I draw your attention to the Supreme Court case of US v. Scheffer in 1998—there were considerable concerns about the reliability of polygraphs. That concern has persisted since that time, to such an extent that we have to be quite careful about citing American jurisdictions, because some of them do not allow for any—
Alex Cunningham
Q
Michael Clancy: Of course, the Parole Board for Scotland is not referred to much in the Bill—only in a couple of instances. We would need to take a further look at exactly how the implications of the Bill work for the Parole Board for Scotland, which has its own particular arrangements. I will therefore pass on that question as to its effects on the Parole Board for England and Wales.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Michael Clancy: As you will have seen from other evidence that has been submitted, the aspect of children and young persons is quite significant for Scotland. I refer in particular to paragraphs 21 to 27 of the submission by Jonathan Hall, the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, which clearly discuss the effects on children and young people in Scotland. He says:
“The proposed application of the serious terrorism sentence to offenders aged 18 to 21 in Scotland raises starkly the question of whether there is a bright line between offenders above and below…18. This is because the Scottish Sentencing Council is currently consulting on its third draft guideline, ‘Sentencing Young People’ and proposes that special sentencing principles should apply to offenders up to the age of 25.”
For all who are interested in the Bill, it would be helpful to know the extent to which the Government have been able to consult with the Scottish Sentencing Council about the provisions affecting children and young people in Scotland, particularly as they are carrying out the current review.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Michael Clancy: Yes, I believe so.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Michael Clancy: I found Mr Hall’s analysis of the issue of orders for lifelong restriction very compelling. As he points out, this is a unique type of sentence, imposed
“for serious violent offences if certain risk criteria are met”—
for example,
“where the offender would otherwise seriously endanger the lives, or physical or psychological wellbeing, of members of the public at large.”
Therefore, I think we should view Mr Hall’s evidence carefully. He points out in his note:
“An Order for Lifelong Restriction is an indeterminate sentence comprising a stated period of detention or imprisonment (called a punishment part) during which the offender cannot be considered for release, followed by the continued incarceration of the offender unless and until the Parole Board for Scotland is satisfied that the offender no longer”
carries such a risk. That implies a paradox: the 14-year sentence plus the extended sentence might be a shorter period in prison than one under an order for lifelong restriction, so we have to be careful about weighing Jonathan Hall’s evidence against the provisions in the Bill. I hope that answers your question.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Michael Clancy: Yes. Well, I do not pretend to know the mind of Scottish Ministers as to why they have not introduced polygraphs in Scotland. I suspect that they think the jury is out on that question, because of the variable opinions about the value of polygraphs.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Michael Clancy: That is true: they are not.
Joanna Cherry
Q
“responsibility, organisation, funding, monitoring and training”.
Can you elaborate on that?
Michael Clancy: It would be a significant step, because there has been no prior consultation to discuss the appropriateness of the use of polygraphs, how that would be implemented and whose responsibility it would be to arrange for polygraphs to be used in Scotland. Those are the kinds of issues that need to be explored quite carefully. It would also be important to know how they will be resourced. We are going to enter into a period of extraordinary public expenditure difficulty in the next few months and years, so introducing something that would be a significant expense in terms of their usage, the training of the operators and such, would be something one would want to look at very carefully.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Michael Clancy: Before I answer that, could I add a small coda to the provisions about polygraphs? Under clause 33, a new section is inserted into the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Act 1993, which provides that
“Scottish Ministers may…specify a polygraph condition”.
The emphasis of that discretion in the Bill is an acknowledgement that this matter would be within the devolved competence of Scottish Ministers to be talking about and implementing legislation for. It would therefore be a question to ask Scottish Ministers, as to what their views are about the implementation of polygraphs in Scotland.
Going back to the standard of proof—
Joanna Cherry
Q
Michael Clancy: Yes, that is correct.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Michael Clancy: Again, we set out some views in our memorandum. Moving from a position where it was on the balance of probabilities to a reasonable suspicion is a significant drop. It is even a drop from reasonable belief, which was a prior standard used in the old control orders that preceded TPIMs. We take that as being something that is problematic. It certainly indicates a lower standard, but that is about as far as I would put it at the moment. It is within the range of civil contemplation. We have got to be cautious about what we actually mean by reasonable suspicion. The balance of probabilities means satisfaction on the evidence that the occurrence is more likely than not. Reasonable suspicion is simply, “Have I got any basis for thinking that this is the case?”
Miss Dines
Q
“What is needed is to tackle the basic causes of these terrorist incidents”.
There are two parts to the first question: what do you say are the basic causes of crime, and why are the proposals that are being put forward not good enough? Secondly, what alternatives should be put forward? What are the causes, and what would you do, in rejecting these proposals?
Michael Clancy: These are very big questions. Explaining the causes of crime might just be a little bit beyond my competence in the time I am allowed to talk for. But, clearly, when we are dealing with a cohort that is inclined to terrorist offences, the issue is the achievement of some political or social aim through the use of violence, rather than through any democratic change, and that is roundly to be condemned by anyone who has any sense of democratic responsibility.
I do not for a moment underestimate the extent to which those who engage in such terrorist offences may have motivations that most other people would find difficult to understand. With any type of instance when terrorism has occurred, sometimes we can just think to ourselves, “How could someone do this to other people?” But I cannot reach into the psychology of terrorist offenders to be able to answer your question completely.
In our analysis of terrorist prevention and investigation measures, we have taken a view on the components of that—for example, the removal of the two-year limit on the length of time that a TPIM can be imposed, so it is now available under the terms of the Bill for indefinite renewal and no subsequent judicial review. We think that removing judicial review is a significant departure, and making the provision of the TPIM unlimited can be problematic. That probably engages certain provisions of the European convention on human rights. For example, in terms of the lack of a judicial review, there is no independent oversight of that. We would suggest that, given the small number of TPIMs there have been in the past, if that is going to be replicated, having some form of judicial review may allow for a contemplation about the extent to which article 8—the right to a private life—might be impacted by the provision of the TPIM as it is currently anticipated to be.
We would also refer to the variation of the relocation measures in the same kind of way, under clause 39. The extension of residence measures, so that any house or residence can be applied under clause 39, is something that we thought was potentially in conflict with article 8. We have already talked about the polygraph measures. I am less worried about the drug testing measures, because drug testing measures are in common currency in the tools that can be employed to make sure that people are not contravening the Misuse of Drugs Act, with the impact that that has on someone’s thinking and what they might want to do in a state where they are under the influence of drugs.
The Chair
Order. I think I am going to ask you to let me move on, Mr Clancy, because a few other people are indicating that time is moving on. Is there anyone else waiting to come in? No. In that case, I call Laura Trott.
Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)
Q
I was pleased to see in your evidence the point that an increased sentence offers an increased opportunity for greater rehabilitation while someone is in prison. Do you have any views on what form that rehabilitation should take?
Michael Clancy: I am not a penologist. Therefore, I would rather leave that to experts in rehabilitation theory than make up some layman’s version of it, if you do not mind.
Chris Philp
Q
Michael Clancy: Of course you can ask me, Minister. That is certainly something I will take back and think about, because I was not aware that that evidence had been given this morning. I should say that this is, of course, a civil law provision, not a criminal law provision, in terms of the standard of proof. Of course we have to take into account the views of the counter-terrorism police experts and weigh them very heavily, but it is a different environment, in one sense, from the environment that the police are used to operating in—namely, beyond reasonable doubt. But I take your point and will give that some further thought.
Chris Philp
Q
To give you further reassurance perhaps, the lower burden of proof, reasonable suspicion, is of course not a new burden of proof, because the old control orders, in force from 2005—they were introduced by the then Labour Government—and carrying on until 2012, had the same lower burden of proof, reasonable suspicion. This morning, I asked Jonathan Hall, the independent reviewer, whether he was aware of any problems that occurred during that seven-year period, 2005 to 2012, when that lower burden of proof was in force, and he was unaware of any issues caused by it. Does that give you further reassurance?
Michael Clancy: It does. Of course, set against that is the fact that very few of these orders were in place at that time. I think that, in doing some reading in advance of this session, I saw numbers in the mid-40s—46 orders or something like that. If they are going to be used at that kind of level of exercise, it is clearly going to impact on a smaller group of people. Small does not mean insignificant, in this circumstance, but we will just have to wait and see what the evidence of their use produces.
Chris Philp
Q
I have one final point. You mentioned concerns about renewal. Of course, renewal, under these proposals, would take place annually. And you mentioned a few moments ago judicial oversight as a concern. Of course, the subject of the TPIM can at any time bring a legal challenge against the use of the TPIM if they feel that it has become unfair. Does the availability of that mechanism to bring a challenge give you reassurance that the subject of the TPIM does have recourse to the courts, and can be protected by a judge, if he or she feels that that is necessary?
Michael Clancy: Well, of course, yes, it gives me some reassurance. I am glad to hear you make such a clear statement of the interpretation of the Bill. Certainly, the TPIM is reduced for one year, but it is capable of being made indefinite. If one were to take action—as you have suggested someone who is subject to one of these orders might take action—it might be the case that the judge would only be able to quash the TPIM rather than make any variation. That might be a solution that we would mutually accept, but there may be implications from that I suppose.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Michael Clancy: I have no evidence. As I have said, the important thing would be to see how this change to the legislation works and then, in a shortish period of time—between two to five years—think in terms of having some kind of post-legislative review, which would enable us to see whether this legislation had functioned properly and had met the objectives that the Committee has been discussing this afternoon of making people safer and protecting them. Then we can come to a view as to whether or not that change in the standard of proof was the right one.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Michael Clancy: Yes.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Michael Clancy: As far as I know. I have not actually seen a statement by Jonathan Hall about the burden of proof, but I am sure that you are leading me to the conclusion that there is one.
Joanna Cherry
Yes. He has given us evidence this morning and provided a note to that effect, but, as always, you are being scrupulously fair.
The Chair
Absolutely. Are there any further questions? In that case, Mr Clancy, thank you very much for giving your evidence today.
Michael Clancy: Thank you, Mr Chairman. It has been a pleasure, a rather disembodied pleasure, but a pleasure none the less.
Examination of Witness
Professor Donald Grubin gave evidence.
The Chair
We now come to our final witness of the day, Professor Donald Grubin of Newcastle University, who has had the benefit of hearing some of the exchanges earlier. Let us begin.
Chris Philp
Q
Professor Grubin: I am a professor of forensic psychiatry, so I am a psychiatrist and not a polygraph examiner. I became interested in polygraph testing about 20 years ago in relation to work with offenders. What I found was that polygraph testing was being used very widely in the United States to monitor offenders. The people using it said, “This is fantastic. If they took it away, I would quit.” They would make comments like that, but the academics felt that there was no evidence for it and a lot of what we are hearing today is that it is not reliable. A lot of those issues were repeated. I became interested in that difference. We began to run some studies here in the UK. Gradually over time, a lot of evidence accumulated to show that it was a very effective means of monitoring and managing offenders in the community.
Chris Philp
Q
Professor Grubin: The first thing to say is that there is a lot of misunderstanding about polygraph testing. We heard a lot of that earlier today, and I get very frustrated, because those same comments get repeated and repeated. There is also a lot of confusion about polygraph testing—what it is, what it does and how it is used.
In essence, all polygraph testing does is provide additional information—information gain—and it does that in two main ways. One is the test outcome, which people often get tied up in—is somebody lying or telling the truth?—but it is also about disclosures. The two are complementary. What every study ever carried out on polygraph testing has found is that when people are having a polygraph, they make disclosures. All the studies we have done here, and indeed the implementation of polygraph testing here with sex offenders, has found the same thing.
There was a comment that this has not been piloted, but we have now run about 5,000 tests in probation, with mandatory tests on sex offenders. We have tested over 2,000 individuals and the police, with voluntary testing, have tested about 1,000 individuals and run about 2,000 tests. We have a lot of information, and again we find that about 60% to 70% of tests result in new information that was not known before and is important to management.
The other aspect, of course, is test outcome. People always want to know how accurate it is, and we know —we have very good estimates. The best study was a comprehensive review carried out by the National Research Council in the United States about 20 years ago, when it was being raised for security vetting in Government agencies. It looked at all the available evidence and found it was between 80% and 90% accurate. That means it gets it wrong about one in five or one in 10 times, but that is a lot better than we can do.
The main question then is: is that accurate enough for the application you want to put it to? What we are talking about is post-release, post-conviction testing as part of monitoring offenders, and in that capacity it is being used alongside a number of other aspects of offender management. You are not relying on the polygraph either to clear someone or to send them back to prison or anything like that; it is not used in that way. It is just additional information that can be added. If you think about different sorts of results that you might get, if somebody, say, passes a polygraph test—I do not like to use the term pass, but I will for simplicity’s sake—and they do not make any disclosures and there are no other concerns about the individual, that provides reassurance that you are not missing anything; it is an agreement with everything else. If, on the other hand, you get some disclosures, that is something that can be investigated further. If somebody fails the polygraph, so they are thought to be lying, and there are already concerns, again, that reinforces that, but if there are not, the polygraph may be wrong—it may be one of the one in five or one in 10 times we have gotten it wrong—but it may also suggest that you need to look at it a bit closer and investigate further.
There were comments before about how if somebody fails a polygraph they are brought back to prison or brought before the courts. That is just not the policy, and we have heard that in the legislation that just does not happen. It is simply a warning sign that you had better take a closer look. Again, we have a lot of evidence from the testing we have done in this country—as I said, over 7,000 tests have been run—to show that that is in fact how things are working.
Can I say one last thing? We often present polygraph testing as if it is something that offenders do not like and is being imposed on them. That is true for some, but others actually find it useful. You have to remember that sometimes you catch people telling the truth, and where you have an individual who is being monitored, because a risk is a great cause of concern and there is a suspicion of them all the time, and they can demonstrate that they are actually not doing anything wrong and their risk is static or decreasing, that is very useful for them. We have anecdotal evidence of offenders saying they found that part of the testing helpful, and they like polygraph tests for that reason—because they can prove that they are following the rules.
Chris Philp
Q
Professor Grubin: It is fair, except that I would say it is more than a prompt and that it actually uncovers information. You have to remember that a lot of this management relies on self-reports, so it is a way of saying, “We’re asking these questions anyway, only now we want you to tell the truth and we have a way of trying to determine whether you are telling the truth.” The other aspect, of course, which is often overlooked is its deterrence effect. If you know you are going to have a polygraph test, you are going to pay a lot closer attention to your activities, your actions and your behaviour. Again, we have a lot of anecdotal evidence—it is very difficult to prove—that people do modify their behaviour, because they know they are going to have a polygraph test.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Professor Grubin: Nobody is recalled on the basis of a failed polygraph test. That is the important point which people often misunderstand.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Professor Grubin: No. The sex offender work is, in effect, a pilot for this, because even though the risks are different the underlying principles are the same: there are individuals who are a cause for concern and you have time to intervene if you are picking up warning signs. If they are making disclosures that indicate that the risk is increasing, that would be grounds for recalling them to prison, but that is because of something they have told you. If they told you in another setting, if they said it in an interview with a probation officer, they would be recalled on that basis as well. If they simply fail a polygraph test but they do not make any disclosures, nothing happens to them. The questions on which they failed are explored further and to say, “Maybe this is wrong, maybe one in five times it is wrong, but maybe there is something there that we have missed and we have to have a closer look.” That is followed up by further interviewing with the offender. There may be other investigations that are put in place. We have a lot of examples, with the sex offender work, where that has happened. I would say, in a way, that the sex offender work is just a very large pilot for this application.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Professor Grubin: I am not quite clear what you are asking. In terms of the disclosure, this is after they have been released so the tests are not being run in prison, they are being run in the community, so any issues with the Parole Board I do not think are directly relevant to the polygraph testing.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Professor Grubin: There are two aspects: one is mental health and one is young people. I share your concerns regarding young people. It depends on what sort of age we are talking about. Certainly, I have had discussions about what an appropriate age might be. I am very clear that certainly any individual below the age of 16 should not be subject to a polygraph test.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Professor Grubin: You say “subject”—that is probably not the right word. The reasons why you would not want to use it under 16 are, first, we are not sure that brain development means the polygraph will work in the same way as it does with adults. We know there is a big change in brain development around the time of puberty. Around the age of 16, I think things are adult-like enough to mean that polygraph testing will be valid.
Alex Cunningham
Sorry to interrupt you, but colleagues in Scotland are suggesting that you do not have full maturation until the age of 25.
Professor Grubin: It is actually a bit older than that—I have seen 29. It is not a question of full maturation; it is a question of whether the brain has matured enough so that the polygraph works in similar way to how it works with adults. Again, there is a lot of confusion about what a polygraph detects. It does not detect lies; we know that. It detects activity within the autonomic nervous system that reflects cognate processing in response to questions. By the time somebody has reached the age of around 16, that looks similar to an adult’s.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Professor Grubin: That is an issue for training and oversight. There is an important thing for me with polygraph testing. A lot of the criticisms of it are not about polygraph but bad practice and the limitation of polygraph. It is very important that examiners understand issues around mental health and mental illness. If there are problems, they can either adapt their testing to take that into account or not do the test, depending on what the circumstances are.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Professor Grubin: I am not sure that that is something you can legislate for, apart from saying that there needs to be proper training and proper supervision. My concern always is that, being Government, one day somebody will want to save a little bit of money and will say, “We don’t really need this supervision quality control. They can just get on with it.” That is where I think danger lies. Provided that there is proper supervision, I do not know how much further you can legislate.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Professor Grubin: I was a member of a risk management authority for a number of years, so I know how they work and what they look at. When you talk about piloting, are you looking to get disclosures that will have the same levels of accuracy? There is no reason why a Scottish offender should be any different from an English or American one. The polygraph should work in the same way. There is a lot of experience now on how to implement. From my point of view, this is one of the few things where we have been able to scale up from pilot studies to actual implementation and to continue to keep its integrity and keep it working. I do not see why any of that would be any different in Scotland. I appreciate there are resource and training issues, but that would not be a reason not to pilot it. That would be a reason to get the training and implementation issues in place.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Professor Grubin: Yes.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Professor Grubin: No wiggle room.
Joanna Cherry
Q
Professor Grubin: They are not under the conscious control of the subject. We know that. Also, you get those responses not just from being deceptive; there is a range of things that can cause that response. In a polygraph test, somebody does not just walk into the room, get hooked up to a polygraph and then get asked questions. It is a fairly lengthy process. It takes at least an hour: typically two or three hours for a polygraph test. Most of that is spent in a pre-test interview where you go through information with the examinee with the aim of making sure that, if he is responding, he is responding because he is being deceptive and not for some other reason. That is where are lot of the training comes from and that is what differentiates a good polygraph examiner from a bad one: the way they have approached the interview and the test means that those responses are seen because of deception. It doesn’t always happen, which is why we get the one in five, one in 10 error rate. What you are looking for is physiological responses associated with deception. They can be associated with other things as well, but the aim of the polygraph test is to try to make sure it is because somebody is being deceptive.
Miss Dines
Q
Professor Grubin: It is not valuable at all. You cannot use polygraph testing as a means of testing intentions. The polygraph is looking specifically at behaviours. Your colleague referred to concrete, very narrow questions of the type, “Have you done this?” They can be screening-type questions, or they can be very specific, such as, “Did you rob the bank?”, “Did you shoot the gun?” or whatever. It is not a tool for eliciting intentions or validating responses to those sorts of question.
Ruth Cadbury
Q
Professor Grubin: For people with an intellectual disability, you are absolutely right that the accuracy of the test decreases once IQ drops below a certain level. In the sex offender testing, we will typically test down to 60, but we are much more cautious with the test outcome. It is still valuable, because of the disclosure aspect; you still get information and information gain—the point about information gain is the main one I want to leave you with—from the test, even with someone with an intellectual disability.
Again, examiners need to be trained; they need to address their questions in a different way, one that is much more concrete. The test has to be modified. It has to be shorter because of fatigue and issues such as that. So, you are absolutely right that accuracy decreases, but you must remember that nothing hinges on a test outcome alone. If it is a deceptive response and you have no other concerns, you would still look further. You might say, “We have to be more cautious because of IQ.”
There is no evidence to suggest it works any differently with people with personality disorders from how it works with anybody else. Again, because of misunder- standings about how polygraph works, people think, “It does not work with psychopathic individuals because they don’t feel anxiety.” First, the test is not based on anxiety. Sometimes when we do talks, and we will have an examiner, we can do demonstrations of polygraph testing. We used to like to get a volunteer from the audience who we can hook up. I try to pick somebody who is also a psychopath, so we can kill two birds with one stone. I know that here we would not be able to do that, but in the audiences I speak to there are often one or two psychiatrists who would fit the bill for a psychopath. There has been some testing of personality disorders and there is no evidence that the test itself is any less valuable. Again, part of the training of the examiner is that they need to know how to interview these individuals, because of the challenges that they may present.
I believe the third group you were thinking about was those with neurodevelopmental disorder or autistic spectrum disorder. Again, the evidence is that the test works just as well with them as with anybody else, but you have to make allowances in the interview, because of the concrete nature of a lot of their thinking, language difficulties and so on. You need to take that into account in terms of the interviewing, but there is no evidence to suggest that the test itself works any differently with them from how it works with anybody else.
Ruth Cadbury
Q
Professor Grubin: We do test with interpreters, and they seem to work just as well. Again, it does take training for the examiner to know how to work with an interpreter, and the interpreter needs training as well. Certainly, security services in other countries use it with interpreters quite regularly.
Laura Trott
Q
Professor Grubin: There is a range of reasons that people can give either false positives or false negatives. Apologies for not looking at you while I am answering. Sometimes it is because the test hasn’t been set out properly, the examinee hasn’t been prepared properly in the pre-test interview or the questions haven’t been formulated well, and so on.
The examinee may have some other experience that is close enough to the way the question is being asked to cause that sort of response. For example, there was a very good study carried out in Israel. I won’t go through all the details of it, but they were able to debrief afterwards as we were with police officers who were applying for promotion. There were two false positives. The ground troops knew that these two people had been telling the truth, but they were said to be lying. One of them had said that he had previously made an insurance claim in Israel. At that time, the insurance companies in Israel would test people making insurance claims to see if they were honest or not. He said that he was being honest, but he was told that he was lying. He couldn’t get that out of his mind during the test. That causes the cognitive processing we were talking about, and it made him respond in that way.
The other person was more interesting. The experiment itself was about a test that the examinees could cheat on. You would know if they cheated or not. The second police officer said that he cheated when he took the test, but there was something wrong when he took it and the examiners had him do the test a second time. When he did it the second time, he said, “I don’t think I had better cheat again,” so he did it honestly. When he was asked if he had cheated on the test the second time, he said that he was thinking about having cheated the first time, which is why he reacted as he did.
There are other reasons as well, but it is hard to explain without going into the details about how polygraph testing works. Basically, you are comparing the relevant questions that you are interested in with so-called comparison questions. If those comparison questions are not evocative enough to elicit a response when a person is telling the truth to the relevant question, or vice versa, when they are too hot and the person is much more concerned about that question than about the relevant one, you can also get mistakes on the test.
The final reason is that sometimes we just don’t know; it just happens.
Laura Trott
Q
Professor Grubin: It is very similar. In sex offender testing, the majority of questions relate to their licence conditions and they are asked specifically about those conditions. You have to remember in a polygraph test and a screening test you get, at most, three relevant questions, so if they have 15 licence conditions you are only going to be able to test three of them. You can ask about all of them during the pre-test interview and, of course, the examinee won’t know which ones he will be asked on the test, which is why you get disclosures.
By and large, they are about licence conditions, and I would think that with this group that is what they would be. The things you would be interested in are undisclosed internet devices, have they been in contact with certain individuals, have they travelled to certain places and those sorts of question. The sex offenders are also asked about fantasies, but I am not sure that you would be particularly interested in that with this group.
Alex Cunningham
Q
Professor Grubin: Either I have either misunderstood you or you have misunderstood me. Were you referring to intellectual disability?
Alex Cunningham
Yes.
Professor Grubin: I think what I said was when IQ gets down to around 60; I did not say that the accuracy was around 60. I said that it becomes less accurate as the IQ lowers and that we typically would not test somebody with an IQ below 60.
Chris Philp
Q
Professor Grubin: There are a couple of aspects to the answer to that. First, there is no reason to think it would not work similarly with terrorist offenders. They are people and they respond to polygraph testing like anybody else. It is used with terrorist offenders in other countries, but the problem is that that sort of work is not published. My understanding of it is anecdotal and what people have told me. They certainly find that its use is successful, and they get the same types of response that you would expect from the sex offender work. There is no real difference there. But none of that is published, so it is anecdotal.
One other thing to say from the sex offender work is that we looked at whether, after polygraph tests, there was an increase in actions taken by the probation officers managing those people. You get an increase by a factor of 10, sometimes higher, in actions taken. That does not necessarily mean recall to prison or charging with a new offence, but actions that mean you have an opportunity to reduce risk, which is really what you are looking for here. With any sort of offence where you have time to intervene, polygraph testing provides a good means to get that information to allow you to intervene and reduce risk.
Chris Philp
Q
Professor Grubin: I will give you a couple of examples of that, but the first thing to say is that we do not know why it happens. There are various psychological attempts to explain it, but I know that I have been polygraph tested as part of our training and it was all I could do not to confess to the crime that I was meant to have committed. There is a real urge to disclose that I do not really understand, but there are various theories that I am happy to discuss later on.
To give you a couple of examples off the top of my head, one interesting case was a sex offender who was released from prison. Everything was thought to be going well with him. He disclosed that he had a new girlfriend, which was not known to the offender manager. That seems pretty mundane, but when they found this girlfriend it turned out that she was a single mother, that she was a vulnerable woman, and that this man was visiting her and helping her to paint her sitting room. He would do that in his underwear because he did not want to get his clothes painted. Her daughter was present at that time. A lot of that mirrored the way he had offended before, so that one disclosure about having a new girlfriend led to that man being recalled to prison —not based directly on the disclosure, but only indirectly, once the girlfriend was found and interviewed.
Chris Philp
Q
Professor Grubin: I am not sure just what you would mean. I can tell you, because I checked these figures before I came, that in the probation testing about 65% of tests resulted in new disclosures in the pre-test. That is information that was important to management but was not known. That might be small bits of information or it might be big bits. After someone fails a test, they are asked to explain why that might be, and about 60% of those tests result in further disclosures to try to explain that. What I cannot say is how many of those were in tests where there were no pre-test disclosures, so it is likely that about two thirds or 70% of tests result in new information.
Chris Philp
Wow. Thank you.
Professor Grubin: That does not count something that I think is important but that is always overlooked: the truthful tests with no disclosures that provide reassurance, because decisions can be made on that. In the police world, they do voluntary testing of sex offenders on the register. Someone who is on the register for 15 years and wants to come off it may have been visited once a year for the past five years; there may be no intelligence on him, and an inspector is expected to sign off this person based on that information. If he passes a polygraph test and nothing of concern comes up, that gives them reassurance. Often, though, in those cases we find that bits of information do come up that they should have been aware of, and then they can move forward.
The Chair
Order. I am going to have to stop you there because we have run out of time. Thank you very much indeed for your evidence, Professor Grubin.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Tom Pursglove).
Fire Safety Bill (Second sitting)
Thursday 25th June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 View all Fire Safety Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 25 June 2020 - (25 Jun 2020)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We now begin line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Members will understand the need to respect social distancing guidance. I will intervene if necessary to remind everyone, but at the moment it is okay. Members may remove jackets during our proceedings. Tea and coffee are not permitted during our sittings, and Members must ensure that mobile phones are turned off or switched to silent mode.
The selection list for today’s sitting, which is available in the room, shows how the amendments selected for debate have been grouped. Please note that decisions on amendments take place not in the order that they are debated, but in the order in which they appear on the amendment paper. Hansard reporters would be most grateful if Members could email electronic copies of their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
On a point of order, Sir Gary. I apologise for rising so early. I do not want to start on a contentious or sour note in what I am sure will be a consensual Committee, but there was some consternation about the way in which the Committee was timetabled. I make no criticism of the necessary rigours enforced on us by social distancing; the staff have done an excellent job in that respect.
The issue of fire safety in tall buildings, particularly in west London, is very important. It is one of the very few issues that keep me awake at night. We are dealing with the whole the Bill, which, as the evidence session this morning showed, ramifies in many ways, in one day. We had the evidence session this morning, and we are dealing with line-by-line consideration of the whole Bill, albeit a short Bill, this afternoon. The evidence was excellent; it would have been good to have time to digest it and perhaps propose amendments on the basis of it. We now have three hours for debate—I will be brief so as not to eat into that time—and we also have a Committee that is smaller than was originally envisaged. That is partly to do with the constraints of the room and social distancing, but it is an unhelpful precedent.
I do not know whether it is a matter for the Chair or for the Government to take away, but I wanted to put on record my concerns. The matter before us needs to be explored in depth; it has huge complexities and different streams, even within the limits of the Bill, which is one of several. I hope that the authorities and the Government will take away the message that scrutiny should not in any way be constrained.
The Chair
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have taken notice of his point of order. The programming motion has already been agreed, so we cannot change it, but he has made some powerful points and they are now firmly on the record. We will now start line-by-line scrutiny.
Clause 1
Power to change premises to which the Fire Safety Order applies
Andy Slaughter
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out lines 7 to 14 and insert—
“(1A) Where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises, the things to which this order applies include—
(a) the building’s structure and external walls and floors, and any common parts;
(b) all doors between the domestic premises and common parts (so far as not falling within sub-paragraph (a)).
(1B) The reference to external walls and floors includes—
(a) doors, windows or penetrations in those walls and floors, and”
This amendment would apply the Fire Safety Bill specifically to penetrations that pass from a dwelling, through a fire-rated wall or floor into a common space.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 2, in clause 1, page 1, line 8, after “include” insert
“all other parts of that building including—”
This amendment aims to clarify that the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 applies to all parts of a building that contains two or more dwellings, other than those dwellings themselves, and is not limited to parts that come within the meaning of structure, external walls or common parts.
Will the hon. Gentleman move one chair to his left? That would be better from a social distancing point of view.
Andy Slaughter
Thank you, Sir Gary, for looking after my and everybody else’s health. I rise to speak to amendment 1, tabled in my name. It is grouped with amendment 2, tabled in the name of the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central. The two matters are linked. My amendment, as is the custom in my case, is more pedantic and finickity than the broader amendment 2. If I may, I will speak to my own amendment.
As I mentioned a few moments ago, we had a very useful evidence session this morning. It was short—only an hour and a half—but there was a lot of information there. What came through from all the witnesses was that this Bill clarifies existing law. It is a matter of constitutional debate whether the function of legislation is to clarify existing law. Governments have a habit of doing that to fill in time or to make an emphatic point, although it is perhaps not a good use of legislation. It is clear, however, that there are problems that need to be resolved in relation to fire safety, which has troubled us hugely since the Grenfell Tower disaster three years ago and should have been troubling us for many years previously in the light of other disasters.
I guess, therefore, that the Bill is intended not so much to change the law, but to say, “This is the law, and this is what should have been happening.” That begs others questions. Are the resources there now to make this happen? Is the focus of the Bill in the right area? In questions this morning, I made the point—and I do not think the experts dissented—that the phrase, “the building’s structure and external walls and any common parts”, in clause 1, line 8, is rather tendentious. The “building’s structure” could mean anything in relation to the building, but it is then qualified by the reference to “external walls” and “common parts”.
My amendment addresses the issue of whether there is a clear definition of common parts, but I think we all know why the phrase “external walls” is in the Bill. As has already come out of the Grenfell inquiry—indeed, the recommendation from the inquiry was perhaps not needed—a substantial cause of the Grenfell disaster, as well as a contributory factor in many other major fires, including in high-rise buildings, has been the type of material that adheres to or forms part of the external structure of the building. That could be cladding—certain types of which have been found to be more combustible than others—insulation, or the way in which the materials combine. We are only scratching the surface—excuse the pun—of the types of cladding and systems that are appropriate to be used, or to remain in use, on such buildings.
It is pretty clear, however, that such material is a major focus of the Bill. The money, time and resources the Government have spent so far—many of us believe they have not gone far enough—have gone on looking at aluminium composite material cladding and then perhaps at high pressure laminate and other types of cladding. No doubt, as we consider the Bill, there will be some focus on that. My amendment, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central, go slightly beyond that. As Matt Wrack, the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union, pointed out this morning, Grenfell has exposed not only that there are issues with cladding, but that there are fire safety issues in the construction, management and operation of tall buildings, in particular, that go far beyond that.
My amendment addresses a specific point by dealing with opportunities for fire to penetrate into a building other than through doors and windows. Doors and windows are a major way in which fire can enter a dwelling. If a window is open or a fire door is not—as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central explained this morning—sufficient, sufficiently well fitted or has other defects that do not maintain a 30 or 60-minute barrier, there is that opportunity. It is perhaps stating the obvious to say that the reason that flammable cladding is such a danger is that it allows fire to spread across the face of the building in a very short space of time, as we saw at Grenfell. That in itself is not what is causing the problem; it is the ingress of that fire into the building itself. That could be through a window that is open or through a door that is insecure, but it could be through any other means of entry. There are other ways for fire to spread that are perhaps more serious than doors and windows. That is why I used the word “penetrations”. They could be ducting, pipework or openings that have been created for good or bad purposes: it could be shoddy workmanship, but equally it could be something necessary to do with the supply of services through the building.
One other point on amending clause 1 was to add the words “external walls and floors”. It is clear why clause 1 mentions doors and windows—generally we have doors and windows; I understand that point—but other openings or apertures created in a building may well be through floors. The danger is that anything of that kind will allow the spread of fire—but not only fire, as I will come on to explain in a moment—throughout a building very quickly, particularly if there are pipes and ducts. If the opportunity arises for fire to spread, it can go through them very quickly. As I say, it is not just fire, but smoke and other gases. A major factor at Grenfell was the spread of smoke through the building. That can make escape difficult and, particularly if it is created by the burning of toxic materials, can create a toxic atmosphere, which has an effect on the respiratory system of those trying to escape the fire.
To explain my point, I will provide an example from my constituency. It did not end in disaster, I am pleased to say, but it easily could have done. In January this year, a resident of a block of flats with over 20 storeys was returning home late at night when she noticed a strong smell of gas. She checked her flat but could not find anything that was causing the smell. Fortunately, there was a member of staff, a concierge, on site even at that late time. They investigated, and the National Grid was called out, but it could not find anything. Neighbours’ doors were knocked on, and the emergency services were called out. By this time, it was the early hours of the morning and neighbours on several floors were being woken up. Eventually, the source of the gas leak was found four floors below. An elderly resident—over 80, I think—with an elderly gas stove had turned on the gas and left it on. The gas had effectively filled the whole block, from the ground floor reception up to at least the eighth or ninth floors of the block.
This matter ramifies endlessly. Why should an unsafe gas appliance be allowed in a block anyway? Modern gas appliances have failsafe mechanisms—if the gas is left on, they will shut off after a while—but unfortunately the reality is that some people, particularly poorer people perhaps, will have very old gas appliances that do not work in that way, and therefore the gas, after being turned on, will fill the whole flat. In this case, the occupant, who had obviously made a genuine mistake, needed oxygen. Many people had either opened their windows or were confused about what was happening. It was only because of the excellent action by one concerned resident—this was the opinion of the emergency services—that the matter did not end up in disaster. What happened late at night in January was that the gas did not pass through doors or windows but up through the building, potentially causing great stress.
My point is that, with fire, smoke and other noxious fumes passing through a building, it is complacent to say that simply ensuring that fire doors work and that windows are properly sealed and do not have combustible material around them means that a building is entirely safe and the fire will not spread internally. I hope the Government will accept my amendment. It is a relatively technical addition, which improves the Bill rather than changes it materially. I will wait to see what the Minister says in response; he might want to break the habit of a lifetime and say that we can allow an Opposition amendment to get the Bill Committee off to a flying start.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Let me start by saying that the Opposition support the Bill. We are here to be constructive. Although clearly we wish that things had gone faster and that we had been able to do more, we support the Bill and want to make it the best that it can be. On Second Reading there was agreement across the House on what needs to be done to fix some of the problems with the legislation. Amendment 2 relates to one of those problems, which has been raised by many of the organisations that have submitted written evidence.
I associate myself with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith, who is an expert in this area. He is absolutely right that we need to ensure right at the outset that we include parts of the building not currently listed in the Bill.
Amendment 2 would do what amendment 1 would do, but in a slightly different way. As the explanatory statement states, the amendment would make the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 apply
“to all parts of a building that contains two or more dwellings, other than those dwellings themselves,”
Not just the
“parts that come within the meaning of structure, external walls or common parts.”
I had a long conversation with the London Fire Brigade about how we define “common parts”. Introducing that term without a definition alongside the definition of “domestic premises” in article 2 of the fire safety order could lead to confusion about what it means and could add an additional layer of complexity to what is already quite a difficult landscape.
In the past, “common parts” has been used to refer to entrance halls, corridors or stairways in a block of flats, but it does not necessarily cover areas such as lift motor rooms, service risers, roof voids and other potentially high-risk areas, as well as fire safety facilities that are inside individual dwellings but used in common for the protection of the entire premises, such as sprinklers and detection systems.
This is not a new issue. Following the Lakanal House fire, the coroner recommended that there be clear guidance on the definition of “common parts” in buildings containing multiple domestic premises. Dame Judith Hackitt has also recommended that the assignment of responsibilities in blocks of flats be clarified.
The purpose of the Bill, as we discussed this morning and as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith has already mentioned, is to provide clarity on what is covered under the law. Without really clear definitions, there will be new questions of interpretation, and we will not achieve what we are setting out to achieve. There will be the potential for confusion and conflict.
Simply put, the absence of a clear definition creates opportunities for those who might try to game the system. We know that the system has not worked in the past, because people have been able to do things that nobody intended them to do. We want to make it crystal clear that the provisions cover all common parts of the building, and want to make it clear that “common parts” includes all the other spaces, such as lift motor rooms, that are not set out in the Bill.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
I very much sympathise with the motivation behind the amendments, but I am unpersuaded by the argument. There is sometimes a risk of seeking to make very precise what in reality is not at all precise.
Following the Grenfell Tower disaster and the Lakanal House fire, the Local Government Association, working with local authorities across the country, commissioned a huge piece of work to try to understand the inherent risks in tall buildings, but also in other types of building in the public estate, and to learn lessons that might be relevant to the private sector.
I want to refer to a particular type of structure known as a Bison block, which is common in west London and found across my constituency, and which my local authority has spent a good amount of time examining. It is particularly relevant to amendment 2, which is seeking a very tight definition. The blocks were large panel system builds. They are quite common across the capital and in other parts of the country.
A great many of these blocks were extensively refurbished, particularly in the 1980s, because they are not especially attractive buildings and in the past there have been concerns about their structural integrity and safety. The refurbishment was undertaken by a process that we might understand as cladding. In this case, a brick skin was erected around the entire outside of the building. New windows were installed, and the structure now looks considerably more attractive than when it was first constructed.
To manage the risk of fire spreading in the cavity between the floor where a fire occurs and another floor, a steel band needs to be installed between each storey’s-worth of brick structure. It ensures that a fire that gets into that cavity cannot spread up or down. On examination following the Grenfell disaster, it was discovered that some of the window installations, for example, had been changed, which had had an impact on the integrity of the fire safety system. The banding had been constructed many years ago. The challenges of inspecting something that is inside a sealed brick structure, the natural dilapidations of time and the consequences of a small amount of heave or subsidence around the site would all have had an impact on it. That is a significant issue for those of us who are concerned about the safety of those high-rise towers.
I am concerned that the amendment, by seeking to be very precise, could open the door to our not including a number of the elements that we would see in a variety of structures around the country. I have heard the Minister speak about this before when questions have been asked of him. I am satisfied that one of the motivations behind the Government’s choice of wording was to make the definition sufficiently broad that all the issues were captured. To ensure that the definition relates to all the different, unique types of structure out there, many of which there may be little evidence of on the public record today, it may be wise not to narrow our definitions too much. We could end up with a lawyers’ bonanza of arguments about whether, for example, the provision covers the steel band structure for fire safety in a Bison block. For that reason, I am unpersuaded of the merits of the amendment.
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
I am very conscious, not least as the former London Assembly member for the area, that it is less than two weeks since we marked the third anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire, which saw the worst loss of life in a residential fire since the second world war. I am sure that all those who died, the bereaved and the survivors will be in our minds as we do our work this afternoon and into the future.
On the day of the publication of the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister accepted in principle all 12 recommendations addressed to the Government directly. Eleven of the recommendations will require implementation in law. The Fire Safety Bill, which will amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005, is an important first step toward enacting those recommendations. As has been mentioned, the Bill is short and technical; it clarifies the scope of the order. We appreciate that this is the first Bill on fire safety since the Grenfell Tower tragedy, and we intend to legislate further.
It is vital that regulatory standards and public confidence be increased across the whole system of building and fire safety. Next month we will publish a consultation on the implementation of the phase 1 recommendations that call for changes in the law, alongside proposals to strengthen other aspects of the fire safety order. I assure the Committee that the Bill is the start, not the finish, of a process through which we intend to improve the fire safety order.
Alongside the consultation, there is the building safety Bill, which will be presented in the House for pre-legislative scrutiny before the summer recess. That Bill will put in place new and enhanced regulatory regimes for building safety and construction products, and will ensure that residents have a stronger voice in the system. It will take forward the recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review of building regulations and fire safety.
Our programme of work is not limited to legislation, of course. It includes establishing a remediation programme, supported by £1.6 billion of Government funding, through which we will remove unsafe cladding from high-rise residential buildings. We are undertaking, in conjunction with the fire service, a building risk review programme for all high-rise residential buildings in England by December 2021, supported by £10 million of new funding.
This Fire Safety Bill is also a move towards enhancing safety in all multi-occupied residential buildings by improving the identification, assessment and mitigation of fire risks in those buildings. It will resolve the differing interpretations of the scope of the fire safety order in such buildings and provide clarity for responsible persons and enforcing authorities under the order. It will make it clear that the order applies to the structure, external walls—including cladding—balconies and flat entrance doors in multi-occupied residential buildings.
Andy Slaughter
I will reply to two points. The first was made by the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, who has huge experience in this sphere, not least from his role in local government over the years. I disagree with his point because the example that he gave of modifications to the exterior of a building should be included in the Bill under that part of clause 1 that talks about external walls. I think that that is specifically envisaged to include not just external cladding but the whole external structure; it would therefore include voids and attempts that have been made through banding to restrict those voids.
Equally, I do not agree with what the Minister said. We all understand the point about private homes. It cannot be dismissed. We mentioned this morning the issue of leaseholders who provide their own front doors and how far that is considered, but there are other issues. There are issues to do with sprinkler systems and their installation in the homes of either leaseholders or tenants—assured or secure. This is not a black-and-white issue in terms of what goes into individual homes.
The amendment is a necessary or at least helpful addition to the Bill. Over a period of 30 or 40 years, a huge number of modifications will be made to buildings, even if, when a building was originally constructed, it was done in a secure way that would prevent the spread of fire and smoke. We know that this issue has been neglected, but it is so important that it should be reflected. However, given that the Minister has put it on the record that he believes that these matters will be dealt with, through the Bill and other measures that the Government are taking, I do not propose to press the amendment to a vote.
Sarah Jones
I thank the Minister for his response. He was basically saying that amendment 2 is unnecessary, which I would challenge, because the fire service has asked for the definition and thinks that it would be an important part of the Bill. I agree with the fire service, but I take the same approach as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and hope that these matters will be looked at as we go forward.
Kit Malthouse
Fundamentally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner says, we are concerned that the definitions in the amendments might have a narrowing effect. Detailed guidance offering definitions will come out as a consequence of the Bill, and obviously we will work with partners to ensure that we get that guidance right.
It is worth pointing out that this approach is consistent with that in the Housing Act 2004, which uses similarly broad definitions to ensure that the many and various varieties of housing in this country, some built over many hundreds of years, all fall within a generalised definition in guidance that is put in place later on.
Andy Slaughter
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Jones
As the Minister said, we recently passed the three-year anniversary of the Grenfell Tower fire. I just want to mention the letter that we will all have received from Grenfell United last night. It was not able to give evidence before us today, but it welcomes the Bill and is pushing for it to have the funding that it needs and for it to apply to all buildings. It reminded us of the fire in Canning Tower, in east London, only last week, when 100 people were evacuated. It used to be covered with Grenfell-style cladding, but that was removed last year, just in the nick of time. As the letter says, there were not any serious consequences.
The importance of the Bill is not to be underestimated. Small though it is, it is incredibly important. We support the Bill and we support clause 1. It provides clarification, although it is a shame that we could not take it a bit further with our amendments. There are many issues that we would want to bring into the Bill, but because it is too small in scale, we cannot. They include electrical safety—people are keen for us to talk about that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith mentioned it. We tried to have some of those issues included in the Bill, but they are not within its scope. There is a huge raft of issues beyond that of cladding—important as it is—that we must address, through the building safety Bill and subsequent measures.
Kit Malthouse
The hon. Lady is right to raise with me whether there is a need to address the issue of cabling and ducting in buildings. That was raised with me when I was Housing Minister, and I hope that I have explained that there will be opportunities to look at that quite soon, in more comprehensive measures to follow. For the moment, the Bill is a small, tight, technical one, which creates the foundational stone on which we will build an entirely new regulatory and fire safety regime, which must be coherent. We must therefore proceed step by step. I fully appreciate the comments that Members have made, and they will be fed into the next stage of our work, and the consultation, which will be issued next month.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Power to change premises to which the Fire Safety Order applies
Sarah Jones
I beg to move amendment 3, in clause 2, page 1, line 21, at end insert—
‘(aa) for the purpose of changing or clarifying any of articles 2 to 22 or 38 of the Order’.
This amendment aims to ensure that the key articles of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 can be amended to account for the Grenfell Tower Public Inquiry Phase 1 and subsequently the Phase 2 recommendations and changes that may be brought about by the forthcoming Building Safety Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 1, line 22, at end insert ‘or (aa)’.
See amendment 3.
Amendment 5, in clause 2, page 1, line 22, at end insert
‘(1A) The relevant authority may make regulations under subsection (1) for the purpose of aligning the Order with regulations which concern fire safety and which are made under any other power.’
This amendment seeks to ensure there is proper alignment between the Fire Safety Order and other regulations that relate to fire safety, including the upcoming Building Safety Bill.
Sarah Jones
Amendments 3 and 4 would ensure that the key articles of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 could be amended to account for the Grenfell Tower public inquiry phase 1 recommendations—and the phase 2 recommendations, although of course phase 2 has not happened yet—as well as any changes that may be brought about by the forthcoming building safety Bill. The issue was brought to our attention by the London Fire Brigade, and it makes a reasonable point.
Clause 2 provides for further changes to be made to the scope of the 2005 order, and clarification of its application. Our amendments would ensure that there was sufficient legal power, which could be relied on to respond to emerging evidence or events. It is important that we should not find that there are constraints in the future. The London Fire Brigade gave some examples of things that could be included. One was a legal mechanism for improvements to or replacement of the front doors of flats. Others were the installation of additional fire detection and warning systems, the retrospective fitting of fire safety measures in a building, and the adjustment or clarification of what an enforcing authority might need to be notified about.
As I have said and will keep saying, we welcome the Bill. We do not think it goes far enough, but want to make sure it does everything it sets out to do. We want to make sure that it is possible to make changes or additions to this cornerstone or foundation, as the Minister called it, including as a result of what comes from phase 2 of the Grenfell inquiry.
Amendment 5 would ensure that there was proper alignment between the 2005 order and other regulations on fire safety. The forthcoming building safety Bill, which we have talked about, will place requirements on accountable persons to ensure that buildings in occupation are safe.
This will include fire safety and will place enforcement responsibility with the new building safety regulator.
Andy Slaughter
Briefly, it is very important that there is the closest possible alignment between the Bill and what emerges from the Grenfell inquiry. We have had phase 1 of the inquiry, which dealt with what happened on the night. Phase 2 is coming, albeit not for some time. It relates to the wider issues of concern around building safety, and of course there is further legislation coming about building safety.
We heard evidence this morning from the Royal Institute of British Architects and the Fire Brigades Union. Despite their very different perspectives and experiences, they were essentially saying the same thing: that Grenfell has exposed not just the really criminal action of putting highly combustible material on the outside of tower blocks, but the huge weaknesses and inadequacies in the system, causing us to look again at the whole way in which building safety works.
Just one example of that is the stay put policy. Most experts will say, “Well, the stay put policy is still in effect.” That may be literally true, in the sense that for most blocks that do not have combustible cladding and where compartmentalisation works, it may be the opinion of experts—whether they are from the fire service, are building experts, or others—that it is safer to stay in a flat than to leave it while the fire is contained within a single flat in a high-rise block, but try telling that to the occupants of that block post Grenfell.
The Leader of the House made comments about the evacuation of Grenfell Tower that were not just unhelpful but disrespectful; he asked whether people were right to stay in Grenfell Tower in that way. A senior Member of this House has raised doubts about whether it is sensible to stay. If a fire is known to be occurring, people will try to exit the tower block.
Any review of the stay put policy will look at the way that evacuation procedures, alarm systems and sprinkler systems worked. Recommendations coming out of the Grenfell inquiry should be reflected in the Bill. That is my only point.
Kit Malthouse
The amendments seek broad delegated powers to amend key articles of the fire safety order: articles 2 to 22, in parts 1 and 2 of the order, which relate to the interpretation of the order and to fire safety duties; and article 38, a miscellaneous article relating to a further duty on the responsible person to concern themselves with the maintenance of measures for the protection of firefighters. The amendments also seek to enable changes to be made to the fire safety order by secondary legislation, rather than primary legislation, that are consequential to changes made by other regulations. The amendments build on the delegated power in clause 2 of the Bill, under which it is proposed that the order can be amended for the purpose of changing or clarifying the premises to which it applies, and can allow for consequential provision to be made. I have already set out the purpose and limitations of that power.
The fire safety order already has a delegated power under article 24, which enables the Secretary of State to make regulations on the precautions that are to be taken or observed in relation to the risk to relevant persons. That can be used to provide additional fire precaution requirements over and above those already required under the order.
Although powers that enable legislation to be expedited when needed, and with the appropriate scrutiny, have clear benefits, the Government’s view is that it would not be appropriate to ask Parliament to delegate legislative power in the manner proposed. I have made the point already that this is a short and technical Bill. We intend to legislate further. The Government will shortly publish the second of our fire and building safety Bills, the building safety Bill. Alongside this, there will be pre-legislative scrutiny: we will publish a fire safety consultation, which will set out our proposals for strengthening the fire safety order and improving compliance on all regulated premises, leading to greater competence and accountability.
We will also implement the recommendations of the Grenfell Tower inquiry’s phase 1 report, which calls for new requirements to be established in law to ensure the protection of residents in multi-occupied residential high-rise buildings, with some proposals applying to multi-occupied residential buildings of any height.
As the Committee has heard, the Government are taking further steps to ensure that the fire safety order continues to be fit for purpose, as part of our consideration of reform of the wider building safety landscape. The consultation will propose changes to strengthen the order in a number of areas to improve fire safety standards. It will also seek further evidence and implement further legislation if required.
Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report examining the events of the night of 14 June—the night of the Grenfell Tower fire—was exhaustive. Of the 46 recommendations made in the inquiry’s first report, 12 were addressed to the Government directly, with 11 requiring legislative changes. They relate primarily to a number of prescriptive safety measures and checks, to be undertaken by building owners and managers. The Prime Minister accepted the principle of these recommendations on publication of the report in October last year.
Subject to the outcome of the consultation, our intention is to deliver, where possible, the Grenfell inquiry recommendations through secondary legislation under the fire safety order. Where an amendment to the order is required through primary legislation, we intend to do that in the building safety Bill. That Bill will also cover the consequential amendments that will be required to the fire safety order to ensure that the Bill, when enacted, and the order align and interact with each other. We will ensure that the legal frameworks and supporting guidance provide clarity for those operating in this area, and bring about the outcomes sought across the fire and building safety landscape.
The hon. Member for Croydon Central mentioned having a single point of responsibility, and that is very much on our minds. Intensive work is going on between the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and with the wider sector, to ensure that there is no confusion as to who is the responsible individual.
One of the key principles that came out of Dame Carol’s review—I mean Dame Judith’s review; Dame Carol’s review is about drugs, which is also within my portfolio—was the need for the point of responsibility to be transparent and known to everybody. It is a key part of the proposals, and I have no doubt that it will form part of the consultation and, therefore, the legislation that will follow.
Sir Gary, I hope that explanation is enough to allow the Committee to be content for the amendment to be withdrawn.
Sarah Jones
We say the same things on both sides of the Committee, but we on the Opposition side want speedy action, and we have been frustrated by the delays. It would be reassuring if we could have some kind of timetable before the summer recess for when the building safety Bill will be introduced. There is a whole raft of other activities, and we do not know when they will be coming forward—and covid is no reason for these things not to come forward.
This morning, Matt Wrack asked where responsibility for some of these issues rests in Government, and I wonder whether the split between MHCLG and the Home Office compounds some of the problems with how these things fit together and work. The more information we have about the timetable, the better. It would be good if the Minister could take these matters away; I know officials are looking at how they will sit together. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Jones
I will be brief. I want to make a point about finances and resources, and it seems fitting to mention that as we debate clause 2. We heard a lot of evidence this morning about the need for proper resourcing. We heard from L&Q about the extraordinary amount of money that it and its colleagues will have to spend in the housing association sector on removing cladding. Although the Government’s £1 billion fire safety fund is welcome, that will not be anywhere near enough.
As for enforcement of the legislation, the fire service has had significant cuts, as was outlined excellently in the Fire Brigades Union’s written evidence to the Committee, particularly around inspection, where we need to beef up the resources. We will need a lot more fire risk assessors. We will have to try to fund all that. There is a point to be made about what the Home Office has done about the cost, because the resources are not anywhere near enough. That is all I want to say, but it is a really important point that the Government will have to grapple with.
Kit Malthouse
I recognise Members’ impatience for us to get the measure through as quickly as possible and to put the new regime in place, not least because it will take time to bed in. There will be not only structural change, but cultural change in various parts of the building safety world. The Bill is a start. There will be a consultation shortly. The Bill will be scrutinised before the summer recess. There will be a flurry of activity. On the point made by the hon. Member for Croydon Central about coherence between Departments, as Housing Minister I recognise that issue, and she will be pleased to know that the old sparring partner of the hon. Member for Hammersmith—I am not sure he will be pleased—and former leader of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham is now the joint Minister between the Home Office and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. He has responsibility for fire, albeit in the Lords, which is why I am here today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Extent, commencement and short title
Sarah Jones
I beg to move amendment 6, in clause 3, page 2, line 25, after “may” insert “not”.
This amendment seeks to ensure that the Bill be brought into force at the same time for all buildings it will apply to, rather than adopting a staged approach that may make arbitrary distinctions between similar premises.
This amendment is slightly controversial, in that there are different ways to interpret it. It seeks to ensure that the Bill is brought into force at the same time for all the buildings that it will apply to, rather than us adopting a staged approach that may make arbitrary distinctions between similar premises. Some might have concerns about the amendment; the National Housing Federation—the only organisation that responded to all the amendments in writing, which is very impressive—is worried that if we bring everything into the scope of the Bill straight away, there will be a capacity issue. I understand that, but I will explain the thinking behind the amendment.
I have heard from several organisations that the Home Office was looking at perhaps bringing into scope buildings over 18 metres first, and then other types of buildings. The view put to me was that that is slightly arbitrary and not the best way to approach the issue. We heard this morning about the risk-based approach, which had its infancy and was undertaken excellently in my borough of Croydon, rather than people there saying, “We will do this set of buildings first and then this set of buildings.” People who knew what they were doing were trusted to look first at the areas that were most problematic.
Kit Malthouse
We acknowledge that clarification of the scope of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 will represent operational change for many, particularly responsible persons, who, as the hon. Lady said, will need to update their fire risk assessments to include external walls and flat entrance doors. The Bill will also have an impact on the fire sector, fire risk assessors and other competent professionals, such as fire engineers, who are needed to assist the responsible person in complying with the order.
We acknowledge that there are capacity and capability issues, particularly in relation to assessing the risk for external walls. This is not just the Government speaking, but a number of organisations from the fire sector, local authorities and housing associations. The Government are committed to ensuring that we commence the Bill in a way that is workable across the system, while ensuring that swift action is taken to address the most significant fire safety risks.
That is why, as I mentioned this morning, we have established a task and finish group—co-chaired by the Fire Sector Federation and the National Fire Chiefs Council—that will be responsible for providing a recommendation on how the Bill should be commenced. The group will advise on the optimal way to meet the Bill’s objective of improving the identification assessment of fire risks in multi-occupied blocks and addressing them as soon as possible to ensure resident safety while also effectively managing any operational impact.
The task and finish group is made up of representatives from the early adopters group on building safety at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government; private sector developers; the fire sector; the NFCC; and a number of fire and rescue services. The group is expected to report no later than the end of September. It is tasked with providing a recommendation based on an assessment of the evidence and on their knowledge and expertise, which the hon. Member for Croydon Central said was preferable.
We expect that recommendation to address how the highest-risk buildings should be prioritised for assessment of the composition of, and risk associated with, their cladding systems. Ministers will consider the advice and make a final decision. The amendment would remove the ability to make regulations that enable the Bill’s provisions to be commenced on different days for different purposes. That is, it removes the possibility of using regulations to ensure a staged commencement. I make no comment on whether and how the commencement might be staged, but the Government will not prejudge the advice of the task and finish group, or support any restrictions on the ability of the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers to make informed decisions about when and how regulations are made to commence the provisions in the Bill.
I am particularly conscious that this morning the hon. Lady raised the issue of individuals who might, because of a sudden commencement, find themselves in some kind of limbo, and be unable to undertake property transactions for many years, given the scale of what is required. Notwithstanding that risk is the primary concern, some of those issues will have to be taken into consideration. I hope that gives the Committee a suitable explanation as to why the amendment should be withdrawn.
Sarah Jones
I will withdraw the amendment on the basis that there will be a task and finish group, but I stress that we have had a lot of groups, conversations and consultations. In my previous role in housing, we had 60 consultations on leasehold reform, yet we still do not have leasehold reform. We need to push this forward. Having some sense of when the Bill will commence and how it will be implemented would be helpful. It would also be helpful to know the implementation date, because that is not set out in the Bill. There is a lot of uncertainty, and we are putting a lot of faith in the experts and in the Minister to get this done as quickly as possible, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Sarah Jones
Very briefly—although, we are now doing well for time—I want to reiterate the point about the Bill not having a date for when the new requirements will come into force, aside from what is implemented and when. The Bill allows the Secretary of State to choose a date that is considered appropriate, and that makes us uncomfortable. Again, we need to do this as quickly as possible, because these are literally matters of life and death. That is the biggest issue with the clause; other than that, I am happy.
Kit Malthouse
Thank you, Mr Streeter—Sir Gary. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I apologise. Again, I acknowledge the impatience. It is worth remembering that the Bill is a technical clarification of a fire safety order that should be functioning well in the vast majority of circumstances. Although there are respectable views about disagreements on definition within the order, which is why we are seeking to clarify it, in the end there is still someone out there who has responsibility for safety in all these buildings. Although I recognise the impatience of the hon. Lady and other hon. Members to get it under way—we share their impatience—I would give that background.
The task and finish group should be reporting by the end of September. There will be more consultation legislation on the way. I realise that the hon. Lady is suffering a little from consultation fatigue. Nevertheless, these are complex issues dealing with effectively unravelling and reknitting a huge system of building safety regulation that has grown up over many decades and needs wholescale reform. It is therefore no surprise that if we want to get this right for the future and avoid any possibility of a future Grenfell, we need to ensure that we do the detailed work, which is what we are trying to do—hence this foundation stone today.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 3 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
New Clause 1
Public register of fire risk assessments
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for a register of fire risk assessments made under article 9 (risk assessment) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541).
(2) Those regulations must provide that the register is—
(a) publicly available; and
(b) kept up-to-date.
(3) Regulations under this section are—
(a) to be made by statutory instrument; and
(b) subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”—(Daisy Cooper.)
This new clause would enable would-be renters and owners to check the fire safety status of their potential home, like the EPC register.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Public register of fire risk assessors—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for a register of individuals who are qualified to make fire risk assessments under article 9 (risk assessment) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541).
(2) Those regulations must provide that only persons on the register may make such assessments.
(3) Those regulations must provide that the register is—
(a) publicly available; and
(b) kept up-to-date.
(4) Regulations under this section are—
(a) to be made by statutory instrument; and
(b) subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”
This new clause would enable home owners to verify fire assessors qualified to conduct compulsory checks such as completing the EWS1 form, and would enable government and industry to assess the numbers of assessors to be trained.
New clause 7—Accreditation of fire risk assessors—
“The relevant authority must by regulations amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) to require fire risk assessors for any building which contains two or more sets of domestic premises to be accredited.”
This new clause would require fire risk assessors to be accredited.
Daisy Cooper
New clauses 1 and 2, which stand in my name, are fairly self-explanatory. They both call for a public register: one for assessments, and the other for assessors. The Hackitt review said that risk assessments should not only be held by building owners, but be kept centrally with a public body such as a Government-appointed regulator. Chapter 4 of the Hackitt review refers to
“the need to rebuild public trust by creating a system where residents feel informed and included in discussions on safety, rather than a system where they are ‘done to’ by others… The interim report recommended that fire risk assessments should be carried out annually and shared in an accessible way with residents.”
For something as vital as fire safety, that information should be readily accessible to current and prospective residents of the building, both for public trust and for the sake of enforcement. Of course, the most accessible way to present such assessments is on a public register. If the Government are not minded to support new clause 1, I would welcome assurances that they intend to introduce such a public register at some point.
New clause 2 would create a public register for fire risk assessors. Of the two clauses that I have tabled, this is by far the more urgent. We heard shocking evidence this morning from the FBU that there are still people calling themselves fire assessors who are going out and conducting fire assessments without being qualified to do so. The witness gave the example of a member of the union who died in a building that had reportedly been assessed by one of these non-qualified fire assessors. We cannot wait for the public register of fire risk assessors; we need it now. The practice by those who are not qualified must stop.
In 2018 the London Fire Brigade raised the issue of assessor numbers. The Fire Safety Federation talked about fears that there were overwhelming demands for ESW1 surveys. It is clear that most mortgage companies now require the ESW1 certificate before lending. Feedback from my constituents, from management agencies and from local government indicates that there is a severe shortage of professionals across the country who are insured to sign off the new survey. A new public register would not only help to build trust, but show Government and industry how many fire assessors we need to train. From the questions we asked this morning, it was clear that the current number of assessors is between 400 and 50,000. Those were the numbers we were given, which is why it is so important that we have a public register and that we have it now.
My constituents have told me about delays of between 12 and 18 months in getting ESW1 surveys, putting their lives on hold and leaving them in constant fear of living in a dangerous home. That is made all the worse for my female constituents who are pregnant and living in such homes, as well as those who fear a loss of income as we head into a pandemic recession.
My final point is that there is a precedent for both these public registers. We have a register for homes, in the form of the energy performance certificate, which operates in the same way. EPC certificates are publicly available on a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government website. There is a register for domestic energy assessors and for energy performance certificates, so there is a precedent for such registers to exist. It is a simple proposal that could be adopted in exactly the same way, but for fire safety, which, from a safety perspective, is far more vital.
Sarah Jones
Thank you, Sir Gary—I did wonder whether that was the correct way to address you when you are in the Chair. I also forgot to say, “It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship.”
Sarah Jones
It is good to get these things right.
I welcome the two new clauses proposed by the hon. Member for St Albans, who speaks for the Liberal Democrats. We are coming from the same place and we all accept that having fire risk assessors who are not necessarily qualified in any way is completely unacceptable. We need to get to grips with that for many reasons, including those that she mentioned.
The register of fire risk assessments is slightly challenging because it would take a long time to get the assessments, to get it up and running and to get it done. That may be something for the future, but not now. Having a public register of fire risk assessors is a way of dealing with the problem. It is similar to our new clause 7, which is about having an accreditation system for fire risk assessors. That is probably one of the most important elements of our concern, and it was raised by Members on both sides of the House on Second Reading. I raised that concern in a conversation with the Minister and Lord Greenhalgh when I was first appointed, and I know that the Government are looking at it.
It is remarkable that there is currently no legal duty to have any kind of qualification before becoming a fire risk assessor. It could be argued that some parts of the role are relatively straightforward, such as checking whether there are obstructions in the way of fire exits. The Bill introduces the need for an understanding of the nature of cladding; what it is made of and how it works. There is absolutely no way someone could assess that without being qualified.
Concerns have been raised for many years about private sector involvement, lack of qualification and a “race to the bottom” mentality. The fact that anyone can set up as a fire risk assessor to assess schools or care homes cannot be defended.
Sarah Jones
I agree; it is shocking.
We have all seen examples, and one was given to us this morning. In 2017 an independent fire risk assessor was given a four-month jail sentence when a court described his assessment of a Cheshire care home as “woefully inadequate”. In the same year, a private hire safety consultant was found to have given valueless risk assessments to several businesses in south Wales, putting people at serious risk of death because of poor escape routes, a lack of fire alarms and insufficient precautions to reduce fire and the spread of fire. In 2012 a fire risk assessor in Nottingham was fined £15,000 after it was found that fire precautions in two hotels he assessed were inadequate, potentially putting hundreds of lives at risk. I suspect there is much inadequacy that we do not know about because it has not come to light.
Therefore, what do we do about this? We propose a fire risk assessor accreditation system. There are ways of easily mapping skill levels and the competence of individuals that are used across many sectors. We could look at those and work with the experts to find the right balance. For many years, the further education sector has used regulated qualifications to train the workforce. Vocational qualifications, which have been around for many years, have been the main way of demonstrating that an individual has met a certain standard. I spoke at length to the chief executive of the British Woodworking Federation, who sits on the Build UK WG2 competence of installers working group in Government, which is looking at some of these issues and mapping the competence of an installer following the Hackitt review. It is looking at third-party certification routes, continuous professional development and different things that would be possible. There are relatively straightforward options through the Health and Safety Executive, Ofqual—there are all sorts of ways to do this.
In anticipation that the Minister might not accept the new clause, I ask him to take this matter seriously and accept that there is a problem that we must do something about. I also ask him to see it in the round with what on earth happens if it takes a long period of time to try to build up workforce expertise, with people potentially living in buildings without the piece of paper that tells them they can get insurance and mortgages, as the hon. Member for St Albans said. This job must be done—whether it is done now is for the Minister to decide—and it must be done sooner rather than later, to avoid deaths in the future.
Andy Slaughter
I agree with these sensible new clauses, because they would remedy the defects identified by the FBU and others in how the system currently works, by professionalising it and taking it seriously. Having said that, they would create another requirement to be actioned by the Government. Whether the Government accept the new clauses or not, I am sure that they wish to see fire risk assessments and mediation carried out properly and efficiently.
We heard evidence this morning from the Fire Safety Federation and the head of fire safety at the L&Q Group about how the system is working—or not working—in practice. Whether the Minister accepts the requirements, we seriously need to address the current investigation process. I say this with no disrespect to the witnesses, but I was not filled with confidence by them saying that the processes of assessment must be looked at, with is done either through the enforcers, the owners and the Government coming together, or through everyone doing their own bit, because it is simply not working at the moment.
I gave the example, which I will briefly amplify, of a block of some 400-plus flats owned by Notting Hill Genesis, a big housing association in London, with which some issues to be resolved have been found. Those issues are not the most serious issues; there is some timber construction and some cladding on the building. Most of the building is constructed of brick. The effect was that the building perhaps did not have as high a priority as more dangerous structures. The effect of that has been to set out for all residents, including those leaseholders who have sold or are trying to sell their properties, a process that goes through six separate stages: initial survey, survey review, developer engagement, project planning, specification and tender, and remedial works. That process could take as little as 16 months or up to 42 months, and only at the end of it would an EWS1 form be issued. I thought that was bad enough, but we heard from the head of fire safety at L&Q that they expect it to be 10 years before all the buildings in London are dealt with.
That situation cannot be allowed to continue, so I ask the Minister to ensure, when he looks at the issues raised by the new clauses, that we have competent and professional assessment of risk, and proper processes to carry out those assessments. We must also look at the speed at which that work is done, because the Government have found it necessary during the covid crisis, and previously during the housing crisis, which we see particularly in London but which exists generally across the country, to intervene with measures that help people either to get on the housing ladder, to upscale or to move; there need to be different types of packages in that regard.
That is needed here and now. This matter cannot be left to the relationship between leaseholders or tenants and their landlords or owners at the end of the building process; it must be for the Government to address. Otherwise, in what is already an extremely depressed and fractured housing market, this situation will cause further delay and misery. It is not just a case of people being forced to stay in properties that they do not want to stay in—they want to move, perhaps because their family is growing, or because they want to take up a job in another part of the country. This situation is causing real financial and social distress. That may be an unintended consequence of what is designed to be an efficient process, but the process is simply not working at the moment.
Kit Malthouse
My role on this Committee is obviously becoming clear: it is to manage Members’ legitimate desire for urgent action and change, and to indicate that there is a process we need to go through in order to get this matter exactly right. I find myself in that position once again.
The fire safety order establishes a self-compliance regime. There is currently no requirement for responsible persons to record their completed fire risk assessments, save for limited provisions in respect of employers. They are simply required to record the significant findings of the assessment and any group of persons identified by the assessment as being especially at risk. The creation of a fire risk assessment register will place a new level of regulation upon responsible persons that could be seen as going against the core principles of the order, notably its self-regulatory and non-prescriptive approach.
There is also a question of ownership and maintenance, and where the costs of such a register would lie. A delicate balance needs to be struck. There are certainly improvements to be made, but we also need to ensure that such improvements are proportionate.
The Government acknowledge that there is work to be done to ensure that residents have access to the vital fire safety information they need in order to be safe and feel safe in their homes. People need to be assured that a suitable and sufficient fire risk assessment has been completed, and that all appropriate general precautions have been taken or will be taken.
I also say to potential buyers of leasehold flats that any good conveyancing solicitor would ask for sight of the fire risk assessment from the responsible person—the freeholder—as part of their pre-contract inquiries. If the assessment was not forthcoming, one would expect that the solicitor would advise their clients accordingly and that all due inferences would be made. I can assure the Committee that the fire safety consultation will bring forward proposals for the recording of the fire risk assessment and the provision of vital fire safety information to residents.
New clause 2 would create a public register of fire risk assessors and require the fire risk assessors to be accredited. I agree that there is a clear need for reform concerning fire risk assessors, to improve capacity and standards. I understand the probing nature of the new clause, so it may be helpful to outline work that is ongoing in the area of fire risk assessor capacity and capability.
Some hon. Members will be aware of the industry-led competency steering group and its working group on fire risk assessors. The group will soon publish a report, including proposals for creating a register, third-party accreditation and a competency framework for fire risk assessors. The Government will consider the report’s recommendations in detail.
We are working with the NFCC and the fire risk assessor sector to take forward plans for addressing the short-term and long-term capability and capacity issues within the sector. I share hon. Members’ alarm at the existence of unqualified fire risk assessors; one wonders how many decades this situation has been allowed to persist unnoticed by anybody in this House or by any Government of any hue. The fire safety consultation, which will be issued shortly—I have already committed to that—will bring forward proposals on competence issues.
To summarise, the right approach is for the Government first to consider the proposals of the competency steering group and its sub-groups in relation to a register of fire risk assessors and accreditation. The Government’s position is that that work should continue to be led and progressed by the industry. I am happy to state on the record that we will work with the industry to develop it. Any future statutory requirements on fire risk assessors might be achieved through secondary legislation, which will offer us greater flexibility to add to it or amend it in the future. For those reasons, I intend to resist these new clauses.
Daisy Cooper
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 2
Public register of fire risk assessors
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for a register of individuals who are qualified to make fire risk assessments under article 9 (risk assessment) of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541).
(2) Those regulations must provide that only persons on the register may make such assessments.
(3) Those regulations must provide that the register is—
(a) publicly available; and
(b) kept up-to-date.
(4) Regulations under this section are—
(a) to be made by statutory instrument; and
(b) subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.”—(Daisy Cooper.)
This new clause would enable home owners to verify fire assessors qualified to conduct compulsory checks such as completing the EWS1 form, and would enable government and industry to assess the numbers of assessors to be trained.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Daisy Cooper
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 3, by my own admission, is a rather blunt instrument—I put that down to the fact that I joined the Committee at rather short notice last week. I would not want to invite the law of unintended consequences, which the new clause does slightly, and prohibit people from paying towards something that might actually help them to move house if they wanted to do so. The purpose of the new clause is to seek to draw the Government’s attention to the question of who has financial responsibility. It is one that we discussed this morning, and to which there were no clear recommendations or answers from those who gave evidence.
The Bill puts the onus for fire safety on the building owner, but not enough has been said about who should take the financial burden of the measures that follow. The fact is that, despite the responsibility of the freeholder, building insurance premiums that residents may have paid for years, valid nuclear new build warranties, financial burden—all those things—it has been shifted and shirked, and ultimately the financial burden seems to land upon their tenants and leaseholders.
In my constituency of St Albans, one residents’ association has been told that every individual leaseholder will probably face extra charges of around at least £20,000 each per flat. Some of their service charges have already increased sixfold since the tragedy of 2017. Those service charges have increased in preparation for the necessary works, and I hope that the Government will agree that in a property market that is already so financially challenging, with the pandemic recession just ahead of us, to be hit by a further bill of £20,000 is completely unacceptable and, for some, completely impossible.
Sarah Jones
I want to put on record our support for the notion that leaseholders have been incredibly hard done by in recent years. They are championing their cause through incredibly powerful campaign groups, and we have heard over the past three years of the costs that have been put on them to remove cladding. It is extraordinary. In new clause 4, I try to ensure that they are not part of the definition of the responsible person in the legislation.
I agree with the premise of the new clause proposed by the hon. Member for St Albans, but having been the shadow housing Minister for three years, looking at the issues of leasehold and freehold and working with the Law Commission and with lawyers to try to unpick some of the legal issues, I think that it would be a challenging new clause to accept as it is, without significant compensation having to go to freeholders. I think the hon. Lady is probably right to describe it as being a blunt instrument, but I agree about the impossible position of leaseholders being faced with more costs when they are struggling so much.
Andy Slaughter
I applaud the hon. Member for St Albans for bringing the matter to the Committee’s attention, although the new clause may not quite be the way to deal with the issue in law. I say that because although Government have made funds available in a drip by drip way—it is quite a substantial amount of money, so perhaps drip by drip is the wrong phrase—it is an inadequate sum to deal with the necessary remediation.
The way in which the funding relating to ACM and other types of cladding has been announced to social landlords and then private landlords has not only created some degree of confusion, but meant that there are huge gaps in terms of accessibility to funds to leaseholders and freeholders for carrying out remediation work. Therefore, landlords—not the worst landlords, necessarily; in some ways, it could be the better ones—are seeking to deal with remediation works in relation to blocks that do not fall within the fairly restrictive criteria that the Government have set. They are saying, “Yes, we will remove cladding, or do other works, but it isn’t covered by the Government’s building funds at the moment. We will therefore look, with section 20 notices or in other ways, for leaseholders to carry the costs.”
We are right to draw attention to this point, and I hope that the Minister will respond to it. He has been reading out his ministerial brief, which is all to the good because we need to put it on the record, but it would be quite good for him to respond to some of the points spontaneously made by Opposition Members.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Michael Tomlinson)
My hon. Friend has done both
Andy Slaughter
I say that because, in the previous debate, there were issues to do with the speed at which the process is going, and I do not think the Minister responded to my points about that nor to those about the qualifications of assessors. If he intends to resist the new clause, which I suspect he probably is, he needs to deal with the issue of leaseholders who, faced with the prospect of bills, cannot then be advised “Go to the Government funds”, because such funds are not available for those purposes.
Kit Malthouse
Sir Gary, the hon. Member for Hammersmith knows the impositions put on Ministers of the Crown as to what they can and cannot say in public. Legal interpretations emanate from their words, such is the importance of the things that we say in this place, and many legal cases have been decided on the words, imprecise or otherwise, of a Government Minister in a Committee such as this, so we try very hard to be precise. I should point out that, although I previously had responsibility for this portfolio when I was Housing Minister, I am covering for a Minister who is shielding at the moment. Hence I have to make sure that the words I use are broadly those that he would use as well.
Andy Slaughter
I was seeking to flatter the Minister. We not only want to hear from the civil servants; we also want to hear from him.
Kit Malthouse
Notwithstanding the fact that the hon. Member for St Albans obviously recognises that this blunt instrument, as she put it, might result in unintended consequences, not least driving a coach and horses through the notion of privacy of contract, which is a fundamental part of our economy and legal system, I recognise her aspiration and the obvious concern and distress that there has been across the country among people who have been caught in the nightmare. As the hon. Member for Croydon Central knows, as Housing Minister for 12 months I wrestled with that issue and lobbied the then Chancellor of the Exchequer with increasing ferocity that the Government should step in to assist, which we have now done. My efforts, along with those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who was then the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, managed to secure the first £600 million of the £1.6 billion now pledged for remediation of various types of cladding.
I should point out that the funding does not absolve the industry from taking responsibility for any failings that led to unsafe cladding materials being put on buildings in the first place. We still expect developers, investors and building owners who have the means to pay to take responsibility and cover the cost of remediation themselves without passing on the cost to leaseholders. We committed in a recent Government response to the building safety consultation to extend the ability of local authorities and the new regulators to enforce against building work that does not comply with the building regulations from two years to 10 years. Further details will be set out in the draft building safety Bill when it is published next month. The new regime in that Bill is being introduced to prevent such safety defects from occurring in the first place in new builds and to address systematically the defects in existing buildings. Moreover, as part of any funding agreement with Government, we expect building owners to pursue warranty claims and appropriate action against those responsible for putting unsafe cladding on the buildings. In doing that we are not only ensuring that buildings are made safe and that residents feel safe, and are safe, we are ensuring that the taxpayer does not pay for the work that those responsible should fund or can afford.
I appreciate the intent of the new clause, particularly to protect leaseholders from the very high cost of removing and replacing cladding. That is why we have made £1.6 billion available to cover the costs, particularly where experts say that they represent the highest risk, and we are working with industry to identify what funding structures would be most appropriate to help cover the cost of further remediation work. Leaseholders should not have to face unmanageable costs. The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government will provide an update on the work when he presents the draft building safety Bill to Parliament before the recess. I ask that Members recognise the complexity of this policy area, which cannot be solved, I am afraid, through the new clause. Indeed, it would make owners who, in some cases, would include leaseholders, responsible for funding any and all remediation work. For example, service and maintenance charges would at present meet the costs of safety work required as a result of routine wear and tear, such as worn fire door closers. Under the new clause, those costs would fall to building owners. I hope that hon. Members will agree there are more effective ways of achieving the same aim, which we all share, and I therefore hope this clause can be withdrawn.
Daisy Cooper
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 4
Meaning of responsible person
“In article 3 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (meaning of responsible person”), at the end of paragraph (b)(ii) insert—
‘(2) Where a building contains two or more sets of domestic premises, a leaseholder shall not be considered a responsible person unless they are also the owner or part owner of the freehold.’”—(Sarah Jones.)
This new clause aims to clarify the definition of ‘responsible person’ to ensure leaseholders are not considered a responsible person unless they are also the owner or part owner of the freehold.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 5—Single assessment of risk—
“In article 9 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (risk assessment), after paragraph (3) insert—
‘(3A) Where a building contains two or more domestic premises, any person identified as a responsible person in relation to any part of the building must co-operate with other responsible persons to obtain a single assessment of risk relating to the building as a whole.’”
This new clause seeks to create a requirement that, where a building contains two or more domestic premises and there are multiple responsible persons, a fire risk assessment should be a single document in instances.
Sarah Jones
New clause 4 also relates to leaseholders, and I think what it proposes is quite straightforward, easy to do and something that the Government could put on the face of the Bill relatively easily.
On Second Reading, the definition of a responsible person was raised again by Members from across the House. There were worries about the ambiguity of that definition, and about the risk that the responsible person might seek to use any such confusion or ambiguity to avoid their responsibilities under the Bill. There is a worry that leaseholders might be defined as the responsible person, which they are not unless leaseholders have collectively bought the freehold; that model is not used much, but it does exist. The point of this new clause is simply to ensure that unless that model exists—unless leaseholders have bought the freehold—leaseholders are not the responsible person. It is a relatively straightforward clause, and I cannot see that it would cause any problems.
I suspect that new clause 5 is a probing one, because there are many complex types of buildings, with different types of ownership within them. A block may well contain council housing, housing associations, leaseholders, and—although not part of the Bill—commercial premises within residential premises. All those different types of ownership within a block creates a complex situation when it comes to making the “responsible person” responsible for ensuring the safety assessment is done for the entire building. This clause is a question and challenge to the Government: how will the Bill work when we have all these levels of complexity, including commercial premises, different types of residential premises and different problems with access? This relates in part to some of the issues we were talking about this morning, such as getting access to domestic properties, but there are blocks in my constituency where half of the block is housing association, and half is a mix of all kinds of other private housing. We are worried about how that is going to work in real life when this legislation is introduced, so that is the point of new clause 5.
Kit Malthouse
The fire safety order places the onus on the responsible person to identify and mitigate fire risks. For the most part, it engages responsibility for fire safety in line with the extent of control over a premises or part of a premises. That is the underlying principle.
In multi-occupied residential buildings, the leaseholder of a flat is unlikely to be a responsible person for the non-domestic premises. The exceptions to this would be where they own or share ownership of the freehold, as is acknowledged in new clause 4. However, the leaseholder can be a duty holder under article 5 of the order. This will be determined according to the circumstances in any particular case. This Bill does not change that arrangement; it does, of course, clarify that the order applies to the flat entrance doors. Depending on the terms of a lease or tenancy agreement, responsibility to ensure the door complies with the requirements of the order could therefore fall to the responsible person for the building, having retained ownership of the doors, or the tenant or leaseholder as a duty holder. The lease can also be silent.
Legislating for the removal of the leaseholder as a responsible person, or indeed duty holder, would undermine the principles of the order. It could leave a vacuum when it comes to responsibilities under the order, and therefore compromise fire safety. However, as part of our intention to strengthen the fire safety order, we will test further some of the relevant current provisions of the order with regards to flat entrance doors in order to support compliance, co-operation and, if necessary, enforcement actions. The NFCC has offered to support these considerations; again, the fire safety consultation is the right place for us to take such matters further. The Government are committed to ensuring that sufficient guidance and support is given to those regulated by the order. That is why the Home Office, working alongside our stakeholders, has established a guidance steering group that will be responsible for recommending, co-ordinating and delivering a robust and effective review of all the guidance provided under the order.
Sarah Jones
I feel like we are being beaten down with consultations, steering groups and promises of honey to come. I know it is complex and there a lot of questions to answer. The basic premise of new clause 4 is that, where there is a freeholder, the leaseholder should not be the responsible person. I know there are complexities with that: who is responsible for the front door, and how does it all work? That all needs to be ironed out, but there is a basic principle in the new clause. Given the Minister’s proposal to go back and talk to officials, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 6
Duties of owner or manager
“The relevant authority must by regulations amend the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) to require an owner or a manager of any building which contains two or more sets of domestic premises to—
(a) share information with their local Fire and Rescue Service in respect of each building for which an owner or manager is responsible about the design of its external walls and details of the materials of which those external walls are constructed;
(b) in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake regular inspections of individual flat entrance doors;
(c) in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake regular inspections of lifts and report the results to their local Fire and Rescue Service; and
(d) share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents of the building.”—(Sarah Jones.)
This new clause would place various requirements on building owners or managers, and would implement the recommendations made in the Grenfell Tower Inquiry Phase One Report.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 9—Inspectors: prioritisation—
“In discharging their duties under article 27 of the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (SI 2005/1541) (powers of inspectors) in relation to any building which contains two or more sets of domestic premises, an inspector must prioritise the premises which they consider to be at most risk.”
This new clause would require the schedule for inspecting buildings to be based on a prioritisation of risk, not an arbitrary distinction of types of buildings.
Sarah Jones
The new clause does what the Government say will come later: it puts on the face of the Bill the recommendations made in the Grenfell Tower inquiry phase 1 report. At the beginning of June, the MHCLG announced that it was preparing to open a public consultation on recommendations for new fire safety regulations emerging from the Grenfell Tower inquiry. In a letter to Martin Moore-Bick, the Prime Minister gave assurances that action on the findings of the inquiry’s first report “continues at pace”. However, the Government had already promised in October 2019 to implement the inquiry’s recommendations in full and without delay. Failing to include the simpler recommendations for the Bill, such as inspections of fire doors and testing of lifts, is a breach of their commitment to implement the recommendations without delay.
Only this week we saw alarming statistics that underline the urgency of implementing the recommendations. Of more than 100,000 doors in about 2,700 buildings across the UK inspected by the fire door inspection scheme in 2019, 76% did not comply with building regulations and about one in six, or 16%, were not even proper fire doors. Nearly two thirds, or 63%, of the buildings also had additional fire safety issues. Those are huge challenges. We need to move as quickly as possible to implement the recommendations.
Earlier this month, the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government said that the Bill
“provides a firm foundation upon which to bring forward secondary legislation”.—[Official Report, 2 June 2020; Vol. 676, c. 41WS.]
The Minister has taken the same approach, but there is no timetable for when everything else will happen. There are lots of committees, consultations and groups looking at these things, but it is not acceptable that after the promise of “without delay” in October 2019, we still have not moved on those issues by the middle of summer 2020.
I do not understand, and it would be good for Minister to explain, why we would not put such provisions in the Bill. They have the support of the organisations that we heard from this morning. It is just a case of putting things up front in the legislation, rather than waiting for an undefined time that may or may not come at some point in the future.
The new clause would require an owner or manager to
“share information with their local Fire and Rescue Service in respect of each building for which an owner or manager is responsible about the design of its external walls and details of the materials of which those external walls are constructed…in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake regular inspections of individual flat entrance doors…in respect of any building for which an owner or manager is responsible which contains separate flats, undertake regular inspections of lifts and report the results to their local Fire and Rescue Service; and…share evacuation and fire safety instructions with residents of the building.”
It just pushes faster and implements more quickly the action that the Government have committed to implementing. I press the Government to accept that that is possible, or to set out exactly when those things will become part of legislation.
David Simmonds
I have similar feelings about new clause 6 as I had about amendment 1. There is a risk that by seeking to be precise, we may create additional gaps in the legislation. Looking at the list, it would be clear to anybody with experience of the issue in a wider context that many other issues would come into consideration in such circumstances.
For example, the London Borough of Hillingdon had to go to court on 16 occasions last year to gain access to tenants’ properties to undertake essential safety-critical work on gas installations. If we were to define the duties that we are placing on the responsible individuals, the list would be extremely long. I have heard the Minister talk on the issue and I know that, with his local government experience, he is well aware of the context.
The properties to which the legislation will apply are hugely diverse, as are the risks that they offer. I therefore strongly believe that the new clause is another example where we are better off having a broader-brush piece of legislation that provides the opportunity to catch every set of circumstances flexibly, rather than being unnecessarily specific and risking missing out things that might turn out to be safety-critical.
Andy Slaughter
Thank you, Sir Gary. I apologise for referring to you as Mr Streeter throughout.
Andy Slaughter
I will get it right before the end.
I have a brief comment about new clause 9, which goes to the heart of our discussion. It says that where there are
“two…sets of domestic premises, an inspector must prioritise the premises which they consider to be at most risk”.
That echoes what Mr Carpenter, the head of fire safety at L&Q, said in evidence this morning, and it must be right. It also mirrors the debate that we are having about covid-19 and the balance between the health implications and the economic implications. If all our eggs are put into the basket of buildings where there is believed to be a singular risk or multiple risks, there will be all the consequences we have already discussed relating to delays to sale and so on for buildings with a more marginal risk that nevertheless need remedial work. The Government have to grasp that dichotomy and say how they propose to deal with it.
At the moment individual landlords are dealing with it in their own way. My local authority, for example, has gone far beyond what are considered to be minimum standards. It has something called a fire safety plus programme, which means that fire safety experts visit tenants to check electrical and fire detection appliances. They replace white goods for free if they are faulty. I referred earlier to problems with flame failure devices, where gas leaks can occur, and the authority has now incorporated checks of all gas devices into annual boiler checks.
Some responsible landlords, and particularly social landlords such as Hammersmith and Fulham Council, take those responsibilities seriously and prioritise those matters. However, that has to happen across the board and not be left to landlords’ good will, as it were, or their responsible action. It has to be something that the Government enforce. It would be useful to include that with new clause 9 and provide for such prioritisation in the relevant circumstances. However—and yes, this is cake-and-eat-it, but this is a cake-and-eat-it Government, so I am sure they can incorporate it—we cannot forget those tenants or leaseholders who are at the back of the queue and who, as Mr Carpenter said at column 14 in the first sitting of the Committee, may be waiting 10 years for remedial work to take place. I should be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that—both whether he agrees with the content of new clause 9 with respect to prioritisation, and what he would do as a consequence.
Kit Malthouse
As the hon. Member for Croydon Central has pointed out, the Prime Minister has accepted the outcome of the Grenfell inquiry. However, Sir Martin Moore-Bick’s report stated that his recommendation should command the support of those with experience of the matters to which they relate. That means that we need to make sure that everyone is on board with the proposals as we take them forward.
Our intention is to enact the proposals, subject to the views of the consultation, under article 24, which specifically requires the Secretary of State to
“consult with such persons or bodies of persons as appear to him to be appropriate.”
Once again I acknowledge the impatience of the hon. Lady and everyone else in the Committee to get on with it, and get the Grenfell inquiry measures in place, but there are stages that we need to go through to make sure that we get the measures right and to ensure that the changes made to building safety will be cultural as well as legislative and structural. That is an issue that became clear during my time as Housing Minister. The entire sector has to acknowledge its moral and legal duties for the safety of those in its care, whether that is in the design, building, management or maintenance of properties. That means we need to make sure everyone is bought in.
On new clause 9, I do not dispute the need to ensure that resources and enforcement activity are targeted, but I dispute the need for legislation to do so. Fire and rescue authorities are in the business of managing risk and are accountable for how they do so. The fire and rescue national framework for England requires fire and rescue authorities to have a locally determined risk-based inspection programme in place, for enforcing compliance with the order. It sets out the expectation that FRAs will target their resources on those individuals or households at greatest risk from fire in the home and on those non-domestic premises where the life safety risk is greatest. In parallel, the regulators’ code states that all regulators should base their regulatory activities on risk, take an evidence-based approach to determine the priority risks in their area of responsibility, and allocate resources where they would be most effective in addressing those priority risks.
We acknowledge the vital work that local FRAs do and the NFCC has done, and will continue to do, to ensure that building owners are taking all necessary steps to make sure that those living in high-rise buildings are safe and feel safe to remain in their homes.
Sarah Jones
I hear what the Minister says—there are stages that we need to go through to get this right—but the Bill has no date for its commencement, so we could put this provision in the Bill and then do the things that need to be done in order to bring it into force at the time that the Secretary of State deems right. Therefore I would, on this new clause, like to test the will of the Committee.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Sarah Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 7 is about fire assessors being accredited. Again, I heard what the Minister said: there is the competency steering group; we are going to bring forward these kinds of changes. I think that we could be doing that sooner rather than later, so I would like to test the will of the Committee on this new clause, too.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Sarah Jones
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 8 refers to an issue about waking watch that has been raised with us many times by struggling leaseholders. The aim of the new clause is to clarify exactly when a waking watch must be in place and when one should not be. We have seen since Grenfell that this involves a huge number of buildings; tens of thousands of people are living in blocks where some kind of remediation work is necessary and so a waking watch has been put in place. There are lots of concerns about waking watch in general. How qualified are the people doing the job, and are there enough of them? Is it a suitable alternative to the work that needs to be done?
Many leaseholders have told us that there are conflicting instructions on whether people should have waking watch, depending on where you are and which block you live in. The National Fire Chiefs Council says that waking watch should be temporary, but there are residents living in blocks that have had a waking watch for nearly three years, at huge cost. I have spoken to leaseholders who are paying £14,000 a year for the waking watch. In one galling case, residents on the block spent £700,000 on waking watch, but when the building was tested, it was found to be safe, so they spent a lot of money collectively for something that they never actually needed in the first place.
We will clearly not remove all the cladding that needs to be removed for some time, given that the issue it is not just ACM cladding, but HPL and other forms, too. Those things take time and we do not have enough people to do the work. What will happen in that time? Do people really have to pay that much money for that long when, in some areas, people are told they need a waking watch, and in others, they are not? Other questions remain about whether people can have other alarm systems that would mean not paying as much. People are going bankrupt paying for something that is supposed to be temporary but is not needed or the best thing for them to do.
Through the new clause, we are saying to the Government that this issue has been raised many times. There is inconsistency about the waking watch and how it is applied. In any case, it is not supposed to be in place for only a short period, not three years. The issue was raised by Government Members on Second Reading and has been raised in housing questions for some time. We want a system where it is clear what waking watch is for and what it is not for, to resolve inconsistencies.
Kit Malthouse
I should start by acknowledging the issue of waking watch. It is obviously very serious. In my previous position as Housing Minister, I met a number of groups that were struggling to pay for waking watch. I will speak later about what the Government are doing to support its proper use. I acknowledge the issue the hon. Member for Croydon Central raised, and I am sorry for the particular story she pointed to. However, expanding the scope of the Bill with this new clause is not the best way to achieve what she seeks.
There are significant issues with the wording of the new clause. First, it would introduce a regulation-making power that “must” be exercised to amend the fire safety order. Further, the term “fire safety failings” is very broad and subject to interpretation. There could be several circumstances where there is a fire safety failure that would not warrant the imposition of a waking watch—for example, cases where only a faulty fire door or smoke detector needed replacing. In such circumstances, swift remedial action can be undertaken, but the wording makes no distinction between fire safety failures.
Aside from the wording, we oppose putting this provision in primary legislation in any event. A decision on the use of waking watch is a matter for the responsible person when considering how to achieve compliance in particular premises. That decision must factor in the circumstances of the premises and other fire protection measures in place. Auditing for compliance is ultimately an operational issue, best dealt with by the relevant enforcing authority on a case-by-case basis. Specific circumstances will dictate what form of remedial action is necessary. The fire safety order already provides for an appropriate enforcement action to be taken. To impose a prescriptive legislative requirement of this type would be unhelpful and, worse, potentially inhibit an enforcing authority from taking the most appropriate action.
We are, however, taking forward work in conjunction with the NFCC on waking watches; it might reassure Members if I outlined it briefly. First, the NFCC is updating its guidance on waking watches. Once that guidance is available, we will ask fire protection boards to advise fire and rescue services on how best to ensure the guidance is implemented on the ground by responsible persons. That will include looking into other measures, such as installing building-wide fire alarm systems to reduce the dependency on waking watches wherever possible.
We are also looking to publish data on the costs of waking watches. That will ensure transparency on the range of costs, so that comparisons can be clearly made. Our aim is to help reduce the over-reliance on waking watch and, where it is necessary, reduce costs.
Furthermore, as Committee members may be aware, we are already working with the NFCC and fire and rescue services to undertake a building risk review programme on all high-rise residential buildings of 18 metres and above in England, which will ensure that all such buildings are inspected or reviewed by the fire service by the end of next year. It should give residents in high-rise blocks greater assurance that fire risks have been identified and action taken to address them, reducing the need for waking watches and other interim measures.
Essentially, we find ourselves in the same argument that my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner has raised on a number of occasions: by being prescriptive, we create a situation where anomalies may occur and lacunae open up in the fire safety framework, of which this foundational Bill is meant to be the keystone—or whatever firm word we want to use—for the future. For that reason, we hope that this new clause will also be withdrawn.
Sarah Jones
Heaven forbid that lacunae should open up! I immediately withdraw the new clause. I completely understand the point about this being a matter for the responsible person. The issue is that the freeholder is the responsible person, and the leaseholder is the one who has to pay, so there is a problem there.
I welcome the work that the Government are doing in trying to shine a light on some of the issues about costs; we have heard all kinds of accounts of different costs for the same job, so shining some light on that would be helpful. I think this is an issue that needs to be pushed, but I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill to the House.
The Chair
Colleagues, we have done well. If anyone wishes to say anything pleasant about officials at this stage, that is the usual course of events.
Kit Malthouse
Strangely, the officials have not provided me with a script of nice things to say about them. First, I am obviously grateful to all Members of the Committee for the constructive way in which our proceedings have taken place and to you, Sir Gary, for your benign chairmanship.
This is obviously a difficult and complex piece of work, and while we see the emanation of it in the clauses and the various bits of legislation that come before us, a whole team of officials at both the Home Office and MHCLG has been beavering away on this for some time, engaging with various industry groups and often with affected residents who are in distress, in as sensitive and proportionate a way as possible. I know the Committee express their appreciation for all that work as well.
I hope, as we move into the next phase of this very important journey and this enormous reform to the system, we can continue with not only that very forensic work that officials have done to put us in this position, but the collegiate and co-operative political atmosphere. As I say, this is a situation that, unfortunately, has arisen over a number of decades, under Governments of all colours, and it behoves us all as a political class to put it right.
Sarah Jones
I will be brief; my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury has put her jacket on, so I know it is time. I thank the officials who have helped me to find my way through this, not least when the House adjourned at 5.30 pm on Monday instead of 10.30 pm as normal, since that was the deadline by which we had to table amendments. There was a particular pickle at that moment, but the officials were incredibly helpful. Thank you, Sir Gary, for your chairmanship.
I will finish by saying again that we welcome this piece of legislation. We wish things had gone a lot further and faster. There is a lot more to be done, and we are very hungry to see it done and happy to help the Government in any way we can to get it done. We all keep top of mind the people who lost their lives in the Grenfell Tower fire. That is what we are here for, and we must therefore act as quickly and as well as we can.
The Chair
Thank you very much. I know the whole Committee will endorse those remarks. I also thank Yohanna for her excellent clerking of the proceedings.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly to be reported, without amendment.
Written Statements
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Offshore Wind Projects
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Business, Energy and Clean Growth (Kwasi Kwarteng)
This statement concerns applications made by Orsted Hornsea Project Three (UK) Limited and Norfolk Vanguard Limited for development consent for the installation, operation and maintenance of, respectively, the proposed Hornsea Project Three and Norfolk Vanguard offshore wind farms, their related offshore infrastructure off the coast of Norfolk and their related onshore electrical connections within that county.
Under section 107(1) of the Planning Act 2008, the Secretary of State must make a decision on an application within three months of the receipt of the examining authority’s report unless exercising the power under section 107(3) of the Act to set a new deadline. Where a new deadline is set, the Secretary of State must make a statement to Parliament to announce it. The statutory decision deadline for Hornsea Project Three offshore wind farm was re-set by written ministerial statements on 8 October 2019 and 23 January 2020. The deadline for the decision on the Norfolk Vanguard offshore wind farm was reset by written ministerial statement on 23 January 2020. The reset deadline for both applications was 1 June 2020.
The Secretary of State has decided to set a new deadline of 1 July 2020 for deciding these two applications to allow further consideration to be given to the environmental information received by the Secretary of State following consultation on both applications.
The decision to set the new deadlines for these applications is without prejudice to the decisions on whether to grant or refuse development consents for them.
[HCWS315]
Surveillance Camera Commissioner: Annual Report
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying the 2018-19 annual report of the surveillance camera commissioner before the House, as required by section 35 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The surveillance camera commissioner is an independent role appointed under section 34 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012.
The annual report covers the exercise of the surveillance camera commissioner’s statutory functions over the year to 31 March 2019 and provides a comprehensive update on the progress made against the national surveillance camera strategy for England and Wales, which the commissioner published in March 2017.
Copies of the report will be available from the Vote Office.
[HCWS314]
Planning: Online Access to Documentation
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I would like to make a statement on planning and access to documentation.
Responding to covid -19—temporary measures to ease restrictions on the planning system
Today the Government have introduced the Business and Planning Bill in Parliament. The Bill responds to the covid-19 emergency and brings forward temporary changes to the planning system to support economic recovery. This statement sets out supporting temporary measures that the Government propose to ensure the planning system continues to operate effectively.
Online inspection of documents
The effects of covid-19 mean that it is not possible for everyone to enter public buildings safely to access certain planning documents made available for inspection. The Government have made it clear (written ministerial statement, “Virtual working and planning—responding to covid-19 restrictions” Official Report 13 May 2020;12WS) that online inspection of documents should be the default position. It has already made secondary legislation providing temporary flexibility for consultation and publicity requirements for planning applications under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (TCPA) and for environmental impact assessment development under the TCPA in relation to environmental statements.
This statement makes clear, for the regimes addressed below, how the Government expect local authorities, applicants and the Mayor of London to meet the requirements for making documents available for inspection by the public whilst social distancing restrictions apply. Everyone involved in the planning process is expected to engage proactively in the move to online inspection of documents and to consider the practical measures needed to ensure fair participation. When it becomes possible for documents to be made available for inspection in public buildings again, then the Government expect this to be done as soon as practicable.
Compulsory purchase orders (CPOs)
There are requirements in the Acquisition of Land Act 1981 for newspaper and site notices to provide details of a place where copies of CPOs and associated maps can be inspected, both prior to submission of the CPO to the confirming authority and when it is confirmed. Provisions in secondary legislation requiring inspection of documents are similar, and in some cases require documents to be provided on request. It is the Government’s view that these legislative requirements can be satisfied by the acquiring authority making a copy of the order and map available for inspection on a website. Hard copies of documents should be provided by the acquiring authority on request. The Government have published updated planning guidance in relation to the compulsory purchase process which can be viewed at: https://www. gov.uk/guidance/coronavirus-covid-19-compulsory-purchase-guidance.
Development consent orders (DCOs)
The Planning Act 2008, relating to nationally significant infrastructure projects (NSIP), requires that at the pre-application stage the statement of community consultation must be made available for inspection. At the post-consent stage, where a development consent order grants authority to acquire compulsorily an interest in land, the Act requires that a copy of the DCO must be made available for inspection.
It is the Government’s view that these requirements can be met by making documents available for inspection online. They expect applicants to take reasonable steps to ensure that anyone wishing to view the documentation can find these documents online. Hard copies should be made available by the applicant on request.
For the NSIP regime there are other provisions in secondary legislation relating to consultation and publicity requirements. The Government intend to bring forward secondary legislation shortly to replace temporarily the requirement for documents to be made available for inspection in a place, with a requirement for documents to be made available online.
Planning appeals
For planning appeals there are provisions in secondary legislation for consultation and publicity requirements, and the Government are considering whether these should be amended to enable more to be undertaken by digital processes, similar to the flexibilities already brought in for planning applications under the TCPA. The Government expect local planning authorities, appellants, the planning inspectorate and other parties to be proactive in their use of digital processes for consultation and publicity.
Local development documents
When preparing local development documents, local planning authorities are required to make certain documents available for inspection at their principal office, and other places that they consider appropriate, and provide copies of the plan or strategy to a person that requests one. In addition, local planning authorities must publish the document on their website. The Government intend to bring forward secondary legislation shortly to remove temporarily the requirement for local planning authorities to make these documents available for inspection at their offices and other places, as well as the requirement for these documents to be provided on request. Local planning authorities will need to ensure that these documents are made available on their website.
Spatial development strategies
The Business and Planning Bill amends the provisions in the Greater London Authority Act 1999 that require the Mayor of London to make the spatial development strategy (SDS) available for physical inspection at certain locations and to provide a copy on request.
The Bill will remove these requirements provided that the Mayor makes the current SDS available by appropriate electronic means. The Mayor will be required to have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State on arrangements that may be appropriate for those who do not have internet access.
There are also similar provisions in secondary legislation that apply for the Mayor of London and combined authorities who have been conferred the power to make a spatial development strategy. The Government intend to bring forward secondary legislation shortly to temporarily disapply requirements for these documents to be made available for inspection at their offices and enable them to be made available online.
Extending development consents
The Business and Planning Bill includes a provision to extend certain planning permissions and consents under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. There are already established routes to make changes to DCOs and it is the Government’s view that these routes can be used to extend commencement periods in certain circumstances. Developers can submit applications for non-material or material changes to the relevant Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can also make a material change to a DCO in exceptional circumstances. The Government expect developers to take proactive steps to ensure that applications to extend DCOs are submitted in sufficient time and the Government will actively engage with any such applications.
[HCWS316]
Expert Panel on Harm in the Family Courts and Implementation Plan
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
In May 2019, the Ministry of Justice established a panel of experts to lead a review into how the family courts deal with risk of harm to children and parents in private law children cases involving domestic abuse and other serious offences. The panel held a call for evidence over the summer of 2019, which received submissions from over 1,200 individuals and organisations with experience of the family justice system. As well as receiving testimonies through written submissions, the panel held a series of focus groups and roundtables across England and Wales. It is due to the wealth of evidence gathered that the panel took the necessary time to evaluate and discuss their findings, which I now present to the House.
I would first like to acknowledge the dedication of all those who work in the family justice system. I have seen first-hand how they have to make difficult decisions about the best interests of the child with the information available to them. It is a challenging job at the centre of an often painful dispute between two parents, and I hope that our implementation plan will reassure them that we value their commitment and will support them in their roles.
But there is more to do. I welcome the panel’s report, and am incredibly grateful to all panel members for their time and expertise. I have carefully considered their conclusions and am determined to take action to improve the experience of survivors of domestic abuse in our family courts.
This report lays bare many hard truths about long-standing failings in the family justice system, especially in protecting the survivors of abuse and their children from harm. It is not a comfortable read. The testimonies in the report show that there are some fundamental issues that we must address in order to improve the experience and ensure the safety of all participants in the family justice system.
I want to make it clear that this is not acceptable, and that while these issues largely predate this Government, we have a strong and unwavering commitment to ensure domestic abuse survivors are better protected. This is not only to help those who have been directly affected, but also for their children, who should always be at the heart of any decision made in the family court.
The publication of this report provides a unique opportunity for the family justice system to reform how it manages cases involving children. The report is the springboard for the actions we will take to better protect and support children and domestic abuse victims throughout private family law proceedings.
The Domestic Abuse Bill will enable us to make some of the immediate changes called for in the panel’s report, alongside other measures which will help to ensure that victims have the confidence to come forward and report their experiences. As recommended by the panel, we will use the Bill to extend automatic eligibility for special measures to victims of domestic abuse in the family courts. The Bill will also ban cross-examination by perpetrators of domestic abuse in the family courts.
We also have committed to investing more widely in support for victims of domestic abuse, including £35 million announced alongside the Bill to support victims and their children, and an additional £76 million of extra funding that we announced to support survivors of domestic abuse, sexual violence, modern slavery and vulnerable children and their families during the current pandemic.
However, we acknowledge that, in light of the panel’s findings, this does not go far enough, and that is why we are publishing an implementation plan alongside this report. This details the first steps we will take across the family justice system to take forward the recommendations of the panel and make the changes that are needed.
In response to hearing that the adversarial nature of the family courts can contribute to further harm to victims of abuse or their children, I am pleased to announce that we will trial a different “investigative” approach within our forthcoming pilot of integrated domestic abuse courts. This approach will seek to ensure that all parties in proceedings are safe and able to provide evidence on an equal footing, without the retraumatising effects of being in court with an abusive ex-partner.
We are committed to making it easier for judges to apply “barring orders”, under section 91(14) of the Children Act 1989, to prevent abusive ex-partners repeatedly dragging a victim back to court.
We will also look to improve how the family courts gather the wishes and feelings of the children at the heart of proceedings, to ensure no child is overlooked during the process. Alongside this, I acknowledge the panel’s conclusion that the presumption of parental involvement can detract from the child’s welfare and safety, and so will review this urgently.
Finally, we are working with colleagues across the family justice system to improve training on domestic abuse, to address gaps where appropriate, and to provide professionals with the tools to effectively support vulnerable parties.
The report is built upon the direct experiences of hundreds of victims of domestic abuse who responded to our call for evidence. There will be many others who were unable to speak out, and I want to thank each person who came forward and provided their testimony to the panel. Each had a unique experience, but together they showed that this is a problem that thousands of people experience. Thanks to them, we have a unique opportunity now to address these issues in a meaningful and long-lasting way.
The report and implementation plan can be found at the following link:
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/assessing-risk-of-harm-to-children-and-parents-in-private-law-children-cases.
[HCWS313]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
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 again 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. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points, and can Ministers’ answers also be brief?
Violence Against Women
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to work with faith communities to address violence against women.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the important role that faith communities have played, and will continue to play, in tackling violence against women and girls in all its forms. Alongside our ongoing engagement with faith groups, Home Office officials are working on the next phase of the Government’s plan to end violence against women and girls. As part of our stakeholder engagement work, we will be reaching out to faith leaders and communities to seek their views.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester [V]
My Lords, I lost part of the Minister’s response but I thank her for her mention of the Domestic Abuse Bill. Will she commit to publishing guidance alongside the Bill, specifically explaining how domestic abuse can be prevented and addressed in and by faith communities? Will the Minister commit to requiring local authorities to work proactively in partnership with faith communities?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Guidance will certainly be provided alongside the Domestic Abuse Bill as it will assist with the provisions in the Bill. I will have to check on specific guidance for faith communities. We will continue, as we always do, to engage with faith communities in this endeavour.
Baroness Helic (Con) [V]
The reported rise in domestic violence and abuse during the lockdown is truly horrific. I accept that the initial lockdown could not have been predicted, but can my noble friend the Minister tell the House what concrete lessons have been learned and what specific changes will be introduced so that vulnerable women and children, in particular, are better protected in the event of a second, or indeed third, wave of the virus?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
I join my noble friend in her horror at how much domestic violence has risen during lockdown. Of course, we may not know the true picture until we come completely out of lockdown. The government hashtag #youarenotalone has had a huge number of views—some 180 million, I think. The things that we have been doing in anticipation of what might happen have, I believe, been the right interventions. On the back of a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, about campaigns, we are currently working with the retail sector and with pharmacies to advertise some of the help that people can get, as well as working on the code word that people might use if they are in trouble.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, I appreciate how difficult this is to deal with during lockdown. But the two ways that abuse in children is detected—through social workers or by their teachers when they get to school—have both obviously been absent. Campaigners tell me that there has been an enormous rise in violence and abuse against children. What will the Government do as schools come back and lockdown eases to try to catch these extremely vulnerable youngsters in our society?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
We have been very worried about children during this lockdown period, including children who are perhaps witnessing their parents in a domestic violence situation. The noble Baroness will probably know that we gave £1.6 million to the NSPCC so that adults could be aware of some of the things that children might be facing online. There is also the double issue of children witnessing things in the home. Multiagency work is clearly more important now than ever in ensuring that children who may be suffering are brought to the attention of the authorities.
Baroness Gale (Lab) [V]
Is the Minister aware that there is no reference to women in faith communities in the Domestic Abuse Bill? These women can experience multiple forms of violence and abuse, including FGM, forced marriages and so-called honour-based killings. The Minister will be aware that while some of these are already crimes, there is no specific crime of honour-based violence. Does the Minister have any plans to get domestic honour-based violence included in the Domestic Abuse Bill?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Honour-based violence is, in and of itself, a crime, as is FGM—so laws already exist to tackle that. She is right that there is not a specific mention in the Domestic Abuse Bill. I am not sure that it needs to be in the Bill, but that is not to say that it does not need tackling; we have measures in place to tackle it.
Baroness Barker (LD) [V]
How will the Government ensure that ending violence against women and girls is taught in all faith schools?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Baroness will know that from September relationships and sex education will be compulsory in secondary schools, and I am sure she will welcome that. Part of it will be about teaching children what respect for other children looks like, not just some of the quite warped things that they might see on the internet.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]
School interventions are more difficult and more complex with those communities that are more self-reliant and where that reliance is underpinned by religious observation. Does the Minister agree that we therefore need to build up a bespoke national expertise to be able to intervene when necessary?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble Lord is right that there is a way to go on this with regard to some of those self-reliant communities that he talks about. We have more to learn about them and therefore some of the interventions that might be necessary to deal with some of the hidden harms that occur in them.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Con)
A multiagency approach to combating violence against women is obviously fundamental. What are government departments doing to come forward with a joined-up strategy so that women can feel safe in coming forward?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend is right that without a multiagency approach—in other words, government departments coming together—it will be very difficult to tackle this issue. She will know about the troubled families programme, which brings together a lot of different agencies; indeed, through that programme we have unearthed far higher levels of domestic abuse than we first thought. I can also tell her that the Home Office, the MoJ and the MHCLG have all announced funding to support victims. We must work together as a whole Government to tackle this issue.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the National Commission on Forced Marriage. Will the guidance suggested set out that violence to women includes those in forced-marriage situations, some of whom are under 18 and may need rather different help?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
The noble and learned Baroness is quite right: if they are under 18, they are still children, which makes the issue of forced marriage all the worse. I shall go back regarding the issue of guidance. I cannot say today what will be in it, but I will get some information from my colleagues and will certainly come back to the noble and learned Baroness on that.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
I call the noble Lord, Lord Rosser.
The Deputy Speaker
We cannot hear him, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Palmer of Childs Hill. Lord Palmer of Childs Hill? We cannot hear him either, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Verma.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of UN Women UK. Will my noble friend look at the work that we are doing for women and girls in safe spaces and the discussions around women in minority communities where it has been quite difficult to extrapolate the difficulties that they face, given that English is a barrier and they are very often not able to leave their homes at all?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
My noble friend and I had a brief discussion about this just before Questions. I totally understand and agree with her point. If you are in lockdown, not able to speak a language and not able to leave the house, life must be very difficult for you. I am very happy to speak to her further about this issue.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, the time allotted for this Question has now elapsed.
Gambling Advertising
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the rules relating to (1) online, and (2) television, gambling advertising.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Barran) (Con)
My Lords, gambling advertising is subject to strict controls on content and placement wherever it appears. Ads must never seek to target children or vulnerable people, and the ASA and the Gambling Commission can take action in the case of a breach. The Government have committed to reviewing the Gambling Act 2005 to make sure that it is fit for the digital age, and we will announce further details on this in due course.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con) [V]
I say to my noble friend the Minister: enough is enough. We have been discussing gambling and its dangers, particularly to vulnerable people and particularly within the current lockdown, for a long time now, yet we still seem to have an enormous amount of advertising of gambling on both television and radio and, in particular—with no restraint whatever, voluntary or otherwise—on the online systems. I must ask my noble friend that action be taken. If nothing else, can we please return the whole control of gambling to the Home Office, where at least regulations exist that would allow us to take further action to protect our public?
Baroness Barran
My noble friend brings great experience to this, including from his time as a Minister at the Home Office. There are no plans currently to move responsibility for gambling to the Home Office, although my department works very closely with the Home Office and others in overseeing this. In relation to my noble friend’s comments about social media, work is going on specifically on that area to make sure that adverts are not targeted at people under 25 or at children. We are working actively with the platforms to ensure that gambling ads do not appear for those who have self-excluded from gambling.
Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab) [V]
My Lords, almost a year ago on 2 July, in a parliamentary Statement, the Government announced three measures agreed with gaming companies to
“deliver real and meaningful progress on support for problem gamblers”.—[Official Report, 2/7/19; col. 1345.]
The noble Lord, Lord Ashton of Hyde, said the Government expected change and, if it did not manifest, would take other measures and did not rule out legislation. Is the Government’s judgment that the industry’s actions are delivering real, meaningful progress? What metrics are the Government using, and will they publish their calculations?
Baroness Barran
The main metric that the Government use to measure the extent of problem gambling is the British Gambling Prevalence Survey, which looks at population levels of problem gambling. That has remained unchanged over 20 years, at slightly below 1%. I appreciate the context of the noble Lord’s question: with the prevalence of gambling advertising and promotion, intuitively one would expect that figure to rise, but there is not evidence for that at the moment.
Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP) [V]
My Lords, although GAMSTOP has clearly been an effective tool that has enabled problem gamblers to control their activities online, repetitive advertising on social media, particularly on Instagram, Facebook and Twitter, remains a problem. Does the Minister agree that there should be discussions with the leading social media companies to seek a solution which would prevent the reappearance of advertisements which a user has, on a previous occasion, decided to hide?
Baroness Barran
My Lords, I struggled slightly to hear the noble Lord’s question, so if my answer is not accurate I will happily write, but I think the question was around social media. A lot of work is going on in that area, with the platforms, to ensure that those who have excluded themselves already are not targeted by advertising and that children and vulnerable people are not targeted.
Lord Robathan (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am a gambler, I confess, and I am very much opposed to the nanny state. However, Blair’s Gambling Act has made some people very rich—some disgustingly rich, frankly—at the expense of the vulnerable and of some of the poorest members of our society. Banning television and online advertisements and, indeed, those at football grounds as well, would not be government interference; it would be a necessary step to protect some people who are, frankly, unable to look after themselves. Will my noble friend please look at that very carefully?
Baroness Barran
I thank my noble friend for his honesty and his question. We will obviously be reviewing a range of options when we come to review the Gambling Act. The evidence around the impact of advertising on problem gambling, as opposed to all gambling, is really not clear, with much suggesting that, particularly for young people, it is parents and their peers who have the greatest influence on their behaviour.
Lord Foster of Bath (LD) [V]
My Lords, among problem gamblers, 55,000 are 11 to 16 year-old children, many of whom use legal music and film download websites that are often funded by gambling advertising. Will the Government immediately consider legislation to enable these sites to be blocked, and not wait for the long overdue review of gambling legislation?
Baroness Barran
The noble Lord raises a very important point, which I am happy to take back to my colleagues in the department and the Minister responsible.
Lord Naseby (Con)
Is my noble friend aware of the recent review of 23 April that claimed there is too much gambling advertising on TV? While I recognise that the gambling group has halted TV and radio ads during lockdown, is not the area where action needs to be taken the really worrying aspect of special offers for casino gambling, which we all know is addictive? Will my noble friend look very seriously at this problem?
Baroness Barran
On gambling advertising on television, again, this feels counterintuitive, but the data from the ASA shows that in 2013 children saw 4.4 gambling ads each week and that had fallen to 2.5 in 2019. Obviously, we introduced the whistle-to-whistle ban on advertising on matches on television. In relation to online casinos, the Gambling Commission recently recommended curbs on VIP schemes across various forms of gambling, which will be implemented in the coming months. It is committed to addressing any additional gaps that are identified.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB) [V]
Excessive gambling is a public health challenge, with thousands of people—as the noble Baroness just said, 1% of the population—incurring debt and a high proportion of those experiencing mental health problems. Yet we continue to be one of the top 10 countries for gambling advertising online based on knowledge-based marketing. Will the Minister inform the House whether the Government intend to further limit such advertising, particularly pop-up ads on social media platforms, to absolve the need to self-exclude? This would prevent the associated harm to health caused by gambling.
Baroness Barran
I regret I can only repeat what I have already said in terms of the close work that is going on with the social media companies and the commitment from the Gambling Commission to address any additional gaps that are identified. However, the noble Baroness makes an important point, which we recognise.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
As a recent APPG report confirms, gambling companies have done extremely well out of the pandemic, mainly because of the growth in unregulated activity. There is a lot of talk about working with the social media companies, but no action seems ever to follow. Will the Minister confirm that one of the real and meaningful steps that the Government actually could take to safeguard children and vulnerable players would be by blocking certain online platforms? Will she do that? If not, why not?
Baroness Barran
Just to be clear again on the data, unsurprisingly, because there has been no sport during lockdown, 75% of people have not increased their expenditure either of time or money on gambling during lockdown. We should not be surprised about that because there has been no sport broadcast. We are looking at a range of measures and waiting for evidence being published by Public Health England and the National Institute for Health Research. We are preparing a national addiction strategy. The Government are absolutely committed to addressing the problems that arise from gambling and other addictive behaviours, but doing that in the round rather than in a piecemeal fashion.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed, and we will therefore move to the third Oral Question.
Erasmus-plus Programme
Baroness Coussins
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made in securing funding for the United Kingdom’s continued participation in the Erasmus+ programme, or its successor, after the end of 2020.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, our participation in the current Erasmus+ programme is already fully funded. The UK’s participation in the next Erasmus+ programme, including the cost of any participation, is a matter for negotiation with the European Union. The UK is considering participation in a number of EU programmes where it is in both parties’ interest to do so, and if the UK negotiates participation in the next Erasmus+ programme, the specific funding arrangements will be a matter for the upcoming spending review.
Baroness Coussins (CB) [V]
Compared to Erasmus, a replacement scheme such as the Swiss model could cost the same or even more to keep the full range of its benefits, from universities to schools, from the arts to apprenticeships, from the year abroad to the classroom language assistants coming into the UK. Which of these would the Government be prepared to give up, and why reinvent the wheel rather than become a non-EU programme country, like Norway, Iceland and others?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, is right to point out the wide range of activities covered by the Erasmus+ scheme. Of course, we are considering all those benefits in the round as we negotiate with the European Union, seeking to continue to take part in the programme if we can reach a deal that is fair and proportionate and represents good value for money for the British taxpayer.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, in answering a Cardiff MP, Anna McMorrin, on 11 June, Michael Gove acknowledged how important is the Erasmus+ scheme for the devolved Governments and that the UK Government will continue to seek access to this programme. If, for any reason, the UK Government fail to secure an agreement, will they be prepared to enable the devolved Administrations to seek their own arrangements with the EU to facilitate the continued availability of Erasmus+ for students and young people in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
My Lords, international relations are of course a reserved matter for the UK Government, but the Government are committed to working closely with the devolved Administrations throughout the negotiations with the European Union, to ensure that we can reach a future relationship that works in the interests of the whole United Kingdom. The noble Lord is right to point out the benefits that Erasmus+ has brought to all the nations of the United Kingdom, and that is what we are seeking to achieve in the negotiations.
Lord Bowness (Con) [V]
I ask my noble friend the Minister to be specific. Where have the negotiations got on this particular point? In March 2019, the then Minister, one Mr Johnson, said that the UK was drawing up alternative plans. What are those alternative plans and what stage have they reached? This continual delay does not augur well for global Britain, which will certainly need a workforce competent in languages.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
My Lords, I may have to disappoint but probably not surprise my noble friend when I say that I am not able to give a running commentary on the state of the negotiations. I draw his attention, and that of other noble Lords, to the Written Ministerial Statement by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, which made clear that participation in EU programmes has been a part of the negotiations and discussions that have taken place so far. My noble friend is right to point out that, as any responsible Government would, we are preparing for all eventualities, which includes looking at a domestic replacement, should that be necessary, but we are seeking to find a fair and proportionate deal that allows us to continue to participate.
Lord Patel (CB) [V]
My Lords, my question follows on well from the previous one. Erasmus is the world’s most effective programme. It allows student exchange for the valuable experience that they gain from outward mobility. What possible advantage do the Government think they would gain by walking away from Erasmus to set up a new global student exchange scheme, as they propose, that the Erasmus programme does not already offer?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
My Lords, we are not seeking to walk away from Erasmus+; we are seeking to negotiate a fair and proportionate deal to remain in it. The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out the size and scope of Erasmus and the benefits it has brought many people, but UK students participate in a number of other mobility schemes and have done for many years. As we leave the European Union and seek a global future, we want students to be able to benefit from mobility not just with 27 countries on the European continent but around the world.
Lord Turnberg (Lab) [V]
My Lords, more than ever, post Brexit, we need to find ways to enhance our relationships with the rest of the EU. One of the most obvious low-hanging fruits is the remarkably successful Erasmus+ programme, which I know from my experience as an academic is of enormous value for our young people, who begin lifelong international relationships. Yet, instead of grasping this opportunity to invest in our future, the UK Government seem less than enthusiastic when they talk of considering elements of the programme in a standard third-country relationship.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
I think the noble Lord was cut off slightly, but I got the gist of what he was asking. I do not fully accept the characterisation of the Government’s attitude towards Erasmus+. We are seeking to negotiate to continue in it, if we can reach a fair and proportionate deal. I point out to the noble Lord and others that a number of other non-EU countries—Norway, North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey—all take part in Erasmus as full participants, not as partner countries, none of them being members of the European Union.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord to his new post and say how delighted we are to see a full set of Ministers with us in the Chamber today; that is excellent news. Can the Government guarantee that they will publish details of any replacement or stop-gap Erasmus scheme well in advance, so that universities can prepare and students do not lose out on the opportunity to study or work abroad due to lack of information? They need to know the details in September. It is even more important than ever, post Brexit, that the next generation befriends and understands those in other countries.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
I thank the noble Baroness for her words of welcome. She is absolutely right to point out that it is important for universities, students and others to have some certainty about the immediate future. One difficulty is that this is subject to our negotiations with the European Union, which are running throughout this year. It is also the case that the EU itself is looking at the new Erasmus programme in light of its own budget, the multiannual financial framework, which could also be delayed until December. I am very glad that, under the terms of the withdrawal agreement, our participation in the current programme is fully funded, including any projects that are launched under it and which go beyond the end of this year.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
Having regard to the effect of Covid-19 on our young people, is not the opportunity offered by the Erasmus programme to them essential for the years to come?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
My noble and learned friend is absolutely right. As we have been unable to travel, the importance of exchange and being able to meet people from around the world is underlined. Indeed, the current pandemic shows the importance of education not stopping at any borders. We should be proud that another UK university has this week launched trials with humans of a vaccine which could benefit not just British subjects but people around the world.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, the Erasmus+ programme is one of the successes of the European Union. As the Minister has pointed out, non-EU countries such as Norway and Turkey are members. Can he assure us that the United Kingdom will endeavour to continue to be a member of the Erasmus programme, irrespective of the outcome of the present ongoing talks between the European Union and the United Kingdom, which will end on 31 December this year?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
The noble Lord is absolutely right to point out that the fact that a number of non-EU countries want to participate in the Erasmus programme is a testament to its strengths and successes. I cannot give him absolutely the assurance he seeks, because our participation is of course contingent on those negotiations. We hope to continue if we can reach a deal which is fair and proportionate and which continues to give value for money to the British taxpayer.
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab) [V]
Universities UK International has estimated that leaving Erasmus could cost Britain up to £243 million a year. Does the Minister think that this is a price worth paying in lost income and influence? If a replacement scheme is pursued by the Government, will he commit to early consultation and to the covering of any loss of income to universities and colleges?
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay
My Lords, I am not familiar with the figures that the noble Lord cites from Universities UK. I have seen that it points out that, of UK students who take part in mobility schemes, almost half of them take part in mobility schemes beyond Erasmus+. We hope to be able to continue in it if we can reach a fair and equitable deal, but of course we want British students and international students coming to the UK to take part in a variety of mobility schemes, as they currently do.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed, and we move to the fourth Oral Question.
Competition and Markets Authority
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Berkeley
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that the interests of (1) consumers, and (2) businesses, in the United Kingdom, are independently and fairly looked after following the resignation of the Chairman of the Competition and Markets Authority.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy (Lord Callanan) (Con)
My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that markets work well for consumers and businesses and have already ensured that the Competition and Markets Authority has significant powers to investigate and act if it finds that companies are behaving anti-competitively in a market. The CMA will continue to carry out its important functions. We will announce next steps on recruitment for a new chair in due course.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Does he agree that, for the CMA to do its job properly and enable business to plan in relation to Brexit, the Government must have a robust, updated and properly structured competition policy? I heard what he said, but how will this be achieved? On the latest information I have, the CMA responded with a comprehensive plan on 21 February 2019. Since then, there has been nothing until a letter to the chair of the EU Select Committee arrived at 11.02 this morning; I declare an interest as a member of its sub-committee. Will the Government urgently introduce legislation on competition policies to support consumers in the UK and UK business?
Lord Callanan
We committed in our manifesto to tackle consumer rip-offs and bad business practices. The issues that the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, set out in the CMA’s letter have helped shape public debate as well as informing government action. For instance, he said that consideration should be given to how to capture the benefits for competition and consumer welfare of the growth in the digital economy. We agree and have set up smart data proposals that we look forward to implementing.
Lord Desai (Lab) [V]
My Lords, through the 100 days of Covid we have heard many complaints from consumers who have not been refunded for cancelled trips and cancelled products by the sellers; they have had no recourse. It is a serious situation that the Government ought to look into. If the Government are to make the UK globally competitive after Brexit, as they have promised, it is very important that they adopt a competition policy in line with the latest research in economics. I think they need an economist to head that authority, but the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, will be difficult to replace.
Lord Callanan
I agree that we need a robust competition regime in the UK. That is what we have; the CMA has already announced reviews into many of the practices that the noble Lord highlighted, taking action against profiteering from some pharmaceutical companies, for example. We will not hesitate to take further measures if required.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards I saw the determination of the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, to protect ordinary people and businesses from abuses of power in the financial sector. Frankly, if he says that more powers are needed, then more powers are needed. We currently face the dominance of big tech, rip-offs related to Covid, and deregulation following Brexit. Will the Government, instead of being so complacent, urgently implement his proposed reforms to make sure that the consumer, at the very least, has a powerful champion with powerful teeth? If not, we will have a very angry and abused public.
Lord Callanan
We are taking action on these matters. We asked the CMA to lead two critical pieces of work: to report on the state of competition, and to set up the digital markets taskforce. The CMA remains one of the world-leading competition authorities. If necessary, we will build on that.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
Following on from the Furman report, does my noble friend agree that government regulation around those digital platforms should be implemented as soon as possible? Can he give any indication when that might happen?
Lord Callanan
We accepted the recommendations of the Furman report in the Budget earlier this year. We are considering what further steps need to be taken.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, following on from the noble Lord, Lord Randall, does the Minister accept that on consumer welfare it is difficult for us to have confidence in his reassurances? When the Government announced this digital markets taskforce a few months ago, they said that
“any future interventions must strike the right balance between promoting competition and innovation on the one hand and avoiding disproportionate burdens on business on the other”.
There was no mention of consumer welfare interests. It is difficult to see how we will make progress on that front, which is what most people worry about when they think of digital market abuse.
Lord Callanan
Consumers are best served by free and open competition, appropriately regulated, between businesses. The welfare of consumers is always at the forefront of our thoughts on this.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, the Minister rightly says that consumers depend on fair competition. The outgoing chair has said that the powers of that competition body are not sufficient. He recommended increased powers, and the then Government were very responsive. The Minister has today refused to build on that and say that they will give it new powers. I ask him again: will the Government implement the call for new powers and commit themselves to the absolute independence of the new chair of the CMA?
Lord Callanan
On that final point, we will of course run a full and open competition process. We will appoint the best person for the job. We committed in our manifesto to tackle consumer rip-offs and bad business practice. Where we need to give the CMA new powers, we will look at that, but it already has extensive powers, as proven by the cases it is currently pursuing. It is one of the leading regulators in the world and, as I said, we will look at giving it additional powers if necessary.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, and Professor Furman have clearly spelled out the challenges of the digital age. I heard what the Minister said on this, but do the Government intend to address these issues or will they continue to allow big tech to rampage across our economy in digital markets such as social media, e-commerce, search and online advertising? Will the Government set out their proposals any time soon?
Lord Callanan
The regulation of digital e-commerce is extremely important. As I have said, the CMA has set up the digital markets taskforce to study these matters, but they are complicated. This country has one of the best competitive markets in the world and digital markets are an increasingly important part of that. We will look at what further measures need to be taken.
Baroness Crawley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, given the unprecedented pressures on consumers from both Covid-19 and the prospect of leaving EU markets at the end of the transition period, will the Government prioritise the CMA’s reforms as set out under its very effective chair, the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie? When will a date be announced for a new competition and consumer protection Bill, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Berkeley?
Lord Callanan
I will correct the noble Baroness: we will not leave EU markets at the end of the transition period. We seek in the negotiations to ensure continued access to those markets and for EU companies to have access to UK markets. That is the whole point of the negotiation. We keep all these matters under constant review. We will build on the powers of the CMA if that is required for what consumers need.
Lord Moynihan (Con) [V]
My Lords, does my noble friend accept that if the Government are to continue to prioritise consumer protection, they urgently need to address the necessity of strengthening the CMA and legislation to protect consumers, as stated across the Chamber today?
Lord Callanan
At the risk of repeating myself, of course we keep these matters under constant review. We will see the outcome of the Digital Markets Taskforce that the CMA is currently involved in and, if necessary, we will take further action.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
The noble Lord, Lord Rogan, is not available, so we will go straight to the noble Lord, Lord Hain.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, surely the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, standing down is a devastating indictment of the unwillingness of Tory Ministers to permit him to do his job properly, as well as the Government’s subservience to vast vested interests and the immense power of digital platforms at the expense of customers and competition. The Covid pandemic means that there will be lots of business casualties, allowing national and especially local monopolies to trample over customers. I am sorry, but the Minister is not coming clean with us; the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, is both honourable and highly capable: will he tell us straight, please, why Ministers have been so shamefully subservient to tycoons, plutocrats and dodgy dealers that he, an eminent fellow Tory, has been forced to resign from a job he wanted to do properly?
Lord Callanan
Well, characteristically the noble Lord has a great grasp of hyperbole, but I do not think that he is fairly characterising the situation here. It is a complicated area of detailed policy. We have an excellent competition regime in this country, the CMA is a highly regarded regulator and, as I said, we will consider giving it additional powers to protect consumer and business interests if that is required.
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, all the supplementary questions have been asked. Therefore, that concludes the hybrid proceedings on these Oral Questions.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, the proceedings will now commence. Some Members are here in the Chamber, 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 shortly 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 on courtesy in debate apply.
Public Transport: Face Coverings
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the requirement for passengers to wear face coverings on public transport, what assessment they have made of compliance with that requirement; and how that requirement is being enforced.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con) [V]
My Lords, we are working closely with transport operators and the British Transport Police to monitor compliance. As we expected, initial reports from operators suggest a high level of compliance, and there is strong public support for the measure. More data will be available in the coming weeks. We expect to see a gradual ramping up of enforcement, supported by a significant communications campaign, over the coming months.
Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I hear what the Minister says. I am surprised that she points to that level of compliance. There is growing evidence, admittedly anecdotal, that not everybody is complying. This week, the BMA, among others, urged the wider use of face coverings as an important mitigation measure once social distancing rules are relaxed. The Government made face coverings on public transport mandatory from 15 June, with the potential of fines for non-compliance, yet, as I say, there is growing anecdotal evidence that many people are not complying. Can the Minister say a little more about what the Government will do to ensure that a strong, unambiguous message gets through to everyone? Can she say what support and training are being offered to front-line staff, such as bus drivers and ticket inspectors, to help them deal with non-compliance?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
I thank the noble Baroness for her follow-up question. I assure her that compliance is at around 85% to 95% on rail, 90% on TfL and 70% on non-London buses. This soon after the mandating of face coverings, that is a pretty good return. We are looking at ways of explaining things, engaging with people and encouraging people to wear face masks. At this moment in time, heavy-handed enforcement would not be appropriate. Part of that explaining element is making sure that transport workers work hand in hand with the public and the police to explain to people exactly why they should wear a face covering and that they may not use public transport if they do not have one.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, to what extent are the Government hoping that the travelling public will help to police this policy?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
My Lords, I do not expect the travelling public to police this policy. It is important to be aware that there are exemptions to it. Gentle guidance from transport operators will be absolutely key, as will them working hand in hand with the police and, for example, TfL-authorised personnel.
Lord Bradshaw (LD) [V]
I believe that the present public transport policy is killing public transport, particularly buses outside London. Some 40% to 70% of normal capacity will be available after next weekend. The Government need to stop sending the message that it is unsafe and dangerous to use public transport. It is important that people wear face masks and that people avoid the busiest journeys. Transport companies are striving to do the right thing but it is up to the Government to use their publicity machine to draw attention to the positive things that can be done.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
I am afraid that I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw. The Government support public transport. Indeed, we are funnelling vast amounts of taxpayers’ money into making sure that the services are there for the people who need them. He mentioned 40% to 70% capacity; I have no idea where those figures come from. Capacity is nothing like that on public transport. With 100% of services, we are looking at capacity of less than 30%. There is a balance to be achieved. We want people to use public transport in future but using it right now would be counterproductive and may risk our ability to control the virus.
Baroness Bull (CB) [V]
My Lords, I support the use of face coverings in principle but are the Government fully aware of the challenges that this presents for people living with disabilities, including those who need to lip-read? I know that exemptions are in place but they are not clearly advertised; nor are staff adequately trained to deal with them. This has left people with disabilities being refused entry and being reported to police by fellow travellers; some have had to pay for GP letters that prove their exemption. Will the Minister commit to reviewing communications and mandating transport staff training so that people who cannot wear face coverings can travel safely without further questioning and harassment?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
The issue that the noble Baroness brings up is extremely worrying. We do not want people having to get GP letters. That is not what is intended. When we put these regulations in place, we did an equalities impact assessment and took advice from the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee to make sure that we understand fully the sorts of exemptions that are needed. We are working closely with operators to put in place exemption schemes, which may include badges, lanyards or cards that people can show to other individuals—and, just as importantly, to transport operators and police—to show that, for whatever reason, they are exempt from wearing a face covering.
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
Despite the impending reopening of museums, pubs, cinemas and hotels, there has been no clear updated guidance on whether people can use public transport to reach these destinations. Can the Minister clarify the guidance? Will individuals and families be encouraged to or discouraged from using public transport to travel to leisure and hospitality facilities? If they travel, will they be required to wear a face covering? If they do not do so, will they be stopped from using public transport?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
As I mentioned previously, wearing a face covering on public transport is mandatory. If a person does not have a face covering on, they can be denied service or removed from the service. On the reopening of various facilities on 4 July, the Department for Transport and broader government are continually looking at the demand for transport and our transport capacity to see whether we are in danger of demand exceeding supply. If there is capacity on public transport, the Government’s messaging may well change, but in the short term, we cannot suddenly open up public transport to everybody because there simply is not the capacity.
Lord Willis of Knaresborough (LD) [V]
My Lords, the case for wearing face coverings on public transport, particularly on commuter services, appears quite strong. However, to be effective, face coverings must be of sufficient quality in their design and manufacture to help stop the spread of Covid-19. Will the Government consider making the manufacture, import or sale of coverings that do not meet the defined British standard an offence, as they have for surgical face coverings being used in clinical settings?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
My Lords, the Government are working to the advice of SAGE on face coverings, which is that face coverings worn in enclosed spaces are at least partially effective in preventing the spread of coronavirus to other people. That is why we have said that face coverings can be made of various materials. We do not have a specific British standard, which I feel would stop the supply to people across the country who need to use public transport.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
Does the Minister agree that to minimise the risk to fellow passengers, it is imperative that face coverings are worn on public transport, but if a passenger with an urgent need to travel arrives without one, drivers or staff should be able to provide an inexpensive covering that can be recycled at the end of the journey?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
I agree with the noble Lord that it is essential that people use a face covering when they travel. We have been working with the rail industry and other transport operators on the provision, on a one-off basis, of a supply of face coverings that can be given out in the circumstances he has described, particularly while people get used to wearing them. We are also looking with the Cabinet Office at longer-term supply options so that members of the public can purchase low-cost face coverings at various outlets. For example, Network Rail has installed vending machines supplying face coverings at many of its stations.
Lord Snape (Lab) [V]
My Lords, what consultations took place with bus, coach and train operators and their representatives before the announcement about face coverings was made? Turning to enforcement, does the Minister expect front-line staff to turn away would-be passengers who for any reason are not wearing face masks? What other consultations have there been with the police, particularly the British Transport Police, about the enforcement of the wearing of face masks on railway services?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
I think the noble Lord will understand that at present, all Ministers have a close ongoing relationship with transport operators and unions. We are continually having conversations about the sort of measures that may come in in the future. We spoke to the unions about face coverings; indeed, it was the unions that did not want the use of face coverings by transport workers made mandatory. We listened and worked with them to make that the case. Transport operators such as bus drivers often have to turn people away, for example, because of poor behaviour, in which case they might then go on to call the police. It is the same in the case of face coverings; if people create a fuss because they are denied boarding, transport operators will get the police involved. Of course, we speak frequently to the British Transport Police about this matter as well.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My noble friend will be aware that we are negotiating with other countries over air bridges for air transport to and from the United Kingdom. Given that the rules on the wearing of face coverings differ in the various parts of the United Kingdom, how is that matter being reconciled in the negotiations to create air bridges, which I fully support?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
The noble Lord raises an interesting point. It is obviously a consequence of devolution that the devolved Administrations can make their own rules in this area. However, I am pleased to say that the wearing of face coverings is mandatory in Scotland as well, so there is less confusion there, and their use is advisory in Wales and Northern Ireland. Of course, the wearing of face coverings on aircraft and the reciprocal arrangements with other countries will be an important consideration as discussions on international air bridges continue.
Lord Triesman (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I also support the use of face coverings, which I think is imperative, but I have heard a significant number of anecdotes of people who, using good common sense, have approached other travellers saying, “You should have your face covered,” are then threatened, rather as we found early on when the ban on smoking on public transport came in; not everyone will support this. What do the Government envisage happening if threatening behaviour greets the use of common sense by the public?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
The issue raised by the noble Lord is extremely distressing. I would advise members of the general public perhaps not to approach individuals themselves, but to speak to transport operators, either the station staff or the driver if they are on a bus. If there is a continual refusal to wear a face covering without an appropriate exemption, in those circumstances the police could, and indeed should, be called. I do not want members of the public to put themselves at risk to encourage people to wear face coverings.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB) [V]
My Lords, should there not be better education from the Government about why and how face masks should be used?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
I would slightly challenge the noble Earl on that. A significant communications campaign is going on at the moment and that will continue over the weeks and months ahead. We are also working closely with the transport operators, which have put an enormous amount of signage in their vehicles and at stations. They are also sending emails to their customers, as well as messages via their apps and websites, so a lot of work is going on. I think that the message is getting out there, but I can reassure the noble Earl that we are pushing on with this, although there is always more that we can do.
Lord Truscott (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, in the Far East, people have been wearing face masks on public transport since the outset of the pandemic. If Her Majesty’s Government think that wearing face coverings on public transport is a good idea now, why did they not think that months ago? I suggest to the Minister that this was always just a case of shortage of adequate PPE, including face masks?
Baroness Vere of Norbiton [V]
I do not think that the noble Lord is correct in his assumption. As we have said consistently throughout the pandemic, we were following the science at the time. It is also worth noting that very few people were travelling on public transport in the early days of the pandemic. The reality is that handwashing and social distancing are more critical in reducing transmission of the virus than wearing a face mask. Having a face covering on is something that we can put in place now, given that social distancing may not be as possible as it was in the early phases of the outbreak. In the early phases, almost no one was travelling on public transport.
Pension Schemes Bill [HL]
Lord Ashton of Hyde
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:
Clauses 1 to 6, Schedule 1, Clauses 52 to 57, Schedule 4, Clauses 7 to 17, Clauses 58 to 68, Clauses 18 to 23, Clauses 69 to 74, Clauses 24 and 25, Clauses 75 and 76, Clauses 26 to 30, Clauses 77 to 81, Clauses 31 to 44, Schedule 2, Clause 45, Clauses 82 to 95, Schedule 5, Clause 96, Clause 46, Clause 97, Clause 47, Clause 98, Clause 48, Schedule 3, Clause 99, Schedule 6, Clauses 49 to 51, Clauses 100 to 116, Schedule 7, Clause 117, Schedule 8, Clauses 118 to 120, Schedule 9, Clauses 121 to 123, Schedule 10, Clauses 124 to 129, Schedule 11, Clauses 130 to 132, Title.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
My Lords, some Members are here in the Chamber and others are participating virtually, but all Members are 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 shortly 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 between physical and remote participants. The usual rules and courtesies in debate apply. Please ensure that questions and answers are short.
We now come to questions on the Statement on Covid-19. It has been agreed in the usual channels to dispense with the reading of the Statement itself, and we will proceed immediately to questions from the Opposition Front Bench.
Covid-19 Update
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)
My Lords, the Prime Minister’s Statement was targeted at a nation desperate to return to a more normal way of living as soon as it is safe to do so. We support that aim. The past few months have taken an enormous toll on individuals and communities. Some, long after most of us will be getting back to work, school and socialising, will still be coping with grief and loss, with mental and physical health issues and, of course, with financial hardship.
The Government have to balance and weigh up the risks of both action and inaction as they plot the path out of lockdown. It is not easy; these are judgment calls. The fundamental change in the Government’s response in the Statement is to move further towards individual decision-making and responsibility through guidance and away from legislation.
I appreciate the need for some flexibility in the system and the wisdom of basic common sense—perhaps such as not going out for a drive to test one’s eyesight—but alongside the benefits of flexibility, it inevitably creates some mixed messages and a lack of clarity. So, as we have come to expect with announcements from this Prime Minister, we need further details and I hope the Leader of the House will be able to help with that.
I want to say at the outset, though, that the tone of the debate is really important. When urging others to act responsibly, Mr Johnson has to understand that this also applies to him. When debating the Statement, my friend and south coast parliamentary colleague, the Hove MP Peter Kyle, sought advice from the Prime Minister. Bear in mind the scenes that we saw on beaches yesterday. My honourable friend asked how, in the absence of an app for tracking and tracing, we can keep places such as beachfront bars safe where it is impossible to get customers’ addresses. In response, Mr Johnson bellowed that elected representatives should “show some guts”. That is a pretty unhelpful and offensive response. I am sure that the noble Baroness will disassociate herself from comments such as that, but, more importantly, can she shed any light on the very sensible question asked by my honourable friend?
On the wider issue of that missing app, the leader of the Opposition, Keir Starmer, also sought clarity from the Prime Minister yesterday, but to little avail. So let us try again. Having been promised a “world-beating” app by 1 June, it is a bit strange now to be told by the Prime Minister, after spending £11.8 million, that we do not have an app—and, he says, neither does any other country. That was news to Australia, China, Germany, Singapore and South Korea. But the Prime Minister still says that we can do better.
Mr Johnson was asked, given that around 33,000 people are currently infected with the virus and around 10,000 people have been tracked and their contacts traced, what has happened to the other 23,000 who are infected? Yesterday, the Prime Minister did not have an answer, but now, 24 hours later, the Government will have had time to find out. So can the noble Baroness update the House on how many of the other 23,000 have now been tracked and had their contacts traced? It is not a trick question; it really is fundamental to understanding how we will navigate through the next few months. We need a system that is effective and has public trust, so that people will co-operate and isolate when told to do so. We need a system that allows local authorities and communities to respond quickly and efficiently to any localised outbreaks of Covid. Without that, we run a serious risk of a second wave.
The Prime Minister also said each step out of lockdown will be “conditional and reversible”. That is a sensible and proportionate response. On what criteria will decisions be based, and will the criteria be published? The reintroduction of restrictions could be local or national, and action will have to be swift, well planned and enforced.
The role of local authorities will be crucial, but council leaders have reported to me that they have had no guidance from the Government on how local lockdowns could work, what powers they will need to enforce them and, crucially, who would make the decisions to impose any restrictions. Would it be the council or does it have to be the Government? Therefore, can the noble Baroness either confirm that such discussions are already scheduled or reassure your Lordships’ House that Ministers will immediately initiate urgent discussions with the Local Government Association and local authorities to ensure that they have the powers and resources they need?
Yesterday, a group of the country’s leading health experts called for an urgent review to ensure that the UK is prepared for what they called the “real risk” of a second wave. In an open letter, the chair of the British Medical Association and the presidents of the Royal College of Surgeons, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of GPs urged Ministers to examine
“areas of weakness where action is needed urgently to prevent further loss of life”.
We all know the consequences of failing to prepare, plan and learn the right lessons. The Prime Minister has said that caution is his watchword. Can the Leader confirm that the Government are undertaking a preparedness review? If she does not have the details on that, I am happy for her to write to me.
We all know how important it is to get the economy moving again, and that is reflected in the Statement. We want to do so safely. Can the noble Baroness say something more about how the one metre-plus measures to protect staff and customers will be monitored and enforced? What resources are being made available to assist employers in providing such measures? What recourse to immediate action will employees have if they feel that their safety is at risk?
Finally, on getting back to school, my good friend Sam Parker, now aged eight, is very keen that his year 3 class gets back to school next month. I think that his parents would like that as well. On behalf of Sam and other children who are itching to get back to that more formal learning environment, can the noble Baroness say whether new guidelines will be issued to head teachers in England and when further information will be available?
Also, yesterday the Children’s Commissioner, Anne Longfield, said that she thought it was ridiculous that schools were opening after theme parks. She expressed concern that education had become a lower priority. Can the noble Baroness explain why theme parks have opened before schools?
Over the past few weeks and months we have become used to scientific and medical experts publicly talking about their advice to government and answering questions from the public and the press. That has been really important in maintaining public confidence. For the majority of us who are not experts but rely on them, it has been really helpful as we try to understand the judgments the Government are having to make. Any unlocking carries risks. We know that it has to be done in stages, with careful planning based on scientific evidence. Can the noble Baroness assure us that the package of measures announced is welcomed and supported by the Government’s own emergency advisers SAGE, as well as the CMO and the Chief Scientific Officer?
Finally, given that the daily press conferences for announcements and updates have been abandoned, I assume that we will return to the normal process of Statements to Parliament, such as this one, which I certainly welcome. Can the noble Baroness confirm that we will receive regular Statements on progress?
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for answering questions on this Statement.
I welcome the broad thrust of the Government’s proposals because as the risks of catching Covid-19 have diminished, the economic and mental health costs being incurred by many people are increasing. At some point, the costs of remaining in lockdown were bound to be greater than those of lifting it, and that moment appears to have arrived.
As far as the detailed proposals are concerned, the Prime Minister says that they are based on the principle of,
“trust the British public to use their common sense.”
“Trust the people” is of course an old Liberal slogan, so I cannot but applaud that, but the problem about using one’s common sense is that there is no universally agreed view of what common sense constitutes in any particular circumstance. Everybody will disagree with the Government on what it means in specific instances now, and I will mention just two of my own. I do not understand why local cricket clubs cannot re-open when so many other sports are operating, and I do not know why cathedrals and large churches are not allowed any choral music at all, even though individual choristers could stand apart from each other and many metres away from the congregation. These are relatively small issues, but they matter a lot to those affected. What is the process for keeping such inconveniences under review? Will the Government look at further small steps that would seem to many to be an application of the common sense which the Prime Minister claims is the hallmark of his policy?
Going forward, the two bigger challenges are support for the economy and dealing with any new outbreaks. Today’s Statement is not primarily about the economy but it has major economic implications, not only for those working in sectors where the lockdown is effectively being removed, but also for those where it is not. My only plea to the Government is to be nuanced in any stimulus they give to the economy, and to concentrate on giving continued support to sectors that at present cannot begin to return to normal, such as the performing arts, where a failure to be generous now could lead to a long-term hollowing out of the sector.
There is also the issue facing those who are currently shielding, who will not be able to return to work safely at the end of July, because their workplace will not have adequate anti-Covid-19 measures in place, due to the intrinsic nature of the work. Working as a chef is one example. Will the Government extend the provision of statutory sick pay for such people? If not, how are they supposed to make ends meet?
The second big challenge is how to deal with any resurgence of the disease, which is likely to begin with localised outbreaks. In this respect it is instructive to look at what has happened in Germany. The recent outbreak at the Gütersloh meat processing factory saw 1,500 cases out of a workforce of 7,000. This led almost immediately to the lockdown, for a week, of a district of some 360,000 people, and the rapid deployment of some 100 mobile testing teams to identify further infection among the population as a whole. My concern is that a similar outbreak here would not be met with a similarly decisive response.
If such an outbreak happened in England, as the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, said, who would make the decision to lock down the equivalent of a London borough or a district council area? How quickly could such a decision be made? What capacity exists for large-scale local testing in such an area, and what contingency planning has already been undertaken by the Government to ensure that there is a decisive response?
At present, the “track, trace and isolate” policy is based on a national system of telephone callers who have no knowledge of local areas, no local credibility and therefore limited powers of persuasion. It is backed up by an app which, at best, will not be ready for months, and in any event is now not the most important thing that is going to happen but
“the cherry on top of the cake”.
Will the Government now refocus their “track and trace” efforts towards a more locally led approach, and will they change tack and commit to being open with people when significant new outbreaks occur in specific local settings—for example, in meat processing plants, as has happened in two or three cases in the UK already?
While loosening the lockdown and opening up more of the economy is welcome, it will only remain welcome while we avoid a generalised second wave of infections. This is perfectly possible with a rigorous, locally based “track, trace and isolate” system. At present, however, neither I nor anybody else believes that such a system is in place. Until it is, the Government run the risk of making the same hash of coming out of the pandemic as they did of going into it.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
I thank the noble Lord and the noble Baroness for their comments. Both rightly asked about the “test and trace” system. It has been important to learn as we have developed this new technology, which is why it has undergone testing on the Isle of Wight and in a series of field tests. This has uncovered some issues with the app, particularly the Google-Apple framework. We are now bringing together the app and the Google-Apple solution so that we can carry out contact tracing and make it easier to order tests and access advice and guidance on self-isolation.
On 18 June, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced that NHSX has begun the next phase of development in building this app, and we will conduct a national rollout only when we are confident of having got it right. The noble Baroness is right that other countries have started to roll out apps, but they too—Singapore, for instance—have found very similar issues with the compatibility of this data. Germany has had 12.2 million downloads, but as we have said, you need about 60% of the population for this to be a fully functioning rollout, and downloads are not the same as rollout. I am not saying that there are no issues, but a lot of countries are grappling with this. We are making progress and will continue to do so.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness rightly asked about local outbreaks, and the noble Lord referred to specific examples. I can confirm that there are ongoing discussions with local authorities. Each local area has its own local action committee and its own arrangements to choose how it wants to run its local outbreak plans. Decisions will be supported at a local level by the Joint Biosecurity Centre—which is also tracking data and will be involved—Public Health England and NHS Test and Trace. We have made £300 million available to local authorities to work with NHS Test and Trace in developing local outbreak control plans, which will identify and contain potential outbreaks in places such as workplaces, ensure that testing capacities are effectively deployed and help the most vulnerable in isolation. We are in discussions with local authorities about what enforcement powers are available and what more can be granted. As has always been the case, if multiple cases appear in a specific setting, a specialist team from the local authority or Public Health England will help to manage the outbreak. A lot of work from central and local government is ongoing throughout this pandemic, and it will continue.
The noble Baroness asked about the one-metre rule, particularly in respect of businesses. It is for each business to carry out its own risk assessment, in consultation with workers, to inform their actions and the mitigation steps they may take if they move to the one-metre-plus rule. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness will have seen that a significant amount of detailed guidance has been published since the Prime Minister’s Statement. Obviously, employers have a duty under the law to protect the health and safety of their employees, and if there are concerns about employers’ steps, employees should get in touch with their employee representative, union, local authority or the Health and Safety Executive. We have announced an additional £14 million for the Health and Safety Executive for extra call-centre staff, inspectors and equipment.
I hope that the noble Baroness can assure her eight-year-old friend, whose name I am afraid I have forgotten—
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I hope that she can assure Sam Parker that we are committed to doing everything possible to allow children to go back to school safely. In the next couple of weeks, we will be publishing the guidance to help schools plan successfully for a full return in September.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked about choral singing. I am afraid I hear that the science shows that there is an additional risk of infection when you or others are singing or speaking loudly, and this applies even if others are at a distance from you. This is something—I am trying to speak softly—that we will continue to look into. I share the noble Lord’s wish for cricket to return and will continue to apply whatever pressure I can. Yes, it is the ball, I believe.
The noble Lord also asked about orchestras. Sector-wide guidance for the performing arts returning to rehearsal and performance is something we are working on with the sector. It is a priority because we entirely understand the difficulties that the sector is facing.
The noble Lord asked about statutory sick pay. People will be eligible for statutory sick pay on the basis of their shielding status until 31 July.
Finally, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, asked about the preparedness plan. We are constantly working to make sure that we are prepared for whatever turn of events we face. Obviously, we have learned a lot from where we have got to now. We continue to hope that we will continue to beat this virus, but we all need to abide by the guidelines and to play our part. We are absolutely committed to continuing to move in the right direction, and we believe we can do that.
The Deputy Speaker (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
We now come to the 30 minutes allocated to Back-Bench questions. I ask that questions and answers are short so that I can call the maximum number of questioners.
Lord Kakkar (CB) [V]
I thank the Leader of the House for taking questions on this Statement. Although testing of symptomatic individuals and tracing their contacts represents an important approach to controlling the spread of Covid-19 disease in the community as lockdown restrictions are lifted, there may be an alternative approach: mass population testing to identify both symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals carrying the SARS-CoV-2 virus in the community, with them being isolated if they test positive. Such a testing strategy would need to be delivered locally and to provide the results in real time to facilitate maximum workplace participation and consumer confidence. What assessment have Her Majesty’s Government made of the emergent technologies that could facilitate this population approach? What provision has been made for the necessary logistical arrangements that would need to be adopted to test the entire population on a repeated and regular basis?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Lord obviously knows a lot about this area. He is right that a series of strategies will need to be used for us to continue to make progress in combating this virus. The Department of Health is looking at an array of issues with SAGE and the medical advisers, so work is ongoing in the area that he suggested, as well as in developing track and trace, because we are going to need all these different strands to come together to beat this virus and make sure that all areas are able to clamp down if we start to see a sudden resurgence in any area. I am sure we all want to avoid going into a national lockdown again if the virus were to start to reappear.
Lord Dubs (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I put it to the Leader of the House that public confidence is not of a high order as regards the Government’s handling. The Minister has said on a number of occasions that discussions are ongoing. What specific plans are available in the event of a second wave on a local level? What would the Government do, as opposed to having ongoing discussions with local authorities? It is all too vague. We need a clear statement of policy about what will trigger local action, which the Government have said they want to support.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I hoped that I had set out some of that detail in my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. Each local area will have a local action committee to manage its outbreaks, and discussions at a local level will be supported by the joint work of the joint biosecurity centre, Public Health England and NHS Test and Trace. We have already seen a successful lockdown in Weston-super-Mare, so we are starting to see these situations being taken under control and dealt with at a very local level.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Leader referred to guidance for theatres and orchestras pending a move back to live theatre. What practical assistance are the Government able to give to the performing arts pending reopening to ensure that the sector remains vibrant post lockdown?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Ministers in the department recently met leaders in this sector to discuss the impact and how guidance could be developed to ensure that the sector can reopen. It will be consulted on guidelines. There is another round table with the sector next week to discuss that. Obviously, this is an incredibly important sector and we are looking to continue support, but the sector has benefited from the job retention scheme and the self-employment support scheme, as well as from the £160 million Arts Council England emergency funding. We are in ongoing discussions. Of course, we want this sector to open up as quickly as possible, but in a way that ensures that audiences and performers are safe in the environment.
Lord Bilimoria (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for the easing of social distancing from two metres to one metre. This will save thousands of jobs and businesses. Can the Leader of the House assure us that businesses will have access to widespread testing to test their employees on a regular basis to get confidence? We can see from the Premier League how well regular testing is being proven to work. On that basis, surely cricket can also start with regular testing. Football is a contact sport, and it is working safely. Surely it can work for cricket. Although the Statement allows pubs and restaurants to commence, there are lots of caterers, such as events caterers and wedding caterers, who cannot operate. Their businesses have been destroyed. There are 1 million individuals not covered by the Chancellor’s excellent initiatives for business. What will the Government do to help all these individuals and businesses?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am sure that, like me, the noble Lord has seen pictures of the England cricket team being tested this morning as they went into their bubble in advance of their series against the West Indies. That is happening and it is a small step in the right direction. The noble Lord will know that testing capacity has increased to over 200,000 tests a day and that around 8 million tests have been delivered through our testing programme, so nationwide testing is moving in the right direction. That will be critical as we start to unlock the economy further. The noble Lord is right that a series of schemes have been in place during the lockdown. The Chancellor will be making further Statements in this area in the next couple of weeks.
Lord Polak (Con)
I, too, have some sympathy with the view of the noble Lord, Lord Newby, on cricket. There is no doubt that the return of first-class sport on TV is important for morale around the country. I noted that in the debate on the Statement in the other place, the honourable Member for Dartford called on the people of Britain
“to do their patriotic best … and go to the pub”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/6/20; col. 1176.]
There is indeed timely and welcome news for restaurants and pubs in this Statement, but does my noble friend agree that, while acknowledging that there has never been a textbook to follow, the Government should be commended for their efforts to protect people’s livelihoods via the job retention scheme and other measures?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I thank my noble friend. While I entirely agree with him about professional sport returning, as Norwich City fan the return of the Premier League has not been a happy experience so far, but let us hope a corner has been turned. My noble friend is right. It is great news. It is welcome that parts of the economy that we want to see unlocked are doing so. Of course, 1.1 million employers have used the job retention scheme, which has protected 9.2 million jobs. That has been an extremely important help. From the start of August workers will be able to return to work part-time, and as we slowly unlock the economy and open up key elements of hospitality and other sectors, we want to see that people can start to get to back to their working life and people can enjoy the services that they provide.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I count about eight major changes in the Statement, all of which are worth while. However, they all take place on the same date, so how will the Government monitor the effect of each on the virus situation? As an aside, will the Leader of the House be kind enough to answer one of the questions from my honourable friend on the Front Bench in the Commons, Peter Kyle? What happens when people order drinks at beach bars, in terms of giving information? It was quite a legitimate question, bearing in mind the weather and what is going to happen.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I welcome the noble Lord back; it is good to see him on the screen. In relation to bars, one of the key things is that we urge everyone buying drinks to abide by the guidance and to stick to either two metres or one metre-plus. That is how we can start to make sure that, when hospitality opens, everyone remains safe. There are obviously other mitigating factors around sanitisation, hand washing and being sensible—there are all those issues. We will be asking businesses to provide details of customers if possible, but it probably will not be in all circumstances—for instance, in the example he cited.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Statement says that the Government will work with the arts industry on specific guidance to enable choirs, orchestras and theatres to resume live performances as soon as possible. That is helpful but it is urgent financially. Seventy per cent of the UK’s theatre venues, for example, could be bankrupt by the end of the year because the one-metre rule means that only a quarter of seats can be sold. What financial help are the Government planning, given that theatres receive £1.3 billion from ticket sales a year?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said, we are working extremely closely with the performing arts sector because we are well aware of the issues it faces. The noble Lord will know that we have set up the Cultural Renewal Taskforce, an entertainments and events working group, with extensive membership from across the artistic and creative sectors, to work with us to make sure that we can reopen these venues when it is safe to do so. As I mentioned, a further round table is being held next week to discuss guidance and innovative ideas on how we may permit live performances again. I mentioned in response to an earlier question that the sector has been helped financially in a number of ways, including the £160 million Arts Council England emergency funding. The Secretary of State is continuing discussions with the sector and I am sure they are discussing these very issues.
Lord Balfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, I have two points. Incidents in Gütersloh, China and various other places have demonstrated that the virus can spread in meat markets and open markets. Have the Government initiated any scientific investigation of the need for extra measures around abattoirs?
My second question regards local lockdowns. I am still not clear who decides to impose a lockdown. Who is the responsible officer who can say, “Right, this is an outbreak, we need a lockdown”, and then call people together? Crucially, there has to be one person who can make the decision. Who is it?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I have said, each local area has a local action committee, which will be working with a number of different organisations. That is where decisions will be made at a local level. If, for instance, in Weston-super-Mare, the issue was around a specific hospital, the hospital would close. To a degree, it will also depend on exactly where the outbreak has happened. Central and local information will be used so that we can act very quickly. The NHS Test and Trace system and the joint biosecurity centre will play an important role in helping feed through data on local outbreaks.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB) [V]
My Lords, as has been mentioned, classical musicians, orchestras, freelance players and venues have been particularly hard hit by the virus because they fall between the pillars of support that the Chancellor has erected. The Secretary of State, as the noble Baroness said, has made very welcome promises and has met leaders of these various institutions but what orchestras need this minute—before they go bust—is financial help. When might these good wishes be translated into a date and actual figures?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am afraid I have provided all the information I can in terms of the fact that discussions are ongoing. There are further meetings next week. Support has been provided already. The department is very cognisant of the issues facing theatres, orchestras and others, and we will do everything we can to ensure that orchestras, for instance, can start rehearsing again and venues can open. It is an unfortunate fact that there are unique challenges, but we are doing everything we can. Orchestras and the theatre play a huge and important role in our culture and we want them back.
Lord Empey (UUP) [V]
My noble friend will be aware that the Government and the regional Governments all say that they are taking decisions based on the science. How, therefore, is it that different decisions are being taken and at different times? Can the Minister also tell the House whether the science is being shared between HMG and the devolved regions and vice versa?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I assure the noble Lord that the Chief Medical Officers share data and work together. All four nations have downgraded the UK’s Covid alert level from four to three, which means that we no longer face the virus spreading exponentially, although it remains in general circulation. It is right for the Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to have responsibility for their own lockdown restrictions. I am sure the noble Lord will see that the direction of travel is extremely similar and that we are all working closely together.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the Minister is probably not aware that today is the International Day of the Seafarer, recognising the efforts of 1.8 million seafarers—of many nations, manning 96,000 ships that carry 80% of world trade, valued at $7 trillion—who ensure that the global economy continues to function. Yet that very trade is in crisis because of the impact of the Wuhan virus restrictions on Merchant Navy crews. Because of the virus, more than 400,000 sailors are stranded by travel restrictions that bar crew from disembarking to return to their home country or from travelling to a port where their ship is waiting for a crew change. Many seafarers have had to remain at sea for over 15 months and ships are beginning to refuse to sail. Will the United Kingdom take the lead in getting other nations to designate seafarers as key workers who can travel without restrictions when leaving or joining a vessel, creating safe areas in airports for their transit and accepting official maritime documents as proof of identity? The global economy and the financial recovery post pandemic are totally reliant on maritime trade, yet that trade is at present collapsing. A global economic disaster is looming unless nations take some certain action. The UK, as a great maritime nation with world shipping run from London, should take the lead.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
It certainly feels like a bit of normality has returned with the noble Lord managing to discuss these issues in the Chamber. That is good to hear. I will certainly take back his comments to the relevant departments. I am sure a lot of work is ongoing, but he makes some very good points and I will make sure that they are raised with the relevant Ministers.
Lord Robathan (Con) [V]
The Government’s figures, which may be as uncertain and unreliable as scientific opinion on this matter, say that five children under the age of 18 have died from this ghastly virus and that the death rate in the population is fewer than one in 1,500, which my maths makes less than 0.065 of the population. Yet we seem to have suspended our normal critical faculties. Of course there is risk—great risk to the elderly, the infirm and those with underlying health conditions, who should shield themselves. Otherwise, we should lift all restrictions and take sensible precautions. We should send the schools back now. Can my noble friend the Leader of the House go back to the Cabinet and say—it is not just my opinion—that many people believe that we should take such action. Thereby, we might salvage something of this country’s future and our children’s future.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
As I said, we are committed to doing everything possible to allow children to go back to school safely and to support their well-being and education, and we are working with schools to make sure that that can happen. We are very well aware of the disadvantage that many schoolchildren have faced over the last few months. That is why we have announced £650 million—to be shared across state primary and secondary schools over the 2020-21 academic year—for head teachers to spend on evidence-based interventions for those children who have missed out. In addition, we have put a further £350 million into a national tutoring programme to increase access to tuition for the most disadvantaged children. My noble friend is absolutely right: we need to make sure that children are not disadvantaged by the lockdown, and that is why we want to get them back into schools as quickly as possible.
Lord Taylor of Goss Moor (LD) [V]
My Lords, as a former chair of the National Housing Federation and as someone still working with that sector, I am acutely conscious that many planned improvement works on people’s homes—not least the fire safety efforts in high-rise buildings—are currently on hold because there is no clarity about contractors going into people’s homes to do the necessary work, although they can do so in emergencies. I am talking about electricians and plumbers, and this applies not just to affordable homes but across the country. There is no clarity for a huge number of people who work on improving people’s homes, often carrying out necessary interventions and, indeed, tackling sustainability. As I said, we are all very conscious of the fire safety issues. Can the Minister give some clarity about whether these contractors are now able to engage in that work in people’s homes, while of course exercising due caution, carrying out cleaning and maintaining a distance? After all, they are identifiable through track and trace if need be.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Lord is absolutely right. As we take another step in moving from the two-metre to the one-metre-plus rule, that will help to ensure that some who have not been able to work are now able to do so. A huge amount of guidance is available, including for the construction industry. While travelling to the House, you can see that construction is picking up and that a lot more of this work is ongoing. I hope that, as we move towards unlocking and allow more people back to work, and as we move away from the two-metre rule, those things will help to ensure that more of that kind of work can begin again.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB) [V]
My Lords, do the Government accept that, to avoid public misunderstanding and mistrust of their key statements about Covid-19, be they made in Parliament, No. 10 or elsewhere, they need to take much greater care to clarify more frequently whether any of the rules and guidance given by the national Government apply to the whole of the United Kingdom or only to England?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I did not repeat the Statement but it makes it clear that the measures that have been announced relate to England. Obviously, the devolved Administrations are responsible for their own lockdown restrictions. Therefore, yes, these are measures for England.
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
Does the noble Baroness agree that a key factor in avoiding the risk of a second wave is the capacity to introduce effective local lockdowns with effective tracking and tracing? Does she also agree that local authorities have a key role to play in this? However, how can they possibly meet these responsibilities unless they have the financial resources to tackle them? When so many face the possibility of bankruptcy, how will the Government overcome this problem?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Lord is absolutely right: local authorities have a key role to play. That is why we have made £3.2 billion of funding available to support them in delivering essential services. This funding was paid as an non-ring-fenced amount, so that they could decide how best to spend it. We have also helped to ease the immediate pressures that councils have faced by bringing forward payments of social care grants totalling £850 million and allowing councils to defer £2.6 billion in business rates payments to central government. In total, we have committed over £27 billion to local areas to support councils and their communities and to help them in their vital work.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in the light of the disgraceful scenes in south London last night, in which a number of police officers were injured, what additional planning have the Government put in place to support the police in view of the approach of a possibly long, hot summer and a greater consumption of alcohol from 4 July?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
The noble Lord is absolutely right about the scenes that we saw. However, I stress that the vast majority of our citizens have abided by the guidelines and behaved respectfully. It is thanks to their sacrifice and everything that they have done that we are now in a position to gradually unlock the present situation. The Home Secretary is having ongoing discussions with the police about the pressures that they face, and those will continue. The police deserve our thanks for all their work.
Lord Razzall (LD) [V]
My Lords, a number of noble Lords, including three of my Liberal Democrat colleagues, have raised the crisis facing performing arts organisations. It seems that the Government’s answer to this is simply that they are aware of the problem and that talks are going on. Does the noble Baroness not accept that the time for talking is probably now over? Furthermore, is she not aware of the letter in yesterday’s Times from over 60 leaders of arts organisations saying that, without “immediate and substantial” financial support, theatres and performing arts companies will close and tens of thousands of artistic careers will be cut short?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I do not accept that it has all just been talk. It is extremely important to bring performers in theatres, choirs and orchestras together with medical experts and advisers to discuss ways in which the sector can open safely. That is how we will get through this difficult situation, and we will develop guidelines that can be implemented to allow these settings to open. As I said, that work is ongoing. The group that has been brought together will focus on piloting innovative ways in which live performances might be permitted in the light of the scientific and medical advice that is being given.
Baroness Hollins (CB) [V]
My Lords, care home residents and people detained in secure settings were not mentioned in the Statement, but the mental health of all of them and their families benefits from regular social contact, both virtually and in person. That might be resource intensive but what attention is being given to the needs of these groups of people?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I assure the noble Baroness that they are at the forefront of our mind. Attention is being given to them and further work is ongoing. One thing that I have not mentioned so far is that from 1 August shielding will be paused. Therefore, people who have had the most intense experience during the lockdown will be able to start having social contact again, which we know is incredibly important, and I am sure that they are looking forward to that. From 6 July, those shielding will be able to spend time outdoors in a group of up to six people, including people from outside their household. Of course, support will also continue from the fantastic NHS volunteers, who have done so much to provide some contact for particularly vulnerable people who might not have relatives or family with whom they have been able to have contact.
Lord Lansley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my interests as entered in the register. This is a health crisis and, for millions of people in this country, visiting a gym or going to a swimming pool is an essential part of their health regime. Can my noble friend now reiterate the Culture Secretary’s aspiration that gyms and leisure facilities will be reopened by mid-July?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
I am happy to reiterate that, subject to public health advice, it is indeed our aspiration to reopen gyms and leisure facilities by mid-July.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, the noble Baroness referred to using local action committees as the way in which local lockdowns will be achieved. I refer to my interest in the register with the Local Government Association and to the words of Ian Hudspeth, who speaks for it on health matters. He and other local authorities have been begging for information on getting direct, real-time data about diagnoses of Covid-19, so that they can see and manage what is happening in their local areas. Can she say when or if that real-time information, down to the detail of at least street and postcode or small local areas, will be given to local authorities and those local action committees?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
What I can say is that we have made £300 million available to local authorities to work with test and trace to develop the local outbreak control plans. Those plans will identify and contain potential outbreaks in places such as workplaces, ensure that testing capacity is effectively deployed, and help the most vulnerable in self-isolation.
Baroness Bull (CB) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the Prime Minister’s reference to live performance, but it is just one element of the UK’s cultural ecology. I have seen very little over recent weeks to give me confidence that the Government fully understand the interdependences between buildings and people, and the roles of freelancers, diverse and disabled artists, community organisations and SMEs. Every day, we are seeing examples of arts organisations brought to their knees, and we risk decimation of one of our nation’s most significant social, cultural and economic assets. When will we see action to make good on the Secretary of State’s commitment on 8 June that he will not see our world-leading arts and culture destroyed?
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
Well, I have already set out the significant financial help that has been provided for the sector and mentioned that we have a cultural renewal task force, with an entertainment and events working group, which includes extensive membership from across the artistic and creative industries sector and is working with the Government to ensure that we can provide Covid-secure guidelines, building, where relevant, on existing guidance, as well as providing intelligent and sector-specific expert input. The department is working closely with the sector to make sure that we can open it as safely and quickly as possible, and to provide it with the support that it needs.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, proceedings will now commence. Some Members are here in the Chamber and others are participating virtually, but all Members are 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. We now have two Motions in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. The time limit is one and a half hours.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 1 June be approved.
Relevant document: 17th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee.
Approval period expires 27 June.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the amending regulations that we are discussing were made by the Secretary of State on 31 May and came into force on 1 June, and again on 12 June, with changes coming into effect between 13 June and 15 June. Following the Prime Minister’s announcement on Tuesday of this week, there will be a further set of amendments made to the regulations next week.
I begin with the issue of sequencing, which I completely acknowledge is a concern and would like to address up front. Amendments to the regulations have been rapid and frequent. This has been necessary to ensure that the Government can respond quickly to the changing threat from this horrible disease. Events have demonstrated that the regulations have been a success and critical to helping us to reduce the infection rate and protect the NHS. However, the Government recognise that the measures have come at a significant cost to many aspects of our lives. The British people have made sacrifices that few would have previously predicted in order to control the spread of the virus. It is our duty to relieve them of these sacrifices by lifting restrictions as soon as it is safe to do so.
The use of the emergency procedure, which involves the unusual step of bringing regulations into force prior to them being debated in the House, has enabled us to do just this. Through this process, we have been able to adapt social distancing measures to best reflect public health interests while beginning a welcome shift towards normality and reopening the economy.
I recognise that there may be frustrations because we have had to run several of these amendment processes in parallel. However, as I outlined to the House 10 days ago, I believe that government action and parliamentary scrutiny working in tandem, even under difficult circumstances, has demonstrated the merits of our constitution. Nevertheless, I wish to reiterate that we do not see this as a precedent for how government engages with Parliament on other matters in more usual times. I have heard the concerns of many noble Lords, I acknowledge their worries, and I am grateful to all parliamentarians for their continued support in this matter during this peculiar period.
Coronavirus is the biggest challenge the UK has faced in decades. That is why the Government needed to introduce these extraordinary regulations to put in place social distancing measures that would slow the spread of the virus and protect our NHS in order to save lives. I am extremely grateful to the public for their continued support for these onerous measures—a commitment which has been instrumental in making these regulations a success.
I am proud of the strength and resilience shown by this country. This strength and resilience has helped us to make great progress, culminating in the continued decline in daily death rates and the drop in our Covid alert level from 4 to 3. Now, we must look towards recovery and a return to our normal way of life as soon and as safely as possible.
On 11 May, the Prime Minister made a Statement to the House outlining the Government’s roadmap for easing restrictions as we entered phase two of the recovery strategy. This involved gradually replacing the current social distancing restrictions with smarter measures that would have the largest effect on controlling the epidemic but at the lowest health, economic and social cost. This began with the amendments on 13 May, debated in this House on 15 June, which were a small step in reducing those restrictions. The regulations were further amended on 1 June and subsequently on 12 June.
The 1 June and 12 June amendments, which we are discussing today, were crucial stepping-stones in this process. It has been necessary for the Government to respond quickly to the reduced rate of transmission and to protect individual rights, all the while ensuring that the regulations in place are proportionate and necessary. We are now looking ahead to phase three of the recovery strategy. Further amendments will be made to the regulations, which will allow us to go even further in relaxing the restrictions placed on the British people and the economy, while protecting public health.
I will now outline the changes made on 1 June, which included: first, allowing increased social contact outdoors, in either a private or public space, in groups of up to six people from different households; secondly, enabling elite athletes to train and compete in previously closed facilities; thirdly, opening some non-essential retail, while expressly providing which businesses remained closed; fourthly, ensuring that venues such as community centres can open for education and childcare services; and fifthly, ensuring that those required to self-isolate on arrival in the UK can stay in hotels. We also amended the maximum review period to 28 days. This longer review period ensures that we will be able to take fully into account the impact of any previous amendments before making further changes.
The changes made subsequently on 12 June included: first, increasing social contact for the most isolated through support bubbles; secondly, further opening of non-essential retail; thirdly, allowing individual prayer in places of worship; fourthly, and finally, opening certain outdoor attractions such as zoos and drive-in cinemas.
The Government continue to work on the process of easing restrictions as soon as it is safe to do so, in line with the ambitions set out for phase three in the roadmap. Working alongside scientists and experts, we must act swiftly to respond to current infection rates and our assessment of the five tests that the Government have set out previously. I am sure that we will support the aim to protect and restore livelihoods by keeping in place only those restrictions which are proportionate unnecessary.
I am grateful to all parliamentarians for their continued engagement in this process and their valuable scrutiny, which is entirely right and an important aspect of each set of amendments.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we are once again in the unsatisfactory situation of debating regulations that are already in place and, following the Prime Minister’s announcement early this week, now somewhat academic. I listened very carefully to what the Minister said in opening this debate. We are, of course, in exceptional circumstances and the Government have had to act very quickly, but I would draw the Minister’s attention to the report today of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, which urges the Government to ensure that legislation follows on more closely from any announcements they make. As the committee says, even a short gap between regulations being laid and their coming into effect would better enable those affected to prepare, having seen the law’s actual, detailed requirements, rather than just the headline announcements.
Public confidence would also be enhanced with the timely publication of the full scientific advice available to Ministers. When the crisis first occurred, Ministers were very fond of saying that they were following the science. This was much in evidence in the Downing Street briefings, with the presence of the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser. They have been less in evidence recently, although they did come to the last briefing in Downing Street this week.
The standing down of the Chief Nursing Officer when she would not endorse the behaviour of Dominic Cummings was a standout moment that did great credit to the Chief Nursing Officer—rather less so to Downing Street. Scientists are not above criticism, but surely, we are entitled to see the full advice going to Ministers. In the case of the ludicrous 14-day quarantine period for visitors to this country, we are still awaiting even a summary of the advice. Will the Minister say when it is going to be published? Would he accept that, if the public are to regain confidence in the Government, the full advice should be published?
Lord Scriven (LD) [V]
My Lords, we play a game of illusion—a pretence that these regulations that put restrictions on citizens and keep parts of the economy closed are enacted with the agreement of Parliament. No. These regulations stem from emergency executive powers. Like lapdogs, we are discussing regulations that we cannot influence, revise or halt. Ministers sit in an office and decide the law, knowing that they are immune from normal parliamentary procedures and cannot be held to account. Maybe, back in March, quick-footed action was required due to the slowness of starting lockdown—but is who you can now meet in your back garden really an emergency power?
In the three debates we have had, I have not heard the Minister convincingly explain why we still need emergency legislation to gradually unlock the country. We do not live in a pre-Covid world, so we need to act and behave differently to ensure that the chain of transmission is slowed and broken. The Government should now focus on introducing a framework that allows proportionate, smart and targeted measures; they need to stop this executive, blunt, catch-all approach.
Powers and responsibilities need to be in place to hit local outbreaks fast and hard. Ministers say that powers are in place to implement local lockdowns. That is news to many on the front line and in local communities. Powers exist to close a building, but will the Minister inform the House who has the power to lock down a small area within a town or city when this is needed, and which laws stop that community moving about the whole town or city they live in? That detail is needed, not a general statement that the powers exist. The time for these blunt and undemocratic regulations has passed. We now need smart, targeted and effective local powers to break the chain of transmission and keep people safe. I look forward to the Minister convincing the House that these are indeed in place.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the changes announced by the Prime Minister on Tuesday, which render discussion of these regulations rather academic. I suggest one more essential tweak to what was said on Tuesday. We are told that the one-metre rule needs additional mitigating factors. That is unnecessary waffle. We should say that at one metre face masks are compulsory for everyone, no ifs or buts.
Today, I want to turn to the investigation of death anomalies and how that must be done carefully and thoroughly. As my noble friend knows, there is a huge industry out there ready to denounce everything about our country as institutionally racist. There is no coherent BAME community. It consists of black ethnicities, Asian ethnicities and all other minority groups who are not white. While their death rates are higher than whites’, there are wide variations between them, so the Government should report on the individual ethnic groups, not just this grouping called BAME.
We must also get to the bottom of why men are three times more likely to die than women, fat people twice as likely to die and people with diabetes—and possibly a lack of vitamin D—also twice as likely to die. None of these conditions is anything to do with racism, but the anomalies are just as great, so we need to know if underlying health conditions are the root cause of death variations. Perhaps they are or perhaps they are not, but we must have an authoritative and detailed analysis so that it is not exploited by those who wish to find institutional racism where none may exist.
Baroness Meacher (CB) [V]
My Lords, my remarks are no criticism at all of the Minister, but I am deeply concerned about the regulations. They completely fail to include crucial mitigating measures, as the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has just said, which are necessary for each step of the reopening of the economy if we are to avoid a second wave of the virus.
In his detailed analysis of countries’ responses to Covid-19, Professor Jeffrey Sachs concludes that the Asia-Pacific region has been successful in controlling Covid using just three low-cost solutions: face masks—which is interesting—physical distancing, and test and trace. I do not think that face masks are mentioned at all in the regulations. Is that not remarkable when Professor Piot, director of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said the other day that people are safer one metre apart wearing masks than they are two metres apart not wearing masks? Yesterday, of course, the Prime Minister took further steps to open up the economy. Can the Minister explain why, when the scientific advice is clear that the wearing of masks reduces risks, these regulations do not pave the way for the compulsory wearing of masks in shops and other inside spaces where one-metre social distancing will be the norm?
Another yawning gap in the regulations is the absence of any mention of the Google/Apple app or indeed any other successful app used in other countries, and whether and precisely how such an app will be rolled out across this country in order to drive down infections and enable the latest plans to open up the economy to be carried out safely. Surely we need regulations now to put a successful app in place. The UK cannot afford to continue doing too little, too late to fight this virus. Christophe Fraser, disease epidemiologist at Oxford University, says that human tracing will not be enough to prevent a second wave. Will the Minister appeal to the Government to include in next week’s amendments to the regulations rules for the provision of a recognised app? If not, why not?
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we all know that certain areas of the country have suffered more than most from coronavirus, mainly the big cities but not entirely so. In my own county of Cumbria, we have three of the worst areas of the country, which have twice the average compared with the rest of the country.
I suggest that any response in which we loosen up will have to include a local variant if there is a resurgence of coronavirus. In particular, take those areas with many visitors. The Lake District National Park has 19 million visitors a year, with a resident population of 40,000. It is important that we have an assurance today from the Minister—and I hope we will get one—that if there is a resurgence of coronavirus in the national park then the priority will go to protecting the lives of the people who live there as opposed to the understandable desires of visitors who come and marvel at the area’s beauties; they are here but gone tomorrow, while others live here. I worry whether the Government have the will-power and the ability to stand up to the overwhelming tourist industry if there is a crisis. I hope they will do so and protect local residents.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
Since we debated the previous SIs on 15 June, we have started to venture out, return cautiously to the shops, sit closer to a stranger and dare to hope that a summer holiday may be possible. These latest two SIs lift more restrictions for England. There is a balance to be struck between protection, thus preventing a second wave, and getting back to a new normal as soon as possible. For many pubs, the ability to serve takeaway meals has been an opportunity to try to keep revenue coming in. My local pub has turned into a takeaway service—with queues appropriately distanced—for older residents in the village and younger ones too, and that is much appreciated.
I am fascinated by a few of the decisions in these SIs. Why are we concerned about “elite athletes” but not young budding musicians? What made a legislator think that a place of worship would be an ideal setting for early years childcare? Does the Minister have any information about take-up, or registration to use such buildings? What consultations were held first with religious authorities?
Many will be glad that churches—and, I assume, other places of worship—can reopen for silent prayer. Usually these buildings are open but unattended. Can the Minister outline the sort of advice given about managing distance and keeping surfaces clear and behaviour appropriate?
I note that the Google Maps app has been collecting our movement data and, presumably, providing it to Public Health England to determine our behaviours out of lockdown. I do not doubt that by default we will have given our permission, but I wonder what practices were going on before Covid-19 and will continue after lockdown. Will the Minister please clarify the situation for the House and place a letter in the Library, copying in noble Lords speaking today? I am content to support these measures.
Lord Naseby (Con)
My Lords, I welcome my noble friend to the Front Bench. It is also good to see the spokesman for the Official Opposition in the Chamber. These issues are moving very fast, as the Minister said, but the key area for me now is the economy. The economy worsens day by day, and the focus now has to be on that.
As a nation, frankly, we do not need micromanaging. Even the Prime Minister says that the British people have good sense. I hear that pubs are going to have to list the people who are going to have a drink there. They know who they are having a drink with, and if they should fall ill then they know exactly who they are. We do not need any lists collected at the pub.
On cricket—and I declare an interest as president of Northamptonshire County Cricket Club—today we could quite easily handle county cricket on a one-metre basis, let alone club cricket. I know the ECB has been making representations. I hope that when my noble friend has finished with his machine there, he will actually think about that.
Weddings are coming back—hurrah!—but why can we not allow some hymns at a wedding? My goodness, it is not as if that is a major problem of illness. Open-air concerts are part of the tradition of England. They could easily be handled on a one-metre basis. It is a sad reflection on the role of religion in our society that churches were closed when people needed to pray together. They were then taken off the list a bit, but only after non-essential retailers.
On gyms, I thought people went to the gym to keep fit, but they are not allowed to open even though they have distancing.
Lastly, there is still the huge problem for the airlines of quarantine. The sooner that is gone, the more likely we are to recover as an economy.
Baroness Wheatcroft (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the regulations as a step in the right direction, but I wonder about the logic that is driving the changes. For instance, Primark could open before zoos could. That seems strange.
There is a question that I have asked twice in the Chamber; on both occasions, I failed to get a response, so I will try one more time. I am sure that my noble friend Minister read at the weekend what the Sunday Times wrote about the vast polling operation that is going on and the focus groups that are being held every week to ask the public—Conservative voters in particular—what they think would be the right policy responses to the Covid crisis. I can only believe that that was why we got extraordinary quarantine regulations saying that people could fly into this country and travel on public transport before being quarantined for 14 days. Can the Minister tell me that focus groups and polling are not dictating the shape of government policy on Covid and that, as we have heard repeatedly, we are being led by the science?
Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab) [V]
My Lords, once again, I want to concentrate my remarks on the interaction between today’s regulations and the wider issue of public policy on masks. I have argued for four months that, without masks, controlling the pandemic is impossible. That remains my view.
Today, I pray in aid a further report, Face Masks Considerably Reduce COVID-19 Cases in Germany: A Synthetic Control Method Approach. This report by the IZA Institute of Labor Economics, initiated by the Deutsche Post Foundation, examined the policy of mandatory mask use in Germany. The report found that after their introduction in Jena, a city in Germany,
“the number of new infections fell almost to zero.”
The report’s conclusion states:
“We believe that the reduction in the growth rates of infections by 40% to 60% is our best estimate of the effects of face masks … We should also stress that 40 to 60% might still be a lower bound.”
I have consistently argued that mask-wearing should be the trade-off against any relaxation of lockdown. The evidence from Jena supports my case. A policy that lacks enforcement will inevitably lead to widespread non-compliance. I safely predict today that, in the event of escalating infection rates later this year, the Government will be pilloried for their failure to follow much of the rest of the world with a mandatory policy. Will the Minister please arrange for me to receive a fully considered written response on the IZA report and its conclusions?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, in his opening remarks, the Minister said that these measures had to be brought forward because of the need for emergency legislation to be rapid and frequent. As my noble friend Lord Scriven pointed out, that had been the case, and this House and Parliament had given the Government a fair degree of forbearance in the use of emergency powers. In our debate on the legislation, I said that such legislation should never normally be needed and that Parliament would never normally pass it—but we did. It should be commensurate that, when emergency legislation is passed, scrutiny and the ability to debate the measures that the Government bring forward are enhanced.
If the Government say that bringing forward these measures needed to be rapid and frequent, that cannot be said about the procedures in this House. With remote working and hybrid working, we could meet for many hours every day. There has been no limit at all on the Government bringing these measures forward sooner. The Minister says that he does so to afford scrutiny but scrutiny of what the Government are doing is impossible if it comes after the event. That includes this ridiculous situation where we are debating, in one debate, two measures that counteract one another.
On science, which has already been mentioned, I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft. It has been reported that a communications company that has been carrying out the advice and the Government’s work was recently issued a contract to do the same for the Brexit preparations after next January. Will the Government publish all the data that has been secured from that communications company from polling and focus groups, under the principles of open data, so that we are aware?
Finally, I understand the approach for devolution, which I am passionate about, but the science cannot say one thing for Northumberland and another for the Scottish Borders. What is the Government’s advice for those who live and work across the border? Should they take the advice on where they work or on where they live, at the destination or at the source point? Clarity on that point would be gratefully received.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con) [V]
My Lords, I welcome the regulations, particularly the (Amendment) (No. 4) regulations, which permit the opening of non-essential retail premises. I do so because they have enabled charities to open up their on-street retail businesses again.
When lockdown restrictions were imposed, charities relying on their high street retail arm for income were badly affected. Some charities can trade online but that income is nowhere near what they can obtain from on-street sales. Age UK stated that the closure of its shops resulted in a loss of one-third of its income overnight. Its website now gives the good news that the regulations mean that it is reopening many of its charity shops—in line with the Government’s guidance about how to do so safely, of course.
Charity shops on the high street perform a service to the whole of our community. They provide goods at low prices, making them accessible to those on low incomes. They provide a place where customers can feel welcome and included, when they so often feel excluded from society. They support the recycling of goods and are therefore good for the environment. Indeed, the Salvation Army made the point that many people have been clearing out their homes during lockdown and the goods that they are donating could help raise funds for its work supporting rough sleepers and to stock its food banks. Charities also provide opportunities for people to work as volunteers in their shops.
I will end by quoting the Charity Commission’s recent report, which said that
“we are stronger and better as a country the more benefit charity delivers.”
If this was true before the national emergency, it is being brought home as never before during and after it. Society needs charities to thrive. The (Amendment) (No. 4) regulations will help them survive.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, here we are again, engaging in perhaps the most farcical exercise of parliamentary scrutiny imaginable, with more coronavirus regulations, published days— in one case, more than three weeks—after government announcements and taking immediate effect with no time at all for anyone even to understand them, let alone scrutinise them properly. This is not a democratic way of operating. The Minister called this “sequencing” in his opening remarks; I call it undemocratic tactics. It is time for this to end.
We are going to need these urgent regulations for some time to come; it is right that Ministers have the ability to change the rules as and when the circumstances change. However, the way in which the Government are operating is not fair. They are imposing things on the country without giving us any chance to debate them—and, of course, improve them. Ministers tell us that there is a plan behind the scenes and that they are just waiting for the right moments to make the right decisions. If that is the case, there is a better way of going about this. There is little justification for not publishing these regulations before they take effect, or perhaps—here is a good idea—publishing a compendium of draft regulations that will be drawn from as and when appropriate. I would very much appreciate it if the Minister could take this back and explain that this House is deeply anxious about the number of regulations that are coming in so quickly.
I turn to one important issue that is being mooted at the moment. Can the Minister confirm to your Lordships’ House that these urgent procedures will not be used to abolish or interfere at all with the right to trial by jury? Any curtailment of this fundamental right must face the highest levels of scrutiny. Can the Minister give a clear assurance on this?
Lord Rennard (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Minister will recall that my major concern about these changing regulations is about the credibility of government advice and growing public reluctance to do what it says. Pictures of crowded beaches and incidents such as the large gathering in south London last night, which required police intervention, suggest that many people are not staying alert or staying safe, and such behaviour is putting many more people at risk. The Minister makes a valiant defence of the Government’s position, but why does he think people are increasingly using their own judgment? Has he continued listening in recent weeks to Radio 4’s “More or Less”, with its weekly demolition of government statistics, and does he still feel that he could prove the programme wrong? Does he accept that the Government have lost credibility? Why is this?
We know that the Chief Nursing Officer was excluded from a press conference when she would not toe the line about Dominic Cummings. Yesterday, the Guardian listed eight occasions on which Professor Chris Whitty’s advice has diverged from that of Boris Johnson. The Prime Minister said, for example, that judgments about what could have been done better are premature, but the Chief Medical Officer says that there is a long list of things that we should look at very seriously. He highlights the failure to speed up testing very early on. Should we not learn the lessons of what could have been done better before we face the risk of further spikes?
Lord Liddle (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I join this debate as a relatively novice member of the House’s Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, and it has not been a very satisfactory experience, in terms of the accountability of the Executive to the legislature. Of the regulations before us today, the (No. 3) regulation came into force on 1 June, was not considered by our committee until 9 June and is being debated today, on 25 June. Similarly, the (No. 4) regulation was laid on 12 June and not considered by our committee until it came into force. This is not satisfactory. We need a better process and I hope that the inquiry or review that will inevitably be set up at the end of the crisis will look at better methods of parliamentary accountability in national emergencies.
My other point is on policy. Regulations are not ready at the point when Ministers make announcements about the policy in them. That is bad practice, because it means that Ministers are making policy announcements without having a grip on the detail of what they will imply. That has to change, and change now, if we are to have effective management of what we can already see will be a very difficult period.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, yet again we are dealing with statutory instruments in retrospect, and that could in many ways be considered undemocratic. We are, however, dealing with a very peculiar situation in peculiar times. People are understandably worried that an easing of these restrictions will increase their vulnerability and it is vital that the wider public are reassured. Only two days ago, the Prime Minister announced further relaxation and it seemed that the Chief Medical and Scientific Officers were quite cautious about the recent changes and the removal of the two-metre rule. Just how aligned are they with Ministers and their political advisers? What progress has been made with research and clinical trials and the provision of a vaccine? There was reference yesterday in the media to many people being involved in trials of a particular vaccine. Will those people eventually be categorised and selected according to their medical background, their age and their job groups? What further progress has been made on track, trace and isolation?
I realise that there are a lot of questions there, but people require reassurance. They have been through a lot and made significant sacrifices in a very difficult time. Will the Minister also tell us what further medications may be available, apart from the one already specified? What stage are those clinical trials at? In conclusion, what provisions have been made, and will continue to be put in place, to protect residents and staff in care homes, to ensure that they do not become further susceptible to catching this virus?
Lord Robathan (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am sure we all welcome any easing of these lockdown restrictions, although it is rather extraordinary to be discussing these regulations weeks late and after we moved beyond them yesterday. My plea, which the Minister has heard before, is that we should stop suspending our critical faculties. The Government’s own figures, which are probably inaccurate, state that five children under the age of 18 have died from this ghastly virus. The death rate in the population is less than one in 1,500—that is 43,000 deaths in a population of 66 million. My maths makes that less than a 0.065% death rate.
Each death is a tragedy, but we know that the elderly, the infirm and those with underlying health conditions are the most affected and at risk. They should shield themselves and we should give them support. But the young—indeed, those under 40 or 50—are at little risk of death, so let people get on with their lives normally. Scientific advice has been uncertain and contradictory, together with the absurd modelling by Neil Ferguson, from the very beginning. We have mortgaged our children’s future and ruined our economy on the basis of a fear that many believe will prove not to have been justified. To my noble friend I say: please move faster to lift all restrictions. I do not care if we all have to wear face masks or, indeed, if I, aged 70 next year, feel that I have to stay at home, but I do care that we get the country back to work—to a situation where our children do not have to pay for actions and policies taken during this pandemic for the next 50 years.
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, in view of the Covid-19 virus, the Government need the powers to allow businesses to open, with certain restrictions. At the same time, the Government need the powers to shut down business premises if there is a spike in the area in which they are operating. These are unusual times. The Government are defining legislation in guidance according to the science and the expertise of scientists. Hundreds of thousands of lives could be affected if the guidance is not strictly followed by businesses. The Secretary of State must have powers to shut down or close any premises, or part of a premises, in which food and drink are sold for consumption, or to cease the selling of food or drink for consumption on its premises. As for hotels, food or drinks sold by them as part of room service is not to be treated as being sold for consumption on the premises.
This is a time when individual businesses in the hospitality industry must observe the guidance issued by the Government. It is a time when profits and health considerations collide, particularly for businesses. Any misjudgment or errors could put our NHS under stress and many lives could be affected.
Lord Goddard of Stockport (LD) [V]
My Lords, as I have said in previous debates, this legislation is highly retrospective, and that is to be regretted. Regarding devolution, Greater Manchester has a long history of integrated partnership working across all services and sectors. Throughout this crisis, we have worked closely with government to support and develop responses to the pandemic. The Government’s response has in many ways been commendable. However, as we reach the end of this period of lockdown, it is an opportunity to reflect on the lessons learned, particularly in relation to devolved powers and funding for local and city region authorities, along with the co-ordination between national and regional government.
My noble friend Lord Scriven’s comments were right on the nail, as usual. This is about emergency legislation and, in certain cases, the misuse of it. I have heard people such as the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, who I respect immensely, talking about how the British people know best and letting the forces of nature take their course. But did he see pictures from the beaches at Brighton or Bournemouth yesterday, or the pictures from Brixton last night? That is the real problem. The noble Lord, Lord Robathan, quotes figures. Perhaps we should have T-shirts made, “I am the 0.65—one of the lucky ones”. Someone has to take control of the situation. If this is a long, hot summer and we ease the lockdown for lots of people up and down this country, it is not rocket science to understand what will happen.
The best people to deliver and control this would be local authorities, city regions and people who understand the make-up of their areas. The sooner the penny drops with devolution, that is where the real power will lie. We can control isolated outbreaks of the pandemic in isolated areas, but I do not know about the problems of Hartlepool, Southport or Plymouth. We know about Greater Manchester, and those powers should be devolved so that we can help even more to suppress this terrible virus.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the mantra goes that “We are all in this together”. If Covid has shown us anything, it is that indeed we are all in this, but in no sense together. As one small example, at the beginning of the outbreak, after an extraordinary personal and affecting message from one of our front-line health workers, the supermarkets put on an hour of shopping for NHS front-line workers. For weeks now, these one-hour sessions have been abused by people who have nothing whatever to do with the NHS. Will my noble friend state firmly and clearly from the Dispatch Box that, where supermarkets have laid on an hour of shopping for our hard-working front-line NHS workers, everybody else should just wait until the end of that hour and leave it to them?
Will my noble friend also confirm that, after the review on 28 June, the 14-day quarantine will be dropped next week? Finally, echoing the words perfectly put by my excellent and noble friend Lord Blencathra, does he agree that “At a metre, wear a mask”? We need to get back to work. It is a tragedy that we have mortgaged our children’s future and are decimating so much of their education. Private schools have not missed one lesson; many in comprehensives and first or infant schools have had precious little education, despite the great work of our teachers. Does he agree that we need to get back to work, get our children back to school and do it all under the clear mantra, “At a metre, wear a mask”?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, we are now used to the idea of wearing a mask and I welcome the guidance on that. Will my noble friend and the Government consider adding to that the advisory use of wearing gloves? We are told that the danger is that the virus is lingering on surfaces. Should it not be mandatory, certainly for those preparing and serving food and refreshments, to wear gloves, and advised for everybody else, simply to keep us safer in that regard?
I share the concerns of those who have expressed the confusion surrounding what will happen in the event of either a second wave or, more likely in the immediate future, a localised flare-up. Can my noble friend point us this afternoon towards where and what the advice is on what local councils, other authorities and the emergency services should do in the event of a local flare-up? Does he share my concern about the recent outbreak of the virus in meat-processing factories? Is something causing that and how can the Government deal with it effectively? There has been an incident in Denmark where the virus has entered the animal population through mink farms. That is obviously very salutary, so are the Government keeping an eye on it?
I understand from the House of Lords committee which reviewed these two regulations—or certainly regulation 3, which is before us—that today is the date of the next review. I would be interested to learn what exactly that review is looking into, as of today.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, the sun is out and it is echoed in the school playground outside my windows. Traffic is on the road and families are meeting each other. I have witnessed notable discrepancies in understanding much of the guidance among the population. Regrettably, we are again debating these health protection measures retrospectively. I agree with the deep concerns expressed by my noble friend Lord Hunt, and I have the following questions.
First, how are the Government supporting local authorities to implement guidance and monitor capacity, including access to PPE for care homes, the use of masks and social distances? Secondly, on day-care centres for adults living with learning disabilities, what assessment has been taken to mitigate their distress, including carers who may have experienced it during lockdown, in particular, to ensure that social work support and resources are available to staff to assess any abuse that they may have experienced? Thirdly, on track and trace among the most affected communities, do some of the tracers recruited have additional languages to ensure that language is no barrier to their engagement? Next, how are the Government ensuring that information on track and trace is reaching the most affected communities?
Next, on mental health, what steps have been taken to support front-line NHS care staff, as well as teachers and social workers, many of whom have experienced extreme distress as they continue their services? What access do these staff have to mental health resources and talking therapy? Similarly, in my locality women-led organisations such as Account 3 are currently providing a critical lifeline to women from difficult and disadvantaged family circumstances. They have experienced a high level of demand for services and not enough funding. Will the Government acknowledge their valiant role and efforts in mitigating some of the disproportionate impacts? Can the Minister let me know in writing what financial support may be available to them?
Undeniably, some minority communities have been profoundly affected by Covid-19. This has been substantiated by Public Health England’s reports, which have evidenced structural inequalities as a significant factor. Have the Government—
Baroness Penn (Con)
Can I remind the noble Baroness of the time limit on Back-Bench contributions?
Baroness Uddin [V]
Will the Government respond with policy measures to mitigate the impact, should there be a second wave? Thank you.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, from the Liberal Democrat Benches, I start by paying our respects to the families and friends of the bereaved. I give our thanks to all those who continue to fight coronavirus on the front line and behind the scenes. The publicity may be reducing, but we know that the battle goes on.
The two regulations in front of us set the scene for the continuing slow lifting of the lockdown. I echo the points made by my noble friends Lord Scriven and Lord Purvis: having sight of regulations in advance and debating them—with clearer, smarter guidance that does not confuse—should be possible now. I want to ask the Minister two questions as we prepare for recess at the end of July. First, some regulations will expire after 28 days. What plans are there to cover such renewals, should they be necessary after we rise on 29 July?
Secondly, these regulations were designed for the short term. What arrangements will be made should there need to be a major change to regulations—for example, a second national lockdown? I hope that in those circumstances, Parliament would be recalled to debate such a serious matter. I see that Israel is already in the middle of a second wave after lifting lockdown too early. The most effective way to manage and stop any second wave, whether local or national, is to have in place a full and effective “test, trace and isolate” programme to keep people safe, as well as transparent communications with the public. Their co-operation is vital to reducing transmission.
The Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, have both said repeatedly that a full “test and trace” system will not be in place until autumn and that the app will possibly not be ready until winter. The weekly Test and Trace figures released this morning demonstrate that nationally, the Government failed to contact one in three of those who tested positive with Covid-19, down from 75% last week. For the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, who is concerned about leaving names in restaurants, only 81% of contacts were actually reached, down from 90% last week.
The BBC’s dramatisation last week of the Salisbury poisonings made clear to everyone how important local tracing is. Experienced tracers long before the pandemic, our directors of public health and their teams are our unsung heroes. There are currently some outbreaks in England, in Kirklees and Leicester, that they are dealing with. However, local authorities are still reporting that they are not being given the full data from Public Health England to do their job on the ground. I have asked the Minister on three occasions when local authorities and directors of public health will get the full data they need at a local level. I ask again: when will they get that full data? If there is no answer today, can he please write to me and other Peers taking part to explain exactly what the data issue is?
There also remains the issue of the powers of a local authority to lock down. They are currently very limited—usually up to one building or one organisation only—and the Secretary of State’s answer a few days ago at a national press conference was that he would be the person to make every single decision. If we have hundreds of localised outbreaks, which would not be unusual, surely the local team, led by the director of public health and the local authority, should have the power to make that decision—after consulting Public Health England and Ministers in the Department of Health and Social Care, obviously.
Effective lifting of lockdown remains important for our care sector. It is good that cases in care homes and among those cared for at home have now reduced but, unlike the NHS, care sector staff are still not entitled to routine weekly testing. Every time I ask the Minister this question, I am told that they can have a test if they are symptomatic—but this is not the rule for NHS staff. If the Government truly believe they have put a ring of protection around our care sector, they need to act now. When will regular testing for front-line care sector staff be made available to keep them and their patients as safe as those in hospitals?
Extra care staff, defined as those who work in patients’ homes and the non-elderly sector, are still not able to access testing through the testing portal. Can the Minister please have this error—I hope it is an error—remedied as soon as possible? Yesterday, care homes had still not received specific guidance on how they should manage the change in shielding guidance. When will that arrive?
The Chancellor of the Exchequer granted a VAT exemption on PPE to the care sector until the end of July. It is common knowledge that care homes and care companies are struggling with many extra costs. PPE is still around four times more expensive, and they have reduced income as a result of the pandemic. With many of their residents shielding, they must continue to take special care. Can the Minister ask the Chancellor for an urgent extension of this exemption for a further three months?
I recognise that I have asked a lot of questions. Will the Minister please write to me with answers to any questions he cannot answer today? I support the regulations.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
My Lords, very conveniently, following on from the noble Baroness’s remarks, I will repeat the question that I did not get to put yesterday in the Chamber because other noble Lords and the Minister spoke at length and only six out of 10 questions were taken. I will take 30 seconds; this question is 75 words long. In April and May, a quarter of those who died of coronavirus had dementia, so access to PPE in care settings is vital. Is the Minister aware that the Alzheimer’s Society has learned that families are being charged up to £100 per week extra to cover the cost of PPE? Can he confirm that the newly announced Covid-19 social care task force will investigate the significant and disproportionate impact the pandemic has had on people with dementia? I am happy if he writes to me with the answer to that question and puts it in the Library.
I have a point about a remark made by the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, about polling, focus groups and the Government. I will check this, but she mentioned that a great deal of polling was going on. I am not surprised to hear that the Government are polling every single day, but she also said that the Government were polling Conservative voters. The Minister will be aware that this is absolutely against the rules, so I put a marker down. I suspect I am not the only person who may have noticed that. It will have to be followed up.
I thank the Minister for introducing the regulations we are discussing. As everyone has said, they address restrictions on businesses and public gatherings and are the third and fourth amendments to the coronavirus restrictions legislation. I particularly thank the House of Lords Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee for its rapid scrutiny of the fourth amendments to the legislation and noble Lords for their mostly disciplined contributions, which seemed to cover most points that the Minister will have to answer.
My noble friend Lord Hunt acknowledged that we are again having a theoretical debate and noted the unsatisfactory nature of this process. Indeed, several MPs from all parties said this in the Commons when discussing the third amendments last week. I think they get to discuss the fourth and possibly fifth amendments next week. We find ourselves in the absurd position of debating one set of regulations that have already been replaced alongside another set that are about to be replaced, given that further policy changes have been announced.
We understand why the affirmative procedure has been used when imposing lockdown measures to protect public health, but the justification is less strong when relaxations are being contemplated. If at all possible, such regulations should not be laid at the last minute, as highlighted by the scrutiny committee in its report published this morning. It notes that
“even a short gap between regulations being laid and their coming into effect would better enable those affected to prepare, having seen the law’s actual detailed requirements (rather than just the headline announcement).”
Given that the latest changes are due to come into effect on 4 July, will the Government commit to laying the fifth regulations within the next few days, to ensure that there is more appropriate lead-in time and to enable the JCSI to report and the House to debate the regulations promptly?
We know this is a fast-moving situation, and public awareness of when new changes come into effect is very important, given that failure to comply with the restriction regulations remains a criminal offence. While we welcome the longer lead-in time for the changes coming into effect on 4 July, as business needs time to prepare, I am concerned that many members of the public seem unaware that other relaxations are yet to take effect. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that the public understand the current guidance, as opposed to forthcoming changes splashed across the news?
Does the Minister share my concern that ending the Government’s daily press conferences may have been premature, given that we are in a period of significant change? It has to be said, people less kind than me have said they are very relieved not to see the Hancock half-hour repeated day after day.
It is true that we face uncertain times and many families face unemployment, jeopardy and hardship. I wonder about the Government’s priorities. Could the Minister explain why opening betting shops, theme parks and suchlike seems more urgent than the future of a child from, say, a hard-pressed family who will have missed six months of school and possibly six months of learning and socialising? Those are millions of our children. Other noble Lords have mentioned this.
Why have the Government not put the same imagination and resources that went into, say, the rapid building of the Nightingale hospitals into how to get our children back to school? Why is the money for tutors not being made available for more teachers? Why are we not bringing back retired teachers, for example, like we did with doctors and nurses? We have a different kind of national emergency for our children, but it is none the less an emergency.
Parliament has a role to play in this, and these are not minor or consequential changes that can be nodded through without debate. They affect millions of people’s lives and debating them weeks after the event, as we said, is a bit demeaning to parliamentary democracy. I believe that such changes should always be accompanied by a Statement to Parliament, not showcased in a Downing Street press conference. We are not merely a rubber-stamping exercise to create the veneer of a democratic process. Can we be clear on the reviews? I appreciate why the Secretary of State will be doing things on an ongoing basis, but we need to see the reviews in some documented form so that we can understand the basis on which restrictions are eased and implemented. A progress to normalcy must include a progress to democratic accountability.
Lord Bethell
My Lords, I would like to say an enormous thanks for a valuable and important debate. Over the coming weeks and months, we will continue to ease the restrictions put on individuals, society and businesses by these regulations as it becomes safe to do so. The amendments debated today play an important role in that gradual return to normal life, as outlined in the Prime Minister’s Statement on Tuesday. I remind noble Lords that the Leader of the House was here earlier holding a debate on that Statement, as she has done when there have been other announcement of a similar nature. I acknowledge the value of giving people warning of these changes, as referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I acknowledge the frustration of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, about the sequencing of these amendments, which I think I addressed in my earlier comments.
I am pleased that, as of 4 July, we will relax additional restrictions in a safe way. This is an exciting step towards a more normal way of life. Nevertheless, this return to normal life requires constant and careful surveillance of the latest epidemiological evidence, making changes only when the facts suggest it is safe to do so. We understand the burden these restrictions have placed on not only individuals but society as a whole, so the Government will maintain only the restrictions that are necessary and proportionate.
To reassure my noble friend Lady Wheatcroft, and in reply to the thought-provoking challenge made by my noble friend Lord Robathan, I say that, whatever the argument of those who are sceptical of the evidence-based approach to science-led policy-making, the Government are determined to be led by the science. We will sometimes be in conflict with public attitude and the headline writers, but that will remain our commitment. On that point, I cannot hide from the House that we remain ready to reimpose stricter measures if it becomes necessary. As the Prime Minister outlined in his Statement on Tuesday, we will not hesitate to apply the brakes if a national-level response is required.
The debate has provided an opportunity for Peers to raise points relating to the whole spectrum of our activity. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that on 23 March the French Government declared a widespread state of emergency that granted the executive branch enormous powers. This has not been our approach. I assure her that trial by jury remains a cardinal tenet of the British constitution.
I will take a moment to address some of the issues highlighted by noble Lords. I start by paying tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, for his remarkable and determined perseverance on masks and distancing. In part due to the kind of pressure that he has characterised, our advice will change from 4 July to one metre-plus, which is one metre’s distance plus mitigations when people cannot stay two metres apart. These mitigations will depend on the workplace or setting. For example, people must wear a face covering on public transport since it is not always possible to stay two metres apart. Put another way, this is one metre plus a face covering. In other spaces, mitigations could include installing screens, making people face away from each other, putting in handwashing facilities, minimising the amount of time people are together and so on. Having mitigations in place at one metre can be broadly equivalent in reducing transmission to staying two metres apart. We have set out Covid-secure guidance to help businesses take the measures that are right for them.
On face coverings, in reference to my noble friend Lord Blencathra, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, who I mentioned, I say that passengers have been told they will be required to have face masks when travelling from 15 June. There are some exemptions for health, age or equality reasons. Transport usage has been slowly increasing as restrictions are lifted. Social distancing remains the most important way to keep safe, but on public transport it is not always possible to follow this guidance.
Baroness Thornton
Will the Minister give way? I know that it is a strange thing to ask these days. I am using public transport all the time to get to and from your Lordships’ House. I can report that particularly men and young men are not wearing their masks.
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is entirely right. It is incredibly tough to persuade people to wear their masks. There is a huge cultural gap. That reason and the insights of our behavioural scientists have led us to move relatively slowly, despite the articulate and passionate exhortations we have had on this subject. We are looking at ways to encourage mask wearing, but it is a struggle and not one that we think that we can necessarily rely on.
On non-essential retail, in response to my noble friend Lady Anelay, I say that I have recently met the Association of Medical Research Charities and I acknowledge the pressures faced by good causes supported by charity shops. The Prime Minister announced a timeline for the reopening of non-essential retail businesses on 25 May. I hope very much that that can bring some relief to that important sector.
We completely understand the impact of the lockdown on the hospitality industry and, as the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, alluded to, garden parties. That is why I am pleased that, following the Prime Minister’s announcement, significant parts of the hospitality and tourism industry will reopen from 4 July. However, to make sure that this is done in as safe a way as possible, all hospitality indoors will be limited to table service. Our guidance will encourage minimal staff and customer contact.
The regulations made on 12 June permitted the use of places of worship for individual prayer. Following the Prime Minister’s announcement on Tuesday, this will be relaxed further and places of worship will be permitted to be open more generally. In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, I say that this will be a welcome change for those who have been unable to use places of worship for their usual religious practice, and I thank those who have made sacrifices.
In response to my noble friend Lord Naseby, I say that here is no avoiding the fact that singing spreads an aerosol of virus-laden moisture into the air. On cricket, in the words of the Prime Minister, it is plain to everyone that the cricket ball is an infectious vector of disease spreading. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Clark, that we will not hesitate, in the face of a local spike, to bring back whatever lockdown measures are required to save lives and protect the NHS.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, asked about progress on vaccine development. I am delighted that the UK is taking a leading role in this work. Our best chance of defeating the virus is by working together globally. We have put £84 million into accelerating the work of Oxford University and Imperial College. I pay testament to the work of the scientists there. The noble Baroness also asked about social care; we have set out a comprehensive action plan to support the adult social care sector in England throughout the coronavirus outbreak, including ramping up testing, overhauling the way PPE is delivered to care homes and helping minimise the spread of the virus to keep people safe.
In response to the noble Baronesses, Lady Thornton and Lady Brinton, we cannot avoid the costs of PPE. The global price of PPE has risen dramatically. These costs will have to be borne somehow, somewhere. We are working with Treasury and DH colleagues to figure out ways in which they can be borne.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, on shielding, from 6 July those shielding can spend time outdoors in a group of up to six people, including those outside their household. This can be in a public outdoor space or a private garden. Also from 6 July, those shielding will be able to create a support bubble.
I have answers to questions from a number of noble Lords, including on the devolved Administrations, parliamentary scrutiny and local powers. I will not be able to get through all of them in the time remaining. I thank noble Lords for all their contributions and valuable points during this debate. I reassure the noble Lords, Lord Rennard and Lord Liddle, that a lessons learned process will be undertaken when the time is right, but we are not through this yet.
These regulations have been hugely successful in tackling the spread of the virus. While recognising some local limitations, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, we are enormously grateful to the public for their sacrifices and to the NHS and social care workers for their hard work on the front line.
Lord Purvis of Tweed
Before the Minister sits down, the noble Baroness, Lady Thornton, made a very good intervention—
Baroness Penn (Con)
To clarify the Procedure Committee guidance, as agreed by the House:
“All members participating need to be included on the published Speakers’ List and members are not able to intervene spontaneously during business”.
This is not designed to limit the participation of Members in proceedings. It is under the section headed “Parity of treatment” between those online and those in the Chamber, to ensure that there is no difference in the ability of those online to participate. I hope noble Lords appreciate and understand that.
Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) (Amendment) (No. 4) Regulations 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Bethell
That the Regulations laid before the House on 12 June be approved.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, proceedings will now commence. Some Members are here in the Chamber and others are participating virtually, but all Members are 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.
National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) (Amendment) Order 2020
Viscount Younger of Leckie
That the draft Order laid before the House on 6 May be approved.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con) [V]
My Lords, this draft order amends Article 2 of the National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) Order 1999, known as the 1999 order, and will extend the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, known as the Act, to seafarers working domestically in UK territorial waters or in connection with offshore activities in the UK sector of the continental shelf. The amended order will not, however, apply the provisions of the Act to seafarers employed on a ship which is exercising the right of innocent passage or the right of transit passage, which I will explain.
It is clear that the current provisions do not go far enough to enable the minimum wage to be paid to most seafarers working domestically. This draft order has come about following a significant amount of engagement and consultation. The background is that in 2017, a working group encompassing government and industry was formed to explore this issue, which had been an area of significant interest for more than a decade. The working group was chaired by the Department for Transport, with policy and legal representation from interested government departments: BEIS, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and HMRC. The working group also included the maritime unions—the RMT and Nautilus International—plus the UK Chamber of Shipping and representatives from individual shipping companies. It met formally three times over nine months and was preceded and succeeded by other dialogue with industry and unions. This measure has also been considered, and is supported, by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency.
The result was that this group recommended that the existing legislation should be amended to extend the eligibility of the minimum wage to all seafarers working domestically in UK territorial waters, on the UK continental shelf or in the UK’s exclusive economic zone. This order seeks to implement those recommendations as far as they apply to the UK continental shelf.
I have referred to several concepts as they are defined in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea—UNCLOS—and will give some further explanation. The continental shelf of a coastal state comprises the seabed and subsoil of the submarine areas that extend beyond its territorial sea to the outer edge of the continental margin. Where the outer edge is beyond 200 nautical miles, it shall not exceed 350 nautical miles. The coastal state has sovereign rights to explore or exploit the natural resources of the seabed or subsoil. The exclusive economic zone is related but does not extend beyond 200 nautical miles. The coastal state has sovereign rights to explore or exploit, conserve or manage the natural resources—whether mineral or living—within the sea, the seabed or its subsoil, and the area above the sea. In simple terms, the continental shelf could be considered with regard to oil and gas and the EEZ with regard to fishing and renewable energy.
UNCLOS defines a vessel’s passage through a state’s territorial sea as being innocent if it is not prejudicial to the peace, good order or security of the coastal state. The word “passage” means navigation through the territorial sea for the purpose of traversing that sea without entering internal waters, calling at a roadstead or port facility outside internal waters, proceeding to or from internal waters, or a call at such a roadstead or port facility. Transit passage means the exercise of the freedom of navigation and overflight solely for the purpose of continuous and expeditious transit of the strait between one part of the high seas and another, or between exclusive economic zones.
We expect this order to benefit primarily seafarers in non-officer roles, such as ratings. These are a broad range of semi-skilled to skilled roles that cover a range of activities on board a vessel, whether on or below deck, in technical areas or in providing onboard services. Industry has stated that many seafarers working domestically in the UK or supporting the UK offshore sector are paid at or above minimum wage. We therefore think that it will be a relatively minor cost to industry when compared with other recent regulatory measures such as the sulphur emission measures. It is expected that the cost to industry will be approximately £3.2 million a year.
However, that should not diminish the importance of this measure. We are aware that other states are also seeking to improve standards for seafarers, but minimum salary for seafarers is not legislated for internationally or at a European level, so I am very pleased that it is understood that the UK will be the first country to provide such explicit protection to all seafarers working domestically. The ILO’s Maritime Labour Convention sets out that ratifying states should seek continuous improvement to the rights for seafarers, and this is exactly what the UK is doing.
I will provide a little more detail. Section 1 of the Act provides for the national minimum wage to be paid to individuals who, under their contracts and subject to other requirements of the Act, are working, or ordinarily work, in the UK. Specific provision about employment outside the UK is made by Section 40 of the Act and by the 1999 order that was made under Section 42. There is currently a wide exception in Article 2(2) and (3) of the 1999 order; that is, that the order does not apply the Act to individuals working on ships in the course of navigation, on fishing vessels, or on ships engaged in certain dredging activity. The amendments to the 1999 order will extend entitlement under that order to individuals working on vessels operating in UK territorial waters or, in connection with specified activities, in the UK sector of the continental shelf, subject only to an exception for employment for the purposes of activities on a ship exercising the right of innocent passage or the right of transit passage. The 1999 order is without prejudice to Section 40 of the Act, which operates in parallel and will continue to do so.
The 1999 order extends the Act to cover individuals who meet two conditions. The first condition is that they are in “offshore employment”, as defined in Section 42(1). The second condition is that they are working, or ordinarily work, in UK territorial waters or the UK sector of the continental shelf.
In the interests of time, I will cover ferries in my closing remarks as I understand that noble Lords may raise questions on it. By happenstance, today is the Day of the Seafarer. This is an opportunity to recognise the invaluable contribution that seafarers make to international trade and the world economy, often at great personal cost to themselves and their families. It is not lost on me that we would be in a worse place today, during this crisis, if seafarers were not bringing vital supplies and goods to the UK. This country has a long history of leading on issues regarding the welfare and employment of seafarers, and I am pleased that this continues. I commend the draft order to the House.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive introduction and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this order. I also want to endorse the valuable role played by seafarers, given the dangers they face from time to time; we do understand that. In particular, as a Scottish Peer, it is important to highlight the critical role that offshore industries such as renewables, fisheries, oil and gas play in the Scottish economy, as well as the UK-wide economy. Indeed, I am proud of the progress that Scotland has made in piloting renewable generation, particularly onshore and offshore wind generation, paving the way for its adoption right across the United Kingdom.
However, in the current climate, it is important to highlight the huge uncertainties facing workers in many offshore industries. Our fishermen are already facing extensive uncertainty over the impact of Brexit as well as the effect of the Fisheries Bill, currently being scrutinised so effectively in this House, as we saw in the Divisions yesterday. The result of all this will impact on fishermen, including those on the west coast of Scotland. Fishermen still live in Girvan and Ballantrae in my old constituency. Today I read that prawn catches, for example, have halved and that their price has also halved. That will affect many men and women in Ayrshire. On this occasion I should like to pay tribute to the late father of the noble Viscount, Lord Younger. I worked very closely with him and had the greatest respect for him.
For many offshore oil and gas sector workers in Scotland, the impact of Covid-19 will result in substantial job losses, not to mention the further redundancies made as we transition towards a net-zero climate. Given that, I support this order and welcome the greater financial security that it will offer the seafaring community by guaranteeing workers the national minimum wage. However, given these increasingly uncertain times, even more should be done to support these communities. We should be going further than the national minimum wage by agreeing to pay these workers a real living wage—the wage rate that people need to have a halfway decent existence. The Living Wage Foundation has calculated that the real living wage should be £9.30 and hour across the UK and £10.75 an hour in London.
The Minister might respond to my criticisms by saying that in 2016 his party introduced a higher minimum wage for staff aged over 25, with the so-called national living wage. But as everyone in the House should know, this change to the national minimum wage for the over-25s was just a cynical attempt by his Government’s party to claim to be on the same side as workers, when we know that in reality that is not the case. The Government’s national living wage is not based on what workers and their families need to live, whereas a real living wage is.
With that in mind, in his reply, will the Minister tell the House whether he will consider introducing a real living wage as part of what has been described as a “clean and just transition”? With these few comments, I nevertheless confirm that I am willing to support this order today.
Baroness Burt of Solihull (LD) [V]
My Lords, I too welcome this order, which closes a loophole that allows companies operating in British territorial waters potentially to pay their workers below the minimum wage. The order amends Article 2 of the National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) Order, but I would like to ask the Minister why it has taken so long to close this loophole. Have some seafarers been paid below the minimum wage for many years? Did anyone know about that and did any of the unions complain?
The order newly applies to shipping, with certain exceptions as described by the noble Viscount, operating in UK waters whether or not the vessels are UK-registered, and to workers who may or may not ordinarily be employed in the UK. I welcome this: anyone employing people working in British waters should not be allowed the undercut the competition by underpaying its staff.
My second question relates to the estimated cost of implementation. The Explanatory Notes state that HMRC cannot estimate this exactly because there is
“no robust data as to how many employees are in this position, and a lack of concurrence amongst sources which are available.”
How will the requirement be policed and how can the legislation be enforced? I would be grateful to the Minister if he could explain that.
Apparently some ship owners have said that certain services will no longer be viable on the implementation of this order. My heart bleeds for them. Any business that makes money on the backs of underpaid and exploited workers does not deserve to be in business. I remember business groups using the viability argument before the national minimum wage was first introduced. Today, it is an accepted part of business practice in this country and only cowboys, as opposed to pirates, exploit it.
Finally, on the Day of the Seafarer, I would like to ask a slightly tangential question about the estimated 150,000 international and British seafarers who have been trapped at sea since the beginning of the lockdown, awaiting crew changes. They cannot get home and their relief crews cannot get to ports to board. As I said in a debate on 19 May:
“Tragically, suicides have been reported as individuals suffer mentally, trapped on board and trying to get home, but unable to because of the lack of organised transport.”—[Official Report, 19/5/20; col. 1004.]
There are also issues with visas. Will the Minister please favour the House with an update on this?
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Younger on bringing this very worthwhile order before the House today. He referred in his opening remarks to the costs of the sulphur emissions measures that were passed on to the industry. One of the costs of doing that was highly regrettable for me because any remaining ferry link to Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia was discontinued. I have family reasons for wishing to visit Denmark. Obviously, that was a very expensive measure indeed.
I warmly welcome the measures set out in the order. As my noble friend said, this will bring huge benefits to seafarers and it is particularly appropriate that it will benefit non-officers—ratings working on or below deck. The order will extend to workers on fishing vessels operating in UK territorial waters, workers on dredgers in the territorial waters, and those working in the UK sector of the continental shelf, as well as well as all the seafarers in all the categories to which my noble friend alluded. I join others in celebrating seafarers’ day today and I recognise the immeasurable contribution to the economy and employment that the British shipping industry makes. The UK is an island nation, which has been built on trade, with a high percentage of goods travelling by sea.
I note what the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said about the contribution of offshore workers and note in passing that the offshore industry and the fishing industry are two of the most dangerous industries, alongside farming. It is a matter of celebration today that we welcome this order but, as other speakers have noted, it has taken us some considerable time to reach this pass in adopting it.
My noble friend remarked in passing about the ILO asking for continuous improvements for seafarers and other workers in this measure. Will he set out what other measures the Government envisage going forward? I thank him for introducing the order today and I wish it a safe passage.
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I, too, welcome this proposal to extend minimum wage protection to a group of workers whose vital contribution to the UK economy too often goes overlooked and underappreciated and who frequently do their jobs in dangerous conditions. Mentioned fleetingly in paragraph 7.8 of the Explanatory Memorandum is the Government’s claim that the amendment,
“will allow HMRC to focus enforcement on seafarers working domestically in UK territorial waters”.
Our whole experience of minimum wage law since 1999 has been of weak enforcement with insufficient resources spread widely and thinly, leaving low-paid workers vulnerable to rogue employers who ride roughshod over the minimum wage laws. In 2017, the then director of labour market enforcement Sir David Metcalfe pointed out that a UK employer was on average likely to be inspected by HMRC only once every 500 years. In February this year the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy reported that since 2007, only 15 employers had been successfully prosecuted for underpaying the minimum wage, around one a year. Neither the department nor HMRC has the budget or the staff numbers vigorously to enforce Britain’s minimum wage laws. We have become used to this Government overpromising and underdelivering and sadly, they are doing so again here for seafarers working in UK territorial waters or in the UK sector of the continental shelf. The Low Pay Commission reckons that between 300,000 and nearly 600,000 over-25 year-olds were paid below the minimum wage in 2016. No wonder the Low Pay Commission concluded that
“there remains a rump of employers and businesses that consider the low likelihood of enforcement worth the non-compliance gamble.”
That is the reality of life in Britain’s so-called flexible labour market, including for seafarers. Sir David Metcalf believes we need tougher penalties for breaking the minimum wage laws. Companies caught paying staff below the minimum wage can currently be fined up to twice the value of the wage arrears they owe. Metcalf says that five times might be better. The total amount of fines imposed on employers for underpaying the minimum wage recently was £3.9 million, much less than the £10.9 million in wage arrears identified by HMRC. Millions of exploited people work in low-paid, insecure jobs and they deserve much better, including offshore workers.
Baroness Northover (LD) [V]
My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Viscount for introducing this statutory instrument, and his officials for their very useful Explanatory Notes. The noble Viscount’s party opposed the minimum wage when it was first introduced by the Labour Government. We supported its introduction as long overdue. There was concern at the time that paying the minimum wage might price people out of jobs, but that proved not to be the case. It is interesting and encouraging to see how times have changed, with widespread support for the principle. The debate has now moved on to a discussion of the more substantial living wage, as the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, said. I am sure that we will come back to that as we come out of Covid, with the Government talking about levelling up yet facing an economy in crisis.
When the national minimum wage was introduced in 1998 and then applied in 1999 to offshore workers, it did not include seafarers, and this SI remedies that. It is surprising that it has taken more than 20 years to do so, as my noble friend Lady Burt noted. The SI excludes boats that are in transit through our waters, and I note the UN definition of those with right of innocent passage. That rather begs the question of whether we should include in the minimum wage those invading us, which would certainly be very generously turning the other cheek.
As the notes explain, the SI aims to include those whose work is on, for example, fishing vessels and dredgers in UK territorial waters and the UK sector of the continental shelf and other seafarers working domestically in UK territorial waters. It is striking to note that the question of whether they should be covered was raised more than a decade before the working group was set up. I am glad that the group included the maritime unions as well as the UK Chamber of Shipping and shipping companies, and that it seems to have made very clear and agreed recommendations. Has any estimate been made of the nationalities of those covered? What proportion are UK nationals? What proportion come from the EU and what proportion from the rest of the world? Are there any other groups which as yet have not been properly included in minimum wage legislation? If there are, what plans are there to remedy that?
I welcome this statutory instrument and look forward to the noble Viscount’s response.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, some of my family benefited financially from the introduction of the national minimum wage in 1998 and have done so since, so I support this statutory instrument today, but there are a number of questions about how it applies. I presume that the entirety of the burgeoning offshore wind energy workforce, maintenance as well as installation, will be covered as we are rightly and proudly the world leader in offshore wind energy production.
If a seafarer is offshore for more than a day, their birthday occurs while offshore and their minimum wage entitlement therefore increases, will that increase automatically be applied, despite the fact that the birthday occurred while they were offshore?
It is of concern that ferries—for example, Dover-Calais—appear not to be included. The Minister may want to confirm what was said in the House of Commons on this. Regarding the definition of spending a majority of one’s time working in the waters of our continental shelf, will any ferries to the continent be covered by this statutory instrument? If not, is this not a major omission of a group of British workers who sometimes work in difficult conditions, have important responsibilities and are not particularly well paid? As we enter Brexit, should not those working on our ferries, and those from this country working on other ferries that use our ports and harbours, have the best wages in Europe, rather than potentially being some of the cheapest ferry workers in Europe? Should this measure not therefore apply to all ferry workers?
Lord Sheikh (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate the Minister on introducing this order, which was long overdue. The National Minimum Wage Act 1998 created a minimum wage across the United Kingdom for workers. The aim of the Act was to guarantee a decent minimum standard of pay for workers and to promote fair competition between businesses. However, the Act excluded from its provisions various workers in offshore employment. Some of those workers were brought into the scope of the Act by The National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) Order 1999. However, certain exemptions applied. It did not cover employment on a ship in the course of navigation or workers on shipping vessels or dredgers. It is therefore important that these loopholes be examined.
I commend the Government on setting up a working party to look at the issues and to commence consultations. The working party was made up of maritime unions, the UK Chamber of Shipping, and the shipping companies. Following the consultations, it is now proposed that the wide-exception 1999 order be amended and that the 1998 Act will apply to employment in connection with a ship in course of any kind of navigation, or for workers on fishing vessels or dredgers. However, a narrow exception will apply to workers
“employed for the purposes of activities on a ship exercising the right of innocent passage or the right of transit passage.”
Can the Minister say why that exception applies?
It is appreciated that the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act will apply to seafarers working in UK territorial waters or in connection with certain activities in the UK sector of the continental shelf. Can the Minister say whether there is any intention to extend the scope of applying the 1998 Act?
We were, and we are still, a great maritime nation. However, it is important that we do not have cheap labour in our shipping industry, and that these workers enjoy the same rights as employees working on land. We need to close as many gaps as possible to ensure that workers in our shipping industry are paid adequately in accordance with the spirit of the 1998 Act. We also ought to make sure that UK workers are not replaced by cheap workers from abroad in our shipping industry. In the past, UK workers made up less than 20% of the industry, which was not acceptable. I therefore support the order.
Lord Berkeley (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too support this order and congratulate the Minister on finally bringing it to our attention over 20 years after the previous order, as the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, said. As they both said, it is the Day of the Seafarer, which is also appropriate. I declare an interest as honorary president of the UK Maritime Pilots’ Association. I do not think it is affected by this order, but obviously it welcomes the order too. I congratulate the RMT trade union on its consistency and its continuous lobbying for this. I will ask the Minister a few questions on the Explanatory Note.
The first is in connection with paragraph (c), as other noble Lords have mentioned:
“the exploration or exploitation, in a foreign sector of the continental shelf, of a cross-boundary petroleum field.”
I think I understand that but, if this will be allowed for workers working in the oil exploration sectors, surely it should also apply to those maintaining or installing wind turbines and things like that, and, for that matter, people fishing, to the extent that they are employed in the same area above that boundary. Can the Minister say whether it matters where the offshore bases are located for these workers in paragraph (c) to be considered? They may of course be based somewhere else in another EU member state or in the UK, but does that matter? Does it matter where the vessel is registered? I would be pleased to hear the Minister’s responses to those issues.
I believe that dredging operations are included, and it is a very good thing that they are. Does it also matter where the fish are landed, if the fishermen are included in this?
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Mann, mentioned ferries. Ferries stretch from connecting Norway, all around the continent and of course now to the Republic of Ireland. It seems quite ridiculous that some ferry operators —for example, between England or Scotland and Northern Ireland—come under one regulation, but if the same ship is operating to Dublin from England, it comes under a different regulation. Is it not about time that the Government brought all ferry workers that come into the UK, from maybe no more than two days’ steaming, into the same regulation?
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support this order and congratulate my noble friend Lord Younger of Leckie on the clear way in which he introduced some complex elements of the regulation and brought them into clear focus for all noble Lords. It could not be more appropriate that we are having this debate on the Day of the Seafarer—I pay tribute to all those who work on the high seas and offshore. They work in some of the most difficult conditions, keeping us fed and warm, and keeping the electricity flowing and the lights on. I declare an interest in that my grandfather was a merchant seaman, so I am aware of a number of the issues in this area. I support the order, which puts “fair” into “seafarer”.
But I will take the Minister into some slightly different waters. All the arguments that he quite rightly and clearly made in favour of this order apply also to all those who currently suffer the indignity of unpaid internships. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, there have been precious few prosecutions under the National Minimum Wage Regulations. Can the Minister say how many prosecutions there have been under the NMW for those involved in operating unpaid internships? Does he agree that we need as a Government to increase funding so that HMRC can pursue far more NMW claims, not least in the area of unpaid internships? Would he also agree that there is a need for greater advertising communication to all to know and understand their rights under the National Minimum Wage Regulations, not least those suffering the indignity of unpaid internships?
Finally, would my noble friend agree to meet with me to see what can be done to ensure that everybody who should is availing themselves of the benefits of the national minimum wage, not least those who find themselves with nowhere to turn who are currently doing unpaid internships?
Lord Bhatia (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, this amendment order deals with the rights of people who work on ships within the territorial waters of the whole United Kingdom. In the present era of coronavirus, wages and incomes for workers must be protected. These are unusual times, where any loss of income or delays in the receipt of it can push families into poverty.
In the Explanatory Memorandum to this order, paragraph 10.3 says:
“The legal working group recommended that the existing legislation should be amended to extend the protection of the minimum wage to all seafarers working on any vessel working domestically in the UK territorial waters.”
Paragraph 10.4 says that most of the bodies said that wider public consultation was not necessary. Companies not paying the national minimum wage to their employers will see a rise in their staff costs. I am surprised that there are still companies that continue to deny the minimum wage to their employees. The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, BEIS, should issue the necessary guidance so that all workers receive the national minimum wage. As I said earlier, the wages of those working must be protected in these difficult times.
Lord Wei (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as listed in the register. I, too, welcome this measure. As is the case for many other speakers, my main concern relates to enforcement. Given that there are limited resources and that many vessels go through our waters and work in our fishing and other industries, how will we police this? What do we do if there are bad actors who try to game the system and say that they are from other jurisdictions?
One question that I have for the Minister and for the wider team at HMRC is whether any plans exist to work with the industry both to weed out bad actors and to ensure that there is enforcement. I know that other sectors, such as in the mobile technology space with companies such as Apple, are starting to use satellite technology. This could be used, for example, to see how heavily the boats are weighed down or how many workers are on deck. Automation could be used to track the situation so that there are some teeth to this measure, rather than it being something that people regularly ignore.
Similarly, given the pressures that our fishing industry might face with Brexit and Covid, as mentioned by another noble Lord, what can we do to work with the industry to modernise it and ensure that resources are focused on paying people well and that they are looked after? There could be a danger that this measure will put quite a lot of our fleet out of business. I accept that there might be a number of bad actors who should not be in the game if they cannot make it work at this kind of wage level but, equally, we have a duty to work with the industry to make sure that it is sustainable and viable. There might be potential for the better actors within the industry to help both police this measure and improve practices with technology and so on, so that there is better transparency over how workers are looked after and so that we still have a viable and healthy fleet in fishing and other maritime industries in the future.
Lord German (LD) [V]
Like many other noble Lords, I welcome this order, but I believe that it could go further. In particular, I wish to make the case for the inclusion of workers on short sea crossings from the coastline of the United Kingdom.
The rationale given for leaving these services out of the scope of the order is given in paragraph 7.5 of the Explanatory Memorandum. It is because short sea crossings are designated as exercising the “right of innocent passage”. It is correct that if you applied this criterion universally, these short sea crossings would be ruled out of the requirements of the national living wage legislation. However, Members of your Lordships’ House will be familiar with the not infrequent use of carve-outs, where exceptions are created. Why have the Government not created one for UK-resident workers on short sea routes? These workers are being treated differently from other UK-resident workers doing exactly the same job. Is this legislation needed for them?
It is difficult to find exact levels of pay for those working on short sea crossings, but some job placement agencies are posting jobs with salary levels below the £8.20 national minimum living wage. That national minimum living wage, based on a full-time 38-hour week, gives a yearly equivalent of about £17,200. At that level, all will pay national insurance contributions, as they are earning above the £9,516 earnings threshold, and they could possibly also pay income tax, depending on their individual circumstances.
Short sea-crossing ferries are a strong component of local economies around the ports they serve. Therefore, it is difficult to understand why the Government have stopped short of ensuring the national minimum wage for those who work on these ferries, both passenger and freight. Let us take the examples of Heysham and Liverpool. Ferries go from these ports to Belfast, so are captured by this legislation. Other examples are the Isle of Man and Dublin, both of which fall outside this legislation. There is an additional level of unfairness for those working out of Holyhead, Fishguard and Pembroke Dock, compared with those in Stranraer or Penryn.
Treating UK taxpayers and residents differently depending on which short sea crossing they are working on is clearly unfair. Typically, those working short sea crossings will have a home at one end or the other of the crossing. The Government can easily identify those resident in the UK because they pay national insurance contributions. Therefore, in reality, this group of workers is being discriminated against by virtue of the fact that their place of work moves. Add to that the failure to apply the very sensible obligation in this order to short sea crossings to France and other nearby neighbours, and we have let down a number of low-paid workers across our country. I ask the Minister to explain why the Government have failed to include them in this order and to say whether the Government will bring forward further statutory instruments to correct this matter.
Baroness Altmann (Con) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on his excellent introduction to this SI, which I fully support. The vital work of seafarers is often unrecognised. They operate all year round, in often the most dangerous conditions, to keep global trade afloat. Moving vital supplies and goods is essential for the availability of the products that we take for granted in our way of life, and that has been particularly pertinent at this time of global crisis, when it has been so important to see goods reach our shores.
The Government estimate the cost of this measure at just £3.2 million, which is surely a price worth paying to ensure that all seafarers, offshore or in UK territorial waters and the UK continental shelf, at least receive the minimum wage. Especially as we celebrate the 10th anniversary of this annual Day of the Seafarer, I also encourage my noble friend to consider pressing for seafarers to be classed as key workers. Recently, the pandemic and the effects of the restrictions on travel have caused repatriation problems, with crew changes and people often being stranded and unable to be readily repatriated.
As my noble friend explained, this SI will ensure that the UK is the first country to offer this minimum protection to seafarers.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it makes a welcome change to speak in your Lordships’ House on a measure of social progress brought forward by the Government. That is rarely the case and I really hope that we will see more of it. It is also welcome to see the co-operation with unions behind this order. It would be lovely to see more of that, particularly with the teaching unions with regard to Covid-19 and the reopening of schools.
I noted that in his comprehensive introduction the noble Viscount referred to semi-skilled and skilled roles being affected by the order. That is quite telling. People who have probably developed their skills through training and experience should see a rise in their wages with the minimum wage. It brings to the fore the way in which in far too many industries the minimum wage has become not a floor but the standard payment for a large number of people.
I also echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, about enforcement. We all know that one prosecution per year in no way reflects the level of failure to comply with the existing minimum wage legislation.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, I have to focus on the fact that we have a minimum wage but not a living wage. The situation for people under the age of 25 is particularly difficult. They are not paid enough money to live on, and often they are paid a lot less than others over the age of 25 who work beside them and do the same job. The fact is that younger workers have to live too, and any kind of assumption that they can rely on family support instead of decent pay cannot be considered well founded.
If we are talking about the minimum wage, we need to look at the real living wage, as calculated by the Living Wage Foundation, and at the work of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation on minimum income standards. In 2019 the JRF concluded that the wage level for a single person is £36 below what is needed for a basic minimum standard, and for a couple working full-time with two children it is £47 a week below what is needed. In the age of Covid-19, we have to focus more and more on resilience, and that has to mean at a foundational level the resilience of households. Households cannot save or deal with shocks if the minimum wage is not a real living wage.
Finally, we have to look at training more seafarers. A number of noble Lords referred to offshore wind, in particular, and perhaps, in the future, offshore tidal power. We will need to see the necessary training and development of the skills required to work in those areas. We also need to see the necessary skills to carry out research in our oceans, as we very much need to understand the desperate state of our nature crisis and our climate emergency.
Lord Chidgey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support and welcome this legislation. First, I declare an interest because I have been a long-time supporter of the Shipwrecked Mariners’ Society, which has well advertised the issue. This is the international Day of the Seafarer, which will be followed by Seafarers Awareness Week in July. One reason for my support is that I come from a long line of master mariners in north Somerset, who, in the 19th century, sadly suffered severe loss when five members of the family were lost at sea in a storm off Land’s End. That affected my family for some time after.
The purpose of the order is to extend the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, the passing of which I remember well. I vividly recall taking the Bill through the other place for the Liberal Democrats. It was fiercely opposed by the right-wing press, which claimed that the legislation would wreck our economy. Evidence from the USA was to the contrary, where Senator Edward Kennedy had produced reports and studies demonstrating how introduction of the national minimum wage created uplifts in local low-wage economies. Notwithstanding that, the then Conservative Opposition fought the Bill tooth and nail, filibustering in Committee to the extent that one meeting continued throughout the night. It became the longest continuous Committee session ever recorded at that time.
As regards the order, I have several general points and I should be grateful for the noble Viscount’s response. I am particularly concerned about the assessment that the Government have made of the number of UK employees who could be affected by the legislation. I understand that we do not have definitive figures. When can we expect them?
There are other points on which I am not clear. Does the order apply to crews of pilot vessels? Perhaps the Minster can clarify that. How are employees stationed on offshore oil rigs and supply vessels affected? The wide exceptions in paragraphs (2) and (3) of the original 1999 order are replaced. These set out in detail which ships fall within the scope of the order, how they are crewed and how they sail. This appears to be a complex task for the regulatory process. Given the history of the national minimum wage and the lack of prosecutions for failure to comply, how will the logistics be managed? Which agencies will be responsible?
Finally, section 12 of the Explanatory Notes, entitled “Impact”, states that
“the total cost to business could be as high as £3.2m per annum.”
Can the Minister provide us with guidance on how and when we will know the total number of employees that the figure is based on, and what resources will be required to implement the order effectively?
Baroness Randerson (LD) [V]
My Lords, this order is good news. It considerably broadens those categories of workers who will be entitled to the minimum wage. The 1999 order made several exceptions that this order narrows considerably, whereby the requirement for the minimum wage will apply in future to fishers in UK territorial waters and to dredgers, irrespective of where the vessels are registered or whether the workers themselves normally live or work in the UK.
This SI will, therefore, simplify the system and, I hope, make it more enforceable. Above all, it will bring long-overdue justice to the pay of both seafarers and those who work on offshore installations. It is a measure of how far the debate has moved on this issue that it now seems shocking that the original legislation was cast in a way that allowed for two rates of pay, according to nationality, for people doing the same job on the same ship. Shipping is one of the last sectors to apply differential rates of pay. The argument is sometimes put forward that for seafarers from poorer countries whose pay is lower than that of fellow workers, it is still good by the standards of their home nation. To me that sounds remarkably imperialist and should be an argument consigned to the past. That is the basis for exploitation of foreign workers.
We are leaving the sheltering umbrella of EU legislation that for decades has served to raise the standard of employment practices in the UK. It is therefore more important than ever that we measure ourselves by the highest standards, and I am delighted that the noble Viscount pointed out that we are leading the world on this. It is a matter of regret that it is not possible to modify or exclude Section 43 of the Act, and the minimum wage requirement still excludes share fishers. It is also important to bear in mind that this will not apply to a lot of self-employed workers and micro-businesses. My noble friend Lord German drew attention to the exclusion of those working onshore for sea crossings. Are there any other important exclusions?
A cross-departmental legal working group was convened in 2017 to look at the issue, following a decade of concerns among stakeholders. There was broad representation on this group from across the industry—unions as well as ship owners—and a clear recommendation for action. Like my noble friend Lady Burt, I ask the Minister: why has it taken three years to get round to this legislation, which comes after at least seven years of debate? Is it simply that it has been on hold because of Brexit, or have there been genuine legal complexities?
I detected a note of frustration on the Government’s part as I read the Explanatory Memorandum. They have clearly not had the full co-operation of all ship owners. Paragraph 12.3 states that ship owners have said that certain services may “no longer be viable” but they have not been able to provide any examples. As my noble friend Lady Northover said, the minimum wage did not lead to the predicted job losses when it was introduced. We can probably assume that the industry will be more robust than those ship owners predict. The size of the problem and hence its true cost cannot be quantified because of the lack of information from the industry. I therefore ask the noble Viscount: if he cannot give us precise numbers, does he have any estimate of the proportion of maritime workers who will be drawn into the minimum wage as a result of this SI?
Paragraph 13.3 refers to familiarisation costs. I realise the complexities of this for small businesses, so will the UK Chamber of Shipping be providing information and training to assist those involved?
Finally, while this SI is not part of the legislation relating to Brexit, it is an opportunity for me to remind the Minister that the Government have a large backlog of maritime-related EU legislation, some of it dating back a decade, not yet incorporated into UK law. This has been repeatedly cited as an matter of concern by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Can the noble Viscount provide an update on progress with that backlog?
Lord Rosser (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I put on record our recognition and appreciation of the vital contribution and role of seafarers at all times, and particularly at present.
We support the order since it reflects the agreed recommendations of a working group chaired by the Department for Transport on which seafarers, ship owners and companies were represented through their respective organisations. I understand, though, that the scope of the working group was restricted in advance to conditions on domestic—that is, UK-to-UK—and offshore energy routes, primarily North Sea oil and gas installations.
As the Minister has said, the order amends the National Minimum Wage (Offshore Employment) Order 1999 by extending the provisions of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 to all seafarers working in UK territorial waters or in the UK sector of the continental shelf, except where they are working on a ship exercising the right of innocent passage or the right of transit passage. In practical terms it secures an enforceable legal baseline for seafarers’ pay on domestic offshore supply and cargo routes between UK ports, including the UK continental shelf.
What the order does not apply to is international routes from UK ports, including the short sea routes to the European mainland. UK ratings have been systematically replaced over the last three decades, to the extent that they now only account for just under 20% of seafarers in the UK shipping industry. That is because there is no legislation covering seafarers employed on ships working from UK ports that provides a baseline for seafarers’ pay that better protects UK ratings’ jobs from basic rates of pay well below our national minimum wage.
I understand that the working group that made the recommendations reflected in the draft order was an ad hoc body, and presumably it no longer exists. Surely, though, we need to look at the position of UK seafarer employment further in the light of what has happened over the last 30 years. There is a new restart and recovery group on which the International Chamber of Shipping and the seafarer trade unions are represented. Can this group not be asked to look also at means of increasing UK seafarer employment post Covid-19 to increase the resilience of ferry, coastal cargo and other merchant shipping sectors?
Do the Government not accept that we need plans to address the effect of nationality-based pay and other forms of discrimination against seafarers on international ferry and other routes from UK ports? Indeed, I understand that the Secretary of State told the Commons Select Committee this week that very low crewing costs for foreign seafarers on the publicly subsidised Hull to Rotterdam route is perfectly legal, so the Government cannot do anything about it. Does that mean that the Government are going to throw in the towel on this issue? That does not sound like “standing up for Britain”. Can the Government give an undertaking that they will take this issue on board and look seriously, with seafarer and employer organisations, at what needs to be done to address the issue of low-cost crewing well below our minimum wage that occurs on international ferry and other routes from UK ports to even other European countries with a similar standard of living?
I turn to the Explanatory Memorandum. I wanted to ask some questions about the extent of the impact of the order, but the memorandum’s wording in paragraph 12 suggests that this might not be a straightforward or simple question—an issue to which, for example, the noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, referred. The memorandum says that the total cost to business of extending the scope of the national minimum wage in line with the order
“could be as high as £3.2m per annum.”
It goes on to say that there is no robust data on how many employees who would now be covered by the order are not already being paid in accordance with the UK minimum wage, and that there is
“a lack of concurrence amongst sources which are available.”
Despite this lack of robust data, the memorandum goes on to indicate:
“Shipowners have stated that certain services may no longer be viable, but have been unable to identify any that may be impacted.”
Surely employers know how many people they employ and how much they currently pay them, so why was it not possible to provide a realistic costing of the changes to the scope and application of the minimum wage provided for in the order and the impact that it will have? How indeed was the figure of “as high as £3.2m” calculated?
Maybe there is a straightforward explanation for this lack of clarity, in which case, since the Department for Transport chaired the working group, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us what it is. The other possible explanation is that that part of the shipping industry that will now be covered by the further national minimum wage order is all at sea when it comes to keeping accurate records—or, alternatively, that it does keep accurate records but, for reasons about which one can only speculate, is not prepared to disclose them.
Despite this—since, as I said, his department chaired the working group—I ask the Minister: how many seafarers are covered by this extension of the application of the national minimum wage? Can the Minister also tell us what impact this order is expected to have on the low-percentage figure for the number of seafarers in the UK shipping industry who are UK ratings?
The Government have said that this order will allow HMRC to focus enforcement on vessels working domestically. Like my noble friend Lord Hain, I want to ask: what budget will be provided to HMRC and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency to check, effectively and thoroughly, vessels working domestically, and what will be the additional training requirements?
Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum states in paragraph 12.4:
“In addition to the anticipated staff cost to business, there is the potential for extra costs as a result of proceedings in employment tribunals and the courts.”
What is the extent of these potential extra costs, and what circumstances are envisaged that could lead to the proceedings in employment tribunals and the courts that are referred to?
Viscount Younger of Leckie [V]
My Lords, I start by saying that I am very pleased that this order has been broadly welcomed by the House this afternoon. As the noble Lord, Lord Hain, said, seafarers make a vital contribution to our economy, and my noble friend Lady McIntosh reminded us of the dangers faced by those working offshore, including in fishing. I was also rather struck by the speech from my noble friend Lord Holmes, who mentioned proudly his grandfather’s experience.
I will pick up on a couple of points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. I reassure her that seafarers are classed as key workers. I take her point about the different roles, defined as non-skilled, skilled or semi-skilled, but I remind the House that many of these roles are already paid above the national minimum wage. So the picture is not quite as bad as the noble Baroness painted, but more needs to be done. I also want to answer a question about age raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mann. He asked about the effect of a birthday occurring—presumably because, of course, there are different rates for different ages as regards this order. Under national minimum wage legislation, what matters is the age at the start of the pay reference period; we do not see the need to change the rules on the calculation.
I shall address as many questions as I can. Inevitably, there were a lot and I feel that I will be writing a letter; I shall be reading Hansard very carefully after this debate. I shall go straight into answering questions raised about costs, led by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Burt and Lady Randerson. Although we have asked the salary costs for seafarers working domestically, operators have been reluctant to share detailed employment costs with government, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, recognised. The UK does not restrict access to its domestic market, and therefore not all seafarers will be represented by a domestic union.
To assist the noble Lord, perhaps, we have statistical data on vessel types and vessel operations, which has allowed us to estimate the number of seafarers working domestically. We have a knowledge of expected salary levels across grades and have evidence from collective bargaining agreements and other sources such as job adverts. This has allowed us to make reasonable assumptions regarding costs and the number of seafarers. This is set out, as he may have seen, in the de minimis assessment that was undertaken in connection with this order.
We must also be clear that industry bodies have stated that many seafarers working domestically are already paid at rates commensurate with the minimum wage—a point I made earlier. We believe that setting a minimum salary level in our domestic market will benefit UK ratings and allow them to compete for jobs on a more level playing field. I realise that the answer I have given is not perfect and, clearly, I agree with many in the House that there is more work to be done to analyse the data in this area.
The subject of ferry routes cropped up—as I predicted it might—raised by the noble Lord, Lord Mann, who made some very good points on ferry wages, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. We are aware that concern remains that ferry routes are largely not covered by the amendments and that some ferry services may be using low-cost employment models. Let me be clear that routes operating between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the Scottish ferries and other domestic services are covered. Ferries operating to the rest of Europe are on international voyages and, unless flagged with the UK, are outside our jurisdiction. Operators on the North Sea routes have stated that low-cost models are necessary to allow them to provide such a service; otherwise, these services would not be economically viable—a point raised again during the debate.
We are committed to improving standards here and will consider other options in regard to these operations. I note the pertinent points raised by the noble Lord, Lord German, on short crossings. Perhaps I might give some reassurance by saying that UK resident seafarers are also covered by Section 1 of the Act, so if working regularly on a service to or from a UK port, seafarers should be, invariably, eligible for the national minimum wage. In answer to the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, there are no other exclusions that I know of.
The noble Baroness moved on to discussing differential pay. Maritime is the only sector in the UK that continues to permit this. This is set out in the Equality Act 2010 (Work on Ships and Hovercraft) Regulations 2011. The then coalition Government did not outlaw it completely as the protection would apply only to UK-registered vessels and there was concern that owners would simply flag away from the UK to avoid the requirement, thereby removing protection from any seafarer, regardless of nationality. The industry will still state that differential pay is the necessary requirement and that seafarers are paid a competitive rate when considered against the average salaries they could receive in their own countries. I acknowledge that this remains a difficult argument to accept when it would not be accepted in any other sector. The Government will consider whether further changes are required when the Equality Act regulations are reviewed towards the end of this year.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, also asked about the outstanding maritime legislation and I hope I can give an explanation here. A programme of planned legislation up to 2023 was shared with the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee last year. This identified no less than 44 separate SIs. Of that list, four SIs have been completed, with a further 10 planned to be laid by the end of 2020; 12 are expected to be completed in 2021, with the remaining 23, including five that have since been added to the list, expected to be completed by the end of 2023.
The unprecedented and challenging global pandemic we are all facing has meant that work on some SIs has been temporarily paused, while others have been deferred to 2021 to help alleviate pressures on parliamentary time in late 2020, allowing for necessary EU-related legislation at the end of the current implementation period.
I move on to several questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Chidgey. I was interested to hear about his family background and the stark reminder of how dangerous the sea is. First, he inquired about enforcement, which was also raised by my noble friend Lord Wei. BEIS is responsible for funding HMRC enforcement of the minimum wage. The 2021 overall budget is £27.5 million, of which £26.4 million is allocated to HMRC enforcement. HMRC takes a risk-based approach to enforcement, which means it can flex its resources to tackle an emerging threat or issue, including for seafarers working in the shipping industry. HMRC recently closed a seafarer case, identifying approximately £31,000 in arrears for nine workers and issuing penalties of over £56,000.
In 2018-19, HMRC identified over £24.4 million in arrears for more than 220,000 workers. This is more than a 50% increase on the amount of arrears identified in the previous financial year and a 10% increase on the number of workers identified. The increased clarity of the requirements should allow HMRC better to target its resources and ensure greater overall compliance.
The noble Lord, Lord Chidgey, asked about the status of pilots and offshore workers. They may already be covered within the existing requirements of Section 1 or Section 40 of the Act; if not, they will meet the eligibility requirements set out in the order. Employees on offshore oil rigs are already covered by the existing requirements but this will bring crew on offshore supply vessels into scope.
The noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, spoke about Scotland. He made some very kind remarks about my father, for which I am grateful. Of course, the minimum wage is a reserved matter. However, we have kept the devolved Administrations informed. This order should be particularly welcomed by the Scottish Government, who have made an admirable commitment to ensuring that the minimum wage is paid on all Scottish ferries. The order will further strengthen their position and should greatly support those working in the supply sector of the UK offshore energy market.
The noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, made important points about skills and training. Creating a skilled, diverse and flexible workforce is essential to the future success of the maritime sector. To support the sector, the Government have worked with industry in creating a suite of maritime apprenticeships and are driving up the cadet intake though SMarT—Support for Maritime Training—with funding increasing to £30 million by 2024-25. The department has provided £300,000 in funding to establish a maritime skills commission. It has also provided £100,000 to support the 1851 Trust STEM roadshows for girls, £40,000 to the Maritime and Me project and £40,000 to the Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers Trust.
The noble Baroness, Lady Northover, asked a number of questions. She will be pleased to know that I have answers but they are only semi to hand so, bearing in mind the time, I will write to her.
I hope noble Lords will agree that this is a small but significant step toward raising employment standards for seafarers working domestically in the UK. We are an island nation, yet we are often sea-blind to the seafarers who do so much to support our economy, as I said earlier. The UK has rightly been lauded for its support and compassion for seafarers not just in the UK but of all nationalities. The MCA and the Marine Accident Investigation Branch are recognised around the world for their high standards.
We are not standing still. People are an integral part of our Maritime 2050 strategy. We will continue to work closely with the sector to attract more people to it. Today, we announced that the UK Government will host the first international summit on the impact of Covid-19 on crew changes next month, bringing together UN, political and business leaders from across the globe. This will be led by the Maritime Minister, Kelly Tolhurst, and will be an opportunity to reflect on the impact of this dreadful pandemic on the global shipping industry and on what Governments and industry must do to protect the welfare of crew workers around the world.
On the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Burt, the UK has repatriated more than 7,000 seafarers from cruise vessels recently.
We have a long and important maritime history. I am sure that the UK will continue to play its part on the global stage.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, we come to the Second Reading of the Sentencing Bill. Some Members are here in the Chamber, and others will participate virtually, but all Members will be treated equally. For Members participating remotely, microphones will unmute shortly before they are asked to speak. Please accept any on-screen prompts. 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.
Sentencing Bill [HL]
Thursday 25th June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Sentencing Act 2020 View all Sentencing Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Keen of Elie) (Con) [V]
My Lords, I believe noble Lords will agree with me that the law must be accessible, understandable and predictable. Unfortunately, with the greatest will in the world it has become difficult to say this about one particular aspect of our criminal law, that of sentencing procedure. Over the course of a generation, this body of law has grown incredibly complex and disparate. We have seen numerous examples of even the greatest legal minds in the country spending too much time trying to disentangle which provisions apply in individual cases. That is to say nothing of the challenge of victims and offenders themselves understanding the rules that will govern their case. Such a lack of transparency must be addressed.
That is why, in 2014, the Government agreed that the Law Commission should undertake a project designed to consolidate sentencing procedural law. The resulting consolidation Bill before your Lordships brings together the provisions which prescribe what happens to an offender who has been convicted of, or pleaded guilty to, a criminal offence. The substantive provisions of the Bill make up what is to be known as the Sentencing Code. The Sentencing Code contains the procedural provisions which courts need to rely upon during the sentencing process. This includes general provisions applying to sentencing courts, such as the purposes of sentencing, the duty to explain sentences and statutory aggravating and mitigating factors. It also includes the different types of sentence, such as fines, community sentences and custodial sentences, and also behaviour orders which can be imposed in addition to a sentence: namely, criminal behaviour orders, sexual harm prevention orders, restraining orders and parenting orders.
To aid accessibility and to help minimise the risk of error in the sentencing process, the Sentencing Code structures these provisions in an order which follows the chronology of a sentencing hearing. Certain provisions, such as the power to impose an extended sentence, are split by age of the offender. The Sentencing Code also includes signposts to other legislative provisions which will remain outside the Sentencing Code, to ensure these are not overlooked during the sentencing process.
The Bill also consolidates certain uncommenced provisions, such as the minimum sentencing provisions in the Offensive Weapons Act 2019 relating to certain offences concerning prohibited weapons and the possession of corrosive substances. These uncommenced provisions can be found in Schedule 22 to the Bill, separate from the main body of the Sentencing Code. This approach is intended to ensure that users of the Sentencing Code can be completely confident that the provision they are looking at is in force. If an uncommenced provision is commenced in the future, consolidating such a provision in Schedule 22 should make the commencement process straightforward.
The Law Commission consulted on a draft version of the Bill in 2017, and in 2018 conducted a separate consultation relating to the disposals in the Sentencing Code that are available for children and young persons. Both consultations received widespread backing from judges, lawyers and academics.
I remind the House that this Bill does not introduce any new sentencing law; nor does it make changes to existing offences and penalties. Indeed, as it is a consolidation Bill, it is not open to either House to seek to amend it in order to make such changes.
I finish by acknowledging that the Government are extremely grateful to the staff at the Law Commission and parliamentary counsel for their detailed and thorough work in this area over the past five years. The creation of this Bill is a tremendous achievement by the Law Commission and bears testament to the diligence and persistence with which it has approached this consolidation exercise.
If your Lordships are content to give the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the usual way. I beg to move.
Lord Judge (CB) [V]
My Lords, today I feel the beginning of the relief of the Victorian poet who reminded us:
“That even the weariest river
Winds somewhere safe to sea.”
For many years now—certainly since the start of the millennium—criminal justice has from time to time provoked periods of political and consequently legislative frenzy. Indeed, we can shortly anticipate a new manifestation, telegraphed for us in the Conservative Party election manifesto. But this is an apolitical Bill that has nothing to do with party politics and simply addresses the chaos created by endless legislation, both primary and secondary, that has directly or indirectly impacted on the sentencing decision.
It will not make the sentencing decision for the judge or magistrate any easier, but what it does—and we are indebted to the brilliant imagination of Professor Ormerod and his team at the Law Commission and to the parliamentary counsel, who identified pinch points—is to enable the court to get exceptionally convoluted technicalities right. It does so by clean-sweeping the technicalities into a code.
Strikingly, the Bill ensures that no one will be at risk of being sentenced to a heavier penalty than could have been imposed at the date of the commission of the offence; this is obviously fundamental. Retrospectivity is prevented. Equally strikingly, the code is drafted in such a way that any future legislation relating to sentencing and procedure can be pitted into the code. This is a living document, capable of flexible amendment, so a gauntlet is thrown down to us parliamentarians to make sure we adopt it.
Any judge trying criminal cases will appreciate how typical this single example from my own experience is. The defendant was sentenced to imprisonment 12 years ago. The issue for him is: how long? When will I be out? Naturally, he asked his lawyers how long it would be. When he arrived in prison, calculations were made on the basis of the then legislation and he was told that his release date would be such and such. That is told to every prisoner on arrival, because it matters to him and the prison authorities, so he knew. As his release date approached, some bright individual within the prison or the Home Office wondered whether that release date was right. It was checked by the prison authorities, the Home Office and eventually a judge; it came to the Court of Appeal. From among the various options, we made a decision. We decided that he had been kept in custody too long, wrongly imprisoned.
I am sure your Lordships will forgive me if I quote what I said then. I do so because I would not change a word of it now. I said that
“elementary principles of justice have come … to be buried in the legislative morass. … It is outrageous that so much intellectual effort, as well as public time and resources, have had to be expended … to discover a route … to what should be … the simplest and most certain of questions”.
This Bill will clear up that morass.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble and learned Lord and to pick up the issue of trying to find our way through the morass, to which, I have to admit, I contributed as Home Secretary, with responsibility for justice and sentencing, with a plethora of legislation between 2001 and 2004. The only part of the Criminal Justice Act that I am not proud of is the element relating to indeterminate sentences, not because the intention was wrong, but because the implementation was left far too much to chance—or what I might have called, to pick up the pieces from the earlier contribution, common sense.
The 2012 research undertaken by the Law Commission, to which I also pay tribute, discovered that 36% of sentences were wrongly applied, in one way or another, which is staggering. I had hoped that the Sentencing Guidelines Council, which we set up in the Criminal Justice Act, would have been able to provide the kind of guidance that the noble and learned Lord just referred to, but sadly not. The codification, alongside this consolidation, gives us the opportunity for much greater clarity for the offender, those perpetrated against and those operating the criminal justice system.
I will refer briefly to Part 4 and seek the Minister’s clarification on an issue that is now under extended sentences but was under IPP. It is where somebody is involved in a breach. We still have people, even from 2012, when the IPP was abolished, returned to prison and given a sentence relating to the IPP for, sometimes, a minor breach, which results in extending an already dubious procedure. Could the Minister clarify whether, under the clean break element of this, these matters can now be cleared up once and for all in the interests of justice? I think it is in Clause 273, but there are 420 clauses. With the capacity I have at the moment out of London, I am relying a little more on the seat of my pants than I normally would.
Finally, I hope the follow-through to this will be extremely good training for all those involved at every level of the criminal justice system. It struck me in 2003 that that really was the missing element.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
My Lords, I must confess to some diffidence in finding myself between the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge, Lord Hope of Craighead and Lord Mackay of Clashfern, since, unlike them, I have never had the responsibility of sentencing anyone. Indeed, it is difficult to resist the temptation to adopt the elegant observations of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, brevitatis causa, as lawyers are accustomed to say, but I wish to make some observations of my own.
There can hardly ever have been a legal Bill that enjoys such judicial and professional support as this one. Indeed, as has been said on at least one previous occasion, we could almost pass this Bill by acclamation. The Law Commission has fulfilled its responsibility to make the law clearer, shorter and more accessible, having rightly judged that sentencing legislation was inefficient and lacking in transparency. How could it do otherwise, as has already been referred to, when the analysis of 262 randomly selected cases from the Court of Appeal in 2012 revealed that 36% were illegal sentences? The question that arises from that is: what guidance was given to those who passed those sentences and what happened to those who had been sentenced in that way, illegally?
The Bill’s approach is novel, with the creation of a code allied to the use of a clean sweep. My question is whether a similar approach may be appropriate in other areas of the law. Indeed, I suppose that my question is really for the Law Commission: is it now looking for other such opportunities? I welcome the exception to protect the fundamental rights of an offender and the Bar Council’s pragmatic endorsement of the proposals on Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights and on retroactivity.
Finally, there is an excellent impact assessment that justifies close reading, but for some reason there are no Explanatory Notes to the Bill. Why not?
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con) [V]
My Lords, the number of Acts consolidated in this Bill shows the large number of Acts that are relevant to sentencing. Is it any wonder that judges, being human, sometimes made mistakes? When I became a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, I was appointed to the Consolidation Committee then presided over by Lord Brightman. He taught me what a demanding task consolidation is. It involves checking that the law you put into the consolidation is correct and, more difficult, making sure that you leave nothing out.
I thank from the bottom of my heart everyone who has been involved in this massive enterprise. That includes Law Commissioners and their staff, Ministers and their officials, staff and department, and parliamentary counsel and their staff. Now we have the massive product of all their work. It is extremely difficult to say what happens now. Will it just start to build up again? In relation to that, in this Bill there is the important provision that, where something covered by the scope of this Bill is amended by an Act of Parliament, that Act must amend this Act to include it. That seems to me a very excellent way of preventing the building-up anew of the situation about which my friend the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, spoke in the case to which he referred.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am happy to join those who have already spoken in welcoming this Bill and paying tribute to its chief architect, Professor David Ormerod. Like almost everyone else, all I have seen so far is the online version, but that is enough for me to appreciate what a fine piece of work this is.
What impressed me most as I worked through the first 24 pages, which set out the Bill’s contents, is the clarity and simplicity of the layout. Accessibility in a Bill of this kind, which contains so much detail, is the key to its success. It is also the key to the future. The law never stands still; this is especially true of the law about sentencing. This Bill must be able to accommodate changes, as my noble and learned friend Lord Judge has pointed out. It must be a living code. I believe that its designers have done everything possible to achieve that.
In this respect its design can be compared with a consolidating measure with which I was familiar, the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. It began its life as a Bill of 309 clauses and 10 schedules. It has the same kind of layout, so it has been able to accommodate many changes over the past 25 years without losing its shape and accessibility. It now has 450 sections and 12 schedules. The Bill we are discussing today has 420 clauses and 16 schedules, so it has a bit of catching up to do. The important point is that, like the 1995 Act, its design lends itself to a steady enlargement of this kind while remaining accessible and easy to use.
As for the future—as to what happens now, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, put it—the responsibility now passes to government. The designers have done all that they could possibly to make the Bill fit for a long life. For that to happen, however, it must now be firmly understood within government that changes to the law on sentencing must always be made only by changing the code which the Bill lays down. We must not resort to their being scattered around in so many different places, as they have been until now.
Another point lies within the responsibility of government. Most of us who want to keep up with the current state of statute law have to go online to the UK statute law database. In the past, the updating of this system has sometimes been rather slow. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord the Minister could assure the House that it has and will continue to have the resources it needs for the prompt updating on which so many of us depend.
Lord Morris of Aberavon (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister for his careful explanation of the Bill. When I sent for it, I was overwhelmed by its sheer volume. I join in its universal welcome. I do so as a criminal law practitioner over a period of 40 to 50 years, and I am humbled by the speeches from distinguished ex-judges.
I remember sitting as a young assistant recorder, dragooned by my former pupil master, Sir Alun Davies QC, to sit as his deputy as a recorder of Cardiff in about 1972. I shall never forget the first case I tried, involving a novel defence in a breathalyser case, having just helped as a junior Minister to pilot the Bill in question through the House of Commons. Breathalyser legislation turned out to be a cottage industry. When I ruled against the defence counsel, I thought it would end my judicial career. It did, but not for that reason: rather, because of my lack of judicial aspiration when set against the delights of politics. Some of the difficulties one had to negotiate when sitting as a judge involved complex sentencing on traffic cases, for example, and changes from time to time in suspended sentences. Frequently, the clerk and even the jailer were more up to speed than the judge himself.
My thanks go to the Law Commission, created by Lord Gardiner under a Labour Government in which I also served very happily as a junior Minister. The striking feature of the briefing for this debate, already mentioned, is the complexity of statutory provisions. The Law Commission, having analysed 260 randomly selected cases before the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, found that 36% of cases had received unlawful sentences. Sir Brian Leveson has underlined the difficulties and struggles of judges in sentencing. I hope the judiciary will be able to navigate sentencing easier when the Bill receives Royal Assent. Equally important, the public and the sentenced will have more confidence in the judicial system.
I particularly welcome the clean-sweep provisions. They are very modest and adhere to and endorse the human rights convention. I hope they will be manageable against that background. They deal only with offences committed in the past, so they will apply only for a period. With those few remarks, I welcome the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con) [V]
My Lords, first I draw attention to my interests as set out in the register.
I warmly welcome this legislation. The principle of consolidation is an excellent one and I am pleasantly struck by the near-universal support for it in this instance. The proposed new code will bring greater clarity, which in turn will assist legal professionals in accurately identifying and applying the law, reducing the risk of error, appeals and unnecessary delays.
The Bill will also enhance access to the sentencing process, and particularly its transparency, for the general public. I was a member of the Constitution Committee, and our report of 25 October 2017 contained a substantial section dealing with consolidation. We had been particularly struck by evidence from the Law Commission which had set out two arguments in favour of consolidation. The first was that
“unlike a Queen’s Printer’s copy, a statute in digital form can be readily updated when the legislation is amended”.
Secondly, statute law is accessible free of charge on the internet, so that a single Act of Parliament containing all the statute law on one subject can be a useful resource that is available to the public as well as to lawyers. We found those arguments persuasive and we recommended that:
“The Government should as a priority provide the Law Commission with the necessary resources to start consolidating those areas of the law where the consistent application of the law is under threat from the sheer complexity of the statute book. The evidence we received indicates that consolidating immigration law and sentencing law in particular would offer real benefits.”
Consolidation may lack the giddy excitement that we associate with so many debates in the House, but it is tremendously valuable to the courts, to those who support the courts and to society in general.
All those of us who have studied law will recall the lengthy and often arid discussions about the nature of laws, what makes a good law and so forth. I have always inclined to the view of the late Sir John Mortimer:
“No brilliance is needed in the law, nothing but common sense and relatively clean fingernails.”
There is no single or simple answer to the question of what makes a good law, but if a complex system is codified and made more readily accessible, that to my mind makes for a better law and a better system of law.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I have to declare a lack of interest in this Bill. I am not a lawyer, nor one of those who has been involved in the changing of sentences, but one thing we can be absolutely sure of is that politicians do like changing them. Over the three decades that I have been here, I have heard numerous discussions in this Chamber about being tough on the law. It is one of the most constant discussions. Something that will simplify and codify the law on sentencing, even if it is a rather knee-jerk reaction—I do not doubt that that is the least important ground for doing it—has to be welcomed. Anything that makes the law easier to understand must also be welcomed.
It is easy for someone to play to the galleries, but there is a principle here which has been brought to my attention. It is Article 7 of the European Convention on Human Rights:
“Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed”.
In other words, do not toughen up the sentence because the law has subsequently been changed. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, will be able to explain to me how, under this code, that cannot happen, but there are a few other variables that he could help to clear up as well. It is odd to be talking to an empty Bench, but I am sure that he is listening.
If we are now going to have minimum sentences for certain offences, along with ways of imposing them like second strikes and so on, how is that going to work? It would be very interesting to hear about that. I am sure that many legal minds will be listening and thinking, “Oh, that is covered in such-and-such.” Can I hear the answer so that I can understand it? I am a lay person and I do not have legal training, so if I can understand it, probably just about anyone can. Please can we be helped to understand how this is going to work? If changes are made, will you be unable to go back and say, “We do not think that they should have come out of prison, and that sentence ought to have been changed.” If we are working to the principle that someone is convicted under the law, how is that going to work?
Apart from that—I hope that that explanation will be given—I have no objections to this Bill. Someone referred to the physical size of this legislation. Having walked past it, I can say that it would be quite a feat for anyone to carry a copy into the Chamber, and I doubt if many of us could manage two. There is a lot of paper involved.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Alderdice) (LD)
I call the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. We do not seem to be able to communicate with him, so I shall call the noble Lord, Lord Adonis.
Lord Adonis (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I cannot think of anybody in the House less fitted to impersonate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. However, it is my duty to make some remarks. The consensus in favour of the Bill is admirable. It is extremely weighty in terms of the judicial expertise of the House, and therefore I have no hesitation whatever in supporting it. As the Minister said, the law must be accessible and under- standable, and if it is felt not to be sufficiently accessible and understandable by people who have practised the law, that alone is a justification for the Bill.
On the alarming point about the high number of sentences which higher courts find to have been illegal, it is not absolutely clear to me from reading that piece of work how far that is to do with the law being inaccessible and how far it is to do with the misapplication of the law. It looks as if a large proportion of those cases, if not almost all of them, would have occurred even under this legislation. However, it may be that having everything codified in one place will improve things; it is very hard to argue against that principle, and I do not seek to do so.
However, I regard the Bill as a serious wasted opportunity. While the lack of accessibility and codification of sentencing law might be an issue, and I accept that therefore this Bill should proceed, by far the bigger issue in respect of sentencing is the positive content of sentencing law itself, which to my mind is not fit for purpose. We have seen the prison population in Britain treble in the last 40 years—it is now by far the largest in Europe, per capita as well as absolutely. However, longer prison terms, almost all for non-violent offenders, have neither made Britain safer nor reduced crime or the fear of crime. They also stand in very stark and striking contrast to most of the rest of Europe, which has much smaller prison populations, much shorter prison terms, and much more effective alternatives to custodial sentences. It seems that the Bill essentially fiddles while the big issue is unaddressed. We should be seeking to review, modernise and learn from best practice in other civilised countries on the content of sentencing legislation; how it is actually written in the law books is a very secondary consideration.
When we last debated the Bill—as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said, this is déjà vu all over again—I found myself in striking agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Bates, from the Conservative Benches, on this issue. He made an impassioned speech about the evils of over-long sentences and creating a culture in prisons which is, frankly, deplorable and probably also against the European Convention on Human Rights. The conclusion that we both reached is that the huge judicial expertise which this House contains might be well utilised in a Select Committee to look not just at the codification of sentencing law but at its actual content. Because we are not, I am glad to say, a populist House, we would be capable of bringing our expertise to bear on this issue and we might then get a genuinely worthwhile reform, which would correct the move towards ever-longer sentences and an ever-larger prison population, and in consequence towards what I regard as a much less civilised society.
Lord Garnier (Con) [V]
My Lords, I begin by referring to my registered interest as a practising member of the Bar and a trustee of the Prison Reform Trust. I also note that over the last few decades, criminal justice Bills have become more frequent, more complex and longer. Sadly, their frequency and greater length have not always been helpful in clarifying the law. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, offered a stark example from his long experience as a senior judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, was refreshingly candid about his time as Home Secretary. All these statutes have neither helped to reduce crime nor made the work of the police, prosecutors, defence lawyers or judges any easier.
Many provisions of these Bills—or Acts of Parliament, as they now are—have been repealed by later legislation before coming into force; some have yet to be implemented, despite being part of a statute for years; some created offences that already existed; and, as far as sentencing statutes are concerned, most of them achieved little except to make the work of sentencing judges and magistrates far more difficult than it needs to be—I speak from bitter experience as a former Crown Court recorder.
It is shocking but true that some sentences passed by magistrates and judges have been unlawful and that even the Court of Appeal has on occasion got the law on sentencing wrong because it is more difficult to unravel than a tangled ball of thread. As I have often pointed out with impertinent glee, in 2012, an analysis of 262 randomly selected cases in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division found that, in 36% of them, unlawful sentences were handed down. The Law Commission attributed this to the level of complexity in the existing legislation—I heard the question just now from the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, on this.
Now we have this new Sentencing Bill. It was preceded by the Sentencing (Pre-consolidation Amendments) Act, which a number of us debated both before and after the December 2019 general election. In line with modern practice, the Sentencing Bill is vast. The table of contents alone is 24 pages long. The Bill itself contains 420 clauses, 29 schedules and covers 569 pages in two volumes. But, rather than causing me despair, this Bill is to be welcomed. It is the result of years of hard work by Professor David Ormerod and his colleagues at the Law Commission, who deserve our heartfelt congratulations and thanks—and a holiday.
Through this Bill, we are at last to have a sentencing code: one place in which the law on sentencing procedure and types of custodial and community sentence is brought together. It makes sense. It is comprehensive and comprehendable. Once this Bill is in force, everyone will be able to see clearly what Parliament means and what sentencing is for and, in particular, will have a better understanding of that most complicated area of sentencing: non-custodial sentencing.
Let us get this Bill enacted as quickly as possible, before anyone in No. 10 Downing Street or the Home Office notices and tries to fiddle with it.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak about consolidation rather than the detail of sentencing, although I am glad that this project is reaching a conclusion.
Sentencing is a discrete and most serious matter. The fact that the law surrounding it was so amended and reamended that even the most senior lawyers in the land had difficulty knowing what it was with accuracy surely had to be addressed. With 1,500 pages of sentencing law spread across many instruments, the Law Commission said that sentencing lacked transparency due to complexity; regrettably, that is the state of many of our laws.
For some subjects, 1,500 pages is short. When we started scrutinising Brexit regulations, the Financial Services and Markets Act had far more pages than that. The Treasury admitted that it could not send us an up-to-date copy as it did not have one and did not know everything that was in it. When researching my response to the corporate governance Green Paper in 2016, I asked the Library for a print of the up-to-date Companies Act 2006. It used a commercial site as the GOV.UK pages were not up to date, then telephoned to ask if I could accommodate a pallet-load of paper in my office. Both those Acts contain criminal offences and neither is all that old, in the scale of things.
With Brexit, we have hundreds more multiple, nested regulations. As we have trade talks and decisions about equivalence of laws, can we be sure that we know what our laws are? Can anyone else be sure? The EU always mistrusted how we had complied, and Brexit transpositions have exposed various mistakes and left-out bits. It has taken five years for the sentencing consolidation to get to this final stage. With that overhead, I am beginning to understand why every statutory instrument says that the Government have no plans to consolidate law—but is that really a satisfactory answer?
Finally, I welcome the updating provisions and the table of origins, but when I was looking for things in my usual subject areas, I did not find listed all the abbreviations for legislation that were used in the subsequent table. For example, abbreviations for the Financial Services Act, the Bank of England and financial services regulations, the Secretaries of State for BEIS order or the crime and courts commencement order did not show when I searched the table.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB) [V]
My Lords, in a month I shall have been a member of the Bar for 50 years, and I have included in that time sitting as a judge in criminal courts. In that time, the population of the prisons has more than doubled and the complexity of sentencing law has at least quadrupled, and I deprecate both. However, I support this Bill with enthusiasm, because it puts sentencing law in one place—as part of a living instrument, I hope. It is very important that the Bill should be brought into force as quickly as possible and I ask the Minister to confirm that this will occur by 1 October, so that there can be co-ordination between the Bill coming into force, new criminal procedure rule documents and new practice directions. Co-ordination really is required.
The Bill is a creature of the Law Commission, which I wish to praise and say that we use it far less than we should. That has been the situation throughout my political and legal life. I join those who praise particularly the extraordinary work done by Professor David Ormerod QC. What is most remarkable, apart from the output of his work, is that he is still only in mid-career: he has a huge amount to offer yet to come and we owe a great debt to his determination, as a member of the Law Commission when it was put under quite unacceptable financial attrition of its resources.
My noble friend Lady Deech, who is a non-executive director of the Law Commission, is unable to be with us this afternoon, but she has asked me to pass on to your Lordships her support for the Bill and the extraordinary work that has been done by the Law Commission and of course by parliamentary counsel. My essential message is that I hope the Bill will be treated as a true code, updated day by day as if it were a loose-leaf volume or a digital encyclopaedia. If it is dealt with as a living instrument, the courts will be more accurate, defendants will know what faces them, and their lawyers—this will be very welcome among my learned friends—will make far fewer mistakes.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab) [V]
My Lords, five years ago, the review I conducted for the then Minister for Prisons into the self-inflicted deaths of 87 young prisoners was published. I want to use—perhaps some will say abuse or certainly misuse—the opportunity of this debate to raise some general issues about the role of prison. A core conclusion of my review was that prisons are grim environments, bleak and demoralising to the spirit.
So what are the purposes of prison? The first is clearly public protection. A criminal cannot, it is argued, pursue their criminal activities from a prison cell and they cannot endanger other people. Another is to punish, and that punishment is the deprivation of liberty. It is assumed that such punishment will have a deterrent effect. The third is to enable a prisoner to be rehabilitated, given an education or training previously missed, so enabling them to become a useful citizen on release. There is probably also a final purpose in assuaging public opinion that something must be done. This last has led, over the years, to a growing prison population facing longer sentences.
Does it work? Public protection is not achieved if gang leaders can still control and run their criminal activities from inside their prison cell. Public protection is not delivered if prisoners, once released, emerge so embittered by their experience that they are even more dangerous than when they went in; if they have been radicalised by their exposure to violent extremist ideology; or, indeed, if they have used their time inside to make a whole series of new criminal contacts and acquire or hone their criminal skills to make them more effective criminals on their release.
What is the evidence that deterrence works, particularly for young men? Brain development studies show that many young men are not able to evaluate the consequences of their actions and to limit their impulsivity until their mid-20s.
Finally, what about rehabilitation? The prison experience is hardly conducive to it and it is exacerbated by staff shortages, meaning that many courses and classes cannot take place, even before the lockdown imposed by Covid-19. Most prisoners are not sufficiently engaged in purposeful activity and even medical and mental health appointments are being missed because there are insufficient escort staff. Prisons have to be substantially better resourced if they are to deliver any meaningful form of rehabilitation or even protect public safety.
Why do so many prisoners come into contact with the criminal justice system in the first place? Many of the prisoners whose cases I reviewed had problems that were evident from an early age. Many had mental health issues and a troubled adolescence. Why were they not successfully diverted away from criminal activity at a much earlier stage? Proper investment in the health and welfare system is needed to resolve the issues that create these problems of a troubled child or adolescent long before they ever enter the criminal justice system, and we need effective alternatives to custody if they get into trouble. That would be money well spent and would reduce the numbers in prison so that those there can have better rehabilitative support.
There will always be a need for prisons and a coherent, fair sentencing framework is a necessity, but for too long we have neglected what we should do to avoid people getting into trouble in the first place; and we have certainly failed to invest in the prison system sufficiently to ensure that prisons keep the public safe and rehabilitate prisoners so that when they are released they can play a proper part in society. My question to the Minister is: when and how will we address those issues?
Baroness Sater (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare that I have sat in the youth court for more than 20 years. I warmly welcome this Bill. It would introduce one coherent Sentencing Code. I join other noble Lords in paying tribute to the assiduous work of the Law Commission and note that it has received widespread support from judges, lawyers and academics, as well as the other place.
I particularly welcome the introduction of the clean sweep. It brings much-needed clarity to the application of sentencing law, deleting layers of historic sentencing legislation and making it possible for offenders to be sentenced under the new code, regardless of when an offence was committed. It is a significant step that will help avoid errors and appeals resulting from historic or redundant aspects of the legislation being incorrectly reflected in sentencing decisions.
The Bill makes important steps to simplify criminal sentencing, not only for the judiciary and legal practitioners—crucially, it also improves the clarity, accessibility and understanding of the law to defendants, witnesses, jurors, victims and the public at large. Once the Sentencing Code is enacted, I ask the Minister to do all he can to ensure that the training measures are in place, so that the judiciary who use it are able to do so to best effect and that it is applied correctly and appropriately.
I am pleased that in his remarks in the other place the Lord Chancellor focused on defendants. They are at the sharp end when it comes to sentencing and we should not lose sight of the fact that these matters affect the lives of real people. The Bill will improve the confidence that all users of the criminal justice system need in sentencing, including the public, defendants and victims. Clearer law will lead to greater understanding. I agree with the Lord Chancellor and others that for far too long there has been a gulf between what the practitioner and the lawyer might understand and how it is explained to the public.
The passing of correct sentencing is crucial, based on the right legislation and procedure, which will bring increased public confidence. The coherent Sentencing Code that will be enacted through this Bill is therefore not only desirable but utterly essential and long overdue.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, we have heard already that when passing sentence the sentencing judge must consider the sentencing law applicable at the time of the offence, and that the many pieces of legislation passed by Parliament over the years have added to the complexity of sentencing. We are in extremely difficult times, notwithstanding the pandemic that has altered things inexorably in our society. The Government have many demand-led issues to deal with as result, including the effects that these matters will have on the cases in the system, which I believe was in a huge backlog, with more than 1 million cases before the pandemic arrived, disrupting so much in the everyday running of our society and our public services.
However, this issue has gone on for far too long, and wrong sentencing decisions have been very evident in reviews of the justice system. Reading them suggests that as much as 36% of sentencing has been wrongly attributed. Let us not forget that a huge court closure programme—especially in my own area, south Wales—and the lack of interpreters in court proceedings, have added to these delays. A clear way forward must now be established, so that the public can have faith in a system of sentencing and those sentenced given a fair judgment.
It will be like peeling back the layers of an onion, as historical legislation will be removed and streamlined for lawyers, judges and magistrates to use. It will serve the public to build a confidence in the system, and those at the sharp end, too. Fairness must be seen to be done for the victims of crime as well as those who have offended.
Clear and accessible language will be a feature of this code. All too often the impenetrable language of the law has served a legal system comprehensible only to the learned few. I look forward to a completely revised system that makes the law accessible. This is an essential aspect that will help to explain it to the public. It may be a pathfinder for future legislation; clearly explained legislation that can be understood on a wider level may help to engage the public in the business of the law and of politics.
My introduction to your Lordships’ House was marked by some indecipherable language when learning the business of the House, and I like to think that I have a good understanding of language and literacy, having taught English for many years in high schools and being educated to higher degree level. If there are lessons to be learned from the delays in dealing with the Sentencing Code, I urge the Minister to inform his colleagues that the wait was well worth it because the language is now less complex and easier to understand, and other government departments may well follow this lead in developing their future legislation.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB) [V]
In warmly welcoming the Bill, I pay tribute to the Law Commission for its outstanding achievement, particularly to Professor David Ormerod, whose scholarship, knowledge of criminal law, patience and persistence with this project has ensured that it has come to fruition—and to almost universal approval. In large part, that is due to the time taken on consultation in a most courteous and patient way.
There can be no doubt that the Bill is needed. The reason that there have been mistakes—I need not go over the number of them—is that the law was inaccessible. Only by collecting former editions of textbooks or having the resources of the Criminal Appeal Office could you have untangled the mess the law had got into through successive changes in sentencing policy. Obviously, the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills will take the necessary evidence in relation to this.
Perhaps I can answer the question of why there are no Explanatory Notes. In looking at previous consolidations, I saw that this was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, in 2014. It was pointed out that it might be useful and could be considered in the next consolidation. For my part, I would not ask for Explanatory Notes on this Bill; it would impose an enormous burden on the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, and the Bill is explicable without them.
My final remarks are for the future. The experience is not good. We ought to be very much aware of that. The Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000 was meant to consolidate a large area of sentencing law. However, within a year or so of that Bill passing, legislation came forward that made it redundant. Please can we bear that in mind for the future?
I have a note of optimism: the Bill shortly to be considered in relation to terrorist sentences contains drafting which shows that it is possible to do all this with the amendment to this code. I also hope that in future the Law Commission can be provided with the resources to carry on this valuable work. The judiciary has modernised criminal procedure and it is now in effect in the procedural code, and there are other aspects of the criminal law, particularly substantive criminal law, which could well benefit from codification, but that may be to dream too far.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I speak with a great deal of trepidation in supporting this Bill, not because I have any doubts about its merits but because it seems a highly specialised Bill and this Chamber is blessed with some of the finest legal minds in the country, many of whom we have heard from already. I welcome anything that simplifies sentencing and will give increased public confidence in our criminal justice system. I have just a few queries for the Minister, which will show up my inability to understand the Bill rather than any flaws in the Bill itself.
When new legislation comes into force in future, with new offences and sentences, will this Bill need to be amended? For example, when the much delayed and keenly anticipated Bill to increase sentences for animal cruelty finally becomes law, will it be possible for the disqualifications in Part 8 to be included? Similarly, if at a future date those convicted of firearms offences would be automatically disqualified from holding a firearms licence, would that need to be included?
I apologise to my noble and learned friend for my layman’s ignorance on this matter. On another, more suitable occasion, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, as, for once, I find myself in agreement with many of his views. I thoroughly welcome the Bill.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, in welcoming this Bill, I am guided by the expert voices in your Lordships’ House, particularly those from the Cross Benches. As a relatively new Member of your Lordships’ House, I am well aware of the challenge of coming to terms with the detail and complexity of the fine points of law and lawmaking.
I particularly want to reflect on the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge. He referred to the legislative morass in which this Bill is trying to find some clarity. That legislative morass is not a technical issue but very much a political one, and one on which I hope I can make some useful comments. I go back to the words of the Prison Reform Trust before the 2019 election. It called on party leaders to temper their language with regard to law and order so that sensitive issues of intense public concern were not exploited but were used to contribute to a reasonable and constructive public debate. Far too often, that is not what has happened around law and order issues. Very often we have seen politicians—certainly from the largest parties—competing to appear tough on crime, perhaps with “tough on the causes of crime” added as an afterthought. There have been easy responses to awful events: the creation of a new offence or a knee-jerk promise to increase penalties. Often this is deeply confusing as well as deeply destructive.
I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, about the evidence, particularly that around young men and how they are not necessarily in a position to react appropriately and should be managed differently. The fact is that our prison population has quadrupled in the past century, and half that increase has been since 1990. We have the highest rate of imprisonment in western Europe. I do not believe there is any doubt at all that that makes our society worse, for all its members and all its futures.
I particularly want to take a short moment to focus on the work of a Member of your Lordships’ House, the noble Baroness, Lady Corston, who in 2007 wrote an internationally renowned report on women prisoners. It acknowledged that women prisoners are objectively different as a population. The majority are victims of domestic abuse, 48% committed their offence in relation to someone else’s drug use, half have drug issues themselves and 25% have a problem with alcohol. Then there are the non-offending victims: only 5% of children remain in the family home when their mothers are sent to prison. So there is no doubt that we need sentences to be clear and transparent, but we also need them to be humane.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)
My Lords, I add my congratulations to everyone who has been involved over many years in all the work that has led to the Bill that we are debating today. I particularly associate myself with the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. From his experience, particularly of the 1995 Act in Scotland, he has a particularly relevant contribution to make regarding the importance of this legislation and the way in which it has been constructed.
When I was First Minister of Scotland, I was involved, like my noble friend Lord Blunkett, in a number of political debates that led to legislative change that affected sentencing. That is always going to take place. Sometimes politicians will get those decisions right and sometimes they will get them wrong but there will always be political debates about sentencing. Part of that will always be about sending signals to victims or potential offenders about the importance of various forms of sentence, although I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, just said about the importance of getting sentences right.
I think that in Scotland the existence of the 1995 Act and the sentencing code gave those involved in the drafting of legislation and the implementation of new sentences a backdrop against which to ensure that the decisions being made by the new Scottish Parliament were accessible and able to be implemented successfully by the judiciary. So I endorse entirely the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, and I certainly fully support the Bill.
I want to ask one question of the Minister. It is implied in the Bill, and in all the contributions that have been made today, that because the Bill is a consolidation it in no way changes the devolution settlement or affects the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government in relation to civil and criminal law, but it would be helpful if that were stated. There are no supporting documents for the Bill, it is not stated anywhere in the documents that are available to us and it was certainly not in the Library briefing that we received earlier this week. If the Minister could just put it on the record, that would be helpful for all concerned.
With that one caveat, I enthusiastically support the Bill and congratulate all who have been involved in its drafting.
Lord Trimble (Con)
My Lords, I have to start by apologising that I am not going to discuss the Bill before us, for very obvious reasons. Instead, I will use this occasion to draw attention to a discussion that seems to be going on at the moment about whether we should have more cases dealt with by judges sitting by themselves rather than by juries. I see that this discussion—I have not been following it very closely; it is just beginning to impinge upon my mind—is doing the usual thing: it is ignoring the fact that there is a lot of knowledge and experience on this subject in Northern Ireland, and that is not being reflected in the discussion that is taking place. If you are going to move to a situation of judge-only courts, you have to look at the safeguards that were put into what we called the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland, and that is a large part of the reason for the success of those.
I point to what, as I say, is the success of the Diplock courts by referring to one particular case: that of the Brighton bomber, who was eventually found, tried and convicted. His defence counsel was Dick Ferguson, who I knew well. Dick told me that when he went down to speak to the Brighton bomber afterwards, he found a very disgruntled man, who said, “Mr Ferguson, I would never have been convicted on that evidence in a Diplock court in Belfast.” The gentleman was of course a leading member of the IRA, and it is interesting to see how the republican movement has never launched any attack on the concept of the Diplock courts because its members know from experience that it works well. It may not be appropriate when we are thinking about situations here, but I say that you should look at the experience there before you come to a conclusion about whether you are going to increase the number of cases that are heard only by judges. To go ahead without looking at the experience in Northern Ireland would be foolish.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, first, I join other noble Lords in putting on record my thanks to the Law Commission and the many others who have participated in the consultation and outreach work, for all they have done to deliver this Sentencing Bill. I agree with their comments and many others made by noble Lords with regard to sentencing. Having laws spread over multiple pieces of legislation has made our processes complex, inefficient and lacking in transparency, and has clearly led to errors in justice.
I therefore welcome this Bill. The Single Sentencing code should go a long way to increasing public confidence in the sentencing process, and should make it easier, quicker and more transparent. I believe, as I have said in this House before, that the public want transparency and accountability in our criminal justice system. So, measures like this, which seek to provide greater clarity and make our sentencing procedures more easily understood, are welcome progress. As other noble Lords have said, I too was concerned to note the research referenced in the Law Commission report, which found that sentences in 36% of its sample cases were unlawful; this is unacceptable and a truly shocking figure.
If this snapshot is representative of the level of incorrect sentencing that has been going on, there must be many more wrongly decided cases out there. Can the Minister tell us what action the Government have taken in this regard since the research was done in 2012? Have the Government made their own estimate of the level of unlawful sentences, or reviewed cases in the Law Commission sample to identify errors, learn from them, take action and, maybe, amend the sentences guidelines accordingly? Do the Government expect that the Sentencing Code will solve the issue of unlawful sentences once and for all?
Finally, I particularly welcome the clean sweep provision but can the Minister clarify how the listed exceptions in any future legislation will be dealt with, without adding back in the layers of complexity that this Bill seeks to remove? I end by saying that this Bill ensures clarity and transparency and improves the service provided to the public, in terms that build their confidence in the sentencing process. It is, therefore, a welcome step.
Lord Balfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, I would like to make three points. First, we have heard it reflected many times in this debate that, in the survey, 36% of the sentences were found to be unlawful. What has not been said, unless I have missed it, is how many of that 36% were under-sentenced and how many over-sentenced; in other words, how many people should have been let out, and how many were not given the right sentence and should have been there for longer? But the question that arises, for me, is: what about the rest? Will there be a review of all the sentences to see whether people have been sentenced correctly? If not, will it be open to prisoners to have their own sentences reviewed? The figure of 36% is very high. We cannot just pass on and say, “It will all be all right when we get this new Bill on the statute book.” People will still be in prison. So, my first question to the Minister is: will all sentences now be reviewed in the light of the discovery of this sample?
My second point is that any future changes in sentencing must be made by changing the terms of the Sentencing Code, and not in a new document. If it becomes a new document, the whole thing will start to fall to pieces. I would like the agreement of the Minister to the effect that this will be the template for the future, and there will not be new sentences added on.
The third thing to which I draw the House’s attention is that, as we all know, whenever anything goes wrong there is a great tendency to reach for a press release and demand a tougher sentence. I noticed that, when the statue of Winston Churchill in Parliament Square was quite disgracefully daubed, instead of the correct response—saying that prosecution should be made under the law as it exists, because it was an offence—there was an immediate call for a minimum 10-year sentence for defacing a statue. Frankly, that is quite ridiculous and out of proportion. I ask that we are careful not to carry on passing sentences for offences that already exist. There is a tendency to say that we will have a sentence for this or that, without acknowledging that the matters under consideration are already offences.
As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and a couple of others have mentioned, we have a huge and growing prison population. When I was first in the European Parliament, Turkey was well ahead of Great Britain in the number of people that it had in prison. At the end of Mrs Thatcher’s premiership, there were 40,000 people in British prisons—slightly fewer than in Turkish prisons. Today, the total is projected to grow to 85,800 by 2022 and is still heading up. I am told that the 100,000 mark will be reached around 2030.
I am not against prison sentences. In any society you need prisons and to sentence people to prison, but you also need to make prisons places that people do not want to go back to. I suspect that, in many cases, people are so hopelessly damaged when they come out of prison that they drift back into reoffending. I acknowledge that this is not part of this Bill, but in the context of our criminal justice system we need to look at a proper way of building rehabilitation and retraining into our system.
Lord Woolf (CB) [V]
I am grateful to your Lordships for allowing me a second opportunity to contribute to this debate, and I apologise for the delay I caused. I thank most warmly the noble Lord, Lord Adonis, for stepping into the breach. I can perhaps give him the reassurance that, at the present time when hairdressing is not readily available, there is no risk of my being mistaken for him.
The Law Commission is a body that is not loved as much as it should be. However, from time to time—as is the case at the moment—its work reaches the surface and you are reminded, as we have been, just how valuable its role is in our justice system. The Sentencing Bill is a classic example of what a Law Commission such as our own can achieve. I congratulate all who were involved in this Bill on the excellent work they have done.
To state the obvious, the criminal law needs to be as clear as possible. This is particularly true of sentencing; it is also true of substantive law. Justice requires no less. In relation to the law governing sentencing, because of the process of amendment, reamendment and re-reamendment, at times it has become almost impossible to determine what sentence the judge can, should or even must impose. This situation is not fair on the public, the accused, the legal profession or the judiciary, and should not have been allowed to persist for so long.
The situation needed to be tackled, and we are fortunate that this is what the Law Commission has done admirably. It has been a long process of getting to this stage—too long. We have heard reference to the fact that this process started in 2014. I applaud the admirable research paper that we have had from the Library to help us to deal with matters today. It draws attention to the figure that we have heard, which is indeed shocking, of 36% unlawful sentences. Complexity was certainly part of the cause of this.
The Bill should certainly continue to progress and to be welcomed on all sides. I am pleased that no one has felt that it could be improved by tinkering. I especially welcome the clean sweep. I certainly do not think that the Bill’s 420 clauses need to increase. The fact remains that legislation on this subject should not have been allowed to get into the chaotic position that has arisen. Justice is too important to allow this to happen.
A contributing factor is for politicians to recognise that, in the field of justice, it is sensible not to announce alterations to the sentencing agenda off the cuff without proper consideration or deliberation. Frequently, they are wholly unnecessary because the maximum sentence is totally sufficient to cover any foreseeable situation in which to decide the right sentence. I would go further and say that it is much better that matters of detail are left to the sentencer’s discretion rather than trying to anticipate the different situations that can arise. I agree with much that has been said in this debate, particularly by noble and learned Lords.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, I congratulate David Ormerod, parliamentary counsel and the Law Commission for the production of this outstanding work. The heart of it is Part 4, which deals with the exercise of judicial discretion. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, has reminded me of a particular judge I remember from the good old days, who almost as a matter of principle used to pass sentences beyond the maximum. He did so because he had been a miner in his youth—a Bevin boy—before he went to Oxford. He regarded anybody who attacked or preyed upon their community as someone who deserved condign punishment, so he would sentence them to whatever sentence of imprisonment he thought appropriate. It was quite admirable, really, but the Court of Appeal had to spend a whole day dealing with the sentences that he had inflicted.
The issues that, to my mind, are very important are contained in Clause 57, which deals with the discretion of the judge. The tramlines have been laid down for some years by the sentencing guidelines and, of course, the method of sentencing—the formula—which is that you take the sentencing guidelines and add to it if there are aggravating features and reduce it if there are mitigating features. That is well known, but it can be rather formulaic. The Bill states that those tramlines must be followed unless it is in the interests of justice that it should be otherwise.
Many years ago, I prosecuted a lady who had put a hammer through the skull of her husband and dragged his body into the back room of the basement flat in which they lived. There the body lay for some 20 years until a neighbour from upstairs was taking up his floor and discovered the skeleton. The case went to court and I remember that the lady concerned pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the grounds of provocation. The learned judge said to her that he could not imagine the agony that she must have gone through in living with that body behind the curtain, and bringing up her children, over so many years. He said, “I am not sending you to prison. I am not going to impose probation; that would be ridiculous. I am not going to give you a conditional sentence just in case you were inclined to commit a similar offence within the next two years. That would be absurd. I am going to give you an absolute discharge.” That is exactly what he did. That very experienced High Court judge was reacting as a human being to the situation as he saw it—the circumstances in which this lady had lived. Consequently, he passed that sentence with great humanity and I applaud him for it.
It is good that the power of giving an absolute discharge has been maintained in Clause 79. It states that an absolute discharge should be given only if the judge finds it wrong to pass a sentence of imprisonment upon a defendant. The wording used suggests that the power should be used only where a person is terminally ill, or something of that sort. That is not entirely the right approach. That sentence should be available to the judge in the exercise of their proper discretion, as the judge to whom I referred exercised his—as a human being, as much as a judge.
As the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, pointed out, there has been a proliferation of sentence disposals since 2000. There have been all sorts of orders: withdrawal orders, reparation orders, financial punishments and so on. They have become a morass in the past 20 years and it is good that it is about to be disposed of. A judge today will have before him a code, through the Bill, that he can exercise with discretion and justice. I am sure that all will profit as a result. I fully commend the Bill and hope that it passes all its stages without problems.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab) [V]
Like every other speaker I voice my support for the Bill, on behalf of the Opposition. Like so many others, I pay tribute to David Ormerod and the Law Commission. This truly is the product of huge amounts of hard work and should be admired. We should pass the Bill, which is intended to—and does, as far as I am aware—bring all those disparate sentencing provisions spread out over 1,300 pages of different statutes into one place.
When the Bill passes, it could be an important legislative day, or it could go the way of all previous attempts to consolidate sentences. If what David Ormerod and this House want were to happen, the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be a comprehensive code for what a sentencing court does after October 2020, in respect of anybody convicted after that date. It will need only to look at the Act to know the procedure, limits and powers that it has.
The problems identified previously—the problems that led to that quite small but very telling survey in 2012, which indicated that 36% of sentences were unlawful—mean that judges, quite legitimately, and often assisted by counsel who find the same difficulties as the judge, do not know which sentence has been brought into force, what the maximum for one sentence was or what powers were available, depending on the date when an offence had been committed. That led to the inaccessibility of the sentencing regime, the terrifying lack of accuracy that has occurred in sentencing and—although I do not think it has led to much public awareness of this, wrongly—a reduction in public confidence in whether the sentencing regime works.
The Bill seeks, rightly, to remedy all the problems with that lack of certainty and those difficulties. It will save money over time: the estimate is hundreds of millions of pounds. It will make it easier for judges and defendants to know what the likely sentence will be, and it will increase public confidence. I commend it, for all those reasons.
I note what my noble friend Lord Adonis says: that this is fiddling while Rome burns. Yes, there can be a lot of debate about whether we have the right sentencing framework, but that should not prevent us making whatever legal framework we have accessible and understandable. I also note what my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey says. Yes, there are real problems in how our prisons are currently managed but, again, that is not a reason for leaving the law on sentencing in the state that it is.
I note what the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, said about whether one should abandon juries in certain specified circumstances where they are presently available. I am strongly against the abandonment of the jury system in England because of the emergency. That would lead victims to feel that if there were acquittals, it was because there was emergency justice, and lead those defendants who were convicted to feel that it was because they ended up in a situation where they had emergency justice. The Ministry of Justice should focus on ensuring that there are enough courts to deal with jury trials, rather than amending our basic system. I say in parenthesis how strongly I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, about the merit and wonder of Dick Ferguson as an advocate. He was one of the finest advocates of his generation. The noble Lord described the circumstances in which Dick Ferguson, a former unionist member of Stormont, as it was then called, defended a member of the IRA charged with the Brighton bombing.
Coming back to the Bill, I join all your Lordships in supporting it. I also join those of your Lordships who say that it will work only if future Governments change sentencing only by amending this code, and not by introducing new Acts of Parliament. Home Offices and Home Secretaries can be as incontinent as they like in relation to justice Bills and new sentences. If they make the changes to sentencing by amending this Bill when it becomes an Act of Parliament, the “one code” approach will remain. Only if they do that will the Bill, and its passage into an Act, turn out to be an historic occasion. I very much hope that it will.
Lord Keen of Elie [V]
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords, and noble and learned Lords, for their contributions. I reiterate my thanks to the Law Commission, and in particular to Professor David Ormerod and parliamentary counsel, for producing this consolidating measure—one that we all recognise is of supreme importance in this context.
Going forward, I acknowledge the importance of Parliament, when looking at matters of sentencing, being conscious of the need to mend the Sentencing Code and not derogate from it. Of course, we cannot bind future Parliaments, but we can make it clear today that we consider that that is the only appropriate way forward in dealing with further changes to sentencing.
I will touch briefly on a procedural matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem, and touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd. My understanding is that, because this is a consolidation measure, parliamentary practice does not require or direct the preparation of Explanatory Notes, the explanation being that it is a consolidation of the existing law. It may be a point of practice that will be looked at again in the future, but that is why there are no Explanatory Notes.
I will touch on some of the issues raised by noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, raised the matter of IPP prisoners and prison sentences. I should point out that the Bill does not cover release, which is dealt with by Part 6 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Release and recall provisions for IPP prisoners remain as they were before.
The noble Lord also raised the matter of training, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Sater. Of course, we appreciate how critical that will be, and we appreciate that the Judicial College will take on that role with regard to the judiciary. We have heard no expressions of concern about its ability to do so, which may very well reflect the skill with which the Law Commission and parliamentary counsel produced such a formidable Sentencing Code in language of such clarity. Of course, the training will go beyond that of the judiciary and will be required of the legal profession in general.
A number of noble Lords quite rightly mentioned illegal sentences. We have to see the results of the relevant sample in context. What was being looked at were sentences that had been challenged as being either excessive or unlawful and which had therefore been brought to the Court of Appeal Criminal Division to be dealt with. Of course, it is an unusually high proportion of the work before the Court of Appeal, but these sentences were the subject of appeal and were being disposed of—and were the subject of appeal because an error in sentencing had been identified. So I suggest that one should not conflate that with the notion that 36% of all criminal sentences handed down by the judiciary are liable to be illegal. That would not be an appropriate inference to draw. But the matter of illegal sentences underlines what I would term the time-layered complexity of sentencing law, as it is built up over many years. That is what Professor David Ormerod addressed with the extremely astute use of what is termed the “clean sweep” mechanism and with the development of the Sentencing Code itself.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, asked about the Bill’s commencement. We would like to see it commence as soon as possible, of course, and we continue to aim for 1 October 2020. The legislative programme has been under strain, for reasons that are all too apparent to noble Lords and noble and learned Lords, but at the moment we continue to aim for that date and we understand its importance.
On some of the other points that were raised, the noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked how the clean sweep would apply to someone who committed an offence before the Sentencing Code came into place. Safeguards there ensure that, if an individual would be subject to a sentence under the code which is greater than the maximum that would have been available at the time he committed his offence, that maximum at the time he committed the offence will be applicable and he will not be subject to the sentence in the code. I hope that that gives the noble Lord some comfort. Indeed, if someone who committed an offence before the Sentencing Code came into force would be liable to a minimum sentence that did not apply at the time he committed the offence, again, that minimum sentence would not be applied to him. That is part of the process that is being brought in, albeit it will be transitory because eventually we will move away from dealing with offences which were committed before the code came into place.
The noble Lord, Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale, raised the question of devolved competence. The Bill does not extend to Scotland, because of course sentencing policy is a devolved competence, and it does not impinge upon devolved competence. A number of matters are dealt with in the code which simply address the transfer to Scotland of community orders and suspended sentence orders, and that is all. However, it does not impinge upon devolved competence as such.
My noble friend Lord Balfe alluded to the question of reviewing all sentences. We do not contemplate doing that and, as I hope I explained earlier, one should not take the sample of 2012 out of context. It is important to understand just how that came about.
Finally, a number of noble Lords—the noble Lords, Lord Adonis, Lord Harris and Lord Trimble—alluded to matters that are essentially outwith the scope of this consolidating measure. I hear what they say, and no doubt Parliament will wish to take account of the concerns that they expressed with regard to both sentencing policy and the whole issue of imprisonment. However, that is a matter for another day.
I hope that I have dealt with the specific questions raised by noble Lords. Again, I am grateful for the support that is being expressed across the House for this consolidating measure.
Royal Assent
Thursday 25th June 2020
(4 years, 5 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 114-I Marshalled list for Report - (18 Jun 2020)