House of Commons
Prayers
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) (Con)
Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) (Con)
Ben Everitt (Milton Keynes North) (Con)
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
My Ministers and I are in regular contact with our counterparts across Government and the sector to ensure the smooth passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill and to provide timely support for victims at this difficult time. We announced £76 million to support the most vulnerable during the pandemic, including survivors of domestic abuse and sexual violence.
Andrea Jenkyns [V]
One in six crimes in West Yorkshire are linked to domestic abuse. Lifting the lockdown restrictions may lead to an increase in reporting of this type of crime. What plans are in place to enable courts to deal with these cases swiftly?
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right to talk about a local aspect to what is a national issue. The courts continue to prioritise cases of the utmost seriousness, which include domestic abuse. On 1 July we published a courts recovery plan, setting out how we are preparing to operate courts and tribunals after the pandemic, which includes priority being given to domestic abuse cases.
Mark Pawsey
I welcome the Secretary of State’s remarks about priorities. The fact that courts have not been able to sit because of the covid-19 emergency has led to some hearings relating to domestic abuse being delayed, which is particularly damaging where child custody is contested and access to children is involved. What steps is he taking to ensure that these cases are heard at the earliest opportunity?
Robert Buckland
I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He will be glad to know that we are promoting access to the family courts via video or telephone, as well as through the 157 priority courts that remained open throughout the pandemic for essential face-to-face hearings. Domestic violence protection orders and non-molestation orders continue to be listed for urgent hearings, despite the current restrictions.
Suzanne Webb
On Black Country Day, it is fitting that I pay tribute to Sam Billingham, a constituent of mine who, necessitated by her experience, founded her own domestic violence charity in the west midlands called SODA, which offers support for domestic abuse survivors. What is the Ministry doing to ensure that domestic violence survivors who do not have access to a lawyer can apply for domestic abuse injunctions?
Robert Buckland
I readily join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the work of local campaigners such as the ones in her constituency. She will be pleased to know that we are providing £800,000 of funding to the FLOWS—Finding Legal Options for Women Survivors—project run by RCJ Advice, which provides free legal support to victims of domestic abuse who wish to apply for an emergency protective order from the courts. That funding is used to provide a helpline and email service, where victims can be referred to a legal aid solicitor or receive free advice directly.
Mr Speaker
The hon. Member for Wakefield (Imran Ahmad Khan) is not online, so we will go to Ben Everitt.
Ben Everitt
Will my right and learned hon. Friend join me in paying tribute to grassroots organisations such as MK Act in my constituency, which has worked tirelessly to assist victims of domestic abuse throughout the lockdown? I would like to make the House aware of the Open University open justice team, who have collaborated with the charity Support Through Court to launch free online resources to support those dealing with domestic abuse.
Robert Buckland
I am delighted to hear of the excellent work done by those organisations in Milton Keynes. We fully recognise the role that charities across the country play in providing vital services, which is why we announced £28 million of funding across Government to support domestic abuse charities providing services in safe accommodation and in the community. I am aware of the collaborative work done between the Open University and Support Through Court. That work was funded, in part, by a Ministry of Justice grant.
Christian Wakeford
I was proud to support the Domestic Abuse Bill in this place last week, which shows that we are tackling this serious crime and protecting victims. Most domestic abuse charities reported an increase in cases during the lockdown and fear a further surge in cases as restrictions are lifted. While I appreciate the money that the Government have made available for charities during lockdown, will my right hon. and learned Friend fight for additional funding to support the expected surge in demand from domestic abuse survivors?
Robert Buckland
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s diligence in this area, and I am grateful to him for high- lighting the challenges. He will be glad to know that of the £76 million that we announced in May to help the most vulnerable people in society, £10 million has been allocated for charities providing safe accommodation, such as refuges; £2 million has been allocated for national and other non-local charities providing support to victims of domestic abuse in the community; and £25 million is already being allocated via police and crime commissioners for support services for victims of domestic abuse and sexual violence. Finally, there is an additional £3 million specifically to fund independent sexual violence advisers for the next two years.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
Fortunately, the number of children coming into contact with the criminal justice system is reducing; offences committed by children have fallen by 76% over the last decade. We have allocated £72 million this year for youth offending teams to provide support for children who have offended, to help them turn around their lives.
Sarah Jones
Following the Black Lives Matter movement, in Croydon we have held a series of quite urgent meetings to look at the system and what we can do to improve things—the police, the youth offending teams and community groups. One of the issues that the youth offending service has identified is that a lot of young people who come into contact with it but just brush the system and do not end up being charged with any offences have significant problems, whether with trauma, abuse or bereavement, and need intervention at that point, before they are criminalised. Will the Minister look at increasing the support given to our young people at that stage?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Member makes a really important point on both how we ensure that there is not racial disparity in those who enter the criminal justice system and how we divert people away from it. She will be pleased to know that over £220 million has been invested in early intervention, including £200 million in the youth endowment fund to support those most at risk of being drawn into crime.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
The Minister will be well aware that although the number of young people coming into contact with the system has reduced, very often they present much more complex and challenging cases, not least because of the data recently published by the Youth Justice Board showing a large number of pre-existing problems that are there before they come into contact with the system. Given that, does she accept that it is necessary not just to continue the existing measures of diversion, but to pull those together into a much broader, overarching strategy for young people and children in the justice system—not just up to the age of 18, as is the case at the moment, but, given the evidence we have on maturity, beyond that, perhaps into the early 20s or even to 25, as evidence that the Justice Committee has strongly supports?
Lucy Frazer
As usual, my hon. Friend the Chair of the Justice Committee makes a number of important points. He is right to identify that the people coming into custody, because there are fewer of them, have committed more serious crimes—often violent crimes—and are very complex to deal with. He is right to point out the importance of the transition between youth custody and adult custody, and that is something we are looking at very closely. The Youth Custody Service is currently looking at improving the transition in prison from youth to adult custody, and at the feasibility of introducing an integrated healthcare model for young adults based on the system that is currently operated in the youth custody estate.
Peter Kyle (Hove) (Lab)
Over 60,000 children were arrested last year in England and Wales but only 118 parenting orders were issued. That is less than 10% of the figure in 2009. How can a troubled young person turn around their life if the Government are not doing everything they can to help them?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Member makes a very important point. I was pleased to discuss a number of issues that cross our portfolios yesterday. He makes an important point about looking at the whole system and at where a young person will return to—the parents, the family, the community and the friends that they will return to. If we manage to overcome their issues in custody, we need to ensure that they do not return to crime on coming out. Oasis, the company that is providing the secure schools that we are looking at very closely, wants to ensure that there are places for people to stay when they come and visit their children, but it also wants to work with them when they visit to ensure that there is that support on going out. The hon. Member makes a very important point about parenting orders, which we are looking at.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) (SNP)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
We regularly engage with the Scottish Government, as well as the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, on a range of justice-related matters, including human rights. The Government committed to looking at the broader aspects of our constitution, including updating the Human Rights Act. I can assure the hon. Members that, once the work on the Human Rights Act review commences, the implications for the devolved Administrations will be closely monitored.
Stuart C. McDonald [V]
I thank the Minister for that answer. At Justice questions on 9 June, the Lord Chancellor told us that he was working on that independent review into the operation of the Human Rights Act, but given how hugely significant the Human Rights Act is to the devolved settlements of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, does the Minister agree that any changes to that Act would need full consultation, not just monitoring, and the consent of the devolved Administrations?
Alex Chalk
Yes, of course. Scotland has a distinguished and distinct legal system and of course it would need to be consulted in that way. I do wish, though, to make one point crystal clear: whatever amendments may come to the Human Rights Act, the United Kingdom remains committed to membership of the European convention on human rights. That will not change.
Angela Crawley [V]
Can the Minister outline the relationship between the independent review of the Human Rights Act and the proposed constitution, democracy and rights commission, as well as the terms of reference for the independent review and whether the devolved Administrations, including the Scottish Government, will be consulted about those terms of reference?
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. There is a manifesto commitment to look at updating the Human Rights Act, which is now—what?—20 years old or so, but we have yet to set the terms of reference. Of course it is the case that, as we go forward in that process, the implications for the distinguished and distinct, separate legal jurisdiction of Scotland must be taken into account, and that is exactly what we will ensure takes place.
Marion Fellows [V]
Can the Minister confirm what criteria will be used to appoint members to this independent review? Will it include members with expertise in the human rights regime in Scotland, and will civic society organisations from Scotland be able to submit evidence and participate in the review?
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Of course, it is axiomatic that membership of that committee, which has yet to be settled, must include those who have the wherewithal to comment on precisely the points she indicated, including the impact upon Scotland. I would want to see that being the case and, indeed, in respect of the other jurisdictions as well. We have to make sure that, as we go forward, we respect and recognise the differences that exist in the United Kingdom in this most important regard.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
The Scottish Government have plans to pass a new human rights Act incorporating economic, social, cultural and environmental rights in the devolved areas. Does the Minister agree that it is unfortunate that, at a time when the Scottish Government are working to expand the rights of people living in Scotland, at least in respect of devolved areas, the UK Government are perceived as threatening to diminish human rights protections in respect of reserved matters and across the United Kingdom?
Alex Chalk
Can I thank the hon. and learned Lady for her question? She will, I hope, acknowledge that perceptions are not always borne out by reality. The United Kingdom Government remain committed to the European convention on human rights, and nothing that will take place by way of an update or any proposals that emerge will threaten that fundamental point. We are a nation of laws. We are committed to upholding human rights. That is the way it is going to stay.
Joanna Cherry
I thank the Minister for his answer and I hear clearly his assurance that the United Kingdom remains committed to the ECHR, but of course it is the Human Rights Act that gives people living in the United Kingdom the ability to avail themselves of the rights protected by the convention in the United Kingdom’s domestic courts. If, in updating the Human Rights Act, the Government have no intention of abrogating the domestic law that gives effect to the ECHR, why are they allowing the perception that they might do so to undermine the chances of securing an agreement with the European Union on future co-operation on law enforcement and judicial co-operation on criminal matters?
Alex Chalk
The hon. and learned Lady is right that, of course, the Human Rights Act does provide the power for individuals to assert and invoke those rights, but if we are committed to the convention, we are also committed to article 13 of the convention, which is the right to an effective remedy. The courts play an important role in allowing citizens to invoke and assert their convention rights. That will continue.
Laura Farris (Newbury) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
We take the threat posed by terrorist offenders very seriously. We utilise a range of rehabilitative tools, which include psychological, theological and mental health interventions. In January, the Government announced a number of additional measures for dealing with terrorist offenders, including increasing the number of counter-terrorist specialist staff in our prisons.
Laura Farris
In the last eight months, we have seen terrorist attacks in Streatham, Fishmongers’ Hall and, most recently, Forbury Gardens, where the assailant either had just been released from prison, or was out on licence. What improvements does my hon. and learned Friend think could be made to de-radicalisation programmes to prevent these lone wolf, post-release attacks?
Lucy Frazer
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the tragic incidents that we have seen over recent months. She rightly highlights de-radicalisation programmes. Twenty-two trained imams are doing de-radicalisation programmes in our prisons, but those are not the only measures that we are introducing. We have increased our training for prison and probation officers to deal with terrorism and we are bringing in new national standards for managing terrorists on licence. We want more counter-terrorism specialist staff and we want more places in approved premises as a transition from prison to the community. In addition to that, counter-terrorism police funding is increased this year by £19 million.
Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)
There was much discussion around the inadequacy of de-radicalisation work in prison during the Committee stage of the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill, both in evidence and in debate. We heard that these programmes are not entirely fit for purpose and not always readily available. Clearly, they need a good overhaul—perhaps even more so given the new, longer minimum sentences. The hon. Member for Newbury (Laura Farris) certainly seems to agree with that. Sadly, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). rejected our amendment in Committee to undertake a review to examine the effectiveness and availability of de-radicalisation programmes in prison. Will today’s Minister accept that they do need to be improved and launch the review that is needed?
Lucy Frazer
We have increased the number of imams operating the de-radicalisation programmes. We are looked at, and looked towards, by others internationally in relation to the programmes that we operate. Of course, we continually evaluate the programmes that we operate within our prisons.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
We are committed to ensuring that victims of crime receive the support that they need now, during covid, but also in the future. We are recruiting an additional 20,000 police officers, investing in the Crown Prosecution Service, and rolling out £76 million to support victims of sexual violence and domestic abuse, as well as vulnerable children.
Jacob Young
I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Victims of domestic abuse in Redcar and Cleveland are supported and helped by fantastic local charities such as EVA Women’s Aid and Foundation. Will he outline how his Department are strengthening support services for domestic abuse and ensuring that they have the funding that they need?
Alex Chalk
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent question. I also thank the domestic abuse charities, including EVA Women’s Aid, for the fantastic work they do in supporting victims of crime. We are committed to ensuring that vital support continues as we ease lockdown restrictions. In response to the pandemic, the Ministry of Justice has distributed £22 million to date as part of the package for charities supporting vulnerable people. As announced at the Prime Minister’s hidden harms summit in May, we have also committed to developing a funding strategy for all victims of crime, including domestic abuse, which will look at the longer-term sustainability of funding.
Robbie Moore
Previous figures published by the Department for Education have shown that more than 18,700 suspected victims of child sexual exploitation were identified by authorities in 2018-19. Several grooming cases brought to court have revealed abusers targeting vulnerable girls, particularly those in care, supported accommodation or with learning difficulties. It is gut-wrenching to hear, but the reality is that it is still happening. Will my hon. Friend confirm that he is dedicated to forming a joined-up support approach with police forces, local NHS services and children’s services to identify support for these victims, but also with the aim of preventing such abuse?
Alex Chalk
I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent question. Child sexual abuse and exploitation are truly abhorrent, and the Government are dedicated to taking precisely the joined-up action that he urges on us to prevent abuse and provide support for victims. The Government’s victims strategy outlines our commitment to improve support for victims of child sexual abuse to help them to cope. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 introduced the most significant reforms in a generation, requiring local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and the police to form multi-agency safeguarding partnerships.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
Access to justice is a fundamental right and this Government are committed to ensuring that everyone can get the timely support they need to access the justice system. We have removed the mandatory element of the telephone gateway to support access to advice, and we continue to prioritise work to provide a new £3.1 million grant that will further enhance legal support for litigants in person. In 2018-19, we spent £1.7 billion on legal aid, and in response to disruption caused by covid we are providing £5.4 million in funding to not-for-profit providers of specialist legal advice.
Richard Graham
I support strongly what the Government are doing in funding law centres and providing much more information online for our constituents, but how does my hon. Friend think we can access the services where needed of an asylum lawyer at the Gloucester Law Centre? Also, will he ensure that the only magistrates court in our county—in his Cheltenham constituency—will be well funded, so that it can operate efficiently for years to come?
Alex Chalk
The answer is yes—thank you for pre-empting it, Mr Speaker—but first, may I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the Gloucester Law Centre, which does fantastic work? The £3 million grant will allow law centres to increase their capacity to provide advice for those who need it. We are also considering the longer-term sustainability of providing legal aid more widely, including for asylum cases, to which he rightly adverts; my officials are working closely with stakeholders on this. As you rightly trailed, Mr Speaker, on court maintenance, we have announced a tripling of funding for repairs and upgrades to include £30 million for the roll-out of the latest video technology. That will be welcomed in Cheltenham and, indeed, Gloucester.
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab) [V]
Legal aid lawyers are being asked, yet again, to carry the can for a decade of mismanagement on the part of successive Tory Ministers. Lawyers are now expected to work extended hours for no extra pay to clear the half a million backlog of criminal cases caused by savage cuts. Legal aid lawyers do not support extended or flexible operating hours, but why would they? Their patience and good will have been stretched too far. Ministers know full well that the underfunded justice system means justice denied, so what—if any—representations has the Justice Secretary made to the Treasury for more funding; or is it simply that he just does not care?
Alex Chalk
Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth. The Government are committed to this. I was a practitioner in 2010 and I well remember when Labour was in government and Labour Members derided the “gravy train” of legal aid. We will never do that, because we recognise its importance. This Government have eased the rules on hardship and interim payments to enable the early drawdown of payment for work done, and for solicitors we have doubled the number of opportunities to seek payment on account. This is really important: we are accelerating work on CLAR—the criminal legal aid review—because we want to put between £31 million and £51 million into the profession as soon as possible. That funding will be released before too long.
Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
We remain absolutely committed to taking forward every recommendation that falls to Government and to completing the action on all those within our responsibility over the next 12 months. Recently, in February, we provided a further progress report in which we describe the undertakings to which we have committed the Department in relation to the recommendations.
Lilian Greenwood
Black and minority ethnic young people already face discrimination in the jobs market, and those with a criminal record are doubly disadvantaged. By putting barriers in the way of young people who have changed and present no significant risk to others, the criminal records system traps them in their past. The Taylor review recommended reform to ensure that young people are not unnecessarily held back by childhood offences, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) called for a new approach, learning from the system for sealing criminal records adopted in many US states. When will the Government implement Lammy review recommendation 34 and allow young people to demonstrate that they are more than their past?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that question. She will be glad to know that only last Thursday the relevant statutory instrument was laid before the House to remove both the requirement for automatic disclosure of youth cautions and the multiple conviction rule, which cause problems for people who have old convictions, regardless of their nature or the sentence. I want to go further. I have considered carefully the recommendation of the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy), and the sentencing White Paper later this year will have further proposals for reform of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974.
Imran Hussain [V]
Stop-and-search is a misused, overused and discriminatory police tactic disproportionately applied to black, Asian and other minority communities, which results in deep resentment and distrust towards the police and the Government. Will the Government, at the very least, hold their hands up and accept that many black, Asian and other minority men, women and children are stopped and searched not on the grounds of evidence or reasonable belief but because of the colour of their skin?
Robert Buckland
I share with the hon. Gentleman a deep abhorrence of arbitrary use of police powers, including stop-and-search. We have committed—as we should—to a principle of intelligence-led policing. That means police officers acting lawfully, on reasonable grounds, and not profiling or stereotyping any person because of the colour of their skin. There should be no place for that in our society.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
As we have heard, recommendation 34 of the Lammy review said that the criminal justice system
“should learn from the system for sealing criminal records employed in many US states.”
I welcome the Government’s finally responding last week, after 18 months, with plans to comply with the major Supreme Court decision on filtering youth cautions, and the indication that I think the Secretary of State has given on meeting recommendation 34. Will he undertake to consult with Unlock and other groups who have campaigned long on this issue and speak to me in preparation for bringing forward those planned guidelines?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who has always come to this matter with great responsibility and constructive engagement. In that spirit, I am more than happy to continue engaging with him. I will, of course, speak to the charities he mentioned, whom I know well, and other major stakeholders such as Lord Ramsbotham, in pursuance of preparation of a policy that I very much hope will command the support of all corners of the Chamber.
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Con)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
I take this opportunity to thank our prison staff and those who work in probation for the outstanding job they have done to keep our prisons and those in the community safe. We have taken a range of measures to protect staff from the virus, including reducing the risk of transmission in prisons, led by Public Health England guidance, and making personal protective equipment and testing available. The latest Public Health England advice indicates that the measures we have taken have had a positive impact on limiting the spread of the virus.
Sir David Evennett [V]
I thank my hon. and learned Friend for her response and join her in praising prison staff for all the work they have done during this difficult time. What is the plan to continue to protect prison staff as restrictions start to lift and life goes back to near-normal?
Lucy Frazer
As my right hon. Friend highlights, as restrictions are lifted in the community, so we need to lift restrictions in prisons, too, but we need to do so cautiously to ensure that we do not increase the risk of infection. Where prisons are starting to open up—for example, to introduce visits—adaptations are being made to ensure that the risk of infection to staff and prisoners is minimised.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
On 5 May, the shadow Minister for Prisons and Probation, my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Ms Brown), wrote to the Department regarding concerns about the treatment of cleaners at Petty France during the pandemic. The Secretary of State’s reply on 29 May made it clear that he thought there was no issue in terms of management, access to personal protective equipment, social distancing or sick pay. However, hours of interviews and leaked emails and text messages confirmed that cleaners were forced into the Department during the lockdown period, denied PPE, offered no support and had medical issues consistent with coronavirus symptoms. Seven outsourced staff on the site have had those consistent symptoms; two are now dead. The Department had to be guilt-tripped into backdating sick pay. Will the Minister live up to the Ministry of Justice’s name by committing to a full independent review as to what happened to those cleaners working in the Ministry of Justice?
Lucy Frazer
As the right hon. shadow Secretary of State has mentioned, these matters have been looked at. I am happy to take on board any further points that he would like to make.
Andrew Lewer (Northampton South) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
Protecting our fellow citizens is our most important duty. The Government legislated in February, via the Terrorist Offenders (Restriction of Early Release) Act 2020, to make sure that terrorist offenders no longer get automatically released at the halfway point; instead, they become eligible for parole-board release at the two-thirds point. Via the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill, which comes back for Report and Third Reading next week, we are introducing mandatory 14-year minimum prison sentences for the most serious terrorist offenders and ensuring that other serious offenders serve all their sentence in prison. By doing that, we protect our fellow citizens.
Andrew Lewer
Does my hon. Friend agree that the limited use of terrorism prevention and investigation measures, as amended by the Counter-Terrorism and Sentencing Bill that will come back for Report next week, will serve to help to keep my constituents in Northampton South and those elsewhere safe from terror attacks?
Chris Philp
In Committee, we heard extremely compelling evidence from Assistant Chief Constable Tim Jacques, who is one of the national policing leads on counter-terrorism. He explained how, in his professional experience and that of the security services, the changes that we are making to TPIMs will make our constituents and our fellow citizens safer. I hope that Members will pay close attention to the evidence that Assistant Chief Constable Jacques gave when they consider the Bill on Report next week.
Taiwo Owatemi (Coventry North West) (Lab)
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lucy Frazer)
Joining up probation to other community services is critical. The new model for probation will allow us to build on local links that have already been forged. In the future probation system, more than £100 million a year will be spent on specialist rehabilitative and resettlement services, including education and employment.
Taiwo Owatemi
Our recovery from this crisis will require support for all our constituents to get back into well-paid, good-quality jobs. We have to break the cycle of reoffending and ensure that when people leave prison, they have the help and support that they need to get back into work, so that they do not fall back into a life of crime and misdemeanours, which does none of us any good. Will the Minister guarantee that our agencies are linked to provide proper opportunities to turn former reoffenders’ lives around? Will she guarantee that the renationalisation of the probation service will not be used as an excuse for any more cuts, and will instead be used to work towards an improved and better staffed, trained and managed National Probation Service?
Lucy Frazer
The hon. Member makes a number of points in her question. I would like to assure her that we are committed to ensuring that people who come out of prison are rehabilitated, get jobs and turn away from crime. We recently launched the New Futures Network, which is dedicated to establishing the links between prisons, prisoners and local employers. In relation to investment in the new probation service, I am sure that she has seen that we are investing an additional £155 million in probation over the course of the year.
Chi Onwurah
I have spent time with Newcastle probation services, and I know just how dedicated the people who work for them are, but they are now being expected to pick up the pieces of the Government’s disastrous privatisation of the service, as well as integrating released offenders into a “new normal” of society post covid that is not normal at all. Will the Minister set out exactly how funding will be made available to ensure that there are links with, in particular, further education colleges in Newcastle so that offenders who are released can have a chance of rehabilitation and jobs in a post-covid world?
Lucy Frazer
Like the hon. Member, I pay tribute to the dedicated work of all those who have been working in the community rehabilitation companies across the country and, indeed, the National Probation Service. I welcome the work of the CRC in her area. As I mentioned, £100 million has been put forward for the new scheme—the dynamic framework, which has already been launched—so that local voluntary sector and private companies can bid to provide local services in communities. I look forward to seeing their bids.
Richard Burgon [V]
The Government were warned repeatedly that privatising probation would be a disaster—that it would cost more and leave the public less safe. The Government not only ignored those warnings but spent years ignoring the mounting evidence of their failed policy. They have practically had to be dragged kicking and screaming to finally agree to reverse this catastrophic privatisation. If they are finally going to properly sort out rehabilitation, is it not time to end, once and for all, the racket of mega-corporations like Sodexo, Serco and G4S profiting from our prisons and probation services?
Lucy Frazer
We believe that we should provide good services, whether that is by the public sector or by the private sector. We have in operation some excellent public service prisons, as we do some excellent private sector prisons. We are very pleased that we are integrating probation into the public service, providing a very important role, but we will continue to ensure that private sector companies and local voluntary sector companies can bid for rehabilitative services through the £100 million dynamic framework.
Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Alex Chalk)
We recognise the importance of bereaved families being able to seek an independent review of a coroner’s decision. Section 13 of the Coroners Act 1988, as amended, provides for the Attorney General to make or authorise an application to the High Court to consider whether an inquest should be held where a coroner has not held one. Individuals can also bring claims for a judicial review of a coroner’s decision. The Justice Committee has recently opened an inquiry into the coroner service, and we will consider its report and recommendations.
Derek Twigg
The new senior coroner for Merseyside has agreed an inquest into the death of Laura Higginson in my constituency. The family’s request for an inquest under the previous coroner was turned down, despite new evidence being available. If the original decision had not been changed, then the family’s only option would have been to resort to a judicial review. Will the Minister look again at repealing section 40 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 to see whether we could have a much easier and less expensive way of families being able to challenge coroners’ decisions?
Alex Chalk
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his campaigning work in this regard. He is absolutely right that Mrs Higginson’s sad death in 2017 is now subject to an inquest, for the reasons that he indicated. I thank him for the parliamentary questions that he has submitted on this issue. It is not absolutely right to say that the only option is a judicial review. For the reasons that I indicated, people can petition the Attorney General, and indeed the Solicitor General, for that to take place. But he raises an important issue, and of course we keep this under consideration. I cannot tell him that there are immediate plans to do as he suggests, but we will of course consider it.
Elliot Colburn (Carshalton and Wallington) (Con)
The Minister for Crime and Policing (Kit Malthouse)
As we have heard this morning, the Government are committed to reducing reoffending rates across the board, not least because it is a specific target of the crime and justice taskforce set by the Prime Minister. We will be bringing forward a number of plans over the next weeks and months to do so, not least the reinvigoration of integrated offender management, on which I will be leading across the Ministry of Justice and the Home Office.
Elliot Colburn
The Chris Donovan Trust is an amazing local charity set up by a local couple, Ray and Vi Donovan, whose son tragically lost his life through unprovoked violence. Carshalton and Wallington residents recognise the incredible work of the trust to raise awareness of restorative justice and other victim programmes after Ray and Vi Donovan met their son’s killers. What further steps will the Department take to expand restorative justice programmes to help to reduce prisoner reoffending?
Kit Malthouse
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this organisation to my attention, not least because I read Ray and Vi Donovan’s booklet last night, “Understanding Restorative Justice”, and their very moving testimony of what happened to them. They have an incredible capacity for forgiveness, having forgiven their son’s killers, who perpetrated an appalling act, depriving them of the life of their child. They found it in themselves to forgive those three criminals, as they were then, and to move on with their lives. I will be more than happy to consider what more we can do in this area as we move towards our plans on rehabilitating offenders, and I would be honoured to meet Ray and Vi, if my hon. Friend was willing to bring them to Westminster when normal life resumes.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Robert Buckland)
Covid-19 presents one of the greatest peacetime challenges that the United Kingdom and the justice system have ever faced, but throughout the crisis, we have kept courts open, we have kept cases flowing through the system and justice has been delivered, especially for the most vulnerable victims and with regard to dangerous offenders. We are ahead of comparable systems around the world and we should recognise the hard work that has allowed that to happen. Technological innovation has accelerated throughout the system, with over 14,000 cases heard remotely. Jury trials have safely restarted, with 48 Crown court centres now hearing trials, and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service has published a plan that clearly outlines the next steps. We are not there yet and we are continuing to work on increasing available court capacity, ensuring that technology can be more effectively used throughout the system and exploring all necessary and appropriate options. This comes together with the biggest increase in the court maintenance funding structure for over 20 years.
Matt Vickers
In green spaces across my constituency, litter picks used to result in us picking up cans, bottles and crisp packets, but now, more and more, we are finding numbers of nitrous oxide canisters. There is an increasing number of youngsters putting their health and lives at risk using this psychoactive substance. Will my right hon. and learned Friend look at this with colleagues across Government so that we can get a grip of this growing and dangerous issue?
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. He can be reassured, first of all, that nitrous oxide is a psychoactive substance classified under the Psychoactive Substances Act 2016, and it is an offence to supply it if someone knows, or is reckless as to whether, it will be used for its psychoactive effect. The most recent assessment of the drug was in 2015, when the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs concluded that there is evidence that the use of the drug can cause harm, but I would be more than happy to discuss the matter further with him.
Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)
A decade of underinvestment and savage cuts to legal aid critically weakened the criminal justice system long before coronavirus. Time and again, month after month, the Bar Council, the Law Society and so many others have warned the Government about the dire predicament faced by legal aid practitioners up and down the country, but the Government’s much delayed review of criminal legal aid is nowhere in sight. Will the Secretary of State commit to expediting the criminal legal aid review and provide a deadline by which it will report?
Robert Buckland
I am surprised by the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the criminal legal aid review. Indeed, we have completed part 1 and the consultation has been completed, and we are proceeding with all expedition to implement the accelerated requests of the Bar and the solicitors’ professions. We are moving into part 2 and I want to get on with it. The right hon. Gentleman knows that I had over 20 years as a legal aid criminal practitioner; and I saw, shall we say, a Government of which he was a member sometimes revelling in cuts to legal aid. We need to work constructively together on this now to help the professions that we both support.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend is right to ask about the plan that we issued in June to clear a pathway for the easing of restrictions in our prisons gradually and cautiously, always guided by public health advice and designed to keep staff and prisoners safe. We are now seeing prisons start to open up, including prison visits in places such as HMP Humber. I pay tribute to everybody who has worked so hard to make that experience a safe one. So far, around half of all our prisons have begun to ease some restrictions. Progress is being made.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady brings together two issues. With regard to criminal trials and the like, of course legal aid remains available, subject to the means test. That is absolutely essential—from the police station onwards. With regard to more general legal advice, she will be glad to know that £5 million was allocated for the extra provision of early legal advice. That is a deep commitment of both me and the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk). We are working with our officials to ensure that that is applied intelligently, in a way that diverts and prevents litigation, rather than exposing people to what can be a lengthy and burdensome process.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
Robert Buckland
My hon. Friend always speaks with passion on behalf of victims of crime in North Cornwall. He knows that the county of the Duchy sits within the Devon and Cornwall police and crime commissioner area, which has received over £2 million of funding to support victims of crime this financial year. The Ministry of Justice provides £510,000 of funding directly to five sexual violence support providers in the PCC area through the rape support fund. We have allocated another £439,000, which has been distributed to local providers via the PCC, to support victims of domestic and sexual violence. An additional £195,000 of covid-19 extraordinary funding has been distributed to rape support centres in the Devon and Cornwall PCC area through the rape support fund.
Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising that specific point. It deserves closer scrutiny, and I would be happy to engage directly with her on the issue.
Suzanne Webb (Stourbridge) (Con)
Robert Buckland
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for that nudge. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) for not joining in the celebrations for Black Country Day. I will not attempt the accent. Some people think I am not a bad impersonator, but we will move on swiftly.
Recovery continues each week thanks to the hard work of professionals right across the system. More than 150 courts remained fully open throughout the pandemic and we now have over 300 courts and tribunals fully open. As I said in my initial remarks, we are developing and opening new court capacity. I urge providers and interested parties in the Black Country area to come forward and make suggestions to Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service for suitable buildings we can use to ensure that we ramp up court capacity and deal with the caseload.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
Robert Buckland
I listen with interest to the hon. Gentleman’s observations. I am extremely keen for local initiative to flourish. We are seeing that in other court centres right across the country. If there are further blockages, please come to me directly, because I am champing at the bit to make sure we can expand capacity as quickly as possible.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
Robert Buckland
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a member of the Joint Committee on which I served in a previous Parliament. I am grateful to the Committee for its report on human rights and the Government’s response to covid-19 in that respect. We will respond very shortly. The early release processes continue, with Her Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service continuing to consider eligible women for release on a rolling basis. A number have been released. In response to an earlier JCHR report about mothers and babies, we began a fundamental review of the operational policy with regard to mother and baby units. A report summarising our key policy reforms will be published in due course.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
Robert Buckland
I think it would perhaps be a little reckless of me to commit to more legislation. I already have a very full legislative agenda, but I am certainly happy to engage further with the hon. Gentleman on that specific issue. I want to make sure that our great four nations stay as one undivided Union wherever possible.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
Robert Buckland
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his previous service as a member of the Sentencing Council and his work in the youth justice sphere. He is right to recognise that the 18 to 25 cohort have distinct needs relating to maturity and development. In his constituency, excellent work goes on with regard to the neurological challenges that he mentions at Her Majesty’s Young Offender Institution Aylesbury. I will, of course, further engage with him and others on this issue as we develop the White Paper.
Alex Norris (Nottingham North) (Lab/Co-op)
Robert Buckland
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We already have the reporting wrongdoing integrity hotline, which is in place to allow HMPPS staff to raise any concerns they may have. Relevant guidance for employees and managers is available through the internet and the myHub service. HMPPS is reviewing and updating the policy. We very much hope it will be published later this year, following close liaison with the trade unions.
Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)
Robert Buckland
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his assiduous representation of the many hundreds of prison officers in his constituency, and he is right to draw my attention to those concerns. I repeat the assurance that we are reviewing that policy. I want to get it right; I want whistleblowing to be a safe and meaningful exercise for all staff, and I am happy to undertake that review, which will be completed later in the year.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Robert Buckland
The hon. Lady will be glad to know that I have already committed to the second stage of the consultation to do that, to reflect fully the nature of the work undertaken by immigration practitioners. Our aim in the first stage was to quickly bring forward increases to reflect important work on skeleton arguments —it was always a first stage. I have made that commitment and we are going to get on with the consultation, as we always planned.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
Robert Buckland
I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in the work of the staff at HMP Peterborough. It has been a difficult time for all prisons, whether publicly or privately managed. The staff are hidden heroes, and I know he would join me in applauding their dedication to public service. We have worked closely with our privately managed prisons throughout this period. As with the public sector, the staff have responded with care and compassion to support prisoners through the pandemic, helping them to maintain family ties and providing them with in-cell materials, exercise, distraction, activity packs and reading matter.
Sarah Jones (Croydon Central) (Lab)
Robert Buckland
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. She is right to highlight the tremendous success in the reduction of the number of children in custody, but the disproportionate number of black, Asian and minority ethnic children is of real concern. There are issues, identified in the Lammy review, among other things, relating to how legal advice is tendered and to engagement with the system. She will know that already, as a result of that review, we have started the “Chance to Change” pilots on different ways of dealing with allegations against black and minority ethnic youngsters. As for the wider work of government, I do not have those details at the moment, but I will make sure she is furnished with them as soon as possible.
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.
Petition
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I have been contacted by huge numbers of constituents who are deeply concerned about the UK Government’s decision to merge the Department for International Development with the Foreign Office. This was done without consultation with the UK’s international development and humanitarian sector and against recommendations of independent aid scrutiny bodies. The Department for International Development has repeatedly been found by independent reviews to be the most transparent and effective Government Department for spending. In contrast, the Foreign Office, with which DFID is to be merged, has been criticised for spending UK aid on projects that do not prioritise reducing poverty for the poorest people on earth. Therefore, I rise to present the petition on behalf of the residents of the constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran.
The petition states:
The Petition of the residents of the constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran,
Declares that the proposed merger of the Department for International Development with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is a retrograde step that will diminish the UK’s respect as a global leader on international development; further declares that the merger is the first clear step in a change of policy, which will inevitably see UK aid explicitly linked to trade rather than being based on need.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to immediately abandon proposals to merge the Department for International Development with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002589]
UK Telecommunications
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Oliver Dowden)
Digital connectivity is an increasingly vital part of our lives. During this period of global crisis, it has brought home the profound importance of a reliable connection. The 4G technology has enabled rapid internet connection over mobile phones: alongside superfast broadband at home, it has allowed people to do everything from Zoom calls to downloading movies. But the Government need to look to the future. That means developing world-class, next-generation digital technology through 5G for mobile and gigabit-capable for fibre. It is only by doing this that we will remain at the forefront of the technology revolution.
In order to realise the full benefits of those technologies though, we have to have confidence in the security and resilience of the infrastructure on which they are built. Keeping the country secure is the primary duty of Government to their people. This consideration precedes all others. There is, of course, no such thing as a perfectly secure network, but the responsibility of the Government is to ensure that it is as secure as it possibly can be. That is why we conducted the telecoms supply chain review to look at the long-term security of our 5G and full-fibre networks.
The review set out plans to implement one of the toughest regimes in the world for telecoms security: one that would shift from a model where the telecoms industry merely follows guidance to a model where standards would be enforced by legislation; one that would require all operators to raise security standards and combat a range of threats, whether from cybercriminals or state-sponsored attacks; and one that gave the Government the necessary powers to keep our approach up to date as the technology develops.
A critical aspect of that was how we address so-called high-risk vendors—those which pose greater security and resilience risks to the UK’s networks—so in January we set out to the House our conclusions on how we would define and restrict high-risk vendors, keeping them outside the network’s core and away from critical infrastructure and sites. We have been clear-eyed from the start that Chinese-owned vendors Huawei and ZTE were deemed high risk, and we made clear that the National Cyber Security Centre would review and update its advice as necessary.
Clearly, since January, the situation has changed. On 15 May, the US Department of Commerce announced that new sanctions had been imposed against Huawei through changes to the foreign direct product rules. This was a significant material change, and one that we had to take into consideration. The sanctions are not the first attempt by the US to restrict Huawei’s ability to supply equipment to 5G networks. They are, however, the first to have potentially severe impacts on Huawei’s ability to supply new equipment in the United Kingdom. The new US measures restrict Huawei’s ability to produce important products using US technology or software.
The National Cyber Security Centre has reviewed the consequences of the US actions and has now reported to Ministers that it has significantly changed its security assessment of Huawei’s presence in the UK’s 5G network. Given the uncertainty that this creates around Huawei’s supply chain, the UK can no longer be confident of being able to guarantee the security of future 5G equipment affected by the change in US foreign direct product rules. To manage the risk, the NCSC has issued new advice on the use of Huawei in UK telecoms networks.
This morning, the Prime Minister chaired a meeting of the National Security Council. Attendees at that meeting took full account of the National Cyber Security Centre’s advice, together with the implications for UK industry and wider geostrategic considerations. The Government agree with the National Cyber Security Centre’s advice: the best way to secure our networks is for operators to stop using new affected Huawei equipment to build the UK’s future 5G networks. To be clear: from the end of this year, telecoms operators must not buy any 5G equipment from Huawei. Once the telecoms security Bill is passed, it will be illegal for them to do so.
However, we also recognise the range of concerns voiced in the House regarding Huawei’s role in our 5G network. I have listened carefully to those concerns, and I agree that we need clarity on our position and to take decisive action. I have previously set out our plans to safely manage the presence of high-risk vendors in our 5G network, and of course our ambition right from the beginning was that no one should need to use a high-risk vendor for 5G at all, but I know that hon. Members sought a commitment from the Government to remove Huawei equipment from our 5G network altogether. That is why we have concluded that it is necessary, and indeed prudent, to commit to a timetable for the removal of Huawei equipment from our 5G network by 2027. Let me be clear: this requirement will be set out in law by the telecoms security Bill. By the time of the next election, we will have implemented in law an irreversible path for the complete removal of Huawei equipment from our 5G networks.
We have not taken this decision lightly, and I must be frank about the decision’s consequences for every constituency in this country. This will delay our roll-out of 5G. Our decisions in January had already set back that roll-out by a year and cost up to £1 billion. Today’s decision to ban the procurement of new Huawei 5G equipment from the end of this year will delay that roll-out by a further year and will add up to £500 million to costs. In addition, requiring operators to remove Huawei equipment from their 5G networks by 2027 will add further hundreds of millions of pounds to the cost and will further delay the roll-out. That means a cumulative delay to 5G roll-out of two to three years, and costs of up to £2 billion. That will have real consequences for the connections on which all our constituents rely.
I have to say that to go faster and further beyond the 2027 target would add considerable, and indeed unnecessary, further costs and delays.
The shorter we make the timetable for removal, the greater the risk of actual disruption to mobile telephone networks.
The world-leading expertise of NCSC and GCHQ has enabled us to publish one of the most detailed analyses of the risks to the 5G network. The UK is now acting quickly, decisively and ahead of our international partners. Our approach reflects the UK’s specific national circumstances and how the risks from the sanctions are manifested here in the UK. It has not been an easy decision, but it is the right one for the UK’s telecoms networks, for our national security and for our economy, both now and in the long run.
We also need to look at other networks. Although they are fundamentally different from 5G, they need to be as secure and resilient as our new mobile technology, as many Members of this House have pointed out in the past. Reflecting again the advice of the National Cyber Security Centre, we will need to take a different approach to full-fibre and older networks—one that recognises they are different from 5G in their technology, security and the vendors supporting them. Given that there is only one other appropriate scale vendor for full-fibre equipment, we will embark on a short technical consultation with operators to understand their supply chain alternatives so that we can avoid unnecessary delays to our gigabit ambitions and prevent significant resilience risks. That technical consultation will determine the nature of our rigorous approach to Huawei outside of the 5G networks.
All of those things have implications for the telecoms security Bill. I am fully aware of the commitment I made in this House in March to introduce it before the summer recess. As I am sure Members will appreciate, today’s decision will substantially change what is in the Bill. We will introduce the Bill to the House in the autumn. It is in all our interests for the legislation to be introduced and passed as soon as possible, because—this is the key point—we have to ensure that our telecoms security advice is on a secure statutory footing.
As the House knows, one reason we are in this situation is a global market failure. Put simply, countries around the world—not just the United Kingdom—have become dangerously reliant on too few vendors. We have already set out a clear and ambitious diversification strategy. That strategy will include wide-ranging action in the short, medium and long term, with the aim of driving competition and innovation to grow the market and deliver greater resilience across all our networks.
The strategy will focus on three core elements. First, we need to secure the supply chains of our incumbent non-high-risk vendors by putting in place measures and mitigations that will protect supply chains and ensure there is no disruption to our networks. Secondly, we need to bring new scale vendors into the UK market by removing barriers to entry, providing commercial incentives and creating large-scale opportunities for new vendors to enter the UK markets. Thirdly, we need to address the existing structure of the supply market by investing in research and development and building partnerships between operators and vendors that will mean operators using multiple vendors in a single network will become the standard across the industry.
Success will require a shared commitment between Government and industry to take the necessary steps to address this issue. We are already engaging extensively with operators, vendors and Governments around the world to support and accelerate the process of diversification. We recognise that this is a global issue that requires international collaboration to deliver a lasting solution, so we are working with our Five Eyes partners and our friends around the world to bring together a coalition to deliver our shared goals.
In addition, I know that many Members of this House have considered the Government’s policy on high-risk vendors in the context of the United Kingdom’s wider relationship with China. Let me assure Members that this Government are clear-eyed about China. We have been robust in our response to the imposition of new security laws in Hong Kong, including through our generous offer to British national overseas passport holders. We want a modern and mature relationship with China based on mutual respect where we can speak frankly when we disagree, but also work side-by-side on the issues where our interests converge. Today’s decision, however, is about ensuring the long-term security of our telecoms network, specifically in the light of those new US sanctions.
The security and resilience of our telecoms networks is of paramount importance. We have never compromised, and will never compromise, that security in pursuit of economic prosperity. It is a fact that the US has introduced additional sanctions on Huawei, and as the facts have changed, so has our approach. That is why we have taken the decision that there can be no new Huawei equipment from the end of this year, and set out a clear timetable to exclude Huawei completely by 2027, with an irreversible path implemented by the time of the next election. Telecoms providers will be legally required to implement this by the telecoms security Bill, which we will bring before the House shortly. This important decision secures our networks now and lays the foundations for a world-class telecoms security framework in the future. I commend this statement to the House.
Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for giving me advance sight of his statement. All sides of the House agree that the first duty of any Government is to protect their citizens, and we have confidence in our national security services, which go to such lengths to keep us safe. It has been clear for some time that there are serious questions over whether Huawei should be allowed to control large sections of our country’s telecoms networks, yet the Government refused to face reality. Their approach to our 5G capability, Huawei and our national security has been incomprehensibly negligent. The current Education Secretary was sacked as Defence Secretary for leaking parts of the security services’ advice on Huawei, yet the Government went on to ignore large parts of it. In January, the Foreign Secretary said in a statement to the House that the Government would legislate at “the earliest opportunity” on high-risk vendors. They then refused to work with us and their own Back Benchers to enable that to happen. Will the Secretary of State tell us when he will bring forward the legislation on high-risk vendors, including the robust regulatory and enforcement powers required to limit or eliminate their part in our network? “As soon as possible” and “shortly” will not wash any more.
Will the Government publish the security advice on which today’s decision has been taken? What new information have they been given that was not available to them when the initial decisions were made? I would also like to ask the Secretary of State what discussions he has had with the Foreign Secretary and the Trade Secretary on likely retaliation. Where else are we dependent on Chinese suppliers—for example, in our nuclear sector—and how are we working with our democratic allies, including but not limited to the United States, to develop alternatives in these areas? The Secretary of State says that this change is being made in response to US sanctions, but in the past he has emphasised how closely he was working with the United States, so were the sanctions a surprise? Is our security policy being led by the US? Did the very visible human rights violations by the Chinese in Hong Kong and against the Uyghurs play no part in the decision?
The reality is that the original decision on Huawei was made because, over the past decade, this Government have failed to deliver a sustainable plan for our digital economy. Almost exactly a year ago, the “UK Telecoms Supply Chain Review Report” was published. It stated:
“We will develop and pursue a diversification strategy—including by working with our international partners—to ensure a competitive, sustainable and diverse supply chain.”
Now the Secretary of State claims to have set out a “clear and ambitious diversification strategy”. This will come as a surprise to anyone who has looked at the Government’s statements. I would like to ask the Secretary of State: what are the actions to implement the strategy—which has effectively been set out somewhere and which I have not seen—and can he tell me where it is set out?
This is a car crash for our digital economy, but one that could have been visible from outer space. BT and other vendors have put the cost of this decision in the billions. The Secretary of State says £2 billion. What is the basis for that estimate, and how will he ensure that the cost is not passed on to consumers? Today’s announcement refers to 5G, but what are the implications for our emergency services network—a saga even longer than this one, in which BT was planning to use Huawei?
Open standards such as open RAN limit dependence on any one supplier; what is the Secretary of State doing to mandate such standards and open our networks to UK companies such as Cambridge company ip.access and the north-east company Filtronic? Crucially, what proportion of the additional money that is spent will go to UK companies and how many jobs will be created here? The Government recently announced a £500 million investment in bankrupt American satellite broadband provider OneWeb; are similar investments planned for 5G or 6G companies?
Labour has repeatedly offered constructive ideas to get the UK out of the Huawei hole; we have consistently argued to end our national dependence on all high-risk vendors and improve corporate responsibility for global supply chains. This entire saga has shown that the Government cannot sort this mess out on their own. We need a taskforce of industry representatives, academics, start-ups, regional governments and regulators to develop a plan that delivers a UK network capability and secure mobile network in the shortest possible timeframe. Will the Secretary of State commit to that and return to the House regularly to update on progress?
Will the Secretary of State get a grip, get a plan and secure our critical communications infrastructure, our digital economy and our national security?
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Lady raised a large number of questions and I will address as many as I can.
The hon. Lady asked when the Bill will be brought back. I do not know if she was listening to my statement, but I said that would be in the autumn and that remains the case. Will we publish the security advice? Yes, we will publish a summary of the security advice; that will contain the essence of it. She asked what was new; the new fact was the US sanctions imposed post-January. That is why we sought the advice from the NCSC. She asked whether we would consider wider relations with and responses to China; of course, the National Security Council considered those matters, but she would not expect me to go into detail on that on the Floor of the House. She asked about working on alternatives; we are already working with all our Five Eyes partners on those alternatives.
The first thing we need to do is ensure that we protect the other two vendors in this market, Nokia and Ericsson. Secondly, we need to get new suppliers in; that starts with Samsung and NEC. My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman), the Minister with responsibility for digital infrastructure, who is sitting next to me, has had constructive discussions with them, and we are now at the stage of having engagement at a technical level with their officials.
Of course the hon. Lady is entirely right to point to the future, which is an open RAN network. There is currently only one open RAN network in the world, and that is in Japan, and that was in a situation where it started the network from scratch. There are big barriers to doing this, but of course that is the objective we are working towards. That means working with our partners through international institutions to set the right common standards on which we can have an open RAN network, and it means working with the telecoms providers to provide the right incentives for them to switch from a single vendor to the open RAN network. But in the end an open RAN network is going to provide the opportunity for UK providers, alongside providers from other allies and other countries around the world, to start providing that telecoms infrastructure.
I must say however that I find it extraordinary that the hon. Lady spoke for several minutes but still has not said whether she supports the decision; will she be backing it, yes or no? She says that we were negligent, but I would gently remind the hon. Lady that it was the Labour Government that opened the door to Huawei in the first place; it is this Government who are closing it. It was the Labour party that left us reliant on a small number of suppliers; we are diversifying it. And indeed it was the Labour party, as late as 2018, which was advocating for high-risk vendors to be in the network; we have stopped that.
Julian Knight (Solihull) (Con)
May I say that I broadly welcome the tone and content of this statement? After what could be said to have been a significant false start, the Secretary of State has outlined a much more tenable position; after all, our collective security trumps—so to speak—economics. Having said that, we still have a major job to upgrade our digital security infrastructure. Will the Secretary of State make clear what extra measures he will take to ensure that we do not fall further behind our competitors with 5G and gigabyte-capable broadband as a result of disruption caused by the decision, and what it will mean for consumers? Can he assure the House that his decision today is a final one, a future-proofed one, and one that cannot be reversed by any future Government?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend’s point is absolutely right: how do we ensure that this is future-proofed? The first thing that we have said throughout all this is that we will depend on advice from the NCSC and keep our security situation under review. In terms of the irreversibility of the decision to remove Huawei from the 5G network, first, it will be in the Bill, so it will be set out in statute. Secondly, by the end of this Parliament the flow of Huawei equipment into 5G will have stopped, and we will be well through the path of the stop, because we have set out the path to the end of 2027. Unless the Opposition are going to say that they will come into office, immediately repeal all this legislation and instruct all telecoms providers to almost exclusively procure from Huawei, we have dealt with Huawei in the 5G network through this announcement.
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) (SNP) [V]
Well, well, well. Here we go again—another screeching handbrake turn. When we debated this in January, SNP Members warned the Government that Huawei could not be trusted with our 5G mobile network. Security experts were clear: we should not open up the central nervous system of our modern society to a company owned by the Chinese Communist party. With that characteristic combination of error and overconfidence, the Foreign Secretary opined that I had got my analysis wrong “on all counts”, but it seems not: less than six months later, we are witnessing yet another of the volte-faces that are fast becoming a hallmark of this Government. Small wonder, then, that Ministers and Back Benchers are reluctant to be wheeled out in defence of a Government policy on Monday, knowing that they could be required to argue the polar opposite on Tuesday.
Of course it is right that Huawei should be banned from the UK’s mobile networks, but that is a decision that should have been taken long ago. As I said to the Foreign Secretary in January, had the Government acted in 2018 as the Australians did, our mobile operators’ 5G roll-out plans would have been in an infinitely healthier place. As it is, we will now pay the price for the Government’s ineptitude. We know it, the Secretary of State knows it and increasingly restive Tory Back Benchers know it, so how was it that the Prime Minister thought that China and Huawei could be trusted, or at least managed, in January, but not now in July? Was it that a Brexit Britain was too weak and isolated to upset the world’s second largest economic powerhouse, but that the Government have now been forced to acknowledge that they cannot sacrifice our national security even for Brexit?
Countering the intelligence threat posed by China will require more than just the phase-out of Huawei. It will involve a rethink of our investment in native companies. We must now also work to protect our 999 emergency services network from the fall-out of this decision. Will the Secretary of State outline how exactly he will do so?
We welcome this climbdown. What will the Secretary of State now do, after all the Government’s mistakes, to help us to catch up?
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Gentleman talks about the January 2020 advice. That advice was based on advice from the National Cyber Security Centre, which was working with GCHQ. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that those organisations are probably a better source to rely on than he is. As a result of that advice, we were absolutely clear-eyed about the threat from Chinese vendors; that is why we deemed Huawei and ZTE high-risk vendors, why we banned them from the core of the network, and why we imposed a cap and banned them from the most sensitive elements.
It is, though, a fact that the United States has imposed sanctions on Huawei. The consequence of these sanctions, as we have been advised by the NCSC, is that we can no longer rely upon Huawei equipment. It is therefore in the security interests of the United Kingdom to ban any further use of that equipment by ruling out further purchases of it. That is the right thing to do in the national interest. If the facts change, we change our policy, and that is exactly what we have done. We will then enshrine it in law through the telecoms security Bill.
The hon. Gentleman talked about investment in other companies, and those are important points. We are addressing that through the national security and investment Bill, which will also come before the House. Throughout all this, we have been completely clear-eyed about the threat posed by Chinese companies and taken appropriate steps in relation to it.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, but as a result of this decision, we are reliant on just two companies for most of our mobile telecommunications equipment. Along with the delay to 5G that he talked about, this reflects a long-term failure of UK telecoms strategy to anticipate what the country will need and to prepare for it. Is it still his view that, as he said in March, the UK can develop new supply chain capacity “in this Parliament”? Will he come to my Select Committee next week to discuss how he will do it?
Oliver Dowden
Of course, I would be delighted to come to my right hon. Friend’s Select Committee and outline in further detail the steps that we are taking. In essence, those are to secure the existing supplies and then get new ones in, and we are making good progress on that. Ultimately, it is the Open RAN solution, which means doing things such as launching a flagship Open RAN test bed with mobile network operators and establishing an Open RAN systems integration expert centre through the national telecoms lab. We have a whole range of measures that I am happy to talk to him about at length.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
When I was in China with other MPs a couple of years back, our delegation leader, Ken Clarke, kept going on about how this was a golden era for relations between our two countries. Obviously this is another U-turn, along with school dinners, face masks and the NHS surcharge. Could the Government now apply some consistency to their risky regime standards and stop the UK export of telecommunications spyware and wiretaps to Bahrain, the Philippines, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates—or did taking back control actually mean handing it over to Trump to settle his old scores and being special relationship poodle?
Oliver Dowden
I think the hon. Lady knows that we have appropriate export controls in relation to all the things that she mentioned.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my concerns after recent coverage of Huawei and security apparatus in the province of Xinjiang, where human rights abuses are taking place against the Uyghur? What strategies or incentives are in place to support domestic telecoms equipment supply capabilities, to ensure that we have home-grown alternatives to Huawei?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is right to raise the appalling human rights abuses against the Uyghur in Xinjiang province. The United Kingdom has led in the condemnation of that, working with other countries. She talked about the importance of diversification, which several Members have raised. I am happy to report regularly to the House—indeed, I appear before the House for DCMS questions every month—and update it on the progress of all these measures.
Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)
I suspect many folk will be wondering, if the Government are banning a Chinese tech company from our tele- communications industry on the grounds of national security, how come it is safe for them to participate in building a nuclear power station?
Oliver Dowden
The advice that we have received today relates to the impact of the US sanctions. The US has imposed sanctions specifically on 5G. We have analysed the impact of those sanctions. It has undermined the reliability of Huawei equipment, which is why we are now advising, and then will set out in statute, that mobile network operators can no longer purchase that equipment.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s announcement and the fact that they have listened to Members across the House. It is right that they have taken action from the US approach and its implementation of sanctions. But if the Government are going to be clear-eyed about China, they must also be clear-eyed about the human rights violations reportedly being undertaken by Huawei and its use of slave labour. It is not acceptable for a global Britain to be involved with a company that is perpetually using slave labour in its supply chains. Will my right hon. Friend work with me and Members across the House to ensure that we can bring forward the 2027 date?
Oliver Dowden
I thank my hon. Friend for his support, but I think there are slightly separate questions about the timings and the issue of human rights abuses. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of human rights abuses, and that is something we are addressing through the modern slavery Bill. We should not be having any companies operating in the United Kingdom relying on slavery, so we have introduced the modern slavery Bill. Indeed, there is an amendment that will be considered in the Lords very shortly which deals precisely with that issue, and we are working with peers to address that.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
I, too, welcome this screeching U-turn. It is ultimately the right decision on the grounds of national security, human rights and British industrial strategy. Does the Secretary of State agree that the best way to mitigate the risks of relying on just two vendors is for the Government to invest in the development of the open radio access network and to open the market to newer smaller entrants. If he does, when will he publish a strategy to achieve that?
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Of course, in the medium to long run, open RAN is the solution. I just have to caution that that is not available immediately, so that is why, in the shorter run, we are also working on trying to introduce further existing vendors into the United Kingdom, principally Samsung and NEC.
Mrs Flick Drummond (Meon Valley) (Con)
Can I also welcome the Secretary of State’s statement, but will he commit the Government to further financial support for research and development to enable the UK telecommunications industry to move fast so that we can fill the gap as quickly as possible?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend raises a very important point. Of course the Chancellor was at the National Security Council when we were discussing this, clearly in order to facilitate the open RAN solution that will require investment from the Government, but that will be a matter for the Chancellor at a future fiscal event.
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
The Secretary of State has been particularly clear that Huawei will not be asked to deliver the UK’s 5G network, but he has been conspicuously quiet in relation to when the 5G network will now be complete across the UK. So can he clarify for me and for Members across the Chamber: when will 5G be delivered across the United Kingdom, and at what cost?
Oliver Dowden
We set out our position in the manifesto, but as a consequence of these decisions things have changed. I have been very frank and up front with the House about this. The consequence of the decision to stop the flow of Huawei equipment into 5G and to set a very firm date for 2027 and the pathway to that will add two to three years to the delivery time.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
The Chinese Government have of late struck an increasingly aggressive posture against countries such as Australia and India, and also against this country, effectively tearing up the Sino-British declaration and imposing draconian laws on Hong Kong. When it learned of calls from this place for the exclusion of Huawei from our national telecoms infrastructure, its ambassador threatened this country with unspecified consequences. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that threat confirms not only the close connection between Huawei and the Chinese Government, but the fact that the right decision has been made today?
Oliver Dowden
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. This Government will not be cowed by the comments of any other country, and indeed this decision has been made in the national security interests of this nation. He is absolutely right to raise the abuses in Hong Kong and the Foreign Secretary has dealt with that extensively.
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab) [V]
The National Institute of Economic and Social Research says that removing Huawei from 5G infrastructure will lead to higher prices and, as the Secretary of State has already said to the House, also a delayed roll-out, so what will his Department be doing to ensure that this decision does not increase the digital divide that exists in this country, and what conversations has he had or will he be having with local authorities about the impact of planned infrastructure work?
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the point about a digital divide, and that is something that my Department is working on extensively —for example, in ensuring that there is more handheld equipment and all those sorts of things for people who do not currently have mobile phone technology. We have invested a lot of money in relation to that.
On his point about local authorities, our manifesto commitment set a highly ambitious target of full fibre roll-out by 2025, which is creating huge investment across the country. Indeed, a telecoms provider recently announced 10,000 new jobs. There is lots of potential for new jobs in this area.
Theresa Villiers (Chipping Barnet) (Con)
Significant disruption to either mobile or broadband services could have a disastrous impact on essential services, so will the Secretary of State assure the House that everything possible is being done to mitigate and manage the risk resulting from Huawei’s continued involvement in our telecoms infrastructure?
Oliver Dowden
Of course, we continue to manage and mitigate that risk, which is why we announced in January the cap and exclude measures, which we are reinforcing with a pathway to having zero Huawei in our 5G by 2027. We will continue to work on the security risks around Huawei, particularly through the Huawei evaluation centre in GCHQ.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
The Secretary of State has twice referred to the Five Eyes partnership, and made a more oblique reference to wider alliances. He has made no reference to the D10 alliance—the G7 countries, Australia, South Korea and India—that was trailed five weeks ago. Has that alliance been established, does it exist, is there a unity of purpose, and are the other members of the proposed alliance at one with us on the decision made today?
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the D10 alliance, which was proposed not by the UK Government but, I believe, by the Atlantic Forum. We are working with all the D10 countries on this, and with Japan, South Korea and others, where we have a lot of interest in that.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
There could be offsets to the delay and cost if, as a result of this, we design and manufacture many more of the components we need here at home. What exactly can the Government do to make that more likely to create jobs and technology?
Oliver Dowden
My right hon. Friend is right to raise the point, which is the opportunity created by open RAN technology. It will take a very long time, were the UK minded to do so, to create a new mobile vendor like Ericsson, Nokia or indeed Huawei, but with open RAN we can get UK technologies into the provision of telecoms infrastructure, and that can sit alongside contributions from other like-minded countries around the world. That is how we will create jobs and provide a long-lasting solution.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Basically, the Government’s mobile telephony strategy is in tatters. What is particularly sad is that it was not only predictable; it was predicted, by dozens of Members of Parliament who kept saying to the Government that this was where we would get to in the end. I just wish they sometimes would listen to their own Back Benchers, and obviously Opposition Back Benchers as well. There is unity in the House on this matter, and there has been for some time.
The Secretary of State is like St Augustine: “make me chaste—but not yet.” All he is offering us is a path towards getting rid of these some time in 2027, after the next general election. He will not even tell us when autumn is. Will he tell us precisely when he will publish his Bill, when it will be enacted and why he cannot bring forward the date from 2027?
Oliver Dowden
As ever, the hon. Gentleman is very good at false indignation and theatrics, but in reality it is this Government, unlike the last Labour Government, who have, for the first time, set out a clear date, which will be enshrined in statute, to remove Huawei equipment, and we are stopping the flow into the networks. To do all that, we have to bring forward the telecoms security Bill, which I have said will happen in the autumn. I believe that autumn falls in the months of September, October and November.
Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)
May I ask humbly that we distinguish between the people of China and the Communist regime? It is the latter that for years we have tried to appease in the hope that it would mature into a global citizen, and that clearly has not happened. President Xi seeks superpower status, but now with a competing vision of world order. I therefore very much welcome the announcement today. Has the Secretary of State shared it with the Five Eyes community and, indeed, our US friends?
However, we should also expect repercussions from China, and to that end I strongly believe that this must be the start of a wider strategic foreign policy reset. Tactical announcements about sending carriers to the South China sea are all very well, but they must form part of a wider international collective western resolve to defend our values and our standards, in which China is very much welcome to participate and I hope the UK will play a leading role.
Oliver Dowden
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question. He is absolutely right to distinguish between the people of China and the Chinese Government. China is a wonderful country; I have very much enjoyed visiting it on occasions in the past, and there are some very warm people there. The difference is the Government of China and some of the abuses, particularly of the rule of law and human rights, that we have seen there. In the context of telecommunications security, we have an opportunity to work with our allies. If we can develop this open RAN technology of the future, it will provide an opportunity not just to benefit us but to benefit them, and indeed to further secure our infrastructure and make it more resilient.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) [V]
There were severe warnings from network providers over the weekend that stripping Huawei equipment out of our networks too quickly could lead to signal blackouts. Our national security must of course come first, but the Government promised a levelling up of network infra- structure, which certainly would not be consistent with blackouts. What assurances can the Minister give my constituents that they will not have to endure that kind of disruption?
Oliver Dowden
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the risk of that kind of disruption and blackouts. That was one of the reasons that led us to the timetable that we have set out. Put bluntly, the shorter the timetable for the removal, the higher the risk of that happening, but I can tell the hon. Lady, her constituents and people up and down the country that this risk will not materialise in relation to the proposals that we have outlined today.
Kevin Hollinrake (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement and his willingness to take tough decisions, particularly when, as the China Research Group believes, they are in the national interest. With the EU President recently having had to take Beijing to task over its cyber-attacks on EU hospitals treating patients for coronavirus, does this action from the Government not send the message loud and clear to the Chinese state that our future relationship must be based on trust, and our trade on a fair and level playing field?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the issue of cyber-attacks. I caution, though, that cyber-attacks will not be prevented by removing Huawei equipment from the system. There are vulnerabilities across the network, and indeed one reason that we are introducing the telecoms security Bill is to start to address some of those. We have seen—it is in the public domain—that hostile Russian actors, for example, have already been able to attack our networks. With regard to the wider position on China, we need to have a full and frank relationship with China, and we have done that, but this announcement is principally about the US sanctions.
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) (SNP) [V]
No matter how hard the Secretary of State tries to disguise it, this is a humiliating U-turn by a Government being forced to admit that they got it wrong in January. What assessment has been made of the additional damage to the economy, the additional cost to public finances in the UK, and the additional cost to devolved nations of the UK, of this Government taking the decision today that everyone knows they should have taken six months ago?
Oliver Dowden
I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that he cannot simultaneously urge us to take a faster course, which the SNP did previously, and attack us for the consequence of that in terms of cost. One thing leads to the other.
Mark Fletcher (Bolsover) (Con)
I very much welcome today’s announcement. The Government committed in their manifesto to improving mobile connectivity in rural constituencies like mine. Will my right hon. Friend comment on how this decision will affect plans for improving rural networks in Derbyshire and elsewhere?
Oliver Dowden
This announcement should not impact rural networks and the way that, as my hon. Friend describes, we have made huge advances by signing the deal for a single rural network, which will help places like Derbyshire.
Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)
The UK has great science start-ups—indeed, Warrington is considered the second-best start-up location in the UK, and we are proudly a key engine of growth for the northern powerhouse. What proportion of the additional money spent to take Huawei out of our networks will go to UK companies? How many jobs will be created here? Will that investment be seen across the regions and nations of the UK?
Oliver Dowden
The commitment we have made for full fibre throughout the country, with an ambitious target of 2025, will cause huge amounts of investment up and down the country, including in the hon. Lady’s constituency. In addition to that, as we seek to develop an open RAN solution, there will be opportunities for universities and others to contribute to that solution.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
The Secretary of State’s announcement is a delicate balancing act between security, economics and geopolitics, and it shifts the supply of “Made in China” equipment from Huawei to “Made in China” equipment from the 25,000 Nokia and Ericsson employees there, creating a new duopoly of 5G telecoms provision until such a time as there is a credible Anglo-Saxon alternative. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, as one of the goals in respect of leaving the EU was for a new global Britain to develop deeper relations with growth nations, including in Asia, we must continue to find space to work closely with China on issues of mutual benefit, as well as to confront her on issues in respect of which our values require it?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to distinguish between confronting on issues such as human rights and having an open commercial relationship with China, clearly subject to the rule of law. That is the approach that we continue to pursue, notwithstanding this announcement.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
The diminishing number of people in Scotland who still vote Tory tend to live in remote and rural areas, so I am sure they will be delighted that by the Government’s own admission they are breaching their manifesto promise to roll out 5G—and as a result of decisions that they have taken. It is therefore not illegitimate for us to ask about the consequences in terms of the delays to the infrastructure and the costs. What discussions, if any, has the Secretary of State had with Scotland and the other devolved Administrations about the impact of today’s decision?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend the Minister for Digital Infrastructure, who is sat next to me, will be having exactly those further conversations with the devolved nations. I did not hear him say it at the time, but I would have thought the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed our announcement of the shared rural network, which was a groundbreaking deal that brought Government money together with the telecoms networks to massively improve connectivity—particularly in Scotland, where it had not been the case previously—up to well over 90% coverage. That is an amazing achievement.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, which I welcome. Does he agree that now is the time to invest in our own domestic 5G capacity to support our future critical communications infrastructure? To that end, I urge him and his ministerial colleagues to consider seriously the Staffordshire proposal for a 5G connected region growth deal, which would establish both the first regional commercial 5G network in the UK and a wide-area test- and-innovation network to support our future aspirations in this policy area.
Oliver Dowden
As ever, my hon. Friend is a robust advocate for his constituency. Exactly those conversations are going on now.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
The Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre was first set up by the National Cyber Security Centre some 10 years ago. Huawei has been considered a high-risk vendor by three Prime Ministers, so why has decisive action taken so long? Many of the European alternatives to Huawei manufacture parts in China; are the Government looking at the security implications of that?
Oliver Dowden
We look at the security implications of whole supply chains, which is exactly what the National Cyber Security Centre has been doing—and that applies not just to Huawei but to the other vendors. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to highlight this issue. Simply removing Huawei from 5G networks does not deal with all the security risks, which is why we need to bring forward the telecoms security Bill as part of our efforts to enhance security.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I welcome what the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Government have done, putting national security in front of profit and telling the world that this sovereign nation will not be pushed around by any country. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that we will still be able to work at breakneck speed to roll-out a 5G network throughout the country with credible, trustworthy partners? We should also recognise that as technology moves on, a lot of this stuff will be done through software, not necessarily through hardware.
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend makes an important point about software versus hardware; indeed, that goes to some of the wider discussions around open RAN. We will of course always put national security first, which is what we have done with this statement today.
Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC) [V]
The Secretary of State said that countries around the world have become reliant on too few vendors. That included the UK just half a year ago. Are his Government in any way to blame?
Oliver Dowden
There has been a failure of successive Governments both in the United Kingdom and around the world in ensuring that we have sovereign capability not just in telecoms vendors but in other areas of emergent technology. That is precisely why we are bringing forward an investment security Bill to greater empower the Government to take decisions to protect our national interest in relation to investment in companies.
Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)
We know that the few existing vendors rely on component parts from China, and I suspect that will continue for some time. To make our move successful, other countries in the west must come into line with us. What guarantee can my right hon. Friend give that other countries will follow us and thereby ensure that Huawei and Chinese influence is completely out of whatever network we set up?
Oliver Dowden
As my hon. Friend will be aware, the US and Australia have already taken such decisions, the Canadians have a similar analysis to us but have yet to take a decision on it, and New Zealand has a slightly different process. Each country around the world is looking at how best to protect its telecoms networks, but also—crucially—how to develop its own domestic alternatives. The way to address that is by working co-operatively such as through open RAN.
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) (SNP) [V]
In January, the Government announced that Huawei would be limited to 35% of the network but crucially not be in its core. While I welcome the U-turn, I must point out that Huawei is already in the core of EE’s 4G network—5G, of course, is layered on top—and BT has said that it will take years to remove it. How will the Secretary of State mitigate the risk posed by Huawei’s continued presence in the core of EE’s network?
Oliver Dowden
The first point is that all that equipment will have been approved by the Huawei cell in GCHQ. In addition, that is why we introduced the ban on Huawei from the core, and we have now set out the path down to zero.
Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam) (Con)
It is clear that the latest US sanctions have changed the landscape, so it is reasonable for the Government to change their approach on Huawei. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be naive to believe that the only threat to the UK telecommunications network will come from Huawei equipment, or even solely from China, so the appropriate response is to ensure that the whole network is secure, wherever the threat may come from?
Oliver Dowden
As ever, my right hon. and learned Friend, and predecessor, is correct. It is just the reality that telecoms networks will always be vulnerable, particularly to sophisticated hostile state actors, so we are bringing forward a telecoms security Bill to seek to address that. We should not kid ourselves into thinking that there is a panacea and that with one silver bullet we remove the risk by banning Huawei.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
The Secretary of State focuses on delays and costs, but he also knows that Huawei has contracts in the Xinjiang public security bureau to deliver digital surveillance that oppresses a million Muslims. It also benefits from the slave trade. Does he agree that in any major public procurement contract, there should be due diligence on human rights? Why has he not done so in this case?
Oliver Dowden
It is not actually the UK Government who are procuring from Huawei; it is the mobile network operators who do so. However, the hon. Member’s point about modern slavery is correct, and that is why we brought forward the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Of course, such considerations are undertaken for public procurement.
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) (Con) [V]
Given that successive British Governments since the early 2000s have worked to encourage Huawei and other private companies from China to invest in the UK, what message do we feel this change will send in terms of consistency as a long-term reliable international partner? Has it been examined as part of wider strategic policy for Britain’s place in the world post Brexit?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this point. The United Kingdom prides itself on the rule of law, a rules-based system and consistency, and that will remain the case, and of course we will welcome Chinese investment and investment from around the world. What has changed here are the US sanctions, and, as a result of those sanctions, we can no longer rely on Huawei equipment. Therefore, it is in the national interest to introduce this ban on new purchases from the beginning of the year.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I welcome the decision to eradicate Huawei from the 5G system, but I think that the Secretary of State can do it quicker than he says. I was listening to the “Today” programme the other day, and the head of BT said seven years, yes, but it could be done in five. Let us bring it forward to five, and make sure that it happens quickly. There is no reason why that cannot be done. The key point I want to make is that there are two contradictions in the Secretary of State’s statement. Having said that he is getting rid of Huawei in 5G, it is apparently fine for it to continue in 4G and 3G; it can go on for as long as anyone. It will be upgraded in software upgrades for the next decade. If it is a risk in 5G, why is it not a risk to us generally? Secondly, on human rights, we know that Huawei has lied in its declaration under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 that it has had no involvement in slavery. We know that now from Xinjiang Province. If we can prove that and are able to demonstrate it to this Government, will this Government ban Huawei altogether?
Oliver Dowden
My right hon. Friend raises the distinction between 4G, 3G and 5G. First, 5G is the new technology. It is the successor to 3G and 4G. Indeed, as he said to this House previously, the reality of the 5G network is that it is fundamentally different, and it is a recognition of that fundamental difference that we are imposing these rules in respect of 5G. Of course, over time, 5G will be the replacement network and then, in turn, 5G will be replaced by 6G and, in all of that, Huawei will be absent.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]
I welcome the statement, but the report of the Huawei Cyber Security Evaluation Centre Oversight Board says that there are existing cyber security risks to the Huawei network in the UK, which the company has no credible plan to remedy. What will the Secretary State be doing to seek to address those existing cyber-security risks in the network before 2027?
Oliver Dowden
Obviously, the most blunt way of doing that is to ban the flow from the beginning of the year and then address the stock to 2027. In advance of that, we will also be imposing much tougher conditions on all of the mobile network operators through the telecoms security Bill. Essentially, that will shift the balance from the Communications Act 2003, whereby it was up to the mobile network operators to determine how best to ensure security, to this legislation that will involve the Government setting out those requirements, and they will address those sort of issues.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that the problem is not with Huawei’s hardware, but with its software? As part of his open RAN solution, might an alternative be to mandate the use of open-source software rather than proprietary software in the 5G network?
Oliver Dowden
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to make the point about open-source software, and we will certainly encourage that to happen. That greater transparency will help as we roll out the open RAN networks. It is the case that the Huawei evaluation centre in GCHQ does look at both hardware and software issues.
David Johnston (Wantage) (Con)
With regard to our other networks, people in the telecoms industry have suggested to me that it is not actually as difficult to replace the equipment as the representatives of the industry suggest. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that, in his technical consultation about supply chain alternatives, he will push them to distinguish between things they prefer not to have to do and things that are genuinely impossible?
Oliver Dowden
My hon. Friend raises an important point. Of course we will do that. It is just worth bearing in mind with all of this that it is not just one decision, but the cumulative impact of all those decisions. We imposed restrictions in January. We are imposing further restrictions on banning the procurement and then we are imposing further restrictions again in 2027. We will just get to a point on the deliverability of this.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald (Glasgow South) (SNP)
I welcome the decision inasmuch as it is progress of a kind, but let us not be so myopic as to think that the victory is complete; it is not. As long as Huawei continues to have its tentacles in other key elements of public infrastructure and academia in our universities across the country—it is giving huge sums to outfits such as the London School of Economics—we still have an issue. Has the myopia really come to an end? Is the decision part of a broader strategy to get Huawei out of places it ought not to be?
Oliver Dowden
Today’s announcement relates principally to the imposition of sanctions by the US Government and the consequences of that. The wider points the hon. Gentleman raises are likely to be addressed through the investment security Bill, which will come before the House.
Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)
I add my voice to the welcome for this vital decision in the interests of national security. Building on the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), although for many of my constituents in rural Buckinghamshire 5G will be game-changing, to put it bluntly, any reliable mobile signal will be life-changing. What assurance can my right hon. Friend give me that the incredible shared rural network can be pushed up the agenda and delivered faster than currently scheduled?
Oliver Dowden
As my hon. Friend knows, we signed the deal for the shared rural network just a few months ago. That was incredible progress and we will continue to challenge it to go further and faster. In addition, I am aware when we talk about getting full fibre to the premises that many people are still struggling with getting superfast, so we also need to make sure we get superfast to the remaining 4% of households in the UK.
Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)
Security of our telecoms network is the vital issue here. That is why I supported the Government’s announcement earlier this year on Huawei. They have caved in to pressure from the United States and their own Back Benchers. Some of those Back Benchers who were in government during the golden years of the relationship with China and said nothing then about human rights have now found their conscience. In the telecoms Bill, the Secretary of State is going to ban Huawei, but if the United States changes its position, can we take Huawei out of the legislation? Will we ban Nokia and Ericsson from using components manufactured in China, as they do now? Will he be honest with the public? It is not about the hardware; it is about hacking and the software. That is what we should be concentrating on, not this.
Oliver Dowden
The right hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the wider risks to the network. As I have said repeatedly, both previously and today, we would be exceptionally naive to think that just by removing Huawei, we remove that risk. Sophisticated hostile state actors can of course infiltrate our networks. That is why we are toughening up considerably the security of our networks through the telecoms security Bill, and I think that is the correct approach.
Bob Seely (Isle of Wight) (Con)
I welcome much of what the Minister has said and am grateful to him for coming here. This does look like a long, slow goodbye to Huawei, but does he understand the concerns of some Members that seven years is a very long time in politics and it would be better were it to be done sooner? Also, does he understand that perhaps the lesson from all this is that for a host of reasons—economic, security, geopolitics —high-risk vendors should not be in our critical national infrastructure?
Oliver Dowden
I thank my hon. Friend for his constructive comments. I genuinely understand the concerns about speed expressed by him and other Members. That point was considered extensively by the National Security Council, and in the end we made a balanced judgment. We believe that by having 2027 as the target, by the end of this Parliament we will have put in law an irreversible process for removal. The risk of going faster relates to the integrity of the network and the challenges in that respect. I would rather we got to a point where we had got it out completely by 2027, and I think that is a realistic timetable for doing so.
Mr Speaker
To allow the safe exit of hon. Members participating in this item of business and the safe arrival of those participating in the next, I am suspending the House for three minutes.
Coronavirus Update
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about coronavirus.
Thanks to one of the greatest national efforts in peacetime, this deadly virus continues to diminish. Yesterday’s figures show 530 new cases, down around 90% since the peak, while 162 patients are currently in mechanical ventilator beds with coronavirus, down around 95% since the peak. The latest number for deaths recorded in all settings across the UK is 11—the lowest figure since 13 March. According to today’s Office for National Statistics data, for the third consecutive week, total deaths are lower than normal for this time of year.
Due to this substantial progress, we have been able to restore freedoms and carefully and methodically restore the fabric of this country. However, we cannot let our progress today lead to complacency tomorrow, so we must remain vigilant to keep this virus under control. Our strategy is to protect the NHS, get the virus down and keep the virus down, while restoring as much of normal life as possible. Our tactic is to replace national lockdown with ever more targeted local action as we work hard to defeat this virus once and for all.
Our NHS test and trace system gets stronger all the time. Since launch six weeks ago, 144,000 people have now been asked to self-isolate who otherwise simply would not have known that they had to. Where we find clusters or outbreaks, we take local action, tackling over 100 incidents a week. Mostly these are small, in an individual care home, pub or factory. But we are prepared to take action on a wider basis if that is what it takes, just as we did in Leicester. Four permanent test sites and 10 mobile testing units have been deployed across the city, meaning that Leicester now has the highest rate of testing in the country. We have launched one of the biggest communication programmes that Leicester has ever seen, including targeted social media posts, website banners, radio ads, billboards and even bin stickers. We have been working closely with all parts of the local community, including community leaders, local businesses and the local football and cricket clubs to get the message out. We have also established a process for making decisions to lift the lockdown, with the first decision point later this week.
Local action is one way in which we can control the spread of the virus while minimising the economic and social costs. Another is to minimise the risk as we return more to normality. In recent weeks we have reopened retail and footfall is rising. We want to give people more confidence to shop safely and enhance protections for those who work in shops. Both of those can be done by the use of face coverings. Sadly, sales assistants, cashiers and security guards have suffered disproportionately in this crisis. The death rate of sales and retail assistants is 75% higher among men and 60% higher among women than in the general population. As we restore shopping, so we must keep our shopkeepers safe.
There is also evidence that face coverings increase confidence in people to shop. The British Retail Consortium has said that, together with other social distancing measures, face coverings can
“make shoppers feel even more confident about returning to the High Street.”
The chair of the Federation of Small Businesses has said:
“As mandatory face coverings are introduced, small firms know that they have a part to play in the nation’s recovery both physically and financially, and I’m sure this will welcomed by them.”
We have therefore come to the decision that face coverings should be mandatory in shops and supermarkets. Last month, we made face coverings mandatory on public transport and in NHS settings, and that has been successful in giving people more confidence to go on public transport and to a hospital setting when they need to, providing people with additional protection when they are not able to keep 2 metres from others, particularly people they do not normally come into contact with. Under the new rules, people who do not wear face coverings will face a fine of up to £100 in line with the sanction on public transport and, just as with public transport, children under 11 and those with certain disabilities will be exempt.
The liability for wearing a face covering lies with the individual. Should an individual without an exemption refuse to wear a face covering, a shop can refuse them entry and can call the police if people refuse to comply. The police have formal enforcement powers and can issue a fine. That is in line with how shops would normally manage their customers and enforcement is, of course, a last resort. We fully expect the public to comply with these rules, as they have done throughout the pandemic.
I want to give this message to everyone who has been making vital changes to their daily lives for the greater good. Wearing a face covering does not mean that we can ignore the other measures that have been so important in slowing the spread of this virus— washing our hands and following the rules on social distancing. Just as the British people have acted so selflessly throughout this pandemic, I have no doubt they will rise to this once more. As a nation, we have made huge strides in getting this virus, which has brought grief to so many, under control. We are not out of the woods yet, so let us all do our utmost to keep this virus cornered and enjoy our summer safely. I commend this statement to the House.
Jonathan Ashworth (Leicester South) (Lab/Co-op)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement. After days of ministerial muddle, we finally have a decision. I have long warned that this virus exploits ambiguity and that mixed messaging in a pandemic is so damaging. On Friday, we had the Prime Minister saying he favoured face masks. On Sunday, we had the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster saying he did not favour face masks. Yesterday, the Justice Secretary, unsure what to say, had to say in the end he was perhaps in favour of face masks.
It did not have to be this way: we did not have to have this confusion. We have long known about airborne transmission via aerosols. The Secretary of State has long warned about asymptomatic transmission. The Royal Society and the World Health Organisation have long recommended wearing face masks. Even Donald Trump now wears a face mask, although admittedly it is because someone told him he looks like the Lone Ranger. The former Chair of the Health Committee has long warned about wearing a face mask. The Secretary of State’s own advice, published on 11 May, advised in favour of wearing face masks. So why has it taken two months for him to make this advice mandatory, and why will it take another 11 days for the measure to come into force? The World Health Organisation has said throughout this pandemic, “Act with speed”, but yet again this Government appear to be in the slow lane.
All we need and want is clarity, so may we have it in other areas? What now is the position on workers returning to offices? Do the Government want them to return to offices, yes or no? Will the Health Secretary offer greater clarity to the people of Leicester, who are now in the 17th week of lockdown in my city? What metrics will be used to judge whether Leicester can ease out lockdown later this week? When will he make that decision? How will he communicate that decision to the people of Leicester? Will he clarify why the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Nadhim Zahawi), has ruled out extra support for Leicester businesses and employers, contradicting the indications that the Health Secretary gave to the people of Leicester? When people are worried about their jobs this mixed messaging is the last thing they need.
On the other parts of the country that have been identified as being of concern, will the Secretary of State instruct the Health and Safety Executive to inspect all factories, meat packing plants, distribution centres and large employment sites as a matter of urgency?
On testing, local authorities still need specific data that can facilitate action. [Interruption.] The Health Secretary disagrees, but they still need person-identifiable data, not just postcodes. They need not just positive test results, but the negative results, so that they can understand the overall infection prevalence, and they need contact tracing data, so that they know who has been asked to isolate by Test and Trace and can follow them up. They need this data daily. The virus does not wait a week, so why should local directors of public health have to wait a week? I note that in the financial statement £10 billion has been allocated to Test and Trace. Can the Health Secretary itemise what that £10 billion has been spent on? Can he rule out spending more on private outsourced companies, and invest more in NHS labs and testing instead?
Finally, today we have a report from the Academy of Medical Sciences warning of a new wave of infection this winter. The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies has also warned that the transmission of the virus
“could be elevated under UK winter conditions”.
Yet missing from last week’s financial statement was any increase in NHS England’s revenue budget. Instead we have a mooted NHS reorganisation, with suggestions that Public Health England could be abolished and speculation that a new centre for disease control could be set up in its place instead. NHS staff need certainty, now more than ever, so will he ensure that the NHS and the social care sector get the winter funding they need to prepare for a second wave? People want to do the right thing. Muddled messaging hinders that. As George Osborne said yesterday, people just “want answers”. Can the Health Secretary give our constituents answers today?
Matt Hancock
I can certainly answer some of the genuine questions that were under there. The tone of constructive engagement that the hon. Gentleman used to engage with was a better one for him.
We clearly follow the evidence on face coverings, and I set out some of the reasons why now is the right moment to introduce this policy. Trying to turn this into a party political football ill behoves the hon. Gentleman, not least because when his colleague the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) was asked yesterday whether he knew what Labour’s policy was on face masks, he said:
“On that specific detail…I don’t…I would like to know…if we are going to call for clarity…it would be good to have clarity on our own policy.”
So we can take the criticisms from the Opposition Front- Bench team with a pinch of salt.
I come to the specific substantive questions that the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) asked. I have set out that there is a process for whether changes can be made in Leicester. The process is that we will look at 14 days of data, and today it is 14 days since the measures were introduced. We will look at that on Thursday of this week and make a public announcement as soon as is reasonably possible about whether any changes can be made to the situation in Leicester.
Thankfully, the numbers have been coming down in Leicester and we have put in that extra testing, but the number of positive cases in Leicester is still well above the rest of the country. I will not prejudge the decision that we will take on Thursday, and we will take into account all the data. The hon. Gentleman asks for specific metrics. We will not set out specific thresholds. Instead, we will look at all the data—both the level and the rate of change—and make the appropriate decision in consultation with the local authorities.
The hon. Gentleman asks about health and safety inspections. There are risk-based health and safety inspections on all the types of facility that he mentioned, and that absolutely needs to be based on risk. For instance, we have seen across the world that meat-packing factories have a much higher risk of outbreak, so we have targeted inspections on them.
The hon. Gentleman asks about data. Patient identifiable data is available to local authorities when they sign a data protection agreement. Of course, there has to be a data protection agreement, and, as he knows, we plan to publish more and more of that as open data.
We will continue the work to control the virus. We will continue to bring in measures as they are appropriate, and I look forward to a return to the spirit of constructive engagement for which the hon. Gentleman is so well known.
Jeremy Hunt (South West Surrey) (Con)
I congratulate the Health Secretary on the impressive resilience that he has shown throughout the coronavirus crisis, but as we both know, the joy of his job is that winter is always around the corner. One of the most sobering statistics in this morning’s report from the Academy of Medical Sciences is that the number of people every day over winter who have covid symptoms will increase from 100,000 to 360,000. It is obviously vital to know which of them have coronavirus and which just have regular winter flu. The report states that it is essential to have a massive ramp-up of testing and tracing capability before then, so what are my right hon. Friend’s plans are to do that, and when he does it, will he be able to do what not just Sir John Bell, but Sir Paul Nurse and many other distinguished scientists are calling for, which is routine testing for NHS frontline staff?
Matt Hancock
I take very seriously the royal colleges report. We are engaged in a massive ramp-up of testing and of the contact tracing that my right hon. Friend has long championed. The scale of the ramp-up of testing will be big enough to cope with the sorts of figures that are described in the royal colleges report—that is even on the current testing technology. If there is a breakthrough so that we can get testing technology that is even easier to roll out, where it can be done at the bedside in the community rather than having to be sent to a lab, we will be able to have an even bigger roll-out.
On my right hon. Friend’s final point, as he and I have discussed in this Chamber, we have put in place a programme of regular testing of NHS staff that is advised by clinicians. That insists on regular testing that is, again, risk-based, and as we further ramp-up testing above and beyond the current 300,000-a-day capacity that we have now achieved, which is one of the highest in the whole world, we will of course continue to expand that effort.
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (SNP) [V]
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement; it represents a welcome step towards preparing for any potential new second wave of coronavirus infections this winter. The virus has not been eliminated, so as we lift lockdown and people increasingly interact with one another, we need to use every tool we have to reduce the risk of a second wave.
A report commissioned by the UK chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, has concluded that July and August must be a period of intense preparation for a potential winter resurgence of the virus, with R potentially rising to 1.7 by September. The report’s worst-case scenario forewarns of an estimated 119,000 associated hospital deaths between September and June—more than double the deaths we saw during the spring wave. This outcome, of course, does not take any account of likely actions that the Government may take. I sincerely hope that an elimination strategy is adopted as part of that.
The move to compulsory face coverings is a welcome and helpful intervention, but I am in no doubt that effective uptake will require consistent and effective public messaging. So far, we had the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster saying on Sunday that face coverings should not be mandatory, the Justice Secretary saying that they perhaps should be, the Prime Minister saying that he is looking at the evidence and, thankfully, the Health Secretary today saying they will be mandatory. Will he confirm the implementation date? Press speculation has suggested 24 July. When the head of the World Health Organisation said yesterday that mixed messaging from leaders is one of the worst challenges in tackling covid-19, who do we think he had in mind?
The chair of the British Medical Association said that
“each day that goes by adds to the risk of spread and endangers lives.”
While I welcome the UK Government’s falling into line with Scotland and 120 other countries worldwide on mandatory face coverings, they need to be one component of a wider elimination strategy, not just about keeping the virus down. I hope the Secretary of State will take this opportunity to commit to an elimination strategy.
Matt Hancock
I certainly agree that the UK has throughout the virus moved largely in lockstep but for a few days in some cases, owing to the implementation and timings of these sort of decisions. That is a good thing, because we are far stronger when we work together as one single United Kingdom. I welcome the Scottish Government’s support for the decision we have taken.
I add only that suppressing the virus is absolutely critical. As all countries around the world have discovered, elimination is extremely difficult. Those countries that thought elimination was achievable are finding that cases pop up again. The correct approach, which we are following right across the United Kingdom, is local action whenever we see cases, clamping down on them as much as possible in order to suppress the virus, while lifting those national measures.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
I praise my right hon. Friend. It is great that this is the third week of a lower than average number of deaths across the country, which shows that we are really getting a grip on the virus. We have seen real reductions in rates in the north-east as well.
However, as the economy opens back up, confidence is absolutely key for my local community and the local economy, particularly for those coming back from shielding in August. Also key is the confidence that, when there are local outbreaks, as there has been in my constituency in the last 48 hours, track and trace is there for people. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House how many people have already been tracked and traced across the country, to help give people confidence that the system is working?
Matt Hancock
There are 144,000 people who have been asked to isolate who simply would not have known that they were at risk before the large-scale track and trace programme was put in place. It is vital that we have the resources to act and that we have plenty of resources for testing and tracing. For a while, we faced criticism that we had too many people with not enough to do, but as shown by the royal colleges report released this morning, and as my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt)—the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee—said and as my hon. Friend just alluded to, it is vital that we have that capacity, so that whenever we need to trace an outbreak of the virus, we can get right in there and take the action that we need to take.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Every covid-19 death is a tragedy—a family changed forever. The tragic but inescapable truth is that the UK Government’s response to this pandemic resulted in one of the worst death tolls in the world. However, adjusted for age, the death toll in England is 81.9 people per 100,000, compared with 67.6 in Wales. Commons Library research indicates that excess deaths across the pandemic period have been 15% higher in England than in Wales, despite a significantly greater proportion of the Welsh population living with long-term limiting illnesses. What does the Secretary of State believe explains that disparity, and what lessons can his Department learn from the Welsh Government’s response in preparation for further local outbreaks and a potential second wave?
Matt Hancock
I have been engaged positively with the Welsh Government throughout, and where we have concerns—for instance, about the outbreaks the Welsh Government were handling in Wrexham or on Anglesey —we have been in communication about it, especially where there is an issue on the border. I would caution slightly against the sorts of comparisons the hon. Lady draws, but what I will say is that this exercise is best conducted together, and that is why we take the approach that we are tackling this virus together across the whole United Kingdom.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con) [V]
Why was the new policy on face coverings announced in the media last night, rather than to Parliament first?
Matt Hancock
I have come to Parliament to explain it at the first opportunity.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Academy of Medical Sciences is very clear: prepare now for a winter covid-19 peak. We must grasp this chance to learn from past mistakes such as PPE shortages and a Welsh Government gazumped by the British Government on testing equipment. Will the Secretary of State commit to a rapid review, not to point the finger of blame, but to stand ready to implement what we have learned before winter is upon us?
Matt Hancock
This attempt to divide us is very unfortunate. The UK Government have put testing capacity into Wales that is bigger than NHS Wales’s own capacity, and we do that in Scotland as well with the same effect. We are working together in partnership across the United Kingdom, and, absolutely, we are making the preparations for winter, as the right hon. Lady and every other Member of this House would expect.
Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)
If test and trace is to work effectively and people take the advice they are given via that service, some of them will find it difficult, because they will be earning no money; there is a choice to be made between self-isolating and being able to pay their bills. So will the Secretary of State look once more at the issue of sick pay for those, especially in local lockdowns, who are asked to self-isolate on behalf of all of us?
Matt Hancock
Yes, of course we keep this under review. The evidence shows that the most important difference that we can make to get yet more people into the test and trace system is for everybody who has any symptoms at all to get a test if in doubt. That is where the biggest gap is, and that is partly due to the number of cases where people have no symptoms, when of course they would not know that they need to get a test; finding them is incredibly important and is done through contact tracing. We must make sure that if anybody has coronavirus symptoms, and therefore needs a test, they come forward and get a test: if in doubt, get a test. It is of course an important consideration to make sure that people are supported if they need to isolate, and we are working closely with business to ensure that happens.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
The experience of this virus in Barrow and Furness is that it has hit most those with underlying health conditions or who live in areas of deprivation. Surely a lasting legacy from coronavirus should be a move towards early intervention, so we can lift people out of health inequalities and deal with issues before they become intractable problems. Will my right hon. Friend share his views on this approach?
Matt Hancock
I strongly agree with the point of view so eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend. It is critical that, as well as tackling coronavirus and the economic consequences of the action that we have had to take, we tackle the deep-rooted health inequalities that have exacerbated this disease and its impact on many people. This is a critical part of the levelling-up agenda. Issues such as obesity in particular clearly have an impact on how badly people are affected by coronavirus, and we need to take action in order to ensure that people get more equal life chances across this country.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Transparency and trust are crucial to any public health crisis, but public health directors still need household data on infections, not just postcode data. Wakefield Council told me this afternoon that it is still not getting the household data on positive tests, even though we have had outbreaks at Forza meat processing factory and at Urban House asylum accommodation. The public also need proper weekly cases information, not just at the local authority level, which itself is hard to get hold of, but also at town level and constituency level. Will the Secretary of State not now publish for everybody across the country that more local data, at constituency or town level, on the weekly cases each week?
Matt Hancock
The information that the right hon. Lady has requested is available to directors of public health in upper-tier local authorities, and we are extending that further. In addition, I want to see much more data published as open data, and I have requested that that happens. I am sure it will happen soon, but the truth is that, following a request from directors of public health right across the country, we have extended a huge amount of data to them. Those who have signed data protection agreements in upper-tier local authorities and who have the statutory responsibilities for dealing with this have got the data down to the personal details that she requests.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
On a conference call with the North Yorkshire resilience forum yesterday, I discovered that while the borough of Scarborough had experienced 561 cases in total, apart from one isolated case on 3 July, we have not had an infection since 23 June. Will the Secretary of State join me in paying tribute to the people of Scarborough and Whitby not only for so assiduously following the Government guidelines, but for applying liberal quantities of Yorkshire common sense?
Matt Hancock
Absolutely. The people of Scarborough have been well represented and well led by my right hon. Friend. They are doing a great job in following the social distancing rules and making sure that they take appropriate precautions, and as a result, the disease has been suppressed in Scarborough. I am sure that the people of Scarborough will be able to enjoy summer safely.
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (SNP) [V]
[Inaudible.]
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Lisa, we cannot hear you. We will come back to you at the end. We will try to sort out the technical problem.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Will the Secretary of State please outline what is being done to enhance procurement resilience within the NHS? Also, what is being done to ensure that British companies get orders for PPE, not just China?
Matt Hancock
I am absolutely determined to see that happen. Many British companies have stepped up to the plate to deliver PPE, and a very significant proportion of our PPE will be manufactured in the UK by the end of the year. It is a very important part of our global resilience.
Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)
The much-loved author of “Don’t Put Mustard in the Custard”, Mr Michael Rosen has broadcast very eloquently on the BBC about his experience of excellent healthcare in the local Whittington Hospital. However, what he has also expressed very eloquently on Twitter is the sequelae or after-effects of covid. What urgent steps is the Minister taking to address having tailor-made, experienced, proper healthcare in the community for those who are still suffering months after they have had covid?
Matt Hancock
The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important question for the small but significant proportion of people who have long-term detrimental effects from coronavirus. I am glad that Michael Rosen got such excellent care at the Whittington, and I can assure him and the hon. Lady that we are putting in place NHS treatment for people with long-term impacts and research to make sure we understand as much as possible about those long-term impacts, because they are still little understood.
Dr Cameron [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for disability, I have been hearing concerns from those who may be exempt from wearing face masks but are fearful of being confronted because not all disabilities are visible. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating East Kilbride’s Hannah Kelsall on developing free “chase the rainbow” carry cards that explain this exemption? Ultimately, no one should ever be challenging vulnerable people outside. It takes a lot of courage for many to leave their homes, but these innovative cards are providing reassurance for many across my constituency and beyond.
Matt Hancock
It is very important that, as a society, we look out for the most vulnerable, especially through this epidemic. The initiative that the hon. Lady describes is just one way in which we can all support people who have particular circumstances, and it relates directly to the introduction of the mandatory use of face coverings in shops, because there are important exemptions. It is important that people are able to express that they have an exemption because of their medical condition requiring them not to wear a mask, so that they can still shop.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the “NHS is open” campaign, to make sure that members of the public in Dudley, Gornal, Upper Gornal and Woodsetton, Sedgley and beyond know that if they need to seek medical help, they can do so?
Matt Hancock
Yes. I want to reassure people in Dudley and beyond that the NHS is open. If people need NHS treatment, they should go to the NHS. In the first instance, they should go to their GP by phone or telemedicine, or call 111 or go to NHS 111 online. If people are asked to go to hospital or into a surgery, they absolutely should, and it is safe for them to do so.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The only way that directors of public health can properly tackle covid-19 is through an integrated approach to testing, tracing and outbreak management. Currently, the Government are treating each of those separately, with little regard to how they are interconnected. Does the Secretary of State accept the limitations of this system, and will he reallocate resources so that regions can develop integrated approaches for coronavirus test, trace and management?
Matt Hancock
It is vital that all those things are brought together at both a national and local level, and they are. The actions that have been taken under the NHS test and trace programme, whether national or local, and the interaction of the two, are testament to the fact that we are increasingly integrating national and local work and ensuring that the best high-quality data available is shared.
Scott Mann (North Cornwall) (Con)
In the unlikely event that there is a local outbreak in a town or village in Cornwall in the summer, could the Secretary of State outline what a local lockdown might look like for local people and anyone holidaying in Cornwall?
Matt Hancock
Yes. Local action can be anything from action in an individual business premises, an individual farm, as we saw in Herefordshire over the weekend, or an individual GP surgery, up to a group of organisations or, if necessary, a whole city. The approach we take is that, for an individual premises, that is largely a decision for the local director of public health to take, but of course, once we get up to the level of a whole city, that has to be a decision taken nationally by the Government. We will publish more details of this escalation procedure in due course.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
A report from the Academy of Medical Sciences states today that July and August are critical months for “intense preparations” for a possible second surge. What specific measures is the Health Secretary taking to stress-test the PPE supply chain during that period, as the report recommends, given that recent improvements to supply have not taken place in worst-case scenario conditions? Furthermore, will he be responding to calls from Care England and the Relatives & Residents Association to provide PPE to adult social care, free of charge, as an important public health intervention ahead of a second wave?
Matt Hancock
Of course we are doing that work to stress-test the delivery of PPE and to rebuild the stockpile. We had a huge stockpile at the start, but the distribution of that stockpile was extremely difficult for a couple of weeks while we fully sorted it out, got the supplies flowing back in from abroad and built up domestic supplies. Lord, Paul, Deighton has done a remarkable job in putting together the logistical effort. It is exactly as the hon. Lady says. Over the summer, we are doing the work to ensure we are ready for winter.
Dean Russell (Watford) (Con)
I welcome the Government’s announcement that the immigration health surcharge will be exempt for health and social care staff. As set out by the Home Secretary just this week, we will launch a health and care visa, providing an exemption to the health surcharge upfront for either themselves or their dependants. There are, however, some in social care who will not be caught by that exemption. Can my right hon. Friend therefore please update the House on how he plans to ensure those social care workers will be exempt from paying the health surcharge?
Matt Hancock
Yes, I can. I can announce today that all employees working in health and social care will be exempt from the immigration health surcharge and that all employees in health and social care who have paid the immigration health surcharge on or after 31 March will be eligible for a reimbursement. We value enormously the work that people do right across the NHS and all across social care, and I am glad that we have been able to make this announcement.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Secretary of State for his update. The media have highlighted the role of carers and those they look after, and inquiries to my constituency office reflect that. Has he considered allocating additional funding to respite services for carers, bearing in mind that many carers have been caring intensively for their loved ones without a break for 15 weeks? Many of them are on the brink, and I sincerely believe they need time to rest.
Matt Hancock
Yes. That is a really important subject and I am very happy to talk to the hon. Gentleman about it to ensure we get in the best possible support. It is obviously very difficult and I pay tribute to all those who have been caring for loved ones in difficult circumstances. When we clap for our carers, we clap, too, for those unpaid carers who give so much.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his statement. Will he join me in reiterating that, while face coverings can help to reduce transmission in some circumstances, face masks worn as part of PPE for healthcare and other workers should be reserved for those who need it? Will he also confirm that wearing a face covering is not a substitute for social distancing and that we should do both?
Matt Hancock
This point is incredibly important. A face mask can reduce the risk of transmission, and in particular, it protects others should someone be positive and transmitting the virus, especially when they are asymptomatic and do not know it. However, it can only be effective as part of a broad measure of social distancing measures, and it is not a substitute for social distancing and washing hands. It is easy to forget that washing our hands, as well as keeping surfaces clean, is one of the most effective protections against the transmission of the disease.
Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)
Nightingales sat empty while the Secretary of State’s Government’s guidance allowed people to die needlessly in care homes. With 120,000 extra deaths predicted this winter, when will he be making changes to that guidance?
Matt Hancock
The Nightingales project was one of the most successful projects in the history of the NHS—building the Nightingales in nine days was something that many people in this country thought would be impossible—but the Nightingales were designed very specifically for intubated patients who were not conscious. They were not built to be effective and useable for people who are, and there are some very practical reasons for that. I understand the hon. Lady’s call to use the Nightingales for other reasons, but they were built with a specific intention in mind; they met that intention, and they were a great success.
Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)
The pandemic has inevitably led to a backlog in other treatments, which is causing anxiety among my constituents. Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Northern Lincolnshire and Goole NHS Foundation Trust and the two clinical commissioning groups that serve my constituency will have the additional resources that they need to meet the backlog?
Matt Hancock
It is vital that we deal with the back- log of cases that is building up because of the absolutely necessary requirement, in the peak of the crisis, to pause a lot of activity. I can absolutely assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to support and protect the NHS, including with increased resources.
That point brings me back to something that the hon. Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) said at the start and that I should have responded to. He seemed to complain about the £1.5 billion of capital funding that we have put into the NHS recently, but of course it is also very important that we take forward measures to ensure that there is capacity there, too.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
Of course the whole House hopes that in the coming months a vaccine will be developed that can be rolled out, possibly early in the new year, but in the meantime—I know that this issue is close to the Secretary of State’s heart—there are 58 million people across the UK and the US, up 7.7 million since the outbreak, who have joined anti-vax Facebook pages. Tech companies, mainly Facebook, have made more than $1 billion from supporting and advertising anti-vax sites, including those that sell fake cures and discourage the public from getting any medical support when showing signs of covid. As we move towards finding a vaccine, may I press the Secretary of State to look into putting more investment towards ensuring that we tackle those anti-vax sites? As they have been described by many, they are simply an ideological dirt bomb waiting to go off.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. He and I are passionately of one voice on this—as, I think, is the whole House. The Government will recommend a vaccine only when it is known to be safe and effective. We will then need to administer that vaccine, and for people to have confidence in it. People who propagate untrue myths about vaccines are putting lives at risk—that is true of the measles jab and other jabs, and it is true in this case too.
The social media companies have an important responsibility. They have taken some action already, and I pay tribute to them for that; in fact, I have a meeting later this week with a Mr Nick Clegg, who is in a position of responsibility at Facebook, but it is not only Facebook and Instagram that have taken action. We will be discussing what more action can be taken to make sure that people who are propagating lies about vaccines do not manage to spread those lies.
Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Nobody has worked harder than my right hon. Friend to try to save lives and protect people throughout this pandemic, but I know that he, like me, would like a safe and fast economic recovery, so can he please clarify something for my constituents? I have wedding events organisers and business meeting organisers who are genuinely asking what the difference is between a restaurant, which can safely socially distance with perhaps 60 covers, and a wedding, which is allowed only 30 people, who are also socially distancing with all the motivation to do so. Is there some health reason for that, or is it simply a straightforward matter of trying to reduce the return to economic activity?
Matt Hancock
No. This is essentially a judgment about ensuring that people have the appropriate social distancing, with, of course, the maximum possible return to economic and social life. There is a judgment to be made about where such restrictions are put; they are the sort of restrictions that nobody would ever want to put in place, but the problem is that the virus thrives on exactly the sort of social contact that people want to undertake when they are celebrating something like a wedding.
We cannot negotiate with the virus; all we can do is try to have the right balance of measures to keep the spread of the virus down while allowing the restoration of economic and social life. Ultimately, the rules we put in place are judgments, and they are the best judgments we can make with the information available. We keep them under constant review—as I hope my right hon. Friend has seen, for instance, with the reopening of nail bars and beauty salons this week—just as we keep the data on the spread of the virus under review.
Alan Brown (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (SNP)
The Secretary of State gave a statistic in his statement that retail workers have a far higher than average chance of being infected with covid-19. If that is the case, and mandatory face masks is about saving lives, why has it taken so long to take action to make them mandatory, and why is the reported implementation date 24 July?
Matt Hancock
The implementation of this will be on 24 July to ensure that shops and businesses have time to put this into place and to ensure that the implementation can be done in an orderly way.
Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)
Nothing would make me less likely to go shopping than the thought of having to mask up. Was there consultation with the police force, and particularly the chief constable of Hampshire? For it is she who will have to enforce this monstrous imposition against me and a number of outraged and reluctant constituents.
Matt Hancock
The need to restrict the spread of the virus while allowing the ancient liberty of a gentleman to go shopping is a difficult balance to strike. We have made the judgment that the best way to strike it is to allow a gentleman to go shopping but require him to wear face mask. Of course, enforcement for the police, but I think enforcement will largely be undertaken by the British people, who have been remarkable in their fortitude, sticking with the rules even while they may be a frustrating imposition.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
Wirral Council has led the way in recognising the importance of the work that care workers do by making funding available for providers to pay them the real living wage for this financial year. However, the scheme is not mandatory and not all care homes currently pay it. The Government have taken £7.7 billion out of adult social care budgets since 2010, and the care sector faces real challenges. When will the Government step up and fund social care properly to ensure that all care workers earn at least the real living wage?
Matt Hancock
I am incredibly proud to have supported the introduction of the living wage. We brought that in, and it has had a bigger impact on care workers’ salaries than on pay in almost any other sector. The introduction of the living wage is a real testament to the fact that the Government support the lowest paid workers to get the support they need. That is true in social care across the board. The hon. Member says it is not mandatory. It absolutely is mandatory, it is in force, and we are putting the living wage up.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I, like many colleagues across the House, pay tribute to my right hon. Friend and his team for driving down infections across the country. One of the lessons we have learned in the pandemic is that, while it is easy to impose restrictions, it is much more difficult to lift them. Could he therefore explain the criteria that will be used for lifting mandatory face masks while people go shopping?
Matt Hancock
In the same way that these are judgments on the way in, they are judgments on their way out. We will have to make that judgment according to the spread of the virus and, in particular, the risk level imposed by people catching the virus. We will keep all these things under review.
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab) [V]
The data currently has an in-built delay, but the ability to do test, track and trace effectively and with the greatest success requires the shortest time between testing and local action. Put simply, the more local control, the quicker things will happen. The more handovers there are, and the more time it takes, the less successful it is. So I would like to ask the Secretary of State why he does not trust local systems, including the NHS. There are those who think that this is an attempt to discredit NHS labs.
Matt Hancock
On the contrary, NHS labs have done an incredibly important job. We have expanded the NHS labs enormously and we have brought in the drive-through centres. This is a massive team effort, and trust among the team is an incredibly important part of getting this right. The hon. Member is absolutely right about concatenating the time taken from the suspicion of someone having covid through not only to getting the test and the result—those times are all coming down—but to the action being taken based on the result, whether that is isolating the contacts of the individual or taking wider action if it is part of a cluster or there are indications that there might have been an outbreak. I entirely agree with the premise of that part of her question. That is a huge and important piece of the work of NHS Test and Trace at the moment. As for the second part of her question, all I would say is that we are doing everything we can to bring the system together, with the support of all those involved.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Most covid deaths in hospitals are now understood to be due to sepsis as a complication. In the light of the former CMO’s concerns about increased antibiotic use during the pandemic, can my right hon. Friend reassure me, first, that the data on covid-90 are granular enough to identify the mode of death of patients in hospitals and, secondly, that the Government will support the NHS if it is challenged when making prescribing decisions in these unimaginably difficult times?
Matt Hancock
My hon. Friend asks an important medical question, and we know that he has a deep personal interest in sepsis. All I can say is that we are constantly learning all the time. I will not try to answer the clinical part of his question—I will leave that to more qualified clinical and medical colleagues—but it is an incredibly important question, and my view is that as much data as possible should be available for research. I have put in place the regulations—and, indeed, a direction —necessary to allow for the research to be done in a much more effective way than was available in the past.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab) [V]
Italian doctors are once again warning us, this time of the threat of coronavirus resulting in a series of life-limiting illnesses that can affect anyone who has had even the mildest infection, including the Secretary of State and other Members of this House. Sometimes the illness returns only many months later. The advice from Italy is that everyone who catches the virus faces a long-term threat to their health. Can we listen to their advice this time? This is about so much more than mask in shops and the completely inadequate test and trace system.
Matt Hancock
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important point and it is a shame that he uses such adversarial language. The test and trace system is getting better and better, and masks in shops are important, but the underlying point that he makes is absolutely right. The long-term impact of this on some people can be very significant; there is growing evidence of that. I have put in almost £10 million of research funding to try to understand that better, and the NHS has built an NHS service for people in those circumstances. He is quite right to say that the long-term impacts can affect anyone, no matter how mild the initial illness. Thankfully, I do not appear to have any long-term effects that I know about. So far as I can tell, I am fine, but I am grateful for his interest. What I would like to do is work alongside him to try to understand this as well as possible. We are absolutely listening to the evidence from right around the world on this vital question.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
In a short space of time, King’s Mill Hospital in Ashfield has gone from an inadequate rating to an outstanding rating from the Care Quality Commission. During the pandemic, the hospital has been fantastic in providing brilliant care in Ashfield and in supplying PPE to care homes, funeral directors, chemists and anyone else who needed it.
Would my right hon. Friend please say a big thank you to all staff, including the chief executive, Richard Mitchell, hospital cleaner Paula Whetton, porters Michael Thorpe and Colin Ford, Scott Cairns in mattress decontamination and critical care nurse Tracy Hague, who represent the very best of Ashfield, and will he please come to visit the hospital the next time he is in Nottinghamshire?
Matt Hancock
I would love to visit Ashfield Hospital in person and to be able to thank every single person who is there and has worked so hard during this pandemic, from the chief executive to the porters and the nurses: all those who have played their part as part of the team. The hospital in Ashfield does not regard itself as separate from the rest of the community. It is deeply embedded in the community and works across primary care, the community trust and with the mental health trust, too. It is part of a system. That is the future of the NHS: people working together, rather than in the silos of the past.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Unfortunately, my written parliamentary question dated 5 June regarding PPE for urgent dental care centres in my constituency of Stockport, Greater Manchester remains unanswered, but I will try my luck with another question if that’s okay. It seems likely that we will have to live with covid-19 for a long time. Data from care homes shows that the rate of infection is higher when staff do not receive occupational sick pay. When will the Secretary of State ensure that social care staff receive a proper pay rise—at least the living wage set by the Living Wage Foundation—to reflect the unbelievable work they have done during the pandemic, and when will the Government legislate for occupational sick pay for all social care workers?
Matt Hancock
Can I, through you, Mr Deputy Speaker, note to the House that we have been incredibly busy in the Department of Health and Social Care? We will get back to the hon. Member’s written question as soon as we possibly can, but we have been inundated with questions and it has been all hands to the pump to try to respond to the virus, so I hope he will understand why sometimes our responses have been a bit slower than they would in normal times. I will get right across that. I take it very seriously—it is very important—but we do, if I may, pray in aid mitigating circumstances. We will get back on top of it.
On the hon. Member’s substantive point, the increases in the living wage are very important for social care staff, and as I said in response to an earlier question, I am very proud that we introduced it.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
My constituents will be keen to know what progress has been made with the vaccine trials. Can my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress of vaccine and treatment testing in the UK?
Matt Hancock
The vaccine programme is getting all the possible support we can give it, including attention right across the top of Government. It is being led by Kate Bingham, who is doing the job brilliantly as chair of the vaccines taskforce. The best answer I can give is: no news is good news. We are trying to prove a negative: that, if someone has the vaccine, they do not get the virus. So the longer we go on without hearing there is a problem, the better. We are working to a reasonable best-case scenario of getting the vaccine in at some point this year, but I stress that that is the best-case scenario. The central scenario is somewhat later, and there is a chance that no vaccine will ever work. We need to work for the best and give our vaccine programmes the best possible support, but we should also be cautious about whether one will ever come off.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab) [V]
A former director of public health who lives in my constituency has been in touch to express serious concerns about the real possibility of a second wave of coronavirus and his fear that lessons have not been learnt from the Government’s response to the pandemic. What plan does the Secretary of State have to get an independent body to conduct an accelerated review of the Government’s response to covid-19 so far, so that we do not make the same mistakes again?
Matt Hancock
We are looking at all the evidence and take very seriously all the academic, professional and medical studies into the pandemic and the response to it, both here and around the world.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
Further to today’s announcement regarding the mandatory wearing of face masks in shops, is it anticipated that similar may yet need to apply in pubs and bars?
Matt Hancock
We do not anticipate that at this point. We, of course, keep all things under review but, in the first instance, the proposal—in the same way that we brought this in on public transport and in the NHS last month—is to bring this in in chunks.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
I am going to be cheeky, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think I can help the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) with his problem about wearing a mask. He is a knight of the realm, so he should just consider it a visor.
But to the serious question that I want to ask. It is very clear from the way that covid has rolled out that lots of people are going to have brain injury-like conditions and there is going to be a substantial need for long-term rehabilitation. This mirrors the work that needs to be done for those who have had traumatic brain injuries and stroke, many of whom have not had the support this year, for obvious reasons, but are desperate for it. I understand the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is setting up a cross-departmental ministerial group, which will meet before the end of this month. Will the Secretary of State make sure that the rehab for people with brain injury, whether from covid or from anything else, is in place?
Matt Hancock
We are working on exactly that. This is part of a number of questions that rightly have been asked about the long-term impact of covid and making sure we have the NHS treatment available for it.
Greg Clark (Tunbridge Wells) (Con)
Asymptomatic workers in care homes are now tested every week. Asymptomatic workers in hospitals are not. Why not?
Matt Hancock
The programme that we have in hospitals is a risk-based one, according to the risk of the individual. It is much harder to put that risk base in place in care homes. Both of these proposals, while seemingly different, are based on the same clinical advice.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I would like to thank the Secretary of State for the statement today.
Points of Order
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. As we are heading into another recess, with the ongoing pandemic and a potential second wave, as we have heard today, on the way, do you have any suggestions or provisions for how hon. Members can scrutinise effectively during that period what the Department is doing, given the challenges we have, which the Secretary of State has already alluded to, in terms of responding in a timely fashion to correspondence?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for her point of order and for giving me notice of it. While it is not for the Speaker or me to advise individual hon. Members or Select Committees how they may wish to carry out their work during recess, we may be able to help by emphasising again what the Speaker has said about the importance of correspondence from hon. Members receiving prompt replies. I agree that this will be of particular importance during the recess, while the country is still facing a major public health challenge. I hope that Ministers will give careful consideration to how they can support all hon. Members carrying out their duties during this recess by providing prompt and helpful replies to correspondence.
Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Thank you for that answer. You will be aware that 72 people tested positive in my constituency this weekend. I did apply for an urgent question. I put my name down to be on the call list today. Could I ask you to gently thank Mr Speaker for all he has done to make our hearings possible, but to make sure that constituency cases can be heard by the Minister, because I have tens of thousands of migrant workers in my constituency who probably need to be tested as well?
Mr Deputy Speaker
Thank you for that point of order. The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care is still sitting in his place and will have heard that point of order.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Matt Hancock)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), who is an assiduous representative for his constituency, and to make sure that his concerns are taken into account. He is right to raise them. I have been working on them all weekend, and it is very important. I can reassure him that, as far as we know, the outbreak has been confined to the farm in question, but we absolutely will be looking into it in great detail.
Mr Deputy Speaker
I am just grateful that I could be so effective in creating this meeting so quickly. [Laughter.] It was a very important point of order, though, and I am extremely grateful for it and extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for his response.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think this is important, as we look towards the autumn and winter times, when flus become more common. As one of those who gets a flu jab every year as a diabetic, I am very aware of the demands that there may be on the health service, and we are going into recess. Is it the intention of the Health Secretary and his Department to come to this House and make a statement on the preparations that will be in place so that when it comes to the autumn and the winter we are in a position to respond quickly and effectively?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Clearly, that will be a matter for the Secretary of State. We still have a few days before we go into the recess. However, I re-emphasise the response I gave on behalf of the Speaker and the other occupants of this Chair to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) at the beginning.
Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. Now that you are being so effective, I raised with you last week the issue of how important it would be for many of us to be able to raise constituency issues in Westminster Hall, and I just wondered whether you have got anywhere yet.
Mr Deputy Speaker
Not at this moment in time. However, I am really hopeful that, as we go into September, after the recess, sufficient progress will have been made that we can then start to normalise the proceedings in this Chamber. I fully appreciate that the way that we are currently operating is not how we would all like it to be, but we have to do this at a rate of progress that is safe for all Members and staff here. I do hope that we will make sufficient progress.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. In ministerial correspondence, the response repeatedly comes back from civil servants and not the Minister themselves, which is a trend that I have noticed more often recently. If I have written to a Minister, I find it uncourteous for the Minister not to respond. I am worried about going into a recess and receiving more civil servants’ responses that do not provide the political context that is often needed. Could you advise me on how I could encourage Ministers to respond directly?
Mr Deputy Speaker
I have been a Member of Parliament for 28 years, and the vast majority of replies I have had have always been from Secretaries of State or the relevant Minister. I know that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, and I hope that the matter will be fed back into the system.
The House is suspended for three minutes.
Disabled Facilities Grants (Review)
Tuesday 14th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Disabled Facilities Grants (Review) Bill 2019-21 View all Disabled Facilities Grants (Review) Bill 2019-21 Debates Read Hansard Text
A Ten Minute Rule Bill is a First Reading of a Private Members Bill, but with the sponsor permitted to make a ten minute speech outlining the reasons for the proposed legislation.
There is little chance of the Bill proceeding further unless there is unanimous consent for the Bill or the Government elects to support the Bill directly.
For more information see: Ten Minute Bills
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Liz Twist (Blaydon) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to review the Disabled Facilities Grants system; and for connected purposes.
I am pleased to be able to present this Bill today and to speak on the subject of the disabled facilities grant. The Bill has its origins in discussions in the all-party parliamentary group for muscular dystrophy, which looks at the difficulties faced by many people with a progressive muscle-wasting or muscle-weakening condition, of which there are about 60. I heard from Muscular Dystrophy UK that for many people, including adults, children and young people, the cost of adapting the home to meet their needs are increasing year on year, and can easily exceed the current cap on the disabled facilities grant of £30,000 a year in England—a figure set in 2008. In Wales, the figure is £36,000, while in Northern Ireland, it is £25,000. In Scotland, there is a scheme of assistance similar to the disabled facilities grant.
This is not just a question of costs. Having the correct adaptations to homes means that people with disabilities and many older people living in their own home have independence to do the things we all take for granted in and outside their home. The foreword to the 2018 report on accessible homes by the Equalities and Human Rights Commission set out the position very clearly:
“Decent housing is a basic human right that helps people to have independent, fulfilled lives. Everyone should be able to live in an area of their choosing, cook and wash for themselves, avoid falls, make the choice not to live in residential care, go out to see friends and have them over. In essence, they should be able to lead a dignified life as part of a community. This is our vision for all disabled people in Britain who are currently being denied their right to live independently—something that many of us take for granted.”
We know that disabled people are frustrated by the housing system, and with good reason. The numbers speak for themselves. Research from charity Leonard Cheshire shows that 67% of councils report disabled people not having crucial home adaptations completed within the 12-month deadline; 23% of councils report disabled people waiting over two years for completion of works; and demand for home adaptations through disabled facilities grants rose by 27% between 2015 and 2019. Last week, the latest English housing survey, for 2018, was published. It reveals that only 9% of homes in England have the four accessibility features key to their being deemed to be visitable, and even that is an increase from 5% in 2005; and 57% of wheelchair users are living in adapted homes. Those figures underline the importance of accessing the disabled facilities grant, given that so many homes are inaccessible.
Habinteg Housing Association estimates that over 400,000 wheelchair users live in homes that are neither adapted nor accessible. That is simply not good enough. We need an urgent review of the disabled facilities grant in order to make homes truly accessible and to improve people’s quality of life. When we think about the words I quoted from the EHRC, we see that improving access to, and the level of, disabled facilities grants is essential to meeting individuals’ needs. Although many disabled facilities grants are comparatively modest and do not involve massive structural change, it is vital that the cap should not prevent those who need more major changes from accessing them.
Commenting on the English housing survey last week, Habinteg chief executive, Sheron Carter, said:
“Whilst it’s encouraging to see the proportion of homes with basic accessibility features increasing to 9% from 5% in 2005, it’s clear that the total proportion of homes which are accessible is still woefully inadequate.”
The current situation is simply not good enough. We need an urgent review of the disabled facilities grant in order to make homes truly accessible and to improve people’s quality of life. We also need to build more accessible homes, and to find ways to ensure that that actually happens.
Last week, I met the Minister for Housing, the right hon. Member for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher), together with Kerry Thompson, a Habinteg resident living in an accessible home in Milton Keynes. We discussed the proposed and long-delayed Government consultation on accessible housing and highlighted the lack of accessible housing. I was happy that the Minister agreed to meet us, but it is obvious that much more needs to be done. Kerry, a wheelchair user, spoke only last week of her experience of living in an accessible home:
“Living in an accessible home myself, I know first-hand how vital they are for a disabled person like me. Accessible and adapted homes help alleviate pressures on health and social care services and budgets. They enable greater independence at home and speed up hospital discharges. This is crucial at a time when our NHS and social care provision is already under enormous strain.”
When we are all spending more time at home than ever before, having a home that is fit for purpose is very important. The Department of Health and Social Care recently announced that £505 million will be made available for the disabled facilities grant in 2020-21—the same as the previous year. That is not good enough to meet the challenge of adapting our existing housing stock. With an ageing housing stock, higher numbers of people over 65, an increase in working-age adults with long-term disabilities and more families with disabled children, the need for essential home adaptations continues to rise, and so does the need for funding. It does not have to be this way, and it should not be this way.
What can we do? The Bill calls for a review of how some aspects of the disabled facilities grant operate. In particular, the Government should look at reviewing the disabled facilities grant cap every year, using inflation-based indices to accurately and consistently set it. Furthermore, a disabled facilities grant registry should be created to enable increased transparency on the number of disabled facilities grant applications and the amounts requested. While the disabled facilities grant cap was last raised in 2008, the cost of adapting homes has gone up, constraining the adaptations that can be made. We must ensure that the grant covers proper, professional building support that will stand the test of time, and we must recognise that we need to develop and fund the best solutions for individuals. On top of that, the Government must review and address the barriers to installing adaptations in the private rented sector. More and more people rent privately, and experience shows that private landlords are often unwilling to allow changes to their properties, even for accessibility purposes.
However, there is another aspect that we need to look at. As smart technology develops and provides real benefits for people with disabilities, we must look at how the disabled facilities grant can be used to take advantage of those developments for housing stock. Smart homes enable older and disabled people to easily operate things around their homes, to stay connected socially and to feel safe and supported—and they enable independence. Recent research shows that cost and poor digital cabling are major barriers to accessing smart home technology, so, where it is assessed as being helpful, the disabled facilities grant should also cover the costs of the installation of cabling and other home modifications to improve digital connectivity.
Of course, we need to move to a position where more of the new homes we build are fully accessible. An insight report by Habinteg last year revealed that just 1% of homes to be built outside London by 2030 are set to be wheelchair accessible. Less than half of all planning authorities have set requirements for new homes to meet the higher accessibility standards.
We cannot continue to kick the can down the road on this issue. That is why we need the consultation on accessible housing that I mentioned. Until we have a real commitment to building that housing, we will continue to rely on the disabled facilities grant to adapt our current inaccessible homes. We need to adapt the scheme and make it better fit the needs of people such as those with muscular dystrophy, who need essential adaptations to make their homes fit their needs and provide the independence that they are entitled to expect.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Liz Twist, Mary Glindon, Steve McCabe, Andrew Gwynne, Grahame Morris, Yvonne Fovargue, Bambos Charalambous, Jeff Smith, Rosie Duffield, Kate Osborne, Matt Western and Barbara Keeley present the Bill.
Liz Twist accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 November, and to be printed (Bill 163).
Parliamentary Constituencies Bill
Tuesday 14th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 View all Parliamentary Constituencies Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 14 July 2020 - (14 Jul 2020)
17:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 246 / Noes: 342 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:16 - The House divided: - Ayes: 50 / Noes: 339 - Question accordingly negatived.
18:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 237 / Noes: 339 - Question accordingly negatived.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
New clause 2—Allocation of constituencies—
‘(1) Rule 8 of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act (the allocation method) is amended as follows.
(2) After rule 8(5) insert—
“(6) Notwithstanding the allocation of constituencies according to the allocation method set out in rule 8(2)(5), there must be a minimum allocation of constituencies as follows—
(a) Wales must be allocated at least 40 constituencies (including the protected constituency);
(b) Scotland must be allocated at least 59 constituencies (including the two protected constituencies);
(c) Northern Ireland must be allocated at least 18 constituencies; and
(d) the allocation of constituencies must be adjusted accordingly.”’
This new clause seeks to protect representation in the devolved nations by securing a minimum number of constituencies in each of the devolved nations.
New clause 3—Definition of “electorate”—
‘In rule 9(2) of Schedule 2 to the 1986 Act, for “whose names appear on the relevant version of a register of parliamentary electors” substitute “who are estimated by the Electoral Commission to be eligible to vote in an election, were they to register”’.
This new clause would change the definition of ‘electorate’ to include all potential electors, both those who are on an electoral roll and those who are not.
Amendment 1, page 2, line 19, leave out clause 2.
This amendment aims to maintain the status quo of parliamentary oversight within the boundary review process.
Cat Smith
It is a pleasure to speak again on the Bill, as it gives me the opportunity to put on the record the Labour party’s support for the boundary review in time for the next general election. I would like to start by thanking all the right hon. and hon. Members who served on the Bill Committee—in particular my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Christian Matheson), who regrets that he cannot be with us this afternoon.
Our current constituencies were drawn up on electorate data that is now nearly two decades old; we cannot go into the next election with constituencies based on data that will, by then, be a quarter of a century out of date. Our country and our communities look very different, and the review will take into account new electors as well as significant demographic shifts. A review is urgently needed, and the Opposition do not stand in the way of that.
Throughout the Bill’s passage, we have worked constructively to improve it for the good of our democracy, and there have been areas of distinct improvement along the way. The size of the House of Commons has varied massively over the centuries. The largest Commons, in 1918, came in at 707 MPs—they really would have struggled with the social distancing measures we are adhering to. However, certainly in the last two centuries, we have not dropped below 615 MPs. Reducing the number of MPs while maintaining the size of the Executive was always an affront to democracy, and I welcome the Minister’s U-turn on that matter. Given our departure from the European Union and this Government’s chaotic handling of the current pandemic, it is clear that there will be plenty of work for 650 MPs.
We supported and welcomed the amendment in Committee to use the March 2020 register for the new boundary review. It is important that we use the most accurate snapshot of our country to draw up our electoral boundaries. The inclusion of Ynys Môn as a protected constituency is something that the Labour party has long campaigned for, although I was surprised to see the Minister support it in Committee, given her party’s previous firm opposition to it. But then I remembered that the Tories may have an alternative motivation for suddenly recognising the island’s unique status. I welcome that recognition all the same.
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
I have been listening intently to what the hon. Lady has been saying, and at the very beginning of her speech she lamented the fact that it has been so long since we implemented the recommendations of a boundary review. The explanatory note to amendment 1, to which she is now speaking, says that the amendment
“aims to maintain the status quo”.
Does what she said not prove that the status quo has not been working, hence why we have brought forward this Bill?
Cat Smith
Quite the opposite: I am arguing that under the status quo the only blockage to the passing of a boundary review has been the Government, and they would, under this Bill, still have the power to put up the same block as they have the past two times that a boundary review has failed to go through this House. It is worth noting that if it was not for parliamentary oversight, we would have a 600-seat Parliament today. Perhaps that is an example of parliamentary scrutiny at its best.
John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is getting to the nub of the issue. The reason why the Government failed to put the past two boundary commission reviews to the House of Commons was that their stubbornness in sticking to 600 seats meant that they would not be carried. The fault lay with the Prime Minister rather than with the House of Commons. That is the real problem.
Cat Smith
My right hon. Friend made some thoughtful and interesting contributions in Committee and continues to do so on Report. The points he raised are entirely correct. The Government would do away with Parliament’s role in the process—a role that Parliament has always had. In short, the Bill removes the power from Parliament and hands it to the Executive. The Government’s justification for the change simply does not stack up. The Minister says that her Government are removing Parliament from the process to prevent delay and interference from MPs, but according to Professor Sir John Curtice—and who are we to challenge him?—delay and interference by the Executive will still be “perfectly possible”.
Mrs Maria Miller (Basingstoke) (Con)
I apologise for interrupting the shadow Minister’s train of thought, but she keeps repeating this “fact”, which is not a fact at all. The Bill actually takes away power from the Executive; it does not give the Executive more power, because it removes the reserve powers of Government to amend the boundaries. The hon. Lady needs to set the record straight; otherwise, she risks misinterpreting the Bill for a wider audience.
Cat Smith
I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention, but I am afraid that I quite simply disagree. This Bill takes power away from the whole of Parliament and hands it to the Executive. After all, they are the ones who can table primary legislation and choose to bring forward or not to bring forward the report for a vote. The power has been in their hands, which is why we are in the mess that we are in today with boundaries that are 20 years out of date, and looking to be a quarter of a century out of date by the next election if we do not make progress with this Bill.
In her speech on Second Reading, the Minister stated that the removal of parliamentary oversight and approval would quicken the process, thereby avoiding wasting public time and money. If she is so concerned about wasting public time and money, why did she allow the commissioners to carry on with their sixth periodic review and then not bring it to Parliament for a vote?
New clause 1, which stands in my name and in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, is a pragmatic and constructive amendment. I very much hope that Members will consider supporting it. It seeks to alleviate the inevitable break-up of communities resulting from the too narrow 5% quota. While the commissioners should always aim to hit electoral quota, in some particularly challenging cases this new clause would allow them to have a greater flexibility of 7.5%. This 5% variance from electoral quota was first introduced at the sixth periodic review, and it was introduced alongside reducing the number of constituencies to 600. That is important because, at 600 constituencies, a 5% variance is approximately 4,000 electors either side of quota, but at 650 constituencies, which is what we have before us today, a 5% variance narrows and is approximately just 3,500 electors either side of quota, making it even more difficult to keep wards whole and communities together. The 5% variance needs to be adjusted in line with the number of constituencies. When we consider that the average urban ward in England is around 8,000 electors, we can appreciate the significance of needing at least 4,000 electors either side of quota to prevent the breaking up of wards and communities.
Chris Elmore (Ogmore) (Lab)
A further point about the need for this 7.5% is that it would particularly help seats in Wales, where the geography of seats, including my own, covers three or four valley communities. The extra flex would allow communities to stay together, especially where the physical geography means that people cannot travel from one valley to another without going up and down the other. These sorts of changes, therefore, really do make a difference in lots of rural and ex-industrial communities that have, shall we say, not-flat land masses.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
The hon. Lady talks about keeping communities together and about breaking up wards. Why does it matter if a ward is broken up? Surely communities are created through small building blocks. By discarding this almost obsession the Boundary Commission has had with entire wards, huge changes could be avoided and communities could stay together. Will she not support the idea that smaller building blocks are the way to create better constituencies that are community based, rather than artificial communities based on entire wards?
Cat Smith
I would argue that the wards, which are obviously drawn by the Local Government Boundary Commission, do actually reflect communities to a great extent. If we are to go down the path of splitting wards, we will end up with the ridiculous situation, like we did at the previous review, where constituencies such as Port Talbot had a shopping centre in one constituency and the high street in another constituency. My new clause seeks to minimise the chances of such ridiculous situations occurring again. Under the current Bill, the Commission will struggle to respect the factors laid out in rule five, which, of course, Members will know, are the existing constituencies, local government boundaries, local ties and geography.
During the evidence sessions of this Bill, the secretariat for the Boundary Commission for England spoke about the difficulties caused by this small tolerance, which makes it
“much harder to have regard to the other factors…such as the importance of not breaking local ties, and having regard to local authority boundaries and features of natural geography.”
He said:
“Basically, the smaller you make the tolerance, the fewer options we have…The larger you make it, the more options we have and the more flexibility…to have regard to the other factors”.––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2020; c. 7, Q3.]
So while the Government keep saying the boundary commissions will listen to the views of communities in the drawing of the boundaries, some communities will literally be wasting their time putting forward those arguments if the restrictive quota will mathematically prevent the commissioners from respecting their views and the community ties.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The hon. Lady raises the case of Port Talbot in a previous review. Does she not accept that this was actually one of the reasons why it should be easier for the boundary commissions to split wards, because the whole point of the Port Talbot proposals was that they have to come to those combinations because they are working with entire wards?
Cat Smith
I think in the case of Port Talbot it was the 5% quota that meant that that decision had to be reached. When we are talking about quotas, we know that internationally a larger quota is used and promoted as best practice for securing fair representation. Indeed, the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission’s code of good practice in electoral matters recommends allowing a standard permissible tolerance of an average of plus or minus 10%.
As the Minister knows, there is a consensus amongst respected experts such as David Rosser and Professor Charles Pattie who agree that the 5% rule causes significant disruption to community boundaries.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
We have heard from the other side a suggestion that we should use polling districts as the building blocks, not wards, but is there not a problem with deviating from wards? Wards are agreed by an independent commission, whereas polling districts are decided based on the location of the local church hall for use as the polling station. Surely we need independent commissions that create the building blocks of wards that then form the building blocks of constituencies. The only way to do that is with the 10% or 7.5% variance.
Cat Smith
My hon. Friend makes an important point about the legal standing of polling districts. Wards that are drawn up by the local government boundary commission have that independence in terms of the boundaries that they represent, whereas polling districts are for administration of elections done by local councils and, as he says, can be decided basically on their proximity to a church hall.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) mentioned Wales earlier, and this restrictive quota will disproportionately impact Wales. I know that many more Welsh colleagues will express their concern about the geographical challenges that the quota will throw up in Wales. With mountains and valleys dividing communities, the task of creating constituencies that make sense to those communities becomes extremely difficult.
I shall conclude by highlighting the fatal flaw in the Government’s arguments on the 5% quota. Throughout the Bill’s progress, the Minister has argued that a robust boundary review with a 5% quota will magically ensure that every vote carries the same weight. But the Government’s central argument turns on the ludicrous suggestion that the 5% quota will achieve parity of representation for all electors across the United Kingdom. On what planet does every vote count equally in this country? Leaving aside the fact that there are so-called safe seats, which effectively disenfranchise huge swathes of the population at every election, it simply is not true that every vote would count equally as a result of the Bill. At any given election, in the region of 9 million eligible voters are incorrectly registered and lose out on their chance to vote, and millions more will join them with the Government’s voter ID plan set to lock more people out of democracy simply for not having the right form of ID.
The new boundaries will not be based on the reality of the British electorate, with millions of eligible voters missing from the register, so can the Minister stop rolling out the line that somehow a 5% quota will revolutionise our electoral system and suddenly make every vote count equally? The truth is that she knows exactly what measures will make our electoral system more equal, because 11 months ago the Electoral Commission made clear recommendations, including encouraging the introduction of automatic voter registration. The Government still have not responded to those recommendations, meaning that the electoral register to be used as the basis for these boundaries is incomplete and patchy at best. When will the Government start to prioritise democratic engagement?
It is clear that the Government’s central argument about making every vote count falls at the first hurdle and that their secondary argument about the removal of Parliament’s role preventing delays to the process just does not hold water. As Professor Sir John Curtice pointed out, the Government can easily delay the process. The Labour party fundamentally rejects the Government’s attempt to end parliamentary approval for new constituency boundaries, and we ask that Members think hard and long about the impact of removing Parliament from the process. In its current form, this Bill is an insult to the House.
Alun Cairns (Vale of Glamorgan) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to contribute in this debate and to speak about some of the proposals that were discussed in Committee and that have been tabled on Report.
I wish to begin by paying tribute to the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), who has responded positively on Second Reading and in Committee to the concerns and challenges highlighted in respect of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011. As we all know, this is an extremely important Bill that goes to the heart of our democracy, requiring and demanding fair play at each and every stage. She has responded to concerns from Members from across the House in a fair, balanced and pragmatic way. Despite the warm tones from the shadow Minister at the outset of the debate, the new clauses and amendment that have been tabled are nothing short of wrecking proposals. Despite seemingly suggesting that they were in favour of the Bill, Opposition Members are doing everything possible to stop it. We all know that equalisation and fairness are at the heart of the Bill, yet the Opposition are determined to table amendments to provide for wider variation. This Bill seeks to reduce such variation, and the Opposition proposals would leave us with less fair outcomes.
Equalisation has not been pursued in the purest form, as it would be unfair. Naturally, there is that 5% variation the we have already heard about, which this and the previous Bill allowed for, in order to make things practical and to enable local variations to take place where necessary. I commend the Minister for the way in which she responded in Committee to the unique circumstances of Ynys Môn to protect the integrity of representation of the island community, constituency and authority area. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller), who introduced the amendment on this issue in Committee, presenting such a strong argument that it has been recognised by the Minister, to whom I pay tribute for the way in which she responded.
We are all familiar with the data showing that Wales currently has a disproportionate number of smaller constituencies, so equalisation will naturally have an effect, but this also ties in with the enhanced role and powers of the National Assembly. There is a logic behind the Bill and the Minister’s thinking. This approach follows the precedent that Labour pursued when the Scottish Parliament was established, with equalisation of constituencies between Scotland and England. It is logical that Wales follows suit, particularly given that the Assembly has become a Parliament with tax-varying powers. However, the 2011 Act and the earlier draft of this Bill left an anomaly, in the form of Ynys Môn. As an island community, it was being treated differently from the Isle of Wight, Orkney and Shetland and the Western Isles. I can appreciate that the fundamental part of the 2011 Act was to reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600, which left less scope to answer the Ynys Môn argument. However, this Bill providing for 650 MPs has enabled the Minister to respond positively.
After all, this argument has been supported on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) has been pressing the case from the very first day that she came to the House. She has pushed, encouraged and debated in favour of the special case that is Ynys Môn and has presented such a strong argument that even my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke decided to pursue it in Committee, which obviously won support from the Minister.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
Could the right hon. Member tell the House whether he argued this case in the past and voted that way?
Alun Cairns
I am grateful for the right hon. Member’s intervention. I looked through Hansard to see what the standing of the Labour party on this debate was, and it took a considerable time to find that the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn, Albert Owen—a friend of the right hon Member and a friend of mine—did raise it, but it was quite a long time before that became a debate, so I think the right hon. Member overstates his support of the argument.
We should recognise that not only is Anglesey—Ynys Môn—an island and its own constituency, but it also has its own local authority. When local government boundaries were being considered as part of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994, the case for Ynys Môn was recognised, creating Ynys Môn as its own authority in its own right, in spite of the challenges of having a smaller population than others. Clearly the responsibility to meet all the obligations of all local authorities would be challenging for such a small community. The 1994 Act recognised the importance of the island’s make-up, which is further recognised in the Bill before us. The amendment that the Minister has accepted recognises that too.
As I mentioned, there is cross-party support for this amendment. I recognise the strong case that my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn has made for its status, and I also recognise that her predecessor, Albert Owen, made a similar case at a late stage of the Bill. The Bill goes to the heart of fairness in representation and will ensure that communities are respected. Accepting and responding to calls from my hon. Friend shows that. I commend the Minister for the way she has responded to the debate and to the case made by my hon. Friend and welcome her acceptance of the amendment.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns). I have to say, I found it quite strange hearing a man whose job in the last Government was to stand up for Wales in the Cabinet give such full-throated support to a Bill that will see Wales lose eight seats. Someone whose job in Cabinet was to be the voice of Wales has just stood up and said that he is quite content to see Wales lose seats, but that is a matter for him.
I rise to speak to new clause 2, which is in my name and those of my hon. and right hon. Friends. I want to start by thanking again all Members with whom I served on the Bill Committee, which I admit I probably took an unhealthy amount of joy and pleasure from. I suspect that I was not the only one—the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) had a “Rain Man” effect on some of us quite a few times. It was a meeting of minds for parliamentary geeks and psephologists, and in my view, it did not last long enough. All members of the Committee were thoughtful, engaging and good-natured. In particular, I enjoyed my exchanges with the Minister and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith), who led for the Opposition. Remarkably, this is the first time that all three of us have managed to get out of a boundaries Bill Committee without gaining extra offspring—that said, the Bill has not had Royal Assent yet, so we will not count our chickens.
On Second Reading, I made it clear that the Scottish National party will not oppose the Bill, not because it was in any way perfect—far from it. However, we genuinely welcomed the Government’s U-turn on cutting the number of constituencies from 650 to 600. I was delighted to see clause 5 in the Bill, and I was probably the only Member who spoke to it with such enthusiasm in Committee. I think that some Conservative Members found it quite difficult to speak in support of clause 5, which reversed what they had enshrined in law through the 2011 Act.
I wholeheartedly agree with the Minister that our exit from the European Union means that there will be more legislative work for hon. Members to undertake, and therefore, cutting the number of MPs would be a very silly move, but I will return to that point later.
Before I turn to my concerns about the Bill, I want to welcome the amendment that we passed in Committee in respect of Ynys Môn, which will finally be a protected constituency, joining the Isle of Wight, Orkney and Shetland, and Na h-Eileanan an Iar. Anglesey, on which I have certainly enjoyed a holiday, was first established as a constituency in 1536—probably around the point when the current Leader of the House was colouring in “Erskine May” as an enthusiastic toddler. In all seriousness, there was unanimous support in Committee for the proposal to protect Ynys Môn and I am glad that we achieved at least one change in our deliberations on the Committee Corridor. However, I bitterly regret the fact that the Government did not compromise on more issues because, as I said on Second Reading, the Government might have a majority in this House, but they certainly have no monopoly on wisdom. There are still aspects of this Bill, even as amended, that trouble me deeply, and I will outline them now.
First, there has rightly been much discussion about the controversial issue of automaticity. I was remarking to my friend the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood earlier this week that we do not actually know whether automaticity is a word, but it was certainly coined and used over and over again in Committee. We heard lots of evidence on both sides of the argument concerning Parliament’s role in having oversight of the Boundary Commission’s recommendations. While many of the points made by witnesses and Government members of the Committee were thoughtful and sincere, I am still not persuaded of the merits of this provision. We were repeatedly told during the Brexit process that Parliament is taking back control and that Parliament is sovereign. In my view, this move does exactly the opposite, with Parliament ceding its role of parliamentary oversight. Clause 2 of the Bill would enshrine this blatant power grab in statute, and therefore my party will support amendment 1 if my friend the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood chooses to divide the House.
Secondly, I am in favour of Labour’s new clause 1, which deals with the electoral quota. The Scottish National party supports a wider tolerance and we feel that moving to 7.5% is a reasonable compromise that would give boundary commissioners more flexibility in drawing up more manageable constituencies, which would be welcome. Certainly, the evidence we heard in Committee is that they are looking for as much flexibility as possible, and I think that it is incumbent upon us to respond to that. If my pal from Lancaster and Fleetwood puts new clause 1 to the vote, we will support Labour on that as well.
Thirdly—this is the nub of the matter for me—the Bill is absolutely rotten for the devolved nations, which is why I and my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) have tabled new clause 2, which we will seek to divide the House on. I want to outline to hon. Members precisely why we have chosen to focus on new clause 2 on Report and why I feel so passionately about this, but, more importantly, why I believe that others should too.
As I made clear on Second Reading and in Committee, bluntly, I do not want to see any Scottish seats in this House. Constitutionally, I do not want Scotland to be a part of the United Kingdom at all, because Scotland is a nation, and nations are best served when they govern themselves. However, I am a democrat and I accept that until the people of Scotland vote by a majority for independence in a referendum, we must continue to participate with diligence in the proceedings of this House and give Scotland a strong voice in accordance with the mandate delivered by our constituents, regardless of which party we represent.
As I have said repeatedly, Scotland’s current representation in this House, and indeed that of Wales, must not be diminished or reduced in any boundary reform. However, the reality of the Bill is that Scotland will lose three seats and Wales will lose eight. That is far from the Westminster respect agenda that people in Scotland were promised in the wake of our 2014 referendum result. Indeed, it is a democratic outrage and it is not one that we will stand for.
It is not just nationalists in this House who should be concerned about diminished representation in the House of Commons for the devolved nations. Surely every Union flag-waving, “Rule Britannia” singing Member in the Scottish Conservatives should be able to see that Scotland’s voice being diminished in Westminster is bad for the harmony and integrity of their precious, precious Union. What we see in the Bill is a blatant power grab of seats from the devolved nations, with them being given directly to England—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan seems to suggest that he is unhappy about that. He can challenge it if he wants to, but that is the reality in the Bill. It is a power grab of seats from the devolved nations—the devolved nations that he was meant to stand up for in Cabinet. They are being taken away from countries such as Wales and given to England. That is a fact, and if he cannot stand up and refute that, I am afraid that it is on the record.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the primary purpose of this legislation is to ensure that votes have equal weight, and if he does accept that will he therefore also accept that his amendment would drive a coach and horses through that basic principle, because votes will count for far more in Wales and Scotland than in rest of the United Kingdom?
David Linden
I would make two points on that. First, the primary purpose of this Bill is, I suspect, to reverse the mess made by the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, which sought to reduce the number of seats in this House from 650 to 600. That is the whole point behind clause 5, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman has read assiduously. Secondly, if Members want to talk about fairness in the voting system, we should start by looking at the broken first-past-the-post electoral system, where we have Members who have majorities of nearly 40,000. So if the hon. Gentleman wants to talk to me about equal voting, we can absolutely do that, but we must not ignore the elephant in the room that is the broken first-past-the-post system.
One thing that is even more illogical about this is the fact that legislation once made in Brussels is soon coming back to Westminster as a result of our exit from the European Union. Scotland, which used to have six Members of the European Parliament, has lost that representation, and it is now expected to lose further representation in this place when legislative powers return from Europe. That is wrong; even Unionist Members in this House must recognise that.
So when the Division bell rings tonight and hon. Members decide how to cast their vote on new clause 2, they must ask themselves if they still believe that Scotland should lead the United Kingdom, as we were told in 2014, or was that in fact just hollow words in the heat of a referendum campaign to pull the wool over the eyes of the people of Scotland? Voting to affirm reduced or diminished representation for the devolved nations in this place is an unforgivable act, which will only seek to reinforce the view that Westminster does not care what the devolved nations think and we might just be better with independence after all.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am sure colleagues can see that there is a lot of time pressure in this debate. I urge Members to stick to a maximum of six minutes, rather than having me impose a time limit at this stage. If Members can do that, we will see how we get on.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
First, I thank the Minister and her team for their hard work on this Bill. There are a select few of us in this House who can get excited about boundary reviews, and most of us are here today, and I thank her for indulging my psephological exuberance throughout.
I will speak about the merits of the Bill before turning to the amendments. At its heart, the Bill is about fairness; it is about recognising that everybody in this country should have an equal voice in our democratic process. Fundamentally, it is about saying that no one person’s vote should count more than another’s. There will be some in this Chamber who believe that that is the case already, and no doubt we will hear a series of eloquent speeches about that to one effect or another, but the crux of the matter is that there are some parts of the United Kingdom where just 56,000 people can send the same number of representatives as 100,000 in another.
Before this is hand-waved by Opposition Members as a ploy to make the electoral geography somehow better for one party or another, we need to understand the basic principle of electoral equality. This idea is not new; it was not cooked up in some trendy centre-right think-tank over on Millbank the other day. It started with the Chartists back in 1838, who, in the “People’s Charter”, called for this measure to be introduced as an essential cornerstone of our democracy.
As I mentioned in the Bill Committee, we do not need to look far for extreme examples of disparity. Greater Manchester, where I am an MP, has 27 MPs whose electorates range from 63,000 to 95,000. How can that be fair or right? My own seat, Heywood and Middleton, is around 111% of the electoral quota. Why should my constituents’ voices count for less than those of voters in Wirral West or Preston?
The issue is not just about apportionment within regions or counties, however—far from it. Using the December 2019 figures, we arrive at an electoral quota—the number of voters per seat—of about 72,431. That should be the average size of every seat in every region, but it is not. In Wales, it is a shade over 57,900; in the south-east, excluding the Isle of Wight, it is nearly 78,500. As a tenet of fundamental fairness, we simply cannot turn a blind eye to such disparity.
I accept that, historically, there are good reasons for that malapportionment—to ensure that the four nations of our Union could all have a voice in this place—but Scotland now has a Parliament that is the most powerful devolved legislature anywhere in the world, Wales has the Senedd and Northern Ireland has its Assembly. Outside London, there is a patchwork of uneven devolution settlements in certain counties and metropolitan areas, none of which comes close to those devolved legislatures.
David Linden
This is an argument I considered perhaps in response to the hon. Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson). What the hon. Gentleman is missing here, of course, is the fact that we have English votes for English laws in this House under Standing Order No. 83W. English votes for English laws rather negates the idea that the imbalance in terms of devolution can be worked out under the Bill.
Chris Clarkson
The hon. Gentleman makes an eloquent point, but I disagree with him fundamentally. At the end of the day, there is no devolved legislature for England. This is a temporary fix that could be addressed by introducing a level of electoral fairness. I am more than happy to have a discussion about constitutional reform with anybody, but that is not what this debate is about. I am a Unionist to the tips of my toes, but I do not think that the Union will be reinforced by giving unfair or special treatment to one country at the expense of another.
Turning to some of the new clauses and amendments that have been tabled, new clause 1 seeks to change the variants of the electoral quota to 7.5%. That is, in effect, 15% between the smallest seat and the largest. In practice, that is a difference of about 10,860 voters, give or take. The argument put forward in Committee was that it would lessen the disruption needed to bring 650 seats into quota. Of course, that entirely ignores the fact that there will be a high level of disruption regardless. By its very nature, correcting 20-year-old boundaries and ensuring a fair distribution of seats in every nation and in every region will result in some disruption. I demonstrated that in Committee by pointing out that of the 10 Conservative seats represented, just one would have remained unchanged with a 7.5% variance. In fact, so many electorates have now deviated from the mean, it seems improbable that there will be minimal change.
The other argument put forward was that a 7.5% variance would avoid splitting communities or needing unusual combinations of wards from multiple authorities. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke)—sadly, he cannot be with us today and has expressed his disappointment at not being able to—quite sensibly put it, that could be addressed by splitting wards. The Boundary Commissions for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland already do that. The Boundary Commission can do that in England, but it prefers not to for the sake of ease. This should not be about doing what is easiest, but what is best.
James Grundy (Leigh) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the solution Labour proposes in new clause 1 is somewhat crude and inelegant? It does not properly address the concerns many Members have regarding the creation of coherent constituencies and it undermines the core principle of carrying out a boundary review—equalising electorates. Does he furthermore agree that a better model is the extant one used by the Boundary Commission for Scotland, which splits wards into their component communities where necessary to create coherent constituencies, rather than ones that merely meet the narrow requirement of electoral quotas?
Chris Clarkson
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, which is, as always, well-considered and eloquent. I completely agree with him. The Boundary Commission for Scotland has already demonstrated that it is perfectly capable of splitting wards using postcode data. There is nothing in the legislation that prevents the Boundary Commission from doing that; it is simply a choice not to act, and that cannot be a good enough foundation.
Andrew Rosindell
I totally agree with what my hon. Friend is saying. The absurdity of entire wards making constituencies that divide communities, particularly in places such as Greater London, where we have huge wards in my constituency of 10,000 or 12,000, means that changing that involves massive upheavals and breaking up communities, so he is absolutely right that the Boundary Commission must be more flexible on this point.
Chris Clarkson
Certainly, in some of the larger metropolitan boroughs, there is what I call the martini paradox, where three wards is not quite enough and four is too many.
Emma Hardy (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)
I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech with great interest. I wonder if he agrees with me, as an advocate for democracy, that we should have automatic voter registration. That would genuinely ensure that everybody gets an equal voice.
Chris Clarkson
If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will come to that point when I address new clause 3.
I do not support new clause 1; I think that it is intended to undermine the concept of electoral equality and that it would cause further exponential disruption in future reviews as seats get further and further away from the mean, exacerbated by the large deviation permitted
New clause 2 is unconscionable. Setting a minimum quota for each nation would ultimately lead to one of two outcomes: either the malapportionment that we currently have, whereby some votes count for nearly twice as much as others, or the situation that developed in Canada, which has minimum quotas for areas and where rafts of new seats had to be added to Parliament to ensure some level of electoral equality. Under that approach, if Wales were to maintain its 40 seats, Greater Manchester alone would have almost as many MPs and the south-east would have well over 100. When we have one eye on the overpopulation of the other place, it strikes me as frankly bizarre that our nationalist friends should seek to pack this one, too.
David Linden
The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a lot of time for him, but he will recognise that the rule in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 was introduced under the Government of Margaret Thatcher. The number of seats in Scotland was then amended from 73 to 59, in recognition of devolution. It is a well- established process that the devolved nations have that protected constituency; indeed, it was a Tory Government who put it in place.
Chris Clarkson
The hon. Gentleman knows that I have a lot of time for him, too. I am not here to blindly say that I agree with everything that my party has ever done; I think that using an electoral quota is a much fairer way of doing it.
As I say, it strikes me as frankly bizarre that when we are concerned about the overpopulation of the other place, we should be trying to pack this place out. The hon. Gentleman played an extremely constructive role on the Bill Committee, with some very sensible proposals —he is one of us! [Interruption.] I mean an electoral geek, obviously. It is just a shame that his new clause 2 does not follow that lead, so I will give it “D minus —must try harder.”
Let me move on to new clause 3, which I think our Liberal Democrat friends might find a bit disappointing, too. Although on some level I have sympathy with the idea of including those who are not on the electoral register, we have to use the fairest and most consistent data available to us, which is the electoral register. If some people choose not to be on it, that is their choice. Similarly, some people will not qualify, and it is unfair to try to guess who those people might be. In either case, I do not think that adding additional people to the register will improve any electoral chances.
Lastly, I turn to the concept of automaticity, which is covered by amendment 1. I hardly need—
Madam Deputy Speaker
We are not really doing very well so far, are we? We will have another go at trying to stick to six minutes. John Spellar, I am sure, will do that.
John Spellar
I shall certainly try, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Can we be frank? Boundary changes are a real nuisance, but a necessary nuisance. We all accept that they have to happen, even though they are a problem for Members of Parliament, and indeed for political organisations and often for constituents. Everyone accepts that; what people do not accept is gratuitous disruption, which is what we have had over the past 10 years.
Let us be clear about what the Bill is trying to do: it is trying to clear up the mess from the shoddy, squalid deal between David Cameron and Nick Clegg, into which they both put exercises for party political advantage. The Lib Dems thought that they would get proportional representation; the Tories thought that they would rig the redistribution process; and neither worked. One of the reasons why there was such opposition in Parliament, and why the changes were never put to Parliament, was precisely that the Government knew that they could not command a majority among their own Members, who recognised that. Several Chief Whips tried to persuade very stubborn Prime Ministers of that fact.
Why did the problems occur? Basically, the idea was fatally flawed, and it was made worse by the 5%. That rigid demarcation ended up forcing the Boundary Commission to make decisions and plans that made no sense on the ground. Take Birmingham: one ward was taken out of Sutton Coldfield, which has never accepted that it is part of Birmingham, and transferred to Birmingham, Erdington, while another ward was taken from Birmingham, Erdington and put into Sutton Coldfield. Nobody was happy with that, but it was forced on them by the narrow constraints. Similarly, my constituency, part of which is right up at the edge of Birmingham, was moved right the way through Sandwell and into Dudley town centre.
There was no coherence, no community, between them, and everybody recognised that. Another one went from the middle of Halesowen right the way in a strip across Birmingham, and that was replicated all around the country.
Mike Wood
The right hon. Member will remember that the Halesowen and Selly Oak constituency was dropped by the Boundary Commission in its revised proposals. Does that not show how an independent Boundary Commission can respond well to reasoned arguments—rather better sometimes than parliamentarians?
John Spellar
Why did it come up with that in the first place when it was clearly such a dumb proposal? Parliament was the necessary corrective to this. It said: “This doesn’t work”, and by the way Conservative Members were still in a majority at the time. What’s even more extraordinary, in this Parliament, where the Government have a clear majority, they still do not believe they could carry the day with their own Members. There is a danger of that. There is a danger that the bureaucracy of the Boundary Commission will not pay regard to local sensitivities or communities and we will end up once again with boundaries of which Governor Gerry of Massachusetts, the founder of the gerrymander, would have been proud.
At the same time, it would be much better to go back to many of the basic principles, such as the principle, where possible, of not crossing borough or ward boundaries. In urban areas as well, these places form communities. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) is right about the size of some of the building blocks. That is why, within boroughs and other areas, people might have to accept some temporary disparity, but that might be a better than having one MP representing part of a particular ward and another representing the rest. Equally, there is the problem of orphan wards, which we have in many areas of the boundary review, whereby one ward is in a constituency in another borough. Inevitably, the focus of the Member of Parliament will be on the main borough. It is unnecessary and gratuitous.
It all depends on whether people believe, as I certainly do, and many Conservative Members do as well, in the fundamental principle of individual constituencies with individual Members of Parliament, not proportional list Members. If people think that Members of Parliaments’ connection to their constituencies does not matter, that is fine—just have a national list. I fundamentally do not believe that—and by the way nor did the British public when they voted it down in a referendum.
Let us be clear: we want to ensure that parliamentarians represent their constituencies and their constituency interests, and that is why we need a parliamentary override and a slightly wider area of discretion, so that anomalies can be properly dealt with and responded to, rather than the artificial constructs the Boundary Commission is forced into—maybe sometimes it goes into them a little too willingly—instead of looking at the interests of localities, particularly in urban areas.
Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)
I was actually enjoying the speech from the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), and I agreed with some of his points, but it is worth pointing out that the purpose of the original decision by David Cameron and Nick Clegg to reduce the number of constituencies was to reduce the cost of politics at the time. [Interruption.] That was the argument put forward. Then we had Brexit and so on, but I actually agree with the principle of 650 constituencies in the UK, because if we are not going to reduce the size of the Executive, it would create some disparity, so I welcome the changes.
I congratulate the Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Chloe Smith), and all the members of the Bill Committee on their work. It can be a complicated matter on occasions. We must not lose sight of the basic principle behind the Bill, which is to ensure that each vote in the UK carries the same weight—that there is an equal suffrage. When someone casts their vote in the polling station at any election, they should be confident that their vote is just as valuable as anybody else’s. We therefore need boundary changes to take place, because there is an unacceptable disparity now.
I agree again with the right hon. Member for Warley that we as parliamentarians and constituency MPs do not like boundary changes, because we put a lot of investment, time and commitment into building up a relationship with our constituents, communities, villages and towns, and at a stroke of a pen the Boundary Commission can remove that connection that we have worked so hard on. In some ways, these changes are welcome, but in some ways they can be very difficult.
The main reason I wanted to speak in this debate is that, as sad as it may sound, I was looking through the Hansard reports of the Public Bill Committee and an awful lot was said about the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and its attitude towards the electoral quota and how much tolerance there should be between the size of different constituencies. I am the UK lead on the OSCE, and I have looked into what it actually said. For Members who are unaware of its work, the organisation sends election monitors to various countries around the world to ensure they are carried out in a fair, impartial and democratic way.
The OSCE does not have a view on whether there should be a 5% or a 7.5% tolerance in the electoral quota, but it is worth noting what it states in its “Guidelines for Reviewing a Legal Framework for Elections”. It states:
“Electoral constituencies should be drawn in a manner that preserves equality among voters. Thus, the law should require that constituencies be drawn in such a way that each constituency has approximately the same population size…The manner in which constituencies are drawn should not circumvent the principle of equal suffrage, which is a cornerstone of democratic elections.”
Emma Hardy
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Since his hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) was unable to get to the point in his speech where he was going to answer my question, I will instead ask him. In this keenness to involve every person and make every vote count, what is his opinion on automatic voter registration?
Gareth Johnson
People have the option, if they want, to register to vote. That was made a very easy process by the previous Government, particularly through the actions of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (John Penrose), who was at pains to ensure that people found it very easy to register to vote. Of course, people have the right not to vote if they wish. I would argue that automatically assuming that somebody wants to vote is incorrect.
John Spellar
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman read the Committee reports, but I am not sure he read my comments. I read out the OSCE’s recommendation that
“the maximum admissible departure from the distribution criterion…should seldom exceed 10 per cent”—
departure from the criterion would mean in either direction—
“and never 15 per cent, except in really exceptional circumstances”.
We were being quite modest; we were only asking for a 7.5% departure.
Gareth Johnson
I did read the right hon. Gentleman’s quote, and I have looked into exactly what that was. It was not the OSCE that said that, but the Council of Europe’s Venice Commission. It is clear from the quote I gave and from what the Council of Europe has said that the further we move away from the median, and the greater tolerance we give to departures from it, the less weight there is to each individual vote and the more disparity there will be between constituencies.
If the House allows for 7.5% to be the maximum departure from the electoral quota, we would be saying that the size of an electorate can differ by 15 percentage points between individual constituencies. We would then be going down a road where people’s votes would not count the same, so I think new clause 1 should be rejected for that reason. The main reason we are having boundary changes is to ensure we do not have constituencies that are too large, and we have got constituencies that are too large. We also have constituencies that are too small, where people have a greater weight to their individual votes. I argue that we should reject the 7.5% proposal.
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I do apologise for attending the Chamber late—it takes me a little time to get here.
The hon. Member refers to avoiding making constituencies too large. The present constituency that I represent, if it had been enlarged under the David Cameron proposals, would have included Shieldaig, and the driving time from Shieldaig to Wick, which is also in the constituency—148 miles—is three hours and 15 minutes. What I want to put to the hon. Member and the Chamber is that this is not just about the number of votes, but about the right of access to an MP that the voters have. When an MP has to cover an area that big, surely there is a democratic deficit.
Gareth Johnson
This is perhaps one of the arguments behind keeping to 650 so the actual sizes of constituencies do not change. I have one of the few constituencies in the country that would actually have lost voters, even under the 600 formula, so there are a lot of differences between hon. Members’ constituencies.
I would ask that the Labour party supports this Bill as it goes through Parliament. The only thing in the Labour party’s manifesto about boundary changes was changing from 600 to 650. It has got what it asked for, and therefore should be supportive of the Government on this particular Bill.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
I shall speak to new clause 3, tabled in my name and those of my other Liberal Democrat colleagues, and the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas).
The Government’s rationale for this Bill is that they want to make every vote count equally, and we have heard that. I pointed out on Second Reading that an electoral system in which a Government can win a majority of seats in this House without a majority of votes is one in which votes can never count equally. What the Government really mean is that they want to ensure that constituencies are more or less equally sized. I think there is broad agreement across the House that, within our current electoral system, there are good reasons to do this, although there is clearly disagreement about just how strict that equality should be.
While we have spent much time discussing how much equality there should be between constituencies, we have not really addressed what I believe is a fundamental question: equality of what? That is why I have tabled my amendment. The legislation, as it currently stands, says that there should be equality between the electorates of different constituencies, and that equality should be determined as a proportion of the electorate of the country.
That is not the only option available. New Zealand, for example, uses the census to determine constituency sizes, and I am sympathetic to this. We provide public services to everyone in our constituency, regardless of whether they are eligible to vote or indeed registered to vote. However, my new clause does something else: it redefines what “electorate” means for the purposes of this Bill. Currently, the electorate within the scope of the Bill means all those people on the electoral roll. I would expand this definition. My amendment would include all those who are eligible to vote, not just those who happen to be on the electoral roll at the time of the review.
According to the Electoral Commission, over 9 million people who are eligible to vote are not currently on the electoral roll. I would suggest to the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) that these are not necessarily people who choose not to vote. Our electoral register is incomplete by a large amount. That is a huge problem for our democracy, and it is a problem for this Bill and for what the Government hope to achieve by it, for how can we say that this Bill makes constituencies equal sized when it is based on an incomplete register that misses out nearly 20% of eligible voters? It is easy to think up examples. Two parts of this country may well have an identical number of eligible voters, but one local register may be more complete than the other, and as a result one part of the country counts for more than the other when it comes to the boundary review. That will be the reality when this review takes place.
This also raises questions about the value some Members are placing on this 5%. We must also remember that, by the time of the 2024 election, voters who have lived overseas for more than 15 years will, according to this Government’s manifesto, also be eligible to vote. This is a move that I and my party welcome, but it is another reason why the boundaries that this review will create will never be truly equal. They are out of date before they are even used for the first time.
The most concerning thing, however, is that the 9 million who are eligible to vote but not on the register are not just a random collection of individuals. The groups who are disproportionately likely to be eligible to vote but not on the roll include young people, renters, those for whom English is not their first language, and black, Asian and minority ethnic communities. As far as I am concerned, this is a total failure of public policy. Since the murder of George Floyd back in May, we have collectively reflected across this House on the fact that the structures and institutions that make up our society too frequently produce inferior outcomes for those people who are not white. Every Member of this House should be incredibly concerned about the fact that if someone is black, they are disproportionately unlikely to appear on the electoral roll. We are about to carry out a boundary review that will disproportionately exclude BAME people from being counted. That surely is not right.
That is the problem my new clause seeks to address. It would mean that the fact that our register is incomplete does not make a difference because the Boundary Commission would consider these potential electors too. It is entirely possible to treat 100% enrolment as an achievable goal.
Within this country, in Northern Ireland, there is a far more concerted effort to ensure that those in sixth forms and colleges are put on to the electoral register just as they turn 18. I welcome such assisted registration measures, which should be considered throughout the UK. The Government should accept that the annual canvass fails to register a huge number of people. Automatic voter registration is used in many countries, and it is an issue that the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) raised in her ten-minute rule Bill recently. Just last week, the Lords Select Committee on the Electoral Registration and Administration Act 2013 found the same thing. It said that completeness of the register had not improved, and it proposed automatic and assisted registration as well as ways to reduce duplicate applications. We have to be doing more on this issue, and I hope that the Minister will offer assurances during her winding-up speech that the Government are willing to engage with this issue.
Andrew Bowie
It will not surprise anybody that I rise in support of the Bill. The current boundaries of the parliamentary constituencies resulted from the fifth periodical review in Scotland. That was based on data gathered between 2001 and 2003, and completed in 2004. I was thinking about that earlier on, and I had a look at what was happening in 2004. What was in the news? Labour were seven years into a majority Government; the Hutton report was released; the European Union expanded, with 10 new countries joining; “Friends” aired for the final time—Rachel got off that plane; something called Facebook was launched at Harvard University, but I am sure it will never catch on; and Tony Blair banished—sorry, sent—Peter Mandelson to Brussels as our European Commissioner. It was a much simpler time. I was 17 and looking forward to my final year at school. My point is that this Bill is long overdue.
When the last Boundary Commission report altered the boundaries of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine to their current state, the population in my constituency was just over 81,000. The population of West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine now stands at an estimated 97,041, which is an increase of 16,000. Interestingly, the electoral roll has also grown by about 10,000 in that period. That will come as no surprise to those of us who have witnessed the growth of Portlethen, Westhill and Banchory over this time.
This legislation and the resultant review are long overdue. The geography of many towns and settlements in my constituency has changed beyond all recognition, such has been the scale of house building over the past two decades, and that story is replicated in some form in every constituency across the United Kingdom. Constituencies are not stuck in aspic. People move, the economy evolves, and populations rise and fall, so it is welcome that the Bill requires the Boundary Commission to report every eight years from July 2023. We should never again be in a position where we wait what will be, by then, 19 years between reviews. Not, of course, that we have been waiting 19 years between reviews, because we all know that there have been various attempts and, indeed, various reports from the Boundary Commission between 2010 and now, but today I am glad that we will finally see progress and that in 2023 a report will be implemented.
There must be equal representation of all people in this place, wherever in the United Kingdom they live. Every vote should count the same. How can we have confidence that that will be the case? How do we know that Liberal Democrat shenanigans and parliamentary arithmetic will not get in the way of implementing the commission’s recommendations, as they have done in the past? [Interruption.] I will tell hon. Members why. It is because the single most important part of the Bill, clause 2, removes us MPs from the process. It is frankly ridiculous for MPs to vote on boundary changes. While I would never suggest that—
John Spellar
Is he saying that Parliament has been ridiculous for almost the whole of its existence? What was wrong with Parliament being involved in the final stage?
Andrew Bowie
I would never suggest that anybody who was in Parliament for all those years was in any way acting ridiculously, and I do not think that it was ridiculous, but it was quite clear that none of the commission’s reports would ever be implemented. The parliamentary arithmetic prevented them from being implemented, whenever it was attempted to do so.
David Linden
Part of the point that the hon. Gentleman is missing is that it is not just Members of Parliament who have that oversight; it is also their noble lordships in the other place. Is he aware of that?
Andrew Bowie
I am fully aware of that; I was speaking about the entirety of Parliament. I am going to get back to my speech, because I am conscious of time and I know that Madam Deputy Speaker would like me to wrap up quite soon.
I would never suggest that Members of this House would have anything but the good of our country and their constituents as their motive for supporting or opposing legislation in this place, but the practice of MPs voting essentially on whether to abolish themselves is wrong. We saw it with the previous iteration of this Bill in the last Parliament: there was talk of deals and swaps; colleagues and friends were eyeing each other suspiciously over the top of newspapers in the Tea Room, looking out for trip hazards at the top of stairwells. One almost fancied an early retirement, as one of my good friends said to me on my 32nd birthday.
Likewise, we cannot see essential boundary changes stymied by political machinations, as we did in 2012 when Nick Clegg abandoned the then boundary review, worrying that his party would lose about 15 seats. It is important that we oppose amendment 1 in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, which would seek—as it says in the explanatory statement—to “maintain the status quo”, because the status quo does not work. The draft Order in Council giving effect to recommendations no longer being subject to any parliamentary procedure or approval before it is made is an important and positive move, and hon. and right hon. Members should oppose amendment 1, which would remove it. Of course it remains in Parliament’s gift to create new primary legislation to manage this, as it always has.
I turn briefly to the Scottish National party’s new clause 2. I must admit that I was rather disappointed to see that it is so depressing in tone. Protecting seats in the devolved nations is, of course, an admirable thing to fight for, but to do so at the expense of English constituencies is deeply unfair. Had the new clause in the name of the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden) sought to protect the number of English seats, I may even have found myself walking through the Division Lobby with my friend on the SNP Benches.
Andrew Bowie
I will not because of the time.
I am fully aware that SNP Members do not view us as one nation, but we Conservative Members most certainly do. We believe that there should be equal representation for every seat in the United Kingdom. I shall not detain the House any longer. This is a good Bill and it should have our full-throated support this evening.
Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)
Everyone on the Opposition Benches accepts that this parliamentary boundary review is overdue. I think we all also accept that what we want to achieve is equality in the weight of each individual elector’s vote. However, we found from the evidence that we took and our deliberation in Committee that that is not possible.
There are local circumstances that require flexibility in how we construct our parliamentary constituencies, and I very much favour flexibility for the Boundary Commission to be able to get on with its job. We heard from Mr Bellringer from the Boundary Commission, who said that greater flexibility allowed the commission the opportunity to facilitate local concerns and make the best of representations from local communities, and it allowed him to do his job more efficiently. We do not represent individuals alone. We represent communities. I firmly believe that if we create flexibility, we can protect the communities that the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) referred to earlier. That is why the 5% rigid limitation that the Government want to impose is wrong.
The Boundary Commission wrote to the Committee with some additional evidence, in which it said that
“a ward is a unit of electoral administration”.
Breaking up wards therefore needs to be avoided because it creates difficulty in administering elections. But if that is true, it must also be true that to go across a local government boundary is even more disruptive. What we have to create for the Boundary Commission is the flexibility to avoid circumstances that force it to decide that a parliamentary constituency must take orphan wards from a neighbouring local authority area or bits of communities from a neighbouring area that do not really match up to the communities in the main body of the constituency. We must accept the need to minimise disruption of that kind, so we need to ensure that the people making the recommendations on parliamentary boundaries have the maximum flexibility to do their job.
Andrew Rosindell
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he agree that sometimes a ward is completely artificial, so to break up a ward can actually unite a community, rather than divide it? Therefore, the Boundary Commission should be more flexible about using smaller building blocks, such as polling districts, or even an individual road that it makes sense to transfer into a constituency?
Clive Efford
I agree, provided it is within a recognisable local government area and a recognisable community, and there is support from the local community. In additional evidence the Boundary Commission sent, it talked about the administrative problems of going down to polling district level. The commission referred to getting Ordnance Survey to map all the polling districts in the whole country, but it seems to me that all it has to do is ring up the electoral registration offices, which can tell it how many people live in every road in every polling district. Why go to a separate organisation to find out information that is already recorded on a given date when we start the parliamentary boundary review? If that is already recorded and kept, all the Boundary Commission has to do is refer to it; then, it could go down to sub-ward level where that makes sense locally. I think the commission is creating problems for itself.
Why 7.5%? We had evidence from Dr Rossiter, who has researched this issue. He explained that as we go up from 5% to 6 % to 7% to 8%, although each percentage point seems a small amount, it improves the quality of the outcome, and that there are benefits from moving from 5% to 6 % to 7% or 8% because it improves the decision-making process. He then said that, beyond 8%, that benefit diminishes. The amendment therefore proposes 7.5%, and the experts who gave evidence favour a figure close to 7.5%. I ask the Government to reconsider their position, as they no doubt will in the other place, to look at the evidence and to accept that 7.5% is a much more sensible figure than the rigid 5% which we know has created problems in the past.
Clive Efford
No, because I heard Madam Deputy Speaker cough, which is telling me, “Efford, shut up.” I will conclude by making one point about parliamentary oversight.
If we had not had parliamentary oversight, we would now have 600 MPs, and I do not think anyone in this Chamber thinks we should have 600 MPs. Parliamentary oversight saved us from that gerrymander attempt, which I will not dwell on because I do not have time. It is Parliament that sets the rules, and in any process where someone sets the rules and sends someone else off to perform a function, at the end of it there must be oversight to ensure that the function was performed efficiently and according to the rules that were set out. That is what Parliament does. That is Parliament’s role in this area. Why do we not trust ourselves to perform the function that Parliament is put here to perform? If we set the Boundary Commission a task to perform, we should have oversight of the outcome. If we had not had oversight of the previous two reviews, we would have made the mistake of cutting our number to 600, with all the consequent chaos.
Cherilyn Mackrory (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)
This Bill is all about creating fair and proper representation in this House for everyone in the United Kingdom. Although there are many local challenges, we should be proud that the Bill aims to achieve just that, and for that reason I very much welcome it.
The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011 put in place processes to reduce the number of MPs in this House from 650 to 600. In Cornwall, the number of MPs would have been reduced from six to five and a bit. Reducing the number of MPs in that way meant that it was highly unlikely that the boundary of Cornwall would be respected, but that a cross-border constituency formed of towns and parishes in both Devon and Cornwall could and would be created. When the Boundary Commission for England published its proposals for the new constituency boundaries, it produced a parliamentary seat that quickly acquired the nickname of “Devonwall”, which naturally caused considerable upset in Cornwall and a bit of damage to Cornish pride. I tried at the time to argue that it was the start of a takeover, but the commission was not buying it.
Cornwall is a historic nation with its own traditions, its own heritage and its own language, and in 2014 the Cornish people became protected through the Council of Europe’s framework convention for the protection of national minorities. I am happy to say that because of this Bill, the cross-border issue appears to have been rectified for now, and I am grateful to the Bill Committee.
John Spellar
Can the hon. Lady see the logical inconsistency? Had the provisions of the Bill about automaticity gone through, there would not have been any way of stopping that; they would have gone through, and Cornwall would have been disadvantaged under precisely that rule.
Cherilyn Mackrory
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but on this review, the mathematics mean that the people in Cornwall will be represented within its boundary, as we would expect.
Cherilyn Mackrory
I will press on, because we need to get other hon. Members this afternoon.
Constituency boundaries should coincide, where possible, with local administrative boundaries, which should help my hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie). I am pleased that the Bill, by reviewing the number of MPs needed for fair and effective representation, ensures that the United Kingdom will continue to have 650 Members to serve in this House and six whole, passionate, hard-working Cornish MPs.
It is worth remembering that, as well as protecting the culture and identity of national minorities, the framework convention seeks to protect the political integrity of territories. I am of the opinion that the Bill will help to protect the Cornish people as a national minority by affording us fair representation for effective government, and our boundaries will stay intact. Once the Bill has passed, it will be for the Cornish MPs, the local authority in Cornwall and local residents to work with the Boundary Commission to ensure that the identity of Cornwall is protected, with its six constituencies within its boundaries, to offer the equal and fair representation that the people deserve.
There is an appetite in Cornwall to look further at greater autonomy, and I am sure that the Government will be more than happy to work with Cornwall towards that goal. It is through that mechanism that I call for more permanent protection of Cornwall’s historic boundary, and I look forward to future conversations with Ministers to that end. If the local authority in Cornwall is serious about greater autonomy, I invite it to be part of those conversations with the Government at that time to achieve that. However, for now, I will continue to do what I can to ensure that my constituents in Truro and Falmouth get the fair representation that they deserve, as well as continued support through the current crisis and beyond, and I thank the Government for their part in that.
To that end, I support the Bill, and I support the Government’s attempts to safeguard and encourage democracy throughout the whole country.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion) (PC)
It is a pleasure to participate in this debate, and a particular pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), with whom I agree quite strongly that Cornwall is its own nation and should be respected. Indeed, in Committee, we received quite a bit of evidence to that effect from Cornwall Council and Councillor Dick Cole, who drew our attention to the fact that the UK Government recognised Cornwall as a minority nation back in 2014, and that its territorial integrity in terms of representation in this place must be respected.
I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member that that should be addressed. Where we might disagree somewhat is that I believe we perhaps need to go further —this is something that could be looked at again under this Bill, perhaps in the other place—to see how we can ensure that those safeguards for the people and the nation of Cornwall are adequately protected.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
I am a fan of the Kingdom of Sussex and I still sing “Sussex by the Sea” on our national day, but is that not an argument for keeping within county boundaries or historic national boundaries? We therefore need a higher variance on the number; otherwise, the Cornish will be saved this time, but they will not be saved next time.
Cherilyn Mackrory
I would like to take this argument when we have further devolution calls; at that point, because Cornwall has a special status, I would like to see the boundary protected.
Ben Lake
That is a very good point well made.
To return to more familiar ground—Wales—let me say in passing that I was very pleased to see Ynys Môn included as a protected constituency. I see that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) is here. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) on her amendment. I tried to table a very similarly worded amendment—I see the right hon. Member gesturing—but it did not quite fit the bill. What is important is that the change got through. It is a rare day indeed when the Labour party, the Conservative party and Plaid Cymru find common cause on anything, so in that sense it is very good.
I am conscious that I was distracted earlier, so I will now keep to some points about Wales, and particularly a question raised during Committee stage that I believe warrants further debate, and which the right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns) touched on: the allocation of seats between the nations of the UK. Other Members have already drawn attention to the fact that Wales is likely to lose quite a significant number of seats at this initial boundary review, which, yes—before anybody intervenes—is partly a result of our not having had a boundary review for so many years. The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) and I had a good exchange on that in Committee.
However, although I completely understand the arguments for applying a single UK-wide electoral quota and agree with its proponents that it has a logical coherence, I think that the unintended consequences of such an approach should be addressed. In Committee, some practical issues with changing to a single UK-wide electoral quota were addressed, including that we are tying ourselves to demographic changes, with automaticity clauses meaning that further changes are implemented without further discussion or decision by this place.
Reference has been made to the fact that we base our electoral registers on those who are eligible to vote, as opposed to populations, but for the sake of argument, between 2001 and 2018 the population of Wales grew by some 200,000. Projections suggest that between 2018 and 2028—just before the further review—it will grow by another 2.7%. However, it is likely, according to the evidence we received in Committee, that the number of seats that Wales will send to this place will be reduced initially by eight, or perhaps seven, and a further one or two at the next review.
Some practical issues, including the creation of large geographical constituencies, have been addressed, particularly by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone). However, there are constitutional considerations as well. Wales will lose eight seats initially, and unless demographic trends change quite significantly in the coming decade, we stand to lose further representation in this place. The right hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan made the valid point that one thing that has changed in the last decade or two is the devolution settlement, although that was not necessarily the rationale put to us for the move to a single UK-wide electoral quota. But if we were to adopt that logic, as the representative from the Liberal Democrats told us in Committee, there should be no reduction without further devolution.
Alun Cairns
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, for a cohesive society to sustain itself, equal representation is fundamental?
Ben Lake
I completely acknowledge and note the right hon. Gentleman’s arguments, but we fundamentally disagree. I consider the UK to be a union of four nations, as opposed to a single entity. I think we are at an impasse and will never be able to agree. I acknowledge that his argument is coherent, but I do not agree with it, which is more than I can say for other Members.
The representation of the peoples of the UK could be addressed if we were to explore reforms to other parts of the constitution, most notably the other place. Other countries have shown that second Chambers can be very good at doing this. However, that is not on offer at the moment and, indeed, is not a measure before the House. For that reason, I encourage Members to support new clause 2, to at least make us pause and make sure that it is a conscious decision to reduce the number of MPs from the respective nations of the UK.
Mrs Miller
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake). I am pleased to hear his support for my old new clause 10, which now makes up clause 7 in the Bill. I think he will find that his amendment was what we call technically defective. However, it is good to hear his support.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to this group of amendments on Report, but before I do that, it says it all when Labour characterises boundary changes, as the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) did, as unnecessary nuisances. The Bill is all about the quality of our democracy. Fair and equal-sized constituencies are at the heart of it.
Mrs Miller
The right hon. Gentleman has had quite a lot of giving way. I am not giving way.
John Spellar
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) attributed a statement to me that is not actually what I said. I therefore seek the opportunity to correct that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It is up to the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) whether she wants to give way.
Mrs Miller
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I actually wrote it down—perhaps the right hon. Gentleman needs to check Hansard.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman has put his views on the record, but he really must not interrupt in that way.
Mrs Miller
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Bill is all about the quality of our democracy and about fair and equal-sized constituencies, which are at the heart of the Bill. It is to ensure that every vote counts the same. I see that as part of a fair democracy. This group of amendments repeats many of the debates in Committee, despite the compelling evidence that we received. They are designed to dilute the intention of the Bill and, in doing so, reduce its effectiveness in delivering better democracy.
I will look at just two amendments: new clause 1 and amendment 1. New clause 1, which would allow an up to 15% difference between each of our constituencies, fundamentally tries to undermine the intention of the Bill. Anyone listening to the debate today would think that our communities all come in packages of particular sizes; that is simply not the case. Swindon and Reading both had to be split in two, and any increase in the tolerance around the quota would not have really helped them. My constituency of Basingstoke now has 83,000 people. Whatever way we read that, Basingstoke will have to be carved up into different constituencies, regardless of the fact that it is clearly one coherent community.
The cornerstone of what we are doing here has to be the issue of equal suffrage. That is the cornerstone of our democracy and we cannot con ourselves into thinking that our communities can be carved up easily—they cannot. It is difficult. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Warley had a point when he used the words—which I must get right now to ensure I do not affront him again—an unnecessary nuisance, because in many ways this is very difficult to put into practice. However, it was central to our 2019 Conservative party manifesto that we would have updated and equal parliamentary boundaries to ensure that every vote counted the same.
On the amendment, if we are to reach the Bill’s objective, we need to urge the Boundary Commission to be far more imaginative in how it looks at our communities and go below the ward level when trying to construct new boundaries. It is possible within the existing rules to do that—no rule change is required—but I was rather taken aback by some of the Boundary Commission’s evidence saying how difficult that would be, particularly given that software with geographic information system capability has been purchased to enable sub-ward-level boundaries to be considered. I hope that the Minister may be able to edify the Chamber a little on what more work has been done in that direction.
I note that the Boundary Commission’s letter by way of supplementary evidence said that the political parties were going to meet the commission prior to the review starting. I hope the Minister may be able to reassure us that further headway will be made on this issue. I welcomed the commission suggesting, in that supplementary evidence, the prioritising of the mapping of metropolitan council areas where the largest ward electorate sizes occur, but if other areas in the country require that to happen, how will we handle that?
Perhaps the Minister could also consider how we should be dealing with the Boundary Commission between reviews to make sure that it is doing this basic spadework then, rather than when a review is imminent. It seems to be a poor use of resources to be dealing with it in this way.
Virginia Crosbie (Ynys Môn) (Con)
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) for tabling amendment 14, which gives my constituency of Ynys Môn protected status in this Bill. To all those Members who sat on the Bill Committee, diolch yn fawr —thank you very much.
When I was elected as the MP for Ynys Môn last December, I know that there were many on the island who felt that a Conservative from England who was only 50% Welsh would neither care for nor understand their views or their culture. I entered into politics to make a difference and to give a voice to those who feel they have none, wherever I am based. Over the past six months living on Anglesey with my husband, our three children and our cocker spaniel, I have been welcomed and encouraged, and I already feel that sense of “coming home” when I cross the Menai strait on to the island.
Going through lockdown on Anglesey has shown me very clearly the strong bonds that tie this island community together. I have witnessed overwhelming friendship and kindness, with towns and villages drawing together to protect and support each other. Voluntary groups like Stayce Weeder’s Anglesey’s Random Acts of Kindness and Steve MacVicar’s Seiriol Alliance, along with many, many others, have shown exactly what Anglesey’s communities are all about and why it is such a special place.
It would be easy to take a contemporary view of Ynys Môn as part of the mainland merely because it is close enough to be connected by two bridges, but that misses the point. Ynys Môn is, and always will be, an island community. It is an island with a fierce history of independence, separated from the UK by the narrow but treacherous Menai strait until the 1800s. It has often been annexed politically as well as physically from the mainland. It was the last stronghold of the druids against the invading Roman army, it was one of the first places Edward I put defences when he conquered Wales, and it is famous as Môn Mam Cymru for keeping north Wales fed through the middle ages.
The island is environmentally and ecologically different from the mainland. I took a wonderful drive round the north coast of the island at the weekend, where the rolling, fertile fields stand in testimony to its agricultural heritage, and the rocky coastline plays host to buildings that hark back to centuries of maritime trade. The mainland, in contrast, is mountainous and has different economic needs. Talking to local people over the past few months, I have seen and understood why they feel that the island should not be united politically with the mainland and that that would be detrimental locally.
The proposal to give Ynys Môn protected status puts it on a par with the other major islands in the UK—Orkney and Shetland, and the Isle of Wight. The support that my right hon. Friend’s amendment has received from these constituencies shows that there is a shared understanding among islanders of being different from the mainland. I was really pleased to see party politics put aside so that the amendment enjoyed unanimous support in Committee. I particularly thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) for his backing. He, too, has a genuine understanding of Ynys Môn’s desire to be acknowledged as an island community in its own right.
I will conclude with a message sent to me by one of my constituents:
“Virginia having you as our MP is like having a window on Westminster. You have clearly fallen in love with the island—and we are falling in love with you.”
James Grundy
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has secured statutory protection for her constituency, alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller). In a previous life, when I worked for the Scottish Conservatives, I argued strongly for a set of provisions that would cover all island-authority constituencies; I was very disappointed that Ynys Môn was left out. I think my hon. Friend would agree that a great injustice has been corrected in the new version of the legislation.
Virginia Crosbie
I thank my hon. Friend for his interruption—[Interruption.] Sorry—his intervention. I am a bit of a newbie.
Virginia Crosbie
Either works. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (James Grundy) is present to see his journey continue. I am proud to be the MP for Ynys Môn, and I am equally proud and delighted to see the island recognised with protected status in the Bill.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie). I congratulate her on her success; I hope it is the first of many. I shall not repeat her constituency name too frequently in case I injure its pronunciation. It is a great tribute to her that she has got that success so soon in this Parliament.
As we know, every day is a school day. It has been interesting to hear people on the Government Benches talk with a straight face about the equalisation of seats, having operated and implemented the English votes for English laws process in this Parliament. If Members want an English Parliament, they should create it, and I will support it, but it is no substitute for our national Parliament, which is this Chamber. It is hard to listen to equalisation arguments, having been unnecessarily excluded from so many votes in this place since the creation of that policy.
As I say, every day is a school day, and it is interesting to learn that not only is there a song called “Sussex by the Sea”, but it is an anthem with a national day on which to be sung. The hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) is looking at me because he understands all the nuances in our wonderful British Isles. It would have been no surprise to him, but it was to me.
Having heard the comments from the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who is not in the Chamber, about how much he enjoyed the Bill Committee, I suppose I should probably not admit that I gave evidence to the Committee and probably added to the pain and suffering that he and other Committee members endured. I was pleased to give evidence as our party’s director of elections.
Some important contributions have resurfaced today, not only from the Bill Committee but on the amendment paper, and should be considered. I can see no argument against parliamentary sovereignty or parliamentary scrutiny of boundary commission proposals. I added my name to amendment 1 for that precise purpose. The hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) made the argument earlier about setting the task and then agreeing with the conclusion, and that is our role.
I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) when she suggests that there is a commensurate removal of Executive power. When I gave evidence to the Bill Committee, I think I was fair when I reflected that there is no equivalence or equalisation between parliamentary sovereignty and approval and a technical amendment mechanism that is not used by Ministers and has not been used by Ministers. I have yet to hear Ministers put forward a comprehensive or compelling example of when that ministerial power was used and how it is of equal comparison to the removal of parliamentary approval for boundary commission proposals in respect of the restructure in the Bill. I do not think there is such an example and I have yet to hear one, but I am happy to give way should somebody wish to correct me.
I support new clause 1, but it is fair to say that it contains many arguments in which I have no part to play. I will not put forward arguments about the retention of seats in Wales—that is for others—or about the retention of seats in Scotland, either. In 2018, the Government published the Parliamentary Constituencies (Amendment) Bill, which secured 18 seats for Northern Ireland. It was published but never progressed, but that legislative commitment was given by Government, and it was important for the constitutional and balanced position that we have in Northern Ireland. It was a commitment that was given and has not been repeated in this Bill, which is hugely regrettable, so I will support new clause 2 if it is brought to a vote.
On new clause 1, there are fair arguments about 5% and how much better the constituencies will be with the increase of every percentage point thereafter. This has not been raised in the Chamber thus far, but Members will know that, under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, Northern Ireland has a special provision in rule 7 whereby, if the Boundary Commission is unable to construe boundaries with geographical significance or there is no further inaccuracy, we are allowed to have a tolerance of 10%. That rule is retained in this Bill, and we think it is an important rule. The Minister will know from the comments I made in evidence to the Bill Committee that, following a judicial review last year and the Court of Appeal judgment issued only two months ago, Boundary Commission proposals from Northern Ireland were struck down in the operation of rule 7, and we are concerned that there may be a chilling effect on the application of rule 7 in future Boundary Commission proposals.
We will support the increased tolerance from 5% to 7.5% because we think that it would give the greater flexibility required to ensure that Boundary Commission proposals in Northern Ireland are fair, balanced and not infected by other historical arguments that could be brought into the process. However, I am keen to hear from the Minister how lessons can be learned from the application of rule 7 and that the 10% tolerance—or 20%, since it is plus or minus 10%—is important for Northern Ireland, and future boundary commissioners should not be precluded from using it, because it plays an important part in the Boundary Commission process in Northern Ireland, and ultimately it needs to be retained.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Things have perked up enormously on the time front. However, from now on, if Members could stick to five minutes, everyone will be able to speak. I call Shaun Bailey.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
Before I begin, on Black Country Day, I want to pay tribute to the Black Country chartists and suffragettes in Wednesbury and Tipton who fought for us to be here under one member, one vote and ensure that our constituents could be represented.
I fear that I may repeat many of the arguments that had been made eloquently today. It is great to follow the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), who gave enlightening and interesting evidence to the Bill Committee. I would like to thank all members of the Bill Committee. It was my first Bill Committee, and what a Bill Committee to be on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) put it, it allowed me to utilise my psephological exuberance, which is a fantastic phrase that I will try to make sure I get into conversations from now on.
I want to touch on three main points. The first is on automaticity—a word that I have finally learned to say without tongue-twisting. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) said in Committee, at the moment we are in a situation where we mark our own homework; there is no doubt about that. I do not understand how we can reconcile that. I repeat what I said on Second Reading: what is being proposed is an independent, judiciary-led commission. I have trust and faith in our judiciary. I am a lawyer—that is bred into me. Unless someone wants to take me to school on this, my understanding of our constitutional structure is that this place sets the laws, and the judiciary help to interpret them, so I do not understand where this fear of what is business as usual comes from.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood) articulated the point eloquently, as did my neighbour, the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar), about the Boundary Commission’s Selly Oak proposal. The independent commission took evidence from the community, after which it made the decision that the proposal was not acceptable. We talk about this as if, once we get the initial recommendations, that is it—game over. It is not like that at all. Those who have been through the experience of a boundary change know full well that it is not like that, so I struggle to accept that argument from the Opposition.
When we talk about a 7.5% threshold, it is not actually 7.5%—it is 15%. Let us be honest about that. The Venice Commission report, which Opposition Members have quoted freely, states clearly that that 15% threshold is for exceptional circumstances.
The semantics of that report were quite clear. It effectively advised to steer well clear of going anywhere near that, and actually went so far as to suggest that we should keep that threshold as minimal as possible to ensure certainty, fairness and parity among constituencies. I do not accept Opposition Members’ interpretation of that report.
Mike Wood
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and a very happy Black Country Day to you today. As a proud Black Country man it has been an honour to represent communities in Dudley South for the past five years. I hope to have the opportunity to do so for a number of years to come. Like many other constituencies in this country, the boundaries on which I was elected were last fundamentally altered ahead of the 1997 general election, based on electorates from the early 1990s. We are literally a generation out of date on the boundaries on which many of the constituencies in the west midlands were drawn up.
Like Members on both sides of the House, I am enormously fond of all parts of my constituency. I love every last ward and polling district of it. It would be a real wrench if any of it were to be taken out of Dudley South, but we also have to recognise that, like many of the Black Country constituencies, the current size of the constituency is under the quota whether it is based on 600 or 650. Many constituencies in the Black Country will need to take in additional areas and, of course, some will be divided between constituencies. I am as likely to find myself without a constituency to represent as any other Member of Parliament, but when we are considering fundamental constitutional reform such as this one it is not about whether I have a constituency to represent. This is not about me. This is about the wider electoral system. It must be a fundamental premise of our electoral system that constituencies have to be as close to the same size as is possible.
One of the very few upsides of this horrific outbreak and lockdown has been the opportunity to spend a little more time helping my children with their schoolwork at home. My daughter is in year 7 and she is studying the people’s charter of 1838—it was referred to by my hon. Friend for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson)—which includes the campaign for constituencies based on equal numbers of electors. Many Opposition Members —and possibly even some Government Members—consider themselves the natural heirs of 19th century radicals, but instead of picking up the torch of William Lovett and Feargus O’Connor, it seems they are choosing to put themselves on the side of those arguing for representation on the basis of acres of land and for the geographic extent of a constituency to somehow override the priority of equalising the number of electors represented within. That cannot be the right way. It was not the right way in the 19th century and it is certainly not the right way in a 21st century democracy.
There is a better way, one that has been referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell); we can make sure that equal-sized constituencies can be drawn up that properly represent local constituencies if the boundary commissions are encouraged to look more favourably at dividing wards across constituencies where the alternative would be unnatural constituencies or dividing communities. That was done in the west midlands during the last review and it is one reason why the proposals by the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar)—he is not in his place—for a Halesowen and Selly Oak constituency, for Sutton Coldfield to be divided and for various other strange things in the initial recommendations were not in the final recommendations. It was precisely because in only three wards across the whole of the west midlands are they able to divide across natural boundaries within those wards, which are amalgamations of wards, and therefore have more natural boundaries across the constituency.
Let me briefly touch on the issue of automatic implementation. The right hon. Gentleman said that, as Parliament, we instruct these independent bodies to go out and draw up rules, and therefore we should be able to decide whether to implement them and whether they are the right decisions. But we also instructed the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority to draw up parliamentary pay and conditions. In the not-too-distant future, it will look as strange to people that we think we should draw the constituency boundaries on which we are elected—
Emma Hardy
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have found the debate a little confusing, because the arguments that Conservative Members have been making, some of whom I hold in high regard, make me wonder how clearly and accurately they listened to the opening speeches. I would go as far as to say that there have been many straw man arguments created throughout this debate. At the outset, I wish to say that when quoting any Member of the House it is important that it is done accurately and precisely, and I hope Hansard will reflect that.
The Labour party of course accepts the need for boundary changes. No one has argued against that, so again I am slightly confused by the arguments presented by Conservative Members that somehow we are speaking against it. We have welcomed the fact that the Bill has moved to having 650 MPs and that the data being taken is from March 2020. I wish to spend a moment paying tribute to my staff for the amount of work they have done and for how hard they have worked during this pandemic. I am sure that is the case for all Members’ staff throughout this time and we should all recognise the need for 650 MPs.
I wish to address some of the comments made by Conservative Members. I was disappointed to hear our amendment referred to as a “wrecking amendment”, as I thought that was unjustified. Trying to extend the flexibility of a boundary commission to take into account local history and local cultures is not “wrecking”; it is merely pragmatic and sensible, so I was disappointed with the language used. Another Member mentioned the need for the Boundary Commission to be more imaginative, but surely there needs to be recognition of the fact that it is difficult for it to be imaginative when its hands are tied behind its back because it is restricted to 5%. As our shadow Minister said, 5% on the basis of 600 Members is 4,000 electors, whereas 5% on the basis of 650 is only 3,500.
Yet another straw man argument being presented by Conservative Members is that all these constituencies would be 15% different, which shows that they have not accurately read the amendment. That is not what it says. It says that the Boundary Commission would use the 5% and have a tolerance to extend to 7.5% in areas where it is absolutely necessary. It does not at any point say, “Let’s encourage the Boundary Commission to make sure all our constituencies are 15% different.” Again, we saw another straw man and another disappointing argument from Conservative Members.
Some of the evidence that was given during the Bill Committee included comments from David Rossiter and Charles Pattie, who noted that it was the 5% that caused the greatest disruption. Indeed, one of the things that was so intolerable to the people in the community in the changes that were going to be implemented in my constituency of Hull West and Hessle was the movement across the natural boundaries. A ward was proposed that would instead go from east Hull into west Hull. I do not expect anyone in the House now to be aware of the historical traditions and rivalries between east and west Hull, but if Members look at our rugby teams as a good example of that friendly rivalry that exists in the community, they can perhaps start to understand why a movement across the River Hull would be so intolerable. That was indeed mentioned by my predecessor, Alan Johnson, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) in the evidence that they gave to the previous Boundary Commission. I suppose that part of my message to the Boundary Commission, via the Minister, is that it really does need to look at natural geography and the histories and cultural traditions of places. That is why I am in favour of allowing this extra tolerance—not on every occasion as has been mentioned—to ensure that it takes those historical differences into account.
I will not detain the House for too much longer, but I think it is also worth pointing out—it is certainly the feeling I get from residents in Hull—that no one would thank a political party for trying to enforce a new identity on an established community by moving it out of one community and insisting that it belongs to another. I am also a little perplexed by the idea that a political party, which seems to be so keen on taking back control of our borders, seems to want to relinquish control of our constituency borders to an unelected body.
On the point about bringing the decision back to Parliament, it is worth pointing out that we are under no illusion that, if we bring the matter back to Parliament, the Conservative party has the majority to force through what it wants, so this is a point of principle, rather than any realistic notion that we could change the decisions that have been made. That is why I support new clause 1 and amendment 1 in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy). I am very glad to be able to speak today as, unfortunately, time ran out on me on Second Reading. I congratulate the Bill Committee on all the work it has done on this Bill in the meantime.
The obvious core point is about fairness, which a number of Members have mentioned. I will not go into any great detail, because it does seem to be a point that has been broadly conceded. My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) represents nearly 100,000 people when plenty of Members in this House represent fewer than half that number. That is not fair on either him or, more importantly, on his constituents, because their votes literally count half as much as those of other constituencies.
On the subject of tolerance, a 5% tolerance is a 10% band, and every seat should be within 7,000 or so people, which is a perfectly reasonable proposition. We might flatter ourselves that the identity of our constituents is formed by the constituency in which they live, but I do not think that is the case at all. Our constituents actually look to their immediate community, and perhaps even to their church hall, which, as a polling station is an element of community. I do not think that constituents are that bothered by the name of the constituency in which they happen to live. My seat of Newcastle-under-Lyme is slightly on the small side, so I understand that that will mean changes for me. It means that I will probably have to absorb some more of the Loyal and Ancient Borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, which I welcome. I gently point out to the Boundary Commission —if it is listening or reading Hansard—that crossing the A500 into Stoke-on-Trent will probably not go down very well in the area.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
If my hon. Friend is looking for more of the Newcastle-under-Lyme borough, could he please leave Kidsgrove and Talke alone?
Aaron Bell
The point of my hon. Friend and neighbour is well made.
I would also like to say how much distaste I feel when I hear these allegations of gerrymandering, which sometimes happens with these Bills. They seemed to start with the former Member for Blackburn and former Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw, who described our manifesto proposals in 2010 as “gerrymandering”. I regret to say that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the Chair of the Committee on Standards, described this Bill as gerrymandering in a tweet in May. Nothing could be further from the truth. This Bill is quite the opposite; it levels the playing field. To call it “gerrymandering” is a slur on the Boundary Commission and the judicial process. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) said, it is a judicial process and we should have trust that it will be fair. Either they do not know the meaning of the word “gerrymandering”, or they are choosing to misrepresent what is going on, potentially for partisan gain, or potentially to scare the electorate into thinking something nefarious is going on. Nothing could be further from the truth.
I am also pleased that this Bill introduces the automaticity that my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) was regrettably unable to get to in his speech.
It makes the translation of boundaries into law near automatic. It not only removes delay, but ensures integrity in the process.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
When I went to the Table Office a few weeks ago to pick up this Bill I picked up the wrong one, and I was reading it and thinking, “This is a particularly good Bill and it seems very reasonable and sensible,” and then I realised it was actually a private Member’s Bill from a number of Conservative Members. So better suggestions have been laid here in Parliament, and it is such a shame that the Government do not take more heed of their own Members. But let us talk about the content of the Bill before us today.
The question is, of course, what is in a number, because the reality is that a percentage does not really matter. We are talking about building blocks that are numbers, not percentages. We do not say, “In this ward there is 5% of the population”; we say, “In this ward there are 3,000 voters.” That is what we are working on.
So let us talk about practicalities. In the average metropolitan borough or London borough, the average ward size is 9,800 people—about 10,000 people. A 5% variance at the moment excludes all of those borough wards. It does not affect nice shire counties where, of course, Government Members predominately come from, because their average size is only 3,000. So of course they are able to build coherent communities in those places more easily, but it is harder in urban areas and we divide and rule communities there with this 5% variance. If we had a 7.5% variance, we would of course avoid that, because then the variance is 10,000; the vast majority of our urban wards would be able to be included as a whole, and there would be very little problem.
I think there is actually an argument to review how we do boundary proposals in their holistic nature from bottom to top, and say that the boundary commissions for local government should be creating wards of smaller sizes, so they fit into the shape of what we want the variance to be. There is an argument for doing that to get the building blocks right, but the Government have not come forward with such a proposal; they have rejected the idea of talking about local government reviews at the same time as parliamentary Government reviews. Since that is off the table, we need to accommodate ourselves to the situation that we have.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
No, I am afraid that time is very tight.
The predecessor Committee to mine suggested 10%, with a 15% allowance in exceptional circumstance. That was agreed across the parties in 2015; this is a far more modest proposal. Of course the Boundary Commission should aim to be dead on—no one is saying otherwise—but where that is impossible, we should allow it flexibility. To use a judicial analogy, we should allow the judge to use their expertise, rather than tying their hands behind their back.
We know that if the rules are written incorrectly, we will get a gerrymandered outcome. That is not the fault of the commissioners; it is not the fault of the judges, although it is not a judicial but a quasi-judicial process; it is a fault in how the rules are written, which is why it is so important that the question should come back here. It is not we who vote in Parliament; our votes are for the people, so removing this place’s oversight is removing the oversight of the people.
Finally, I will quickly touch on how we look at the numbers. The 1917 boundary review, which was the first major boundary review in this country, used census data. The 1911 census, which I have been looking at recently while doing my ancestry—scarily, I am related to the Eustices; I must inform the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—was used as the building block, because it was both the census and the electoral roll. Splitting it has meant that we no longer have an automated electoral roll. If we either had an automated electoral roll or used the census, we would have fairer constituencies as well. I am disappointed that the Government have not included that.
Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)
Diolch, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to speak on this very important Bill; I will keep my comments brief because I know that we are short on time.
It will come as no surprise that I have concerns about the restrictive 5% electoral quota and the impact that it will have on constituencies such as the area that I represent in the heart of the south Wales valleys. Creating constituencies that make sense to the local communities is even harder with our local geography. I know that this has already been eloquently explained by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), but locals in my patch in Pontypridd and across Rhondda Cynon Taf will tell you in a heartbeat that it would make no sense for constituencies to have more than one valley and a mountain range in between. Indeed, during her evidence session, Shereen Williams of the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales said:
“I think the valleys will present a unique challenge for us, because you do not really want to split a valley and have half in one seat and the other half in another seat.”––[Official Report, Parliamentary Constituencies Public Bill Committee, 18 June 2020; c. 20, Q35.]
I completely agree. It is clear that our stunning valleys should be given greater consideration than the 5% variance in drawing Welsh boundaries, and I urge colleagues to support a flexible and sensible approach.
Naturally, I also have general concerns that Wales will be hit most by the loss of constituencies in the next boundary change, because of the large population shifts in the area over the past 20 years, which colleagues have alluded to. I have also been shocked, frustrated and actually quite tamping, for want of a better word, to read the incredibly reckless comments from colleagues in the Senedd, most notably from Mark Reckless MS, about abolishing the Welsh Parliament. It is clear, now more than ever, that the Welsh Parliament plays a vital role in scrutinising policy that has an impact on communities across Wales.
I urge colleagues on the Government Benches to stand with me and commit to strengthening, as opposed to weakening, Wales’s voice, both here in Westminster and in the Senedd. It is vital that the boundary commissioners be given greater flexibility to take into account our unique geography, particularly if we are to ensure that representation in Wales is not forgotten here in Parliament.
Mr Holden
I rise to speak to new clauses 1 and 3. New clause 1 is perhaps the biggest piece of contention on both sides of the House. When I read through the Bill Committee’s proceedings, I noticed that at the very start and the very end—in sittings one and eight—the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson really pushed the point about 5% versus 7.5%. I cannot understand how the Labour party, which historically has campaigned for one person, one vote, can now be campaigning for something that would make that less likely. It is totally logical to want as small a variant as possible between populations.
The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) talked about wards being the building blocks of our communities. I totally disagree with the point, which he made in an intervention, that church halls and polling districts are not the building blocks. Church halls are the heart of communities in our constituencies; they are were people gather, where the scouts and brownies go, where people have coffee mornings, and so on. They are the building blocks of our communities, and the Bill should be based on them, not on arbitrary boundaries.
I actually agreed with the hon. Member on his point about looking at wards more generally. I would be very much in favour of single member wards. Some parts of my constituency have one member, while some people are represented by three councillors. It is bizarre that in one part of my constituency someone can ask three people to represent me, but in another part only one. We dealt with that in this place in the 1950s. I think we could deal with it on a council level as well and would support any moves the Government make in that direction.
The switch to 7.5% is not a price worth paying to keep wards together. On that point, there is a fundamental disagreement between the two sides of the House. I am very happy to go with polling districts. I listened to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), who is the co-chair with me on the all-party group on local democracy. We represent a lot of town and parish councils. Such things are much more important and should be recognised where possible. If the Minister could speak to that, it would be really helpful. I generally agree also with my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), who is not in his seat, about this obsession with metropolitan wards being large contiguous units. It is not true. Some of these wards have 15,000 or 20,000 people in them. They are not one community and could easily be divided up.
On new clause 3, the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) mentioned this idea that we should want to try to estimate things. I remember what happened to her colleague, the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), in the 2017 general election. The Lib Dem counters on election night mis-estimated his votes and thought he was about to lose, which was why they left him in a car park for several hours when he was leader of the party. We should not bring estimates into this. The current situation is sensible. The electoral roll has been the basis for some time and is the right basis.
In conclusion, I urge hon. Members to support the Government today and back this excellent Bill, which is not before time.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab)
I speak in this debate with previous experience of the process of making electoral boundaries. As I referred to on Second Reading, I used to work for the Local Government Boundary Commission for England on periodic electoral reviews of local government boundaries, and I must declare an interest: some of my friends and colleagues moved on to work more recently for the Boundary Commission for England on parliamentary reviews.
I am pleased the Government have accepted our call to scrap the plan to cut the number of MPs to 600. A reduction would have weakened the role of Parliament to the benefit of the Executive, and recently we have seen the value and importance of a breadth of scrutiny of Government during the covid-19 pandemic. I am pleased also that the numeration date changed to 2 March 2020 to ensure maximum reflection of the electorate, rather than one impeded by covid-19.
I still have concerns, however, about the Government’s intention to remove parliamentary scrutiny from the boundary review process and the imposition of a restrictive electoral quota, so I am speaking strongly in favour of amendment 1, to remove clause 2, and of new clause 1, both tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. Effective democracy is reliant on transparency and public confidence in the structures and processes, so removing parliamentary scrutiny and approval of the structure from the process raises questions about the integrity of our democracy. It would give the Government of the day unequal influence over the process, but the most important point is the one made very eloquently put by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle). The point about democracy is that our constituents can hold us to account for the decisions we make, and the proposal takes that away.
The Government’s intention to impose a 5% electoral quota will have a detrimental impact on the democratic representation of our communities.
Flexibility must be central to our boundary review system in order to recognise community identities and connections, and to facilitate the accurate representation of different geographical areas.
Jonathan Gullis
New clause 1 is in my opinion about stopping equalisation, because through this Bill we are going to see equal, fairer boundaries. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) talked about the shires—I am not quite sure that the shires of Stoke-on-Trent exist at the moment but I look forward to seeing them being created, apparently, with the so-called gerrymandering that we are trying to do.
We talk time and again about the idea of identity. Let me tell the House about Stoke-on-Trent. We might be a city, but we are a federation of towns, from Burslem to Tunstall, to Longton, to Fenton. Even within that, when we talk about identities, in the ward of Baddeley, Milton and Norton, we have Norton Green and Norton le Moors, and if someone says to a Norton Green resident, “You are a member of Norton le Moors”, they will get accosted—as I rightly did, on the doorsteps during the last general election campaign—for misannouncing them. So even though we talk about this idea of 5% to 7.5%, we are still talking about identities that are broken down even within the wards of local councils.
As I said, the community I represent is an amalgamation of pit villages, small towns and little villages. However, I dare to cross from Stoke-on-Trent to—this is where the hon. Gentleman will be pleased—Staffordshire County Council, so I do have a small number of shires, in the guise of Kidsgrove, Talke and a small slice of Newchapel. Again, the people of Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove would identify as sharing common values. Even though they are different areas with different needs, they have a proud industrial mining heritage. Therefore, new clause 1 effectively goes against this idea, giving 7.5% here and 5% there. That is not equalisation. That is against it and once we start applying the rule to one area, we think, “Do we apply the rule to this area instead?” It becomes a bit of a mess, so I have to honourably disagree with Opposition Members on new clause 1. I will, of course, be voting against it.
On new clause 3, I wholeheartedly support my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden) on the use of the electoral roll rather than estimates. I agree that this could become a grey area. How would the estimates be calculated? How would we create the formula to make it viable in future? The electoral roll is something solid. It is something that businesses and politicians use. It is simple and we should carry on using it.
Let us not forget that this is an important time for us to update the boundaries. In Stoke-on-Trent, I represent—I say this cheekily—a larger constituency than my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton). Do I get paid more for doing more work than them? They would argue that they work harder and I would not necessarily disagree on some areas. They are very good at chuntering—[Interruption.] I know, spicy. The idea that there should be a difference is not a fair one. We want to be equal. We are a proud city and every single one of us wants to represent our areas. There are areas like Abbey Hulton, where, I believe, I have 15 electorates from the ward in my constituency. I find that rather bizarre. The way the boundaries have grown over time with housing developments in my area has left us in a bit of a confusing mess. This is, therefore, a good time to update the boundaries so that the people of Stoke-on-Trent can be represented as they deserve to be, in an equal and measured way, and in an area that they notice and understand. As I say, the idea that we must go on local government boundary wards is for the past, not the future.
Finally, I will have a little pop at new clause 2. I have great love for the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden). We get on incredibly well. We disagree on everything, but we have a good chat. I know he is desperate to leave this place and never ever to have to come back, but I have to remind him that we are one United Kingdom. It is therefore only right that for the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, who again are my dear friends—I know the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) will be disappointed that I say this—we ensure there is equality and fairness across our United Kingdom. I will be voting against new clause 2 and I urge Members across the House to do so, too. I am sure that will be used on Facebook as a clip of “the English so-and-sos stopping us having what we want”. I wholeheartedly support the Government in what they are doing today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis). He and I have been very good friends in this House in the short time he has been here. I agree with him that we are always better together. It is better to have the four regions together as one. That is the real United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland: stronger, better together every time.
This is not the first time I have spoken on this issue and I will start by declaring, as I always do, an interest in having the most wonderful constituency in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Strangford is the most beautiful constituency it is possible to have and I am very pleased to be able to represent it. It brings a lot of communities together and we have an affiliation with each other. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) mentioned earlier, we absolutely require the 10% variation on the quota given our distinct geographical circumstances and the limitations to what changes can be made in Northern Ireland. As everyone knows, we have a land frontier with another country, so our circumstances are very different from everybody else’s.
One issue that is essential, especially in Northern Ireland with the mix of rural and urban in almost every constituency, is the notion of belonging and community. My constituency of Strangford represents the council areas of Ards and North Down, and parts of Lisburn and Castlereagh, and Newry, Mourne and Down. When I was first elected in 2010, we had a massive change in that Ballynahinch East was added to Strangford. I made a decision to make sure that they knew their MP and opened an office in Ballynahinch to underline my commitment to make them a part of Strangford when they never were before.
The office costs allowance could never fully cover another office, but I made the decision because people could not necessarily travel some 45 to 50 miles—an hour or thereabouts—to my office in Newtonards. That has been a great boost because the people of Ballynahinch now very clearly see the constituency of Strangford as it is now and as it should be. When that happened back in 2010, the southern part of Ballynahinch—the Spa area—went into South Down and the west part went into the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley. This area was slightly different from the rest of Strangford and required an office to make its MP accessible to all, and I believe that decision was the right one.
However, every time there is a tinkering with the boundaries, it becomes an issue. Although numbers are easy to understand and move around, people’s identities are less easy to move around. To me, identity is very important, and people’s kinship is worthy of consideration. That is why I am delighted that some of the early proposals did not find their way into these final measures. I understand the concerns of some Members. The Bill has rightly ring-fenced the Isle of Wight, and the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), in her contribution, referred to that as well. In Northern Ireland, we must take account of individual circumstances, not simply let the numbers involved in a headcount be the be all and end all.
I can remember a situation where, to put in place the ward of Carrowdore, two people had to be moved—just two people. They lived no more than 300 yards from the school where they voted, and they were moved out and had to go and vote in Carrowdore, a 20-minute journey by car down the road. That tinkering, I believe, was wrong, and I did make representations to the commission at that time. The sentiment has been embedded in my mind that where someone votes can matter, and that while moving those two on the map tidied up the numbers, it impacted on people. That must always be a consideration. I believe it is very important that people feel they are part of the constituency and part of the area.
I am thankful that after I hang up my tie and take off these worn leather shoes—it is probably a long time away, by the way, but it happens to all of us who look to be here—Strangford will remain and prosper, and I hope that remains the case for years to come. Strangford, my constituency, has been held together over these years with blood, sweat and tears, and that must be recognised and protected. The personality and the affiliation of Strangford must be considered along with the numbers for every constituency. It is not just about numbers; it is about the constituency and about the people whom we represent. What a joy it is to represent Strangford! It is my pleasure.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Chloe Smith)
And what a pleasure it is, as always, to follow the remarks of the sage of Strangford, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), with his unrivalled love for his constituency and, may I say, for this Chamber, which he demonstrates day after day—and evening after evening.
Let me take each proposed amendment in turn. I will do my best to accommodate the comments that hon. and right hon. Members have made. If I do not manage to do justice to all of that, I will try to accommodate them in my remarks on Third Reading.
Starting with new clause 1, I am very grateful to hon. Members for all their contributions, because it was a very strong theme in Committee. It is about how much flexibility ought to be given to the boundary commissions. Let me start by outlining that 5% is the existing law—the status quo—and there are a number of reasons why the Government have chosen not to change the legislation in that area and why we therefore do not support the new clause. When we say plus or minus 5%, we are talking about a range of 10% around the electoral quota. By that token, when we talk about plus or minus 7.5%, what is being spoken about is a range of 15%. By my calculation, each percentage is over 1,000 people, and people matter in this.
We believe that a 10% range does give the boundary commissions the space that they need to take account of the other factors that they may consider. As hon. Members will know, those include local geographical features, community ties, local government boundaries and existing parliamentary boundaries. At this point, I note that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mrs Miller) is right that discussions are ongoing with the Boundary Commission for England, picking up on what we did in Committee.
Some characterise 10% as overly mathematically or too constraining—I think those were the words used by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith)—but that is not the case. It is right that the boundary commissions are able to engage in dialogue with local communities—that is very important—and are able to adjust the number of electors to reflect important community ties. The 10% range allows that, and the proof is seen in an example from the Boundary Commission for England: in the 2016-18 review, more than 50% of its initial proposals were changed in the light of consultation and feedback.
Emma Hardy
I am listening carefully to the Minister’s observations about the need to have equal constituencies. Will she not take back to the Government the need for automatic voter registration, so we can have a truly accurate picture of the number of people in each constituency?
Chloe Smith
I admire the tenacity with which the hon. Lady has made that argument today. It is not the subject of the Bill, and, for what it is worth, I do not agree with the concept of automatic voter registration, but I am happy to have that conversation with her in more detail at another time. I will be more sparing in taking interventions from now on, because there is a time limit and I have much to get through.
As I understand it, the intention behind new clause 1 is to require the boundary commissions to aim for the 10% range, and only if necessary would they then use the extra 5%. That approach gives rise to a number of concerns. First, it seems to me that there is a lack of clarity, which could generate confusion; it would certainly generate ambiguity and might undermine the effectiveness of the process. One can imagine local authorities simply not knowing at the outset of the process whether their constituency would fall within the 10% range, or whether they might be a special case. A process that was previously clear and transparent would become less so.
Secondly, there is the risk of a ratchet effect. If we were to offer the boundary commissions the option to go up 7.5%, they would quickly come under pressure. That might lead to lobbying and the 15% range becoming increasingly widely used. It might be said that those who want that outcome should put it directly and courageously in an amendment, rather than saying it could be used if the commission wanted to use it.
Thirdly, and quite important, the discretion provided to the four boundary commissions would be likely to generate different approaches in different parts of the United Kingdom. That could open the door to legal challenges and a situation where the commissions’ work was made more difficult. I acknowledge the words of the hon. Member for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson) about rule 7 and the court case there. I recognise his points, and much more detail was drawn out in that ruling, but let me say briefly now that I think rule 7 is important and it stands, notwithstanding that ruling.
In Committee, we discussed 5% versus other numbers at length. Today, I say that we should be in the business of giving the boundary commissions clear instructions. There are times when we give them room for judgment and discretion. We ask them to conduct an intense process, but this should not be one of the times when their instructions lack clarity. The matter of the tolerance is a judgment for us; it is for us in this House to set out what we think it ought to be. A balance must be struck, and no academic can tell us the right answer. Conservative Members believe in equal-sized constituencies and in being able to deliver updated and equal constituencies, and the 5% tolerance gives a better chance of achieving that and ending an unfairness that has persisted for too long.
Let me address new clause 2. I thank the hon. Members for Glasgow East (David Linden) and for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) for making this an interesting debate—one that we also had in Committee. It seems that something that is actually quite technical is being used here as a conduit for a much larger constitutional debate about the Union and how its nations relate to each other. That is important and extremely interesting, but today is rather a narrow debate and it is not necessarily the time for concluding such big questions. Let us talk about what this new clause would actually mean.
My concern is that new clause 2, by fixing a minimum number of constituencies, would effectively enshrine electoral inequality, cementing the current situation and not allowing it to develop. I can give the House lots of examples of unequal constituency sizes within and between our nations, and those are the kinds of inequality that we are trying to address in the Bill overall. Of course, it is critical that every nation and every part of the Union has a powerful voice in Westminster. They have two powerful voices here today—and across the Chamber—but there is already a sensible way of setting the nation’s participation in Westminster. The new clause would not add value in that respect.
Under the current legislation, a mathematical formula exists to do exactly the job of allocating constituency numbers to each of the four nations. It is widely used internationally and is widely thought of as being one of the fairest methods. It should be maintained because it is fair and rational. The problem with the new clause is that it suggests that the hon. Members who tabled it could be fairer and more rational in deciding what the numbers ought to be, but in effect those Members are guessing what the numbers should be and trying to lock them in. The new clause would lock in quite radical inequality between the nations of the Union in terms of the citizen-to-MP ratio that would result, and there is not a good reason for that.
Alun Cairns
Does the Minister recognise that new clause 2, tabled by Plaid Cymru and the SNP, almost suggests that we are a federal nation? We are not a federal nation but a proud Union.
Chloe Smith
I agree with my right hon. Friend. He knows that the Conservative party and the Government are absolutely committed to strengthening our Union and we do not believe that that would be achieved through new clause 2, which would undermine in many ways what ought to be an equality in the assessment of the voices in the Union and an equality between citizens that can be enjoyed across the nation.
I absolutely recognise the wider debate about what our nations and our Union consist of, although the hon. Member for Glasgow East would love to have nothing more to do with that debate—he would love to be nowhere near here today, and that breaks my heart. As much as I may say that I would love to see the back of him, of course I would not. I cannot wait to spend even more time discussing exactly this point with him and with anybody else who would like to join me in the debate about how to strengthen our Union, how to maintain excellent intergovernmental relations, how to help our nations work best together and how to help people across the nation to be as prosperous as they can. But new clause 2 is not the place to do that.
I thank the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) for tabling new clause 3. She was honest and sincere about what she is seeking to do with the amendment, which is to open up a valuable broader debate. I will talk a little about why the new clause would not quite do what is right, but let me say that the hon. Member’s instincts are admirable. We should all share the goal of being able to do the utmost for our constituents, whether they are registered to vote or not. Furthermore, we should all share the goal of wanting as many people on our electoral registers as possible. That is notwithstanding the fact that the Government believe that it is an important principle that our constituencies are based on the electoral registers.
On what we are doing to ensure that the registers are as accurate and complete as possible, the introduction of online registration has made it simpler and faster for people to register to vote; it takes as little as five minutes. This benefits everybody, including anybody who may previously have found it harder to make an application to register. We have developed a range of resources to promote engagement with our democracy and to encourage people to register to vote, all of which are available on gov.uk and are aimed widely—at registration officers, civil society groups, teachers and more.
We are also in the process of implementing changes to the annual canvass of all residential properties in Great Britain, which will improve its efficiency greatly and will allow officers to focus their efforts on those who they may traditionally have found harder to get to register. That is important for accuracy and completeness. Since the introduction of individual electoral registration, the registers in Great Britain are as complete and more accurate than before; that is an important base of the record.
I share the intentions of the hon. Member for North East Fife of wanting to see more people registered and to see us listening to all in our community, so let me turn to why new clause 3 would not necessarily work as well as might be wished. Its core problem is that it deals with estimates and moves away from facts. It asks the Electoral Commission to do a very large job of estimation when, in fact, we already have firm data that the process can be based on. It would be a huge and unnecessary task to set off, bringing further elements of risk and challenge to the work of the Boundary Commissions.
The work of the Boundary Commissions should be based on those who have registered as electors. That principle counts those who want to have their views represented in Parliament. That is what a Member of Parliament is for and that is what voting for Parliament is for. It is a good principle that that is the basis on which we work, and it is not new, having been the case since 1944.
We should encourage more people to register to vote. I think the new clause does a slightly different thing. I welcome the fact that the hon. Lady referred to it as a probing amendment, and I hope she will not press it to a Division. Before I move on, I welcome her support for our overseas voters. She will know that there is much work to do to enable more overseas voters to register The Government are committed, as I hope she is, to ending the injustice of the abrupt disenfranchisement that they face after 15 years overseas.
Finally, I cannot support the intention of amendment 1. The effect of clause 2, which amendment 1 would remove, is to bring much-needed certainty to the boundary review process. It gives confidence that the recommendations of the independent boundary commissions will be brought into effect without interference or delay. They develop their proposal through a robust process that lasts over a two to three-year period with extensive public consultation. Those impartial recommendations ought to be brought into effect promptly without any further wastage of public money and without any question of their independence. Clause 2 provides for that, and it does so by a very normal mechanism.
I just want to pick up one point that was made. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood tried to go to town on the nature of an Order in Council. Let me break it to her, in case she is not aware, that the last Labour Government used more than 300 of them between 1997 and 2010. They are a normal constitutional legislative instrument. They should be recognised as being part of the status quo. She is either misreading the Bill or wilfully misrepresenting it—I do not know which. She did so in Committee, and she is doing so again today.
The Order in Council is not the villain that the hon. Lady makes it out to be, and nor is there an increase in powers in the Bill for the Executive. The opposite is the case. Countries such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand use similar approaches. A string of respected academics voiced their support for this change during Committee when giving evidence. Memorably, one in particular said:
“It is probably better that MPs set the terms of the exercise for the Boundary Commission behind a veil of ignorance…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.]
The Government believe that clause 2 is an important and principled change. It will ensure that expert recommendations are brought into effect independently with no further delay.
It provides a better outcome for people, and I urge the hon. Lady not to press the amendment to a Division.
Cat Smith
I did not think it was possible to have as much fun as we had in Committee, but this afternoon has perhaps run it quite close. Of course, there is no comparison between three hours and four days. I put on record my thanks to the members of the Committee who have also made contributions to today’s debate.
The Labour party supports the democratic principles of the boundary review. We recognise that this review is urgently needed, given the out-of-date boundaries we currently have. The idea of constituencies being of broadly equal size and the idea of constituencies also taking account of local community ties are not mutually exclusive, and I urge Members to support that amendment. Labour’s new clause would provide for the flexibility needed to create constituencies that communities can have confidence in and identify with.
Most critically, I encourage Members across the House to support amendment 1. The Government must not use the Bill to strengthen their own power at the expense of parliamentary power. It is an insult to this House, and it sets a dangerous precedent for future legislation.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Chloe Smith
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I thank all Members who have contributed to our debates on the Bill. In addition to our colleagues on the Front Benches, we have heard excellent contributions from my right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), for Dartford (Gareth Johnson), for Truro and Falmouth (Cherilyn Mackrory), for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Andrew Bowie), for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie), for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), for Dudley South (Mike Wood) and for North West Durham (Mr Holden), the right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) and the hon. Members for Eltham (Clive Efford), for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), for Belfast East (Gavin Robinson), for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Emma Hardy), for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), for Pontypridd (Alex Davies-Jones) and for Luton South (Rachel Hopkins). Forgive me if I have missed anyone.
All Members who have contributed to these debates have considered the principles behind the Bill and the details of each of its clauses with a constructive and positive outlook. I have been struck by how many Members have acknowledged that the current situation of having unequally sized constituencies cannot continue and that action must be taken. The Government agree, and this Bill delivers that. Of course, there have been differences of opinion along the way, and there has been thorough scrutiny and robust challenge, which I hope has improved the Bill.
Our engagement before the introduction of the Bill with representatives of the parliamentary parties and electoral administrators has helped us to hone the technical aspects of the Bill and to take better account of what works from a practical standpoint. Our debates on amendments to the Bill in this elected House have led to a common-sense addition for the smallest of protected island constituencies. I am very grateful to all those who have contributed, including the witnesses who spoke at our Committee sessions. Many Members have advocated, challenged, probed and scrutinised in a spirit of logic but with good humour, and we have all joined in the overarching common purpose of ensuring that a crucial part of our democracy is made fairer and more equitable without delay.
There has been widespread acceptance of the equality of voting power as a fundamental principle. I think everybody knows that the boundary commissions have an important task that they have to get right of balancing that goal of equality with the need to maintain community links within constituencies. We all value the responsibility of representing our constituents and our communities, and none of us will ever stop defending the precious link between our constituents and us as their representatives. Soon we will be able to do that with a renewed sense that there is fairness and equality in our democracy more than before and that each elector’s vote to choose the Government of the day carries the same weight.
We have looked closely at how to ensure that the recommendations of future boundary reviews can be implemented without delay, and we have drawn on the experience of comparable systems in other countries. That matter was pressed to a Division in Committee, and the view of the elected Chamber is clearly in favour of automatic implementation.
The Union was never far from our mind in these debates. We gave careful consideration to the specific needs of the four nations in an overall framework, and we considered a variety of ideas in that context. The hon. Member for Ceredigion is not in his place, but I particularly enjoyed a discussion of the Welsh language and its role in community identity, and I was pleased to put on record how that can already be accommodated.
I thank the two hon. Members who chaired the Committee, as well as you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for your guardianship today; I am sure I speak for all Committee members when I say it has been a pleasure to serve under you and those hon. Members. I am also grateful to my counterparts on the Opposition Benches, including the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), for their positive and challenging approach to their duties. I was particularly interested to find out from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Cat Smith) that not only have we had three had children since last we last served on a similar Bill Committee, but that this is in fact the first time she has completed a Bill Committee without giving birth—although there are still nine minutes and 40 seconds to go. I share her gratitude that the Committee did not decide to go on any longer than it needed to, further risking that. To make progress, all Bills rely on the wise counsel of Clerks and our officials, so I place on record my gratitude to them. We tested the new circumstances in which we find ourselves thoroughly in Committee and with our witnesses.
As a result of all those efforts, the House now has before it a Bill that provides equal and updated boundaries, meaning that, wherever voters live in our United Kingdom, they can be sure of having a fair and equal say in the crucial question of choosing who will govern. I hope that the noble Lords will now play their part so that the next review can finally get under way. It is with pleasure that I commend the Bill to the House.
Cat Smith
I will keep my comments brief, as I covered the Labour party’s stance in my speech on Report. I put on the record that I am disappointed that the Government rejected the new clause and amendment that would have improved the Bill. The process of requiring MPs to vote on the final report from the commission is an important safety net, without which we would have just 600 MPs today.
We do not seek to delay the progress of the Bill. As I said in my opening remarks, we need new boundaries at the next election; the data on which our constituencies are built looks to be a quarter of a century old. We certainly hope their lordships will look again at clause 2, as we still have significant concerns about the Government’s approach to that matter.
With that, I draw my remarks to a close. I thank Committee members for their useful contributions and for how much fun I had taking the Bill through the House on behalf of the Opposition.
Mrs Miller
The Bill is all about creating fairness and making sure that every vote counts the same, and I wish it well as it travels through to the other place. The right hon. Member for Warley (John Spellar) and I locked horns on whether boundary changes should ever be characterised as a nuisance; I would never want to misquote him, and I apologise if he thought I did. However, there is no nuisance in creating fair and equal boundaries—we should all agree on that.
Equal suffrage is a cornerstone of our democracy, and the Bill is part of that. I thank the Minister for accepting new clause 10 during the Committee’s proceedings, which is now clause 7 of the Bill and makes Ynys Môn a protected constituency, which is an important addition to the two constituencies that are already protected. The Bill honours a 2019 Conservative party manifesto commitment to ensure that we have updated, equal parliamentary boundaries, making sure that every vote counts the same. I hope that the other place heeds the debate in this place, and the fact that this was a Conservative party manifesto commitment, as they consider the measures in the usual way.
However, one outstanding issue is certainly the Boundary Commission and the way it will operate in support of this legislation. I hope the Minister is able to continue, through the Cabinet Office, to make sure that that organisation is doing everything it should to have the data it needs to put in place this important piece of legislation.
I close by saying an enormous thanks to the Committee Clerks, who made the running of the Committee so smooth, and also to the Minister, her colleagues, those Members who chaired the Committee and, of course, to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being here this evening.
David Linden
I echo the comments made by my colleagues on the Front-Bench about our thanks to those who presided over the Committee and to all the Members who took part. I regret that new clause 2, which sought to protect Scotland with 59 constituencies, was not passed. I think history will judge that vote harshly in the years to come, but that is a story for another day. I was speaking with a friend earlier this week about some of my favourite music and we were reflecting on a shared love of Green Day. I was reminded of their song “Wake Me Up When September Ends”, because when September ends we will have Lords amendments and I very much hope that when their lordships look at this Bill they will remove clause 2, which is an affront to democracy.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Oh, my goodness. I have no Member for North East Fife and although the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is in his place, he has indicated that he might not wish to speak—this is historic. Would the Minister like to wind up?
Chloe Smith
Well, Madam Deputy Speaker, let us consider the glory of the United Kingdom. Let us start, alphabetically, with the first constituency that comes to mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) is not in his place, but if he were, he would doubtless tell us what a glorious place it is. We would then turn to the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Stephen Flynn). Regrettably, he is not in his place, but if he were he would tell us how wonderful Aberdeen and Aberdeenshire are.
Mrs Miller
Does the Minister not agree that the debate has given everybody the opportunity to talk about the uniqueness of their constituency, and that the Boundary Commission should not forget that when looking at redrawing the boundaries, because that uniqueness in each of our constituencies is what makes us want to do our jobs?
Chloe Smith
I absolutely agree on that, and it allows me to do something rarely allowed to a Minister in such proceedings, which is to pay tribute to one’s own constituency. Let me put on record how wonderful Norwich North is, with its parishes and towns, which in themselves are separate communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) made the point about how fiercely such things are argued, even within a constituency.
Chloe Smith
Not until I have managed to name all the parishes and towns in Norwich North, which are, of course, as anybody will know, the wonderful places of Hellesdon, which goes back to the Domesday Book—shades of my maiden speech coming on here—Old Catton, Sprowston and Thorpe St Andrew, and next to those the historic characteristics of more urban Norwich.
Chris Clarkson
They sound like lovely parishes. I could also mention Norden, Bamford, Castleton, Heywood and Middleton in my constituency, and just have. I wish to pay tribute to everybody who participated in the Bill Committee, because I think we have achieved a robust Bill. Obviously, we will see what their lordships send back to us and no doubt we will have further interesting and exciting psephological exuberance, as I said earlier. I also wish to put on record my thanks to the Clerks, all the House staff and all the Bill Committee members, and, of course, to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for being here tonight. I have to say how disappointed I am not to hear the hon. Member for Strangford speak—
Chloe Smith
May I close this unusual contribution to the end of a Bill’s proceedings by also noting how wonderful the constituencies are of our Whips, those of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) and—this may take us to the end of the alphabet, although I am subject to challenge—the hon. Member for Wolverhampton. [Interruption.] Oh goodness me, I meant my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall North (Eddie Hughes). I have got it wrong and I am going to face retribution for that—there will be letters written about the difference between those places. With that, I think I can now give way to a Whip to conclude tonight’s proceedings.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I believe York Outer is the last one. Let me now put the Question.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I will not suspend the House, because I trust that hon. Members will leave quietly in the right direction and that those who want to contribute are already present.
Business without Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker
With the leave of the House, I shall take motions 3 to 7 together.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Stand Order No. 118(6)),
Competition
That the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Share of Supply) (Amendment) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 22 June, be approved.
Social Security
That the draft Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 (Remedial) Order 2019, which was laid before this House on 5 September 2019, in the last Parliament, be approved.
Local Government
That the draft Barnsley, Doncaster, Rotherham and Sheffield Combined Authority (Functions and Amendment) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 29 June, be approved.
Community Infrastructure Levy
That the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020, which were laid before this House on 30 June, be approved.
Competition
That the draft Competition Appeal Tribunal (Coronavirus) (Recording and Broadcasting) Order 2020, which was laid before this House on 22 June, be approved.—(Eddie Hughes.)
Question agreed to.
Church of England (General Synod) (Measures)
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Stand Order No. 118(6)),
That the Channel Islands Measure (HC 548), passed by the General Synod of the Church of England, be presented to Her Majesty for her Royal Assent in the form in which it was laid before Parliament.—(Andrew Selous.)
Question agreed to.
Merger of Department for International Development and Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Patricia Gibson (North Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP)
I have been contacted by huge numbers of constituents who are deeply concerned about the UK Government’s decision to merge the Department for International Development with the Foreign Office. This was done without consultation with the UK’s international development and humanitarian sector and against recommendations of independent aid scrutiny bodies. The Department for International Development has repeatedly been found by independent reviews to be the most transparent and effective Government Department for spending. In contrast, the Foreign Office, with which DFID is to be merged, has been criticised for spending UK aid on projects that do not prioritise reducing poverty for the poorest people on earth. Therefore, I rise to present the petition on behalf of the residents of the constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran.
The petition states:
The Petition of the residents of the constituency of North Ayrshire and Arran,
Declares that the proposed merger of the Department for International Development with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is a retrograde step that will diminish the UK’s respect as a global leader on international development; further declares that the merger is the first clear step in a change of policy, which will inevitably see UK aid explicitly linked to trade rather than being based on need.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to immediately abandon proposals to merge the Department for International Development with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002589]
Flammable Cladding Removal
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)
It is beyond belief that it has been three years since that terrible night at Grenfell Tower. I want to begin by paying my respects to those who lost their lives, and we will remember them today in this debate. We are also incredibly grateful to their family members, their neighbours and the survivors for campaigning, despite all they went through, for the safety of properties that are clad with dangerous aluminium composite material and also of other properties that are a risk.
There are still an estimated 60,000 people living in homes with similar ACM cladding on the outside of their buildings, and many more living in buildings that are dangerous. According to the Fire Brigades Union, some 500,000 people are at risk from living in unsafe housing across the UK. Each night, they are going to bed, knowing that, if their building caught fire, it would spread quickly because of the flammable cladding, and they know, too, that their chances of survival are seriously lessened in that context. They know that progress to remove that cladding has been slow and has slowed further because of the pandemic. I have called for this debate because I think that it is vital that Ministers step up and make sure that the cladding and other dangerous materials on those blocks are removed as a matter of urgency.
It took a year for the Government to agree to fund the removal of ACM cladding in high-rise social housing blocks and then two years for private blocks and three years for others commitments to be made. That happened because of the actions of campaign groups such as Grenfell United, the UK Cladding Action Group and Inside Housing, as well as Members of Parliament and charities and housing organisations. It is not good enough that the Government have been forced kicking and screaming into doing these things, rather than taking responsibility, as was promised at the time of the fire. Although £1.6 billion of Government funding is welcome, they estimate themselves that between £3 billion and £3.5 billion is required to make all buildings safe.
Residents feel like prisoners in their homes. They cannot sell or remortgage their flats, and the external wall fire review and EWS1 form process is not sufficient, is costly and takes too long. They are trapped.
Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend raises an important point about the paperwork needed. Even many residents who live in homes that are not as unsafe as some others find that without that form they are unable to sell. One of the things the Public Accounts Committee picked up on in our recent hearing was that being unable to get professional indemnity insurance is a major brake. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to step in on this issue?
Rushanara Ali
Yes, absolutely, and I hope that the Minister will, along with his Treasury colleagues, look at this very quickly to resolve the matter, because it affects people who are trying to sell homes, as I have seen in my constituency.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making crucial points about the UK Government’s responsibilities in this area, and of course fire safety issues go well beyond the issue of cladding to other matters such as compartmentation and other fire safety measures. Does my hon. Friend agree that the original developers of buildings also need to take a huge responsibility? In my constituency, Laing O’Rourke is refusing to engage with the Celestia development residents about fire safety issues that it is responsible for, in defects in the construction; does my hon. Friend agree that developers must take their responsibilities seriously?
Rushanara Ali
I agree with my hon. Friend. I will come on to that point, and I hope the Minister addresses the point about the need for private developers and freeholders to take action and also talks about proposals the Government might have if they do not act, including the recommendation of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee of compulsory purchasing if required. We cannot just rely on good will, because some of them do not have the good will to take action, and people’s lives are at risk.
The Government’s latest release in June revealed that 155 of the 455 high-rise buildings identified as covered in ACM by the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have had cladding removed, but another 300 are yet to be remediated. That is a lot of housing that needs to be remediated.
The Government have repeatedly missed their own deadlines of 2019 for social sector blocks and June 2020 for private sector blocks. Despite the major fires in 2019 at student accommodation blocks with high-pressure laminate cladding in Bolton and at the flats in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), where flames quickly spread up the timber balconies, progress has been painfully slow and the coronavirus pandemic has hampered progress even more, as I have said.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Does the hon. Lady agree that the leaseholders of St Francis Tower in Ipswich, who have had absolutely no say on, or power to stop, dangerous HPL cladding being put on the tower where they live, are right to feel aggrieved that they now receive letters harassing them for payments for removing that cladding? Does the hon. Lady agree that the Government should support those leaseholders and eliminate that uncertainty and anxiety?
Rushanara Ali
I could not agree more. In debates on these matters I have called time and again on the Government to use their powers and stand with leaseholders and take action, because at the moment leaseholders are being expected to take legal action against powerful, wealthy developers and owners, and that is not a fair balance. To this day, the Government have failed to act, yet they could use their powers and might to help these people. These are hard-working families who worked really hard to get on the property ladder; these are people who work in the NHS; these are people who are keeping us safe and alive, and the Government should be stepping up to support leaseholders.
Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s response has been entirely inadequate? Not only are not all tall buildings with flammable cladding identified, but neither are medium-rise buildings above 11 metres high and those with valuable occupants such as hospitals and care homes.
Rushanara Ali
I could not agree more.
The Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee found that the £1 billion building safety fund would pay for only 600 of the buildings, when actually we need billions to ensure that all buildings in the country that are in this unsafe state can be addressed.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent argument. Is it not particularly unsatisfactory that Ministers have signed up to the principle that leaseholders should not have to bear these costs, but have not provided the funds to make a reality of it?
Rushanara Ali
Absolutely.
We are finding that the small print requirements that housing associations and local authorities are having to pass is excluding them from accessing funding. They are then having to pass on the bill to the leaseholders, as hon. Members have said. Our leaseholder constituents cannot afford tens of thousands of pounds when right now their jobs are on the line, they are struggling to make ends meet and struggling to feed their kids. Middle-class families are having to rely on food banks in this crisis, and now they are worried about what will happen to their housing.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I congratulate the hon. Lady on bringing this forward. She has been a champion when it comes to highlighting this issue, and I want to congratulate her on that as well. With the large number of Northern Ireland students in university flats and housing—some of them are my constituents, by the way—I have real concerns about the number of our students who are in unsafe housing. Does she agree that universities and landlords must do more to upgrade student housing to the highest standards to ensure that what happened at Grenfell does not happen there?
Rushanara Ali
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. I urge the Minister to use his powers and his position to look at these issues in the round, so that he can sleep at night and feel comfortable that he has done everything to protect people. Ultimately, we have a duty of care and responsibility to our citizens, and I hope that he will do all he can to address these points today.
My own local authority has 49 ACM-clad high-rise blocks, which is one of the highest figures in the country. I have had representations from many of my constituents over the past few years. It been years now, and the leaseholders have had to pay for the fire safety wardens. They were originally told that this would take a few months, but it has been years. They are worried about their safety and there is no end in sight for the work being completed. It has been done for some blocks but not for others.
A number of people have been told that the housing providers will not be able to provide the fire service reports. I hope that the Minister can give me some clarity on the need for transparency here, because whether they are private developers who own the freehold or housing associations, they should provide the fire safety reports. Without them, it is difficult for our residents to know how much they will have to pay if there is no Government funding, or to make plans for their future.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
Do you agree that many of my constituents in the Riverside Quarter, the Swish Building and the Argento Tower are facing this same limbo and have no end in sight? The fund needs to be given out more quickly and transparently. Would you agree that the Minister is not doing enough to explain about these funds and when they will be made available for residents?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Would the hon. Lady mind saying, “Would the hon. Lady agree” rather than “Would you agree”?
Rushanara Ali
I very much agree with my hon. Friend. As the Minister can see, this is a short debate but there is a lot of interest and concern, and I hope that he will hear these concerns and address these points, and that he will really look carefully at how we can unblock these issues so that people can get the results they need so that they can live safely.
One of my constituents said:
“I spend all day stressed at the thought of losing my home. At night I am anxious about the possibility of fire. I haven’t slept well for months and do not see any end in the situation. I am trapped. I cannot sell and I am not allowed to rent the flat out. I am forced to stay here. It now feels like a prison.”
Another said: “I feel suicidal.” Another said:
“I can’t sleep from worry. Because of covid-19 I could lose my job any day now, and when that happens I won’t be able to pay my mortgage or sell my flat. Because of the cladding, I will end up losing everything I have worked for. It’s a big worry that affects my mental health and sleep. It is not fair for the Government to allow housing associations and construction companies to sell us unsafe houses, and we are now getting punished for their mistakes.”
Housing providers have an obligation to ensure that they are doing everything they can to make buildings safe, but the Government have the ultimate responsibility to ensure that they have access to the funds needed to do so. The Government took a long time before providing the funds and gave private developers and freeholders plenty of time to get their act together, but they have not done so. It is time the Government used their powers to make this happen. Ministers have said repeatedly that private owners of buildings have the responsibility to act, but the Government are shirking their responsibility by leaving it to the good will of building owners—many with complex ownership structures based in other countries, including for tax avoidance purposes—to apply for a limited first come, first served fund or to pay for the works themselves. Many have found cunning ways to avoid paying anything, leaving our constituents high and dry, unable to live safely in their homes. This is unacceptable. It has to stop. Our Government must act and go after those owners. We have said this time and again, and it has not happened.
I call on the Minister to address the following questions. Will he explain what powers he will use to make private developers and freeholders end the delays and remove the cladding? Will he increase the building safety fund to cover the costs of removing cladding and other fire risks to all buildings in that position? Will he provide a clear timeline for remediation that the Government will stick to? What plans does he have for ensuring that upcoming legislation improves fire safety and building regulation? Will he consider primary legislation that goes far enough to prevent another tragedy, as well as increased funding and resources for the fire services to carry out vital preventive inspection work?
Finally, I draw the Minister’s attention to the recommendation of the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that the Government should give urgent consideration to the establishment of a new national body whose sole purpose is to purchase the freehold and manage the remediation of buildings with serious fire safety defects. Any residential building where works have not commenced by December 2020 should be subject to a compulsory purchase order. The national body would step in where overburdened local authorities are unable to act. Once remediated, buildings should be converted to commonhold and returned to leaseholders. In my view, that is a reasonable and proportionate way forward if companies do not act. I hope the Minister will consider that suggestion. If he will not, we just need action. If he comes up with another creative way to make things happen to keep our constituents safe, now is the moment to set out his plans, and I hope he will.
After Grenfell, the then Prime Minister said:
“My Government will do whatever it takes to…keep our people safe.”
Three years on, this Government have been found wanting. I implore the Minister and the Government to honour the commitments that were made by his party in government when this tragedy happened. It was a man-made disaster that should have been avoided. We need to learn from that and make sure that we all do everything we can to keep people safe. The Government must honour their commitments and honour those who lost their lives, make the funds available, and create the legal framework and the requirements to make sure that our constituents can live without fear safely in their homes.
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) for securing the Adjournment debate and bringing this important subject to the House today. She secured a similar debate in April last year. I know it is a matter of considerable importance in her constituency, and I pay tribute to her on the record for the work she is doing on behalf of her constituents. I also thank all hon. Members who have taken the time to intervene on behalf of their constituents about the challenges of remediating high-rise residential buildings with unsafe cladding systems, particularly in the light of covid-19.
We established our building safety programme within days of the Grenfell Tower fire. Its aim remains to ensure that residents of high-rise buildings are safe, now and in the future. Our aim has been clear from the outset: unsafe ACM cladding of the type found on Grenfell Tower and other dangerous cladding must be removed from high-rise residential buildings. It is therefore our priority to ensure that unsafe ACM cladding is removed and replaced swiftly, at no cost to leaseholders.
While many responsible building owners have taken action, some—as the hon. Lady says—have not. Too many building owners and managing agents in the private sector have been too slow in getting remediation work started.
Tom Hunt
A legal dispute is going on between the freeholder of St Francis Tower in Ipswich and the contractor that put the unsafe cladding on the building. Surely that is an admission from both parties that one of them is to blame, not the leaseholder, yet the leaseholder is in the middle and is getting harassed to pay fees that it should not have to pay.
Christopher Pincher
I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I will not dwell on any particular tower block or issue, but let me simply say that our intention is to make sure that leaseholders should not have to foot the bill; building owners and building managers and their agents should be looking after their buildings. That is why the Government have intervened with funding and specialist support, and we will not tolerate any further delays. Where building owners are failing to make acceptable progress, those responsible should expect local authorities and fire and rescue services to take tougher enforcement action.
By the end of May, of the 455 identified high-rise buildings with ACM cladding, 209 had either completed remediation or had their ACM cladding systems removed, while a further 86 had started remediation but not yet had ACM cladding removed. However, although there has been progress, there is much more to be done. We are under no illusion about that. For the removal of unsafe ACM cladding, we are aiming for all building owners to have works on site by the end of 2020, with completion of remedial works by the end of 2021. It is a challenge, but one that we are determined to meet.
Even with public funding available, the pace has been much too slow. We recognise that remediation is a complex undertaking and that every building is different; we also understand that building owners do not always have the requisite expertise or experience to advance the work. We have therefore recently appointed Faithful+Gould as specialist construction consultants to help responsible entities to increase capacity and capability and to support them directly through the remediation process. F+G is currently working with those buildings identified as most at risk of missing the end-of-year date. It is examining project plans and seeking ways to reduce timescales to mobilise projects.
Overall, the Government have set aside £1.6 billion in funding for the remediation of ACM and other types of unsafe cladding from high-rise residential buildings in the private and social housing sectors. We made that money available to support the remediation of unsafe cladding, and a large proportion of that support will protect leaseholders from costs. We recognise that there are wider remediation costs that will need to be met to ensure the safety of existing blocks of flats, but the public funding does not absolve the industry from taking responsibility for any failures that led to unsafe cladding materials being put on those buildings in the first place. We 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 costs to leaseholders.
The Government have committed £600 million to remediate buildings in the public, social and private sectors and speed up the pace of remediation of ACM cladding. In the private sector, although some developers said that they would meet the costs, it became clear that a significant number of building owners could not or would not do so, and therefore funding needed to be made available to enable progress. That is why in May 2019 we announced that £200 million of funding would be available for ACM remediation in private sector buildings, and the fund was opened for applications in September that year. As of May 2020, the Department expects to pay for 94 projects in the private sector where the developer or building owner has not agreed to fund remediation work themselves. The owners of 84 private sector residential buildings have committed to funding the remediation works themselves, with a further 23 self- funded through accepted warranty claims. We are working with a handful of other buildings where a funding route has yet to be agreed. The availability of funding and a direct package of support for building owners means that there can be no excuses for further delays. For those who fail to make acceptable progress, tougher sanctions are coming, first through our Fire Safety Bill, currently before Parliament, and subsequently when our new building safety regime comes into place.
We have always acknowledged that there are materials other than ACM cladding that are of concern. We have been providing advice on their removal to building owners since 2017. The highest priority has been the removal of the type of ACM used on Grenfell Tower because it poses the most severe safety risk, but there are other unsafe cladding materials that must also be removed. That is why in March this year we announced an additional £1 billion of funding for the remediation of unsafe non-ACM cladding in the social and private residential sectors. We expect this funding to be fully committed by the end of March 2021. The new building safety fund will cover high-rise buildings with unsafe non-ACM cladding, such as some types of high-pressure laminate.
The issue of waking watch was raised by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow and by other hon. and right hon. Members. I know that leaseholders have concerns about costs of interim measures—costs that have been heightened due to the covid-19 emergency. These interim measures include waking watches. Waking watch is meant to be a short-term tool: it is no substitute for remediation. But the only way to remove the need for interim measures is to remove unsafe cladding as quickly as possible. That is why we are prioritising £1.6 billion of public subsidy on remediation of unsafe cladding. That said, my noble Friend Lord Greenhalgh, the Minister with responsibility for building safety, is investigating what we can do to reduce the cost of waking watch. This includes publishing data on the costs of waking watch to ensure greater transparency on costs. Moreover, the National Fire Chiefs Council is updating its guidance. We have asked the fire protection boards to advise fire and rescue services on how best to operationalise the revised guidance, including looking to measures such as installing building-wide fire alarm systems.
Meg Hillier
Will the Minister commit to looking at the issue of professional indemnity insurance? This does need a good political fix at the top.
Christopher Pincher
I am pleased that the hon. Lady has mentioned professional indemnity insurance. Let me assure her that following my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s commitment to review the situation on—I believe, from memory—2 April this year, my noble Friend Lord Greenhalgh has met members of the insurance industry and other fire and safety professionals. I think the last meeting was on 30 June. He is investigating, at pace, ways in which this particular issue may be remedied.
Our landmark building safety Bill, announced in December, will bring the biggest change in our building safety regime for a generation. It will build on the recommendations of Dame Judith Hackitt’s independent review of building regulations and fire safety. It contains provisions to help to remedy the systemic failings that resulted in the Grenfell Tower fire. The new regime will give residents a stronger voice in an improved system of fire safety, overseen by a more effective regulatory framework, including stronger powers to inspect high-rise buildings and sanctions to tackle irresponsible behaviour.
Much progress has been made since the hon. Member secured a similar debate in April last year: we have set aside £1.6 billion of funding to support the issue and resolve it; we have appointed specialist consultants to increase the pace of remediation; and we have introduced the Fire Safety Bill to strengthen enforcement action. But the hard work must continue, and it will.
We will shortly publish the draft building safety Bill—a once-in-a-generation change to the building safety regime—that will be instrumental not only in shaping future policy to allow the new regime to prevent fire safety defects from occurring in the first place, but also in ensuring that people are safe and feel safe in their homes. We will continue to work tirelessly to bring about the lasting change we need for the future of building safety and the future of all the people living in towers in this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Members Eligible for a Proxy Vote
Member eligible for proxy vote | Nominated proxy |
|---|---|
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) | Jim McMahon |
Imran Ahmad Khan (Wakefield) | Stuart Andrew |
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) | Mark Tami |
Dr Rosena Allin-Khan (Tooting) | Mark Tami |
Victoria Atkins (Louth and Horncastle) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) | Stuart Andrew |
Siobhan Baillie (Stroud) | Stuart Andrew |
Hannah Bardell (Livingston) | Patrick Grady |
Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) | Stuart Andrew |
Margaret Beckett (Derby South) | Clive Efford |
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) | Mark Tami |
Mhairi Black (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) | Patrick Grady |
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) | Stuart Andrew |
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) | Stuart Andrew |
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) | Patrick Grady |
Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) | Stuart Andrew |
James Brokenshire (Old Bexley and Sidcup) | Stuart Andrew |
Ms Lyn Brown (West Ham) | Mark Tami |
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) | Zarah Sultana |
Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Lisa Cameron (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) | Patrick Grady |
Sir William Cash (Stone) | Leo Docherty |
Sarah Champion (Rotherham) | Mark Tami |
Douglas Chapman (Dunfermline and West Fife) | Patrick Grady |
Rehman Chishti (Gillingham and Rainham) | Stuart Andrew |
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) | Stuart Andrew |
Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) | Mark Tami |
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) | Bell Ribeiro-Addy |
Ronnie Cowan (Inverclyde) | Patrick Grady |
Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) | Alex Burghart |
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) | Mark Tami |
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) | Patrick Grady |
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) | Mark Tami |
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) | Caroline Nokes |
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) | Mark Tami |
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) | Chris Evans |
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) | Stuart Andrew |
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) | Stuart Andrew |
Martyn Day (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Thangam Debbonaire (Bristol West) | Mark Tami |
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) | Rachel Hopkins |
Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) | Caroline Nokes |
Martin Docherty-Hughes (West Dunbartonshire) | Patrick Grady |
Dave Doogan (Angus) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) | Mark Tami |
Philip Dunne (Ludlow) | Jeremy Hunt |
Colum Eastwood (Foyle) | Conor McGinn |
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) | Mark Tami |
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) | Mark Tami |
Dr Luke Evans (Bosworth) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir David Evennett (Bexleyheath and Crayford) | Stuart Andrew |
Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) | Stuart Andrew |
Marion Fellows (Motherwell and Wishaw) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) | Patrick Grady |
Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham, Deptford) | Mark Tami |
George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) | Theo Clarke |
Marcus Fysh (Yeovil) | Stuart Andrew |
Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) | Caroline Nokes |
Preet Kaur Gill (Birmingham, Edgbaston) | Mark Tami |
Dame Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) | Stuart Andrew |
Mary Glindon (North Tyneside) | Mark Tami |
Mrs Helen Grant (Maidstone and The Weald) | Stuart Andrew |
Peter Grant (Glenrothes) | Patrick Grady |
Neil Gray (Airdrie and Shotts) | Patrick Grady |
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) | Mark Tami |
Kate Griffiths (Burton) | Aaron Bell |
Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) | Mark Tami |
Robert Halfon (Harlow) | Lucy Allan |
Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) | Mark Tami |
Claire Hanna (Belfast South) | Liz Saville Roberts |
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) | Patrick Grady |
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) | Mark Tami |
Sir Mark Hendrick (Preston) | Mark Tami |
Mike Hill (Hartlepool) | Mark Tami |
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) | Fay Jones |
Dame Margaret Hodge (Barking) | Wes Streeting |
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) | Mark Tami |
Adam Holloway (Gravesham) | Maria Caulfield |
Sir George Howarth (Knowsley) | Mark Tami |
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) | Stuart Andrew |
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) | Judith Cummins |
Mr Ranil Jayawardena (North East Hampshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Andrea Jenkyns (Morley and Outwood) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) | Stuart Andrew |
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) | Mark Tami |
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Melton) | Ruth Edwards |
Barbara Keeley (Worsley and Eccles South) | Mark Tami |
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) | Mark Tami |
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) | Stuart Andrew |
Mrs Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) | Mr William Wragg |
Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) | Mary Kelly Foy |
Chris Law (Dundee West) | Patrick Grady |
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) | Mark Tami |
Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) | Stuart Andrew |
Tony Lloyd (Rochdale) | Mark Tami |
Mark Logan (Bolton North East) | Stuart Andrew |
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) | Cat Smith |
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) | Lee Rowley |
Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) | Stuart Andrew |
Mr Jonathan Lord (Woking) | Stuart Andrew |
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) | Patrick Grady |
Shabana Mahmood (Birmingham, Ladywood) | Mark Tami |
Alan Mak (Havant) | Stuart Andrew |
Julie Marson (Hertford and Stortford) | Stuart Andrew |
Rachael Maskell (York Central) | Mark Tami |
Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) | Mark Tami |
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) | Patrick Grady |
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) | Cat Smith |
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) | Patrick Grady |
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) | Patrick Grady |
Stephen McPartland (Stevenage) | Stuart Andrew |
Ian Mearns (Gateshead) | Mark Tami |
Mark Menzies (Fylde) | Sir David Amess |
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) | Stuart Andrew |
Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) | Stuart Andrew |
Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) | Mark Tami |
Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) | Stuart Andrew |
Carol Monaghan (Glasgow North West) | Patrick Grady |
Jessica Morden (Newport East) | Mark Tami |
Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) | Stuart Andrew |
David Morris (Morecambe and Lunesdale) | Stuart Andrew |
Grahame Morris (Easington) | Mark Tami |
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) | Stuart Andrew |
James Murray (Ealing North) | Mark Tami |
John Nicolson (Ochil and South Perthshire) | Patrick Grady |
Neil O’Brien (Harborough) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) | Rebecca Harris |
Guy Opperman (Hexham) | Stuart Andrew |
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) | Nadia Whittome |
Sarah Owen (Luton North) | Alex Norris |
Dr Dan Poulter (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) | Peter Aldous |
Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) | Mark Tami |
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) | Mark Tami |
Christina Rees (Neath) | Mark Tami |
Ellie Reeves (Lewisham West and Penge) | Mark Tami |
Ms Marie Rimmer (St Helens South and Whiston) | Mark Tami |
Naz Shah (Bradford West) | Mark Tami |
Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) | Mark Tami |
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) | Mark Tami |
Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) | Stuart Andrew |
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) | Patrick Grady |
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) | Mark Tami |
Alyn Smith (Stirling) | Patrick Grady |
Royston Smith (Southampton, Itchen) | Robert Courts |
Jo Stevens (Cardiff Glasgow Central) | Mark Tami |
Sir Gary Streeter (South West Devon) | Stuart Andrew |
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) | Patrick Grady |
Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) | Mark Tami |
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth) | Olivia Blake |
Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) | Mark Tami |
David Warburton (Somerton and Frome) | Stuart Andrew |
Dr Philippa Whitford (Central Ayrshire) | Patrick Grady |
Hywel Williams (Arfon) | Ben Lake |
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) | Mark Tami |
Draft Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 (Remedial) Order 2019
(3 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Good morning. Before we begin, I remind Members of the social distancing regulations. Spaces available to Members are clearly marked. Our Hansard colleagues would also be grateful if you could send any speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mims Davies)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013 (Remedial) Order 2019.
The draft order was laid before the House on 5 September 2019, and I am grateful to have the opportunity to move it. In 2013, my Department passed the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013. The Act validated sanctions and notifications that were issued to claimants who failed to take part in employment programmes designed to help them into work. The Court of Appeal found the Act to be an effective and valid way to achieve this end but recognised that, in a small number of very specific circumstances, some individuals had lost their right to a fair hearing under the Act. The draft remedial order amends the Act to resolve that issue, and it allows the tribunals to find in favour of claimants whose appeals were affected, where it is right to do so.
The order also gives my Department the ability to reconsider relevant sanction decisions in such cases and to pay any affected individuals anything that they are then due. It is of fundamental importance to me that people who appealed a sanction decision, but were prevented from having a fair hearing because of the Act, should have their right restored. Only a small group of people—around 5,000 individuals—have been affected by the Act in that way. As the remedial order applies only in very specific circumstances, not all cases will lead to a payment. The 2013 Act is valid for all other groups of claimants.
My Department aims to resolve such cases and make any necessary payments to those individuals as soon as it can. We anticipate that it might take up to 12 months for us to identify and pay any affected individuals. We aim to commence work on such claims in the autumn and to begin reconsidering decisions and payments. Unfortunately, I cannot say at this time how the current circumstances, or any subsequent wave of the pandemic, might affect the process. The order is not just about resolving this matter for the small number of claimants affected; we must also ensure that we learn important lessons around communicating with claimants and do not create similar instances in the future.
Members will be acutely aware that on Wednesday the Chancellor announced an unprecedented package of measures to not only protect jobs but ensure that we get back into work those individuals who may have lost their jobs as a result of the covid-19 emergency. I have real confidence that the digital nature of universal credit, and its improved means of communication with our claimants via the online journal, mean that a future Minister for Employment will not find herself in a similar situation in another eight years’ time. Instead, we will be discussing how our digital systems ensured that people were supported back into work through this difficult period.
The draft remedial order was laid for 60 sitting days on 28 June 2018, and then again for another 60 days last year. This was done to enable representations to be made by Members of both Houses and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Through the use of a non-urgent remedial order, Parliament has been given time and the opportunity to scrutinise and consult on the contents of the order.
I have considered the views of the tribunals and have amended the draft remedial order accordingly. The Joint Committee on Human Rights approved it in March and has recommended it to Parliament. There are currently no other Bills planned that could accommodate this specific legal objective and resolve the incompatibility. The order is a way of achieving that end without repealing the Act itself, which still holds for the majority of claimants.
Although the process has been long and complex, we have comprehensively assessed the issue and carefully considered any representations that we have received. I am keen to resolve these appeal cases for the individuals involved as soon as we can and to take the learnings forward as we look to support people back into work. I hope the Committee will support the order during its final passage through Parliament. I am satisfied that it is compatible with the European convention on human rights.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd.
I thank the Minister for her opening remarks. It is a pleasure to be working as her opposite number. As she outlined, the remedial order amends the Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013, which retrospectively validated sanction decisions and notifications issued under the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Employment, Skills and Enterprise Scheme) Regulations 2011 and the Jobseeker’s Allowance (Mandatory Work Activity Scheme) Regulations 2011.
In 2016 the Court of Appeal found that the 2013 Act was incompatible with article 6 of the European convention on human rights, which concerns the right to a fair hearing. The court issued a declaration of incompatibility, which related to claimants with an undetermined appeal in the tribunal system on 26 March 2013, the date when the Act came into force.
We welcome the remedial order, which will restore the right to a fair hearing for the relevant group of claimants. It gives the courts the power to find in a claimant’s favour and provides the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions with the power to revise sanction decisions in those cases, or to make decisions that supersede them, and to pay the affected individuals the amount to which they would then become legally entitled.
Section 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 allows a remedial order of this kind to be used to amend an Act of Parliament where there is incompatibility between domestic law and a right under the European convention on human rights, but it is extraordinary that we are here at all. I am pleased that the Government say they take a breach of the convention seriously, but there are two important points to be made.
First, the case and the experience of claimants—it must have been a traumatic experience to take the Government to court at a quite difficult time in their lives—show a strong contrast in conduct, culture and approach between the Department for Work and Pensions workfare scheme at the time, and, for example, the future jobs fund, which was cancelled by the Cameron Government. The future jobs fund worked closely and in a personalised way with young people to get them into good jobs.
Caitlin Reilly, an unemployed geology graduate, and Jamieson Wilson, an unemployed driver, brought their legal challenge to the Department in 2012, on the basis that the DWP forced claimants to take on unpaid work for private companies, at the risk of having their benefits cut through the sanction. As the Minister said, the outcome of the case affected about 5,000 claimants.
Ms Reilly was told by her jobcentre adviser that if she did not attend an unpaid work placement in a Poundland store, she would be sanctioned and her jobseeker’s allowance would be cut. Yet, at the time, Ms Reilly had just completed a paid work experience placement at a museum, where she continued to volunteer, with the ambition of pursuing a career in that field. The Court of Appeal later ruled that the instructions she had been given were unlawful, as the description of the schemes and the notices given to her were both insufficiently clear.
This happened a long time before the Minister was in her post or I was in mine, but there is a point to be made here. The Minister has talked about communications needing to be improved, but there may also be a lesson to be learned about the schemes themselves and how they operated. There were also the consequences of the Department’s instructions in the case of Ms Reilly, which were contrary to the purpose of a system and a programme that existed to help her get back into the employment she sought, in which she could have an ongoing career and sustainable employment. Those methods were in contrast to Labour’s approach through the future jobs fund, where engaging with employers to achieve sustainable and fulfilling work opportunities was a priority, not only at a local level, in how local authorities were involved in delivering employment outcomes, but in the culture that was enabled and created from the centre.
Unfortunately, in this case, Ms Reilly was forced to give up her voluntary work in the museum. The case raises real questions about the quality of work support and the sanctions culture that was in operation—a punitive, rather than an enabling, culture at the heart of the DWP—and there are important lessons for today.
The second issue I want to raise in relation to that case is the culture of a national politics that opts to fight citizens and seek to win in the courts—including, in this case, by taking away the rights of others to appeal—rather than to learn from rulings what systemic change might be needed to improve the system and its goal of supporting people back into employment.
While this remedial order is welcome, it should never have been necessary. I put on record my dismay at the length of time it has taken to get here—it has been eight years since the original appeal. Families have had their appeals and their lives on hold, with all the stress and strain that that will have caused. Claimants affected by the declaration of incompatibility have been waiting for their appeal or their hearing to be decided since that time. Some may no longer be claiming benefit. Some may have moved away or even passed away.
I thank the Minister for laying out a timetable for resolving this issue—I appreciate some of the difficulties with covid—for her commitment to ensuring that the process starts as soon as possible in the autumn, and for her hope that the issue will be resolved within 12 months. Will she lay out precisely how the Government intend to identify those affected who have entitlements? Do Ministers already have those records? Will she also lay out the approach they intend to take in calculating the entitlement to refunds of sanctioned benefits?
I reiterate that these are real human stories. These people could be her constituents or mine, or any of us on this Committee today. Using this order to insert new provisions into the 2013 Act will achieve the necessary change in the law to restore the right to a fair hearing to those affected, and ensuring fairness must now be a priority.
The delay in bringing forward this order has been quite extraordinary. That was not all due to the Minister, and I appreciate her point that the process has allowed for scrutiny, but it has been a considerably long time. It has been eight years since the original claim went through the courts. The Joint Committee on Human Rights said:
“The Committee does, however, regret the delay between the declaration of incompatibility and the laying of the proposed draft Remedial Order.”
I hope the Minister will understand the concerns about the delay, but it is important that, if there were reasons for the delay that could have been addressed, those should be taken on board and we should not see this situation arise in the future.
To conclude, I hope the Minister acknowledges that mistakes were made by the Department under her predecessors, regarding the treatment of jobseekers between 2011 and 2013; that the law was interpreted wrongly, sanctioned by her Department; that lessons will continue to be learned in terms of the culture and the way in which work support should be designed; and that resources should be in place to deliver that work support to the quality that our citizens need and deserve.
While we welcome and support the remedial order, at this time of national crisis we have approximately nine jobseekers seeking work for every vacancy. I hope the Minister will reflect on the use of sanctions in her Department and on the mixed messages that are coming out and, perhaps, finally agree that applying sanctions at this time is incomprehensible when we look at the situation. Organisations such as Disability Rights UK have this week highlighted the great anxiety that this causes people and their families.
More broadly, I hope the lessons that her Department has learned from this case, and that it learns in the future, mean it spends less time in the courtroom and more time, when things go wrong, better supporting people and getting them quickly back into meaningful, sustainable and fulfilling employment.
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for her constructive views, and I particularly welcome her closing thoughts. We fully agree that getting people back to work and giving them wide support is important.
We will look at this matter on a case-by-case basis and look closely at what happens on the ground and at its impact. That is what this Department does; we are a learning and understanding Department. In this role, I am determined that we will listen and engage with stakeholders, as the hon. Lady mentioned, and learn from the experience of claimants.
I accept that it has taken some time to address this issue. The draft legislation is a successful outcome of what has, frankly, been a long and complex court process. As a result of that, it was important that we considered how to address the issue carefully. I am extremely keen to resolve the appeal cases for claimants as soon as we can. I hope we can all support this order through its final passage, so that we can do that.
We use sanctions as a consequence of people not meeting the agreed commitments that a claimant accepts in order to be entitled to benefits. Sanctions are a last resort. We always apply reasonable judgment before any actions and take into account current circumstances. Our work coaches support us with their judgment of what are reasonable steps. Claimant commitments must be reasonable and, in this unprecedented time, they will be. I understand the points that the hon. Lady raises, but I am clear that we are in a good place as we move forward from the changes at the beginning of July.
The exercise of looking through the 5,000 people, potentially, who we need to understand will be important in terms of how we check all those who have been affected by the new remedial order. If it is determined that a person is affected and a payment is due, it is key that we have gone through their legal entitlements with the administrative practice that we have, and therefore that we can go back to claimants and make the payment appropriately.
I thank my hon. Friends and all hon. Members for joining today’s important debate. This remedial order will amend the 2013 Act so that, for all relevant appeals, where it is right to do so, the court and tribunals can find in an individual’s favour. It also allows my Department to revise or supersede the relevant sanction decisions so that the individual does not need to pursue their appeal.
I am keen to resolve the appeal cases for those individuals as soon as we can. It is of fundamental importance to me that those who appealed a sanction decision but were prevented from having a fair hearing because of the Act should have that right restored.
We aim, as I say, to begin revising all affected cases in the autumn of this year. I recognise the importance of resolving this incompatibility as swiftly as possible. It has taken time to consult and to develop the appropriate best course of action.
Seema Malhotra
I thank the Minister for taking this intervention in her closing remarks. Should the Department decide not to agree to a claimant’s claim retrospectively, what will happen in that circumstance, where the Department is, in a sense, marking its own homework?
Mims Davies
I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. That is exactly why we are going to do it carefully and considerately through each individual circumstance. I am not going to comment on individual cases that I do not understand at this point, but I am happy to take that away and write to her to explain where that will land as an issue. As I say, I think a very small proportion of people will be impacted and, hopefully, there will not be a large number of such situations.
As we have heard this morning, there is no argument to justify delaying this process. I hope we will all be able to support this remedial order so that it can complete its final passage and be reported to Parliament. I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing (Christopher Pincher)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (Coronavirus) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2020.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. The regulations were laid before the House on 30 June and, if approved and made, will give local authorities the discretion to help small and medium-sized developers experiencing financial difficulties because of the effects of the coronavirus epidemic. They will enable local authorities to defer community infrastructure levy payments without having to impose additional costs on developers. Although we have already put in place a range of measures to help businesses affected by the effects of coronavirus, we recognise that small and medium-sized enterprise developers require additional assistance.
SME builders have been declining in the long term and were hit hard by the last recession. There were 16% more builder and developer insolvencies in 2019 than in 2018. The vast majority of those were SMEs. SME developers are now under further pressure because of the epidemic, so giving local authorities the discretion to grant a deferral of CIL payment liabilities for SMEs is another important step in supporting the sector.
Both developers and local authorities have requested that we introduce a deferral mechanism. However, we recognise that local authorities will be best placed to understand the needs and pressures in their area, so these regulations do not mandate that local authorities defer CIL payments, but instead give them the discretion to do so where they think that appropriate. The regulations make the same provision for the Mayor of London should the Mayor consider it appropriate to defer mayoral CIL payments.
CIL regulations first came into force in April 2010. They enable local planning authorities and the Mayor of London to raise a levy on new development in their local area to fund a wide range of infrastructure to support development. The CIL becomes payable within 60 days of building works commencing unless the charging authority has published an instalment policy. However, the payment schedule set out in an instalment policy can apply only to development that commences after the policy is published. Therefore, although an authority can help developers that have not started building work with their CIL payments by publishing an instalment policy, it does not have the power to defer payments for development that has already commenced.
Where the developer fails to pay on time, the current regulations require the local authority to administer late payment interest on the CIL amount owed, and allow for the imposition of late payment surcharges. The local authority has further powers to enforce, as set out in part 9 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. The regulations being debated today introduce amendments to that statutory instrument to address the financial effects that coronavirus has brought upon SME developers, including development sites that have stalled because of financial instability. These provisions have been developed following close engagement with the industry and local authorities.
As to the detail of the amendments, we are, first, making changes to allow local authorities the discretion to defer temporarily CIL payments for SMEs in certain circumstances—namely, where the SME is experiencing financial difficulty for reasons connected to the effects of coronavirus and is required to pay a CIL amount during the specified time. SMEs may apply in writing to the local authority no more than 14 days before or as soon as practicable after the date the CIL payment is due, requesting a deferment of the payment. The collecting authority can request whatever information from the developer it reasonably needs to consider the deferral request. It must consider a deferral request as soon as is practicable after it is received and grant or refuse the request in writing. Payments can be deferred for up to six months. Where the deferment payment falls due on or before 31 July 2021, the developer could submit a further deferral request.
Under the current regulations, where a developer has not paid their CIL liability by the date set on the demand notice, late payment interest automatically accrues. That late payment interest accrues at 2.5% above the base rate. Charging authorities may also apply late payment surcharges. We recognise that it would be unfair to continue to apply those charges where a developer has applied to defer a CIL payment. We have therefore paused the application of late payment interest and surcharges while a deferral request is being considered.
The regulations also allow, where a deferral request has been agreed, for the developer to request that any late payment interest that has accrued in the period between lockdown and the deferral request being agreed be credited and taken off the total of the CIL amount owed. That is termed an interest request and ensures that SMEs will not be penalised because of the effects of coronavirus. The regulations make the same provisions for the CIL collected by London boroughs on behalf of the Mayor of London.
Contributions from developers play an important role in delivering the infrastructure that new homes and local economies require. The measures set out in the regulations enable the collecting authority to exercise their discretion to defer payment of CIL on a case-by-case basis. That will give local authorities the discretion to help SME developers who are struggling with cash flow, and ensure that CIL payments are made, albeit over a longer period, rather than being lost because a small builder goes out of business.
I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Mike Amesbury (Weaver Vale) (Lab)
I apologise for being slightly late—I had 9.30 in my diary; clearly, that was wrong.
The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, which have been part of the taxation landscape for more than a decade, allow planning authorities and the Mayor of London to raise a levy on new developments in their areas, as the Minister said. The CIL can be used to fund a wide range of infrastructure to support the development of the area where it is collected. The amount of money it raises nationally is significant. A study that the Department commissioned in 2016-17 put developer contributions through the CIL at nearly £1 billion. The CIL is a good and necessary vehicle to help provide the infrastructure that all Members want to see in our communities and, importantly, the facilities and amenities that our constituents desire. Money from the CIL has contributed to, for example, the building of Crossrail, flood defences, transport, GP surgeries, schools, local highways and green spaces.
In recent weeks, the CIL has been in the media for the wrong reasons. The Government’s moral authority has been damaged by the Westferry saga, in which the Secretary of State and the developer attempted to forgo CIL obligations to Tower Hamlets. Trust, Minister, must be rebuilt.
Covid-19 has had tragic consequences for many families. Loved ones have been lost across our communities and our constituencies. Our normal way of life has been curtailed and the economy has contracted on an alarming scale. Council budgets are under huge strain. Despite the Government’s promise to do whatever it takes to support councils, the cross-party Local Government Association highlights a funding gap of nearly £10 billion. Local authorities need every element of funding to support residents and provide the stimulus needed for economic recovery.
Labour Members recognise that some small and medium-sized developers are also under strain, and practical measures are required to help. If approved, as the Minister has said, this statutory instrument will give CIL collecting authorities or the Mayor time-limited discretion to defer certain payments by smaller developers who experience financial difficulties for reasons connected to the coronavirus crisis without incurring charges for late payments. Importantly and reassuringly, this will be done at the discretion of the charging authority, although they are obliged to consider the request. It is clear that some small and medium-sized businesses need urgent support, and that undoubtedly includes the construction sector.
Developers that do not make it through this tough period will not be able to pay obligations, will not be able to protect and create jobs, and will not be able to contribute to our economic recovery. Given that fact and the time-limited period that the changes cover, we will not oppose this statutory instrument. That does not mean that I do not have questions about it. The assessment criteria that charging authorities will be required to apply to small and medium-sized developers do not seem clear in the statutory instrument. What impact assessment has been done on councils’ ability to fund infrastructure projects and thus the potential impact on local authorities? Will the Minister review the take-up of these discretionary measures within, say, three months of the application?
In conclusion, we recognise that the SI gives short-term flexibility and discretion to both charging authorities and small and medium-sized developers. Covid-19 has shone a spotlight on our broken housing market. Although the mantra of “build, build, build” might capture some headlines, it must be qualified with an emphasis on building the right mix of tenure that will be sustainable for generations to come.
Christopher Pincher
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous approach to the Committee’s deliberations of this statutory instrument. I am happy to answer his questions. He first asked what criteria are applied by a local authority to determine whether an applicant is an SME. The criteria are very clear. The applicant must have a turnover of not more than £45 million a year, which is the normal criterion applied to whether a firm is or is not an SME. That will be the key criterion applied by local authorities in their determination of an application.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether there will be a gap issue in funding for local authorities. We have talked to local authorities. We have talked to Croydon, Ealing, East Suffolk, Havering, Hillingdon, Richmond, Southwark, and Tower Hamlets—he mentioned that particular authority in passing. Labour and Conservative, and, in the case of Richmond, Liberal Democrat, local authorities all agree that our approach is right and sensible. They all agree that it is better to defer payments than risk SMEs going out of business and having no payments at all—and indeed no construction at all.
The hon. Gentleman also asked whether we would be prepared to review the regulations after three or so months. I think adding further burdens on local authorities in that way is possibly not the most sensible approach, but we are always mindful of our liaison with the LGA. We always look closely at the effects of our policies and will keep it in mind.
In conclusion, I am grateful to the Committee for its consideration and to the hon. Member for Weaver Vale and the Opposition for their support. I gently remind the hon. Gentleman that we have given £3.2 billion to local authorities—a further £450 million last week. We have deferred business rates. We have given them £63 million for the non-shielded food vulnerable. I think that is a relatively good record of support for local authorities. In the spirit of generosity, I hope he will reach out to the shadow Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Croydon North (Steve Reed) and remind him that it is not sensible to attack homeowners for receiving a “bung” in the reduction of stamp duty. That is designed to help homebuyers and the housing sector. I hope the Committee will support the regulations.
Question put and agreed to.
Channel Islands Measure
(3 years, 9 months ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Andrew Selous)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the Channel Islands Measure (HC 548).
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I am grateful to colleagues for turning up this morning; I hope that the Measure will not detain us for long. The Measure is very simple: it will transfer the Channel Islands from the diocese of Winchester to the diocese of Salisbury. The transfer will be achieved by an Order in Council. The reason for it is that back in 2008 there was a safeguarding incident on Jersey, and the handling of the matter led to a dispute between the Dean of Jersey and the Bishop of Winchester. In 2018 the Archbishop of Canterbury appointed a commission, chaired by the former Bishop of London, Lord Chartres, to consider and report on the relationship between the Channel Islands and the wider Church of England.
It is perhaps worth reflecting a little on the history of the Channel Islands’ relationship with the Church of England. Until the 16th century, they were part of the Church of France and of the diocese of Coutances. In 1496, before the Reformation, Henry VII obtained a papal bull transferring the islands to the English diocese of Salisbury, but it seems that it was never put into effect—it is not new that we pass legislation in this place but do not always consider its enforcement. The islands finally became part of the Church of England in 1569, when they were transferred to the diocese of Winchester by an Order in Council of Elizabeth I. Since then, the Church of England has been the established Church in the Channel Islands.
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s commission reported in September 2019. It concluded that although there remained
“residual affection for the historic attachment to the Diocese of Winchester”,
the difficulties in the relationship between the islands and the diocese were such that the breakdown was
“too great for it to be retrieved in the foreseeable future.”
Having considered the various options, the commission recommended that the islands be transferred to the diocese of Salisbury. There is relatively easy access via Southampton airport or by ferry to Poole, and the diocese of Salisbury has the necessary capacity to oversee the islands, having two suffragan bishops in addition to its diocesan bishop. As I mentioned, there is a historical connection, which goes back to the failed papal bull of 1496. In fact, the first bishop since the Reformation to visit the islands and carry out confirmations was the Bishop of Salisbury, in 1818. Thank you for bearing with me for a little of the history, Mr Springer; I think it is interesting and it sets the scene.
The Measure, which is very straightforward, gives effect to the recommendation of the Archbishop’s commission that the Channel Islands be transferred to the diocese of Salisbury. It also tidies up some other matters relating to Church of England governance on the islands.
Section 1, the key provision, provides:
“Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for…the attachment of the Bailiwicks”—
the Channel Islands are referred to as the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey—
“to the diocese of Salisbury instead of to the diocese of Winchester, and…the transfer to the Bishop of Salisbury of such jurisdiction as the Bishop of Winchester has in relation to the Bailiwicks.”
A Measure is needed to authorise the making of an Order in Council because the royal prerogative alone does not extend to altering the jurisdiction of bishops or the extent of their dioceses. Statutory authority, in the form of this Measure, is needed to confer the necessary legal authority on the Crown to make the transfer of jurisdiction and alter the extent of the two dioceses.
Section 2 sets out consequential amendments to existing Church legislation so that references to “Winchester” become references to “Salisbury”.
Section 3 deals with the procedure for extending Church Measures to the Channel Islands, which was first established in 1931 and has been somewhat elaborate and time-consuming, with the result that there is a backlog of Church legislation that ought to be extended to the Channel Islands. Section 3 will enable Church legislation to be extended to the islands much more simply and straightforwardly, which should mean that the backlog of legislation, which deals with important matters such as safeguarding and clergy discipline, can now be cleared and that future delays in extending appropriate Church legislation to the islands can be avoided.
Section 4 deals with Church representation from the Channel Islands to the General Synod of the Church of England, which met in virtual session on Saturday. It extends the scope of the franchise on the Channel Islands—for instance, the minimum age for enrolment on a parish roll is reduced from 17 to 16—and enables members of other Christian Churches in communion with the Church of England to be on an electoral roll for the General Synod if they so wish.
I can tell hon. Members that the Measure was received with favour when it came before the General Synod of the Church of England in February; all the bishops present supported it, including the Bishops of Winchester and Salisbury, and it had overwhelming support in the Houses of Clergy and Laity. The Ecclesiastical Committee, which is composed of Members of the House of Lords and of the Commons, also considered the matter in an extensive Zoom session on 19 June, and we found the Measure expedient. I hope that it will find favour with the Committee this morning.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The Committee will no doubt be shocked to hear that I do not intend to detain it for long. I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner for his history lesson—we darted around from the 16th century to 1931 and finally hit Zoom time, which is something that I am sure we are all used to. I have only one question. He has already touched on this, but can he confirm that all the clergy who will be affected by the Measure, not just the bishops, are in favour and are happy with it?
Andrew Selous
I can indeed give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. The former Bishop of London, Lord Chartres, and his commission took extensive soundings from all the clergy on Jersey and Guernsey when they went there last year. This is the settled view of the whole Church, including all the clergy on the islands.
I can also tell the hon. Gentleman that when the Measure came before the General Synod of the Church of England in February, 94 clergy were in favour and one was against; I am afraid that I do not know why one was against, but the hon. Gentleman will agree that that is pretty overwhelming. Every Bishop was in favour, as were a huge majority of the House of Laity—117 were in favour and only two were against. The Measure has overwhelming support.
We all hope that the Measure will herald a new era for the islands in their relationship with the Church of England, that that relationship will be harmonious in future and that it will lead to the flourishing of the Church on the islands.
Question put and agreed to.
Written Statements
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Amendments to the Withdrawal Agreement
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Michael Gove)
At its second meeting on 12 June 2020, the Withdrawal Agreement Joint Committee, which I co-chaired with European Commission Vice-President, Maroš Šefčovič, adopted one decision to correct errors and omissions in the withdrawal agreement (decision No. 1/2020).
Decision No. 1/2020 makes technical changes to part I annex I—social security co-ordination, and part 5—financial provisions of the withdrawal agreement.
The changes to part I annex I add in two decisions made by the Administrative Commission for the Coordination of Social Security Systems to the list of decisions and recommendations already set out. Decision No. F3 specifies how the amount of family benefits should be calculated for a recipient. Decision No. E7 states that, as of 3 July 2019, the transmission of data between the institutions shall be carried out by electronic means through the electronic exchange of social security information (EESSI) system and based on the exchange of structured electronic documents. These decisions were approved by the EU on 19 December 2018 and 27 June 2019 respectively.
The changes to part 5 include amendments to articles 135, 137, 143, 144 and 150 that reflect the actual date of the UK’s departure from the EU on 31 January 2020. An additional amendment was made to article 145 to provide legal certainty to UK beneficiaries in respect of grants made under the research fund for steel and coal until the closure of these projects.
The decision was published by the UK and the EU on 14 July 2020.
[HCWS365]
Annual European Union Finances Statement
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Steve Barclay)
I am today laying before Parliament the “European Union Finances 2019: statement on the 2019 EU Budget and measures to counter fraud and financial mismanagement” (CP 256). This is a routine annual publication and is the 39th in the series.
The statement gives details of revenue and expenditure in the 2019 European Union (EU) budget, recent developments in EU financial management and measures to counter fraud against the EU budget. It also includes a chapter and annex on the use of EU funds in the UK over the period.
The document also provides an updated HM Treasury estimate of the value of the financial settlement, which was made legally binding by the passage of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020. Exit from the EU on 31 January 2020 resulted in some UK and EU payments that would originally have been paid post-withdrawal being paid while the UK remained a member state. HM Treasury estimate that the current value of the financial settlement is £30.2 billion. This remains within the Government’s reasonable central range of £35-39 billion, adjusted to take into account the UK’s 31 January 2020 exit date. In annex E, HM Treasury provides an updated summary of the financial settlement, other costs set out in the withdrawal agreement and short-term public expenditure costs.
[HCWS366]
OBR 2020 Fiscal Sustainability Report and response to OBR 2019 Fiscal Risks Report
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Rishi Sunak)
Today’s publication of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s (OBR) 2020 Fiscal Sustainability Report (FSR) fulfils the OBR’s legal obligation to publish an analysis of the sustainability of the public finances over the long-term and an assessment of the public sector balance sheet at least once every two years. This report has been laid before Parliament today and copies are available in the Vote Office and Printed Paper Office. The OBR also produces a biennial fiscal risks report (FRR) to which the Government are required to respond within a year. This statement provides the Government’s response to Office for Budget Responsibility—Fiscal risks report July 2019 [CP131], laid 18 July 2019[1].
The action the Government have taken in response to the covid-19 pandemic was necessary to protect public health, support household incomes, and to minimise permanent damage to the economy—thereby supporting growth, employment and the public finances over the medium to long term. As the OBR has said in the FSR:
“The outlook would have been much worse without the measures the Government have taken. These have provided additional financial support to individuals and businesses through the lockdown. They should also help to limit any long-term economic scarring, by keeping workers attached to firms and helping otherwise viable firms stay in business”.
OBR 2020 fiscal sustainability report
The magnitude and duration of the economic shock caused by covid-19 will have important consequences for the medium and long-term fiscal position. In all three scenarios the OBR has published in the FSR, the level of borrowing this year is significantly higher than expected in the OBR’s spring Budget forecast. Public sector net borrowing is projected to reach between 13% and 21% of GDP in 2020-21, with differences across scenarios reflecting the size of the economic shock. This in turn means that public sector net debt is also projected to be higher compared to the spring Budget forecast under all scenarios, although the OBR has highlighted that low borrowing costs help to make this more affordable in the near-term. The gilt market is deep and liquid with a good track record in responding smoothly to increases in gilt supply. Underlying demand for the UK’s debt remains strong, with borrowing costs at historical lows, signalling confidence in the UK’s institutions.
The Government have taken significant action to support the recovery and minimise permanent damage from the pandemic. In the long-run, the OBR also expects demographic change and other cost pressures in health spending to put upward pressure on public spending while leaving revenues broadly unchanged. The Government are committed to fiscal sustainability and ensuring the long-term health of the public finances. The Government will set out further details on their plans to put the public finances back on a sustainable footing over the medium-term at the next Budget, alongside an updated OBR forecast. As part of this, as set out in the March Budget, HM Treasury is reviewing the UK’s fiscal framework to ensure it remains appropriate for the macroeconomic context, while ensuring the sustainability of the public finances. The FSR provides important analysis and scenarios which will be used to inform this review.
Managing fiscal risks from covid-19
In July 2019, the OBR published its second fiscal risks report covering the main risks to the public finances at that time. With covid-19 now clearly the most significant immediate source of fiscal risk facing the UK, this response to the report focuses on how the Government are managing the fiscal risks associated with the pandemic.
The work of the last 10 years in bringing borrowing and debt back under control means that the UK was well-placed to respond to the immediate and long-term challenges posed by covid-19.
The Government acted quickly to implement interventions containing the initial economic shock from the pandemic. When designing these interventions, the Government drew on the experience gained from HM Treasury’s Balance Sheet Review[2] and international best practice[3] to ensure that fiscal risks are managed effectively. The IMF commended the Government’s powerful response to the initial shock of covid-19, finding the interventions to be large, substantial and carefully targeted[4].
In the first phase of the economic response to covid-19, the Government kept people attached to their work, protected their incomes and supported businesses, delivering one of the most generous and comprehensive packages of support globally, with a fiscal response totalling £160 billion. While the economic impacts of covid-19 and the Government’s necessary response have come at a significant fiscal cost, the costs of failing to act to support public services, businesses, and workers would have been much higher.
Building on the action taken in the face of the immediate threat posed by the virus, the Government are now proceeding with the second phase of their response, supporting the UK’s economic recovery while continuing to prioritise people’s health. The plan for jobs announced last week, made up to £30 billion available to help kick-start the nation’s economic recovery while continuing to prioritise people’s health by: introducing a new job retention bonus to encourage firms to keep on furloughed workers; supporting jobs with direct help to find work and to gain the skills people need to get a job; protecting jobs in the hard-hit hospitality and accommodation sectors and at attractions by supporting demand for these businesses, giving them confidence to reopen; creating jobs with action to get the property market moving, to increase and bring forward infrastructure investment, and to make homes greener, warmer and cheaper to heat.
The third phase of the Government’s plan will be set out in the autumn with measures to support the longer-term recovery through a Budget and a spending review. These will detail further plans to invest in public services, to support innovation and growth-enhancing infrastructure with a national infrastructure strategy, to seize global opportunities and to level up opportunity across every region and nation of the UK.
Wider fiscal risk management
While the immediate focus of Government action is on dealing with covid-19, the management of the wider risks facing the UK public finances remains important. The Government have acted to address a number of the risks that were discussed by the OBR in FRR 2019.
To address the long-term challenge of low productivity growth, Budget 2020 announced measures investing in UK infrastructure, backing tech and innovation, making tax changes to support firms to invest, and introducing measures to support a dynamic and competitive economy. The Prime Minister also announced on 30 June that we will be improving the quality, speed and efficiency of delivering infrastructure through a new infrastructure delivery taskforce named Project Speed.
In the longer-term, climate change remains a significant challenge for the wider public finances. Demonstrating the Government’s commitment to mitigating climate change, in November 2019, the Chancellor launched an HM Treasury review into how the transition to net zero greenhouse gas emissions will be funded and where the costs will fall. Spring Budget allocated £640 million for tree planting and peatland restoration, over £1 billion for ultra-low emission vehicles and introduced tax measures to encourage greater energy efficiency and reduce plastic waste. The UK is also increasing its international climate finance support for developing countries to at least £11.6 billion. To improve the UK’s climate resilience, the Government announced a doubling of investment in flood and coastal defences in England to £5.2 billion over the next six years. The devolved Administrations will benefit from the Barnett consequential of this substantial increase in Government investment in flood and coastal defences.
To manage risks associated with non-bank financial intermediation and increase the resilience of the UK financial system, in the remit for the Financial Policy Committee (FPC), HMT recommended that the FPC publishes a detailed assessment of the oversight and mitigation of systemic risks from the non-bank sector. The FPC has confirmed it will publish preliminary findings in the August financial stability report, followed by a more detailed report that outlines gaps in non-bank resilience and potential measures that may be taken to increase resilience.
The OBR also highlighted fiscal risks related to tax reliefs. The Government recognise the need to monitor and evaluate existing tax reliefs; the Government will continue to monitor their use and act where appropriate, for example through the recent reforms to Entrepreneurs’ Relief, and the planned changes to the entitlement to use red diesel. HMRC is committed to increasing the number of published costs of tax reliefs and in May 2020 published cost estimates for another 47 non-structural tax reliefs. HMRC will continue to build on this to increase transparency.
[1] https://obr.uk/frr/fiscal-risks-report-july-2019/
[2] The Balance Sheet Review (BSR) was launched in 2017 to identify opportunities to dispose of assets that no longer serve a policy purpose, improve returns on retained assets, and reduce the risk and cost of liabilities.
[3] https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/SPROLLs/covid19-special-notes
[4] https://www.imf.Org/en/News/Articles/2020/04/14/tr041420 -transcript-of-april-2020-world-economic-outlook-press-briefing.
[HCWS364]
Children’s Social Care: Regulations
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Vicky Ford)
On 24 April 2020 regulations were introduced to provide local authorities and children’s social care providers with temporary flexibilities to support them to focus on core safeguarding duties during the coronavirus pandemic. We made no amendments to primary legislation, and the vast majority of statutory duties in secondary legislation remained unchanged. The regulations—the Adoption and Children (Coronavirus) (Amendment) Regulations 2020—are due to lapse on 25 September 2020.
When the regulations were introduced, we faced exceptional circumstances, with social workers and others facing decisions that they had never faced before. There was an urgent need to take action to ensure that local authorities and others supporting children and young people could focus on core safeguarding responsibilities should the worst-case scenario come to pass. We needed to prepare for very significant rates of staff sickness coupled with family illness potentially leading to many more children needing to be found emergency care. We were aware that the coronavirus pandemic would have a real impact on the lives of children and families, and that this would be a difficult time for them.
Protecting vulnerable children has been at the heart of the Government’s response to the virus. These regulations formed part of that response, alongside keeping schools and other settings open for vulnerable children, substantial additional investment, and additional support direct to children, young people, and their families.
The Government have always been clear that these temporary amendments should be used only when absolutely necessary and only if consistent with the overarching safeguarding and welfare duties that have remained in place. Our guidance sets out clear safeguards about how and when they should be used:
where staff shortages, due to sickness or other reasons, make it difficult or impossible to meet the original requirements.
Justify="left" UID="20071450000165 url="/pa/cm201921/cmhansrd/cm200714/wmstext/200714m0001.htm#20071450000165">where making use of flexibilities to take a different approach is the most sensible, risk-based response in light of other demands and pressures on services, this might involve focusing services on those most at risk.
where there is a consequential reason to make use of flexibilities, for example, due to limited capacity in other providers or partners making it difficult or impossible to comply with the original requirements.
Our monitoring has shown that the majority of the regulatory flexibilities have been rarely used and only when needed in response to coronavirus.
Our approach to monitoring is based on a triangulation of information we are gathering from a range of delivery partners to understand which of the regulations are being used and why. We are actively seeking regular feedback from a variety of sources including local authorities, social workers, charities, Ofsted, and other key partners. We will continue to engage on this scale while the regulations remain in place.
Our monitoring data shows that the regulations are being used infrequently. Out of 128 local authorities we have spoken with in June and July, 87 have used at least one regulation, although many have only used them on a limited number of occasions and in a limited number of areas.
The most used related to the fostering and adoption regulations, notably allowing medical reports to be considered at a later stage in the adoption and fostering process though still prior to approval. This has minimised delays in approving adopters for children needing a new, forever, family. Similarly, relaxations around panels have allowed for the continued recruitment of foster carers and a continued functionality of processes.
Virtual engagement with children and families has often been used alongside face-to-face visits and, in some cases, this has resulted in greater levels of contact between children, young people, parents, and carers—and improved engagement from some young people.
Senior leaders in children’s social care have set out to the Government and Ofsted how they have approached the use of the temporary regulations and explained that they have robust sign-off processes in place for when a regulation has been used. Ofsted reports that local authorities have said decisions on the use of the regulations are being made with the child at the heart of the case, in line with the principles in the guidance, including assessing risks and working on a collaborative basis.
We have always been clear that these temporary amendments will remain in place only for so long as they are needed.
The extraordinary measures the Government have taken over the last few months means that we are now in a much better position to ease the restrictions that everyone has faced. Given the lower level of coronavirus now present, there is a significantly reduced need for local authorities and providers to use these flexibilities. I therefore intend to update guidance immediately to make it clear that there should no longer be a need to use most of these flexibilities and will be writing to local authorities and providers accordingly. Where they do use flexibilities, local authorities and providers should ensure that they have strong justification.
I would also like to provide further clarity about the future of these flexibilities and am today announcing that, subject to a short period of consultation, the overwhelming majority of these regulations will expire as planned on 25 September.
The Government believe that there may be circumstances in which some services continue to face specific and exceptional challenges into the autumn. As more children are seen by schools, and social distancing eases further and hitherto hidden harms come to light, we must be prepared for the potential additional demands that may still be placed on services.
I am therefore minded, subject to consultation, to extend a very small number of temporary changes for a further period. These regulations specifically address the following points.
Medical reports
In order to become a foster carer or adoptive parent, one needs to provide a medical report from a general practitioner. As restrictions are eased and schools return, we expect that there may be more children needing care than is usual, and therefore there will be a higher need for potential adopters and foster carers. Our national health service still faces significant challenges as we enter a period of recovery. Therefore, I am minded to extend the amendments that allow more time for general practitioners and other health professionals to provide information to support the process of approving much needed potential adopters and foster carers. This does not remove the requirement for medical reports to be provided but moves the time during the process that the report must be provided before the child is placed with the foster parent or adoptive parent.
Virtual visits
We must be able to keep essential services, such as social worker visits, operating during any local lockdowns, and in cases where households are being required to self-isolate due to a case, or suspected case, of coronavirus, or contact with someone who has tested positive for coronavirus, in line with medical advice from the NHS test and trace service. Therefore, I am suggesting that it may be appropriate to continue to enable visits in these situations to happen virtually. However, in all other situations I would expect face-to-face visits to take place. Moreover, in my view the flexibilities regarding timing of these visits should lapse, as the provision for virtual visits should now provide sufficient flexibility on the basis that workforce capacity, the original reason for these flexibilities being introduced, is now no longer the concern that it was.
Ofsted inspections
Ofsted inspections have not taken place since March so Ofsted will need a period of catch-up before it can resume normal service. As announced last week, Ofsted is planning to carry out a phased return to routine inspections. This will include risk-based assurance visits to children’s social care settings, based on the previous inspection judgement, the amount of time since a setting was last inspected and other information Ofsted holds about the setting. These assurance visits will occur between September 2020 and March 2021. At this point full graded inspections will recommence. I am therefore recommending that the suspension of the existing frequency regulation for Ofsted inspections be extended until 31 March 2021, to allow Ofsted to provide the most assurance, to the sector and the wider public, about the safety and care of children.
A short consultation will launch later this week to inform final decisions and I would encourage all interested parties to respond. Should a new statutory instrument be proposed to extend any flexibility beyond 25 September 2020, Parliament will be provided with the customary 21 days opportunity to scrutinise the regulations before they come into force.
Our guidance has been clear that the regulatory flexibilities should only ever have been used with senior management oversight and that all decisions should be recorded. I am, however, considering how additional safeguards on the use of the flexibilities could be employed. Our consultation will therefore seek views on this question.
As inspections resume, Ofsted will want to be assured that any flexibilities have been used in the best interests of children, following careful risk assessment and with clear records of decisions made by local authorities and providers. As such, local authorities and providers must maintain a focus on child-centred practice and continue to record their decisions and ensure that these records are available for Ofsted. Inspectors will want to see the best possible practice for children. While routine inspections have been suspended, Ofsted has continued to inspect where it has been made aware of safeguarding concerns. It has acted swiftly and taken action to restrict children going into a home or stop a home operating in 23 cases. It has continued to start proceedings to cancel the registration of homes or managers where this is the right thing to do. And while it has prioritised registration of new children’s homes, it has still refused to register people it did not think were suitable.
Throughout this pandemic, social workers, charities, and others working to support our most vulnerable children and families have worked tirelessly to ensure that they continue to receive the support they need. I would like to place on record my personal gratitude, and that of the whole Government, for everything they have done and continue to do. I would also like to acknowledge the extremely difficult circumstances many children and families have faced during this pandemic.
Protecting vulnerable children remains our top priority, as it does for local authorities and children’s social care providers across the country. As the country begins to return to a more normal way of life, it is absolutely right that this also applies to children’s social care.
[HCWS368]
Higher Technical Education Reform
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Education (Gavin Williamson)
Today, I am pleased to launch the Government’s new reforms of higher technical education in England.
Take up of higher technical education in England is low and has been falling, leading to skills shortages across our economy. Employers are struggling to access the higher technical skills they need to grow and thrive and learners are missing out on the opportunities that a higher technical education can bring. To build a more prosperous, productive and fairer country, that needs to change.
We are already taking action to strengthen technical education, with the roll-out of T-levels, investment in our further education colleges and up to £290 million for flagship institutes of technology. Now we need to take the next step in levelling up our skills system and reverse the generational decline in higher technical education.
Our vision is for higher technical education to be a popular and prestigious choice that delivers the skills employers and learners need. We want to encourage more students to continue studying after T-levels or A-levels, and we want higher technical education to attract workers of all ages looking to upskill and retrain.
At the moment, there are thousands of higher technical qualifications, with no national assurance that they provide the skills employers need. Some qualifications and courses are excellent, but overall there is low awareness and varying quality. The range of terminology, qualifications and provider types creates a complex landscape that is hard for employers and learners to navigate.
We will be establishing a high-quality system of higher technical education where learners and employers can have confidence in high-quality courses, whether they are taught in a further education college, a university or an independent training provider. The reforms being set out today are a vital first step in achieving that.
We will introduce a national scheme to approve higher technical qualifications that provide the skills that employers need, starting with digital qualifications, and followed by health and science and construction qualifications. This scheme will be delivered through the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, and the institute will be guided by employer-led national standards.
We want providers offering high-quality higher technical courses to have access to industry standard facilities and equipment, teachers with relevant industrial experience and pedagogical expertise, and close links to employers. At the heart of this are our flagship institutes of technology and our national colleges. We will work with the Office for Students and Ofsted, drawing on their regulatory expertise, to ensure that higher technical education best meets the needs of learners and employers and provides value for money.
Finally, we will raise the profile and understanding of the best higher technical education courses through a Government-backed brand, a communications campaign and improvements to information, advice and guidance.
Reforming and growing higher technical education will be a long-term endeavour. We will continue to develop and implement our reforms carefully and work closely with everyone who shares our goal of improving higher technical education. Together we can transform higher technical education and better support learners and employers across England.
[HCWS362]
Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Policy
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)
I recognise the immense impacts that flooding and coastal erosion can have on homes and businesses across the country. That is why this Government are committed to reducing the risk of harm to people, the environment and the economy from flooding and coastal erosion—as shown by our £2.6 billion investment in flood and coastal defences since 2015 to better protect 300,000 homes by 2021.
At the Budget we committed to double our investment in the flood and coastal defence programme in England over the next six years to £5.2 billion which will better protect a further 336,000 properties by 2027. In addition to this record funding, I am today announcing a further investment of up to £170 million to accelerate work on 22 shovel-ready flood defence schemes to boost jobs, businesses and economic growth as part of the economic recovery from coronavirus. These projects will commence in 2020 and 2021 to drive growth and unlock a range of benefits for local economies across the country—from Sheffield to Bude.
As part of the Government’s continuing action to tackle climate change, we have today set out a package of measures to better protect and prepare the country against flooding and coastal erosion for the long-term. I have today published a new flood and coastal erosion risk management policy statement for England which represents the most substantive update to our national effort to tackle flood and coastal erosion risk in a decade—since the Flood and Water Management Act 2010.
I am announcing further details of the £200 million programme which will support 25 local areas to drive innovation to increase resilience to flooding and coastal erosion—and I am proposing to take forward changes to the Flood Re scheme which will accelerate uptake of property flood resilience measures.
The long-term policy statement sets out the Government’s ambition to create a nation more resilient to future flood and coastal erosion risk. It outlines five ambitious policies and over 40 supporting actions which will accelerate progress to better protect and better prepare the country against flooding and coastal erosion in the face of more frequent extreme weather as a result of climate change.
These actions will, not just, reduce the likelihood of flooding and coastal erosion but will also reduce the impacts if flooding does happen. They will work together to increase resilience across the country. The policy statement will encourage wider and more comprehensive action by all those with a part to play to drive down flood risk from every angle through these five policies:
Upgrading and expanding our national flood defences and infrastructure
We will continue to build the new flood defences that the nation needs, investing in more permanent, demountable and temporary defences—building on the success of our £2.6 billion investment to better protect 300,000 properties since 2015. As announced at the Budget, over the next six years, we will invest a record £5.2 billion in the flood and coastal defence programme in England. This will better protect a further 336,000 properties and reduce national flood risk by up to 11% by 2027.
Managing the flow of water more effectively
We will deliver an integrated approach to managing water to better protect communities from flooding and provide wider benefits for water resource management and the environment. As part of this, we will increase the number of water management schemes within and across catchments to reduce flood risk and help manage drought risk. We will also do more to tackle surface water flood risk.
Harnessing the power of nature to reduce flood and coastal erosion risk and achieve multiple benefits
We will double the number of Government funded projects which include nature-based solutions to reduce flood and coastal erosion risk. We will strengthen links between natural flood risk management and wider environmental and social benefits and explore how we can do more to deliver multiple benefits.
Better preparing our communities
We will ensure that every single home currently at high risk of flooding is better protected or better prepared. We will maintain and enhance our planning policies that direct new development away from areas at risk. We will ensure our communities and businesses have the information they need to take ownership of their resilience. Our policies will help to ensure that buildings, important infrastructure sites and key public services are better prepared to manage flood risk. We will work together to support communities, including when flooding happens and in recovery.
Enabling more resilient places through a catchment-based approach
We will adopt a catchment-based approach which means considering the full range of actions that could be taken in an area, upstream and downstream, by a variety of bodies to improve resilience. We will transform the current approach to local flood and coastal erosion risk planning so that every area of England will have a more strategic and comprehensive local plan by 2026 which drives long-term local action and investment. In areas facing significant coastal erosion and impacts from sea levels rising, we will support local areas to implement long-term plans to manage risk.
Alongside the policy statement, the Environment Agency will shortly lay before Parliament its National Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Strategy for England. The strategy which will provide direction to the work of risk management authorities on the ground and includes strategic objectives to improve the resilience of the nation through to 2100.
The new £200 million innovative resilience programme will test and demonstrate actions which are needed to deliver the ambition outlined in the policy statement. As well as delivering innovative actions in 25 selected areas, the evidence gained from the programme will enable successful approaches to be identified and implemented more widely.
In July 2019 Flood Re published its first quinquennial review into the scheme—a legislative requirement every five years—and made a number of proposals to Government. Having carefully considered these proposals I am today announcing that we will consult on a number of them, including some proposals which go further in order to increase the uptake of property flood resilience and better support customers and insurers to recognise the benefits. The proposals will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the scheme and incentivise the use of property flood resilience measures to make properties more resilient to flooding.
The actions the Government are committing to today will strengthen our approach to tackling flood and coastal erosion risk for the long-term and demonstrates the UK’s world-leading work to tackle climate change. They will improve our health and wellbeing, enhance our environment and support our economic recovery. Taken together this means that our country will be significantly more resilient to flooding and coastal erosion and will ensure that every place can thrive in a changing climate.
[HCWS360]
HMICFRS Report on National Crime Agency’s Criminal Intelligence Function
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
The National Crime Agency (NCA) leads the fight against serious and organised crime (SOC). It has the power to task other law enforcement partners and a capability, with local to international reach, to disrupt the impact of SOC on the UK.
This is the sixth HMICFRS inspection of the NCA and examines the effectiveness of its criminal intelligence function. The focus is specifically on capabilities, resourcing, alignment with the 2018 SOC strategy and the national strategic assessment (NSA), ability to provide a single, authoritative, strategic assessment of threat, and compliance with national intelligence standards and existing legislation.
I have asked HMICFRS to publish the report on my behalf. It will be published today and will be available online at www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk. I will arrange for a copy to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
The inspection found that the NCA is meeting its statutory obligation to provide a criminal intelligence function and has the resources and systems in place to effectively manage information. Some deficiencies were identified in relation to PND licence provision, the need for timely submission of regional threat assessment and ensuring staff and systems are equipped to adequately manage sensitive intelligence. HMICFRS made four recommendations which, once addressed, will improve procedures and strengthen the agency’s criminal intelligence capability.
It is for the NCA’s director-general to respond to these recommendations, in line with the requirements of the Crime and Courts Act 2013.
[HCWS363]
Director General of National Crime Agency (Reappointment of Lynn Owens)
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
I have reappointed Lynne Owens to be the Director General of the National Crime Agency for a further two years from January 2021. The Director General holds an extremely important position in UK Law Enforcement, leading and co-ordinating the response to serious and organised crime (SOC). SOC affects more UK citizens than any other national security threat and costs us more than £37 billion every year.
It is customary to advertise the post of DG NCA to attract the very best talent available from as wide a field as possible—and, under normal circumstances, I would pursue this approach. However, this year is different for two important reasons. First, the UK is facing a threat unparalleled in peacetime from the coronavirus pandemic, and the NCA is playing a key part by working closely with its law enforcement partners to ensure that we are stopping the organised criminals who despicably try to use the crisis to their advantage.
Second, the way in which the UK tackles SOC is at a crucial stage in its development. The independent review of SOC conducted by Sir Craig Mackey has concluded, and the findings are being explored by the Home Office. The Government will announce their response later in the year, but developing the capabilities and role of the NCA will be key to that response. The NCA must continue with its excellent work, but it must also strive to develop and improve to ensure we stay ahead of the threat from SOC.
There is an overwhelming need, therefore, for an experienced leader at the NCA to provide stability while we tackle the coronavirus pandemic and to ensure effective delivery of this Government’s manifesto commitment to strengthen the Agency. I have no doubt that in Lynne’s reappointment we will continue to see the work of a fantastic leader. During a career in law enforcement over 30 years, she has built up a wealth of experience holding a variety of different positions from frontline policing to Chief Constable of Surrey and, of course, Director General of the NCA.
[HCWS359]
Planning: Cultural Venues and Holiday Parks
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Robert Jenrick)
Planning update: preventing loss of cultural venues and planning conditions for holiday parks
Introduction
The nation’s cultural and tourism industries are vitally important to the economy and the communities they serve. Many businesses in the sector have, and are continuing to face, severe disruption due to covid-19. This statement comes into effect immediately.
Preventing loss of theatres, concert halls and live music performance venues
The covid-19 pandemic presents particular challenges for organisations that depend on engaging with audiences and visitors in person. It has forced thousands of cultural institutions to close their doors, including theatres, concert halls and live music performance venues across the country. This is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture Media and Sport announced £1.57 billion in financial support for the sector on 5 July to help these venues survive this period, and enable them to reopen when it is safe and economically viable to do so.
However, covid-19 will continue to prevent the full reopening of a number of these venues for some time. This means that previously viable businesses face unprecedent financial difficulty. The Government recognise that the temporary closure of theatres, concert halls and live music performance venues due to covid-19 has the potential to lead to permanent loss of important cultural and economic assets, and are determined that otherwise viable facilities are not lost forever.
The purpose of this written ministerial statement, is to set out how local planning authorities should approach decision making to prevent the unnecessary loss of these venues. With immediate effect, local planning authorities should have due regard to their current circumstances when considering whether to grant planning permission for a change of use or demolition of a theatre, concert hall or live music performance venue that has been made temporarily vacant by covid-19 business disruption.
Where an alternative use or demolition for a long-term vacant theatre, concert hall or live music performance venue is proposed, local planning authorities should consider the application in the normal way. The Theatres Trust is a statutory consultee under the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/595) for applications seeking to develop any land where there is a theatre and will have an opportunity to comment on any application relating to theatres.
This policy remains in place until 31 December 2022 unless superseded by a further statement.
It is also our intention to make an amendment to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development (England) Order 2015 (S.I. 2015/596) to remove permitted development rights for demolition of theatres, concert halls and live music performance venues.
Caravan and holiday parks
The Government also recognise that the tourism industry will need to be able to adapt to secure its financial future. In response to covid-19 the majority of UK businesses closed in March 2020, including caravan and holiday parks. This has had a significant impact on the financial viability of over 2,200 businesses in this sector that employ around 46,000 staff. These parks are a mainstay of their local economies, providing employment and supporting local services and businesses.
Caravan and holiday parks in England were able to reopen from 4 July 2020. Extending their operation beyond the usual summer season will be invaluable to parks as the sector begins to recover. We are aware that current planning conditions may limit their open season. The temporary relaxation of these planning restrictions can play a vital role in helping local businesses to get up and running again.
The national planning policy framework already emphasises that planning enforcement is a discretionary activity, and local planning authorities should act proportionately in responding to suspected breaches of planning control. Given the current situation, while local planning authorities must have regard to their legal obligations, they should not seek to undertake planning enforcement action which would unnecessarily restrict the ability of caravan and holiday parks to extend their open season.
Where local planning authorities consider it appropriate to require an application to vary relevant planning conditions (where for instance there is a risk of flooding or where parks are situated close to protected sites) they should prioritise the application and make an early decision to provide certainty to caravan and holiday park operators. In doing so, they should consider the benefits of longer opening season times to the local economy as it recovers from the impact of covid-19.
This written ministerial statement only covers England.
[HCWS367]
HS2 Safeguarding
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Andrew Stephenson)
I am today publishing additional safeguarding directions to protect a site in Leeds which we anticipate may be needed to build phase 2b of the HS2 project.
The site is not currently in use. Any future planning application affecting the land that has been identified in the safeguarding directions and associated map would first need to be discussed with HS2 Ltd, and if necessary the Secretary of State, before being determined for as long as the safeguarding directions remain in place.
The owner of the site has been made aware of the safeguarding directions prior to their publication as has the local planning authority, Leeds City Council. By protecting the site now, the Government guard against potentially conflicting development, which could otherwise disrupt the construction of HS2, and or increase the costs of building the new railway.
I am not publishing updated safeguarding directions for the remainder of the future phase 2b route at this stage.
The final scope and phasing of HS2 phase 2b will be determined following publication of the Government’s Integrated Rail Plan, which is expected to be published by the end of the year.
The Government periodically review land requirements needed for the project and update the extent of safeguarding accordingly. It is anticipated that land requirements for phase 2b HS2 will be updated prior to the deposit of a relevant hybrid Bill.
I am placing a copy of the safeguarding directions in the Libraries of both Houses.
Attachments can be viewed online at: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questionsanswers-statements/written-statement/Commons/2020-07-14/HCWS358/.
[HCWS358]
Future Trading Relationship with Australia: Update on Negotiations
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for International Trade (Elizabeth Truss)
Trade negotiators from the UK and Australia held the first round of negotiations for a UK-Australia free trade agreement (FTA) between 29 June and 10 July 2020.
We are now one step closer to an ambitious, wide-ranging free trade agreement with one of our oldest friends. An FTA with Australia can bring investment, better jobs, higher wages and lower prices just when we need them the most.
Both teams of negotiators recognised the unprecedented circumstances we find ourselves in and reiterated that more global trade is essential to support post-covid economic recovery.
Negotiations were conducted virtually and covered discussions on all areas of a comprehensive trade agreement.
The discussions covered the following areas:
Anti-corruption and transparency
Competition
Cross-cutting general provisions
Customs
Digital/e-commerce
Environment
Financial services
Trade in goods and trade remedies
Good regulatory practice
Intellectual property
Investment
Labour
Procurement
Rules of origin
Services, including movement of natural persons and professional business services
Small and medium-sized enterprises
State owned enterprises
Sanitary and phytosanitary measures
State to state dispute settlement
Technical barriers to trade
Telecommunications
We also had positive exploratory discussions on clean growth, development, women’s economic empowerment, and innovation.
Discussions between negotiators were productive and reflected our shared ambition to secure a comprehensive deal to boost trade and investment between our like-minded economies.
Teams discussed their respective objectives and agreed a forward plan for future talks. Our positive discussions in round one have laid the groundwork for the UK and Australia to achieve high-quality outcomes across the agreement.
The UK and Australia are aligned in many areas which will enable us to make quick progress across many chapters. In discussions, both countries emphasised a desire to be particularly ambitious in areas including services, digital trade and in supporting small and medium-sized enterprises to benefit from the opportunities that increased trade provide.
The Government are committed to negotiating a comprehensive agreement with Australia and we look forward to making further progress. We will explore the option of face-to-face negotiations when it is safe to do so. The Government will make their next statement on progress following the second round of talks, currently planned for September.
[HCWS361]
House of Lords
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, some Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing, and others are participating remotely, but all Members will be treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House.
Oral Questions will now commence. Please can those asking supplementary questions keep them short and confined to two points? I ask that Ministers’ answers are also brief.
Taiwan
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness D'Souza
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what (1) diplomatic, and (2) practical, assistance they are providing to the government of Taiwan; and what plans they have to formally recognise Taiwan as an independent sovereign state.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom’s long-standing policy on Taiwan has not changed. We have no diplomatic relations with Taiwan, but a strong unofficial relationship based on dynamic commercial, educational and cultural ties. We regularly lobby in favour of Taiwan’s participation in international organisations where statehood is not a prerequisite, and we make clear our concerns about any activity that risks destabilising the cross-strait status quo. We have no plans to recognise Taiwan as a state.
Baroness D'Souza (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for his sympathetic response. President Xi has made it clear that “one country, two systems” is the plan for Taiwan, and the 100th anniversary of the Chinese Communist Party in 2021 has been mentioned as a possible deadline. Will the Government consider taking small but significant steps and work with other like-minded nations less susceptible to Chinese influence to clarify and entrench Taiwan’s de facto independence? Such steps might specifically include inviting Taiwan as a guest to G7 meetings, lobbying for membership of the OECD as well as of the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and considering Cabinet-level ministerial visits to Taiwan.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, while noting what the noble Baroness said, I assure her that we continue to work with like-minded partners, particularly on participation for Taiwan in those organisations where statehood is not a prerequisite. Those include the World Health Organization. We also believe that Taiwan has an important role to play in the spheres of education and climate change.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, Taiwan has been preparing for a pandemic since the SARS epidemic in 2003. As a result, it has been able to tackle the terrible ravages of Covid-19 with great success. But at the World Health Assembly in May, the attendees, including us, were unable to learn about the methods of its success because Taiwan’s attendance as an observer was blocked by China. Will my noble friend please assure me that the diplomatic efforts of the UK will be used to try to prevent such a blocking from happening in the future?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I share my noble friend’s disappointment and concern. As I have already said, we believe that Taiwan has an important role to play, particularly in how it has dealt with the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, we continue to lobby for its participation in meetings such as those convened by the World Health Organization.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, can we raise the case of Lee Ming-che, a Taiwanese pro-democracy activist arrested in China and given a five-year prison sentence for posts on social media calling for democratic reforms? His wife, whom I have met, says that he is literally forced to eat rotten food and is denied prison visits. Following the imposition of the new security law in Hong Kong, what does this case say about the future of pro-democracy advocates in Hong Kong, and in mainland China?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for bringing this case to my attention. I assure him that we are monitoring it through our embassy in Beijing. While we have not raised it with Chinese counterparts, we regularly make known our concerns about the increasing restrictions on civil and political rights and freedom of expression in China. We do the same in Hong Kong.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I remind the House of my interest as the Government’s trade envoy to Taiwan. Will the Minister celebrate with me the 30% increase in trade between Britain and Taiwan over the past three years, and congratulate President Tsai Ing-wen and her Government on not just their triumphant re-election earlier this year in a fair and free contest but on their management of the Covid-19 crisis—that was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay; there have been 447 cases and just seven deaths out of a population of 23.8 million—and their generosity in donating 2 million face masks to the UK? I hope that the Minister will continue to do all he can to ensure that Taiwan is admitted to the WHO so that the whole world can learn from its success and share its expertise.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I share the noble Lord’s view of the positive elements of the relationship with Taiwan. My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary congratulated President Tsai on her victory.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, when the national security law was imposed on Hong Kong, 53 countries supported China on it at the UN Human Rights Council. Only 27 countries, including only half of EU states and no state in Asia, Africa or South America, supported us. Now that we have left the EU, how are we building a strong alliance to defend Taiwan against any aggression?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to raise this concern. I agree with her figures. As Human Rights Minister, I worked on that proposal. There is much more work to be done but I assure her that we work very closely with European partners, particularly on Hong Kong, and share common interests when it comes to Taiwan.
Lord West of Spithead (Lab) [V]
My Lords, as has already been stated, there was hope that perhaps “one country, two systems” might have been a way of unlocking the Taiwanese issue which has been a problem for so many years. Recent events in Hong Kong show that that was a chimera. We have real problems now with the way China is behaving towards Hong Kong. Chinese behaviour and the statement by Xi Jinping, possibly encouraged by the world’s focus on the Wuhan virus, must be confronted. Does the Minister agree that Taiwan must be shielded and that one way of doing that is its recognition by as many of the G20 as possible? That would send a very strong message to Xi Jinping that the way he is behaving is not helping anyone, least of all China.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, the Government’s position remains that the issue of Taiwan is to be settled by people on both sides of the Taiwan Strait. As I said already, we continue to lobby for Taiwan’s participation in key organisations where it has a pivotal role to play.
Lord Bowness (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the answers he has given, which suggest that we are very well disposed towards Taiwan. However, that is only one element. In the UK, we have seen the City of London withdraw its invitation to Taiwan to participate in the Lord Mayor’s Show and British Airways rewrite its destination listings so that Taiwan and, indeed, Hong Kong, are listed under China. Does my noble friend agree that we should be giving organisations such as the City and British Airways every support to resist this pressure from China, which is quite improper?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, individual companies and organisations will make their own decisions. The United Kingdom continues to acknowledge Taiwan. Whenever we categorise Taiwan we do so under the designation of country or region, and we will continue to do so. Individual companies will make their own decisions.
Lord Kilclooney (CB)
My Lords, as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Taiwan and having visited Taiwan on many occasions, I find it a nation which is a great stable democracy. Can the Government of the United Kingdom now consider improving high-level exchanges with Taiwan? For example, are the President of Taiwan, the Vice-President and the Foreign Minister banned from coming to the United Kingdom because of their political positions or are they banned as individuals?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, I have already said that we continue to engage with Taiwan. The most recent visit was by a Trade Minister, so we engage with Taiwan at ministerial level.
Lord Wood of Anfield (Lab) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether it is the Government’s policy to achieve a bilateral trade deal between the UK and Taiwan, as urged by the Foundation for Independence, a think tank very close to senior figures in this Government?
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon
My Lords, we continue to work on important common themes with Taiwan, and trade is one of them. Obviously my colleagues at the Department for International Trade will continue to see how we can further strengthen our ties with Taiwan.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Covid-19: Vaccine Availability
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sheehan
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that a COVID-19 vaccine, if developed, is (1) available to, and (2) affordable for, low- and middle-income countries.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Department for International Development (Baroness Sugg) (Con)
My Lords, the UK is leading international efforts to develop and ensure fair and affordable access to a Covid-19 vaccine. The UK has committed up to £250 million to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and is the largest donor to Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. These organisations are key to developing and globally distributing a Covid-19 vaccine. We are committed to working with international partners to develop a vaccine and make it available to all.
Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister for her reply. However, Gavi and CEPI have taken no action to tackle IP barriers to ensure access for all. The Government cannot assume that access, supply and affordability will simply be dealt with by others through the WHO ACT-Accelerator. Does the Minister agree that there is a critical need for the UK Government to attach conditions, including pricing and transparency controls, to their public funding of the potential vaccine being developed by Oxford University and AstraZeneca?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we of course support the WHO Access to Covid-19 Tools Accelerator, a global call to action to accelerate the development and production of and equitable access to new Covid-19 diagnostics, therapeutics and vaccines. We are working closely with AstraZeneca to ensure that we have the right number of doses in the UK and that they are distributed throughout the developing world.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab) [V]
We all recognise the criticality of a high take-up rate of a vaccine, once one is developed. What steps, if any, are Her Majesty’s Government taking or planning to increase public awareness of the need to engage with the vaccine programme and, probably more importantly, to challenge fears and misconceptions over receiving a vaccine?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, I completely agree that if—and, we hope, when—a vaccine is developed we need to ensure that it gets to the people who need it most. Getting vaccinated against preventable diseases is the right thing to do to protect others as well as yourself. Since the start of the pandemic, we have been working with specialist government units to identity and rebut false information, and we will be working closely with Gavi and CSOs to make sure that when and if a vaccine is found it is properly distributed.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
What assurances can the Minister provide that the forthcoming merger of DfID with the FCO will not impact on its plans to ensure that any Covid-19 vaccine is made available speedily and equitably to low and middle-income countries?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, with the new Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office we will be able to maximise both our development and our diplomatic muscle, so I very much hope that the new merger will mean that we are able to do more in this area.
Lord Elton (Con) [V]
My Lords, whatever the eventual outcome, we must assist countries that are poorer than ours. However, I am concerned that we should not be caught on the back foot if the contingency for which we are now planning—the discovery of an effective vaccine—is not forthcoming. We need contingency plans to deal with the situation either where there is no vaccine or where the vaccine that is discovered has a very short viable life. Is the laudable effort being put into pursuing economic fairness between countries preventing the development of these contingency plans?
Baroness Sugg
My noble friend is right to highlight that. Of course, we do not know whether a vaccine will be found or, if it is, how effective it will be. We are taking a comprehensive approach, making sure that we invest also in globally accessible treatments and tests. We have provided up to £40 million to the COVID-19 Therapeutics Accelerator and up to £23 million to the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics to develop and deliver new Covid-19 tests.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD) [V]
My Lords, Covid-19 is a global pandemic with no respect for national borders. We know that as long as anyone is at risk from this virus, the entire world is at risk. Is the Minister aware of recent polling conducted by the Wellcome Foundation in the UK, the US, Germany and France that shows strong public support for making sure that any new treatments or vaccines are made available first to those who need them most, wherever in the world they live? Does she agree with the overwhelming view expressed there that national Governments should work together on a global response based on need rather than on ability to pay?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, our best chance of defeating this virus is by working together globally to develop a mass-produced vaccine that is accessible and affordable to all. The UK absolutely supports a global approach to the rapid development and scaled-up manufacture of vaccines, with equitable access to all who need them.
Baroness Verma (Con) [V]
My Lords, what are the Government doing to ensure that rural communities in poorer countries will get access to a vaccine when one becomes available? In the meantime, nutrition is vital for those communities to keep in reasonable health as best they can. Does my noble friend see merit in DfID investment in local laboratories so that, regionally, countries can access not just Covid vaccines but other vaccines and medicines and make them accessible in a timely manner?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, our £48 million of support for Gavi’s Covid-19 advance market commitment aims to ensure affordable access for developing countries. The UK has a proven track record of leading in this area. Gavi’s new strategy will increase its focus on zero-dose children, with targeted investments in health systems to improve immunisation access in the hardest-to-reach areas. And, of course, we will continue our significant work on nutrition.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB) [V]
My Lords, we are faced with a pandemic that extends across every continent except Antarctica, affecting every country, rich and poor. To follow the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler of Enfield, will the Government encourage the creation of a global fund, as was done in the case of anti-retroviral drugs to combat AIDS, as a matter of urgency to enable all poorer countries to meet the costs of distribution of the drug as soon as it becomes available?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we are supporting many international funds to ensure equitable access for all who need it. We support the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator, which is the global call to action to accelerate development of a vaccine. We also support the recently formed Covax facility partnership, which is actively taking part in discussions on its mechanism and structure. Under the accelerator, Covax brings together international partners and Governments, and has the potential to ensure that a vaccine is accessible and affordable.
Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)
My Lords, Gavi is a success story, and the Government’s commitment to it is great, but Gavi can ask more of pharmaceutical companies. MSF recently made three recommendations to secure equitable access, including: requiring pharmaceutical companies to sell Covid vaccines at cost; boosting transparency, which we do not have enough of at the moment; and ensuring that civil society organisations have a meaningful role in distribution. What steps are the Government taking on these three recommendations?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, the work in this area is being led by the Vaccine Taskforce in the UK, which will ensure that the work being done in the UK to find a vaccine complements and supports global efforts. I will come back to the noble Lord in writing on the three specific points that he raised.
Baroness Barker (LD) [V]
My Lords, how will the Government influence the US Administration to agree and accelerate the affordable pricing of, and access to, a Covid vaccine?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we are working with the US, and indeed all our international partners, to ensure that we have a truly collaborative approach to developing this vaccine.
Lord Loomba (CB) [V]
My Lords, Professor Robin Shattock, head of the research team at Imperial College, said last Sunday that vaccine testing was progressing well. However, it is most likely that a vaccine will be available for mass use by the middle of next year. Do the UK Government have any policy or safeguards in place to stop profiteering from the discovery and to stop more prosperous countries hoarding the vaccine, preventing less-developed countries gaining access to it?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, we are working closely with all manufacturers to ensure that we have full, affordable access to all vaccines.
Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her efforts. Will she urge her ministerial colleagues, and indeed the Prime Minister, to provide continued world leadership on vaccine sharing, particularly backing Gavi and Bill and Melinda Gates’s initiative, for all to benefit from vaccine research and progress?
Baroness Sugg
My Lords, our record shows that we are taking a leading role in this. The Prime Minister has consistently called on world leaders to work together to rapidly develop a vaccine and make it available to all, including at the Coronavirus Global Response pledging conference, which the UK co-led, and at the recent Global Citizen summit. The UK also hosted the Gavi summit, which raised over £6.9 billion for Gavi to sustain its immunisation coverage and bolster the primary healthcare systems needed to tackle Covid-19. We will continue to play this leading international role.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, all supplementary questions have been asked and we now move to the next Question.
Trade Agreements
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Haskel
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether clauses (1) protecting human rights, and (2) maintaining environmental standards, will be inserted in the trade agreements being negotiated as a result of the United Kingdom’s departure from the European Union.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and Department for International Trade (Lord Grimstone of Boscobel) (Con)
My Lords, protecting human rights and maintaining environmental standards will always be at the front of our minds when negotiating trade agreements. We have a strong history of safeguarding rights and promoting our values globally. Although our approach to negotiations will vary between partners, it will always allow Her Majesty’s Government to have open discussions on these matters and include provisions as appropriate.
Lord Haskel (Lab) [V]
The Minister speaks of open discussions, but he does not satisfy the parliamentarian’s concern or explain the Government’s reluctance to involve Parliament in these trade negotiations, particularly with the EU. Your Lordships’ International Agreements Sub-Committee reported last week that even the devolved Administrations had been shut out of these negotiations. So, in spite of his assurances, will the Minister at least confirm that Parliament will have a say in these trade negotiations?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel
My Lords, the report to which the noble Lord referred actually complimented my department for the way that it has interacted with the IAC. Before we commence negotiations, we make available a full pack of information, including an economic assessment and the results of our consultations. At the end of each negotiation, we have committed to follow the criteria and to make sure that the IAC has details of the negotiated treaty in good time to be able to report to the House.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham
My Lords, just this week we have heard reports of poor working conditions and pay in factories in Leicester, but the UK is also heavily reliant on international supply chains. Will the Minister specify what steps the Government are taking to ensure that trade agreements insist that all UK imports are produced by workers with good conditions and dignified pay?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel
My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes an excellent point. The UK is committed to working with international partners and businesses to tackle modern slavery in global supply chains. It is vital that increased trade is not based on the exploitation and abuse of workers.
Baroness Warsi (Con) [V]
My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware of the business and human rights policy developed in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, specifically under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Hague? Will he commit to ensuring that those principles underpin negotiations in relation to future trade discussions to ensure that human rights are an essential part of any trade that happens, either into or out of the United Kingdom?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel
My Lords, we are clear that more trade does not have to come at the expense of our rights and responsibilities. Political freedom and the rule of law are vital underpinnings for both prosperity and stability; we will continue to encourage all states to uphold international rights and obligations during our conduct of trade negotiations.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, does the Minister agree that all international agreements should undergo a net-zero assessment prior to ratification in Parliament so that we, and the public, understand the full emissions implications of the international trade deals that HMG enter into on our, and all our citizens’, behalf?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a very good point. Not just for ourselves but for the generations coming after us, we all rightly attach huge importance to these matters. We will make sure that they are taken fully into account in our negotiations.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Haskel’s important Question raises the intended and unintended consequences of trade deals and their implications for the vulnerable, not only in our own society—where the problem is acute enough—but among the poor of the world. Can the Minister give us an assurance that, in the new combined department, those Ministers and officials with specific responsibilities for development and overseas relations will each have a part to play in ensuring that the well-being of the international community, and the vulnerable within it, is safeguarded in any trade deals?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a good point. We work closely with our colleagues in other departments to ensure that those matters are fully taken into account. My belief is that the new changes to the machinery of government will make our voice even more effective in these matters at the country level.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD) [V]
Rights and standards were a part of the human rights clauses that we insisted were in our trade agreements when we were a member of the EU. We are negotiating with the US, a country which has ratified only two out of the eight core fundamental ILO conventions, whereas we have ratified them all. On climate, the US has refused to include a climate chapter in its negotiations with us. Can the Government allay fears by giving a simple undertaking: that no EU-retained law on human rights, labour standards, climate or environment will be amended or repealed by any trade agreement or partnership agreement?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel
My Lords, the series of trade agreements in effect at the moment—to which we were bound by our membership of the EU—are being rolled over into various continuity agreements. I can confirm that all those continuity agreements will contain within them the appropriate provisions in relation to human rights and environmental standards.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister explain to us what the role of the trade commission will be and why it is being set up for only six months? How can it achieve anything in such a short time? Will he reassure the House today that no animal product imported into this country will be produced to a lower standard of animal welfare than we expect our farmers in this country to meet?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel
My Lords, our manifesto was clear that in all our trade negotiations we will seek to maintain our high environmental protection, animal welfare and food standards. We have recently announced the setting-up of the Trade and Agriculture Commission to ensure that the strongest possible range of views is made available to us in our policymaking. There is always a trade-off between getting on with things and time taken; in consultation with members of the commission, we felt that six months was the right time to allow for this work so that, in due course, its results can be made available to the House.
Lord Stevenson of Balmacara (Lab) [V]
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Haskel mentioned the recent report of your Lordships’ Sub-Committee on International Agreements. The Minister will be aware that that committee has announced a significant change in practice: in future, it will assess all new trade agreements on their merits and flag up issues that this House might wish to debate prior to ratification. Will the Minister join me in warmly welcoming this long-overdue first step towards proper parliamentary scrutiny of future trade agreements?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel
My Lords, I am a huge champion of transparency and open dialogue in these matters. I believe that we will come to better decisions with such transparency and I welcome the work that the IAC is doing to bring these matters, in due course, before the House.
Baroness Coussins (CB) [V]
My Lords, can the Minister ensure that, once we are no longer part of the EU FTA with Peru, Colombia and Ecuador, our continuity agreement and any subsequent bilateral or regional FTAs will include not only a human rights clause, as at present, but the teeth of a review mechanism and sanctions; and that specific reference is made to the rights of indigenous communities before any British-run companies—particularly from the extractive industries —take action which affects the livelihoods and environments of these communities?
Lord Grimstone of Boscobel
My Lords, the noble Baroness makes an important point. The UK is a world leader in human rights policy. We were the first country to produce a national action plan for the implementation of UN guiding principles on business and human rights, and we are clear that more trade does not have to come at the expense of our rights and responsibilities.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for this Question has now elapsed.
Medical Teaching and Learning: Ethnic Diversity
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Thornton
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that ethnic diversity is fully reflected in all aspects of medical teaching and learning.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Lord Bethell) (Con)
My Lords, the Government understand the importance of racial equality and diversity within the NHS and are committed to ensuring that this is reflected in medical training. We think we could do better, which is why the General Medical Council sets standards to ensure that students and doctors in training have the opportunity to understand the needs of patients from diverse social, cultural and ethnic backgrounds. That is why Health Education England provides a learning module on equality, diversity and human rights for all health and social care staff.
Baroness Thornton (Lab) [V]
Thank you, my Lords. I thank the Minister for that Answer. We live in a multiracial society; our NHS serves everyone and is staffed by everyone. However, the training of our doctors, nurses and medical technicians appears not to reflect this fact. We do not know whether current clinical language and learning has exacerbated the dangers to patients from a BME background during the pandemic, for example.
I pay tribute to Malone Mukwende, a student at St George’s, University of London, who published Mind the Gap as guidance for healthcare professionals, showing how skin conditions manifest on darker-skinned patients. This is a question of medical training, not a question of options that people might opt in to. We have to integrate these issues into our medical training to ensure that all healthcare professionals are able to recognise, diagnose and treat all our citizens from all ethnic backgrounds. Are the Government going to act on that?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness’s point. She is entirely right that we live in an extremely diverse community, and this has an impact not only on the way people present their disease but on how they could and should be treated. This is why we build diversity awareness into our training and why we will build extra programmes into the People Plan that will be published shortly, and that is why we remain committed to this agenda.
Lord Boateng (Lab) [V]
[Inaudible.] Disparity in any part of the healthcare system is a threat to public health. In health education, there is underrepresentation of the black British community in student entry, among academic staff and in attainment. What specific actions do the Government intend to take to address this fact in each of those areas?
Lord Bethell
My Lords, the recruitment of 50,000 new nurses, more GPs and new trainees into our medical colleges is being done in a fresh and, importantly, exciting new way, with a much greater focus in the marketing and advertising on attracting those from BME communities. This recruitment programme will, I hope, present a little bit of an inflection point in our approach to recruitment.
Baroness Jolly (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Medical Schools Council is steered by an executive committee of 42, which is elected from its membership. Of these, only four are of an ethnic minority background and 11 are women. Apart from encouragement, can the Minister tell the House what the Government are doing to ensure that, across medical and other health professional training, there is proportional representation of both ethnic and gender minority teachers?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is right; the representation of BAME communities at the higher echelons of the medical establishment is not good enough. In too many areas, the representation is not fair and does not reflect the much higher proportion of BME workers at other levels of the health service. We are working hard on a variety of agendas: the People Plan, which I have already mentioned, and the NHS workforce race equality standard. These measures are taken seriously and we are working hard to change the balance of representation.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con) [V]
Does the Minister agree that, in considering this important subject, there is certainly no room for complacency? However, we do need to know accurately the extent of the problem. Certainly, in all my years in medicine, I have always had this subject very much in mind in selecting and teaching students, selecting doctors and management generally.
Incidentally, I have been very close to members of ethnic minorities who have done much better in life than I have: fellows of the Royal Society, members of the Order of Merit, knights of the Order of the Thistle, presidents of royal colleges and even one who became a king.
Lord Bethell
My Lords, I completely agree with the noble Lord, Lord McColl, that complacency is our enemy. I recommend to him the NHS workforce race equality standard publication, which is very detailed in its analysis of the problem and is a guide to the challenge we face and a measure of how far we have come. I completely commend the achievements of those in the BAME community who often far outperform those of us who were born in Britain.
Baroness Prashar (CB) [V]
My Lords, we all know that incorporating diversity into medical school curricula is an effective way to develop culturally sensitive responses by medical practitioners. However, does the Minister agree that we need medical curricula where diversity is integral and understood in all its dimensions, including institutional and personal biases? Would he also agree that the current guidance, while welcome, is full of good intent but lacks conceptual clarity, and that more effective work is needed to develop a meaningful and more rounded curriculum and means to evaluate its efficacy?
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness put her point well, although the broadband deficiencies meant that I did not get all of it. I emphasise that this area of policy work is very much the focus of the drafting of the People Plan, which will put a spotlight on a number of the areas of our human resources, including BAME people, and we look forward to the publication of that plan.
Baroness Blackstone (Ind Lab) [V]
My Lords, while the curricula of medical schools are for them to determine, could the Minister tell the House whether any meetings between the Medical Schools Council and Ministers have taken place recently? Will he ensure that a meeting is arranged in the near future to hear from the medical schools what they are doing, first, to improve the representation of Afro-Caribbean staff and students and, secondly, to ensure that teaching and research properly explore those conditions to which the BAME community is especially susceptible? Black lives really do matter.
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness asks a very specific question; I cannot, I am afraid, answer precisely on what meetings there have been with the medical councils, particularly during the busy Covid period. All I can say is that there is ongoing and regular engagement with the medical schools that focuses very much on the key issues that she describes. Diversity and Inclusion: Our Strategic Framework 2018-2022, from Health Education England, is a very explicit and specific programme of works in which we engage all those in health education. As I mentioned, we are working extremely hard on our recruitment campaigns to ensure that they reach communities otherwise not reached.
Baroness Hussein-Ece (LD) [V]
My Lords, while reflecting diversity in medical training and learning is critical, needed alongside that is a change in the culture in the NHS. Evidence shows that racism, bullying and harassment are not diminishing. Is the Minister satisfied that the clinical leadership across NHS services is committed to learning from the research evidence on the impact of racism and discrimination on health, life chances and mortality?
Lord Bethell
I am not satisfied; the statistics are not good enough. Twenty-nine per cent of BAME staff experienced harassment. That is not good enough; we must work harder.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (Non-Afl) [V]
Perhaps I might take the Minister upstream a little to the choices made by different communities about entering medical school. What work is being done at 15 and 16 year-old level in schools? Has his department had any conversations with Ofsted about the career choices that kids from diverse communities are making? Many realise that they want to go into medicine when it is too late and they have missed the appropriate A-level subjects so to do.
Lord Bethell
The noble Baroness is entirely right that decisions on careers are often made at school and if we do not get to people then we may miss them for ever. That is why we have built a major schools component into our recent recruitment campaign. It started in April, but it has been delayed by the Covid epidemic; it will restart shortly. I have commended it a couple of times already, but I reassure the noble Baroness that it has a hefty schools component to it, which I understand is working extremely well.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Lexden) (Con)
My Lords, the time allowed for the Question has now elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, proceedings will now commence. Some Members are here in the Chamber, others are participating virtually, but all Members are treated equally. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. The usual rules and courtesies in debate apply, and I ask that questions and answers are brief.
House of Lords: Relocation
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Cookham
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they plan to relocate the House of Lords to York.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord True) (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will know that, in light of the principle of exclusive cognisance, this is ultimately a decision for a sovereign Parliament.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con) [V]
My Lords, in the words of an exasperated Lord Speaker, “Here we go again.” It is all very well to say that it is a matter for Parliament, but it is the Executive, not Parliament, that keeps this hare running. Government policy was set out in May last year:
“We agree with the Committee that the R&R programme should ensure that the Palace of Westminster is fit to serve as the home of the UK Parliament in the future.”
Has government policy, now in primary legislation, changed? Have Civil Service resources been considering moving your Lordships’ House to York? If so, who authorised it and what is the remit and the costs so far?
Lord True
My Lords, I can only repeat the position that I have stated: this is a matter which would, in the end, be resolved by Parliament and in Parliament. I say to my noble friend, whom I greatly respect, that, given the circumstances, I think it is reasonable for all of us to examine how every part of Parliament may find itself closer to the people.
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, to press the Minister further, he tells us that it is a decision for Parliament—so all well and good—but what will the consultative process be? Can he give an absolute guarantee, despite the fact that, as he said, we live in challenging times, this will ultimately be a decision for Parliament?
Lord True
My Lords, this great House is part of a legislature, and in any consideration of its future the exigencies of parliamentary practice and procedure will always have to be considered. The Government will, of course, give careful consideration to ensuring that our Parliament continues to operate effectively.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD) [V]
My Lords, if, as the Minister has just confirmed, the final decision is a matter for Parliament alone, can he explain the justification for the extensive press briefing last week and Michael Gove’s confirmation that this is indeed something the Government are considering? Have there yet been any assessments by the Government of how this will be taken forward? Have there been any studies either of the site in York—which has actually been vacant for some time because they find it very hard to get interest from commercial operators for it—or how this will affect the relationship between the two Houses or between Parliament and Government? If not, why not?
Lord True
My Lords, I just said that the relationship between the two Houses and parliamentary procedure will obviously be matters for consideration. Noble Lord will know that the R&R process means that the sponsor body has to consider alternative sites for Parliament. This is a matter on which there will be further announcements in due course.
Lord Judge (CB) [V]
My Lords, I understand the argument about the relationship between the Houses and what may happen; this is about the Executive and the relationship with each House. Do not simple courtesy and constitutional propriety oblige the Executive immediately to consult either House about any proposal to relocate that House?
Lord Lang of Monkton (Con) [V]
My Lords, the rumour is a persistent one. Does my noble friend agree that our bicameral parliamentary system strengthens the checks and balances of the Executive in Parliament? How would splitting the system and moving to York this House, in which no Government have a majority, improve those checks and balances? Is it not the case that this would not be decentralisation, as has been mooted in the rumours, but would in reality deliver more centralisation into the hands of the Executive in London?
Lord True
My Lords, I agree that practical working considerations are important. I repeat, however, one of the wider considerations here, which is that the Government’s intention, which was very clear in the manifesto, is to find ways to bring the whole process of government closer to the people. I do not believe that Parliament or, indeed, this House should simply reject that concept or the idea that that matter needs to be reflected on. Constructive proposals and discussion of this are always welcome.
Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, Henry VIII sought to placate his rebels with a Parliament in York. Will the Minister say who, this time, they are trying to placate by suggestions of a Parliament in York? It sounds as if he is trying to rid himself of these pesky Lords. He should be careful of what happened to an earlier Henry when that happened. My concern about what the Minister said is that he suggested that this might be being thought of as a temporary home while we move out. That is a dangerous suggestion, if I heard him correctly. Will he again confirm that it is for this House to decide where this House will meet?
Lord True
Yes, my Lords. I simply referred to the well-known fact of the work of the sponsor body being ongoing. That sponsor body has announced its strategic review of the R&R programme and that is one of the immediate circumstances we face. Again, I return to the general context. My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was criticised, but he was absolutely clear in his response on the Marr programme. He said that, as far as the legislature goes, that is obviously a question for the House of Commons and House of Lords. That is the Government’s position.
The Lord Bishop of Birmingham
Does the Minister agree that, whether temporarily or permanently, it is better, in a bicameral system, as the noble Lord, Lord Lang, alluded to, for the two Houses to be placed together? In terms of reaching the people, would he also commend the Lord Speaker’s outreach programme to bring civic duties and understanding to schools as a good way of communicating? By the way, when this was last talked about here, the incoming Archbishop of York offered his garden, which is extensive, as a place. May I humbly suggest that there is a nearer alternative in Birmingham?
Lord True
I am not going to interpose my body between Birmingham and York. The right reverend Prelate is correct that outreach is important. To give an example, I had the honour of chairing your Lordships’ Select Committee on Intergenerational Fairness and Provision; I took evidence in Doncaster, which was illuminating and helpful. The broader context of this debate and discussion, in so far as it has started, is that the Government intend to take parts of the central Civil Service out of London. We intend to bring the process of government closer to the people. We in this House should not shut ourselves away from considering how we can do that. The right reverend Prelate referred to a very good ongoing practice.
Lord Tyler (LD) [V]
My Lords, given the various attempts by No. 10 to emasculate the scrutiny work of your Lordships’ House, can we take it that this proposal to banish us to York is simply a threat to cut off the House from MPs, Ministers, Cabinet, civil servants and the rest, and to weaken our constitutional role? Would it not be much less disruptive to send the whole Cabinet Office to York? That would not need a lengthy parliamentary process and would, in the words of the Minister, bring government closer to the public. Has the Leader of the House made any representations on this to Messrs Johnson, Gove and Cummings?
Lord True
My Lords, I have put on record what my right honourable friend Michael Gove said. The noble Lord speaks from outside this Chamber, which is perfectly reasonable. In this current emergency, your Lordships have been scattered to the four corners of the kingdom. There has been no parallel since 1665 when the House took itself to Oxford to avoid the plague. Speaking as a Minister, I do not feel either today or on other occasions that the intense and proper scrutiny from your Lordships has been weakened. I reject any contention that this Government want at any time to weaken parliamentary scrutiny.
Baroness Deech (CB) [V]
Does the Minister agree that the proposed move would be a constitutional emasculation and a gesture of disrespect, and would work only if the Commons moved as well? In terms of spreading governance to the north, this is not likely to work any better than the BBC’s partial move to Salford. If it happened, the move would result only in far more virtual working. Moreover, since the Writ of Summons from the Queen commands noble Lords to meet in Westminster, does the Minister realise that any move will involve the royal prerogative and legislation, drawing the Crown into this? I hope the Minister agrees that the response of the House should be to press on with reform. Does he agree that this House, given the virtues of virtual working, could contribute to a quicker and cheaper refurbishment not by moving anywhere but by offering to work virtually during the refurbishment period?
Lord True
My Lords, I and the Government welcome any constructive suggestions from Members of your Lordships’ House on how to achieve these objectives. The experience of virtual working will have been read and noted by all of us in different ways and with different implications. I return to the fact that this is a House of Parliament—it needs to be treated with respect and to have the last say.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con) [V]
My Lords, this whole issue has developed into something of a media circus. Does the Minister agree that serious consideration must be given to the number of noble Lords who have to travel from all parts of the United Kingdom, and that London therefore remains by far the best and most convenient location? What consideration will be given to such Members?
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I call the next speaker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Aberavon. We are unable to hear the noble and learned Lord. I call the next speaker, Lord Singh of Wimbledon.
Lord Singh of Wimbledon (CB) [V]
My Lords, York is seen as something of an outer Mongolia by the general public, who view the House of Lords as an outdated institution. The reality is that it is packed with experts in every field of life. Does the Minister agree that we need to be more proactive in publicising what we do in our essential scrutinising and amending of legislation and the work of our committees?
Lord True
I strongly with the noble Lord. Indeed, he echoed something said by the right reverend Prelate earlier. That is important. I revere this House and the work it does, but it should not present itself as being in a state of shock horror at the idea that some of its proceedings and activities might take place outside London.
Lord Norton of Louth (Con) [V]
My Lords, moving the House of Lords to York will not bring Parliament closer to the people. Could my noble friend answer my noble friend Lord Young’s question? Has Civil Service time, and hence public funds, been devoted to considering a move of the House of Lords?
The Deputy Speaker
My Lords, the time allowed for this Private Notice Question has now elapsed.
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, we now come to the first of four business Motions. As there is no speakers’ list for these Motions, only those in the Chamber can participate other than the mover, and those wishing to do so should give notice of their intention in advance.
Business of the House
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That the debate on the motion in the name of the Lord Bishop of Birmingham set down for Wednesday 15 July be time-limited to 1 hour.
Business of the House
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Friday 17 July to allow the Finance Bill, the Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Bill and the Stamp Duty Land Tax (Temporary Relief) Bill to be taken through their remaining stages that day.
Business of the House
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Ashton of Hyde
That Standing Order 46 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Monday 20 July to allow the Business and Planning Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day and that therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 48 (Amendments on Third Reading), amendments shall not be moved on Third Reading.
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, the Business and Planning Bill is an important part of the legislative response to Covid-19. If the Bill is to reach Royal Assent before the summer and therefore be of use to businesses, it must complete its passage through this House by the close of play on Monday next week. It had been agreed through the usual channels to take Committee yesterday and then Report and Third Reading next Monday. Because of the relatively slow progress made yesterday, the Committee stage will need to continue and conclude today. Those noble Lords involved in the Bill were notified last night. This will delay the start of our further consideration of the Agriculture Bill. Those participants have also been informed. It remains our intention to take Report and Third Reading of the Business and Planning Bill next Monday, as originally agreed through the usual channels and notified to the House on 1 July. This Motion will allow us to do that. I beg to move.
Intelligence and Security Committee
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
That this House approves the nomination of Lord West of Spithead as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Baroness Northover (LD)
The Intelligence and Security Committee is not a usual Select Committee governed by parliamentary rules. It has a wide-ranging role in overseeing MI5, MI6, GCHQ, Defence Intelligence, Joint Intelligence, the National Security Secretariat and the Office for Security and Counter-Terrorism. It is supposed to be less partisan and more independently minded even than Select Committees. Yet the accusation is that not only have the Government packed it with willing supporters with no expertise in this area but that the Prime Minister has also made it clear that he wishes Chris Grayling to chair it. As Dominic Grieve, former chair of the committee and former Attorney-General, put it:
“The whole point about this committee is it is non-partisan.”
He made it clear that the Prime Minister should not
“be seeking to tell the committee who should be the chair.”
If Mr Grayling turns out to be the chair, the Government’s protestations that they played no part will ring hollow.
The SNP’s Ian Blackford stated:
“The likely nomination of Chris Grayling as chair—who has a distinct record in government as a jack of all trades and master of none—will deliver a blow to the effectiveness of the committee’s work.”
This committee usually has two members from the House of Lords. Why have the Government not nominated someone from their Benches? The Guardian reports:
“Normally the Tories would have nominated a peer as a member, but the concern was that any nominee might be less likely to support”
Chris Grayling. Even the Telegraph reports:
“Two senior Conservative MPs told The Telegraph that the fact a new committee has not been formed since December’s general election was a result of ‘the complete control freakery of the Cummings group within No 10 … They want total control of key appointments so they can appoint their own people.’”
Mr Grayling, whom the Guardian gently describes as “accident-prone”, has no previous experience in this area. Yet, as the Independent puts it, while we face
“a bewildering and frightening range of external and internal threats from rogue states, hostile powers such as China and Russia, and terrorists … the committee is about to be headed by someone thought of as a Downing Street stooge who is out of his depth.”
In that context, I welcome the nomination of the noble Lord, Lord West, by the Labour Party. He is supremely qualified for the position. If we are all allowed to nominate the chair, I propose that it is the noble Lord, Lord West.
Meanwhile, we have not yet seen the report on Russian influence on our politics. The previous chair and committee signed it off for publication almost a year ago. It must be published immediately so that it can be scrutinised before the Summer Recess, and not in a redacted and altered state. The delay in the release of the MPs’ report examining Russian influence on British politics is “not normal”, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, the former Foreign Secretary and former chair, insisted. He also declared:
“It is an absurd position that No. 10 Downing Street have put themselves in.”
I therefore look forward to the noble Baroness’s response.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park
First, I thank my noble friend Lord Lothian and the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, for their long-standing and excellent service on the committee.
In answer to the noble Baroness’s series of questions, the size of the committee and the process for nominating its members are clearly set out in Section 1 of the Justice and Security Act 2013. Both Houses agreed to the process in that Act, which is, as she rightly said, consciously different from that of appointing a conventional Select Committee. The nine members of the ISC have been proposed by the Prime Minister following consultation with the leader of the Opposition, and it is not unprecedented for this House to provide only one member of the committee. In the 2005 to 2010 Parliament, this House provided only one member. On this occasion, the Prime Minister has decided to nominate five Conservative MPs. As the noble Baroness will also be aware, selection of the chair is a matter for the committee itself.
Finally, the noble Baroness asked about the Russia report. The report is the property of the independent ISC and, as such, it is not for the Government to publish it but for the committee to lay its report before Parliament —and the sooner we get this Motion agreed, the sooner the committee will be able to get on with that work.
Business and Planning Bill
Tuesday 14th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Business and Planning Act 2020 View all Business and Planning Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 119-I Marshalled list for Committee - (8 Jul 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
My Lords, a limited number of Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Other Members will participate remotely, but all Members will be treated equally, wherever they are. For Members participating remotely, microphones will unmute shortly before they are to speak—please accept any on-screen prompt to unmute. Microphones will be muted after each speech. I ask noble Lords to be patient if there are any short delays as we switch between physical and remote participants. I should remind the House that our normal courtesies in debate still very much apply in this new hybrid way of working.
A participants’ list for today’s proceedings has been published and is in my brief, which Members should have received. I also have lists of Members who have put their names to the amendments in, or expressed an interest in speaking on, each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Members’ microphones will be muted by the broadcasters except when I call a Member to speak. Interventions during speeches or before the noble Lord sits down are not permitted and uncalled speakers will not be heard.
During the debate on each group, I will invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and will call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding, and it will not be possible to degroup an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments. When putting the question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group.
Baroness Pinnock (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is a pity that the debate on these important amendments has not been taken as a whole. I am responding to the introduction to the debate on this group, which began late last night.
Throughout the debate on the Bill, we have heard how important it is that businesses are given a temporary helping hand to make them viable in the longer term. My noble friend Lady Doocey has provided three detailed changes to legislation that will make a substantial difference to tourism businesses, as well as to those regions of our country whose local economies depend absolutely on holidaymakers. I hope, and anticipate, that the Government will be able to respond constructively and positively to these immensely helpful amendments.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport (Lab) [V]
My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, raise the matter of caravan sites, campsites and holiday accommodation operating during the winter months, as well as the related issue of combined holiday offers. The tourism industry has been hit more than most during recent months and the Government must explore all options to support it during these turbulent times.
I am pleased to inform the Committee that my noble friend Lady Morgan of Ely has this responsibility as part of her ministerial portfolio in the Welsh Government. She is doing all she can to help support the reopening of the tourism industry, which is of course a vital component of the Welsh economy. The impact on the wider industry has enormous ramifications for local economies and wider supply chains. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government will support all involved.
The noble Baroness’s exact proposal for winter openings has merits, but we should also consider the unintended consequences. Perhaps the best means to do so, as with so much of this legislation, is through consultation with local authorities.
While on holiday parks and accommodation, it is important that we briefly recognise the consumer rights issues that have unfortunately arisen during this crisis. For example, the Minister may be aware that there have been disputes with Parkdean Resorts, which initially insisted on pitch fees during the months in which holidaymakers were unable to visit. On that issue, I would welcome an update from the Minister on whether the Government have taken any steps to support dispute resolution efforts between operators and accommodation owners.
The Minister of State, Home Office and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Greenhalgh) (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, for raising this important issue. Campsites, caravan parks and holiday cottages are places we all value. They are a mainstay of their local economies in many parts of the country, providing employment and supporting local services and businesses. I share her concern about the considerable impact that the coronavirus has had on the sector. In particular, we recognise that many campsite, caravan and holiday park owners now want to extend their season opening times, but planning conditions can limit this. I recognise the important role these businesses play in their local communities and economies.
On Amendments 74 and 75 proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, I am pleased to announce that my department will lay a Written Ministerial Statement that will encourage local planning authorities to take a sympathetic approach to applications to change the opening times on a temporary basis, allowing campsites and caravan and other holiday parks to open beyond the summer season. The Statement encourages them to use their discretion not to take enforcement action where this could lead to a breach of a planning condition.
I am less convinced that there should be any changes to provide flexibility for the owners of holiday cottages who want to let them out for wider uses on a temporary basis. As tourist accommodation could be lost, it may deprive areas reliant on tourism of visitors over the winter as we recover from the coronavirus. Individual owners can still apply for a variation of condition in the normal way if they wish. I hope that my response provides sufficient encouragement for the noble Baroness and that she will not move her amendments when they are reached.
Amendment 50, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, seeks to amend the package travel regulations with the admirable aim of boosting local tourism. The package travel rules are designed to be light touch where possible and provide protection and clarity for consumers. In her speech at Second Reading, she used the example of a bed and breakfast adding an evening meal at a local pub or restaurant to its customer offer. It is unlikely that this would invoke the package travel rules. For such an addition to come within the parameters of the package travel rules, the extra meal would need to be an essential feature of the trip, accounting for a significant proportion of the value of the package. That is normally taken as a cost in the order of 25% of the total package.
None the less, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the issue. The Government indicated last year that they would undertake a review of the package travel rules in future, but believe this is better conducted when the UK has left the EU and has the full freedoms to act independently. For the reasons I have set out, I am not able to accept this amendment; I hope that she will therefore withdraw it.
I will write separately to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, on the points she raised about disputes and the steps taken by government.
Lord Redesdale (LD)
My Lords, it is rare that you get to speak on the same amendment almost 24 hours later. I congratulate the Minister on what is probably a first in this House in the 30 years I have been here; I have never known the House to rise before a Minister’s statement, but I quite understand the technical reasons for this.
The Minister’s response answered many of the questions I had, and I very much hope that the ministerial Statement will give a lot of comfort to those holiday businesses that will go forward to local authorities. I know that many local authorities have looked at this in a positive way, but it would be great for the holiday industry to show that the Government see this as a positive movement.
Lord Greenhalgh
I thank the noble Lord; he got a second chance to speak but had very little to say. The coronavirus pandemic has caused a lot of firsts; it is good to share in that endeavour. I am pleased we were able to assuage a lot of his concerns.
Baroness Doocey (LD) [V]
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, particularly in respect of caravan parks, which sounds good. I would obviously like to see the detail, but it is definitely a step in the right direction. I do not at all accept the points he made about the package not coming to 25%, but I do not honestly think this is the time to talk figures with him; I would much prefer to do it privately afterwards. I think that not taking the opportunity to help small local businesses work together is a mistake that has been allowed because of this anomaly in current legislation—but I hope to persuade him when we speak privately that the figures I put forward are right.
It is also deeply distressing that the holiday cottages will not be included after the vast amount of money they have lost during the coronavirus. The difficulty is that this sector has been hit so badly that it will definitely end up with thousands of people losing their jobs and livelihoods. I know the Government feel as strongly as I do that this should not happen, so I really hope they might be able to reconsider after we speak. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
We now come to the group consisting of Amendment 51. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 51
Lord Hunt of Wirral
“Outdoor entertainment
Local authorities in England may permit organised outdoor entertainment, including theatrical and musical performances, if the entertainment is organised in a manner that complies with—(a) relevant requirements under any enactment and(b) any guidance on social distancing that may be in place at the time of the performance.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would enable socially-distanced outdoor performances by actors and musicians.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con) [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 51 dealing with outdoor entertainment, I first draw attention to my interests in the register.
I profoundly appreciate and cherish the creative industries, not only for their ability to educate, entertain, provoke, stimulate and provide balm for the soul but because they are one of the most successful economic forces we possess here in the UK. Our film studios, orchestras, playwrights, theatres and video game designers all help to make us what we are as a nation. They are the envy of the world, and they all create employment and wealth.
Like many others, I warmly welcome the major announcements by the Government last week: the substantial financial support for the creative sector and the news that outdoor performances may now resume, with suitable measures taken to prevent risk of infection. Some of our most enterprising venues and companies are already forging ahead with plans for what remains of the summer: the Minack, Brighton Open Air Theatre, Glyndebourne, the Maltings in St Albans, This is My Theatre. I can confirm with pleasure that this happy list is substantial and growing.
Theatre and musicianship—indeed, all forms of creative endeavour—are crafts that require constant nourishment and nurture. It is vital that they should be financially supported during their enforced hibernation during this pandemic, but it is equally vital—far better, even—that they should come back to life as soon as it is safe for them to do so.
As it stands, this Bill deals with two major wealth-creating sectors that have been grievously hit by the pandemic: hospitality and construction. I strongly believe that the performing arts deserve similar recognition. Legislative underpinning for the avoidance of doubt is sensible for a significant shift in policy and law but, while joyously welcome, at the moment has the status only of phase 3 of a so-called road map.
I am also eager to raise again, as several noble Lords did yesterday at Questions, the plight of freelance actors, musicians, technicians and other creatives who lack the sustenance and reassurance of a financial, contractual tie to any building or institution. They too should be numbered among our crown jewels. I want them to receive every possible reassurance that we, in this place, understand their current plight and want to help them back to work and to honing their remarkable crafts, just as soon as it is safe for them to do so. I beg to move.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has covered the issue in an extremely lyrical way, so I will keep my remarks short. We all know how hard the arts scene and theatres have been hit by this health crisis. Amendment 51 is a thoughtful contribution to easing some of that burden and allowing the arts to make their own socially distanced recovery. Imagine a summer of outdoor performances and displays—hoping the weather is good—reconnecting communities safely. Physical distancing does not mean we have to be socially and emotionally distant. It would be wonderful if the Government could facilitate this amendment; they would be rightly celebrated for doing so. I am sure that the Minister is a keen supporter of the arts and so will look favourably on this amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for introducing his amendment so skilfully and lyrically, as was just said by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. I welcome the measures that the Government have taken to enable open-air theatres to resume their operations. Mind you, unlike the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I would not say this would be in good weather only. Perhaps, like me, she would enjoy the Minack Theatre in Cornwall, which goes on regardless of the interesting weather around it—and the audiences love it the same.
When my right honourable friend Oliver Dowden, the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, announced last Thursday that live performances could go ahead outside—“plays and music”, he said—he referred to the Minack Theatre. That press release refers to guidance, and the Minister will know that I am keen to ensure that guidance is as clear and timely as possible. It was timely, because the Minack Theatre immediately put its new programme up on its website. That is entirely within the guidance that has been published so far, which means advance purchase online and social distancing. Their productions include “Great Expectations”. My right honourable friend Oliver Dowden referred to plays, but “Great Expectations” will be interesting because it is presented by just one performer. That will be testing.
My request to the Minister is to ensure that the Government continue to talk closely to organisations presenting outside events because, by their very nature, they have had to scramble and work hard to make these performances available to the public. They are professional people, who want to do the best they can for their arts and their communities.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD) [V]
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 51 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. As a result of lockdown, many theatre and music venues are struggling. The Royal Exchange Theatre in Manchester has announced significant job losses, while the Nuffield Southampton Theatres will close for good. Cameron Mackintosh, the producer of “Les Misérables” and owner of eight West End venues, said that many theatres cannot open until 2021 and that, even under one metre-plus, theatres will need to accept significant reductions in audience numbers.
We all welcome the £1.5 billion of funding for the arts, culture and heritage sectors announced last week, but our producers, directors and artists want to get back to work entertaining the public. Now that the phases for reopening are coupled with a clear timetable, I hope that help with insurance to protect against financial loss from any future lockdowns will be available. There is also uncertainty among theatres not funded by the Arts Council about their ability to benefit from the new funding. We must now include creative sector workers, who have been excluded from government support schemes so far.
The announcement last week by the Secretary of State, Oliver Dowden, that performing arts could take place outdoors from last Saturday, with a socially distanced audience present, is extremely welcome. However, now we need to will the means for theatre, opera, dance and music to be widely resumed, if outdoors for the present. Robert Hastie, the artistic director of Sheffield Theatres, is quoted as hoping to create open-air Shakespeare pieces,
“taking live performance out of the building and into the city. Shakespeare was written to be performed outside.”
He said:
“Until we can get people together in a space confidently—with large enough groups of people to make the numbers add up—we won’t be out of the woods, but imagination and a proper action plan will keep us going.”
This proposed new clause would play entirely into that action plan. It would enable socially distanced outdoor performances by actors and musicians, in a variety of new spaces beyond existing outdoor venues. We have a world-renowned, distinctive British talent in drama, comedy and music. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, mentioned outdoor opera at Glyndebourne and plays at Cornwall’s Minack Theatre but, as he says, there is a lack of existing outdoor spaces for live performance across the UK. Our creative artists, actors and writers will seize every opportunity they can to perform. We need to allow them to do so wherever we can; this amendment offers them an important route for that.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB) [V]
I strongly support this amendment. I suspect we will hear from the Minister that, with venues opening up and putting on live performances, this amendment is unnecessary. From looking at the Government guidelines for stage three of the road map, this seems to be the case, although I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that there should be legislative underpinning.
We heard immediately about the intentions of purpose-built venues such as the Minack Theatre, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I have read that Sheffield Theatres is working with the council in mounting outdoor performances, but could council help also apply to pub theatres? The performing arts will be one of the last sectors that can open properly—if not the last—because of social distancing problems. Within safe limits and with local good will, we need to encourage as many opportunities as possible for paid outdoor live performances. Much of the summer is still left and this will all help the hospitality sector, which we discussed at length yesterday.
Venues take in everything from Glyndebourne and Shakespeare’s Globe to live music clubs in cities, with no outdoor facilities, which would benefit from the help of the local council in mounting a late summer season at a suitable outdoor location. One of the big problems for the performing arts in this crisis is that the great majority of performers, actors and musicians—[Inaudible]—bands and dance companies. Performances managed by a local council would extend the number of performers who would start being paid, which is what we need. Helping venues, great though it is, will not necessarily help all the artists who could be helped, but local councils being given carte blanche to work with performers and performing companies would be a step forward.
I suspect that much of this will turn on the feasibility of and the responsibilities for the Covid risk assessment. Some clarification on this from the Minister would be welcome. Perhaps the law against gatherings of more than 30 in private grounds needs to be relaxed to widen the choice of good outdoor venues.
The public have benefited tremendously in the last few months from free performances online and sometimes in the street. It is now time that performers, just like those working in the hospitality sector, which we discussed yesterday, should start to be remunerated properly for their work, even if this will still be only a minority.
Baroness Bowles of Berkhamsted (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 51 and thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for tabling it. I agree with what he and all other noble Lords have said. The noble Lord reminded us that the performing arts are about education and stimulation, and are a balm for our souls—I guess we need that now—as well as for the economy. There is clearly a strong case to help the entertainment industry where that can be done safely. There are good links between this amendment and other matters in the Bill, such as the role of local authorities in giving permissions for new venues, and the fact that many pubs and hotels also support and are venues for live entertainment, especially for freelancers.
Various open spaces are regularly used for entertainment. Like all other noble Lords, it appears, I have strong connections with the Minack, having spent many teenage summers literally just up the road. However, there are many other spaces where it might be necessary to obtain permission from the local authority. I would like to know whether such permissions could be achieved more rapidly. I know that the usual ones are already in my local area, because we regularly have summer outdoor Shakespeare plays, but I imagine that more venues will be needed, not least because you cannot fit quite so many people when audience seating has to be socially distanced.
There must be many other entertainments that are not so threatening in terms of the aerosol effects that cause concern. I am sure that a string ensemble is not quite so threatening, or musical soloists. They could fit into smaller spaces, including pub gardens. We also have some excellent mime performances locally. Nothing compensates for the loss of theatres and concert halls, but surely that is all the more reason to be as permissive and inventive as possible to help the performing arts survive with open-air performance until indoor performances can recommence.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, which would add a new clause after Clause 15 on the specific issue of outdoor entertainment. As we have heard, like the hospitality industry, the entertainment industry is struggling more than most. I agree that our cultural offering is the envy of the world and that it needs our support to come back to life as soon as possible, and in a way that is safe. Theatres and similar venues have been warned that they might be the last to reopen and, as we have heard and seen in the news many times, staff have been laid off.
The noble Lord’s amendment focuses on outdoor entertainment. I will be interested to hear the Government’s response from the noble Baroness, Lady Penn. Every summer for many years, my noble friend Lady Kennedy and I have enjoyed going to the Regent’s Park outdoor theatre, which is a wonderful venue not far from here. We were last there last summer to see “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”. It was a wonderful production. However, it has cancelled its entire 2020 programme; it has completely gone. It hopes to be back in 2021 with a production of “Romeo and Juliet”. I have also enjoyed going to the Luna Cinema, which shows films in locations all over the country. That is also a wonderful thing to do.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the Government wholly support the intention behind the amendment to enable socially distanced outdoor performances. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, that, although I am not my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh, I have a great admiration for our cultural sector and for the performing arts.
I am delighted to refer my noble friend Lord Hunt to the Culture Secretary’s announcement last week that, from Saturday 11 July, theatres, dance and music have been able to restart as long as they are Covid secure, take place outside with a limited and socially distanced audience, and have the appropriate approvals from local authorities. To support our theatres and performance venues to get up and running safety, we have published new government guidance that provides detailed advice on how to keep all those working in the performing arts and audiences safe.
My noble friend Lady Anelay asked about that guidance. We have worked with the sector through the Cultural Renewal Taskforce and the entertainment and events working group to produce it. We will continue to engage with the sector on the basis. My noble friend raised advanced notice. So far we have published a five-stage road map, on which we are at stage 3, so venues and others can plan for future stages in advance of them being introduced. That guidance will evolve. We are working on some of the science behind safely reopening some of these venues. As that progresses, we will update the guidance in line with consultation with the sector.
Since outdoor performances are now allowed, local authorities can already issue licences where appropriate for such events under the provisions of the Licensing Act 2003 and existing authorisations will not have lapsed, the intention behind my noble friend’s amendment has been wholly achieved.
My noble friend made two further points in relation to his amendment. The first was that the inclusion of the amendment would signal the Government’s commitment to this vital sector. I completely agree with my noble friend that our creative arts are an intrinsic part of what makes us a nation. I hope noble Lords will agree that there are many routes by which the Government can demonstrate their support for the sector. The announcement of the £1.57 billion of support—the largest ever one-off funding package for the sector—demonstrates that commitment.
That funding will also be essential to address the points raised by my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Lords, Lord Kennedy and Lord Clement-Jones, among others, about support for freelance workers and others in the sector. It will enable organisations to resume cultural activity, albeit in a socially distanced manner, which will increase employment opportunities for freelancers. That is in addition to funding announced by Arts Council England in March of £140 million for artistic organisations and £20 million for individuals, including self-employed practitioners, to continue their craft. More than 10,000 individuals and organisations have been successful in applying for this emergency funding.
My noble friend also sought reassurance on the legislative underpinning for the reopening of outdoor performances, as did the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. This amendment is not needed to allow outdoor performances to take place, even in venues where they do not already take place. Local authorities can license outdoor performances already; this is underpinned by legislation in the Licensing Act 2003. I hope noble Lords will agree that it is not good legislative practice to duplicate this provision through additional legislation. It might also be worth noting that we are not planning to put in place underpinning legislation for the reopening of every sector of our economy, however significant the default is that those sectors should be open and that is what should be in place.
I hope that this addresses most of the points raised by noble Lords. I apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, for being unable to hear part of his contribution, particularly about the role of local councils, due to technical difficulties. We will of course continue to engage, but on the point of legislative underpinning compared to this Bill, we are not aware of any representations, for the process of applying for temporary events notices for example, which in any case is a shorter timescale than pavement licences, which are dealt with in the Bill. For these reasons, I am unable to accept this amendment, and therefore I hope that my noble friend can withdraw it.
Lord Hunt of Wirral [V]
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Anelay of St Johns, the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bowles of Berkhamsted, the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty. We have spoken with one voice, and I greatly welcome the Minister’s commitment to our intention. As she said, legislative underpinning is the key. We are providing the hospitality and construction sectors with that legislative underpinning. The performing arts deserve similar recognition. I will return to the subject, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 52. I remind the Committee that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate. Anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate. The Minister wishes to speak before I call the mover of the amendment.
Lord Greenhalgh
For the convenience of the Committee, and perhaps to save some time, I intervene to notify the Committee that, with regard to Amendment 73, we will bring forward a government amendment on Report that seeks to include mayoral development corporations, Transport for London and parish meetings within the Coronavirus Act 2020.
Clause 16: Modification of conditions relating to construction working hours
Amendment 52
“(2A) This section does not apply where the condition or approved document restrictions were made due to potential impacts identified in the—(a) the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/571) assessment; or(b) regulation 63(1) of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 (S.I. 2017/1012) assessment,on nature conservation interests.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that no applications are allowed for changes to conditions if those conditions are in place to limit, reduce or remove certain environmental impacts.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I hope to persuade the Minister to present a government amendment in relation to Amendments 52 and 79. I support the thrust of the Bill and the impact it will have, allowing the hospitality and construction industries to recover from a particularly difficult time.
These two amendments relate to working hours in the construction industry and whether, if the temporary measures in Clause 16 are still in place in the autumn or for next year’s breeding season, the Government will pay more than lip service to the environmental protections of which we are so proud. I share the Government’s support for environmental protections such as the habitats and other directives. These are now part of retained UK law, which we have supported through our membership of the European Union.
I am delighted to have the support of the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for these amendments. Amendment 52 seeks to have regard to the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and what catastrophic environmental impacts there might be reaching a common-sense agreement under those regulations.
Amendment 79 asks that regulations passed under Clause 22(3) be considered by affirmative procedure. Can the Minister confirm that these regulations have undergone or will undergo a proper consultation?
With these few remarks, I hope that I can enlist the support of the Minister and others for these two very important amendments. I am not seeking to delay construction with Amendment 52, but to ensure that we have regard to the habitats directives, which are now part of retained UK law, and that regulations passed under Clause 22 will undergo a proper consultation through affirmative procedure. I beg to move.
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, Amendment 53 in my name seeks a complete ban on any construction activities carried out between 10 pm and 7 am in any location where residents live within 300 metres of those activities applied for.
I thank my noble friend the Deputy Leader for his extremely courteous letter immediately after Second Reading last week, dealing with the points I raised about disturbance to residents. He said:
“The draft guidance highlights in particular that careful consideration will need to be given whether to refuse applications made in relation to developments that are in close proximity to residential areas when the request is likely to have a significant impact on health, taking into account other legal duties of local authorities to protect persons in the locality from the effects of noise.”
While I accept that and believe in local decision-making, I also believe that a national backstop should be imposed by this legislation. If it is right to introduce a national law permitting applicants to apply for up to 24/7 construction working, as this Bill does, equally, it is right to impose a national limit on the times during which that construction may take place.
The Government cannot have it both ways. They cannot say, “We are passing a national law on construction working hours, but we cannot interfere with local decision-making when it comes to setting limits on those hours.” In most cases, I accept that this will all work okay, but we all know of the usual ploy whereby developers submit an application for 20 homes, which is granted, and then they slap in a revised application for 40 homes, which local authorities are afraid to reject in case they lose an expensive judicial review case. Developers and experts manipulate local planning authorities again and again. That is why a national backstop is required.
I strongly support Amendment 56 in the name of my noble friend Lord Randall, to which I wanted to add my name but left it a day too late. It is vital that environmental and wildlife concerns are taken into account. Local authorities must not grant any changes to planning applications until they have gone back and examined the environmental concerns expressed in the original application and any special conditions that the local authority then attaches. I am not suggesting that a new assessment must be carried out, or a whole new EIA, but that the original conditions of protecting the environment be maintained unless there is strong evidence that the proposed new construction conditions applied for create no adverse environmental or wildlife effects. This is not just a matter of disruptive work at night. Was there not a recent case of a company having to remove nets from trees and delay construction because it would have been disruptive to birds nesting at that time of year?
I have done inadequate justice to the speech my noble friend Lord Randall will make on his amendment. I look forward to him setting it out in his usual concise, but highly authoritative and expert, manner. I am proud to give him my support.
Lord Shipley (LD) [V]
My Lords, my name is attached to Amendments 52, 54 and 79. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, has made an excellent case for Amendment 52. I also fully support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge. These amendments are all broadly similar. It is important that no applications are permitted for changes to existing conditions if they are there to reduce, remove or limit environmental impacts. Existing conditions are in place as a consequence of detailed planning consideration at an earlier date. Such restrictions, agreed or imposed then, should not be affected by this legislation and I seek the Minister’s confirmation that my fears that they could be are completely unfounded. Amendments 52 and 56 would solve the problem and I hope that the Minister feels able to accept them.
Amendment 54, in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Pinnock, is about fees charged by local authorities. It proposes a fee for extended construction hours, up to a maximum of £195, which is a reasonable figure to write into the Bill. The principle is that councils should be able to recover their costs. It does not need to be about profit, but it must ensure that the direct costs of processing, assessing and agreeing an application are achieved. Neither does it need to be about full cost recovery, if that includes councils’ general overheads. The principle of recovery of direct costs for an application is a reasonable conclusion to reach.
Amendment 79, proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would ensure that any further regulations made by the Secretary of State would require scrutiny through the affirmative procedure. That is the right approach and I fully support it.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his announcement of the concession that the Government will bring forward an amendment to address the issues which I raised on Amendment 73. We had a very productive meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Penn, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We made some points, the Government listened and I am very grateful.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, particularly when he is in grateful mode. I will speak only to Amendment 80, which is a probing amendment and links to the other amendments in this group only to the extent that the Bill contains temporary measures suitable for the medical and economic emergency imposed upon us by Covid-19.
As I said at Second Reading, I want to understand the sunsetting provisions in the Bill on which, in principle, I congratulate the Minister. Will all the provisions in the Bill lapse, and when? If not, why not? Why is there a disturbing provision in Clause 25 to,
“make transitional, transitory or saving provision in connection with the expiry of any provision of this Act”?
This seems extremely open-ended for an emergency Bill. How do we ensure that the various measures in the Bill are not extended when they have been subject to a relatively low degree of scrutiny?
Lord Hain (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I too welcome the eloquence of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, in speaking to her amendments. Like my noble friend Lord Kennedy, I welcome the concession that the Minister gave. I will speak briefly to Amendment 61, which intends to ensure that developers do not delay implementing planning consents.
Clause 17 is another example of lack of ambition in the Bill. It proposes extending the time limits for planning permissions where development has not yet started. There is a horrendous shortage of homes for people, the worst since World War II. Yet there are over 400,000 houses waiting to be built in England and Wales where planning consent has been given but not yet implemented. Developers are dragging their feet to manipulate local property markets. They build up land banks—stocks of sites on which planning consent has been given—but go slow when it comes to completing development, expecting land values and property prices to rise in the meantime.
The Government could have explored applying council tax to sites where planning consent has been given but development has not gone ahead. They could even have considered rendering planning consent liable to forfeit if development is not complete within a reasonable time, perhaps five years as this amendment provides. Instead, the Bill sidesteps the scandal of developers with planning consent leaving construction sites idle for years. This amendment seeks to address that and get the millions of affordable houses we desperately need built after this Government’s terrible record of promising great numbers and delivering pathetically low ones. I therefore hope that the Minister will respond positively.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con) [V]
My Lords, I give my full support to Amendment 53, in the name of my noble friend Lord Blencathra. I will disappoint him when I speak to my Amendment 56, which he has kindly supported, because I do not indulge in long speeches of expertise.
These two amendments seek to give clarity to local authorities about what can be allowed. I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will reassure me, as he has already done at Question Time and elsewhere, that the Government will not be relaxing any planning rules regarding environmental protections. What worries me is that, in practice, a lot of developers—and, to some extent, councils—are not sure exactly what this means. For example, I am sure that the newspaper headlines will say, in relation to my noble friend’s amendment, that building work can be done at any time. There may well be local conditions, but many people will be confused. It is exactly the same, except that residents can actually complain and get things sorted out. However, the natural world and the environment have no such voice. I know of many examples, both locally and elsewhere, where developers will ride roughshod over some of the conditions in the hope that nobody understands them.
What I want from these two amendments is what my noble friend described as a national backstop. I want clarity in the Bill, so that people know exactly where they stand.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, has not joined the list so, after the noble Lord, Lord Campbell, I will move on to the speaker after her.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 55 and 57, originally put down by my noble friend Lady Pinnock and to which I have added my name. The reason I do so is that, at Second Reading, I raised the question of the possible impact on amenity of those who might be affected by the extension of working hours. In response, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, met my argument by saying that it was always a question of balance. Self-evidently, of course, that is correct, but the question is whether the balance is tilted in these proposals against individuals and organisations that might be affected by an extension of hours. It is important to remember that conditions in relation to hours are put down in order to preserve amenity, and if a planning authority has reached a certain judgment in relation to that, such that an extension as proposed is granted, then self-evidently amenity will have been affected. We tend to think of these matters as being about individuals, but of course hostels, schools, care homes and churches might all be liable to be affected.
It is worth reminding ourselves—there has already been a passing reference to it—that the duration of works can extend to a whole day. As I understand it, any extension granted would have effect until 1 April 2021, so this is not a temporary matter, and it is possible to conduct these extended operations seven days a week. That is why Amendment 55 is a reasonable and sensible obligation to place upon an applicant. It requires an assessment of impact on the community and plans for mitigation of any such effect. Here, to some extent, it echoes the position of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, on the need for an assessment of the impact on the environment and conservation interests and plans to minimise disturbance. I venture to suggest that an obligation to produce an assessment is as much in the interests of the applicant as it is of the planning authority.
Amendment 57 seeks to extend the period of 14 days by agreement and therefore allows for proper consideration and, if necessary, co-operation between the planning authority and the applicant. It is clearly the case that if these matters could be resolved by co-operation, then that is much more likely to be an acceptable solution for the applicant, the authority and the citizens or institutions that might be affected.
Baroness Kramer (LD) [V]
My Lords, it was always my intention to speak only to Amendment 73, to which I have added my name. I thank the Minister for coming forward with what we all hope will be a resolution to what was, I am sure, an oversight in the drafting of the Coronavirus Act. We must make sure that those amendments will permit the development corporations and, I hope, Transport for London, to hold their meetings remotely, including remote access for members of the public. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who wrote to me on this subject, suggesting further discussion and acknowledging the problem. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, who, realising that she would be unable to speak on this occasion, sent me a quick email—knowing that I was going to address the topic—just to say how important it was to her to find a resolution. She was CEO of London First, championing bringing the Olympics to London and helping to find business support. She was particularly keen that it would leave a lasting legacy for that area of London and that the London Legacy Development Corporation would be able to do its job to the full.
Amendment 73 had a weakness in that, although it addressed the problems in the development corporations, it was not clear that it would also cover Transport for London. As a former board member of Transport for London, I was particularly anxious that that should be included. Again, I thank the Minister and look forward to seeing the actual language. I hope that this matter is rapidly coming to a conclusion.
Lord Balfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, I want to mention one particular amendment—Amendment 61, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain—and then make some general comments. The planning pipeline problem has been with us for as long as I have been in politics. When I saw this amendment, I reflected that as long ago as 1975, I was invited by the then Environment Secretary, Mr Tony Crosland, to join a working party he had set up to deal with the planning pipeline. Unless we pass something like Amendment 61, we are never going to get on top of it because getting planning consent is not regarded by many developers as anything to do with getting the buildings up; it is to do with getting yourself a nice comfortable pipeline so that you can choose from a number of planning consents as to the way you can make the most money or the way in which you can manage to get your planning consent redesigned so that, as my noble friend Lord Blencathra said, 20 houses becomes 40 houses. I do not expect that the Minister will accept Amendment 61, but I hope that he will accept that it is vital to get to grips with the planning pipeline. That will involve a method of revoking consents, which is absolutely essential in getting these houses built that this country needs so badly.
I said that I would also make a general point. Nearly all the amendments in this group are about maintaining standards. It is very important that we do not get carried away with Bills like this to a point where we are getting rid of the standards that we have looked for and developed over so many years. Most of the standards, whether they be on animal protection, noise or the timing of developments, have been hard won and hard fought for. I hope that, in our general philosophical approach to this matter, we do not let standards be weakened out of panic. Of course we want to get the economy going again, but we do not want to do that by sacrificing all the gains we made in the past. Overall, without speaking specifically about any other amendments, I hope that the general thrust, which is the protection of rights already won, will be at the heart of the Government’s response to this set of amendments.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb [V]
My Lords, having listened to the speeches of other noble Lords, I am beginning to wish that I had signed more amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Hain, for example, on land banking, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, both made excellent points, and I wish I had been involved in that.
I want to speak about construction permits, because the conditions that are placed on them at the moment are subject to a lengthy and intensive consultation and decision-making process. The conditions try to strike a balance between the competing interests of developing land and protecting the community and the wildlife around the development. I am deeply concerned that Clause 16 will throw much of that balance out of the window in favour of long construction days with little regard for the impact on the community—their rest, their sleep and their mental welfare—and on wildlife. Construction hours can already be long and noisy, routinely running from 8 am to 6 pm, especially at a time when large numbers of people are staying at home and, in the summer months, may have windows open or be outside. Therefore, extending construction hours will create an unacceptable noise burden for too many people.
I am also concerned about the impact that extended construction hours will have on the construction workers, many of whom are self-employed. What will the Government do to ensure that extended hours do not create unsafe working conditions or lead to other detriment for those workers? There might be limited situations in which extending construction hours is warranted, but generally Clause 16 is far too broad and will cause far too much disruption for local residents near noisy building sites.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, has withdrawn from the list of speakers, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Baroness Pinnock [V]
I remind noble Lords of my interests as set out in the register as a councillor and a vice-president of the Local Government Association. We on these Benches understand and support the Government’s purpose in bringing forward the changes to hours of construction in the Bill. It will enable a phased start at the beginning and end of the day for construction workers to ensure social distancing and provide an opportunity for developments to catch up on the last three months. But rather than be prescriptive about hours of working—although I have sympathy with the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra—Amendment 55 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem would ensure that the extension of hours took into account the impact that these had on residents, the wider community and the environment.
Planning conditions set out as part of planning consent invariably include limits on hours of working. As a rule, these are 7 am to 6 or 7 pm. They are there to minimise any impact on neighbours. Extension of these hours must therefore include mitigations for those affected. That could be, for example, to restrict hours when deliveries can be made, as construction traffic is often one of the main local concerns. Extension into the evening or a much earlier start will mean lighting up the site, with the inevitable impact that brings with it. Amendment 55 would balance out these issues, and that is the purpose of the further Amendment 57, again in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Campbell. Considerations about hours of working inevitably include not just planning officers but highways and environmental officers, hence we propose that, by agreement, developers and the council can extend the time for consultation beyond the 14 days. Some construction companies understand that working with local communities rather than bulldozing their way through to get what they want, regardless, has many benefits.
Amendment 54 in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Shipley would ensure that the planning authority was recompensed for the work done to extend hours. The minimum fee is £195 for planning applications and seems appropriate in this case. The Government must ensure recompense for work done. Planning consultants working for the developer will undoubtedly be paid handsomely for making the application to extend hours. It is only right that those making the decision be recompensed as well, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to that proposal.
The cross-party Amendment 73 is clearly about an administrative oversight and I am pleased that the Minister has given notice that the Government will seek to put the matter right. The three-month review proposed in Amendment 58 by the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, is one that the Government should consider carefully. A change of construction hours appears straightforward on paper but has many ramifications in reality, and time set aside to reflect is always a good idea. With those comments, I trust that the Minister will accept that our amendments are constructive in purpose and are in the interests of achieving a fair balance between construction, communities and the environment, and that the Government will be prepared to accept them.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport [V]
My Lords, Amendment 58 in my name would explore how the changes to construction hours might impact on those employed in the industry. The changes are welcomed by Unite the Union, which represents construction workers in the UK, but I understand that there are concerns that any extension of hours does not simply lead to workers working extended hours. A better situation would result in staggered shifts, allowing more construction workers to be employed on the site while maintaining social distance. I am sure that it is not the Government’s intention that longer operating hours will adversely impact those on site, but I would be grateful for assurances on how that will be guaranteed.
On the broader planning amendments, as the former leader of Newport City Council and leader of the Welsh Local Government Association, I speak from personal experience on these issues. I am all too familiar with the need to be cautious of the adverse effects on the environment, wildlife and of course of the need to take into account the views of local residents. My noble friend Lord Hain spoke eloquently about the scandal of land banking when over 400,000 homes are waiting to be built across the UK. Indeed, it was and still is a constant source of tension in local authority planning departments as developers await a rise in land and home values and just sit on their given permissions. My noble friend’s idea of a forfeit of planning consent is an excellent one. It would gain much support in local government. Most importantly, it would allow for homes to be built again to try and assuage the great need that we have for homes across the UK.
I hope that the Minister will offer assurances that he will engage with local authorities to stress the importance of these factors. Furthermore, I am glad to support the comments of my noble friend Lord Kennedy in welcoming the changes announced by the Government to Amendment 73 ensuring that the mayoral development corporations, TfL and the London Legacy Development Corporation can hold virtual meetings, as they are also planning authorities.
Lord Greenhalgh
My Lords, these amendments relate to construction site hours and virtual committees. We welcome the intention behind Amendment 73 on virtual committees, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Valentine. It would amend Section 78 of the Coronavirus Act 2020. The Act was drafted at pace and the omission of the bodies listed was an accidental oversight, so I am pleased to tell the Committee that, as announced earlier, we are bringing forward an amendment on Report to deal with the matter. With regard to the length of construction hours— a point raised repeatedly by the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones and Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Pittenweem—this is all about the balance between getting Britain building safely again and amenity.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, and my noble friends Lady McIntosh, Lord Blencathra and Lord Randall for amendments to Clause 16. My noble friend Lord Blencathra’s Amendment 53 deals with works in proximity to residential dwellings. I assure him that the planning authority will still have discretion to refuse applications that it considers would have an unacceptable impact. The draft guidance published alongside the Bill highlights that careful consideration will need to be given to whether to refuse applications made in relation to developments that are in close proximity to residential areas where the request is likely to have a significant impact on health. The guidance also flags up the need for the local planning authority to take into account its other legal duties to protect people in the locality from the effects of noise.
I will take Amendments 54, 55 and 57 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, in order. First, in response to Amendment 54, I say that there should be no fee in the current circumstances. This is a temporary measure that deals with a specific issue and is accompanied by clear guidance. We do not believe that the average planning department is likely to receive a great number of applications through this route such that it would create a significant new burden.
On Amendment 55, the draft guidance encourages developers to work closely with their local community and the local planning authority to undertake any noisy works that may affect residents during normal working hours and to implement mitigation measures. The local authority has the option to enforce against any breach of such approved plans and can enforce against other unacceptable impacts through the statutory nuisance framework.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
I thank my noble friend for his eloquent summing up and all those who have spoken on this group of amendments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shipley, for his support for my amendment. Given what my noble friend the Minister said in response to Amendment 52 regarding the accompanying guidance—that regard is had to the environmental impact assessment and the habitats regulations assessment—and given that, in response to Amendment 79, he said that regulations would be subject to either the draft-affirmative or the made-affirmative procedure, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 52.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 59. I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate and anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in this group to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Clause 17: Extension of duration of certain planning permissions
Amendment 59
Lord Lansley
“(i) beginning with 25 June 2020, and”Member’s explanatory statement
This will provide that where a relevant planning permission has a time limit for commencement of development between 25 June (when this Bill was introduced to Parliament) and 31 December 2020 , the time limit will be extended as provided for in subsection (2).
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I should draw attention to my interest as chair of the Cambridgeshire Development Forum, as entered in the register. As other noble Lords have done, I express my thanks to my noble friends for their discussions following my speech at Second Reading and for the very helpful letter from my noble friend Lord Howe.
I confess that all 13 amendments in this group are mine, but they are to achieve two purposes. The first is to substitute June for April, so extending time limits on permissions and listed building consents. Clause 17 relates to planning permissions; Clause 18 relates to outline planning permissions; Clause 19 relates to listed building consents. In all three cases, the Government have given a three-month extension from December to the end of March. My amendments would take that from 1 April to 1 June. Nine of the amendments are to achieve that in relation to these three clauses. The other amendments, which I shall come to later, are to deal with the circumstances in which those planning permissions should be revived or extended where additional environmental approval has been sought and given.
I start with the question of adding two months to the proposed three months' extension. There is a balance to be struck, and I quite understand the thinking of my noble friend and the Government. They want to reflect the fact that there has been a delay—a serious interruption—to the delivery of the project pipeline for development; equally, they do not want to extend so far as to allow for such developments to be delayed when they could and should proceed. I completely understand that. From my point of view, this is not a probing amendment; it is my assessment of what a practical decision is in the light of all the circumstances.
As I mentioned on Second Reading, practical issues may have been lost sight of in substituting the three months lost—essentially, April, May and June—with three months gained: January, February and March. The most obvious, which I mentioned on Second Reading, is that the industry has lost three months of prime building season in the middle of late spring and early summer and is receiving, by way of compensation, time in the middle of winter. We do not know what seasonal effects January, February and March 2021 will have but if they were particularly inimical to development, it would mean quite a significant deficit in the opportunity for development. From my conversations with housebuilders it is not the case that on returning to site, generally in late June, they were able to do so on the basis of achieving full capacity. Many were starting at 50% capacity; those who I talked to only a week ago were generally at 80% capacity. The pipeline will have lost a further few weeks by the end of December. Adding that together, one might say “If not three months, perhaps four—or even five”. It depends on how one looks at it.
My noble friend Lord Howe has very helpfully said that in any case, all one needed to do is to implement a planning permission. He said: “Digging a trench or pegging out a road may suffice”. I have to tell him that I have looked into this and the courts have often taken a view about what commencement might be. Digging a trench might be sufficient; pegging out a road probably is not. The point is that neither takes account of two significant additional factors. First, when one commences development, often one also commences a legal obligation for community infrastructure levy, so significant costs may then arise. One does not commence a development simply by digging a trench, walking away and saying, “I’ve done what the planning permission requires”. That is not sufficient and, in the eyes of many developers, would be quite an unwise thing for them to do. Secondly, one cannot simply commence development until one has received the discharge of pre-commencement planning conditions.
I checked with the Greater Cambridge Shared Planning service and as of the beginning of last week, on 6 July, it began to look at applications received on 15 April for the discharge of pre-commencement planning conditions. That is a 10-week delay. Of course, discharge of conditions under these circumstances would generally take eight weeks, so there is an 18-week potential delay. When one begins to add these things together—they are not necessarily in series but may be concurrent—none the less it is far from obvious, in my view, that these particular three months at the beginning of next year are a sufficient addition to the time which developers need to compensate for the time they are losing in the course of 2020.
My point here is that my practical view was, “Let’s add two months”. In this respect, I shared the exact view—which I reflected in asking my noble friend some weeks ago whether he would add six months to planning permissions beyond the end of December—of the Home Builders Federation. It has welcomed what the Government are doing and is grateful for their bringing forward this legislation, but in fact asked for 1 July, not 1 April. I have not asked for 1 July; I have asked for 1 June. I think there is a practical answer somewhere beyond 1 April, in the light of all the circumstances.
Lord Balfe [V]
I have a very short intervention to make. I looked at this set of amendments in conjunction with the previous set. This is a sensible extension of the time limits, in my view, and I hope that those who will benefit from it—the developers—will have realised that this is adequate quid pro quo for the keeping-up of standards, which was the subject of most of the previous set of amendments. If we are to have a level playing field, this is what is wanted in return for what we want from them.
Baroness Pinnock [V]
I have a short comment to make on the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley. He makes a strong argument in his request for a time extension to planning permissions and environmental approvals. I look forward to what the Minister has to say in this regard, because it seems to me that the case has been made.
Baroness Wilcox of Newport [V]
My Lords, the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, highlight questions in the Bill relating to the duration of planning provisions. Amendments 59, 62, 66 and 68 beg the question of what the consequences will be should the Bill be delayed. The other amendments in this group demonstrate the lost time and capacity available for development during 2020.
The United Kingdom is suffering from a lack of affordable housing. We must build to a scale which has not been seen in recent decades. The pausing of developments in recent months would make this even more difficult. We should also be alert to the knock-on effects on housing stock should developers be forced to cease construction altogether. As I noted in the previous debate in relation to the comments of my noble friend Lord Hain regarding land banking, we must allow houses again to be built without delay to provide homes for the people of this country. I hope the Minister can offer assurances regarding these issues.
Lord Greenhalgh
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lansley for speaking to this group of amendments which relate to the extension of planning permissions and listed building consents. These amendments have been supported by my noble friend Lord Balfe. Let me begin by saying that this is a very unusual and challenging time for the development industry, and we recognise that many developers of residential and commercial buildings have had to pause projects.
First, I recognise my noble friend’s comment that the proposed extension for those permissions and consents due to lapse close to 31 December 2020 will represent an extension of only three months, and I take his point about the quality of those three months. However, where a planning permission is due to lapse earlier in the year, for example in September, it would benefit from an automatic extension of closer to seven months. This, we believe, is proportionate.
Secondly, we should be clear that these measures to extend planning permissions and listed building consents are intended to support developers to implement their permissions—that is, to make a start on site—as we know that many of them will have experienced disruptions or delays due to the pandemic. However, it need not take very extensive works to implement a planning permission, and we think it is reasonable to expect starts on site to take place by 1 April 2021. I note my noble friend’s points about the community infrastructure levy, but we have made provisions so that the payment can be deferred and I am sure we will see improvements with regard to the current delays in the discharge of pre-commencement planning conditions.
Finally, my noble friend will be aware that we have included powers to extend, by regulations, both the 31 December 2020 date and the 1 April 2021 date to allow more or longer extensions, should that become appropriate. I am happy once again to commit to my noble friend on the Floor of your Lordships’ House that I would be pleased to engage with him on this matter in the coming months as we better understand how the industry is recovering from the impacts of the pandemic.
My noble friend also spoke to Amendments 59, 62, 66 and 68 to Clauses 17 and 18 in relation to the scope of the additional environmental approval process. These amendments would shift the cut-off date for those permissions which require additional environmental approval in order to be extended to April 2021. This date is currently set at the date these provisions take effect, which is four weeks after Royal Assent. My noble friend’s amendment would shift this to 25 June 2020 to cover just planning permissions that have expired. He will understand that where planning permission has lapsed, an extension effectively reinstates the permission, thereby permitting something that otherwise would not be allowed to go ahead. So it is right in those circumstances, having regard to our environmental commitments and obligations, to check whether the existing environmental assessments are still up to date. However, it is important that these provisions capture not only permissions which have actually lapsed, but those which, while technically still extant as of now, in practice could not be implemented within their original time limit. That is why it is right that there is a short delay between this Bill achieving Royal Assent and the cut-off date when these provisions take effect.
Developers with a permission that has not yet expired, but which is due to do so before these provisions take effect, still have the option to implement their planning permissions now, if they can. This would avoid any need to apply for additional environmental approval. If they cannot, it is right that before an extension is granted, there should be a check on whether the requisite environmental assessments remain up to date. The process for doing so is not burdensome, is focused and would be free of charge for applicants.
I hope that with this assurance my noble friend will feel able to withdraw Amendment 59 and will not press the others in this group.
Lord Lansley
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Balfe and the noble Baronesses, Lady Pinnock and Lady Wilcox, for their contributions to the debate and for their positive remarks. I am also grateful to the Minister for his response. He demonstrated that he is trying to work this through as a practical issue. There are powers in the Bill to change the dates for the extension later on by way of regulation. I will consider what he said in his reply before we think about this on Report. It seems to me that if we recognise the strength of the case we should perhaps reflect it in the Bill to some extent, but there may be other and better ways of achieving that than in my amendments to date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
“Three-month parliamentary reviews
(1) This Act expires at the end of a review period unless the condition in subsection (2) is met.(2) The condition is that both Houses of Parliament have, following a debate, passed a resolution during the review period in the form in subsection (3).(3) The form of the resolution is—“That the provisions of the Business and Planning Act 2020 should not yet expire.”(4) The first review period begins on the day 90 days after the day on which this Act is passed.(5) Subsequent review periods begin on the day 90 days after the day on which the previous review period ended. (6) A review period ends at the end of the seventh sitting day after the day on which it begins.(7) In this section, a “sitting day” means a day on which both Houses of Parliament are sitting (and a day is only a day on which the House is sitting if the House begins to sit on that day).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would ensure rolling three-month parliamentary reviews of the legislation.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate, and anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in the debate.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, in my first contribution I should have declared my interests as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as president of National Pubwatch.
Amendment 76 in my name is a solitary amendment and was first raised in the other place by my good friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch, Meg Hillier MP. The intention is to allow Parliament to consider the impact of the measures introduced by the Bill and to repeal them should unintended consequences occur. I very much agree with my honourable friend in the other place that it is particularly important for Parliament to take a power to repeal measures since so little time has been given for the Bill to be debated. Are noble Lords satisfied that we have had sufficient time to scrutinise the Bill? I suggest that we have not had enough time, but there is a lot of pressure to get it agreed. It is therefore important to ensure that we have a mechanism to deal with issues.
There is one important difference between my amendment and that which was debated in the House of Commons. In the amendment before the House of Commons it was for the Commons to conduct the review, while my amendment gives a role for the House of Lords. That is in recognition of the expertise in this House. For me, that was an omission in the discussions in the other place.
I expect I will shortly be told that this amendment is unnecessary as the Bill includes a provision for the affirmative procedure for draft regulations, but that affords little scrutiny, especially in the Commons where only a small number of MPs have the chance to raise concerns. This amendment would allow Parliament to review the impact of the provisions in the late autumn. If the Minister is unable to accept it, perhaps he could explain how the Government will allow the House otherwise to repeal aspects of legislation should the concerns around provisions prove founded. I beg to move.
Lord Shipley [V]
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I spoke about this issue at Second Reading and said that there was a need for quarterly reviews of the practical operation of this legislation, with scope for amending it if there were unforeseen or unintended consequences. The Minister said that he did not wish to “compromise the stability” that the Government sought and wanted to avoid “an unpredictable cliff edge” for those implementing the legislation who might find it difficult if the law changed constantly.
I understand that perspective. Of course, the solution is to proof this legislation properly: first, against mistakes, and secondly, by providing a means of putting right any unforeseen consequences of the Bill. I venture to suggest that there will be some unintended consequences; the question is how they will be put right. How will mistakes be corrected during the operation of this Bill, and would not the simplest means be to do what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, suggests?
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
We do not seem to have the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, so I call the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock.
Baroness Pinnock [V]
I too support this amendment, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. The issues were raised at Second Reading. There will be unexpected impacts as a consequence of the ramifications of this Bill on both licensing and planning legislation. There must be a means of addressing them in a timely way. So far, we have not heard from the Government how that will be done. The noble Lord has brought forward a reasonable proposal for how any issues that arise from the Bill could be addressed, but as yet the Government do not appear ready to accept it. I look forward to what the Minister has to say in response.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his amendment.
First, I recognise that this legislation is passing through Parliament at considerable speed. Your Lordships rightly stress the importance of scrutiny. However, any review of the kind proposed by the noble Lord should be proportionate to the issue in question. The measures in this Bill respond to the specific conditions created by the Covid-19 pandemic. We have already ensured that the vast majority of those measures are explicitly temporary or relate to temporary schemes.
Amendment 76 would create a potential cut-off to the Bill’s provisions every quarter. The Government believe that that would be very unhelpful and undermine the purpose of the Bill. Surely we need to give the economy and businesses stability and reassurance. Bringing these measures back to Parliament every three months for positive reapproval would create the very thing that businesses want to see the back of—uncertainty—and would severely dilute the benefits intended in the Bill. We cannot expect businesses and local authorities to operate not knowing whether these measures will be turned on or off every quarter. Construction work may be delayed or cancelled, vital freight vehicles may lie dormant, and businesses may find it difficult to operate.
Indeed, different sectors will need their provisions for different amounts of time. The different end dates of the temporary provisions in the Bill reflect the different effects of Covid-19 according to sector. For example, the challenges facing restaurants, bars and pubs are not the same as those facing HGV drivers, developers or construction firms.
I am not dismissing the case for scrutiny. Parliament will still be able to monitor and scrutinise the Government’s actions in all the usual ways. Let us bear in mind that, as the noble Lord reminded us, the powers to extend the duration of the temporary measures are subject to the affirmative procedure to provide opportunity for thorough scrutiny of the use of these provisions. As my noble friend Lord Greenhalgh outlined yesterday, we will also accept the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee’s recommendation in relation to the powers to extend measures in this Bill, to ensure that the effects of coronavirus are part of that consideration.
The noble Lord, Lord Shipley, asked how we as a Parliament will monitor mistakes and how those mistakes will be corrected. The answer is that built into these provisions are flexibilities that lie largely in the hands of local authorities, which can, taking pavement licences as an example, amend conditions or remove the licence altogether. In so far as we have devolved powers to local authorities, they have the ability to correct mistakes, if one can put it that way.
My final point, which I invite the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, to reflect on, is that a rolling review would mean that we could not implement the two permanent measures in the Bill. We would not be able to reform the Planning Inspectorate appeals system, as was recommended by the Rosewell review and has already been implemented in Wales, and we would not be able to future-proof rules for temporary exemptions from heavy vehicle testing. The existing rules allow for exemptions to be issued on a blanket basis during exceptional circumstances. The measures in this Bill will allow the Government to issue exemptions on the basis of road safety risk, while still being constrained through regulations to issue these exemptions in relation to exceptional circumstances. This corrects a deficiency in existing emergency powers.
For these reasons, I cannot accept this amendment and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I have received a request from the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, to speak briefly after the Minister.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I wanted to speak in support of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark. I was not able to do so because I was muted from the other side; I therefore seek the leniency of the House in making my points.
In the past few months, we have become accustomed to approving measures retrospectively. Our debates have become mostly redundant because of the need to accommodate the next set of schedules and amendments. It has been important for me to put forward my views on this Bill.
Given the significant role of local authorities in the recovery of our communities, the reporting requirement in this amendment must detail the extra cost of how measures in this Bill will have an impact on local communities, as it is not clear. As a former councillor, I fear that the inevitable result will be a greater workload and higher cost for most authorities, including planning services. Many local authorities have been put on the back foot by some of the proposed measures and, by all accounts, feel sidelined.
As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and other noble Lords passionately detailed, it is local authorities and local police forces who will have to manage the fallout and environmental impact of any breaches or disputes and mop up after anti-social behaviour. I am in complete agreement with the points made yesterday by the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Sheikh, about the result and detrimental impact of increasing the availability of alcohol. Therefore, this House requires more than assurances on reducing closing times. The impact can be felt by local residents—as well as the police and health services, of course—long into the night.
I am also concerned about the planning aspects of the Bill coming into this emergency process. The three-monthly review required by this amendment is of the highest imperative in warranting the necessary transparency in, and safeguarding of, local consideration of public interests. The Bill would worryingly enable planned development delayed by the Covid-19 outbreak to go ahead, forgoing the usual standards, such as requirement of local public consent, as eloquently detailed by the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, and others.
I appreciate that responding to housing need is of the utmost urgency. As a former deputy leader of Tower Hamlets Council, I am also fully conscious of the central role of local authorities in the planning process, and their duties and obligations to meet the needs of local residents and communities. This is equally significant when considering the environmental and health effects of long working hours on residents, particularly children. What provision will be made for environmental standards in the proposed local government emergency planning reforms?
It is worth reflecting on the Government’s own recent deluge of impositions, usurping the local planning process, which would have obvious detrimental consequences, incurring significant financial loss to the community benefits available from a number of local planning permissions granted. For decades, this has been a creative partnership route, allowing local authorities to build a fairer and more balanced mix of social and private housing and community facilities. The delay to accessing the community interest levy suggested in the Bill is deeply unsatisfactory. What consideration will be given to working with housing associations to ensure that good-quality family housing will also be built through permitted development rights —not just expensive housing creating segregated communities and further exacerbating social division? If the Minister is not able to answer, I would appreciate it if he would write to me and other interested Members.
No matter the political expediency, I see no value in, or justification for, management or planning decisions falling under emergency measures. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hain and the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, who have cited justified concerns and questions about land banking and other tensions within local authorities that they have to deal with. Local authorities should be at the heart of planning consent, and the Government should not persist in allowing fast-tracking for developers, which will inevitably compromise community housing needs.
The Bill would amend existing requirements concerning appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and would be a permanent change to the appeal procedure; it is a fundamental shift in local democratic accountability. Therefore, will the Minister assure the Committee that the quarterly review will encompass independent and local oversight of all planning applications granted for housing under this emergency legislation? Will he also make public any objections raised by local residents to safeguard due process in all planning consent while this emergency legislation is in place? I am extremely grateful to all Members for their patience.
Earl Howe
My Lords, with the leave of the Committee, I will reply very briefly to the noble Baroness. I was sorry to hear her questions because it appeared from what she said that she is fundamentally against the purposes—or most of the provisions—of the Bill. I hope that is not the case and will of course consider the questions she has asked. I simply remind her that extensive consultation has taken place with the Local Government Association, voluntary bodies and local associations of various kinds, and we have not encountered hostility to the purposes of the Bill, which are of course to enable the economy—and businesses in the economy —to get going again after the dreadful pandemic that we have all endured.
We have, in fact, been over most of the points raised by the noble Baroness at some length already, whether at Second Reading or in these Committee proceedings. I also remind her that these are, with two exceptions, temporary provisions. The noble Baroness made as if to say that we were setting in stone forever provisions that she had considerable concerns about. This is not the case and I hope that, on reflection, she will feel that this is a Bill that the country wants and needs. I will look at her questions and respond in writing as appropriate.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his response to my amendment. Obviously, I never intended to press it to a vote, and the noble Earl made some valid points on my amendment. Equally, I think I raised some valid issues with the amendment. As I said, I support the intention of the Bill and, as I raised here, I entirely accept that these are temporary measures. Equally, however, I think there is an issue if, when we put something in place that is temporary but causes unintended consequences, we have the solution be, “Oh well, hopefully I have the power to do something about it.” This may not be the tidiest way of dealing with things—let us leave it at that.
In a number of places around the country, we leave it to the local authorities to intervene and deal with the issues when we could have a mechanism to deal with them ourselves. Anyway, I hope that this will not be the case and will not be necessary, but I it is a valid consideration. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I remind noble Lords that anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk during the debate, and anyone wishing to press this amendment to a Division should make that clear in debate.
Amendment 77
“Employee-employer cooperation
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of this Act being passed, lay before Parliament a strategy for employee-employer cooperation in regard to businesses implementing the provisions of this Act.(2) In producing the strategy, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) trade unions and other organisations which represent employees,(b) relevant businesses, and (c) any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
Lord Hain [V]
Amendment 77 is also in the names of my noble friends Lord Hendy and Lord Monks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. It promotes much closer employee-employer co-operation and requires the Secretary of State, within six months of the Act being passed, to lay before Parliament a strategy for employee-employer co-operation with regard to businesses implementing the Act’s provisions. In producing this strategy, the Secretary of State must consult trade unions and other organisations that represent employees, relevant businesses and any other persons the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
Surely the Government cannot possibly object to close partnership between employers, trade unions and —where no unions operate in businesses—employees. Will that not better help keep business running safely, rebuild the economy and support those businesses badly damaged by the Covid-19 crisis? Everyone acknowledges that this crisis is by far the greatest Britain has faced since World War II. Unless the Government extend open arms to trade unions and employees to work in partnership to overcome the crisis, they are disabling themselves and everybody else.
Trade unions have already demonstrated in practical ways their value in helping employers to work through this crisis while ensuring the health and safety of staff and customers. Take, for example, the communications sector, which has been crucial to keeping the nation connected and supporting economic activity through the lockdown. The Communication Workers Union, for which I should declare that I worked for 14 years before being elected a Member of Parliament, has played a critical role in sustaining our postal and telecoms services and helping businesses to open up safely where they were initially forced to close.
They have secured agreements with Royal Mail, British Telecom and a range of other employers on the adequate provision of PPE and social distancing measures, higher levels of protection for riskier front-line roles, the introduction of thorough workplace risk assessments, the safe use of vehicles, home working for office-based staff with suitable equipment, support for the clinically vulnerable and comprehensive safeguards for staff and customers in high street retail outlets before they opened in the middle of June.
The amendment also exemplifies what a missed opportunity the Bill represents. Yes, it provides a range of measures to help businesses develop new ways of working as the country recovers from Covid-19—but what a narrow range, and what tunnel vision. Paragraph 72 of the Explanatory Memorandum reports that representations have been received from the trade union Unite about the difficulties bus and truck drivers face in getting medical reports to keep their driving licences valid. Difficulties are understandable in current conditions, of course; not all today’s tailbacks are on motorways. Some are outside GPs’ surgeries.
However, what neither the Bill nor the Explanatory Notes acknowledge is the call by Unite the Union’s leadership for the Government to involve the country’s 100,000 trade union health and safety representatives in helping with test, track and trace and in finding safer ways of working that deal with the ongoing risks from Covid-19. Independent evidence shows that workplaces where unions are recognised have half the accidents of those where unions are absent. Have the Government even acknowledged Unite’s offer? There is, seemingly, no response to it in the Bill.
Clause 14 is a small step in the direction of helping businesses to adjust to safer ways of working, but what the British economy needs are giant strides towards a bolder objective—more productive ways of working—which is what this amendment is designed to achieve.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy recognised long ago that the way that work is organised and how people are managed are key factors in determining workplace performance results. None of that wider awareness is visible in the Bill. The Covid-19 crisis is also a chance to make workplaces more productive by encouraging closer co-operation at work and by challenging both sides of industry to boost productivity by working in partnership. The Bill, again, fails to grab that chance.
The crisis has shown that many established ways of working are past their sell-by date and that working people often have much more to offer than established working practices allow them to contribute. They are trapped in traditions and wrapped in routines that stifle creativity and dull initiative. Instead of work that they find fulfilling and rewarding, with opportunities for advancement, too many employees feel locked into undemanding humdrum jobs and are prisoners of rigid rules, hierarchical structures and narrow horizons.
The problem stems from both sides of the bargaining table. Too many managers cling to a command- and-control approach, fearful of sharing information with employees and too many union representatives, while talking a good game about teamworking and joint endeavour, although not necessary pursuing it. By working together, unions and employers can deliver big improvements in performance, boosting productivity and profitability, lifting living standards and improving job prospects. For instance, a mutual pledge on co-operation and a problem-solving approach to employment relations can free up management time, promote effective teamworking and improve dignity at work.
An agreed undertaking to find more flexible ways of working that suit both employer and employees can cut customer order lead times, boost motivation and morale and improve the work-life balance. A shared resolve to boost training and personal development can make continuous improvement a reality, ease the take-up of new technology and enhance employability and pay. A mutual commitment to accident prevention and risk avoidance can streamline production, boost reliability and make workplaces safer. Surely that is priority No. 1 in the Covid-19 crisis.
Both management and unions need help if we are to be able to grasp this opportunity to create a new framework for co-operation at work. Something like President Roosevelt’s National Labor Relations Board could even up the balance of power between bosses and workers and encourage union recognition. It could help poorly paid key workers and the nearly 4 million people in insecure jobs to get a fairer deal.
The Government should build on the success of Ministers’ recent sector-by-sector meetings with trade union and business leaders by backing sectoral bargaining. This could put a floor under pay and conditions of employment, raise standards and stop responsible employers being undercut by irresponsible rivals and workers being exploited unfairly. I have every intention of returning to this issue with my noble friends on Report unless, as I hope, the Minister can accept our amendment or at least embed in the Bill a version of it.
Lord Hendy (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hain for moving this amendment and I agree with everything that he said in support of it. I shall add just one point—the essential modesty of the amendment.
Last month, 30 June marked the 70th anniversary of the ratification by the United Kingdom of Convention No. 98 of the International Labour Organization, one of the two most fundamental conventions in international labour law. It has not merely been expressly ratified by no fewer than 167 nations but is also considered to be part of customary international law. Article 4 of the convention calls on ratifying states to take measures
“to encourage and promote the full development and utilisation of machinery for voluntary negotiation between employers or employers’ organisations and workers’ organisations, with a view to the regulation of terms and conditions of employment by means of collective agreements.”
Article 6 of the 1961 European Social Charter—of the Council of Europe, not the EU—was ratified by the UK 48 years ago and makes similar provision.
In addition to compliance with domestic law, the rule of law requires states to comply with such ratified provisions of international law. As the late Lord Bingham put it in his well-known public lecture on the rule of law in 2006, the existing principle of the rule of law
“requires compliance by the state with its obligations”
in international law—the law that, whether deriving from treaty or international custom and practice, governs the conduct of nations. I do not think that that proposition is contentious.
This modest amendment does not ask, as the UK’s binding international legal obligations do, for machinery for collective bargaining to be established in the present context. It merely asks for the Government to provide a strategy for collective co-operation. It is a point of principle shared by me and noble friends that workers should be involved in important decisions of the businesses that employ them, as that is to the mutual benefit of both, as my noble friend has just pointed out. Many such decisions will arise in relation to this Bill. For myself, I am unable to discern any rational objection to the amendment and I look forward to hearing the Minister on the subject.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hain. It underscores the principles of the machinery for voluntary negotiation, partnership and co-operation. Surely the Minister will see fit to support it. It would encourage good work between employers and employees to ensure better productivity, better performance and better output levels, bringing benefit not only to the business and the employer but to the employees, because they would be directly involved in the decision-making.
You have only to look at the work that Unite has been doing in the whole coronavirus operation with test, track and trace. I looked at the German model of work councils, which are very much about voluntary negotiation between the employee and the employer, giving due recognition to the work of both but underscoring the principle of better output and better performance. They boost profitability, lift living standards and enhance the job prospects of all the employees directly involved.
I am very content to support this amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Hain because it would bring about better working relationships and better co-operation, which, particularly at a time of a pandemic, are urgently required.
Baroness Kramer [V]
My Lords, as employers bring back employees, even observing all the government guidelines scrupulously only reduces the risk of Covid—it does not eliminate it. That brings me to the issue of employers’ liability insurance and Covid, which I raised at Second Reading. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his letter to me, in which he addressed the questions that I raised, but it seems that the problem remains. He wrote:
“Every employer carrying out business in Britain must maintain compulsory employers’ liability insurance, which insures them in relation to bodily injury or disease sustained by employees arising out of and in the course of their employment in that business. There are strict limits on the conditions and exclusions which such policies can contain.”
However, both employers and employees were very taken aback to find that business interruption insurance, which they thought covered them in an instance such as the pandemic, in most cases has not been applicable. Many will look at the terms of employers’ liability insurance and feel very uncertain that, in a case where an employee acquires Covid at the work site, they will be protected by that insurance, and of course employers share that same concern. There is a real worry that insurance companies will find some way out of being responsible for paying compensation or that they will ask the employers to add to and expand their insurance, at some extraordinarily exorbitant price.
I was interested in Amendment 77 because I am being realistic in recognising that the Government will not intervene at the moment to try to make sure that this insurance is adequate—and at the moment, insurers are not feeling a lot of pressure. But the coming together of employees and employers, which in a sense is outlined in Amendment 77, seems to provide a venue to create pressure and to place attention on this issue. I fear that, particularly if we have a second spike, it will become a very significant issue, and I do not want the pressure to try to deal with this matter to go away.
Baroness Pinnock [V]
My Lords, Amendment 77 on employee and employer considerations, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hain, is a timely reminder that all the elements of the Bill have a consequence on working lives and employer responsibilities, and provide opportunities to develop better working practices and relationships. Liberal Democrats have long proposed employee involvement in businesses as a means for improvements to be gained, both by the employer and those employed. This debate is important, we support the sentiments, and I look forward to the response from the Minister.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark
My Lords, Amendment 77, in the name of my noble friends Lord Hain, Lord Monks and Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, introduces the issue of employer-employee relations and highlights the role of trade unions and other organisations that represent employees in determining the success of these changes.
The Government will want to engage constructively with the relevant trade unions, and it would help the House if the noble Earl could set out how he has consulted them during the drafting of the Bill and sought their views on the issues contained in it, which have a direct consequence for the people they represent.
The Bill seeks to support economic growth, but if workers, their views and the views of their representatives are not taken account of and their safety is ignored, that is irresponsible—and I am sure the Government would not want to do that. The worst thing of course would be if we did not take their views properly into account and that failure contributed to a second wave of the pandemic, which would be—health-wise and economically—an utter disaster for the United Kingdom.
I agree very much with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, about how we should look to Germany and the work it does there with its works councils. I was over in Berlin a couple of years ago and saw the great work Rolls-Royce was doing at its factory just outside Berlin.
My noble friend Lord Hain mentioned the Communication Workers Union, and I fully endorse his comments. I also pay tribute to USDAW, the shop workers’ union. I was a member of USDAW for many years. Its members, the shop workers, are the people who have kept our shelves filled, and not without abuse and assaults from people. There have been some disgusting stories of offensive behaviour that shop workers have had to endure from people coming into shops. We should pay tribute to them. During the passage of the Bill concerns have been raised with me by the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, which of course has many members employed in pubs, about their safety as we move forward.
I also endorse the comments of my noble friend Lord Hain that managers and trade unions working together can make a huge difference for businesses, local authorities and the rest of the public sector, particularly the NHS. We should not forget that when we clap NHS workers, pay tribute to shop workers, rightly praise local government staff and call firefighters heroes, they are members of unions such as Unison, Unite, the GMB, USDAW and the FBU. They are the same people—there are not two groups of people, one of heroes and great workers and the other of trade union people. There is something that has always frustrated me, and I raised it many times when the noble Lord, Lord Bourne, was Local Government Minister. When we discussed the tragedy of Grenfell Tower, the frankly totally unfair attacks on the FBU by the Prime Minister always irritated me. I repeatedly raised that, because it was totally unfair. Those heroes are members of that trade union. I will leave my comments there, and I look forward to the reply of the noble Earl to the amendment.
Earl Howe
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hain, made some powerful and extremely significant points on co-operation between employers and employees, and putting that important principle into the context of the current crisis. I thank him for the way he did so. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hendy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, who joined him in putting forward this amendment, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pinnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for their contributions.
As has been explained, this amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce a strategy for employer-employee co-operation in regard to businesses implementing the provisions of the Bill, which should be done within six months of the Act coming into force. In producing the strategy, the Secretary of State would be required to consult trade unions, other employee representatives, relevant businesses and other appropriate parties. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hain, will take it from me that we recognise the importance of effective employer-employee relationships, particularly in the current context. We encourage a constructive approach from both sides.
The noble Lord, Lord Hendy, asked me to say why we would object to an amendment of this kind. We do not think that a ministerially led strategy for employee-employer co-operation is necessary in the context of the Bill. The simple reason for that is that decisions on how to implement the provisions of the Bill rest best with individual businesses, their employees and their representatives, who know far more about their specific circumstances than any government Minister. We do not need to involve the Government in those processes.
I agree that workers’ voices should be easily heard, so it is worth my adding that the Information and Consultation of Employees Regulations 2004 provide another important avenue for the worker’s voice in the workplace. We have recently lowered the request threshold from 10% to 2%, which we believe will encourage employers to be more open with staff about what is happening in their workplace. This has made it easier for employees to secure information and consultation arrangements with their employer on key matters relating to the employer’s strategic direction. That is another reason why we believe that this amendment is not necessary.
The Government recognise that trade unions can play a constructive role in maintaining positive industrial relations. Indeed, to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, we have worked with unions, employers and other parties throughout this pandemic to ensure that workplaces remain safe; we will continue to do so as the UK looks towards economic recovery. This is an important subject, not least because so many people owe their lives and their well-being to a great many trade union members. However, for the reasons I have given, and much as I am with the noble Lord, Lord Hain, in spirit, I am not able to accept this amendment. I hope that the Committee will agree and that, for now at least, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Hain [V]
My Lords, I thank my co-signatories to this amendment, my noble friend Lord Hendy and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. My noble friend Lord Hendy’s expertise and knowledge of employment law is second to none in this House. I am grateful to him for his support, as I am to my noble friend Lord Kennedy of Southwark—particularly for his mention of other unions such as USDAW and the bakers’ union which have been crucial in combating the Covid crisis. We can look right across the board, to UNISON in the health service, the Royal College of Nursing, the GMB and others, which have all played a vital role. This amendment seeks to get proper statutory acknowledgement for that role. I thank also the noble Baronesses, Lady Kramer and Lady Pinnock, for their support.
The Minister is always a model of ministerial courtesy and consensus. I thank him for that, but I find his argument that this amendment is not necessary, frankly, pretty shallow. The amendment is extremely modest, as my noble friend Lord Hendy underlined. All it is asking is for recognition that there should be consultation with trade unions and employees—and with other organisations where no unions are recognised. How can we combat this crisis effectively unless we are all pulling together? As we all know, we are facing an absolutely major crisis. Trade unions are performing a critical role. I find it very disappointing that the Minister is not able to support this amendment. Therefore, I give notice that my noble friends and I will seek to return with another, similar amendment on Report. Meanwhile, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw this amendment.
Agriculture Bill
Tuesday 14th July 2020
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Agriculture Act 2020 View all Agriculture Act 2020 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 112-IV(Rev) Revised fourth marshalled list for Committee - (14 Jul 2020)
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)
My Lords, a limited number of Members are here in the Chamber, respecting social distancing. If the capacity of the Chamber is exceeded, I will immediately adjourn the House. Other Members will participate remotely, but all Members will be treated equally wherever they are. For Members participating remotely, microphones will unmute shortly before they are to speak; please accept any on-screen prompt to unmute. Microphones will be muted after each speech. I ask noble Lords to be patient if there are any short delays as we switch between physical and remote participants. I remind the House that our normal courtesies in debate still very much apply in this new hybrid way of working.
A participants’ list for today’s proceedings has been published and is in my brief, which Members should have received. I also have lists of Members who have put their names to the amendments or expressed an interest in speaking on each group. I will call Members to speak in the order listed. Members’ microphones will be muted by the broadcasters except when I call a Member to speak. Interventions during speeches or before the noble Lord sits down are not permitted, and uncalled speakers will not be heard.
During the debate on each group, I will invite Members, including Members in the Chamber, to email the clerk if they wish to speak after the Minister. I will call Members to speak in order of request and call the Minister to reply each time. The groupings are binding and it will not be possible to de-group an amendment for separate debate. A Member intending to press an amendment already debated to a Division should have given notice in the debate. Leave should be given to withdraw amendments.
When putting the Question, I will collect voices in the Chamber only. If a Member taking part remotely intends to trigger a Division, they should make this clear when speaking on the group.
Clause 1: Secretary of State’s powers to give financial assistance
Lord Blencathra (Con) [V]
My Lords, for all amendments on which I may speak today, I declare my interest as on the register.
When we concluded last Thursday, we had heard some excellent speeches on nature-friendly farming and agroecology, and I will comment on the amendments in this group that speak about those subjects. They are not the same thing, as I recall my noble friend Lord Caithness saying in his speech. As an aside, he also mentioned an anecdotal indicator that highlights the severe decline in our biodiversity. Like him, I cannot recall when I last saw bugs or moths squashed on my car windscreen—at least 20 years ago. Where there are no bugs and beasties, birds will be in decline also.
I was interested that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, kept referring to “nature-friendly farming” in her excellent speech. I have had the benefit of looking at examples of farms in the agroecology network and the Nature Friendly Farming Network and, while both do excellent work, it is important that we get it right if we build either of these terms into legislation.
I am grateful to my friend Professor Michael Winter of Exeter University, the UK-renowned expert on this subject, who is also on the board of Natural England. He has briefed me as follows: “There is a significant difference between the Nature Friendly Farming Network and Agro-Ecology. The Nature Friendly Farming Network is a broad grouping that includes organic and the Linking the Environment And Farming the LEAF/integrated approaches. Agro-ecology dates back to the 1980s and the term was coined by a Chilean scientist (now a professor at Berkeley) called Miguel A. Altieri. It is resolutely organic and anti-GM, and closely linked to the food sovereignty movement. In the UK, agroecology has been adopted by the Landworkers’ Alliance. There are many things to commend agro-ecology but it is not easily compatible with mainstream broadacre UK agriculture, and I am sceptical about the hegemony of organics and the wholesale opposition to mainstream food retailers.”
Professor Winter goes on to say: “I advocate three things in this space: 1) more policy attention and encouragement to agro-ecology as just one part of the tapestry of ensuring faming becomes more nature-friendly; 2) a pragmatic acceptance that most UK agriculture for the foreseeable future is not likely to radically divorce itself from the conventional food chain (as advocated by the Landworkers’ Alliance), and therefore that LEAF/integrated and nature-friendly approaches are needed within the mainstream food system; and 3) the need to encourage research that bridges the gap between the agro-ecology-based approach and the conventional Research Council/Sustainable Intensification approach.” In light of that, I am content that any amendments that mention nature-friendly farming are opposed to those that advocate agroecology, unless they are part of a nature-friendly farming system, which I passionately support.
Finally, I will comment on the speech on pesticides from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, which has tempted me to say something. On Thursday, we heard the excellent speech from the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. He described how new robotic technology now makes it possible for machines to travel down a field and place a tiny drop of pesticide on a single weed leaf and kill it. No pesticide touches the food crop or soil. I do not want Roundup sprayed by aerosol over everything—weeds, food, trees, humans and animals—but we must look again at some of these banned pesticides, if they can be applied in the future in the way described by the noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington. We must not demonise all pesticides and herbicides. If someone invented a herbicide that killed Japanese knotweed or the fungus that destroys ash trees, would we not grab it with open arms, provided it did not harm humans or wildlife? So let us keep an open mind on pesticides and be prepared to change our mind if the technology changes.
Lord Burnett (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. I shall speak to Amendment 38, in the names of my noble friend Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall. This amendment adds implementation of comprehensive integrated pest and weed management measures, based on an agroecological approach, as an additional criterion for financial assistance.
Before I speak to Amendment 38, I shall say how grateful I am to the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, to whom the previous speaker referred. She made a compelling and valuable contribution last Thursday evening in support of her Amendment 259. She was powerfully supported by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, a co-signatory to the amendment. I have considerable sympathy for the principle of a periodic review of the safety of herbicides and pesticides.
Reverting to Amendment 38, I start by declaring that of course I understand that competition is valuable when it is fair and based on common rules and standards. I think that all noble Lords will agree that British agriculture has high standards of animal welfare, and that farmers and growers strive to protect the environment and our landscape. They rightly strive to produce healthy and safe food, not only for human consumption but also for animal consumption. I remind noble Lords that much of the grain produced in the UK goes toward animal feed, and that some of those animals are slaughtered for human consumption.
The experiences of foot and mouth and, prior to that, BSE vividly illustrate the consequences for individuals and this country when standards are allowed to slip. Our growers produce much-needed high-quality vegetables and fruit for human consumption and, to grow the crops, there has to be a system of pest, weed and disease control. This process should be
“based on an agroecological approach”,
in the words of Amendment 38. Unfortunately, when the transition period ends on 31 December this year, many of our likely new trading partners will not be inhibited from using methods and chemicals that are toxic and potentially damaging to human physical and mental health. These products are also potentially damaging to animal health. Some of them have carcinogenic side-effects. Even exercising rights of way by walking or running near crops sprayed with toxic sprays would be a danger to health from inhalation.
There are reports that British consumers face being exposed to toxic chemicals linked to serious health problems if they buy food imported from, for example, America, under the terms of a new trade agreement being negotiated with the USA. Experts say that supermarkets and restaurants will be flooded with cheap produce that has been sprayed with toxic pesticides which are currently banned in Britain and the European Union. I have seen a list published in a respected national newspaper of 70 pesticides that are widely used in the USA but banned in Britain and the EU.
A Toxic Trade study also shows how US farmers use vast quantities of pesticides compared to producers in Britain. If we allow these products to be imported into this country, the price will include a significantly increased risk to human health, which will be borne by the British consumer. It is my hope that Members from all parts of your Lordships’ House will come together to enact legislation in the Bill to ensure that the British consumer is protected from this threat. With the financial assistance provided for in this amendment and with other statutory provisions, we should go some way to keep our standards high and our food safe.
Finally, the Government have manoeuvred us out of the European Union on terms yet to be agreed. This leaves all businesses scandalously and perilously short of time to plan and prepare. The Government themselves have rightly been manoeuvred away from a reliance on the People’s Republic of China. We are not in a strong bargaining position. It is up to Parliament to ensure that the Government comply with the commitments they have repeatedly made to farmers, growers and the public to keep our food safe.
Lord Cameron of Dillington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I am so pleased that the question of good soils found its way into this edition of the Bill. We have Rebecca Pow MP to thank for that improvement to the earlier editions. As the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said last Thursday, in a mere teaspoonful of good soil there should be over 1 billion bacteria and probably, among those, over 1 million different species of bacteria, of which we can identify clearly only about 10%. Nevertheless, it is the bacteria that, with the help of water and sunshine, produce our crops and food. We ignore their health at our peril, so I support all the amendments on maintaining healthy soils and the continuous monitoring of the soils of our nation.
I support the principle of Amendment 117, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and others, on the protection of meadows and other semi-natural grasslands. Meadows and semi-natural grasslands are very important habitats, first because of the amazing variety of flowers that exist there, especially rare orchids and other wildflowers, some of which have wonderful names—such as chalk milkwort, lady’s bedstraw, cuckoo flower, common toadflax, et cetera. These meadows and ancient grasslands also hold a wide diversity of fauna—rare moths, butterflies, beetles, crickets and grasshoppers—which in turn attract a large variety of birds trying to eat them. All this biodiversity specialness is not to underplay the important historical significance of these meadows and semi-natural grasslands.
I have already declared my interest as chair of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology. Some noble Lords may have noticed, last week, that our satellite survey indicated that 8,000 square kilometres of meadows and other grasslands have been lost from Britain’s farms and public land over the last 25 years. That is about the size of Cornwall. When you consider that the previous statistic available was that we had lost over 90% of our ancient meadows and grasslands since World War II, it is really important to keep the ones we still have.
My only comment on the amendment is that, while I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, knows a semi-natural grassland when she sees one, I am not sure that all farmers and landowners necessarily do, particularly if they have just bought the land in question and it is midwinter, when it might not be so obvious what a jewel they have. It would be best if local councils and/or Natural England designated all such meadows and semi-natural grasslands where they have not already done so—a lot of them are, of course, already registered—to make it clear to all and sundry what incredibly valuable heirlooms these places really are.
Lord Inglewood (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, having had the opportunity to read last Thursday’s part debate, I cast my short remarks in general terms. When I read what was said on that occasion, I was reminded of what my father said to me many years ago: real farming—that is, responsible farming—is farming with the grain of nature, because farming, agriculture and forestry are about cropping, not quarrying. This is why soil fertility matters, whether impoverishing the soil or treating it in such a hard way that the topsoil might blow away, as I understand has happened in parts of the Fens.
It is not as though some help, of an appropriate sort, cannot be applied. After all, there is a difference between a sensible and responsible application of fertilisers and certain pesticides to unlock the soil’s potential and simply using the earth as a kind of binding agent—a chemical mixture from which crops are derived. The same general approach applies to animals. I have considerable sympathy with proponents of organic farming, but if you have animals there are occasions when you simply have to use antibiotics, as we do on my farm.
All this shows that there is an interconnectedness in good farming practice, which brings us to questions of agroecology and agroforestry. Again, it is all a matter of integrating land uses and techniques, which is why agroecology is so important. Different uses on the farm need to complement each other in an ecologically and economically sustainable balance. I cannot see that there is any alternative but to have a degree of bureaucracy, because every farm is different.
In particular, I will touch on the espousal of agroforestry by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is important that we are clear, in this wider context, about the difference between trees, woods and forests. In particular, trees, copses and belts are important parts of farms, while forestry and large woods are something slightly different. Of course, the noble Baroness is an enthusiast for wood pasture. That is a very tricky one, because once you introduce stock, unless it is at a very low density, the trees get destroyed. In the north of England, where I come from, wood pasture has been very badly damaged by the introduction of livestock. It will cost a considerable amount of money to reinstate it, which is not to say that that is not the right thing to do.
All this is about human intervention in the workings of nature. If we do not run with nature’s grain, we shall destroy our countryside and degrade its products, which, as a number of noble Lords have said, are what we eat. That is why we must treat these things with such care. I suspect that the golden rule is that we must not be greedy. Of course, that includes the state, which must recognise that all of a farm’s outputs, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, commented last week, are important in whatever form they come.
Lord Wigley (PC) [V]
My Lords, I draw attention to my registered interests in agricultural matters and my membership of the Farmers’ Union of Wales. I give enthusiastic support to Amendment 259 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, to which I have added my name. I pay tribute to the excellent work that she has undertaken on these matters, as indeed has the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who spoke with similar professional authority earlier in this debate last week.
My support for the amendment arises for three reasons. The first relates to the very real dangers of disabilities being triggered by exposure to chemicals among children, including babies in the womb. As an MP, I served for 11 years as vice-chair of the All-Party Group for Disability, working closely with the redoubtable Jack Ashley on these issues, not least regarding thalidomide. That experience taught me that we must always be guided by the precautionary principle. If there is any doubt whatever about possible ill effects of herbicides and pesticides, they should be banned unless and until it is proven beyond doubt that they are safe, not only for human beings, but for animals.
In this context, I respectfully disagree fundamentally with the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, the last speaker in this debate on Thursday evening. The break has allowed me to study his precise words. He said that leaving the European Union gives us the opportunity to develop our own food standards, avoiding the
“unnecessary and costly burdens on farmers”
because of EU regulations,
“which rely too much on the precautionary principle”.—[Official Report, 9/7/20; cols. 1324.]
I fundamentally disagree with this approach and invite the Minister to indicate whether the Government will distance themselves from the noble Viscount’s remarks.
My views are coloured not just by my involvement with disabled children. I have previously referred in the House to my late cousin, Owen Wigley, a Minnesota farmer who died from a condition that his family are convinced was triggered by exposure to the weedkiller Roundup, which is the subject of a raft of court cases in the United States. I have seen the devastating impact on the natural environment in my home area, where use of such chemicals in too strong a mix, which had not been adequately dose controlled, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, mentioned, had the effect of wiping out all plant life in a field for a whole season, leaving it unusable for agricultural purposes. My wife also had a relative, a farmer in Wales, whose close family was convinced that his health suffered enormously from the effect of such chemicals in sheep dips. When I was an MP, I had a constituent whose family were convinced was severely disabled from exposure to such sheep-dipping chemicals.
Thirdly, I add my voice in support of the need to safeguard the process of pollination. The vital contribution of bees and other pollinators to our wildlife is fundamental to the survival of our natural environment and, in turn, humanity itself. This amendment provides an opportunity to place a responsibility on all engaged in the production of food to have a proactive awareness of these dangers at the forefront of their minds, and for the living world to be protected from such dire consequences.
If we are, rightly, to place such responsibilities on our food producers in these islands, they must also, most assuredly, be criteria against which the standards of all imported food should be measured. Products that fail to meet the required standard should be denied access to UK markets. I was so glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Burnett, highlight this. I urge the Government to accept Amendment 259.
Baroness Quin (Lab) [V]
My Lords, a number of amendments before the Committee refer to nature-friendly farming in general. Others refer to specific activities within nature-friendly farming. While each of us may know what we mean by that, and the kind of schemes that we would favour, a comprehensive definition of what it means is more challenging. Amendment 96 certainly makes a good attempt to define “nature-friendly”; I support it, and the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. However, there are clearly different views, with some favouring low-input farming, some talking about agroecology and some about organic farming. Others favour conventional, or intensive, farming, sometimes combined with a precision approach and with generous field margins and set-aside schemes. These would create habitats for particular animal, bird or plant species and could, therefore, also qualify as nature friendly.
Like other noble Lords, I was struck by the figures quoted by the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, showing that the UK seems to be moving away from organic farming, in the opposite direction to many of our European neighbours. What is the Government’s view of this trend? Do they want our organic sector to expand and, if so, by how much? Perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, soil quality is one of the key aspects to take into account in deciding what nature-friendly farming is. Do the Government agree that monitoring soil quality, then acting on those findings, needs to be done? Do the Government have their own definition of nature-friendly farming, or will they limit themselves to funding schemes judged to be nature friendly or, as has just been said, working with the grain of nature.
I turn, finally, to the main point on which I would like assurance. Will the Government commit to taking a regionally sensitive approach in England to supporting eligible projects and schemes under the Bill? The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke about the distinctiveness of the natural environment in his part of the north of England. He mentioned the curlew, a bird which is the symbol of Northumberland National Park. I declare a non-financial interest as president of the Northumberland National Park Foundation. I am glad to tell the noble Lord that, during lockdown, I have seen many curlews in the river estuary in my locality. I hope that the Government will agree that working with regional and local wildlife trusts and other environmental organisations, as well as with farmers in the different regions and localities, will be important in evaluating schemes and identifying which species of animal, bird and plant life are under threat in particular areas.
To conclude, I ask the Government to ensure that regional diversity is built in to their overall policy of ensuring that agricultural and environmental policies work hand in hand.
Lord Mann (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I speak in favour of Amendment 29 and the other pro-nature, pro-ecology amendments in this group, in support of diversity and of some of our lost agricultural traditions. I will illustrate this with a story about cheese. On the Welbeck estate in north Nottinghamshire, Stilton is being made in the traditional way, with unpasteurised milk. It is a marvellous product and that is the only place in the country that does it. Yet Defra’s rules do not allow the traditional, real Stilton to be called “Stilton”. It has to be marketed under the name Stichelton. It is a wonderful cheese, and a high-quality product made using the traditional way of doing things, but it is not able to use a name because of our own rules. I hope that this example is not an illustration of where things might go, having left the European Union. The freedom to some of the pro-ecology, pro-nature traditions is one way we can have a diverse agriculture.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD) [V]
My Lords, the Committee is resuming last Thursday’s debate after a lapse of four days, so it is difficult to remember exactly what noble Lords said without referring to Hansard. We are still on Clause 1 of the Bill, but are debating the main and important theme of environmental sustainability. If we do not get this right, the country will be paying the price, in a variety of ways, for decades to come. There are amendments about agroecology, agroforestry systems, organic and ecologically sustainable systems, pesticides, fertilisers and nature-friendly farming. This is a wide range of topics, but they are ones which Peers in this virtual and physical Chamber quite rightly feel strongly about.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Randall of Uxbridge, for adding their names to my Amendments 38 and 120. The noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay of Llandaff and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, have also put down amendments about pest control. The new approach of public money for public goods is a huge opportunity to support farmers who adopt and maintain non-chemical alternatives to pesticides. It is crucial that this approach is not undermined by a catch-all clause providing payments for productivity. Defra’s Secretary of State believes that the development and uptake of integrated pest management—IPM—is a crucial mechanism for ensuring that the objectives outlined in the Agriculture Bill and the 25-year environment plan are delivered.
Amendments 38, 120 and 259 ensure that farmers are rewarded for adopting proper IPM techniques, based on the agroecology approach to farming, coupled with a review of the national food strategy.
At Second Reading, I referred to the importance of properly regulated pesticides. Over the years, we have seen the removal from the market of various herbicides and pesticides because of their side-effects on humans. However, it often takes a very long campaign before action is taken. The banning of organophosphate sheep dips springs to mind. Many years ago, a colleague said to me that we should pay more attention to the effects of pesticides on humans than herbicides, as human physiology is much closer to that of insects than of plants. My noble friend Lord Burnett has spoken of the dangers of pesticides, and of using common rules and standards. Agroecology must be the standard. He also warned about the import from America of foods sprayed with pesticides.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, listed an enormous number of side-effects that exposure to pesticides can cause. It is safer for all if we approach pesticides with caution, rather than rushing headlong into their use in order to increase the productivity of a crop. I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Wigley. I support the precautionary principle and acknowledge the impact of pesticides on disabilities.
Productivity is, of course, important. Farmers need to make a decent living from the land, but not at the expense of those who suffer health problems as a result of pesticide spraying. However, the might of the chemical producers often overrides the concerns of the ordinary man and woman displaying health problems. When will the Government produce a target for the uptake of the IPM, which is supported by the Secretary of State?
I fully support all the amendments in this group. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, my noble friend Lord Teverson and the noble Baronesses, Lady Young of Old Scone and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, have stressed the importance of agroecology. So often, the way the land is farmed leads to degeneration of the quality of the soil, and thus the quality of the crops grown. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, spoke knowledgeably of the importance of the upkeep of grassland and the species that inhabit it, and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, also supported agroecology and running with nature’s grain. The noble Earls, Lord Caithness and Lord Dundee, the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and others have pressed the case for the inclusion of afforestation and organic farming. The noble Duke gave stark statistics on how far behind the UK is lagging on its organic farming programme. I know the Minister, as a farmer, has a close interest in these matters and I look forward to hearing a positive response.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest through my involvement with the Rothamsted agricultural research institute. We have covered a wide range of issues in this group and I thank all noble Lords who contributed to the debate last week and again today. The amendments explore in more detail what we will need to deliver environmentally sustainable agriculture. We have had reference to nature-friendly farming, to agroecological systems, to agroforestry, to organically and ecologically sustainable systems, to the improved nutrient content of crops, to integrated pest management and to the importance of soil health. I agree with all those concepts, but also with my noble friend Lady Quin that we need to be clear about the definitions of these phrases when we use them.
All these systems have detailed research behind them, which reinforces the evidence that harnessing nature can improve farm outcomes, as well as enhancing the environment. Many noble Lords will have seen at first hand the positive impact on farmland productivity that can occur when these techniques are embraced. At the same time, we know that nature-based measures to reduce emissions can make a substantial contribution to tackling climate change while preserving or restoring habitats. We agree that natural ecological processes and agroforestry techniques should lie at the heart of the Bill. When adopted on a whole-farm approach, they will reduce the use of agrochemicals, encourage biodiversity, improve soil health, recycle nutrients, energy and waste and generally create more diverse, resilient and productive agroecosystems.
Last year, the RSA Food, Farming and Countryside Commission report set out the case for bringing agroecology systems out of the shadows and into the mainstream of farming practice. It argued that farmers need to be helped to make that transition and recommended a 10-year programme to provide more research, training and capital grants to make this a reality. This would be an excellent use of the financial assistance in the Bill.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who talked about the need for a long-term programme of soil monitoring. We face a fundamental eradication of soil fertility that will be difficult to reverse. Our APPG on science in agriculture had an excellent evidence session last year on the numerous research projects taking place on this issue, but what we really need is to bring the evidence together in one place. While I am on the subject, will the Minister update us on the work of the Sustainable Soils Alliance, launched by Michael Gove, that was meant to do just that?
The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, specifically mentioned the transition to organic farming. I agree that this also has an important role to play. Organic farms have 50% more wildlife than conventionally farmed land and healthier soils, with a 44% higher capacity to store long-term soil carbon. Clearly, if the soil is more fertile, it increases productivity, so organic farming can make a real difference to biodiversity while sustaining food production.
The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, and others talked about agroforestry. We agree that this system of planting has huge benefits over traditional forestry techniques. We know that the pressure is on to plant more trees. The Committee on Climate Change has set a target of between 30,000 and 50,000 hectares of new planting a year, but so far the Government have fallen well short of that target. It is important that trees are planted in a way that is sympathetic to the countryside and to the environment, rather than the monoculture plantations we have seen in the past. Agroforestry supplies the answer to this. Mixed plantings of trees and shrubs grown around crops can reduce erosion, increase biodiversity and create complex habitats, so we very much hope that financial assistance will be available to help farmers to create this mixed planting economy.
Finally, the amendments in the name of noble Baronesses, Lady Bennett and Lady Finlay, highlight the need to reduce the use of herbicides and pesticides. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in particular, highlighted the potentially damaging impacts of pesticides on health, and recommended looking at the evidence and producing an annual report. These views were echoed powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the very moving examples he gave. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also rightly raised the need to avoid contaminated products being imported into this country. We agree with these objectives and have our own amendments, Amendment 226 on pesticides and Amendment 173 calling for a national food plan that addresses the problem of pesticide residues. I hope that the debates on these amendments will enable us to set out our position in more detail.
This has been a good discussion and I hope the Minister has heard the collective call for a funding priority for nature-based ecological farming. I am sure we will start to narrow down our priorities in this regard as we continue to consider the Bill, but in the meantime I look forward to her response.
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Lucas for his Amendments 29 and 217, with which I will also discuss Amendment 224 in the name of my noble friend Lord Caithness. Soil is indeed one of our greatest natural assets and the Government are committed to having sustainably managed soils by 2030, as set out in the 25-year environment plan. Providing financial incentives for protecting and improving the quality of soil will help to protect and improve all the properties that contribute to healthy soil. The 25-year environment plan sets out the Government’s ambition to have sustainably managed soils by 2030. A healthy soils indicator is being developed as part of a framework of indicators under the plan.
My noble friend Lord Caithness asked about spending commitments in the plan. This spend has been allocated to developing a robust and informative soil health indicator and monitoring scheme, and the Government are currently in the process of confirming actions for their work programme to protect and improve soil quality. The Government will develop a definition of soil health with stakeholders. To ensure that it captures the complete picture of soil health, this definition will be a balance of biological, chemical and physical characteristics, and could therefore include characteristics that help define the biodiverse nature of the soil, such as earthworms and fungi, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Lucas.
To help achieve this target, the Government are considering the development of a soil monitoring scheme informed by natural capital approaches. As such, this scheme will recognise the relationships between soil properties and the ecosystem services that soil provides, such as clean water and carbon storage. A new soil monitoring scheme would provide a baseline national-scale picture of the state of our soils. This will enable the Government to quantify targets for improvements and then monitor progress towards these targets. These metrics could directly feed into ELM to incentivise better management approaches. Maintaining the metrics of measure across national and localised schemes will enable shared data collection, storage and analysis to further inform impacts of management actions.
There are a number of key vehicles through which the Government are working to address soil quality. These include: this Bill, which will provide financial assistance for the protection and improvement of soils; the Environment Bill, which will allow a future soils target to be set; the 25-year environment plan, through which a soil indicator is being developed; and the new ELM scheme, which could act as a lever for incentivising sustainable soil practices. Protecting and improving our soils will involve a wide variety of actions, reflecting the wide diversity in soil quality, soil types and land uses in England. This would include actions to protect our best grade 1 and 2 lands as well as actions to improve the poorer-quality grade land—in the words of the father of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, farming within the grain of nature, cropping not quarrying.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Henig) (Lab)
I have received a request to speak after the Minister from the noble Lord, Lord Teverson.
Lord Teverson (LD) [V]
I thank the Minister very much for her positive reaction to agroecology and agroforestry. However, one of the main themes of both those practices is whole-farm management. I am concerned that, under tier 1 of ELMS, there is the possibility of a number of environmentally friendly actions taking place but that this not being reflected in a whole-farm environment. Will Defra and the Government, particularly when they award tier 1 ELM schemes, look for a whole-farm approach rather than a bits-and-pieces application of environmentally friendly measures? That is my key concern. Whole-farm management has been a major theme all around the House. Would the ELM scheme mean that it would be applied across all the measures taken?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I thank the noble Lord for his question about whole-farm management. The ELM schemes are very much in trial stage; nothing has been ruled out or in. That will become clearer over the coming months.
I shall also take this opportunity to give the definition of agroecology that I was looking for earlier and floundering. Agroecology means different things to different people, but in this Bill it is based on applying ecological concepts and principles to optimise interactions between plants, animals, humans and the environment, while taking into consideration the social aspects that need to be addressed for a sustainable and fair food system.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
I now call the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who I understand also has a question.
Lord Lucas (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for her answer, which was very encouraging. However, on my specific amendments, will she confirm so that it is clearly on the record that the Government consider soil, for the purposes of this Bill, to include all that lives within it? If not now, can my noble friend write to me to say how the soil survey is intended to be set up and funded?
Baroness Bloomfield of Hinton Waldrist
I would be delighted to write to the noble Lord on the latter matter. On his former point, I believe that my speech actually gave the reassurance that it includes all matters within the soil.
Lord Lucas [V]
I am immensely grateful for the response given by my noble friends and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
“( ) protecting or improving the food security of citizens and access to food that promotes good health and wellbeing.”
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con) [V]
My Lords, I will also speak to Amendment 70. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, and the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, for their support for Amendment 35. I also thank the two noble Baronesses, as well as my noble friend Lord Caithness, for their support of Amendment 70.
Amendment 35 seeks to add a further subsection to Clause 1(1) to ensure that
“protecting or improving the food security of citizens and access to food that promotes good health and wellbeing”
will qualify for financial assistance. The purpose of the amendment is to put public interest in food security front and centre in the Bill. While I accept that other parts of the Bill provide a requirement on the Government to report on food security and to have regard to food production in the use of their powers under Clause 1 on financial assistance, there is nothing in the Bill that specifically addresses the need to focus attention on matters relating to food security.
This is an issue of great importance to all citizens. At a time when we have seen our food system come under huge pressure as a result of the impact of Covid-19 and the government response to its spread, it is remarkable that the Government do not see the need for greater focus on this most important concern of the British public. It is not simply about driving self-sufficiency, which has fallen to about 60%; it is also about the fact that production of food from our own resources is an important part of food security. Indeed, the Government’s own food policy tsar, Henry Dimbleby, has highlighted the need for greater attention to be given to this important policy area. It is a matter of regret that we have not, and will not, have sight of his much-anticipated report at the time that the Bill is adopted in this place. With more than 1 million people having signed a petition seeking greater support for food standards, we in this place must be in step with the British people, ensuring that we share their concerns on what is given proper pre-eminence in the important legislation before the Committee today.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure finally to get to this group after so many hours of waiting. I commend the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. Again, I say what a pleasure it is to follow her; her contributions are always extremely valuable. Having signed a lot of her amendments, I am afraid that I shall keep saying that. I also commend my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle and her Amendment 47. In fact, I support too many of the amendments in this group to list them all. It is a fantastic group, which strikes at the heart of what the Government should be aiming for with their food policy: supporting high-quality, healthy, nutritious food, grown as close to the consumer as possible.
When I chaired London Food, an initiative of the then mayor Ken Livingstone, I put together a report on how to make food sustainable for a huge conglomeration of cities and large towns. The single most important factor was that food should be local. I love organic food, but local food is the way forward if you want to be truly sustainable, so that food does not move around too much and stays nutritious. We can eat it very quickly after cooking. These amendments recognise the fundamental link between the food we put into our bodies and our resulting health. Too much of our food system remains tied to the World War era mindset of processing as much high-calorie food as possible to meet the most basic nutritional needs of the population. The outcome has been obesity, diabetes and food-related ill health. Good food policy should have health and nutrition as its core principle.
Sadly, I have not signed Amendment 53 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, or Amendment 63, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. I did not spot them in time, but they are wonderful amendments. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response on what the Government plan to do to support urban and community food-growing, which the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, has already mentioned in previous amendments.
Finally, I turn to my Amendment 46, which would tie public procurement into the Bill. The enormous buying power of the public sector is often overlooked, but it is essential for the transition to a sustainable and ecologically friendly world. Too much procurement goes to the lowest-cost bidder without consideration of social and environmental impacts. My amendment hopes to prompt the Minister to address public procurement and its role in supporting a better food system for the UK.
Lord Greaves (LD)
My Lords, I thank the previous speaker for her support of my Amendment 53. I do not want to say much about it, but I wonder whether the Government can comment on the way in which new technologies are producing food, such as protein in laboratories and the concept of vertical gardens and vertical market gardens in urban areas. How do they fit into their general food strategy?
I want to support pretty much everything that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said in introducing this group. It is extremely important. I have one minor quibble: she said we need less reliance on food banks. I always have to pinch myself when I come across a food bank, and I come across them fairly frequently nowadays. Why do we have to have food banks? Food banks are an indication that there is something very sadly wrongly with the society and the economy in which we live. Although at one level they are an excellent example of community endeavour and of people coming together to meet a need, we ought not to be looking for less reliance on food banks; we ought to be looking to abolish them because nobody needs any longer to go and get free food because they and their families cannot afford to eat.
I added my name to Amendment 63, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about “urban and peri-urban areas”. I have mentioned urban areas; I had not really come across the phrase “peri-urban areas” before, until I realised that I probably live in a peri-urban area. There are urban buildings on the very edge of the fields. We are talking about the areas surrounding towns, cities and urban agglomerations—earlier in this Committee, I spoke briefly about this on Amendment 79, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher.
What I want to do briefly now is to mention the importance of the range of small-scale enterprises that go under the name of allotments. A lot of allotments are hobby allotments, but they are still very important as part of a food strategy because people are growing their own food which, by definition, is what they want and it is usually organic and nutritious. Some allotments are community enterprises and some are semi-commercial enterprises—small market gardens and that kind of thing. It seems to me that there is huge scope for the expansion and extension of this kind of thing in peri-urban areas, as the noble Earl describes them.
I should perhaps declare an interest as a councillor in the Waterside ward of Colne because I want to mention something that happened there. Much of Waterside ward is an areas of closely packed terraced streets which are nevertheless on the edge of the countryside. They are on the edge of the peri-urban area because we have old mill towns that never expanded —particularly between the wars because the towns were shrinking not expanding. In that area, we have several community-based allotments, including a community land trust, an allotment used by a group catering for people with special needs and one I am particularly proud of as, as a councillor, I was fairly responsible for the council acquiring land in the 2000s and laying them out for new allotments using money from what eventually became the ill-fated housing market renewal scheme, but which nevertheless provided us with very useful funding that we could use for that purpose.
We need a lot more. In most areas the provision of allotments is a responsibility of town and parish councils. The problem they have in expanding is getting the money to acquire land and lay out the infrastructure of an allotment, such as dividing it up, providing the fencing and perhaps a water supply and so on. By the structure of the way they work, parish and town councils do not get direct funding from the Government in a general sort of way. They do not get local council support grants. However, there is a huge need for an expansion of mini market garden community allotment and traditional allotment provision, particularly in the areas around towns where not only can they provide very useful growing facilities for people but they can solve some of the problems of what is quite often a tatty zone around some urban areas.
I do not think it is his department, but I ask the Minister to go back and see whether in what the Government are doing under their proposals to regenerate towns, in particular left-behind areas such as the old industrial areas, specific funding for allotments could be given a great deal more priority.
Lord Northbrook (Con)
My Lords, I was very pleased to hear about the success of the excellent allotment scheme mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. I shall speak to Amendments 56, 60 and 69, which are tabled in my name. I was one of the 20 or so noble Lords who were excluded from Second Reading, and while my Whip courteously gave me an explanation of the causes—the combination of Covid-19 and technology factors—I had hoped for some sort of apology from someone on the Front Bench to the 20 or so of us, but as far as I am aware none has been made. Such exclusion from Second Reading is a not a good precedent.
I declare my interests as a landowner and arable farmer. These amendments support domestic agriculture to ensure that food security and the stability of food supply are included in the purposes to which financial assistance can be directed under Clause 1. It is an important requirement for any Government to serve the interests of their people by investing in domestic food production to ensure stability and security in the provision of a safe and affordable domestic supply of food, as the quantity and quality of imports cannot always be guaranteed. Today’s FT points out that the UK is only a little over 50% self-sufficient in food and that, of the balance, four-fifths comes from the EU. Should there be any disruption by way of port delays, it will be serious.
The coronavirus crisis has shown how important it is to have a domestic supply of food. The view of farmers as food producers has never resonated more with the public than at this time, with the need to keep our shelves stocked the highest of priorities. I welcome the fact that the Government recognised that food production role by granting farmers key worker status during the countrywide lockdown, although the future of domestic fruit and vegetable supply may not be guaranteed if there are not enough workers to pick them. Given the increased significance of food security in the UK, the first amendment in particular would enable the Government to give financial assistance for the explicit purpose of supporting the domestic production of food.
In developing new forms of financial assistance, the Bill obliges the Government to,
“have regard to the need to encourage the production of food by producers in England and its production by them in an environmentally sustainable way.”
This is a welcome advance from the first Agriculture Bill, which, extraordinarily, did not mention food at all. While in the Bill “have regard to” provides a robust starting point and an ongoing reference point during the development of schemes such as the environmental land management scheme, the Government should be clearer about how exactly they see this provision influencing government policy in practice. It would be strengthened by an explicit requirement that any financial assistance scheme is designed to encourage the sustainable production of food by producers in England. I do not know whether the ELM scheme will do that.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook. I second his comments about the importance of food security and its absence from the Bill at present. It is also a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering. I commend Amendment 35 in her name for its focus on food security. One of the major roles of the Government must be to ensure that people can eat. I also commend Amendments 46 and 70, which are supported by my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
I shall speak chiefly to Amendment 47, in my name, which my noble friend Lady Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and the noble Lord, Lord Judd, have kindly backed. I am also grateful that in our discussions last week, the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville and Lady Jones of Whitchurch, commenting on the linked Amendment 77, expressed support for the principle of this amendment and for the Bill to cover this explicitly.
To some degree, this amendment is a rebuttal of the statements made last week by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, suggesting that outdoor livestock production is not giving us enough food and, implicitly, that factory farming is essential. That suggests that production of meat is one of our problems, which is clearly not the case. In fact, we have meat production which is largely food waste. I am talking about factory farming, of course—feeding large quantities of perfectly edible grains, oils and proteins to produce far smaller quantities of meat. This is something we can no longer afford.
Land is a scarce resource, as the Government acknowledged last week. We cannot afford to waste it growing food that is immediately fed to animals, as we currently do with about 20% of farmland. There is an argument for small quantities of winter feed for predominately pastured animals, but that is very different from the vast chicken sheds, piggeries and factory dairies that we have seen expanding in the UK in recent years. The problem with them is not simply food waste, or the failure to produce healthy food. I often come under attack from people who wave a finger at me and say, “The Green Party wants people to eat less meat, isn’t that terrible?” Usually I point to those well-known radical environmentalists of the British Medical Association, which also says that we need far less meat in the British diet and meat of a far higher quality. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, said last week, this is a very strong medical recommendation.
The noble Baroness also alluded to the crucial issue of antimicrobial resistance, something we hear concern about from all sides of politics, including the former Prime Minister David Cameron, who some years ago made it the subject of a major speech. In the past week, we have seen the chief executive of GlaxoSmithKline identify antimicrobial resistance as a predictable threat to global health on the same scale as Covid-19.
Sadly, Covid-19 has made all too clear the need to think about the welfare of workers, not only on factory farms but in the giant, fast-moving, mass-production abattoirs. There is also the health of our environment, including dead zones in our oceans and rivers from nitrogen pollution, and the air pollution problems on which my noble friend Lady Jones has tabled amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was right that we need protein. That is where the positive side of this amendment comes in, as it seeks to promote a shift to plant-based food production, particularly—one of the things that we have seen some progress on, but it must be much faster—the production of protein crops. It is interesting that this also means the potential for farmers to diversify into different crops, reducing risk. Of course, growing nitrogen-fixing crops often reduces or ends the need to rely on artificial fertilisers, with all the other benefits that have been rehearsed in this debate.
This amendment says, “We want to see the Agriculture Bill positively promote crops that are good for the environment, good for people’s health and good for farmers’ incomes and farm security.” I need to point to the possibilities of a pretty small-scale operation. A wonderful company called Hodmedod’s, which is very much focused on promoting different crops and restoring historical ones, recently grew lentils in the UK for the first time in quite some time. I also learned that it has been promoting carlin peas, which, as I learned in an internet discussion, are apparently a traditional cultural bar snack in Lancashire. Rather than peanuts, we could have local carlin, or parched, peas. This reminds us that we can have cultural restoration as well as the restoration of our health, well-being, soils and food. I commend Amendment 47 to the House.
I was also pleased to attach my name to Amendment 71, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville. It would introduce a requirement to support healthy and nutritious food and, implicitly, avoid supporting unhealthy food. It is clear that our global food system, of which the UK is a closely enmeshed part, is entirely broken. Last year, before Covid, 690 million malnourished people were unable to get the basic calories they needed; a similar number are obese, unable to get the healthy food they need, and billions more are on that route. Yet we have just seen a truly tragic figure in the UK: the number of cases of children admitted to hospital suffering from malnutrition has doubled in the past six months to 2,500—and that was with only two-thirds of NHS trusts reporting. I hope that, in responding, the Government will say that it is their business to ensure that the UK meets the second sustainable development goal: zero hunger. Part of that is having a healthy diet, not simply an adequate number of calories. We not on track to meet that goal by 2030. In his response, I hope that the Minister will tell us how the Government hope to achieve that goal if they are not intending to use the Agriculture Bill to do so.
Amendment 75—tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and backed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Meacher and Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville—seeks to improve public health by increasing the availability, affordability, diversity, quality and marketing of fruit, vegetables and pulses. I want to focus on marketing in particular. The World Cancer Research Fund has said that countries, including the UK, are failing to protect children from the effects of “harmful” junk food marketing. Children are having unhealthy food promoted to them but are not seeing the promotion of healthy food; the World Cancer Research Fund says that this is a human rights issue.
Finally, Amendment 75 refers to reducing the use of antibiotics and related veterinary products. I have been contacted by members of the public and industry asking what “related veterinary product” refers to; I would point to anthelmintics, in particular their impact on dung fauna and on insects on land and in watercourses. I do not consider this amendment as covering vaccines. I also note the similarity between this amendment and my Amendment 49, which would put a similar provision in Clause 1. If the EU target is for a 50% reduction in pesticide use in a decade and if the UK is to be world-leading in that regard, how will we get to that standard if not through the Agriculture Bill?
The Earl of Dundee (Con) [V]
My Lords, I declare my own business interest in farming as already detailed in the register. In this group, I support Amendments 35, 36, 60, 69 and 71. All of them emphasise growing healthy and nutritious food. That also means growing and offering a rather better selection of food than we now do. Therefore, I am also in favour of Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, which advocates a shift in direction to achieve improved diets—still containing, but much less dominated by, animal products. I also support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, which urges more food production in urban areas.
Amendment 63 in my name would encourage urban and peri-urban growing enterprises to provide fresh local produce close to the market where it is required. I hope that my noble friend the Minister agrees that the Secretary of State might provide incentives accordingly. During the coronavirus pandemic, we have witnessed the importance of food security and local supply chains delivering food to where it is needed. Farming endeavours within conurbations can have an immediate and beneficial impact on supply chains, responding accurately to local demands. This contrasts with large supermarket chains sourcing goods from overseas and adding to the carbon footprint of such produce through transport costs.
Small-scale intensive food production uses little space yet reveals a high yield per acre as well-evidenced in the Netherlands. Those examples are particularly suited to towns and cities where ground is in short supply. Green-belt areas could also be freed up for such endeavours. They would also offer quality outdoor employment for people in urban environments.
Some of these projects might fulfil a social purpose too: for instance, city farms to educate children about animals and agriculture; and allotments, to which the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, has already referred, which can teach people about food production at the same time as allowing and encouraging them to grow their own food. Not least, they also enable more green areas in cities for the benefit of those living there.
The Earl of Devon [V]
My Lords, I will endeavour to be brief: we have an awful lot to get through. I am grateful to see Clause 1(4) in the Bill. It was remarkable that, in its early iterations, a Bill about agriculture had no specific reference to the provision of food. My Amendment 71 would merely improve upon that provision of food by the specification that it should be both “healthy and nutritious”.
I am grateful for the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell and Lady Bennett, on this amendment. I understand that all the amendments in this group are directed to a very similar goal. There is clearly strong support across the Committee for making sure that the food whose production we are encouraging is healthy and nutritious, and not the sort of food that causes ill-health, obesity and so many other issues that are being brought into full focus with the onslaught of coronavirus. At this time, of all times, it has become clear that the health and well-being of our nation are a result of the healthiness and nutrition of the food that we eat. This is therefore not just about agriculture; it goes to a much wider issue.
Some may say that the health and nutrition of the food could be secured by the fact that the clause provides that it must be environmentally sustainable. Of course, the two things are vastly different. It is perfectly possible to produce food in an environmentally sustainable way and it not be healthy and nutritious. There has been much talk over recent days of insect farming and novel agritech. You could certainly see insect farming as a very environmentally sustainable means of farming. It is the feeding of waste product, typically to insect larvae, which are then mashed up for their protein. That is the production of food in a very environmentally sustainable way, but I am not sure that it is either healthy or nutritious food, albeit it has an important role to play in the feeding of fish, for example, and other larger animals.
Baroness Boycott (CB) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to be in this debate and to follow the noble Earl, Lord Devon. I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville, Lady Meacher and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, for supporting my amendment. I agree with pretty much all the amendments proposed, and agree entirely with the provision and principle of ELMS, but I want to make a few points.
Of course, we must support the environmental goods that our farming can do, but if we do that without including the need to grow healthy food, we have in a sense lost the primary reason why we farm and have given it back to the market. By that, I mean the overwhelming power of the big retail producers, which has meant that so much land has been given over to grow grains which feed animals, or grains which are highly refined and end up in un-nutritious products such as cheap white bread and that so little of our land ends up producing the nutritious fruit and vegetables that we need.
I shall give a few facts and figures. The volume of home production decreased by 1.8% in 2019 to the lowest level that we have had for 20 years, despite its value having gone up. Imports have increased as well. Home production of vegetables contributes only about 54% of the total UK food supply. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and others have talked about our food security but it is bigger than that: it is about trying to support farmers to do the right thing to support our health. Some 31,000 premature deaths in the UK could be averted every year if we ate enough fruit and veg, yet according to the Food Foundation, of which I am a trustee, UK adults currently eat an average of just 2.5 portions of veg a day.
When the previous Agriculture Bill went through its Second Reading in the Commons, Michael Gove, then Secretary of State for Defra, said:
“Every measure in the Bill is designed to ensure that our farmers receive the support that they deserve to give us … healthy food.”
When challenged on why this was not in its Clause 1, he said that
“food production in this country is critical to the improvement of public health … we put the importance of improving public health at the heart of everything that we do”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/10/18; cols. 150-51.]
In answer to another question about whether that Bill would support the production of fruit and veg, he said that it was a critical issue. I therefore consider this Bill worryingly silent when it comes to healthy food production. It has to be a matter of strategic national interest and social justice that we ensure that our country is better able to feed itself with healthy, nutritious food and to protect itself from volatility.
Sustainable production must be central to this Bill—it cannot be seen as something to be left to the market—and that, I am afraid, takes money. The noble Lord, Lord Greaves, spoke about the need for allotments and more growing spaces. When I ran the London Food Board, we had a project called Capital Growth and created 2,500 new community projects. It is tremendously successful and we are trying to roll it out across the country. However, at the end of the day, it accounts for a tiny amount of vegetables. The point is that, if we are to grow more, farmers need money. At the moment, a very small amount of our land is devoted to this. We have to understand that financial help is needed, first, to make the transition and, secondly, to get this produce to the market. All the other things that I have talked about in our debates on amendments—local food networks, local abattoirs and so on—are part of the same thing.
We know that we have terrible problems with obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes. These are the results of a food system which is not working for us and our citizens. We have had a policy based on food corporations. We now have a unique opportunity to take this system back into public ownership and public concern.
Healthy food is a public good just as much as our NHS, and if we had better diets we would save that amazing institution about £2 billion a year. If we ate more local and seasonal fruit and vegetables, and if we bought from local producers, we could also reduce our carbon footprint, at the same time as improving our health, our land, our mental health and the mental health of our communities, which, as every noble Lord will have seen in the last few weeks, is an issue of such importance to our country.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, has indicated that he will not speak on this group, I call the next speaker on the list, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness.
The Earl of Caithness (Con) [V]
My Lords, first, I thank those responsible for the speakers’ lists for heeding my words and those of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves. The present speakers’ list is in a much better shape and leads to better debate than was the case previously.
I have put my name to Amendment 70. I think that the words “have regard to” in Clause 1(4) weaken the importance of producing good, healthy food. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that they should be deleted, and I congratulate my noble friend Lady McIntosh on sponsoring this amendment. I was happy to sign up to it.
All noble Lords have been speaking about food security. I hope that every single one of your Lordships participating in today’s debate has read the recently published report of the Food, Poverty, Health and the Environment Committee entitled Hungry for Change: Fixing the Failures in Food. The report goes into the subject in some depth, covering many of the points raised in this evening’s debate.
I would like to make one point about growing healthy food. It sounds as though our farmers do not grow healthy food at the moment. I think that, in the present circumstances of the CAP, our farmers grow very healthy food but it is the food industry that turns it into ultra-processed food, and that is the poison that contaminates our diets. Rather than just concentrating on farmers, the food industry has to be looked at as a whole.
We make a number of recommendations in our report Hungry for Change, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to them in due course. Food security covers a vast number of departments. We talked to three different ministries during our deliberations, which were somewhat hampered by the Covid pandemic, but it is clear that this is a whole-government rather than just a Defra problem.
Given what everybody else has said, I can now terminate my remarks, but I hope that my noble friend will agree to Amendment 70.
Lord Whitty (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I added my name to Amendment 35, which was so comprehensively moved by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and I did so for one simple reason: it explicitly recognises that a key part of the output of farming must be its effect on human health. It is somewhat strange that Clause 1, which lists all the ways in which public money can be spent to support the output of farming—the improvement of land, water, woodlands, the environment, natural heritage, the countering of environmental threats, the welfare of livestock, the health of plants, plant and livestock conservation and so on—contains no mention of human beings.
The biggest impact of farming, both in its production methods and in what it produces, is on human beings. I was provoked, to some extent, to add my name to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, because I received advice on pesticides when I was tabling a different amendment that comes much later on in this Bill. Some of the issues relating to this have already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, in the earlier debate today. However, I asked that this amendment be headed “human health”, and I was told that this was beyond the scope of the Bill. It must not be. I have amended that amendment to conform, obviously, but human health is central to this Bill.
It is not just the potentially negative effects of some farming processes; it is much more positively the effect of the produce of farming on the balance of our diets and nutrition, and the way it gets to the public. Like the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others, I was a member of the Select Committee under the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, which produced its report very recently. That report spells out that farming has to be seen as part of the totality of the food chain, and one of its principal impacts is its being directly or indirectly responsible for the health and nutrition of our population.
As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has just said, much of the responsibility here lies with the big processors, the wholesalers and the retailers, which both specify and advertise food that is quite often not so healthy. However, the responsibility also lies on farmers and government policy towards farming. The Krebs report makes quite a wide range of recommendations that relate to this, and the Bill does not fully reflect that priority because the availability, quality, pricing, convenience and affordability of nutritious food is vital to turning around the declining quality of our diets, which is causing such things as our obesity being the worst in Europe and examples of malnutrition and so forth in our population—mostly, but by no means exclusively, among the least well-off families.
Good food is a public good. This Bill needs to reflect that. A more plant-based diet is a health benefit. More domestic production of fresh fruit and veg is a key part of any strategy for healthier food. Hence I—and I think the whole of the Krebs committee—would wish to see, in Clause 1, a reference to health and diet as a public good derived from the output and methods of farming, and therefore worthy of our support. Therefore, I support Amendment 35, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 36 in the name of my noble friend Lady Jones of Whitchurch, which refers explicitly to healthy food.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has withdrawn from the list, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Judd.
Lord Judd (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I want to speak to the whole group of amendments as I find the interrelationship between the various amendments on this occasion particularly interesting. My noble friend Lord Whitty has been talking about food security. This group focuses on food security not only in the context in which he mentioned it—although that is vital—but in the context of the most unstable period in world affairs that we can remember. It is very important to think of food security in that context as well.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB) [V]
My Lords, I refer to my interests, which I set out on day one of Committee last Tuesday. I refer back to the concerns of those supporting native ponies about the wording of Amendment 69. Naturally, none of them, nor I, have any objection to the support of food management, but the wording of Amendment 69 has the potential to confine financial support to food production and might therefore exclude native ponies from financial assistance.
Lord Inglewood [V]
My Lords, ever since the age of the hunter-gatherers, earth has been supplying humankind’s food needs. That is why I am pleased to support the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the thrust of many of the other amendments which have been grouped with it.
Over the centuries, famine has been a regular feature of human history in different parts of the world. It is worth recalling that in western Europe, immediately post the Second World War, in the period that the Germans call Die Stunde Null—that is, within living memory of people alive today—people were starving to death. Of course, it was partly for this reason that the common agricultural policy was set up in the way in which it was. Given that, it is not perhaps as silly as it is sometimes thought to be by certain not very well-informed commentators in this country.
I think it is generally agreed that one of the duties of a state is to ensure with reasonable certainty that its citizens have enough to eat of an appropriate quality and at a reasonable price. It seems that if it is necessary and appropriate to do so, the state should spend money to ensure that this happens. Of course, medieval chroniclers tell us that, on occasion, people in besieged cities lived on cats, rats and dogs, but I do not imagine that many people would consider that a desirable state of affairs.
What is interesting about the first clause of the Bill is that climate change is mentioned, because it affects the earth we live on, and in turn the future of humanity. Equally, however, I believe that food security should be included in this section of the Bill because, in a completely different way, it just as much affects the future of humanity.
Some of your Lordships may remember that it was not all that long ago that there was a very poor wheat harvest, and suddenly the price of bread shot up in the supermarkets. If you were to believe the tabloid press, there was a huge crisis. Equally, there was an interesting article in the House magazine this week written by the managing director of Arla Foods—I declare a specific interest in that I sell my milk to Arla. He said that it is interesting that in this country we still import 35.5% of the yoghurt we consume, just under 40% of the butter and just under 68% of all cheese. Our security of supply is in a number of temperate foodstuffs—obviously, we cannot produce bananas and things like that here—very far from secure. It is rather like pandemics, is it not? “Oh no, it couldn’t happen here”—but then suddenly Covid-19 comes out of left field and we are all caught in a very exposed position.
The Minister may well argue that food security is by inference present around the Bill because it is part of general policy that the state should be guarantor of food security. However, if you look at the way in which the Bill is constructed, and you look at Clause 1, you see that those provisions are there to set out the ground rules for our future agricultural order and the financial support for it. I believe, for the reasons I have just explained, that food security should be included within it so that the ground rules are clear to everybody.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to followed the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and to support the amendments in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady McIntosh of Pickering and Lady Jones of Whitchurch. This group of amendments is quite clearly about the need to fight and campaign for, but above all to establish and place in the Bill, food security. While food security might be implicit, it needs to be explicit.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, and the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, I was a member—albeit not for as long as they were—of the Select Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, that published the report last week entitled, Hungry for Change: Fixing the Failures in Food. I agree with my colleagues that a holistic, systems approach has to be taken to food, from the moment it is produced and grown by the farmer, right through processing and retailers, through to the consumer and food waste. These things are all vital. I urge the Minister to read that report. In advance of the government response, I urge him to indicate in his response today whether he has read our Select Committee report and whether he has any initial thoughts. Will he ensure that these amendments dealing with food security—now heightened as a result of the Covid situation—are placed in the Bill?
We are also still awaiting the report from Henry Dimbleby, who coincidentally gave us evidence. It is important that the national food strategy comes forward as quickly as possible, because we want to encourage people to eat healthily.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, I would like to see the day when people do not have to access food banks because of their inability to purchase food due to lack of resources. It is therefore important that we build a robust, resilient food supply. This is an issue for all of government, not solely Defra.
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, talks about food sustainability and farming
“in an environmentally sustainable way”,
which is vital. It is also important that this Bill reflects food security directly related to health and well-being as important components in qualification for financial assistance.
A whole chapter of our report dealt with food security. One of our recommendations is
“built around the central aim of ensuring that everyone, regardless of income, has access to a healthy”,
affordable and sustainable diet. An onus should be placed on farmers to ensure food security as part of the food system.
Equally, like the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, I say an onus has to be placed on the processors and retailers to ensure they are providing food of a healthy, nutritious quality, not subject to reformulation through the addition of fats and salts. We have to create a healthy nation of people who have good health and well-being. If that means more fruit and vegetables are eaten, that is all to the good.
I support this group of amendments, in particular Amendments 35 and 36. I also commend the report from our Select Committee and look forward to the Minister’s response to it, indicating support and that cross-departmental action will be taken across government to ensure that its recommendations are fully implemented.
Lord Blencathra [V]
My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to the wise words we heard last week and today from my noble friend Lord Inglewood, who always brings not only wisdom and farming experience to our debates, but sound common sense, which seems to be a government policy at the moment.
I am afraid that some of the amendments here are misguided in that they talk of farmers producing healthy food. I submit that all food that leaves UK farms is healthy, but it may not be so healthy when it is processed and on the supermarket shelves, exactly as my noble friend Lord Caithness so rightly said.
Many amendments mention the word “food”, but I can see only one with the word “diet” in it. In fact, I think the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was the only Peer to mention “diet” until the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, mentioned it a couple of minutes ago. There are no bad foods, just very bad diets, yet people keep demonising certain foods which are perfectly okay if eaten as part of a balanced diet or in moderation.
Many years ago, when I and others did winter warfare training in the Cairngorms, we would scoff an enormous fry-up for breakfast, two Mars bars on the top of some mountain and a very big dinner. We would come away half a stone lighter and a lot fitter at the end of a week. We are becoming a nation of inactive, obese blobs, and that is nothing to do with British farmers.
I am perfectly willing to be informed, but I cannot think of anything grown or produced on a UK farm that is intrinsically a bad food of itself. Since we have the tightest controls on pesticides and antibiotics of any country in the world, healthy food leaves the farm gate. Are we to tell farmers to stop growing potatoes because some people eat far too many chips? The chickens and lettuces leaving our farms are healthy, but by the time, say, Pret a Manger has slathered them in mayonnaise—making them taste delicious, I accept—in their giant sub sandwiches, then they are very heavy on the calories.
I do not see any benefit to the environment in trying to stop UK framers producing meat, then flying in avocados from Brazil and almond milk from California. We should concentrate on people’s overall diets and their lack of exercise, and not tell farmers to produce healthy foods, which they already do.
If we want farmers to grow different food, that means getting food manufacturers to create the demand based on what their customers demand. There is no point in farmers growing what noble Lords in this debate have called healthy food if there is no market for it. It is the role of the whole of government—not just Defra, but especially the Department of Health—to attempt to educate the public to change to healthier diets, and I stress “diets”.
Every amendment here concentrates on the production of, rather than the demand for, food. Like it or not, the demand has to come first. Farmers do not need to be encouraged to switch to grains and pulses production. If the supermarkets want more tofu, quinoa or lentils then British farmers will soon find a way to supply it, just as they rapidly moved into growing oilseed rape and linseed as soon as the EU started paying for it. British farmers will rapidly adjust what they produce if the demand is there. I agree with and passionately believe in the need for healthy diets, but that is not the job of British farmers.
Lord Carrington (CB) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interests as a farmer and landowner as set out in the register. I support Amendments 56, 60 and 69 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, as it is so important to encourage the production of food by our farmers in an environmentally sustainable way.
I also believe that farming with new technology will be possible and appropriate in the urban environment, so I very much support Amendment 53, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and Amendment 63, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee. Industrial farming is moving to farm to fork, which looks more sustainable. Localism and resilience are the current watchwords, but some products, whether fruit or vegetables, can be grown only in hot climates. This is where technology comes in and where Amendment 63 is so important. Vertical, indoor farms are emerging, as fruit and vegetables can be grown in confined spaces, with light, heat and water controlled by technology. This can take place in cities, next to consumers, and, of course, uses less land. The Bill needs to provide for the next generation of farms, whether rural or urban. Look at Singapore, which imports 90% of its food and aims to produce 30% locally by 2030. Much of this is urban, using new technologies. I therefore support these amendments, which provide a setting for food security in the United Kingdom.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 35, 36 and 60 on food security and access to food that promotes good health and well-being: I would have signed them, but many other people wanted to do so first and I am very glad to support them.
Having represented an agricultural and food-producing constituency for 32 years, I have experienced the destructive effects of BSE, foot and mouth and, incidentally, the truck-drivers’ strike. BSE led to the laying off of 1,000 people in my constituency within a week, and although foot and mouth did not directly affect my constituency, the restrictions on movement had very serious impacts, so I am very aware of food security and how it can very quickly be disrupted.
We have seen an increase recently in food poverty, because although supply chains have adapted to deliver food alternatively, it has in many cases been at more expense, as when suppliers to the catering industry have offered to supply domestic suppliers—healthy, good fruit and vegetables, yes, but at a price that not everybody can afford. Of course, as a country we are heavily dependent on seasonal food imports; and not just seasonal food, but fresh fruit and vegetables from Spain and the Netherlands, in particular.
Our homegrown fruit and vegetable production has been disrupted recently by a shortage of labour: Covid-19 restrictions have perhaps given us a taste of what a post-Brexit labour shortage will do for our supply chain. I can certainly say that, in our area, some producers are struggling to harvest our berry crops, of which Scotland is a major grower—for the whole of the EU, incidentally, not just for the UK. Indications are that the UK could face shortages of fresh fruit and vegetables, either because of tariffs or the diversion of EU exports elsewhere, because of higher transport costs and delays and losses because of necessary border inspections. After all, £700 million is being laid out to create a lorry park in Kent, where, I suspect, it will be difficult to keep food as fresh as it would be with the just-in-time delivery we currently enjoy. Quite simply, I worry that EU suppliers, who are currently happy to send fruit and veg to the UK, might find it less profitable and choose to divert to alternative markets within the EU, where there is less bureaucracy, less cost and less risk of delay and disruption.
Do the Government recognise that we may, for both security and nutrition, need to provide additional support to homegrown production, which will not face this disruption? What plans are in place to do that? Are we prepared for a sudden drop in supply or a dramatic increase in prices from 1 January 2020? The Government had not planned very well for the unexpected pandemic; they cannot suggest that what happens on 1 January is not foreseeable. How well are they planning for it, and how sure are they that disruption will be avoided?
Those who campaigned for us to leave the EU constantly promised an abundant supply of cheap food. The questions in this debate have been whether that cheap food is also nutritious food, and whether it is as good as the food we currently get or could get from our own production and our own sources. How can the Government guarantee that there will be an adequate, affordable supply of nutritious, affordable food if there is a shortfall of supply from our current EU sources? I commend these amendments and I hope that the Government will take them seriously, because if they do not, there will be a price to pay, in cash, in quality and potentially in shortage of good-quality, nutritious food.
Lord Cormack (Con) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. He has asked some pertinent questions, which deserve clear answers.
What you never have, you never miss, but you soon miss what you have taken for granted. That has been underlined, time and again, during this very difficult Covid year. It is important that there is a smooth transition at the end of December. I personally greatly regret the fact that Ministers have been so obdurate about that date, but there it is. We have to face up to the fact that it is the prime duty of every Government to defend the realm. As the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made plain in his splendid speech, part of defending the realm is keeping people properly fed. As one who grew up through the war years, when our affairs were brilliantly managed in the face of often seemingly overwhelming odds, I know that and so do many of your Lordships.
I was glad that my noble friend Lady McIntosh began this debate with such a prudent and sensible speech. There have been many of those in this debate, and there are very few amendments to which I would not have been glad to put my name. However, when we talk, as my noble friend did at the beginning, of public payment for public good, what is a greater public good than ensuring a proper supply of healthy food to maintain the health of the nation? It could be argued that that is the greatest of all public goods. I hope that the Minister will reflect on that when he comes to reply. He is a very well-regarded Member of your Lordships’ House and he knows about farming and agriculture at first hand. He also knows that his is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am glad that “Food” features so prominently, as it did in the old Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
It is essential that we have a quality supply of good food. We are dependent upon our farmers for that. Some colleagues have, quite justifiably, made disparaging comments about what those who process the food do to extract nutrition from it, but our farmers produce excellent food. They must be encouraged to do so in every possible way while having proper regard, as we debated last week, for the countryside and the environment in which they operate and for which they are responsible.
I refer again to the admirable speech by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. I very much hope that there is adequate planning to ensure a smooth transition at the end of the year. Above all else, the Government will be judged, not only by how they have handled the pandemic but by how they create a smooth transition, so our people can still take for granted a ready and steady supply of healthy food for the good of the nation and future generations.
Lord Trees (CB) [V]
My Lords, I wish to comment briefly on proposed new subsection (b) in Amendment 75, which refers to reducing the use of antibiotics in livestock and related veterinary products. I fully agree with the aim of reducing the use of antibiotics on livestock as far as possible while retaining their use to treat sick animals to ensure their good welfare. Indeed, in the UK, we have been incredibly successful in reducing the use of all antibiotics on all livestock by more than 50% since 2014. Currently, in fact, usage is well below the target set in the 2016 report from the commission headed by the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill.
With regard to so-called critically important antibiotics for human use, there is absolutely minimal use on livestock today. This has been achieved by management improvements, husbandry improvements and, of course, the use of vaccines, which are a major tool in controlling and preventing infectious disease. They are thus terribly important in reducing drug use for therapeutic purposes, so it is important that their use is not discouraged.
I seek greater clarification on what is meant in this amendment by “related veterinary product use”. I noted that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, commented on this to some extent in her earlier speech; I think she said words to the effect that she did not envisage the inclusion of vaccines in this amendment. I hope that that is so; it would indeed be counterproductive.
She also commented on anthelmintic use and its effect on dung beetles. As a parasitologist, I want to comment briefly on that. I assure her that that is not an issue in the UK. Some years ago, this was looked at carefully; various anthelmintics, which of course are for worms and which also have powers of activity against insects, were introduced. Poor research students were sat out in the open having to observe the degradation of cowpats in fields, some of which were grazed by cattle with anthelmintics and some of which were grazed by cattle without them. I assure the noble Baroness that there was absolutely no difference as a result of the anthelmintic treatment.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, I repeat the declaration of my interests that I made last Tuesday.
Amendments 35 and 36 seek to add to the list of purposes for which financial assistance may be given. Amendment 36 is already covered by existing purposes, as is Amendment 35, up to a point. This amendment, moved by my noble friend Lady McIntosh, also seeks to establish food security as a purpose. It is hard to see how these amendments would have much of an effect on the proportion of our food that we import—or, indeed, the proportion of our food produce that we export. British farm produce, including arable, dairy and livestock, is produced to very high international standards and, I believe, can hold its own in both domestic and overseas markets.
I cannot see that Amendment 46 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, has any place in an Agriculture Bill that seeks to reduce farmers’ dependence on the state. It would threaten to increase the cost and reduce the choice of meals provided by public bodies by introducing distortions to the market, reflecting particular views on environmental or animal welfare standards that go further than required by law.
In the same way, I would resist Amendment 47 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, because I do not believe that the Secretary of State should be involved in trying to persuade people to change their diet to a vegetarian one. I very much agree with the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, with regard to her amendment. I have nothing against vegetarians—indeed, I have a daughter-in-law who does not eat meat—but it should be a matter of personal taste.
My noble friend Lord Northbrook, who is most knowledgeable in this area, has eloquently spoken in support of his Amendment 60, which seeks to ensure a sufficient level of food security. I do not think my noble friend is suggesting we need go back to a time when foreign food was virtually unknown to most people in this country. Of course we need to maximise our domestic food production, but it is also important that our new trading relationships continue to offer British consumers more choice at reasonable prices.
My noble friend also wishes to require the Secretary of State to support the production of food in England through his Amendment 69. On this, I prefer his drafting and the effect of the change he wishes to make. I also prefer his wording to that of my noble friend Lady McIntosh in Amendment 70, although her amendment is also an improvement on the current somewhat ambiguous wording.
I am afraid that I do not understand the purpose of Amendment 71, in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Devon, as I do not want the Secretary of State to become a sort of food policeman. I do not understand what the noble Earl means by suggesting that his amendment
“avoids the Secretary of State having regard to the production of unhealthy food.”
I am not sure that public health concerns, as mentioned in Amendment 75 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, should be in an agriculture Bill, however desirable the improvement of public health obviously is.
Amendment 92 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, defines “environmentally sustainable way”. I do not think that it needs to be specifically defined and I question whether avoiding the “depletion of natural resources”, desirable though that is, is clearly contained within the meaning of the phrase.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con) [V]
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my long-standing and noble friend Lord Trenchard. I agree with the general thrust of his comments. After a long day on two important Bills, I will confine myself to two points.
First, the changing weather pattern, the risk of another pandemic and, more immediately, the possibility of an exit from the single market without an FTA all point to the need for a sensible, long-term focus on food security. I welcome my noble friend Lord Northbrook’s Amendment 60—an enabling amendment and not a requirement—and the part on food security in the lead amendment, Amendment 35, proposed by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. This plays to Clause 17 of the Bill and its proposal for a five-yearly report on food security, which I very much welcome.
Secondly, like the noble Lord, Lord Trees, I will talk about antibiotics. I support the provision on reducing farm antibiotics in Amendment 75 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. The impact of antibiotic resistance is one of the most serious issues facing the human race. It could make common operations extremely dangerous around the world, endangering people of all ages and in all countries—and with no prospect of a vaccine, so potentially worse than Covid-19.
At Red Tractor—I restate my interests here—we have worked hard with the Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance to tackle this on farms through proper measurement and collection of data, assured standards and annual veterinary inspections. The former CMO, Dame Sally Davies, has commended us for the substantial decline in antibiotic use. For example, in the pig sector use of antibiotics has fallen by 60% over four years. However, there is more to do, and we are working with farmers, processors and retailers to do just that. The power proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, could help us to intensify the work, with some government support. This should be if and only if the need arises, and after proper costing and risk assessment—to hark back to my amendment to Clause 1.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, said that he had been advised that the scope of the Bill did not cover health. I would like confirmation that the role of farmers in AMR is within its ambit when the Minister replies to this important group.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans [V]
My Lords, I support a number of amendments in this group, in particular those that touch on food security, such as Amendments 35 and 60. Food security is crucial, both for our protection and for the flourishing and survival of any nation. History teaches us that food shortages have always occurred. They are often caused by many different factors and occur at an alarming rate. One of the earliest historical examples of this is found in the Hebrew scriptures, in Genesis chapters 41 and 42, where we read of Jacob storing up grain in Egypt ready for the seven years of famine. Not only did his actions save the lives of many, but underlying this narrative is the message that food is also about political power:
“And all the world came to Egypt to buy grain from Joseph, because the famine was severe everywhere.”
We are all aware that food security in the modern world is complex. The many advantages of an international market have meant that for most of the time food prices have been driven down and choice expanded. We know that many types of food would be both difficult and expensive to grow in this country due to our climate, so we will never be totally self-sufficient in food.
We have heard reference to publication of the report Hungry for Change from the Food, Poverty, Health and Environment Committee just eight days ago. I note in that report the evidence given by Defra. It states:
“The ELMS proposes to reward a number of environmental ‘public goods’ with public money. The Government will support and reward farmers for providing improved environmental outcomes such as improved soil health and carbon emissions. The Department told us that the scheme may lead some farmers to move away from ‘traditional agricultural activity’.”
But the basic fundamental point of agriculture is to grow food and it is deeply worrying to consider that in under 30 years it is estimated that the world will need 60% more food than today. It is concerning considering that, at this very moment, we have vast swarms of locusts devastating crops in east Africa, Asia and the Middle East—an event of which we had no foresight a few months ago but which is likely to lead to extensive famines in the coming months. So I am keen to support these amendments, which support food security both for our good and for that of the international community.
Amendments 53 and 63 refer to food produced locally, including urban areas. We are trying to improve the environment, reduce transport and provide locally grown food, so these amendments are worth exploring. Both are supported by Amendment 69, which strengthens the Bill by changing “must have regard to” to “must support”. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to these ideas and how Her Majesty’s Government might include them in the Bill.
Lord Naseby (Con) [V]
My Lords, here we are on day three and we are still on Clause 1. Just to encourage the Minister, I remind him that he must have been in the House of Commons when the Maastricht Bill was being debated. It had all of four clauses but it took 25 days, so he is doing extremely well at the moment. But in the interests of making progress I am restricting myself to one speech tonight. That concerns Amendment 36. To me that is the heart of the Bill and very much the heart of horticulture. What a privilege it is to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. He covers most of Bedfordshire, although unfortunately not the part that I live in, but much of the part of Bedfordshire that is keen on horticulture.
Lord Dobbs (Con)
My Lords, I regret that we have to deal with these proceedings virtually; we would not normally do so, but these are not normal circumstances. It is a hugely ambitious and vital piece of legislation that must, of course, be debated, but also allowed to breathe. I fear—forgive me if I sound impertinent—that far too many of the amendments that we are seeing today and on other days will not improve the Bill but instead tend to smother it.
As my noble friend Lord Naseby just mentioned, this is the third day in Committee and we are still on Clause 1, with another 53 clauses plus all the schedules to go. I hope noble Lords will agree that as a responsible House we have a duty to exercise a little caution and even a little self-restraint.
I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, will forgive me if I offer a few words about her Amendment 47 on
“transitioning from livestock to plant-based food production.”
Last week we were discussing getting livestock out of the sheds and into the fields. This week we are getting the same livestock, which have just been put into the fields, out of the fields again and replacing them with plants. Even the cows are confused, so I have no idea how my noble friend the Minister will deal with that.
I have an even more fundamental objection to this amendment. Transitioning from livestock to plants en masse may be a good thing; it may not. There are very opposed opinions on this. The noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, made some good points about the importance of a balanced diet. Wrapped up in this amendment is a clear political agenda, and the noble Baroness as good as acknowledged that in her extensive remarks. I am not afraid of politics, but taxpayers and consumers should not be asked to pay for a political agenda through the back door, as this amendment does, unless they voted for it—which they have not. This is not the stuff of fundamental legislation but for the political hustings. If it is so good for farmers’ incomes and consumers’ health, as has been suggested, they will get the point without any instruction from us.
In these difficult circumstances we have a responsibility to be brief, so I will finish on Amendment 35 on
“access to food that promotes good health and wellbeing.”
But of course. How can I say this without causing offence? This amendment, in this Bill, is apple pie so sweet it will make your teeth rot. It is totally unnecessary; indeed, it is inappropriate. As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has acknowledged, it is beyond the scope of the Bill.
Some want to turn the Bill into a vehicle for fundamental social change, but this is a Bill on agriculture, not the Sermon on the Mount. I hope the Committee will show a good deal of self-restraint in both debating and pursuing these amendments, no matter how worthy some of their objectives may be.
Lord Marlesford (Con) [V]
My Lords, I first declare again the interests I declared last week, as in the register.
I am delighted with this set of amendments, because they put right a fundamental flaw in the Bill, which was to make a false distinction between food production, food and agriculture on the one hand and the environment. This is dangerous, because it plays into the hands of those who say that all that matters is the environment, which irritates the people who see their main job as producing food.
This debate has really brought back a unity and a recognition that food production is not simply a private good but very much a public good; I hope this is able to be incorporated in the Bill in some way on Report. We have seen two main reasons given, both very relevant: security and, of course, obesity. Security has come to the front recently because of Covid, and everybody who happily took the instant availability of anything they wanted from anywhere in the world got a rude awakening; we all did. I was taken back to my childhood days in the war. At home in Suffolk we managed to get a fortnightly delivery from Waitrose because we were locked up. My wife had ordered a bunch of bananas, and what actually arrived was two bananas—serves us right. The point is that food security means something: using what we have, not what we do not have.
The next important thing is obesity. It is the biggest epidemic we have, bigger and probably more important than Covid-19. This is absolutely a matter of better eating and eating more natural foods. I am not a vegetarian, but I believe that the simpler the food we eat is, the better. One of the great changes was when people stopped having porridge for breakfast. All sorts of sophisticated cereals were introduced—Corn Flakes, Grape-Nuts, Weetabix and so on—and very delicious they were. However, they soon became adulterated with far too much sugar and salt. Then we copied the Swiss and introduced muesli, which was originally simple grains, mixed, cold and raw, which you ate with your milk in the morning, but which has been adulterated and become a terrible product called Alpen, which is stuffed with sugar and fats and is quite revolting.
We must recognise that healthy eating is very important and the key to it is getting the consumer and the producer close together and making as many consumers as possible into producers. I very much support the remarks that have been made about horticulture. I will very quickly give one story of the first time I went to China, in December 1965, just before the chaos of the cultural revolution descended and swept away the Mao dynasty. I noticed when visiting a commune that the people who were happiest and who paid the most attention to life were those working their private plots in corners, which were very small and intensive, producing a great deal of food which obviously they ate themselves.
Small is beautiful, in farming as well as in modern technology, but we must spread the word of people getting involved in agriculture and getting consumers and producers together. Years ago, when I was on the Countryside Commission, the urban fringe was doing very badly. We had what we called Groundwork to clean it up. It was a great success. It got local people excited, and changed the nature of deprived and grotty, dirty, litter-filled areas, polluted ponds and so on. It is the same principle as the remarks that have been made about urban farming on this set of amendments. I am in favour of all that. The big lesson from this group of amendments is in exposing the false distinction between public and private good, in which food production is relegated to being a private good. Let us get together to improve our food, ensure the security of our food supply and, most of all, encourage the beating of obesity by the sensible eating of natural foods.
Lord Clark of Windermere (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, and very much go along with the sentiments that he expressed. This is an ambitious Bill, which I find exciting. It deals with agriculture for this moment in time and for the future.
Let me make it clear from the beginning that I am full of admiration for farmers, who work so hard, usually in inclement conditions, to put food on our plates, by which we all live. We should never forget that.
What has come through this series of debates—and it is perhaps the nature of the hybrid system that so much time has been spent on Clause 1—is that Clause 1 sets the tone of the Bill and its moment has come. Words and titles are important. When I became the principal Opposition spokesman on agriculture in 1987, one of the first things I did was to change the title of my job from the Shadow Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries to the Shadow Minister for Food and Agriculture. It has always been important to mention food. Time has shown that that was right, and I am delighted that we now have a Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because it is very important.
Baroness Kennedy of Cradley (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, I support this set of amendments. Given the hour, I will speak in support of Amendment 75 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott.
I welcome the Bill’s commitment to public money for public goods. Failing to explicitly incorporate public health as a public good in the Bill would be a missed opportunity. A healthy diet—eating a variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts and pulses—is directly linked to lowering the risk of health problems, such as coronary heart disease, stroke and some types of cancer. As we know, the diets of many in this country are too low in fruits and vegetables, and too high in salt and sugar. Agricultural policy can and should help shape a country’s diet. Incentive for food producers to specialise in specific crops means the supply of greater than normal quantities, leading to lower prices and increased consumption.
According to data on agricultural land classification, 19% of total agricultural land in England is suitable to grow fruit and vegetables. However, only 1.4% is currently used for fruit and vegetable production. A study by the Royal Society for Public Health found that increasing land use for fruit and vegetable production would increase their consumption and in turn save lives. Financial support, therefore, for the increased production of fruit and vegetables, nuts and pulses would mean that those foods could be made cheaper, be of higher quality—as they would be part of a shorter supply chain—be more widely available and be better promoted. This amendment would ensure that our agricultural policy could be used as a lever for public health. It would help develop a truly sustainable agricultural system for the UK that benefited farmers and the public alike. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Rooker (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I have nothing to declare but, I hope, a touch of practicality. It is worth recalling that the food industry, if we take it from one end to the other, is the UK’s largest manufacturing sector. It is also worth remembering that sectors such as horticulture and pigs never received any common agricultural policy subsidies; they were direct to the market.
I want to comment on two or three of the amendments, in particular Amendment 53, on urban production. We have to be careful when we talk about urban production. Allotments and growing food for your own house and family is one thing, but if it is urban production employed for the community at large, we have to be very careful. For example, there are fields around airports where you are not allowed to grow certain foods—I think that the reasons for that will be obvious. That would apply also to fields that were very close to industry where pollutants were present. The only way in which we could really make an effort in urban production, and I agree with it, is if it was under cover or under glass. It might be vertical production, for which I cannot really see why there should be public subsidies, or glass-like production using waste heat. The sugar plant at Downham Market has a glass-house next to it—the last time I was there, it was 25 acres, but I think it has gone to 40 acres—growing tomatoes. They are not allowed even to call them organic. No pesticides or herbicides are used on them, but they are not grown in the soil. That is because of the religious zealots in the organic certifiers, but they are perfectly okay, and we could be productive in tomatoes with the other glass-houses and would not need imports. I am all in favour of that. It is probably factory farming, but it is not animals. It has to be done under cover and be mechanised. That would be an effective use of urban facilities for growing more of our food.
The contrast between obesity and malnutrition is very disturbing—I shudder at that—but we should not blame farmers for obesity. I invite noble Lords to google a BBC2 documentary called “The Men Who Made Us Fat”. It was shown about five or six years ago. The sophistication in encouraging people to eat more, in bigger portions, is incredible and it is very profitable. It should not be, but farmers are not to blame on that point.
The noble Earl, Lord Devon, spoke about livestock supply. People might want to move away from livestock, but what is the problem in exporting it on the hook? We have exported for years. Before the BSE crisis, we had an incredible export performance in beef to Italy. It was cut in a separate way—I shall not mention it because it fitted a particular supermarket’s way of doing it. There was a massive amount of exports. We had the land for doing it, because of the pastureland in the west of England. If we want to cut down in certain respects, that does not mean that we should take the industry out. We should use it for export markets; that is what Brexit is supposed to be all about: we can improve our export markets. I do not really see why we should be too concerned about this.
The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made the point that we are not really that secure. I am in favour of using our land to grow as much of our food as possible. In some ways, I resent seeing fields of renewable energy platforms when I nip up and down the motorway when they could be used to grow crops. I do not know what the proportion of it is at present, but it is not a good use of agricultural land.
I very much support the point that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, made. I said last week that there has been a massive reduction in antibiotic use in animals, which has been pushed by the supermarkets and the food retailers. However, I made the point that there is still more to do in the game industry.
In some ways, although this is a very seductive group of amendments and I could support many of them, I am more on the line of the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs, than that of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett.
Lord Campbell of Pittenweem (LD) [V]
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, who, as I think he promised, always has more than an ounce of common sense in what he has to say. I will talk a little about Amendment 75, which I am quite fascinated by. Although it has been rather dismissed already, if you analyse its possible consequences, they are both effectively public goods.
The amendment intends that financial support should go to farms that grow fruit and vegetables that are available, affordable and of good quality. That is certainly a public good, not least because it would contribute to food security. However, to follow the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, the more fruit and vegetables we grow, the more likely they are to be consumed. That goes right to the point about better health outcomes. Obesity and diabetes have just been mentioned.
There is also no question that too many people live in poverty in this country. Poor people have poor diets, poor health, poor life expectancy and poorer resistance. If, as a consequence of supporting food security, we are in a position to have an influence on that problem, this can reasonably be described as two public goods.
I looked up a statistic just before the debate started. Some 26% of children in this country live in absolute poverty. The consequences for their diet are obvious. If we encourage farmers to produce more fruit, vegetables and pulses, as this amendment suggests, we have a chance to have a much greater influence on the lives of these children. At first blush, it looked as though financial support had been drawn in the amendment simply for better health outcomes, but it could have a very considerable impact on farming and food security.
Finally, I adopt without question the very powerful arguments advanced by my noble friend Lord Bruce of Bennachie. He asked a number of questions that I hope the Minister will be in a position to answer.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Non-Afl) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to speak to this group of amendments and this is another excellent opportunity to thank our farmers and front-line food producers for everything they do every day, not least during the Covid crisis. We owe them an enduring debt of gratitude. Through the correct deployment of this Bill, we have the means to swiftly repay the debt for the service they have given their local communities and the nation.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and all other noble Lords who served on the Select Committee, which produced a report with the excellent title Hungry for Change. Has my noble friend the Minister had a chance to reflect on the report and digest some of the recommendations set out therein?
It is a pleasure to hear the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, back in the Chamber, I grew up just down the road from the constituency that he served for many years. I learned a lot and always enjoyed listening to him when he was regularly on “Midlands Today”. I take his point about the use of agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes. I gently guide him towards Amendment 235, which is in my name and due to be debated on Thursday —for that, read “probably Thursday week”. I would be delighted if he would see his way to supporting that amendment, as it very much speaks to what he covered.
Lord Thomas of Gresford (LD) [V]
My Lords, perhaps I may repeat the words of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes of Richmond: technology produces excellence in food production.
I support Amendment 35 in particular in this group. I can think of no more important aim for food production than food security. The essential purpose of policy should be to maximise food production in the United Kingdom while at the same time reducing harmful emissions.
Ever since the Centre for Alternative Technology opened in in an old slate quarry near Machynlleth in 1973, Wales has led the way. As the centre pointed out last week, the panic buying and empty supermarket shelves that greeted the opening stages of the Covid-19 pandemic woke a lot of people up to the reality that our global food chains are increasingly vulnerable. In response to the crisis, the centre quickly set up a project called Planna Fwyd!, meaning Plant Food! It has an amazing variety of schemes to help the local area to feed itself in the coming years. For example, it brings together a land army of people who can help to work the land; it supports home-growers with the skills and knowledge that they might need; it provides family seed packs; and it distributes fresh produce and offers seed swaps. It is a great initiative.
I would like to draw attention to a scheme that is proposed on the outskirts of Wrexham by a Brighton-based organisation, Low Carbon Farming. The company has two pioneering projects taking shape at the moment, one in Bury St Edmunds and one elsewhere in East Anglia. Last week, I spoke of the paucity of Class 1 agricultural land in Wales. I told the House that 400 acres at Holt, close to my home in Gresford, comprises the whole of Class 1 land in the entire Principality. The new project near the Wrexham industrial estate is still at the planning stage. It is to construct two 7.6 hectare greenhouses and a packing facility on poor-quality land. On one side there is Berwyn prison, of which I have spoken many times, on another an abattoir, and on the third the Wrexham sewage works belonging to Dŵr Cymru. It answers the call made by my noble friend Lord Greaves in Amendment 53 to produce food in an urban area, and I hope it might even satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
The Wrexham plan would capture waste heat and carbon emissions from the Dŵr Cymru facility and use them to grow tomatoes, cucumbers and peppers at the site. Britain imports from other countries 80% of its tomatoes and 90% of its peppers. The promoters think that their current projects in East Anglia can meet 5% of the national consumption of tomatoes. It will use less water than traditional agriculture: treated water emerges from the sewage plant at 25 degrees centigrade and, at the moment, that heat is entirely wasted. The quality of the soil at the site is completely immaterial. The system could be hydroponic or it could use a suitable growing medium.
The Wrexham project proposes the creation of 150 new jobs. The Home Secretary should surely support it, since with 2,000 prisoners doing nothing very much next door there will be no need for the east European agricultural workers who she does not seem to like very much. There are shades of Norman Stanley Fletcher in “Porridge”. Access to such labour would also deal with the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, expressed at the beginning of this debate. The idea behind the project is that waste heat from the sewage works would be used to provide heat to the greenhouses through a heat exchanger; any carbon emissions would be directed into the greenhouses to be absorbed by the growing plants. Plants absorb carbon dioxide and give out oxygen. It is obviously win-win all the way round.
I am addressing your Lordships from a passive house which we built five years ago. It relies upon a heat exchanger air pump, which greatly reduces our heating costs and provides an even flow of warm air throughout the year. It was a novel idea in these parts at the time, but planning permission was granted after some scratching of heads. I hope that schemes similar to the Wrexham Five Fords project relying on heat pumps can be developed throughout the country. That may require some modern thinking in planning departments but they are surely one important way forward. Does the Minister not agree that projects of this nature should be explicitly added to the aims set out in Clause 1, as highlighted by the amendments in this group, and that to promote sustainable food security they deserve full government support and investment?
Lord Adonis (Lab) [V]
My Lords, my speech has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, who made the critical point that the fundamental interest of the state is to be able to intervene to see that people have enough to eat at affordable prices. The issue of food security is, therefore, to the fore. My question to the Minister is the obvious one that comes from this debate: do the Government have the power they need to maintain food security if that is required?
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, proposes to add food security as an item in Clause 1(1). That is clearly sensible if the Government do not already have those powers. I look to the Minister to give the Committee chapter and verse on whether the state already has powers to intervene to maintain food security by providing subsidies as and when required. It can clearly secure those powers extremely quickly, probably within 24 hours, if needed in the event of a crisis. Before we go off on a long meander through amendments on Report, it would be helpful to know whether this power already exists and, if so, where. If not, why do the Government not think this an appropriate moment to take that power since, where food security is not being maintained, it is clearly a fundamental duty of the state?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendments 35 and 70, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, Amendment 36, from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, Amendment 71 from the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and Amendment 75 from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, all of whom have spoken passionately. Health and sustainability are important to all families. Protecting food security so that citizens have access to good quality food will ensure healthier outcomes. The extremely large number of speakers on this group indicates the strength of feeling and concern about this subject. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, gave the statistic showing that children being admitted to hospital with malnutrition had risen by 25%. This statistic is scandalous in a country as rich as ours. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Pittenweem referred to children living in poverty.
In recent weeks, there have been a number of Oral Questions about the quality of food eaten in our families and whether it is healthy. Most people want to eat a healthy diet but some do not completely understand what constitutes one. For many it is sufficient that it fills them up. We must move away from this and promote healthy eating at all levels. This is not just an issue for agriculture. As has been said, diabetes is on the increase. In the three years to 2018, 170 limb amputations took place each week on those suffering from the severer effects of diabetes. While we may all know these figures, and understand the horror caused by them, many of those eating unhealthy diets have no idea what may lie in store for them.
Exercise is of course key to remaining healthy but for those on low incomes, there are implications of healthy eating. It is estimated that eating more fruit and vegetables could cost some families as much as £15 extra per week. This is simply not affordable for them. Many families managed before the Covid epidemic but after its outbreak were forced to use food banks to survive. Food banks saw the number of people applying to them rise dramatically during the first stage of the crisis. It is vital that people are fed—but fed with nutritious food. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, made a vital contribution on this issue.
Amendments 35 and 63, in the names of my noble friend Lord Greaves and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, respectively, promote the growth of food production in urban areas. I note the cautious comments of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on this. Growing food in urban areas has somewhat fallen out of fashion. As a child, I was brought up in Bristol when it was not uncommon for homes to have a pigsty in the garden, as well as a plentiful supply of home-grown vegetables. There was also a large section of allotments in the city. The keeping of pigs at home fell out of favour with the first outbreak of foot and mouth, but it is still possible for vegetables and fruit to be grown in and around urban areas. Councils should set aside more land for allotments, especially for those living in blocks of flats. My noble friend Lord Greaves spoke at length on the importance of allotments. The Happold Foundation says that:
“Cities the size of London will never be able to grow enough food to feed the population … However, it still seems desirable to get food production closer to the consumer to make it more sustainable, and to reduce the food miles of what we consume and we release less CO2 into the atmosphere.”
Perhaps the vertical indoor growing method, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will help with this.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not namecheck everyone who has spoken. I think that, with the exception of a few notable contributions, we were all in agreement that food production linked to human health should be at the centre of the Bill. I have previously cautioned against adding a whole lot of new features to Clause 1, but I make an exception for this issue. This is a fundamental lack in the Bill as it stands, and I will explain why in a moment.
We have tabled Amendments 36 and 92 in this group, and I thank noble Lords who have put their names to them and who have commented favourably on them. Amendment 36 adds an extra purpose to Clause 1. It would make it clear that producing healthy food, including through horticulture, in an environmentally sustainable way should be a key purpose for which financial assistance can be given. Amendment 92 goes on to give a clear definition of “environmentally sustainable way”, in particular emphasising the need to measure the long-term impact on natural resources.
We believe that this approach should be a fundamental objective of our future farming policy, so I want to talk about that overriding principle rather than the individual amendments. As I said, our amendments echo the theme of a number of other amendments this evening that highlight the production of healthy food as a necessity to tackle food insecurity, food poverty and poor nutrition. We believe that the farming community lies at the heart of that.
The Government’s White Paper, Health and Harmony: The Future for Food, Farming and the Environment in a Green Brexit, highlighted the key links between our farming and food supply systems. However, incentives to produce healthy food seem to be missing from this Bill. The Minister the noble Lord, Lord Gardiner, made clear at Second Reading that financial assistance should not be given for producing food, as this was a commercial decision. He said:
“in our view food is a private good; it is bought and sold. This is the key distinction of the philosophy of the legislation, because its value is rewarded in the market. These new financial assistance powers are intended to reward farmers and land managers for those outcomes that the market does not currently recognise.”—[Official Report, 10/6/20; col. 1830.]
This is a profound philosophical distinction and we profoundly disagree. The danger with this philosophy is that maintaining UK food production is no longer a priority: we increasingly rely on imports and have to fight for enough quality food to feed our nation in the global markets. This is a seriously risky strategy, particularly as we leave the EU and no longer have the right of access to a large, stable food supply market. As we have discovered in the Covid-19 pandemic, these international food supply chains can be precarious, so we argue that feeding our nation is a public good.
However, we cannot simply rely on the food production systems of old. The public health consequences are too stark. As noble Lords pointed out, our nation’s dietary habits are fuelling obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease and some cancers. It is characterised by a low intake of fibre, fruit and vegetables, while we overconsume energy, saturated fats and sugars.
Last year, the Social Market Foundation calculated that more than 1 million people in the UK live in food deserts. These are neighbourhoods where poverty, poor transport and the lack of shops seriously limit access to affordable fresh fruit and vegetables. On the one hand, therefore, we have growing obesity, and on the other hand we have growing food poverty. The recent pandemic illustrated all too shockingly that millions of people relied on food banks and food parcels. The school meal voucher chaos illustrated that tens of thousands of children who relied on schools to provide the one substantial meal of the day were left to skip meals when that provision was taken away.
These are huge public health issues for the Government, but they are also matters where a change in farming practice could fuel better eating habits and lead to a healthier nation. We will not achieve this by intensifying conventional farming methods, which would strip out the natural nutrients in the soil and weaken natural defences to pests and diseases, leading to more artificial crop protection interventions. This is why—and this has been a theme throughout our debate—a whole-farm ecological development has to go hand in hand with generating healthy food. We address the issues of food security and the need for a national food plan in later amendments. In the meantime, I commend these amendments to the House.
I say to the Minister, however, that of all the issues we have debated so far, this is the one where I think the Government have got it badly wrong. I hope that he will reflect on this and come back with a more positive response on report. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, this has been an absorbing debate once again. I thank my noble friend for her Amendment 35. I shall address Amendments 75, 56, 60, 69, 71, 36 and 92, all of which relate to food production. I declare my farming interests as set out in the register.
This debate has thrown up quite a number of questions, and those that I am not in a position to answer—very often because they require some detail—I shall, of course, answer in writing in a letter that I am proposing to compose when we conclude Committee stage. Because a lot of things are coming up that are repeated quite often, it would be best if we try to co-ordinate with a sensible government response. I hope that is acceptable to your Lordships.
Growing healthy, nutritious food is, of course, the primary role of farmers. It is something that farmers in the United Kingdom do exceptionally well. Through the purposes in Clause 1, the Government want to support goods that benefit society but are not currently provided for by the market. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, is absolutely right: I said it at Second Reading and I say it again. The point about food, in contrast, is that it can be bought and traded: it is rewarded in the market and, indeed, those of us who farm receive income from our production. That is why, in the construction of the Bill, new Clause 1(4)—I say “new Clause”, because I think this is a very important addition and one I strongly support—places a duty on the Secretary of State, when framing any financial assistance scheme, to consider the importance of food production and its production in an environmentally sustainable way. This was a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Devon, and my noble friend Lord Northbrook.
I absolutely agree with the analysis of my noble friends Lord Inglewood and Lord Cormack of what this country and much of the world has gone through in previous times, and why food production is so important. It is important for this country, but also for giving us opportunities to help feed the world through our exports. That is essential too, and it is why I say to my noble friend Lord Marlesford that food production and environmental sustainability not only can but must —I underline “must”—go hand in hand. We should be champions of great British food and drink and I place on record that farmers have, all too often, been maligned. I am reminded of what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said on an earlier Committee day about all the things that farmers do on our behalf.
The duty requires the Secretary of State to have “regard to the need” to encourage sustainable production, rather than simply “to encourage” sustainable production, when designing financial assistance schemes. This is because all schemes must be looked at in the round; each scheme will have different aims and will operate in different ways. While the Government’s future farming schemes as a whole will be designed to encourage sustainable food production, it is not necessarily the case that every scheme is directly aiming to do so. I have one example—the tree health pilot which will start next year—but the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, spoke of another aspect of a scheme which clearly does not directly relate to food production.
The duty, as drafted, gives Ministers the flexibility to design individual schemes in a way which best meets their objectives, while ensuring that there is a clear obligation to encourage sustainable food production overall. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, among many others, spoke of health and well-being. I was very struck by his words. Indeed, the important report that the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans raised, Hungry for Change, is very important, because this will involve multiple departments. I am therefore very pleased to say that I will make sure that Defra will play a key part in that multi-departmental response.
The Government believe that the best place to encourage healthy eating is later on in the supply chain, a point that my noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord Blencathra were referring to: after all, fruit and vegetables can still be used in products that are unhealthy if not taken in moderation. I know that it may be unsatisfactory to noble Lords who see this as an opportunity to attach to the Bill something that we think is best placed in other work, but it is the intention that the national food strategy should address these major challenges, including food security and health. The strategy will build on the Bill to help ensure that our food system delivers healthy and affordable food for all, built on a resilient and sustainable agriculture sector.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op) [V]
My Lords, I warmly congratulate the Minister and thank him for the sympathetic way in which he is dealing with this Bill. Like all of us, he will have clocked in at 4 pm for a delayed start at 4.40 pm and has sat through all these extensive debates. He deserves not just a medal but a whole chestful of medals for the way he is dealing with it, but he has not dealt with one intervention: the one from the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs. He complained —I think he moaned a little—about the fact that on the third day we were still on Clause 1. He called for caution and self-restraint.
During his speech I was checking up. In fact, in this debate more than twice as many Tories as Labour Members—to take a random example—have contributed. We have enjoyed some of the speeches, including the wartime reminiscences. When we eventually get to the next group, we have 12 Tories and only two Labour Members. If the Minister agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Dobbs—I do not, by the way; I think we should scrutinise the Bill carefully both in Committee and on Report—I suggest to him that the person he needs to talk to is the Tory Chief Whip and no one else.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, it is very nice to hear the noble Lord; I enjoy having this dialogue. I am advised that your Lordships will have three times the amount of time, with the six days or more, to consider this Bill in Committee. We should use it wisely; we need to get through a lot of groups. The whole point calls for a bit of good old-fashioned common sense.
Lord Curry of Kirkharle (CB) [V]
I thank the Minister for his usual detailed responses, but I would like to probe him a little more on whether food security is a public good. He is quite correct in saying that there is a market for food. If that is the definition, clearly production of food is not a public good. However, many times in the past the market has not adequately rewarded me for the food I have produced as a farmer. If we want a nation fed on healthy, wholesome food and schoolchildren need healthy meals, one could argue that the need to intervene could occur at some stage in the future. We do not know what the market will be like when we leave the European Union.
The Minister is quite correct that we will discuss Clause 17. This is important and I very much welcome it, but it does not state what the Government will do if there is a food security crisis. I suggest to the Minister that it may be appropriate to reconsider whether food security should be included as a public good, should the Government need to intervene at some stage in future.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
Obviously I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Curry. The construction of the Bill, as I said, ensures that we are rewarding farmers for those matters that we have hitherto not rewarded them for. We will get to that in Chapter 2, which deals with
“Fair dealing obligations of business purchasers of agricultural products”.
We want to address that, which is why it is in the Bill. Clearly, the farmer has not always had a fair deal with agricultural producers and others in the supply chain—and of course in Chapter 3 we will look at producer organisations.
As I said, the construct of the Bill is designed to provide new financial assistance powers within the prism of productivity grants. As subsection (1) states:
“In framing any financial assistance schemes, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to encourage the production of food”,
and this production must be undertaken
“in an environmentally sustainable way.”
We all want a healthy diet. We all want food security. That is why the Government have been working with industry and will continue to work with industry, as we always have. Industry is often the best at finding sources all around the world so that we have resilience in our food supply.
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch
Like the noble Lord, Lord Curry, I wanted to probe very quickly on what basis the production of healthy food would ever be classified as a public good. The Minister has reiterated his view that it is a private good. But does he not accept that in some circumstances it would be a public good and therefore entitled to some of the funding that is set out in the Bill?
The problem with referring noble Lords to the later clauses that deal with food security and the national food strategy is that that area does not necessarily have any money attached to it, whereas the financial assistance and the public good element is the one that we are really interested in, so the onus is on that. Are there any circumstances in which the Minister would see it as a public good?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
I apologise to the noble Baroness, but the only way that I can reply to that is to repeat that the whole construct of this is to ensure that farming with food production and enhancing the environment go hand in hand. There is obviously a limited sum of money. The noble Baroness and other noble Lords have said that we must be careful that we do not make this Bill a Christmas tree affair by adding everything on—so we need to be pragmatic.
The area where we have not hitherto rewarded farmers is in relation to the purposes set out in Clause 1(1)(a) to (j). They are considerable projects that will, in the end, help us to produce even better food. If one were to start rewarding food production, it would drive a coach and horses through the construct of the Bill, which is that produce is created by the farmer, for which they receive money. They do not often receive money for the projects in paragraphs (a) to (j). We think, looking at the British taxpayer, that this is the best way of reflecting that we need food production for which the farmer receives payment, and in Chapter 2 we recognise that we need to address fairer arrangements for the farmer. But this is better than, in effect, having a direct payment for the food you produce when you are already being paid whatever you sell your wheat or your milk for. We can have a discussion about that price, but in terms of the taxpayer rewarding and acknowledging farmers, we think that subsections (1)(a) to (j) and (2)(a) and (b) are the right way forward.
Lord Northbrook
I thank the Minister for his detailed response to the group. I think he has answered my question. Is what he has just said the reason why he does not approve of Amendment 60—because it does not directly support domestic production financially?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, I will have to look again at Amendment 60. The construct is about where, following the Health and Harmony consultation we undertook, it was decided that we should recognise support for farmers in a post-CAP world. It was recognised that we needed to put food production and food security in the Bill, and we have put them in. This is the difficulty when you have improvements in iterations. They were valuable new iterations, but the point about rewarding food production is that, with better fair dealing, the farmer gets a reward from the market. They do not as yet for the purposes in Clause 1(1)(a) to (j), and we think that is where the reward should be.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have contributed to this group of amendments. There were almost 40 contributors, including the Minister and me. It has been a vigorous debate and almost all noble Lords were united.
I am grateful for the response from the Minister. My remaining concern, as has been reflected in the questions, including those following his speech and his response to them, is that food production should be considered a public good. I am not quite sure that we have established that yet. Also, I remain deeply concerned —as, I believe, do other noble Lords—about the future of food security. We have not had and will not have sight of the Dimbleby report on food strategy, in which a lot of this will be dealt with, according to my noble friend said. That is regrettable. But the hour is late. For the moment, I will withdraw this amendment, but I reserve the right to return to it later. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 35.
Lord Lucas
“( ) providing advice and support to those in receipt of, or potentially in receipt of, financial assistance under subsection (1)”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides for an advice-based system of support, as opposed to a sanctions-based one.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
We now come to the group beginning with Amendment 58. Anyone wishing to speak after the Minister should email the clerk. I remind the House that anyone wishing to press this or any other amendment in the group should make that clear in debate.
Lord Lucas [V]
My Lords, in moving Amendment 58 I shall speak also to my other amendments in this group. There are two basic ways of managing the flow of funding under the Bill: through penalties or through encouragement and advice. I hope that the Government’s intention is to focus on incentives—broad-brush, bottom-up, banded, with plenty of room for local initiatives and a clear understanding that initiatives will often fail—rather than opting for top-down micromanagement. I hope that the Government will institute a strong supply of advice and the funding for it, so that good practice and ideas find it easy to spread, rather than relying on audit and enforcement.
The management of chalk grasslands is a challenge local to me. These are a potentially immensely rich, if sometimes rather small, environment. They were created by a pattern of agriculture that has gone: cattle and sheep herded in large open areas, then folded in the lowlands at night, with a plentiful supply of shepherds and rabbits to keep the scrub from spreading. That has all gone, but we still want the chalklands ecosystem. It is the principal objective of the South Downs National Park.
We have to take the overloaded pastures that have resulted from wartime needs and subsequent agricultural policies, with lots of parasites and consequence high use of biocides, and end up with fields full of insects and wildlife, and a profit for the farmer. We have to find ways to allow the public to enjoy the results of the system that we create; to allow larks to nest undisturbed and people to listen to them; to have fields full of orchids that people can picnic in; and to combine dog walkers and sheep, and old ladies enjoying the outdoors and a herd of bouncy cattle.
Finding a way to do that will take lots of experimentation and there will be lots of failure. Farmers will participate in this over the whole of the chalklands. We do not need, “You can have money to do this, but if you don’t succeed, we’ll be after you”; we do need lots of advice, recording and sharing of data, experimentation and supported failure. That is expensive. The Government would have to fund a team of people over decades. To hazard an estimate, £10 million a year might be the basic level for 200 field staff. However, that £10 million would multiply the benefit of the hundreds of millions being spent elsewhere, because it would make that larger expenditure much better focused and better directed. It would also set the tone of the whole agricultural support system and make it a pleasure to interact with, since it would look for ways to make better things happen. That would make a huge difference to compliance and effectiveness in a fragmented industry.
Of my three amendments, Amendment 135 is key. That is the one I want the Government to get behind.
The Earl of Caithness [V]
My Lords, I am delighted to support my noble friend Lord Lucas. I have put my name to Amendments 58 and 119. The Minister will recall that I majored on the whole question of advice in my Second Reading speech. I dedicated all my time to it because I think it is so important.
Farming has been partially insulated from market pressures by the support schemes of the CAP. In particular, the area payments developed by the CAP since 1992 and subsequent steps in 2003 and 2013 have acted to reward land occupation, not business activity. This has been associated with reduced flexibility in land occupation markets, and thus with the relative weakness in the United Kingdom’s agricultural productivity growth.
The progressive removal of area payments and the prospect of more open trading agreements seem likely to drive an accelerated process of change in who is farming what land and how, by both unwinding the protectionist effects of past area payments and responding to the coming changes. This might affect poorer businesses on more marginal land in particular, whether cropping or livestock. My concern is that this process of change should be managed to maximise its economic, environmental and social benefits, while minimising costs.
Farming’s adaptation to the new policy and business environment will not be a simple and swift transformation, but will take much time and effort. The scale of the challenges and the changes associated with them should not be underestimated. Success will require attention to skills and training, investment, approaches to sustained innovation in business policy, technology and marketing. It will be all the better if this is enabled by a new positive regulatory regime after Brexit, ensuring flexible and open markets in land occupation and use. All this must be supported by effective and practical advice and facilitation.
The outcome will be a much less standardised industry than the one we created since the war through policies before and under the CAP, which were largely dedicated to full-time commodity protection. Achieving this will be a major call on all those involved, not only Governments and farmers.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I put my name to these amendments on a very simple principle: if you are asking people to change how they go about their business or the way it happens, you will need some advice or guidance to get you through. If you have not done it before, you will need to be given some guidance, some advice or pathway, on how to get through so that you can do it correctly. Also, if you are giving assistance, you need to be told what you are expected to do for that.
This will be a very complicated mesh—two speeches have been made already and I cannot think of anything I disagree with. If you are trying to do this, you will have to give guidance through very different pathways which will change in every type of landscape you come across. The South Downs, the North Downs where I live, and the fields of East Anglia where I grew up will all need different structures. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, brilliantly said in introducing this, you must allow for, if not failure, then less successful schemes to be tried to see how long they take to develop.
We will need this to make sure that the Government’s actions work. It might well be that the Government will not smile on these amendments, but could the Minister embrace the principle here and tell us whether the Government expect to be a place where good information is brought together and passed on? Could he also say what is unacceptable—what will not be supported, financed and encouraged? That would also be beneficial.
The Government are changing stuff. They are basically creating a new rulebook. It would help if everybody could read it before we start.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (Non-Afl)
Lord Marlesford, you suggested that you were going to speak on only one group today. Do you want to speak now?
Lord Marlesford [V]
I have one thing to add. There is the inescapable fact that after 2021 farmers will not get money under the basic payment scheme in the same way as they have done. That money is on average around 70% of their taxable profit. Without it, many would not be able to continue. They therefore must be helped into what they will do instead and how they will diversify their farming operation to get themselves a living. That is why I back these amendments.
Lord Cameron of Dillington [V]
My Lords, on this group of amendments on training for farmers we have come to the nub, that pivotal point where this Bill will either succeed or fail in its ambitions. These amendments are the key to getting the whole new agricultural, environmental land management programme to work on the ground.
It is exciting that with this Bill we have a whole new approach to producing our food and managing the countryside while rewarding farmers. We do not know yet exactly where we are going—ELMs is still at the pilot stage—but one thing is certain. Farmers and land managers will need all the help and training they can get if we are to make it work on the ground.
There is very little time between the demise of the single farm payment and the putting in place of thousands of ELM contracts—good luck with that—so we must get a training scheme in place as soon as possible, training not only how best to judge what the farmer and his land can provide for the nation, but also how best to deliver. Proper training will make things better for farmers, better for our flora, fauna, meadows and woodlands, better for visitors and, above all, better for the taxpayers, who might then get the best return on their money.
By their very nature, farmers take a long-term view: live as if you will die tomorrow, but farm as if you will live for ever. That does not necessarily mean that they are slow to change, but they need help and assistance to change. Farming is one of the most isolated jobs in the world, so without some form of a proper training scheme it will be hard for farmers to engage properly with this brave new world that we are hoping to roll out—and without their engagement, frankly, the brave new world will not happen.
Lord Carrington [V]
My Lords, I support Amendments 58 and 119, as tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I also agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Cameron, just said, and the words of other noble Lords.
The threat of sanctions put off many farmers from taking up opportunities under the current environmental schemes. These sanctions threaten not only the environmental scheme payments themselves, but also, through cross-compliance, the basic payments. Access to and the eligibility of financing advice is therefore supremely important if there is to be a wide take-up of ELM schemes. The wealthier farmers with larger farms often have good access to advice, but most of this is expensive and unattractive as an option. Farmers are not a homogenous group. All that a farmer with a small to medium-sized farm knows about is the traditional farming that he has done for ever through good and bad years. He knows the risks. That is his life and livelihood. A farmer may not have great expectations and he may not take foreign holidays, but he fears getting involved in a new venture outside of his comfort zone which could lead to direct or indirect sanctions and put him out of business.
A study by the School of Agriculture, Policy and Development at the University of Reading and the Institute for Sustainable Food at the University of Sheffield looked at the impact of the digital divide and sometimes limited access to broadband in rural areas, which, together with lack of time, the age of the farmer and social isolation, has made it difficult for farmers to contribute to or participate in the design of ELMs.
These factors will not have changed at the implementation stage, so access to and funding for farm advisers with good training and good communication skills is essential. The success or otherwise of the Bill will be judged partly by the take up and success of environmental land management schemes. The balance between crop production on marginal land and environmental schemes is the key. Too little profit from the environmental land management scheme will encourage continued production on marginal land, leading to possible losses and risks to the farmer’s business and livelihood. If there is too much profit in the scheme there will be a loss of farm production and, consequently, greater imports of food and less self-sufficiency. This demonstrates the importance of the provision of advice and, if necessary, financing it.
Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I support Amendment 122 in the name of my noble friend Lord Grantchester and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for bringing forward his amendments. We are standing at a watershed for farming and land management. We cannot underestimate the scale of change that this Bill denotes. We need to fund an effective advisory process to support farmers and land managers through what could otherwise be cataclysmic changes. Over the past 30 years we have seen the erosion and virtual disappearance of what was, in early days, a systematic advisory support service, which had developed to support farming improvements in the post-war era. Most farming advice is now provided by commercial agronomists with products to sell or by fragmented single-focus organisations. Advice needs to cover not only technical and productivity improvements but ecological literacy. The scale and ambition of the changes the Bill proposes and the multiple functions we need land to deliver show that the time has come again for a comprehensive and joined-up approach to advisory services, and for the funding to deliver that. I hope the Minister can support this.
Lord Inglewood [V]
My Lords, being a farmer, over the past two or three years I have had to think very carefully about my activities in future. In my case, I have one specific and really quite complicated land use problem—or perhaps I should say challenge—to deal with. The way in which I have approached it is to take a certain amount of specialist advice. In simple terms, that advice has been paid for by the BPS payment I received. As all your Lordships know, the BPS payment is to be cut and the effect is that the money that otherwise would pay for advice may well not be there.
My example is not particular to me; a lot of farmers are thinking seriously about what they have to do next. They will have to take external advice, probably now—it is no good waiting until the changes come into effect before you decide what to do. What you have to do is think about the future, work on the basis of what we know about the general rules and regulations that will be in place and plan a course. In all sorts of ways, this is something which many farmers cannot do. Of course, if you are going to take advice, you have to pay for it. When the BPS is cut back, individual farms’ resources to do that will be curtailed. I suggest to the Committee, and through it to the Minister, something which I have mentioned to his private office. Instead of simply cutting pieces off the BPS payment until ELMS comes into being, it should be possible for that money to be drawn down from individual farms and hypothecated to get the advice necessary to prepare the farmers for the future world that will come. Otherwise I fear a lot of farms will not do enough homework, which will be to the detriment of not only British agriculture but Britain as a whole.
Lord Dobbs
My Lords, there appear to be two different types of amendment in this group: those that seek to promote and incentivise advice and guidance, and those that seek to impose requirements on the Secretary of State. Amendments 58 and 119 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and my noble friend Lord Caithness seek to promote advice; they are entirely right in that and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, spoke most eloquently about it. I will be interested in the Minister’s response; I am sure he holds all these leads close his heart. The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, spoke so movingly about the challenges of change.
I suggest that Amendment 122 goes too far in requiring, rather than facilitating, advice—and across a large number of areas. This will inevitably make any advisory system more bureaucratic and less flexible. The object of the exercise is to promote opportunities for farmers, not bureaucracy. It is so important that we move flexibly and quickly in this area, rather than trying to set up another version of the common agricultural policy.
Lord Northbrook
My Lords, I partially support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lucas. Assistance should be given to training but there should not be just blanket financial assistance in this area. Last week, I received a letter from Defra about the environmental land management summary document; before I move on to that, let me put on record my thanks to the Minister for his tremendous work in tightening up matters at the RPA and improving BPS payment times.
The letter said, “Environmental land management: we want to hear your views”, and explained that, going back to February, there was a 10-week national conversation, which has been delayed due to coronavirus —fair enough. It also said that Defra was launching webinars, which I will take part in over the next few weeks. Then there is a six-page document setting out, very helpfully, broad details of the various tiers. I will summarise the purposes of each. Tier 1’s purpose is to incentivise environmentally sustainable farming and forestry and help to deliver environmental benefits; that is perfectly clear. Tier 2’s purpose is to incentivise the management of land in a way that delivers locally targeted environmental outcomes; that is a little more difficult. Tier 3’s purpose is to deliver land use change projects of a landscape scale to deliver environmental outcomes; that is not clear at all, in my view.
Then there is a chart about how you decide whether to participate in these schemes. Two key boxes say, “I decide which environmental outcomes and associated actions I am best placed to provide on my land”, and, “I develop a plan and submit my application”. For larger farmers, with the aid of advice, that will be not such a difficult thing, but as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said, for small and medium-sized farmers, it will be a very daunting task. Those farmers should get the financial assistance.
Lord De Mauley (Con) [V]
My Lords, I reiterate the declaration of my interests as a landowner and land manager.
In the context of my noble friend’s Amendments 58 and 119, I draw the attention of my noble friend the Minister to the agricultural associations and societies, which have been getting a bit of coverage on Radio 4’s excellent “Farming Today” programme this week. There are about 200 agricultural and show societies in the United Kingdom, many with histories stretching back to the agricultural revolution in the 18th century. Much in line with these amendments, they are there to support, represent and indeed connect providers of advice with those who make up the agricultural industry and to provide a showcase for anything that members of the public might want to know about food, farming and rural life.
My noble friend Lord Caithness referred to the county agricultural shows. I know that the Minister and other noble Lords will, like me, have visited many of the annual summer county agricultural shows in recent years—although, sadly, of course not this year.
All the agricultural societies are charities in their own right. Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland hold their own national shows, as well as many regional and county shows, as does England, which has 15 significant societies, each of whose visitors number more than 60,000 per show in a normal year. What I might call the top 18—the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh national societies and England’s top 15—welcome a total of 1.8 million visitors just at their annual shows. The likely combined economic value of these events is in the region of £450 million to £500 million. Taking in other year-round activities, this probably increases to about £800 million. The remaining very large number of agricultural society shows around the country could account for a similar economic impact.
Show grounds, a number of which are permanent, also act as venues for a wide range of year-round events and activities supporting business, leisure and tourism across the nations and regions. Each of the societies offers educational activities throughout the year, as well as providing a forum for conferences and events aligned to and supporting the agricultural sector. Formal links exist with local further and higher education institutions and research centres focused on promoting the skills and careers that the industry needs and offers.
Like many other businesses and organisations, the agricultural associations face uncertainty, especially regarding the next one to two years. Their major events, such as the annual county agricultural shows, take at least nine months to prepare for, and without any support after October, particularly from the current furlough scheme, they could find themselves facing a bleak future. Many of them are already running a slide rule over a “no show in 2021” scenario. As my noble friend Lord Caithness said, the agricultural societies are not asking for special pleading. What would really help them is: first, clearer guidance on mass-gathering indoor and outdoor events by no later than September this year; secondly, recognition of the impact of their unique sector as part of the fabric of agriculture in the UK; and, thirdly, financial assistance, perhaps under the replacement for Pillar 2 if it becomes clear that next year is in jeopardy, particularly, as I said, as the current furlough support will end in October.
Policymakers need to bear in mind that, although heritage and tradition are themselves important, the collective economic and jobs contribution from the agricultural societies is significant. Their collective reach is international and they contribute more broadly to UK plc—for example, through tourism. Therefore, I take this opportunity to ask the Minister to look into the plight of the agricultural societies and to see what he can do to help.
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville [V]
My Lords, the provision of advice to farmers at various stages of the Bill is essential. I listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, talk to Amendments 58 and 119. Agriculture is moving from one system to a completely different method of funding, and farmers will be uncertain about how this will operate and what is expected of them. I therefore completely agree that a system of advice-based support is needed.
The noble Lord, Lord Cameron, and my noble friend Lord Addington spoke in favour of an advice system. There will be a few farmers who are unwilling to make the necessary changes to ensure the protection of the environment and the restoration of land to encourage the return of bird, insect and plant species. For those, it might be necessary for a sanctions-based system to be coupled with advice to encourage them to conform. It will be at best unhelpful if there are one or two renegades who spoil the overall thrust of the Government’s measures.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, spoke of the difficulties and the digital divide. Rural areas are very poorly served by wi-fi and broadband, which are essential for farming communities.
I fully support Amendment 122, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester. The list of measures to be taken into account in proposed new subsection (2) are essential, especially the impact on the environment, alternative methods of pest control, and food safety. To have this list on the face of the Bill will help farmers to have a much better idea of what is expected as they move towards the new system and, I hope, will remove the need for any sanctions further down the line.
The noble Lord, Lord De Mauley, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, have raised the plight of the county shows and all the good work they do. They are an essential part of the farming and rural communities, and I have visited many very many of them over the years. They need certainty for the future and funding.
I trust that we are not too far into the debate for the Minister to have become reluctant to accept the arguments made. Advice is absolutely essential.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as recorded in the register. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, for their amendments defining that advice and support should be given to those in receipt of financial assistance in a more positive manner rather than the response being one of making sanctions and deductions to an application that one has submitted—as is too often the case. The receipt of applications would therefore need to have some supervision or opportunity for corrections to be included in the submission process. How far there will be explanations at the beginning of the transition to be implemented and under the new ELM scheme is an interesting call for the Minister. I am sure that the initial expositions about the new ELM scheme will be vital to achieve a confidence-based response from potential applicants.
I shall speak to my Amendment 122, which places a duty on the Secretary of State to include the provision of advice, training and guidance to those receiving financial assistance. Clause 3 is to enable good administration of the new payment system. As part of that good administrative system, regulations must also include the provision of advice across a wide area of important matters—this is in my proposed new subsection (2)—to look at how the running of a land-based system can encompass all the features necessary for success. This covers: business management; the welfare of stock; farm safety—on which farming does not have a particularly good record—and the welfare of land-based workers; and good agricultural practice, which are all necessary to encourage a thriving countryside that is aware of its responsibilities and positive in its outcome.
Good administration is not merely a mechanical process characterised as sanction based and without acknowledgment of responsibilities towards the people who will be undertaking activities we wish to promote. As my noble friend Lady Young noted, this has previously often been delivered in the past through ADAS and other services, but it is no longer provided.
Amendment 135 seems to follow in this vein and provides for advice on three main strands: strategic direction; compliance with the responsibilities of participants; and such compliance provided through encouragement. I would also encourage regulations to include those personnel-type administrative functions.
I thank all noble Lords who recognise the extent of the adaptability required of farmers and who have spoken on these amendments.
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, this has been very helpful debate. I am grateful to my noble friend for Amendments 58, 119 and 135, and to the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, for Amendment 122.
The Government agree that effective advice and guidance will play an essential role in ensuring that agreement conditions are met and that the outcomes we are looking to achieve through future agricultural policy are delivered. “In connection with” in Clause 1(1) includes advice and guidance given to recipients so that they can better understand how to deliver the purposes for which they are in receipt of assistance. The same is true of the two purposes in Clause 1(2).
My noble friend Lord Northbrook spoke of the environmental land management policy discussion document. My notes state that it is currently live, and my noble friend endorsed that by remarking about it. The Government make it clear that access to an adviser will be a crucial component of the success of ELM. I do not want to go into too many of the tiers at this stage, but tier 3 will be where we provide financial assistance on a much broader, landscape level. I can think of catchment areas and greater expanses of land where a number of land managers and farmers would be involved. Tier 1 would be for the farmer, but tiers 2 and 3 would most likely involve a wider number of farmers and land managers. Those policy documents set out a range of models for the provision of advice, including one-to-one advice, group training, telephone and online support, and facilitation of peer-to-peer learning.
I agree with what was said by my noble friends Lord Lucas and Lord Caithness and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. The ELM tests and trials team has established an advice and guidance thematic working group—that sounds pretty awful, but I am sure that it is a very good working group. This will gather evidence on how different types of expert advice could help farmers and land managers plan, and record, the public goods they choose to deliver across their land. There are currently 34 tests and trials on advice and guidance. I not only take but endorse the point made by my noble friend Lord Lucas on tone and what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said about the manner in which all these things are done.
In the policy and progress update published in February, the Government confirmed their intention to offer advice to applicants for productivity grants. This advice could help applicants decide how to target investments to achieve the greatest improvements in business performance. Advice and guidance are also an integral part of the Government’s future animal health schemes, with vets in particular having been identified as a key source of advice for farmers who wish to take pragmatic steps to improve animal health.
In the policy update, the Government also committed to a future system of agricultural regulation which, among other things, understands and implements better ways to provide advice and guidance to the sector. The Government will work closely with industry to consider the best way to deliver such advice. It is, however, imperative that that advice and guidance are delivered by the right people, in the right places, at the right time and—I emphasise—in the right way. A wealth of knowledge and expertise already exists across our farming and land management communities. However, it is also a priority for the Government to ensure that the farming industry is adequately supported by advice and guidance.
My noble friends Lord Caithness and Lord De Mauley spoke about agricultural shows. As a former president of the Bucks County Show and a current vice-president of the Buckinghamshire and Suffolk Agricultural Associations, and having made many visits to agricultural shows across the kingdom, I know that they are an extraordinary example of the great part of rural life and farming at its backbone. All of us obviously regret not having been able to go to our local county shows. The current advice on meeting people outside your household is available online and allows that events of more than 30 people can take place as long as they are planned by an organisation in compliance with the Covid-19-secure guidance, Working Safely During Coronavirus: the Visitor Economy. So I say to my noble friends and all noble Lords that planning for next year, which I know all of them are doing, will clearly depend on where we are in the containment of the virus. There is also industry-led guidance on keeping workers and audiences safe during Covid-19, which applies to those working in outdoor events.
I am well aware that many of these show societies are charities, and of the use of the furlough scheme. I will reflect on what noble Lords have said. Agricultural shows are an important part of the rural calendar and are a way for urban and rural schools to get involved and understand why agriculture and rural life are so important. They are a key part of showing the country what the countryside provides.
Lord Lucas [V]
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his comprehensive and optimistic reply. I urge on him again the importance of allowing failure; allowing people to get things wrong; to try things for the best reason and find the disaster and then have to put things right. We are going to find the right way to do some of these things only if we are adventurous and stick our necks out. That is the sort of support that I hope this Government will feel able to give. I am comforted by what my noble friend said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.